Bloomsbury World Englishes Volume 3: Pedagogies 9781350065918, 9781350065888, 9781350072022

Citation preview

I dedicate this volume to my mother Zeynep Bayyurt with whom I experienced the feelings of hope, pain, gratefulness and happiness revolving around our life throughout her cancer journey, and my father İrfan Bayyurt, who accompanied and looked after her unconditionally with all his love and patience throughout this journey, and all the cancer patients and their families!

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES 1.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 14.1 14.2 14.3 16.1 16.2

Chain of language-related educational domains which motivates the incorporation of language ontologies into teacher education Individual stances on teacher identity (adapted from Kamhi-Stein, 2014) A framework of professional identity (adapted from Pasternak and Bailey, 2004) Functional areas of classroom language use in English-for-Teaching (adapted from Freeman et al., 2015, p. 135) Example of translingual practice of student in SERV1 subject Example of feedback on mislearned content Example of feedback on missing information Identity Book, Part I Identity Book, Part II

13 116 117 118 230 231 232 268 269

TABLES 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 7.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7

Ontological categories corresponding to senses of the word English 15 Cognitive-oriented SLA Theories (as presented in VanPatten and Williams, 2015) 29 Social-oriented SLA Theories (as presented in Atkinson, 2011) 29 Summary of a Proposed Listening Development Study Based on Galloway and Rose’s (2014) Awareness Raising Pedagogy 37 Materials evaluation grid for World Englishes content 77 Sample lesson plan for World Englishes awareness raising 84 Sample lesson plan on the history of English 85 Sample lesson plan for developing positive attitudes towards non-standard Englishes86 Sample lesson plan for developing positive attitudes towards New Englishes 86 Sample lesson plan for developing intercultural awareness 87 A comparison of ELT and GELT 119 The results of Q1 (understanding of the Concepts of WE and ELF) 163 The results of Q2 (attitudes’ Change towards English and ELT) 164 The results of Q3-1 (EMI – understanding of the instructor’s lectures and students’ presentations) 166 The results of Q3-2 (students’ satisfaction in attending the EMI course) 167 The results of Q4-2 (students’ active participation in discussion) 168 The results of Q5 (the language used for the group discussions) 169 The results of Q6 (the participation of the international TAs) 170

x

12.1 13.1 14.1 15.1

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Underlying themes of the workshop questions and the responses School of Global Studies Distribution of marks awarded to questions answered in L1 The five organizing axes

199 215 231 246

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Will Baker is Director of the Centre for Global Englishes and an associate professor of Applied Linguistics, University of Southampton. His research interests are English as a lingua franca, intercultural and transcultural communication, English-medium instruction, intercultural education, and ELT, and he has published and presented internationally in all these areas. Recent publications include co-editor of the Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca (2018), author of the monograph Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca (DGM 2015), and co-editor of the book series ‘Developments in English as Lingua Franca’ (DGM). Yasemin Bayyurt is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey. She holds a PhD degree in English Linguistics from Lancaster University. She has published extensively on ELF-aware in- and pre-service teacher education; native/nonnative teachers and culture; mobile/blended learning, and English-medium instruction. Her publications include articles in various indexed/refereed journals, edited books and book chapters published by national/international publishers. Among many other edited books, she co-authored Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca (De Gruyter, 2015). Her current research focuses on methodological issues in ELF awareness and CLIL in K12 classrooms, and blended learning in EMI universities. Dustin Crowther is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Second Language Studies at University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, and he holds a PhD in second language studies from Michigan State University. His research interests include second language speaking and listening, the promotion of mutual intelligibility in multilingual/multicultural contact, and Global Englishes. As an experienced English language instructor, his long-term scholarly objective is to link research to pedagogy. His research has been published in a wide range of journals, including Language Learning, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and TESOL Quarterly. James D’Angelo, PhD, is Professor and Chair of the Global Liberal Studies Major at Chukyo University, Nagoya. He is editor-in-chief of the journal Asian Englishes, and is on the Advisory Board of Routledge Advances in Teaching English as an International Language book series. He has authored various articles and book chapters, including “The Status of ELF in Japan” in the Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, and is co-editor of Functional Variations in English (2020 Springer). Areas of research include world Englishes, ELF, EMI in higher education, and applying CEFR mediation scales in academic writing. Seran Doğançay-Aktuna holds a PhD in Educational Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania. She is a Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, USA, where she teaches courses in linguistics and TESL. Her research focuses on the globalization of English and its implications

xii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

for English language teaching and teacher education. Her publications include Global English Teaching and Teacher Education: Praxis and Possibility (co-edited with Joel Hardman), chapters in books and articles in journals including Language Awareness, ELT Journal, Language, Culture and Curriculum, World Englishes, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, and RELC Journal. Fan Fang holds a PhD from the Centre for Global Englishes, the University of Southampton, UK. He is currently Associate Professor at College of Liberal Arts, Shantou University, China. He has published extensively in numerous international journals. His latest books include a monograph titled Re-positioning Accent Attitude in the Global Englishes Paradigm (Routledge, 2019) and an edited volume (co-edited with Dr Handoyo Widodo) titled Critical Perspectives on Global Englishes in Asia: Language Policy, Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment (Multilingual Matters, 2019). Nicola Galloway is a Senior Lecturer in TESOL at the University of Glasgow, where she coordinates and teaches courses on the MSc TESOL programme. Nicola’s main research interests relate to the pedagogical implications of the global spread of English and more recently on English-medium instruction in higher education. She has published three books on Global Englishes and published her Global Englishes work in journals such as TESOL Quarterly and the ELT Journal. She coordinates an online global network on Global Englishes and EMI (Teaching English and teaching IN English in global contexts). Telma Gimenez is Senior Professor at the Postgraduate Programme in Language Studies, Universidade Estadual de Londrina (Brazil). She holds a PhD from Lancaster University (1994) where she developed a study on teacher education, complemented by postdoctoral research at the Institute of Education/UCL (2014) on globalization and English as a lingua franca. After many years of experience as a teacher educator and coordinator of projects with schoolteachers, currently she supervises research on English language teacher education, English as a lingua franca, and language policies. Claudia Patricia Gutiérrez is a doctoral student of Language, Literacy, and Culture at University of Washington and she holds a master’s degree in foreign language teaching and learning from Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia. She has been a teacher educator and researcher for about ten years. Her research interest is oriented towards the field of critical literacies, critical interculturality, and decolonial theories, especially in teacher education programs. Christopher J. Hall is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the School of Education, Language and Psychology at York St John University, UK. His current research focuses on conceptualizations of English from the perspective of Global Englishes. In addition to numerous book chapters and journal articles, he has (co-)authored or edited several books, including Mapping Applied Linguistics. A Guide for Students and Practitioners (Routledge, 2017) and Ontologies of English: Conceptualising the Language for Learning, Teaching, and Assessment (CUP, 2020). He also co-created the online course for teachers Changing Englishes (www​.changingenglishes​.online), now in its second edition. Joel Hardman holds a PhD in Educational Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania, and is currently a Professor in the Department of English Language and Literature at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. His scholarly interests include language and

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

 xiii

literacy acquisition, language teaching pedagogy, sociolinguistics, teacher development, and the globalization of English. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on the spread of English, English teacher education, and second language writing, and has published one book (with Seran Doğançay-Aktuna) on Global English Teaching and Teacher Education. He has been teaching English for thirty-five years, and at SIUE for twenty-three. Dilek İnal works as an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Istanbul UniversityCerrahpaşa, Department of English Language Teaching. Her research interests include teacher education and development, English as Lingua Franca, World Englishes, and literary studies. Her current research focuses on multilingual practices in the English language classrooms, translanguaging, and ELF. She has published in indexed and refereed international journals and edited volumes. Nkonko M. Kamwangamalu is a distinguished research faculty and Full Professor of Linguistics in the Department of English at Howard University, Washington, D.C. He is co-editor of Current Issues in Language Planning; author of The Language Planning Situation in South Africa (Multilingual Matters, 2004); of Language Policy and Economics: The Language Question in Africa (Palgrave, 2016); and writer of numerous articles on language planning and policy, multilingualism, code-switching, World Englishes, and African linguistics. His articles have appeared in international journals and in peerrefereed edited collections. Feza Kerestecioğlu is Professor of Electrical-Electronics Engineering at Kadir Has University. He received his PhD degree from the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK. His research interests include fault detection and diagnosis, input and experiment design, sequential decision theory, adaptive control, robot swarms, blended learning, and English-medium-instruction in engineering education. He published extensively in indexed journals and he is the author of Change Detection and Input Design in Dynamical Systems (Wiley, 1993). Marek Kiczkowiak has been in ELT since 2007 and currently writes materials for National Geographic Learning. He holds a BA degree in English philology from the University of Poznań, CELTA, DELTA, and a PhD in TESOL from the University of York. His main areas of interest are native-speakerism and ELF. He is the founder of TEFL Equity Advocates and Academy, Leuven, Belgium, where he helps English teachers tackle nativespeakerism. Enric Llurda is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Lleida. His research interests include non-native language teachers, English as a lingua franca, language attitudes, multilingualism, translanguaging, internationalization, and language education and policy in higher education institutions. He is the coordinator of the research group Cercle de Lingüística Aplicada and is currently working on the project “Development of disciplinary literacies in English as a Lingua Franca at university”. Robert J. Lowe is a Lecturer in the Department of English Communication, Tokyo Kasei University. He is co-author of Teaching English as a Lingua Franca (with M. Kickzkowiak, DELTA Publishing, 2018), co-editor of Duoethnography in English Language Teaching (with L. Lawrence, Multilingual Matters, 2020), and author of the monograph Uncovering Ideology in English Language Teaching (Springer, 2020). His work has appeared in

xiv

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

journals such as ELT Journal, Language Teaching, and Applied Linguistics Review, and he is a cohost of The TEFLology Podcast. Guzman Mancho-Barés is an Associate Professor in the Department of English and Linguistics at the University of Lleida (Spain). His research involves academic and disciplinary communication, the interplay of ESP and EMI, and internationalization and multilingualism in higher education. His latest publication assesses the role of content lecturers as language teachers in EMI settings. Aya Matsuda is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Arizona State University. Her research interests include the use of English as an international language and the pedagogical implications of the global spread of English. She has served on the Board of Directors for TESOL International Association and recently completed her term as the secretary/treasurer of the International Association for World Englishes. Kumiko Murata is Professor Emeritus of English and Applied Linguistics at the School of Education and the Graduate School of Education, Waseda University. Her research interests include ELF, conversation and discourse analyses, pragmatics, intercultural communication, and language teaching. Her recent edited books are Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications (2016, Routledge), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective: Exploring the Higher Education Context (2019, Routledge), ELF Research Methods and Approaches to Data and Analyses: Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings (2020, Routledge). Janeth Maria Ortiz is a Professor, researcher, and teacher educator at the undergraduate and graduate level at the School of languages, Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia. She holds a master’s degree in foreign language teaching and learning and her research interests include critical literacies, critical interculturality, and peace education in relation to foreign language teaching and learning and teacher education. Heath Rose is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Oxford. At Oxford, he is course director of MSc in Applied Linguistics for Language Teaching. His research interests are in Global Englishes, particularly focusing on the impact of the spread of English on second language teaching and learning. He is co-author of a number of books including Global Englishes for Language Teaching (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Ali Fuad Selvi is an Assistant Professor of TESOL and Applied Linguistics and the chair of the Teaching English as a Foreign Language Program at METU Northern Cyprus Campus. His research interests include Global Englishes, (in)equity, professionalism, marginalization, and discrimination in TESOL; and second language teacher education. He co-authored Teaching English as an International Language (TESOL Press, 2013), edited the NNEST volume of the TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (Wiley, 2018), and co-edited Conceptual Shifts and Contextualized Practices in Education for Glocal Interaction (Springer, 2018) and Attending to the Complexity of Identity and Interaction in Language Education (Multilingual Matters, 2020). Sávio Siqueira is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Bahia Federal University (UFBA), Salvador, Brazil. He has special interest in ELF, World Englishes, language

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS



xv

teacher education, critical language pedagogy, intercultural education, among others. He is a permanent professor at UFBA’s Graduate Program in Language and Culture where he supervises MA and PhD candidates. He has published papers in Brazil and abroad, and is currently Associate Editor for the journals Intercultural Education (Taylor & Francis), System (Elsevier), and Estudos Linguísticos e Literários (UFBA). Mona Syrbe has been working as an English teacher since 2010. She is an Assistant Professor of Bilingual Education at Rikkyo University, Japan. Before this, she was an adjct lecturer at Trinity College Dublin, where she taught courses in applied lingusitics, TESOL, and academic English. Her research interests are in teaching English as an international language, specifically with regards to materials design and language assessment. She has published her research in peer-reviewed journals such as International Journal of Applied Lingusitics and Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Paola Vettorel is Assistant Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures – University of Verona. Her main research interests include ELF and its implications in ELT; ELF and digital media. Among her publications: (2014) English as a Lingua Franca in Wider Networking: Blogging Practices. Berlin: De Gruyter; (2018) ‘ELF and Communication Strategies: Are they taken into account in ELT materials?’ RELC Journal; (2019) ‘Communication strategies and ELT business materials’, Iperstoria; (2019) ‘Communication strategies and co-construction of meaning in ELF: Drawing on “Multilingual Resource Pools”’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca. Jaime A. Usma Wilches holds a PhD in Education and is a teacher educator and researcher at the School of Languages, Universidad de Antioquia, in Colombia. He combines his research on the social, economic, and political implications of language education policies with an active participation in language policy and professional development initiatives at the institutional, local, and national levels. Bedrettin Yazan is an Associate Professor at the Department of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies at University of Texas, San Antonio. His research focuses on language teacher learning and identity, collaboration between ESL and content teachers, language policy and planning, and World Englishes. Methodologically, he is interested in critical autoethnography, narrative inquiry, and case study. His recent work has appeared in World Englishes, Asian Englishes, RECALL, International Multilingual Research Journal, TESOL Journal, Teacher Education Quarterly, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, and Heritage Language Journal. His recent edited volume (with Suresh Canagarajah and Rashi Jain) is Autoethnographies in ELT: Transnational identities, pedagogies, and practices.

PROLOGUE JENNIFER JENKINS AND LUCILLA LOPRIORE

It has long been established among certain linguistics researchers and English language teaching/teacher education professionals that English in its global context is developing in diverse ways, and that these differ in a substantial number of respects from the kinds of English used by its native speakers when they communicate with each other. While such diversity is not universally accepted, as can be seen from some of the chapters in this volume, it is nevertheless happening, and is not within the control of those (mostly but not entirely) native English speakers whose English language ideology deems only native versions of English to be proper English as opposed to errors. It is against such a backdrop that this rich, comprehensive, and insightful volume has been produced. World Englishes, which, as is well known, emanated originally from the work of the late Braj B. Kachru and his associates from the late 1970s, has been the subject of major scholarly activity for over forty years. While it has explored varieties of English in Kachru’s inner, outer, and expanding circles, the primary focus of World Englishes research and description has been on the outer circle, the countries where English was once a colonial language, and on the ways English was adopted as an official language and then adapted in ways more appropriate to the indigenous populations after colonialism was over. Many of the local outer-circle varieties of English that emerged from this process have been documented in detail in the World Englishes literature of the past few decades. English as a lingua franca (henceforth ELF) began following in World Englishes’ footsteps just over twenty years later, although research into ELF did not gather pace until the start of the new millennium. Even then, it took a few further years for ELF researchers to fully understand how contextualized and contingent the phenomenon is, and that unlike World Englishes it cannot be discussed in terms of varieties of English. With hindsight, this led to too much emphasis being placed by ELF researchers on what separates ELF and World Englishes and too little on the ideological underpinnings that draw the two phenomena together. Most recently, ELF researchers have taken the multilingualism of ELF users into far greater consideration than they had done previously. This in turn has led to a far more prominent role in the conceptualization of ELF for languages other than English, with a focus on speakers’ use of their multilingual resources rather than on ‘English only’, as they translanguage among the languages including English in their entire linguistic repertoires. In accordance with the recognition of the primary role of multilingualism in ELF, the notion of ‘Multilingualism (with English) as a lingua franca’ presents a number of advantages. Firstly, by putting ‘multilingualism’ first and English in brackets, it would prioritize people’s multilingualism, highlighting the fact that their first language (and possibly other languages in their repertoire) is more important to them than English. Secondly, it would emphasize that multilingualism is the norm, while also acknowledging that a substantial minority of the world’s multilingual speakers have English within their

PROLOGUE

 xvii

repertoires. Thirdly, it would symbolically diminish monolingual English speakers, the vast majority of whom are native English speakers, and who – as several chapters in this volume demonstrate – still anachronistically consider their English to be the ‘gold’ standard that all others around the world should follow. Finally, the term ‘Multilingualism (with English) as a lingua franca’ could subsequently even replace ‘Global Englishes’, which, although far more succinct, creates the misleading impression that the English language is ‘global’ when only around a third of the globe uses it for any purpose. Like both World Englishes and ELF, it also puts too much focus on English and too little on the multilingualism of most of the world’s English users. In addition, in line with the current volume, which brings World Englishes and ELF together in a single overarching framework, it also has the advantage of drawing attention to the fact that the vast majority of World Englishes users are also lingua franca users of English (again, except for monolingual – mostly native – English speakers). It thus makes clear how much World Englishes and ELF have in common in respect not only of their ideology but also of their multilingualism. And as a new generation of scholars in both fields, including contributors to this book, are becoming established, it is time for older received perspectives on World Englishes and ELF, and the extent of the synergies between them, to be replaced by new ways of understanding. In this respect, the current volume makes an important start. Indeed, we are now witnessing an increasing amount of cross-fertilization across these research areas, as well as productive interaction with local language policies, academic English studies, English in local curricula, coursebooks and materials development, authors’ and publishers’ orientation, and assessment practices. But enough of theory. What has been missing to a very great extent in discussions of both World Englishes and ELF is the implications for pedagogy. While a number of scholars, including the editor of this volume and several of its contributors, have published valuable texts presenting and discussing pedagogical issues, this has been the exception rather than the rule. And it is this that makes the current volume such an important contribution. First of all, the volume deals admirably with the issue of what World Englishes and ELF share as opposed to the single factor that separates them – their approach to varieties of English. Many of the authors present an integrated approach to the two, which is to be much welcomed at a time when multilingualism is so much in evidence and so much a part of both World Englishes and ELF. All contributions offer the reader a new and comprehensive perspective revealing and unveiling once invisible or even unaccepted links among diverse research fields such as the varieties of English and English as a lingua franca communication. What had for too long been a blurred image composed of different pieces of a puzzle has come together uncovering interesting yet challenging pedagogical implications. In addition, the authors reveal not only the multiple bridges between ELF and WE, but also the emerging need of going beyond the borders of individual study areas and of looking at them with different yet critical eyes. Not by chance, most of the chapter titles contain the invitation to move on and reshape theories, constructs and practices, and assumptions and beliefs, as in the following: Moving from . . . to; Revisiting . . . ; Beyond . . . ; Negotiating . . . ; Implementing . . . ; Problematizing . . . ; Bridging theory and Practice (D’Angelo) . . . ; and they encourage the adoption of a critical perspective with titles such as the following: Critical issues in pedagogy . . . ; Critical pedagogy (Siqueira and Gimenez) . . . ; Critical intercultural perspectives (Fang and Baker; Gutiérrez, Ortiz and Usma) . . .; Revisiting key constructs . . . ; Reconceptualizing . . . within the paradigm (Matsuda); Incorporating ontological reflection into teacher development (Hall). The

xviii

PROLOGUE

objects of and means for these changes are often related to pedagogical issues and involve coursebooks and materials (Vettorel), activities (Syrbe and Rose), intercultural perspective, teacher identity, knowledge base, paradigms, curriculum (Doğançay-Aktuna and Hardman, language planning, key constructs in SLA (Crowther), ELF awareness, EMI (İnal, Bayyurt and Kerestecioğlu; Kamwangamalu; Llurda and Mancho-Barés; Murata), native-speakerism (Galloway; Lowe and Kiczkowiak; Selvi and Yazan), and heritage languages (Gutiérrez, Ortiz and Usma; Kamwangamalu) in all parts of the world. Furthermore, the sheer range of this volume’s coverage goes well beyond previous texts exploring pedagogic issues. The chapters range across (often ignored) second language acquisition research, ontological reflection, critical pedagogy, interculturality, native-speakerism, and teaching materials, to name just a selection. As well as this, a number of different world regions are explored individually including parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The chapters also range across different levels and types of teaching and teacher education, with an entire section of the volume dedicated to an area of fast increasing importance: English in higher education/English-medium instruction. As a final comment, it should be noted that this book sees its light during the Coronavirus era, when only through ‘united isolation’ people may hope to overcome the dangers of contagion and dispersion. It may well represent a good metaphor of the joint effort made by the authors to look for and explore new pathways in an increasingly multilingual society.

Introduction YASEMİN BAYYURT

The academic field of World Englishes (WE) was originally animated by the realization that the worldwide presence, roles and uses of English meant that the ways in which this language was understood and described needed radical reframing. This reconceptualization concerned three broad areas. First of all, the idea that a language is naturally tied to a particular nation and territory is seriously challenged by a phenomenon whereby hundreds of millions of people use the same language across countries and continents, in different circumstances and in different forms. The fundamental shift that the WE paradigm introduced was the fact that English was best thought of in plural terms, namely as a conglomerate of distinct varieties, all with their own phonological, lexical and grammatical features, that developed principally in former British colonies. In an early theorization of this concept, Larry Smith noted: It is important to note that there is a single English language but many varieties. The language of the United States is American English. Certainly speakers of American English are identifiable by their pronunciation, intonation, stress, rhythm, and some vocabulary items but the language (the general orthography, lexicology, semantics, syntax—the grammar, if you will), is English. It is the same English that is spoken in Singapore, however; Singapore English speakers are also identifiable by their pronunciation, intonation, stress, rhythm, and some vocabulary items. (Smith 1976: 38) So the plural suffix in the term ‘Englishes’ refers precisely to this plurality of worldwide varieties of English. Secondly, the pluralization of English cannot be described purely in terms of phonology, vocabulary or grammar. The recognition (or otherwise) of the validity of varieties other than British and American English was very much a matter of equality, not just linguistic (all Englishes are equal) but also social (all speakers of English are equal). Ideology has remained a strong component of the World Englishes framework. The use of English in countries such as India, Nigeria and Malaysia is not just marked by distinct linguistic features, but is implicated in complex issues of identity – national, social, ethnic – unequal distribution of wealth and availability of opportunities, migration, social and language rights, de-colonization. Finally, very much part of the discussion in the early stages of this reconceptualization (in the 1970s and 1980s) were debates over the pedagogy of English as an international language. In fact, one can say that the very roots of WE are set in discussions about the transformations that needed to occur in the pedagogy of English as an international language (Saraceni 2010: 30–41). The acknowledgement of the fact that English was not a monolithic entity had a direct consequence in terms of language teaching and a number of questions arose. If English was not one but many, which variety was to be taught in the

2

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

language classroom? Which cultural content was to be selected in the pedagogy of English as a foreign language? To what extent was one to ensure that learners knew about different varieties of English and different cultures? Braj Kachru (1992) addressed these issues nearly thirty years ago and recommended that the teaching of English be underpinned by World Englishes principles. According to these, learners would benefit from being provided with an overview of English in its world context and opportunities to explore and be exposed to selected major varieties. Additionally, Kachru also recommended that teachers promoted neutral attitudes towards different varieties of English. Now, with globalization featuring even more prominently in trade, communication, movements of people and cultural exchanges across the world, English plays an even more crucial role and the demand for English language pedagogy has increased, while English is also increasingly used as a medium of instruction. Concurrently, the field of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) has added a new dimension to our understanding and the pedagogy of English in its global context. According to Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018), ELF-aware teaching is “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” (2018: 459). Therefore, any teacher education program whether it is pre- or in-service teacher education, the focus should be on how teachers can develop an understanding of an ELF-aware approach and find ways of implementing it in their classrooms. Another more recent development in sociolinguistics is the focus on bi- or multilingual speakers’ simultaneous use of more than one language, which has been termed translanguaging. This is part of a broader paradigm shift in which the concept of language is being dislodged from what used to be considered an indissoluble connection with nation and territory (see the “Paradigms” volume in this series). The notion of language as a fluid entity embedded within social practice has significant implications for language pedagogy, including English language teaching and learning. In this respect, this volume is a timely publication to establish a bridge between this evolving terminology and concepts and already-existing ones. Therefore, the chapters in this volume address these new developments and provide a state-of-the-art overview about the teaching and learning of English as a global language. In doing so, the various authors offer a range of perspectives, each contributing precious elements of the enormous enterprise that is the teaching of English globally.

OVERVIEW This volume is divided into four parts. The first part entitled “General Principles” comprises five chapters that mainly focus on general principles within the pedagogical frameworks of English as a global language. In the first chapter, “Incorporating Ontological Reflection into Teacher Education about English for Global Learners: A Rationale and Some Guiding Principles”, Chris Hall summarizes recent research on conceptualization of English for global learners from various perspectives and suggests ways of incorporating them into teacher education programs. In this respect, he proposes a new theoretical initiative for English language teacher education – that is, ‘Teacher education about English for global learners’ (TEEGL). According to TEEGL, teachers are to reflect on their knowledge about English in relation to the following five guiding principles: “(a) regard for teachers’

INTRODUCTION



3

beliefs about English as a discrete language system and curricular subject; (b) regard for the local and historical contexts in which English is taught; (c) recognition of the topdown constraints within which teachers must operate; (d) recognition of the role played by language(s) in broader issues of identity and social justice; and (e) reconciliation between conceptualizations of English as (cognitive and conventional) system and as (social) practice” (see Hall, in this volume, for detailed information). This chapter not only proposes a new teacher education initiative but also proposes a theoretical underpinning which functions as questioning the relationship between teachers’ understanding of English – that is, English as a system or a sociopolitical invention, only emerging through locally realized social practice as part of broader semiotic repertoires and their knowledge base in English language teaching (ELT). He indicates that there is a relationship between ontologies of English in socio-/applied linguistics and in professional practice, and cognitive linguistic theory (especially usage based), which is not a well-known theory in ELT. This chapter opens up a space for discussion about the relationship between already-existing theoretical perspectives from sister disciplines like cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics and/or second language acquisition (SLA) and ELT. In this respect, in the second chapter, entitled “Language Development in the Global Englishes Classroom: A Role for SLA Theoretical Inquiry”, Dustin Crowther mentions the lack of theoretical connections between SLA theories and current understanding of the pedagogical aspects of Global Englishes (GE) and recommends that empirical research be carried out to reveal the relationship between theoretical underpinnings of GEs and SLA theories. In the third chapter, entitled “Moving from Conceptualizations to Implementation of a Global Englishes Perspective in ELT: Critical Issues in Pedagogy”, Seran Doğançay-Aktuna and Joel Hardman focus on student-teachers’ perspectives of innovative approaches to ELT from a GE perspective. They explain how innovative it is to move from a normative monolithic approach to ELT to an understanding of a GE perspective that encompasses the plurilithic nature of the English language across different contexts around the world. They also highlight the significance of integrating such an approach into teacher education programs around the globe. They emphasize that innovation starts when such innovative perspectives are integrated within teacher education programs across countries where English is taught as a foreign/second language. The fourth and fifth chapters focus on the integration of ELT materials from a WE/ELF/ GE perspective. As Bayyurt and Sifakis (2017) note, there are not well-documented WE-/ ELF-aware materials for teachers to use, and this means that it is a significant challenge for teachers to become critical of their ELT practice and ELT materials. In her chapter, “World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca and ELT materials: A critical perspective”, Paola Vettorel discusses how analysis of activities and tasks published in already-existing ELT materials can be used to develop WE-/ELF-aware activities and tasks that provide a more realistic, and possibly motivating, perspective in current ELT practice. In “Materials and Activities in Teaching English as a Global Language: Using Online Resources to Stimulate Innovation”, Mona Syrbe and Heath Rose introduce a detailed analytical framework drawing on WE and ELF-informed approaches and research and suggest ways of integrating publicly available online resources into ELT practice for a number of purposes such as “raising awareness of global uses of English, exposing learners to varieties of English, teaching culture, and integrating these authentic materials within specific lessons and activities” (Syrbe and Rose, this volume). Both chapters highlight

4

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

important aspects of ELT materials and how a new approach is needed in developing them from a more realistic point of view. The second part of this volume entitled “Native-Speakerism” includes four chapters that problematize native-speakerism (Holliday 2005) from a WE/ELF/GE perspective. In the first chapter, “Negotiating Native-Speakerism in TESOL Curriculum Innovation”, Nicola Galloway focuses on the extent to which native-speakerist ideologies create a barrier for the implementation of a Global Englishes (GE) perspective in ELT. She also highlights the importance of bringing these issues to the attention of decision-makers in developing curricula and training of teachers. Focusing on issues related to teacher’s professional identities from a GELT perspective, in their chapter, “Beyond ‘Native’ and ‘Non-Native’ English-Speaking Teachers: Teacher Identity and the Knowledge Base of Global Englishes Language Teachers”, Ali Fuad Selvi and Bedrettin Yazan argue that existing teacher education programs do not take into account the changing paradigms in ELT from a Global Englishes perspective. They maintain that policies, practices and experiences organized around the terms ‘native English speaker teacher’ and ‘non-native English speaker teacher’ do not fit within a GELT paradigm and propose to broaden the scope of the current understanding, critiques and discourses of teacher identity from a GELT perspective. In the following chapter, “Reconceptualizing (Non-)native English Speakers within the Paradigm of Teaching English as an International Language”, Aya Matsuda argues that the critical perspective in academia on the native/non-native-speaker dichotomy is not well translated into ELT practices as the native-speaker bias and native-speakerism continue to dominate the field. Matsuda first traces how the notion has been challenged and reconstructed in related disciplines and illustrates how a native-speakerist bias in ELT influences the way English language use is conceptualized in various contexts. As a solution to this problem, she proposes the use of the “Teaching English as an International Language” framework (Matsuda 2012), promoting “new ways to think about different types of English users and their proficiency, so that ELT can be freed from the NS/NNS dichotomy” (Matsuda, this volume). In the last chapter of this part, “Tackling Native-Speakerism through ELF-Aware Pedagogy”, Rob Lowe and Marek Kiczkowiak also question native-speakerism in relation to current ELT practice. They propose the adoption of an “ELF-aware” pedagogical approach to ELT to tackle the problems caused by dominant native-speakerist ideologies in the field. Taking existing theoretical and practical work on ELF-awareness in ELT (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015, 2017; Sifakis 2019; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015, 2018), they introduce their own approach to ELF-aware pedagogy. They state that a “native-speakerist worldview conflicts with the globalization of English” (Lowe and Kiczkowiak, this volume) and outline how an ELF-aware pedagogy may challenge established ELT practices globally from a critical perspective. The third part of the volume, English as a medium of instruction (EMI), there are four chapters that focus on uses of English as a medium of instruction in higher education contexts. In the first chapter, “Teaching WE and ELF in EMI from an ELF Perspective: A Case Study at a University in the Expanding Circle”, Kumiko Murata discusses the practice of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) in a Japanese higher education context. She contends that in Japan the perception is that the “E” in EMI is ‘naturally’ and unquestionably assumed to be the ‘E’ of native speakers of English. Furthermore, she proposes a model of EMI with an explicit focus on teaching ELF and WE as a subject matter, while simultaneously using ELF as a means of instruction and interaction.

INTRODUCTION



5

In the second chapter, “Implementing Critical Pedagogy of Global Englishes in ELT in Asia from the Lens of EMI and Intercultural Citizenship”, Fan Fang and Will Baker state that the global status of English challenges the dominance of the Anglophone cultures and emphasizes that multiculturalism and interculturality accompany multilingual uses of English. They explore the development of intercultural citizenship in EMI contexts through the implementation of a critical pedagogical approach in ELT through a GE perspective. In their chapter entitled “Problematizing EMI Programs in Turkish Higher Education: Voices from Stakeholders”, Dilek İnal, Yasemin Bayyurt and Feza Kerestecioğlu focus on problems of different understandings and implementations of EMI practice in the Turkish higher education context. They argue that EMI presents various challenges for different stakeholders and make the point that programs that make use of English as the language of instruction need to be grounded on right and justifiable policies and geared towards quality education. In the last chapter, “A Critical View of Globalization within the Expanded Role of EMI in Japan: Case Study of an Actual Implementation”, James F. D’Angelo argues that as scholars “we need to work within our institutions and broader local, national and global contexts to bring about change in a positive direction” (D’Angelo, this volume), and reports his own EMI experience at the College of World Englishes at Chukyo University, where classes have been theoretically informed by the inherently critical pluralistic paradigms of World Englishes (WE) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) from their inception. The last part of the volume, “Focus on Specific Contexts”, consists of four chapters. In the first chapter, “The Impact of World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca in Tertiary Education in the Expanding Circle”, Enric Llurda and Guzman Mancho-Barés aim to critically describe the different ways in which World Englishes impacts language policy and practice in higher education in the expanding circle contexts as described by Kachru almost four decades ago, and their focus is on higher education in Catalonia. In the second chapter of this section, “World Englishes and Critical Pedagogy: Reflections on Paulo Freire’s Contributions to the Brazilian National English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) Curriculum”, Savio Siqueira and Telma Gimenez focus on the specific context of Brazilian mainstream education from a critical pedagogical approach. They believe that an ELF-aware approach to ELT suggests ways of integrating a critical pedagogical approach inspired by Paulo Freire (Freire and Macedo 1987) into English language classrooms. According to the two authors, an ELF-aware approach in ELT adequately addressed the de-stabilization of linguistic ideologies sustained by prescriptive approaches that deny non-native speakers of English the legitimacy to “read the world with their own words”. They believe that an ELF-aware perspective will enact Freire’s critical pedagogical approach to education from an ELT perspective. In the third and fourth chapters of this section, the focus is more on the effects of neoliberal educational policies favoring inner circle varieties in outer/post-colonial and expanding circle contexts in Kachruvian terms. In the third chapter, “Teaching English from a Critical Intercultural Perspective: An Experience with Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Students”, Claudia Gutiérrez, Janeth Ortiz and Jaime Usma take us to another South American context. They situate their discussion within the context of Colombian higher education, where foreign language education policies tend to be determined by neoliberal educational agendas in which meeting international standards is prioritized. In their chapter, they criticize the fact that discourses and practices in Colombia continue to

6

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

reproduce “a colonial homogenizing pattern in which theories, methods, methodologies, resources, tests, and programs are consumed from inner circle knowledge communities, disregarding the astonishing social, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity of our nation” (Gutiérrez, Ortiz and Usma, this volume). They further criticize this policy in relation to the situation of “Afro-descendant and indigenous students” studying in a public university in Colombia who feel their voices, cosmogonies, languages and knowledge have little room in their education process, and even less in the English language class. In the fourth chapter, “English-Medium Instruction and Heritage Language Development in Africa”, Nkonko Kamwangamalu discusses the education policies surrounding English-medium instruction in post-colonial Anglophone African contexts. Kamwangamalu proposes a model for heritage language planning to increase the positive attitudes towards ancestral languages of the African Continent. The focus in this chapter is on critical theory, specifically “Bourdieu’s notion of capital, market, habitus, and social fields, and language economics” (Kamwangamalu, this volume). The author states that linguistic and economic variables influence one another in reference to why English language policies persist since the colonial period. He argues that education in ancestral languages should be promoted and describes cases where this has successfully been implemented in Anglo-African contexts. In conclusion, it is important to see how the World Englishes paradigm has developed over the years from focusing almost exclusively on varieties of English in the Outer Circle to a more encompassing scope taking into account the global uses of English among people from all three Kachruvian circles. We hope the collection of chapters in this volume document how this transition is actualized while simultaneously opening up new areas of inquiry.

REFERENCES Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (2015), ‘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, 117–35, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (2017), ‘Foundations of an EIL-Aware Teacher Education’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, 3–18, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Freire, P. and D. Macedo (1987), Literacy: Reading the Word and the World, South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Holliday, A. R. (2005), The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1985), ‘Standard, 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, 11–30, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1992), ‘Teaching World Englishes’, in B. B. Kachru (eds), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edn, 355–65, Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Matsuda, A., (ed.) (2012), Teaching English as an International Language: Principles and Practices, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Saraceni, M. (2010), The Relocation of English: Shifting Paradigms in a Global Era, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

INTRODUCTION



7

Saraceni, M. (2015), World Englishes. A Critical Analysis, London: Bloomsbury. Sifakis, N. C. (2019), ‘ELF Awareness in English Language Teaching: Principles and Processes’, Applied Linguistics, 40 (2): 288–306. Sifakis, N. C. and Y. Bayyurt (2015), ‘Insights from ELF and WE in Teacher Training in Greece and Turkey’, World Englishes, 34 (3): 471–84. Sifakis, N. C. and Y. Bayyurt (2018), ‘ELF-Aware Teaching, Learning and Teacher Development’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 456–67, London: Routledge. Smith, L. (1976), ‘English as an International Auxiliary Language’, RELC Journal, 7 (2): 38–42.

Chapter 1

Incorporating Ontological Reflection into Teacher Education about English for Global Learners A Rationale and Some Guiding Principles CHRISTOPHER J. HALL

1  INTRODUCTION In teacher education for English language teaching (ELT), much more attention is paid to pedagogical knowledge and practice than to the nature of the subject to be taught (cf. Marr and English 2019). A recent review of trends in ELT teacher education (Barahona 2018), for example, refers to the importance of developing new ‘teacher conceptualizations of pedagogical practice and of how a language is learnt,’ (p. 13) but not of ‘the language’ itself. This imbalance is unfortunate given several decades of research in World Englishes (henceforth WE) and related approaches that have questioned conventional conceptualizations of English and have recognized the new realities of its global learning and use. Although there has been considerable attention to English teachers’ language awareness or ‘Knowledge about Language’ (KAL; cf. Andrews 1999; Bartels 2005), the obvious connection to Global Englishes remains unmade, and it is taken for granted that knowledge about grammar means knowledge about ‘the’ grammar of ‘Standard (native-speaker) English’. The disconnect is evident, for example, in Johnson’s (2016) overview of ELT teacher education, which contains several references to ‘disciplinary knowledge about language’, but does not link them to the section headed ‘Which English should teachers teach?’. Sifakis and Bayyurt (2015) correctly identify teacher education (henceforth TE) as the appropriate ‘intermediary’ for adapting pedagogical practice to the realities of Global Englishes. Their work on TE from the perspective of ‘E[nglish as a ]L[ingua ] F[ranca]-inspired pedagogy’ (Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018) is part of a growing body of scholarly proposals for TE in what Rose and Galloway (2019) call ‘Global Englishes for Language Teaching’ (GELT); see, for example, Brown (1993), Bayyurt and Akcan (2015), Kumaravadivelu (2012), Marr and English (2019), Matsuda (2017) and Sifakis (2007). Most of these proposals focus on the importance of raising teachers’ awareness of

12

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

the diversity of global Englishes and of the contexts in which they are used, emphasizing the argument that claims to ownership legitimately extend beyond native speakers. They also advocate a concentration on socially embedded communicative function over the acquisition of linguistic form. In line with the ‘social turn’ in second language acquisition (SLA) in the 1990s (Block 2003), they associate the latter with cognitive orientations, and view these as reinforcing monolithic, monolingual approaches in which native speaker models of Standard English (henceforth SE) are the only legitimate measures of ‘ultimate attainment’. But studies consistently report that teachers demonstrate a reluctance ‘to set aside their traditional EFL practices of teaching standardised, or native English’ (Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015: 472). This suggests that awareness of Global Englishes, their impact on teaching and why this matters in specific communicative contexts is not enough to effect the kind of change required (cf. also Suzuki 2011; Timmis 2002; Young et al. 2016). I argue in this chapter that there is another, more fundamental, link in the chain of issues and principles mediating theory and practice, which also needs to be addressed at the TE stage. This is the issue of ontologies of English—that is, beliefs about the nature of its existence. Generally, ontological analysis of language and languages has been confined to philosophy and theoretical linguistics. But since Pennycook’s (2007a) penetrating critique of the ‘myth of English as an International Language’, the ontological status of the language has started to be addressed more explicitly, especially in work on Global Englishes and GELT. Rose and Galloway (2019), for example, rightly assert that ‘GELT requires a new ontological stance, or understanding of language’ (p. 91). They pinpoint the Standard Language Ideology as a major barrier to this understanding, and perceptively locate ontological stance as the key issue: ‘if teachers’ ideology does not match a new ontological stance, it is more likely that TESOL practitioners will reject the changes’ (p. 91). I will go further in this chapter, to suggest that the ideological barrier can only be shifted, and therefore GELT fully embraced, if teaching of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) practitioners’ ontological beliefs change. Accordingly, a key step in educating teachers to understand and adopt GELT is to help them reflect on and reshape their ontologies of language and of English. The argument can be articulated in terms of the relationship between five domains of language-focused activity. As indicated by the arrows in Figure 1.1, I see these domains as mutually informing, in a chain of interdependence. The argument goes as follows, starting with the key domain of learning and working back to linguistic theory: 1. Learning: Too few learners of L2 English are developing the communicative resources, strategies and ideological awareness they need to enable them to use English appropriately and effectively in the increasingly globalized and diversified contexts in which they will all, to a greater or lesser extent, be involved. 2. Teaching: Learners will have little opportunity and/or incentive to develop the necessary resources, strategies and awareness unless doing so is part of the curriculum and/or is facilitated deliberately, sensitively and effectively by teachers. 3. Teacher Education: Research suggests that current attempts to incorporate awareness of Global Englishes into TE are stymied by pre- and in-service teachers’ entrenched ideological and ontological beliefs about (and investment in) orientations to ‘accuracy’ in SE, especially at the grammatical level.

INCORPORATING ONTOLOGICAL REFLECTION INTO TEACHER EDUCATION



13

FIGURE 1.1:  Chain of language-related educational domains which motivates the incorporation of language ontologies into teacher education.

4. Applied Linguistics: TE must inform and be informed by an applied linguistics which effectively responds to teachers’ entrenched beliefs about language as normative system, by mediating conceptualizations of English which not only recognize the social and political realities of Global English practices but also teachers’ commitment to, and learners’ expectation of, the development of English as individual linguistic resources (especially at the grammatical level). 5. Linguistics: Language theorists need to theorize (ontologies of) language and (ontologies of) English more clearly, going beyond the postulation of idealized systems of forms associated with uniform native speaker or user communities, to account for the individual, flexible, dynamic, cognitive resources which L1 and L2 learners and users develop, in interaction with other linguistic and semiotic resources, through social usage. Such theory must be kept ontologically distinct from sociopolitical conceptualizations of the named monolithic system ‘English’. In this chapter, I thus call for a renewed focus in TE on the language itself, in which teachers are invited to reflect on their own conceptualizations of English and to construct their own personal ontologies of English for global learners. This requires explicit incorporation of language ontology into TE, an enterprise I will call ‘Teacher education about English for global learners’ (TEEGL). The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a brief overview of work on language ontology for ELT and summarizes the framework for ontological analysis that I will be applying. Subsections address conceptualizations of English in three ontological categories: (i) as normative system (the prevailing conceptualization); (ii) as social practice (the conceptualization prioritized in current work on GELT); and (iii) as cognitive resource (a conceptualization that, I argue, requires rehabilitation). Section 3 sets out six principles to guide the design and implementation of TEEGL content and activities.

14

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

2  ONTOLOGIES OF ENGLISH FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING Until recently there has been little analysis of, or discussion about, ontological issues in applied linguistics. Makoni and Pennycook’s (2007) volume, Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, might in future be identified as the critical publication which initiated an eventual ‘ontological turn’ in applied linguistics. Their volume challenged applied linguists to interrogate the easy acceptance of conventional wisdom about the existence of named languages, highlighting their sociopolitical nature and the ways that uncritical belief in such concepts has distorted mainstream linguistic analysis and therefore helped to perpetuate global inequalities. In the same vein, Toolan (2009) presented a collection of papers addressing the pedagogical implications of Harris’s (1981) Integrational Linguistics, which departs from the ‘myth’ that separate languages exist as fixed codes. Toolan pointed out (2009: 11) that language-teaching programmes ‘are conveying . . . a powerfully general misrepresentation of the nature of the language, what is entailed in knowing it, and what the basis for projecting and maintaining a standard language is’. From another perspective, Widdowson (e.g. 2012) has highlighted the ontological challenges to conventional views of English represented by ELF research, criticizing theoretical linguistics, sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics alike for the (tacit) assumption of native speaker normativity in their accounts of language(s) and linguistic diversity. And Ortega (2018) has recently highlighted the role of different ontological commitments about language(s) in her discussion of the conceptual ‘gap’ between the WE and SLA paradigms. Hall and Wicaksono’s (2020a) edited set of papers brings ontologies of English to the foreground in approaches to the learning, teaching and testing of L1 and L2 Englishes. In a number of other publications, I have been exploring with colleagues the ontological dimensions of teachers’ beliefs about English (Hall 2018; Hall and Cunningham, 2020; Hall, Wicaksono, Liu, Qian and Xu 2013; Hall, Wicaksono, Liu, Qian and Xu 2017b). This work underpins an online TEEGL course, Changing Englishes, the second version of which is now available (Hall and Wicaksono 2020b). In parallel to this work with teachers, I have been developing a framework for distinguishing between different conceptualizations of language in general and of English in particular (Hall 2013, 2018, 2020; Hall, Joyce and Robson 2017a), which I will now briefly present. The eight categories (henceforth indicated in small capitals) are grouped into four broader ontological domains which go beyond language: the social, the cognitive, the notional and the expressive. In the social domain are grouped entities and processes which exist intersubjectively (e.g. choral singing or nationhood). This contrasts with the cognitive domain, comprising entities and processes that develop and operate within the individual mind (e.g. episodic memory or mental arithmetic). In the expressive domain are the physical outputs of intentional mental processes which signify meaning (e.g. gestures or graffiti). And, finally, in the notional domain are theoretical constructs, assumed to exist independently of individual minds or groups (e.g. numbers or predicate calculus). In this chapter, I draw on the specific framework elaborated in Hall (2020), in which the word English is analysed as referring to groups of entities in two ontological supra-categories (see Table 1.1). The first set, which I call ‘L-English’, consists of instantiations of the resources, processes and products of the human language capacity. Within this set, English is conceptualized as resource and process in the cognitive and social domains. The sociocognitive processes in which the resources are deployed result in linguistic (ultimately physical) products in the form of spoken utterances and

INCORPORATING ONTOLOGICAL REFLECTION INTO TEACHER EDUCATION



15

TABLE 1.1  Ontological categories corresponding to senses of the word ‘English’ English L-English

Englishry

A set of instantiations of the human language capacity

Socially constructed components of English and other 'Anglophone' national identities

I-Englishes

Englishing

N-English

P-English

(existing in the cognitive domain)

(existing in the social domain)

(existing in the social domain)

(existing in the notional domain)

Individual phonological, Social acts using The named, national orthographic, and lexico- I-englishes system of regulative grammatical resources norms known as 'Standard (nativespeaker) English'

Theorized constitutive norms of a linguistic system abstracted from the products of Englishing in the expressive domain, but implicitly conditioned by N-English

texts, in the expressive domain. The second supra-category is a set of entities which has emerged historically from deliberate contemplation of the first, filtered through the lens of English national identity—part of the (contemplated) practices, products or perceived characteristics of (originally) ‘the English (people)’. I call this ‘Englishry’, existing in the social and notional domains. English exists in the L-English supra-category by virtue of the existence of language as a human capacity, and is independent of our awareness of (and any words for) it. There are two dominant sub-categories here. One is that of English as cognitive resource, understood as the entrenched linguistic forms that individual users develop on the basis of, and bring to, usage events. For this sense I adapt Chomsky’s (1986) term I-language (where the ‘I’ refers to internal, individual, idiolectal) to label the specific instantiation ‘I-Englishes’. Adopting and adapting Chomsky’s terminology does not imply the adoption of his narrowly innatist and monolingual perspective, however: the I-English view is, for example, completely consistent with Otheguy, García and Reid’s (2015) idiolectal approach to translanguaging. The other sub-category of L-English is English as social practice, construed in terms of its communicative and indexical functions rather than its forms. I call this ‘Englishing’, as an instantiation of the concept of language widely referred to as languaging (e.g. Joseph 2002). In the second supra-category, Englishry, English exists by virtue of the existence of a group of people perceiving themselves as a nation, ‘the English’, and people who trace a cultural lineage with this group (members of the other ‘Anglophone nations’). The dominant sub-category here is the social one of English as the collective property of its native speakers, originally indexing national identity, and identified with the ‘standard’ variety. This is what I have dubbed ‘N-English’, an instance of ‘N-language’, with the ‘N’ standing for named, normed, national, and native (Hall 2013). A second sub-category in this set, which I claim emerged from the first, is the notional one of English as an abstract, fixed system of symbolic units and rules, independent of its users and learners. This is essentially what Chomsky (1986) called P-language, where the ‘P’ stands for ‘Platonic’, in

16

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

the sense of ‘Platonic ideal’. The essential difference between N-language and P-language reflects the distinction Searle (1969: 33–7) made between ‘regulative’ and ‘constitutive’ norms. But on the basis of linguistic descriptions of abstract P-language, users and learners’ knowledge and performance can be judged as ‘correct’ or ‘accurate’ when it coincides with the descriptions, and ‘incorrect’ or ‘inaccurate’ when it does not; hence, P-language easily leads to (implicit or unintended) regulative normativity. Accordingly, we can talk about ‘P-English’ in educational contexts, even when regulative prescription is not being explicitly legitimized. The ontological categories of Englishry capture conceptualizations of English which prevail in linguistics (both general and applied), in language teaching practice, and also in lay discourse. Those of the latter have not been subjected to much empirical enquiry, although Preston (2002) has explored ‘folk theories’ of language. Quine (1968) talked about ‘ontological relativity’ in the context of scientific theory formation, but less well understood is such relativity operating in lay individuals’ general belief systems. The little research that has been conducted on this issue with teachers has demonstrated that they can entertain multiple ontological commitments, surfacing in different contexts, with a particular mismatch observed between those activated in teaching and non-teaching arenas (cf. Schraw 2013). Such disjunction in ontological commitments correlating with classroom and non-classroom contexts has been found specifically for English teachers by Young and Walsh (2010) and Hall et al. (2013, 2017b). Inter-individual variation in EAL educators’ ontological stances and how these interact with their ideological beliefs is explored in depth in Hall and Cunningham (2020). Of particular relevance for the present chapter is Hall et al.’s (2013) finding that ontological stances could be shifted through TEEGL activities. I now outline the reasoning behind such activities in some detail.

2.1  English as normative system The conceptualization that many English teachers around the world will orient to most is evidently N-English, dominant in most public discourse due to two potent and tenacious ideologies: the Standard Language Ideology and the One Nation, One Language Ideology (Piller 2015). Yet this ontological stance is, of course, incongruent with the global diversity of the language which is now such an urgent challenge for learners and teachers around the world. Accounts of initiatives to incorporate GELT into TE have consistently reported the resistance of many teachers to the idea of delinking English learning and teaching from native speaker norms. They have also indicated that even in cases where teachers show heightened awareness of global diversity of forms and uses, there is a reluctance to translate that awareness into new classroom practices. This conservatism can be accounted for in part by the way the normative nature of the dominant N-language conceptualization serves to render the ‘messy’ reality of language amenable to description, and therefore instruction, through a historical process of idealization. A consequence of the emergence of N-English as national identity marker in the late medieval period was the gradual construal of English as a fixed code, independent of actual speakers, that is, as P-English in the notional domain. This process, paralleled in other countries in Europe (Barbour and Carmichael 2000) and in Asia (Simpson 2007), gave rise to notions of correctness, especially from the eighteenth century on for English. Modern linguistics since Saussure has been subject to what Harris (1981) called the ‘language-as-fixed-code fallacy’, according to which linguistic communication

INCORPORATING ONTOLOGICAL REFLECTION INTO TEACHER EDUCATION



17

works because community members have internalized the same phonological and lexico-grammatical system, which maps meanings the same way. With some exceptions, linguists have sought to characterize this system independently of its social functions and individual instantiations, in other words as an idealized abstraction (P-language). The practice of linguistic description through the use of grammaticality judgements has also been unconsciously filtered by the Standard Language Ideology (Harris 1987; Makoni and Pennycook 2007). Even for corpus-based grammars, SE is generally presupposed as the natural instantiation of ‘the’ English language, leading to the conclusion that most linguistic accounts of ‘the language’ are in fact accounts of ‘P-English’, that is, part of Englishry rather than L-English (Hall 2020). The P-English conceptualization of English is thus the primary one for many teachers for two reasons. One is that this is the way they have been taught to think about the forms of language(s), in their own general education as well as their training as teachers (Dewey 2015). Another is that as teachers they may view English as a subject like other school subjects (Hall and Wicaksono 2019, Unit 4), a body of knowledge that can be assessed in tests and which therefore involves correct or incorrect answers. Teachers, especially those for whom English is not their L1, have often invested a great deal of time and effort to become models of the ‘correct’ code and often also metalinguistic experts on how ‘the system’ works, relying ultimately on linguistics for this knowledge. Applied linguists working on GELT have all understood the ontological challenge posed by the tenacity of monolithic understandings of English as fixed system. Almost all have proposed that teachers can best confront these deeply held convictions by conceptualizing English also as a form of social practice, a position to which we now turn.

2.2  English as social practice Using the concepts and tools of sociolinguistics, contact linguistics and corpus linguistics, WE and related approaches (particularly ELF) have provoked re-examination of how English should be conceived for pedagogy. From a variationist perspective, scholars have decentred English away from the native speaker monolingual ‘Anglosphere’ and reconceptualized it as a set of ‘pluricentric’ varieties with local norms and practices, in an attempt to ‘de-hegemonize’ SE (cf. Parakrama 1995). This has led to questions in ELT about the appropriate models and targets for learning and teaching (e.g. Kachru 1992; Kirkpatrick 2006). Drawing on contact linguistics (cf. Onysko 2016), they have explored how these new varieties are forged in large part by the multilingualism of the individuals and communities in which they develop. Elsewhere, from an interactional perspective, scholars have shifted the focus from variation in the forms of English to the ways in which global users make meaning in social interaction, and especially how they use their language to construct new transcultural identities and index localized sociocultural functions (Blommaert 2010; Pennycook 2007b). The ontological implication drawn from much of this work has been that the very existence of English as a linguistic system is challenged. English and other named languages are revealed as sociopolitical inventions (Makoni and Pennycook 2007), with linguistic systems existing only as emergent properties, or artefacts, of locally realized social practice (Canagarajah 2013). Makoni and Pennycook (2007), for example, distinguish their own approach from that of mainstream applied and general linguistics, which they associate (unfavourably) with ‘[the] positing of languages as systems that exist outside and beyond communicative acts [and the] location of language within the heads

18

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

of people’ (p. 35). Pennycook (2010) articulates a position according to which ‘[t]he notion of language as a system is challenged in favour of a view of language as doing’ (p. 2). Similarly, Canagarajah (2013) argues that ‘we have to treat meaning-making as a social practice . . . Though there are implications for cognition, I define this form of competence in fundamentally social and practice-based terms’ (p. 10). It is this conceptualization of English as social practice (i.e. Englishing) that has gained most traction in GELT. This is especially the case for teaching inspired by ELF, which after early ontological ambiguity is now generally understood as a context of Englishing rather than any kind of linguistic system or resource. Blair (2015: 90), for example, asserts that an ELF perspective ‘logically suggests a greater focus on process than product, involving central roles for accommodation strategies, intercultural and pragmatic competence, flexibility and tolerance of variation’. Similarly, Dewey (2015: 133) advocates the promotion in TE of a theory of language and communication ‘that is less concerned with language as an abstracted system and more in line with a notion of language as “local practice”’. This substantial ontological shift in applied linguistics has not, however, had correspondingly significant uptake in ELT practice. Twenty years ago, Seidlhofer (1999: 234–5) observed that teachers ‘are . . . faced with fiercely competing discourses: that of inclusive claims made at a fairly abstract level, and that of native-speaker centred, exclusive forces prevailing in reality’. For many teachers, the ontological ‘reality’ is reflected in an ideology underpinned by ‘exclusive’ N-English and an approach to learning and teaching which relies on the P-English fixed code descriptions of linguists, even if lip service is paid to ‘inclusive’ Englishing in communicatively oriented syllabuses. The main obstacle for teachers appears to be the perceived ontological incompatibility between a view of English as Englishing and the more familiar view of English as P-English system determined by ideologically framed N-English. In other words, they expect and are expected (by learners, parents, authorities, materials, tests and much TE) to teach English as system (grammar, lexis, pronunciation), but are being told by applied linguists that in fact English only exists as dynamic, variable, social practice. The denial of teachers’ perceived ‘reality’ of fixed accuracy in forms, and the advocacy of a reorientation to a more ‘abstract’ notion of contingent fluency in functions, is at the heart of the teacher’s dilemma. In the following subsection I suggest a way in which the dilemma can be addressed, focusing on the ontological status of grammar. My argument is essentially the following: if we can engage teachers in TE with reflection on the nature of grammar as local, inclusive regularities serving effective communication, rather than as distal, exclusive regulations serving social convention, then perhaps we can achieve greater leverage in the process of facilitating ontological awareness and potential transformation. To do this, we inevitably have to engage with English as cognitive resource as well as social practice.

2.3  English as cognitive resource Despite the appeal of socially oriented perspectives for applied linguists, many global teachers remain firmly committed to (and invested in) beliefs about English as a linguistic system, independently learnable and teachable, governed by norms against which accuracy can be measured. I have argued (Hall 2013) that by distancing or divorcing language from cognition (what goes on ‘in the heads of people’), applied linguists position ELT in a way that is incompatible with the ideological beliefs, philosophical assumptions and perceived practical realities of many teachers around the world. Although they may not

INCORPORATING ONTOLOGICAL REFLECTION INTO TEACHER EDUCATION



19

construe their professional identities in psychological terms, such teachers orient towards views of learning as mental activity: adding to or changing what is in people’s heads. Yet GELT proposals generally follow the critical theorists in rejecting or de-emphasizing the cognitive element of ELT. Blair (2015: 90), for example, advocates from an ELF perspective that ‘[l]anguage competence can . . . be reframed in social terms, as being located somewhere between speakers in communicative interaction (as opposed to solely inside one person’s mind)’. As we have seen, English teachers are inevitably invested in knowledge of ‘the language’—of the subject they teach—and this often tends to be conceived in terms of its formal resources. Due to the N-language-filtered distillation of actual Englishes into a monolithic P-English, the subject matter is rendered as a teachable, learnable, and testable object with measurable dimensions of correctness, that is, accuracy, especially at the level of grammar. It is grammar, rather than other aspects of language like lexis and pronunciation, which appears to be the main sticking point preventing individual teachers from fully adopting GELT. Sifakis and Bayyurt (2015), for example, report transformative experiences as a result of their ‘ELF-aware’ TE programme, but it is variation in pronunciation, rather than grammar, that teachers felt most comfortable with (p. 479ff). Similarly, the teachers in Hall et al.’s (2017b) study identify P-English ontological beliefs solely with grammar. As Widdowson pointed out (1994: 381), grammar is a shibboleth: because grammatical features are often redundant in communication, they have come to index sharply dichotomous social identities. Unlike accent and vocabulary, which are widely seen as legitimately variable, grammar is perceived as either right or wrong, and you are either in the group that knows the rules or you are not. Most English teachers feel they need to be in the former group, however open they are to GELT on other levels. Developments in cognitively oriented Usage-Based Linguistics (UBL) are not well known in ELT, but are strikingly relevant here. They provide a potentially fruitful way forward for teachers, by rejecting monolithic P-language but preserving a focus on grammar which divorces it from notions of correctness and accuracy. In one major strand of UBL (Goldberg 1995; Ellis, O’Donnell and Römer 2013; Eskildsen 2008), grammar is theorized as a network of constructions, mentally represented pairings of meaning and form, from which abstract patterns (regularities) emerge on the basis of input frequency and generalization from situated usage events. Construction Grammar constitutes one way of formalizing commonalities in these patterns across communities of speakers (e.g. Hilpert 2014). But the constructional framework also allows us to understand grammar as individual learners’ and users’ diverse linguistic resources, rather than equating it with target or community norms. Such an idiolectal approach has been used to characterize the grammatical resources of individual English L1 users (e.g. Barlow 2013), L2 learners (e.g. Eskildsen, 2008) and L2 users (Hall et al., 2017a; Vetchinnikova, 2017). All these accounts are intrinsically sociocognitive in approach, in that they forefront the entrenchment of form on the basis of analysis of the social interactions that learners and users are involved in, without taking the pre-established rules and categories of ‘the’ grammar of English as points of departure. In so doing, they provide insights into the ‘plurilithic’ (Pennycook, 2009) nature of actual non-native I-Englishes, which develop independently of the P-English models embedded in most teaching resources and activities. The promise of introducing a usage-based, constructionist account of grammar in TEEGL is that it makes clear how the view of English as social practice predominating in GELT does not require teachers to dispense with concern for grammar learning. It does this by demonstrating that grammar is constituted by I-languages constructed internally as a result

20

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

of languaging, rather than the traditional teacher view of grammar as regulative P-language norms existing externally and which must be internalized through deliberate study. Although the cognitive usage-based view might seem potentially daunting to teachers when viewed from the theoretical perspective of SLA, there are ways to make the fundamental premise quite accessible. One such way, adopted in the online course for teachers Changing Englishes (Hall and Wicaksono, 2020b) uses the ambiguity of the word rule as a springboard. Course participants are introduced to two partial synonyms of the word, the etymological cousins regulation and regularity (all three from Latin regula). Using a random concordance of the word rule, they work out that in one sense (‘regulation’) a rule is ‘an explicitly stated limit on your behaviour, the way something should or must be done, set by an authority or by mutual agreement’, whereas in the other sense (‘regularity’) a rule is ‘a recurrent/frequent pattern in the way something happens, is done, or is arranged’. From this they are able to understand that their learners are indeed learning grammar rules through Englishing (as regularities), even if they are not always the grammar rules sanctioned by native speaker norms (i.e. ‘regulations’). This approach essentially distinguishes between what we might call ‘I-grammar’ from ‘N-’ or ‘P-grammar’. The distinction between rule as regularity versus regulation is further elucidated in the Changing Englishes course through a usage-based account of how infants develop unstandardized varieties of English as L1, thus taking up Suzuki’s (2011) recommendation to introduce ‘non-standard’ native Englishes into TE courses: ‘By being exposed to these, student teachers would learn that non-standard English is not necessarily spoken [only] by L2 speakers, and this may lead them to recast their views of standard English’ (p. 152). To enable teachers to understand that this is not just a theoretical issue, but a practical reality, the course then draws on the Declarative/Procedural Model of SLA (cf. Ullman 2015), showing how learners are automatically constructing their own I-Englishes in procedural memory on the basis of the range of ‘unstandardized’ forms to which they are inevitably exposed, and which they use unconsciously to communicate with in unmonitored interaction. Course users realize that these Englishes also involve grammar rules, but in the form of acquired regularities which are usage-determined and independent of the ‘regulations’ in declarative memory learnt from teachers, textbooks and tests. In ways such as this, we can help teachers fulfill Canagarajah’s (2014: 773) recommendation that ‘language awareness can be cultivated in classrooms, if teachers don’t impose the grammar of specific English varieties as correct and inflexible. Students can be encouraged to look beyond specific grammars to treat them as examples of how grammars in general work in communication’.

3  GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR TEEGL Having made my case for engaging TE participants in ontological reflection about English, and having suggested a specific direction in which this might proceed, I present in this section a set of principles to guide the design and implementation of such a programme, and in so doing anticipate and address some of the major challenges involved.

Principle 1: Regard for teachers’ beliefs about English as a discrete language system and curricular subject. As we have seen, teachers have strong convictions about SE and its role as a model and target in instructional settings. Although the prevailing beliefs are inconsistent with a

INCORPORATING ONTOLOGICAL REFLECTION INTO TEACHER EDUCATION



21

plurilithic ontology and also with an egalitarian ideology, they are hard to overcome, even for teachers who are most open to change. TEEGL must have adequate regard for this. Kohn’s (2011) essentially usage-based (constructivist) ‘My English’ condition provides a useful perspective here, as it acknowledges learners’ agency in determining their own orientations to SE. Also helpful is Canagarajah’s (2014) recognition that some learners will need SE as part of a communicative repertoire, and that an orientation towards language as social practice will prepare learners for this: ‘My expectation is that students who develop a complex language awareness, rhetorical sensitivity, and negotiation strategies will not only recognize the contexts where they can be creative but also the contexts where they have to be observant of established norms’ (p. 782). The research findings referred to in the Section ‘Ontologies of English for language learning and teaching’, regarding teachers’ ability to entertain multiple ontological commitments according to context, suggest that nuanced conceptualizations may be achievable when the contexts are clearly defined. Accordingly, TEEGL must emphasize the heightening of teachers’ awareness of both the inequalities intrinsic in the positioning of SE as uniquely ‘correct’ and desirable and learners’ real aspirations for, and others’ requirements of, SE in many contexts.

Principle 2: Regard for the local and historical contexts in which English is taught. This principle is related to the previous one. Many learners and teachers will find the concept of SE and classroom practices and the discourses which promote it familiar from standard language ideologies operating in their own cultural contexts, some of them even more deeply entrenched than in Anglophone cultures. In China, for example, a single N-language (first Classical Chinese, now Standard Mandarin) has been officially promoted for over 2,000 years (Liang 2015). Several scholars have recognized that this will shape teachers’ attitudes to diversity and norms in English (e.g. Hall et al. 2017b; Marr and English 2019). TEEGL programmes must, then, acknowledge (or, better, emerge from) local communities of practice and encounters between them, possibly resulting in the emergence of new ones (Canagarajah 2012). To do so, they will need to engage teachers not only with reflection on the ontological status of English, but also other languages (including those of teachers’ and learners’ own multilingual repertoires and those used in the broader educational context), as well as language as a general phenomenon. It will be important also to encourage teachers to reflect on the difference between the resources of English they help learners develop (I-Englishes) and the Englishing purposes for which they encourage learners to use them. These purposes should include articulation of their own local issues and concerns, rather than exclusively those of ‘Anglosphere cultures’ or global ELF communication.

Principle 3: Recognition of the top-down constraints within which teachers must operate. Teachers participating in in-service TE programmes will be continuously assessing the new ideas they are being asked to reflect on against the external considerations that constrain what they are able to do in the classroom. Such considerations include mandated curriculum content and activities, institutional policy and ethos, examination requirements, and parents’ expectations. All of these considerations are, as we have seen, based on the ontological categories of Englishry, and so their role should be explicitly addressed. TEEGL programmes must avoid offering easy solutions to local constraints

22

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

from afar, instead reminding teachers of their own agency (Ng and Boucher-Yip 2016) and capacity to effect change from the bottom-up (Hall and Wicaksono 2020b, Unit 5). Hult (2018), for example, suggests a practical way of achieving pre-service teachers’ engagement with policymaking and implementation, using role play.

Principle 4: Recognition of the role played by language(s) in broader issues of identity and social justice. I have argued in this chapter that dominant conceptualizations of ‘the English language’ are associated explicitly with, or implicitly filtered through the lens of, national identity (as N-English in the first case and P-English in the second). This may help teachers appreciate how the inherently multilingual and intercultural contexts of L2 teaching, learning and assessment inevitably enmesh English in broader issues of ideology, identity, values, power and social justice (cf. Hawkins 2011). Sharpe (1974) recognized that ideologies have two components: an ontology and a set of values. TEEGL programmes cannot, then, ignore the cultural and moral values associated with teachers’ different ontological beliefs, and must engage them in critical reflection on the origins, and possible transformation, of these beliefs, as appropriate to their assessment of local context. In line with this, Kubanyiova and Crookes (2016) advocate the (re-)affirmation of a moral dimension to teacher identities in twenty-first-century TE, acknowledging that ‘values are rarely engaged within language teacher education’ (p. 126).

Principle 5: Reconciliation between conceptualizations of English as (cognitive and conventional) system and as (social) practice. This principle guides the key proposal for effective TEEGL that I have advanced in this chapter. Having rejected the monolithic ‘N-English’ conceptualization of the language and acknowledged the P-English-inspired shortcomings of the traditional ‘cognitivist’ view of SLA, I argue that it is imperative for TEEGL to rehabilitate the notion of Englishes as (socio-)cognitive systems and to demonstrate how such a view is compatible with an ontology of Englishes as social practice (see 2.3). There have been rare calls for greater balance and reconciliation between cognitive and social approaches to Global Englishes (Hall 2013; Ortega 2018; Sridhar and Sridhar 1992), but they have yet to be heeded beyond isolated attempts such as the Changing Englishes course (Hall and Wicaksono 2020b).

Principle 6: Representation of language ontologies in an accessible form. Hall et al. (2013: 5) suggest that many teachers are put off by the ‘abstruse nature’ of much of the discourse of Critical Applied Linguistics which now underpins most contemporary GELT thinking. But equally the technical language of ontological analysis I have introduced here for English and language(s) in general would be at best off-putting and at worst impenetrable if incorporated directly into TEEGL. I have given earlier one example of how the ambiguous ontological status of grammar can be presented more accessibly (rule as ‘regularity’ vs ‘regulation’). In Hall and Cunningham (2020), we present a series of propositions reflecting the ontological commitments of EAL educators in Northern England using both the terminology of the Hall (2020) framework and more colloquial phrasing, precisely to make the findings of the study more useable in TE settings. And ontological reflection in TE can also take less technical forms. Coffey (2015),

INCORPORATING ONTOLOGICAL REFLECTION INTO TEACHER EDUCATION



23

for example, profitably engaged TE participants in ontological reflexivity regarding their perceptions of language(s) through the drawing of ‘language portraits’. The use of metaphor, both linguistic and visual, could provide a useful means for incorporating ontological reflection into TEEGL.

4  CONCLUSION In this chapter, I have presented a case for incorporating ontological reflection into teacher education for ELT. The proposal is motivated by the new global realities of English documented and critiqued by WE and associated socially oriented approaches. It highlights the formidable strength of the ontological and ideological challenges these new realities bring with them, which many teachers are struggling to acknowledge and confront. I argue that a cognitively oriented usage-based understanding of language can help bridge the conceptual gap, and I provide a set of principles for guiding the process. I imagine that the intellectual affiliations of a significant number of applied linguists reading this chapter will make them sceptical about embracing the rehabilitation of the cognitive that it espouses. But equally I predict that many practising teachers around the world would welcome its efforts to acknowledge and account for their concern with English as formal system, rather than seeing this dismissed or its existence denied. I believe that, if handled carefully, the adoption of TEEGL has the potential to lead to beneficial developments in both theory and practice. If nothing else, I hope the proposal presented here provokes further discussion of ontological matters in WE-informed teacher education.

REFERENCES Andrews, S. (1999), ‘Why Do L2 Teachers Need to ‘Know about Language’? Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Input for Learning’, Language and Education, 13 (3): 161–77. Barahona, M. (2018), ‘Trends in Teacher Development Programs’, in J. I. Liontas (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–14, New York: Wiley. Barbour, S. and C. Carmichael, eds (2000), Language and Nationalism in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barlow, M. (2013), ‘Individual Differences and Usage-Based Grammar’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18 (4): 443–78. Bartels, N. (2005), Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education, Dordrecht: Springer. Bayyurt, Y. and S. Akcan, eds (2015), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, Berlin: De Gruyter. Blair, A. (2015), ‘Evolving a Post-Native, Multilingual Model for ELF-Aware Teachers’, in Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, 89–102, Berlin: De Gruyter. 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. Brown, K. (1993), ‘World Englishes in TESOL Programs: An Infusion Model of Curricular Innovation’, World Englishes, 12 (1): 59–73. Canagarajah, S. (2012), ‘Teacher Development in a Global Profession: An Autoethnography’, TESOL Quarterly, 46 (2): 258–79.

24

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Canagarajah, S. (2013), Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations, London: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2014), ‘In Search of a New Paradigm for Teaching English as an International Language’, TESOL Journal, 5 (4): 767–85. Chomsky, N. (1986), Knowledge of Language, New York: Praeger. Coffey, S. (2015), ‘Reframing Teachers’ Language Knowledge Through Metaphor Analysis of Language Portraits’, Modern Language Journal, 99 (3): 500–514. 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, 121–34, Berlin: De Gruyter. Ellis, N. C., M. B. O’Donnell and U. Römer (2013), ‘Usage-Based Language: Investigating the Latent Structures That Underpin Acquisition’, Language Learning, 63 (1): 25–51. Eskildsen, S. (2008), ‘Constructing Another Language—Usage Based Linguistics in Second Language Acquisition’, Applied Linguistics, 30 (3): 335–57. Goldberg, A. (1995), Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Hall, C. J. (2013), ‘Cognitive Contributions to Plurilithic Views of English and Other Languages’, Applied Linguistics, 34: 211–31. Hall, C. J. (2018), ‘Cognitive Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 74–84, London: Routledge. Hall, C. J. (2020), ‘An Ontological Framework for English’, in C. J. Hall and R. Wicaksono (eds), Ontologies of English. Conceptualising the Language for Learning, Teaching, and Assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, C. J. and C. Cunningham (2020), ‘Educators’ Beliefs about English and Languages Beyond English: From Ideology to Ontology, and Back Again’, Linguistics and Education, 51, 1–14. Hall, C. J. and R. Wicaksono, eds (2020a), Ontologies of English. Conceptualising the Language for Learning, Teaching, and Assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, C. J. and R. Wicaksono (2020b), Changing Englishes, v.02.2, online at changingenglishes​ .onlin​e. Hall, C. J., J. Joyce and C. Robson (2017a), ‘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., R. Wicaksono, S. Liu, Y. Qian and X. Xu (2013), ‘English Reconceived: Raising Teachers’ Awareness of English as a ‘Plurilithic’ Resource Through an Online Course’, British Council ELT Research Papers, 13–05. Online at http://tinyurl​.com​/y8tnvslf. Hall, C. J., R. Wicaksono, S. Liu, Y. Qian and X. Xu (2017b), ‘Exploring Teachers’ Ontologies of English. Monolithic Conceptions of Grammar in a Group of Chinese Teachers’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27 (1): 87–109. Harris, R. (1981), The Language Myth, London: Duckworth. Harris, R. (1987), The Language Machine, London: Duckworth. Hawkins, M. R., ed. (2011), Social Justice Language Teacher Education, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hilpert, M. (2014), Construction Grammar and Its Application to English, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hult, F. M. (2018), ‘Engaging Pre-service English Teachers with Language Policy’, ELT Journal, 72 (3): 249–59. Johnson, K. E. (2016), ‘Language Teacher Education’, in G. Hall (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching, 121–33, London: Routledge.

INCORPORATING ONTOLOGICAL REFLECTION INTO TEACHER EDUCATION



25

Joseph, J. E. (2002), ‘Is Language a Verb? Conceptual Change in Linguistics and Language Teaching’, in H. R. Trappes-Lomax and G. Ferguson (eds), Language in Language Teacher Education, 29–47, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kachru, B. B. (1992), ‘Models for Non-native Englishes’, in B. B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 48–74, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). ‘Which Model of English: Native-Speaker, Nativized or Lingua Franca?’, in R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni (eds), English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles, 71–83, London: Continuum. Kohn, K. (2011), ‘English as a Lingua Franca and the Standard English Misunderstanding’, in A. de Hower and A. Wilton (eds), English in Europe Today: Sociocultural and Educational Perspectives, 71–94, Amsterdam: Benjamins. Kubanyiova, M. and G. Crookes (2016), ‘Re‐envisioning the Roles, Tasks, and Contributions of Language Teachers in the Multilingual Era of Language Education Research and Practice’, Modern Language Journal, 100 (1): 117–32. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012), Language Teacher Education for a Global Society: A Modular Model for Knowing, Analyzing, Recognizing, Doing, and Seeing, London: Routledge. Liang, S. (2015), Language Attitudes and Identities in Multilingual China, Dordrecht: Springer. Makoni, S. and A. Pennycook, eds (2007), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Marr, T. and F. English (2019), Rethinking TESOL in Diverse Global Settings, London: Bloomsbury. Matsuda, A., ed. (2017), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ng, P. C. and E. F. Boucher-Yip, eds (2016), Teacher Agency and Policy Response in English Language Teaching, London: Routledge. Onysko, A. (2016), ‘Modeling World Englishes from the Perspective of Language Contact’, World Englishes, 35 (2): 196–220. Ortega, L. (2018), ‘Ontologies of Language, Second Language Acquisition and World Englishes’, World Englishes, 37 (1): 64–79. Otheguy, R., O. García and W. Reid (2015), ‘Clarifying Translanguaging and Deconstructing Named Languages: A Perspective from Linguistics’, Applied Linguistics Review, 6 (3): 281–307. Parakrama, A. (1995), De-hegemonizing Language Standards, London: Macmillan. Pennycook, A. (2007a), ‘The Myth of English as an International Language’, in S. Makoni and A. Pennycook (eds), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, 90–115, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (2007b), 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, 194–207, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Pennycook, A. (2010), Language as a Local Practice, London: Routledge. Piller, I. (2015), ‘Language Ideologies’, in K. Tracy, T. Sandel and C. Ilie (eds), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 1–10, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. Preston, D. (2002), ‘The Story of Good and Bad English in the United States’, in R. Watts and P. Trudgill (eds), Alternative Histories of English, 134–52, London: Routledge. Quine, W. V. (1968), ‘Ontological Relativity’, Journal of Philosophy, 65 (7): 185–212. Rose, H. and N. Galloway (2019), Global Englishes for Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Schraw, G. (2013), ‘Conceptual Integration and Measurement of Epistemological and Ontological Beliefs in Educational Research’, ISRN Education, 1–19. Searle, J. R. (1969), Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (1999), ‘Double Standards: Teacher Education in the Expanding Circle’, World Englishes, 18 (2): 233–45. Sharpe, R. A. (1974), ‘Ideology and Ontology’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 4: 55–64. Sifakis, N. C. (2007), ‘The Education of Teachers of English as a Lingua Franca: A Transformative Perspective’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17 (3): 355–75. Sifakis, N. C. and Y. Bayyurt (2015), ‘Insights from ELF and WE in Teacher Training in Greece and Turkey’, World Englishes, 34 (3): 471–84. Sifakis, N. C. and Y. Bayyurt. (2018), ‘ELF-Aware Teaching, Learning and Teacher Development’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 456–67, London: Routledge. Simpson, A., ed. (2007), Language and National Identity in Asia, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sridhar, K. K. and S. N. Sridhar (1992), ‘Bridging the Paradigm Gap: Second-Language Acquisition Theory and Indigenized Varieties of English’, in B. B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue. English across Cultures, 91–107, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Suzuki, A. (2011), ‘Introducing Diversity of English into ELT: Student Teachers’ Responses’, ELT Journal, 65 (2): 145–53. Timmis, I. (2002), ‘Native-Speaker Norms and International English: A Classroom View’, ELT Journal, 56 (3): 240–9. Toolan, M. (2009), ‘Introduction: Language Teaching and Integrational Linguistics’, in M. Toolan (ed.), Language Teaching. Integrational Linguistic Approaches, 1–23, London: Routledge. Ullman, M. T. (2015), ‘The Declarative/Procedural Model. A Neurobiologically Motivated Theory of First and Second Language’, in B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction, 2nd edn, 135–58, London: Routledge. Vetchinnikova, S. (2017), ‘On the Relationship between the Cognitive and the Communal: A Complex Systems Perspective’, in M. Filppula, J. Klemola, A. Mauranen and S. Vetchinnikova (eds), Changing English: Global and Local Perspectives, 277–310, Berlin: De Gruyter. Widdowson, H. G. (1994), ‘The Ownership of English’, TESOL Quarterly, 28: 377–89. Widdowson, H. G. (2012), ‘ELF and the Inconvenience of Established Concepts’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1): 5–26. Young, T. J. and S. Walsh (2010), ‘Which English? Whose English? An Investigation of ‘Nonnative’ Teachers' Beliefs about Target Varieties’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 23 (2): 123–37. Young, T. J., S. Walsh and A. Schartner (2016), ‘Which English? Whose English? Teachers’ Beliefs, Attitudes and Practices’, British Council ELT Research Papers, 16–04.

Chapter 2

Language Development in the Global Englishes Classroom A Role for SLA Theoretical Inquiry DUSTIN CROWTHER

INTRODUCTION As evident by the very volume to which this chapter belongs, there is significant interest in how the global spread of English impacts both foreign (e.g., Brazil, Greece, and Japan) and second (e.g., Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) language teaching practice.1 Our current understanding of such practice draws from both fulllength theoretically oriented volumes (e.g., Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; MacKenzie 2014; Marlina and Giri 2014) and scholarship published in applied linguistics journals such as Applied Linguistics, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, System, TESOL Quarterly, and World Englishes. One common theme across such volumes has been an emphasis on raising both learners’ and teachers’ awareness of the global presence of English (e.g., Rose and Galloway 2019; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018). However, much pedagogical discussion has been devoid of theoretical considerations drawn from second language acquisition (SLA) scholarship, a stream of inquiry that has oftentimes existed in parallel, rather than conjunction, with global Englishes inquiry (Bolton and De Costa 2018). However, recent bridge building between cognitive- and social-oriented SLA (e.g., Douglas Fir Group 2016; Hulstijn, Young, Ortega, Bigelow, DeKeyser, Ellis, and Talmy 2014) has also served to enable bridge building between SLA and global Englishes practice (De Costa and Crowther 2018). Gass with Behney and Plonsky (2013) stated, “it is essential to understand how [second languages] are acquired in general, if we are to understand how they are acquired in a particular context” (427). Taking this quote as a starting point, in this chapter I build upon what little scholarship exists in regards to applying SLA theory to global Englishes pedagogical practices and highlight how a theoretical perspective of SLA might inform future pedagogical practice in regards to addressing global Englishes in foreign and second language classrooms. Before moving forward, I would first like to take a moment to discuss terminology, specifically in regards to the use of English as an international language (EIL) and English as a lingua franca (ELF). There has been a lack of clarity in how these two commonly

28

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

used descriptors align/overlap (Galloway and Rose 2015). For example, Bolton (2018) viewed both as falling within a broad view of World Englishes, with ELF serving as a contextualized extension of EIL which emphasizes multilingual settings such as universities and businesses. Baker (2015) differentiated the two through the status each assigns to different English varieties. Both Low (2015) and Sifakis (2019) viewed EIL as subsuming ELF, while Jenkins (2018) presented ELF as a contemporary representation of EIL. Following Galloway and Rose (2015), I here utilize Global Englishes (GE) as an umbrella term. I do so specifically as both EIL and ELF, however conceived relationally, are “concerned with similar subject matter such as language attitudes and ideology, language policy and pedagogy, pragmatics, identity, culture and language” with a primary focus on “the linguistic and sociocultural dimensions of global uses and users of English” (Baker 2015: 11). In the chapter that follows I first identify the fault lines that have traditionally divided SLA and GE inquiry. I next describe how a ‘Social Turn’ in SLA (Block 2003) has helped to erode these fault lines. I finally identify ways in which contemporary SLA theorizing can inform how we address GE in the foreign and second language classroom without foregoing what makes GE unique in our current global landscape. I conclude by making a call for more empirically oriented GE pedagogical inquiry, which considers how proposed GE classroom practices inform second language development.2

SLA WITHIN GLOBAL ENGLISHES PRACTICE As part of a larger special issue on bridging SLA and World Englishes scholarship (see Bolton and De Costa 2018), De Costa and Crowther (2018) provided a historical overview of SLA scholarship, and specifically highlighted how in the past fifteen to twenty years theoretical understanding had shifted away from a heavy cognitive orientation (see Table 2.1) to a more balanced emphasis between the cognitive and the social factors of SLA (see Table 2.2). A greater emphasis on the social in SLA has been referred to as a ‘Social Turn’ (Block 2003) and is often traced back to a critique written by Firth and Wagner (1997), of whom I return to shortly. Importantly, while initially the cognitivesocial discussion might have been perceived as confrontational, recent years have seen an emphasis on bridge building (Hulstijn et al. 2014) and transdisciplinary approaches (Douglas Fir Group 2016). As previously referenced, Firth and Wagner (1997) typically serves as a seminal publication in promoting a greater emphasis on social considerations of SLA. Firth and Wagner specifically criticized mainstream cognitive SLA on three key dimensions:

1. A heavy Chomskyan/psycholinguistic bias which neglected social and contextual factors;



2. An emphasis on native norms as the target to be acquired by nonnative learners; and



3. An assumption that nonnative interaction was deficient compared to native interaction.

Of interest in the current discussion is that Firth and Wagner’s critiques align strongly with arguments that permeate GE views on classroom practice, where native norms no longer serve as the benchmark for ensuring communicative success and language errors are reconceptualized as language variants (e.g., Jenkins 2006). In addition, MacKenzie (2014)

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL ENGLISHES CLASSROOM



29

TABLE 2.1  Cognitive-oriented SLA Theories (as presented in VanPatten and Williams 2020) Theory

Authora

Linguistic Theory

Lydia White

Functional Approaches

Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

Usage-Based Approaches

Nick C. Ellis and Stefanie Wulff

Skill Acquisition Theory

Robert DeKeyser

Input Processing

Bill VanPatten

Declarative/Procedural Model

Michael T. Ullman

Processability Theory

Manfred Pienemann and Anke Lenzing

Interaction Approach

Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey

Authorship assigned based on VanPatten, Keating and Wulff (2020).

a

TABLE 2.2  Social-oriented SLA Theories (as presented in Atkinson 2011) Theory

Authora

Sociocultural Theoryb

James P. Lantolf

Complexity Theoryb

Diane Larsen-Freeman

Identity Approach

Bonny Norton and Carolyn McKinney

Language Socialization

Patricia A. Duff and Steven Talmy

Conversation-Analytic Approach

Gabriele Kasper and Johannes Wagner

Sociocognitive Approach

Dwight Atkinson

Authorship assigned based on Atkinson (2011).

a

Sociocultural Theory (Larsen-Freeman) and Complexity Theory (Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner) also appeared as the final two chapters of VanPatten, Keating and Wulff (2020). b

described ELF interactions as “likely to include borrowing, code-switching, and other types of crosslinguistic interaction” (4), further cementing a push away from native interaction conventions as a pedagogical target. In describing the dissolution of fault lines between SLA and World Englishes scholarship, De Costa and Crowther (2018) specifically identified the contextual shift from learner to user and error to variant as two key gaps that have been bridged (with a third being a shift from a monolingual- to multilingual-emphasis; see Ortega 2013). Important to the current discussion is how such bridge building might inform pedagogical practice.

PEDAGOGICAL INQUIRY IN SLA Despite thirty-plus years of SLA-oriented research, there still exists a gap between researchers’ empirical practice and teachers’ classroom application (e.g., Sato and Loewen 2019a). This is a curious gap, given the claim of Gass with Behney and Plonsky (2013) that

30

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

“it would be counter productive to base language-teaching methodologies on something other than an understanding of how language learning does and does not take place” (2). One specific stream of inquiry that has emphasized the application of theory to classroom practice is instructed second language acquisition (ISLA), which is “concerned with the manipulation of the processes and mechanisms of [second language] learning” (Loewen and Sato 2018: 286). Such manipulations have included (but have not been limited to) “the processing and internalization of input; the restructuring, internalization and storage of [second language] knowledge; and the production of [second language] output” (Loewen and Sato 2017: 3). Importantly, research into these manipulations have spanned a range of theoretical considerations: cognitive, psychological, sociocultural, and sociological (Sato and Loewen 2019b). Of relevance to the current conversation is that recent publications (e.g., Leow 2019; Sato and Loewen 2019b) emphasized how empirical research may inform curricular development in regards to classroom practice, with proposals drawn from empirically based learning outcomes (i.e., analyzing changes in linguistic performance over time, typically following some form of pedagogical intervention). Given SLA’s emphasis on understanding the language acquisition process in general, it should not be surprising that ISLA research has remained relatively language neutral. Yet, as has been well documented, English “has reached unprecedented heights of global importance” (De Costa and Crowther 2018: 19), which in turn has led to a significant increase in pedagogically oriented literature on how to address such importance in the classroom. Such emphasis on global English usage has led to a variety of pedagogical proposals, which, whether intentional or not, directly relate to the manipulation of the learning processes referenced above. Of concern, as I will elaborate on later in the chapter, is that while ISLA pedagogical proposals are generally based on empirically derived learning outcomes, GE pedagogical proposals have derived primarily from theoretical beliefs, with limited in-class research.

OVERVIEW OF PEDAGOGICAL RESEARCH IN GLOBAL ENGLISHES As referenced at the outset, much GE inquiry has emphasized the need to reconceptualize English language teaching in light of globalization and the continued growth in usage of English as a global lingua franca. Thus, it is not surprising that we have seen a range of pedagogically oriented publications (e.g., Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; Marlina and Giri 2014). Across such publications, however, There is a notable lack of pedagogy-focused research emerging from the ELF paradigm, where there are continued calls for more ELF-aware language teaching, accompanied by an imbalance of pedagogical research . . . we have a paucity of research into what ELF innovation in classrooms looks like. (Rose and Galloway 2019: 112; emphasis added) In addition to this ‘paucity’, a review of existing empirical classroom research under the banner of GE shows a strong preference towards investigating and addressing students’ and teachers’ awareness of, attitudes towards, and beliefs about GE (Crowther and Maloney, forthcoming). I here provide just a few examples of how this emphasis has been targeted in GE pedagogical inquiry.3 Matsuda (2003) investigated how high school Japanese learners viewed the ownership of English. By utilizing a questionnaire, student and teacher interviews, and English class

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL ENGLISHES CLASSROOM



31

observations, Matsuda found that while students did perceive English as an international language, they still conceded ownership primarily to American and British speakers. Matsuda highlighted how this view did not necessarily align with that of language specialists, who advocated for the role of nonnative speakers. She concluded by proposing a need for greater classroom focus on developing awareness of and familiarity with different English varieties, along with providing more personal contact with non-US/ European users. Extending the focus on Japan, Ishikawa (2017) focused on what he deemed first language Japanese English users’ negative attitudes towards ELF. He employed a ten-item open-ended questionnaire and eighteen interviews to delve into these perceived attitudes. Ishikawa highlighted how his ninety-five university participants’ negative attitudes are likely rooted in the emphasis placed on native norms in Japanese-based English teaching. He also indicated that his students appeared to be malleable in their negativity and open to a more positive attitude if they were provided with greater recognition of how English can serve as a medium of international communication. Though Japan has remained the primary source of such student awareness and attitude-based inquiry (e.g., Yoshikawa 2005), similar research has been conducted with [second language] English users in China (e.g., Pan and Block 2011), Hong Kong (e.g., Sung 2015), South Korea (Ahn and Kang 2017), Taiwan (Tsou and Chen 2014), and Turkey (Kaypak and Ortactepe 2014). As evident in both Matsuda (2003) and Ishikawa (2017) mentioned earlier, such inquiry has relied strongly on the use of surveys and questionnaires, with student interviews also commonly utilized (see also Crowther 2019). Though not the primary focus of the current chapter, it is also important to note the prevalence of research focused on understanding English language teachers’ awareness of, attitudes towards, and beliefs about GE (e.g., Luo 2017; Timmis 2002). Drawing from such interests, it is unsurprising that we have seen an increased emphasis on pedagogical interventions designed to address the GE awareness, attitudes, and beliefs of both students and teachers. Galloway and Rose (2014) asked 108 students enrolled in a GE course to complete a listening journal based on approximately ten minutes of listening a week to different English varieties (representative of inner, outer, and expanding circle varieties; Kachru 1982). Speakers were primarily drawn from digital audio and audio internet-based resources, with the researchers (one of whom also served as teacher) additionally bringing guest speakers to class. A subset of ten students also completed interviews at the end of the course, which targeted students’ general attitudes towards the GE-themed course. Through concept-driven and data-driven coding, the journals were found to be effective for exposing students to diverse Englishes, though the assignment appeared to have little impact on communicative strategy development and may have even promoted stereotyping of different English varieties. The authors discussed the pedagogical benefits of the assignment, as well as strategies to work around the potential shortcomings (see Rose and Galloway 2019, for discussion of how such an assignment may fit into a larger GE-oriented curriculum). In addition to the aforementioned study, several pedagogically oriented studies have considered teaching targets for the GE classroom (e.g., Jenkins 2002; Timmis 2002; Yang and Zhang 2015; Zoghbor 2018). While Galloway and Rose’s (2014) treatment emphasized the student, Ates, Eslami, and Wright (2015) considered an intervention with preservice-English language teachers. They employed a pre-/post-design in which 215 preservice teachers completed an ESL methodology course. Participants completed a thirty-one-item questionnaire at the outset and conclusion of the course, which targeted their ‘beliefs about language

32

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

learning’, ‘perceptions about linguistic diversity and English varieties’, and ‘desire for communication’ (490). In general, the authors found that classroom activities helped to raise the preservice teachers’ awareness of all target themes, with a video-based assignment on different English varieties the most effective. GE-oriented research into preservice English language teachers can also be seen in Blair (2017), Lim (2016), and Suzuki (2011). As seen earlier, GE pedagogical scholarship has considered not only an understanding of what awareness, attitudes, and beliefs students and teachers possess, but also how to pedagogically address each. This emphasis on awareness, attitudes, and beliefs is central to several large-scale pedagogical proposals from GE, including Rose and Galloway’s (2019) Global Englishes for Language Teaching (GELT) and Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2018) ELF-Aware Pedagogy. I here argue not against the importance of awareness, attitudes, and beliefs in GE pedagogy, but for a need to consider how such pedagogical approaches impact upon language acquisition, or as redefined next, language development (Larsen-Freeman 2015).

FITTING THE THEORETICAL INTO GLOBAL ENGLISHES PEDAGOGY Given the reconceptualization of learner to user, error to variant, and monolingualism to multilingualism that might serve as a bridge between SLA and GE (De Costa and Crowther 2018), I draw upon Larsen-Freeman (2015) in forwarding another reconceptualization: language acquisition as language development. Framing her discussion from the perspective of Complexity Theory, Larsen-Freeman provided twelve reasons as to why ‘development’ is a more appropriate term for viewing second language learning than is ‘acquisition’. I here highlight only a few reasons, specifically those directly relevant to the discussion thus far put forth:

1. Acquiring a language implies there is an ‘endpoint’



2. Discouraging comparisons with individuals



3. Making meaning, not merely acquiring forms



4. Acknowledging variation



5. Acquiring a language is not a homogenous activity

At the holistic level, Larsen-Freeman’s proposals emphasized that each user’s path of development is likely to diverge, and thus a focus on their ability to make meaning is of greater consequence than the specificity of forms acquired. Drawing further on these proposals, Larsen-Freeman (2018) proposed Complexity Theory as a theoretical lens for understanding language development within GE. I review in the following text LarsenFreeman’s proposed usage of Complexity Theory, along with a pair of other discussions on applying SLA theory to GE. Complexity Theory stresses the interconnectedness of the various components of a system (Larsen-Freeman 2018). In terms of language development, rather than an emphasis on any one component of the language system (e.g., grammar, lexicon, and phonology), Complexity Theory views language development as emerging through an interaction between components. A change in one component leads to a reorganization of the entire language system. For language, given the variety of exchanges a user is likely

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL ENGLISHES CLASSROOM



33

to engage in, we can view the language system as dynamic, constantly reorganizing itself based on new resources encountered across interactions (Larsen-Freeman 2018). The applicability to such an understanding of language development to GE is intuitive and appealing. Given the range of linguistic backgrounds of GE users, no single GE interaction is going to be the same, thus the resources utilized and encountered will always vary to some extent, requiring subsequent reorganization of the language system. This may also help to understand why we should not expect any specific ‘global variety’ of English to develop (Mortensen 2013). Larsen-Freeman (2018) described Complexity Theory as a metatheory, in which more specialized theories might nest. In Hall (2018), the application of several cognitive perspectives on second language development was considered, specifically Usage-Based (Ellis and Wulff 2020) and Declarative/Procedural (Ullman 2020) approaches. Both might be seen as possibilities to nest within a Complexity Theory-based understanding of language development within GE. Hall highlighted that within GE interactions, users’ language processing mechanisms are more similar than different when compared to those utilized during native interaction, with any difference based on the absence of a predetermined norm. Developmentally, Hall proposed that while GE users developed declarative knowledge (i.e., knowledge with awareness) through classroom practice oriented around a standard norm, users also developed procedural knowledge (i.e., knowledge without awareness) through naturalistic exposure. For GE users who are exposed to a greater variety of English speech (specifically nonstandard usage), we would predict greater divergence from a standard norm than we would for a native speaker, and, for this, divergence to be evident in subsequent usage. A final reference to theoretical considerations is presented in Rose and Galloway (2019), who aligned their GELT framework with the bi/multilingual emphasis of Ortega (2013), amongst others. They specifically made reference to how Usage-Based and Functional approaches may help to understand SLA within GE pedagogical approaches, but were careful not to make any concrete claims, given that [e]ven teachers who want to instigate change may not know how to do so due to a lack of knowledge . . . Even if teachers embrace SLA theory that promotes the importance of multilingualism, the fluidity of language, and sees language learning as a social practice, they may face difficulties regarding how this translates to classroom practices. (Rose and Galloway 2019: 78) Specifically, Rose and Galloway referenced the theory-practice divide between SLA and teaching of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) practitioners, a divide which SLA scholars are now looking to more explicitly address (e.g., Sato and Loewen 2019a,b). As referenced earlier, one push to address this theory-practice divide is through ISLA research. Specifically, “ISLA researchers endeavor to provide teachers with evidence-based pedagogy by conducting empirical investigations” (Sato and Loewen 2019b: 1). Theoretically, such research is frequently framed within one of four theoretical frameworks: input processing, skill acquisition theory, the interactionist approach, and sociocultural theory (Sato and Loewen 2019b).4 These four theories are of interest because each emphasizes elements that can be directly manipulated in the language classroom. I below only briefly touch on the bases of each; for a more in-depth understanding of each, please refer to general SLA volumes such as Mitchell, Myles, and Marsden (2019) or VanPatten, Keating, and Wulff (2020).

34

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Input processing, most commonly associated with Bill VanPatten (e.g., 1990), focuses on initial form-meaning connections during second language processing. As the name implies, the emphasis is in how meaning is derived from input on a moment-to-moment basis, with research having considered a range of principles that informs these early stages of processing. As an example, the First Noun Principle proposes that learners will initially process the first noun or pronoun as the subject of a sentence, which, in English, would mean that “Peter gave the ball to Alice” and “Peter was given the ball by Alice” would be interpreted in the same way. Input processing has been pedagogically operationalized as processing instruction, a pedagogical approach designed to draw students’ attention to formal properties of the second language that are potentially problematic. Skill acquisition theory (e.g., DeKeyser 2020) emphasizes the role of practice in transitioning declarative knowledge (knowledge we are aware we possess; i.e., knowledge that) to procedural knowledge (knowledge we can actively use; i.e., knowledge how), and eventually automaticity (i.e., knowledge used without thinking). In simplest terms, in the English language classroom, a teacher might teach a rule (e.g., the use of past tense in telling a story) and then utilize tasks designed to allow students to use this rule (practicing telling stories in the past tense). Enough such practice (accompanied by teacher feedback) enables a shift from consciously employing the rule (declarative knowledge) to using the rule with increased accuracy and fluency (procedural knowledge).5 An interactionist approach is commonly drawn upon in ISLA research (Sato and Loewen 2019b) given the potential to optimize key elements in the classroom to promote [second language] development. Specifically, an interactionist approach stresses the input students receive, the output they are pushed to produce, and the feedback they receive on their productions, all while engaging in meaningful interactions (either with fellow students or their teachers). Of particular interest is how breakdowns in communication promote negotiation of meaning, in which students are able to (a) identify gaps in their target language knowledge and (b) draw upon corrective feedback to fill these knowledge gaps. Pedagogically, an interactionist approach has strong ties to communicative language teaching, and more contemporary pedagogical methods, including content-based and task-based instruction. Finally, sociocultural theory similarly focuses on the developmental benefits of interaction, but places a greater emphasis on the co-construction of knowledge between interlocutors (Lantolf, Thorne, and Poehner 2020). A key element of sociocultural theory is that “development can be described as the process of gaining greater voluntary control over one’s capacity to think and act” (Lantolf et al. 2020: 209). This control is often described through the use of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, where students, through mediation provided by another person, are able to take part in tasks that they cannot perform alone and, in doing so, appropriate the skills and knowledge to allow them to eventually perform the task on their own. Pedagogically, instructors drawing on sociocultural theory aim to promote social relationships conducive to learning and draw upon concept-based instruction to help facilitate the internalization of language concepts (Sato and Loewen 2019b). The aforementioned brief discussion raises two considerations when applying SLA theory to GE pedagogical research. First, the same variety in theoretical orientation that exists amongst SLA scholars applies to theoretical views on English language development within a GE paradigm. It is important to note here that this brief discussion only touches upon two of the social-oriented SLA theories presented in Table 2.2, many of which would seem highly relevant to GE usage (e.g., Erling 2007; Sung 2016 would both fall within

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL ENGLISHES CLASSROOM



35

the scope of an Identity Approach). Second, the theory-practice divide that exists amongst SLA researchers and language teachers is in no way mitigated by a specific focus on GE. GE awareness-raising is at the core of Sifakis and Bayyurt’s (2018) ELF-Aware Pedagogy, an approach which should help to bridge the theory-practice divide. However, as highlighted in Doğançay-Aktuna and Hardman (2018), awareness-raising may not be enough “to bring about sweeping changes in attitudes and especially in pedagogical practices” (83). It is here where I would argue that providing teachers with classroom-based research on the effects of GE pedagogy on language development would be of strong value.

USING ISLA RESEARCH AS A GUIDE TO FURTHER GE PEDAGOGICAL INQUIRY As already referenced, existing GE pedagogical inquiry emphasizes the effects of classroom treatment on students’ awareness of, attitudes towards, and beliefs about GE. Such approaches have generally been shown to be effective in regards to producing more positive perspectives. However, there has yet to be any attempt to investigate how increased awareness and more positive attitudes and beliefs might impact upon students’ English language development. Again, the use of development over acquisition (following Larsen-Freeman 2015) allows for some leeway in how we might go about measuring such impact. Whereas acquisition-oriented studies might concern themselves with how consistently a student correctly produces a grammatical form, how quickly they retrieve a lexical item, or how accurately they can perceive/produce the components of a minimal pair, development-oriented studies would emphasize students’ ability to create, convey, and negotiate meaning within intercultural exchanges. This is of course not a novel argument (e.g., see Canagarajah 2013), and, indeed, much GE research has emphasized the varied and creative ways in which GE users go about such creation, conveying, and negotiation (e.g., Pitzl 2012). However, such studies are often devoid of reference to users’ proficiency, and are instead focused on the language produced. How these users came to develop the language under analysis is an open question, and one that more hands-on, development-oriented GE classroom inquiry would serve to address. Pedagogical proposals put forth from ISLA research are strongly based upon knowledge drawn from outcome measures (i.e., analyzing linguistic performance to measure the effect of a manipulation to the processes and mechanisms of [second language] learning). GE pedagogy that emphasizes awareness-raising is in essence manipulating these same processes and mechanisms, in many cases by exposing students to the range of English language users they might encounter (e.g., Galloway and Rose 2014). At the very least, greater exposure means more varied input, a key component of SLA central to all theories (VanPatten et al. 2020). This input is likely to vary across linguistic domains, such as phonology, grammar, lexicon, and pragmatics. The majority of SLA theories referenced earlier (complexity, declarative/procedural, functional, interactionist approach, skill acquisition theory, sociocultural theory, usage-based), all allow for an analysis of language development by placing an emphasis on how language usage changes over time (Bardovi-Harlig 2020; DeKeyser 2020; Ellis and Wulff 2020; Gass and Mackey 2020; Lantolf et al. 2020; Larsen-Freeman 2018). Thus, development is not measured based on predefined linguistic accuracy, but on changes in language output. From a GE perspective, measuring changes in output over time allows for much flexibility in understanding the effects of classroom interventions, whether interest be in how a GE approach impacts

36

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

upon students’ underlying representation of the language (as might be seen in more traditional, cognitive SLA) or students’ ability to successfully navigate multilingual (and multicultural) exchanges (of particular interest to GE users). Such empirical research which (a) emphasizes development over acquisition, and (b) demonstrates an effect of GE pedagogy on student outcomes would likely not only serve to help promote the ‘sweeping changes’ amongst English language teachers’ pedagogical practices referenced earlier, but would also hold true to the values that drove the push for GE-oriented pedagogy in the first place.

EXAMPLE OF A PROPOSED ISLA-BASED GE PEDAGOGICAL INTERVENTION STUDY I here return to Galloway and Rose (2014), described earlier, to highlight how such an awareness-based intervention might be extended to an analysis of language development. As a brief reminder, Galloway and Rose targeted students’ attitudes towards different varieties of English, and whether such attitudes were malleable based on weekly exposure to different English accents. They investigated these attitudes through an analysis of reflection journals (and interview comments from a subset of students). Without changing the pedagogical intervention, this same study is quite amendable to incorporating a stronger ISLA perspective. In essence, these students are receiving significant exposure to authentic English input, a key element of successful second language development. The difference between current GE and ISLA scholarship is that while GE scholars (in this case Galloway and Rose) are interested in whether students’ attitudes change, ISLA scholars would be interested in whether exposure to this range of English accents leads to increased listening comprehension for students when exposed to this range of accents. In fact, the ability to comprehend a range of English accents has been an important topic in second language assessment in recent years (e.g., Kang, Thomson, and Moran 2019). The basic skeleton of a proposed study of listening development using Galloway and Rose’s GE intervention is provided in Table 2.3. I quickly note that while the proposed study emphasizes the ISLA interests discussed earlier, I am not implying that the original objective of Galloway and Rose need be overlooked. In fact, combining the original and proposed studies would strongly support the increasing usage of mixed-methods approaches (Khany and Tazik 2019; King and Mackey 2016) in applied linguistics research.

CONCLUSION I have highlighted earlier how increased alignment between SLA and GE scholarship (De Costa and Crowther 2018) can allow for advances in empirically oriented GE pedagogical practice. A primary empirical emphasis on students’/teachers’ awareness of, attitudes towards, and beliefs about GE (Crowther 2019; Crowther and Maloney, forthcoming) has served as a basis for several significant proposals for addressing GE in foreign/second language classrooms (e.g., Rose and Galloway 2019; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018). A logical next step is to empirically investigate how such proposals impact upon students’ English language development. Loewen and Sato (2017) state, “it is all well and good to say that [second language] instruction is effective, but we also need to ask ourselves, Effective for what? In other words, what is the goal of [second language] instruction?” (3; emphasis in original). Current GE pedagogical proposals appear to work in reverse when compared

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL ENGLISHES CLASSROOM



37

TABLE 2.3  Summary of a proposed listening development study based on Galloway and Rose’s (2014) awareness-raising pedagogy Research Question Does weekly exposure to different varieties of English (native and nonnative) increase second language English users’ ability to comprehend aural English input across a range of English accents? Outcome Measure + Task

• Listening Task Score • Following Kang et al. (2019), TOEFL-based listening texts are recorded by speakers of various English accents, with excerpts presented to students. • Students answer a series of multiple-choice, ordering, and matching questions (i.e., closed responses).

Design

• Two classes, one class which receives Galloway and Rose’s GE intervention and one class which does not. • Each class completes the listening comprehension task prior to (i.e., pretest) and post (i.e., posttest) intervention. If possible, classes would complete the same task again several weeks/months later (i.e., delayed posttest).

Analysis

• Listening Task Score serves as dependent variable • Class (treatment/no treatment) and Time (pre/post/delayed) serve as independent variables • A regression analysis tests whether Class or Time predicts Listening Task Score (interpreting both p-value, but more importantly, R2 as a measure of variance in Listening Task Score explained).6

(Potential) Interpretation

Results would indicate whether the GE intervention (i.e., exposure to a range of English accents) led to greater increased ability to comprehend aural input produced in a range of English accents. Greater listening comprehension of the treatment group over the nontreatment group would provide further support for an awareness-based pedagogical approach to English language teaching, one which can account for both language development and what makes GE unique.

Notes: See Kang and Lu 2019, who similarly presented a GE-inspired listening development study at the 2019 American Association for Applied Linguistics conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

with Loewen and Sato’s statement. There is a clear goal, which we might summarize along the lines of ‘increased awareness of GE will lead to increased functionality in intercultural contact’, but there has been little research into the effectiveness of such instruction. Does increased awareness lead to increased functionality in intercultural contact? I propose, building upon existing GE pedagogical proposals, that empirically based GE pedagogical scholarship now needs to begin to look into the actual effectiveness of such proposals.

NOTES 1. I here use ‘second’ and ‘foreign’ in reference to traditional second language acquisition distinctions of learning contexts, with ‘second’ referring to learning where English is

38

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

the first language of the community and ‘foreign’ referring to learning where English is not the first language of the community (VanPatten and Benati 2010). As raised by an anonymous reviewer, the use of English in countries such as India, Singapore, and South Africa (traditionally referred to as Outer-Circle English countries within Kachru’s, 1982, Concentric Circle model) problematizes this distinction given that English, though typically not users’ mother tongue, serves as a significant community language. 2. I recognize that for many English users English may in fact be a third or fourth (or even greater) acquired language. The use of ‘second language’ here is aligned with existing SLA scholarship which uses the term to refer to any language acquired after the first (Loewen 2015). 3. The full data set, to be published in Crowther and Maloney (forthcoming), includes fortyeight studies across fifteen journals (2004-2018). A thematic coding indicated that thirty-two of these studies emphasized inquiry into students’/teachers’ awareness of, attitudes towards, and beliefs about GE. 4. Sato and Loewen (2019b) also refer to complexity theory, though note that there exists limited evidence-based pedagogy to inform classroom practice. 5. An anonymous reviewer referenced automatized explicit knowledge as a potential construct of interest. This construct extends directly out of ongoing discussion on and research into explicit and implicit knowledge (often used synonymously with declarative and procedural knowledge; see DeKeyser 2020). Given the ongoing debate regarding how such knowledge is measured (e.g., Ellis 2005; Suzuki 2017; Vafaee, Suzuki, and Kachinske 2017), such a discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter. 6. To limit complexity, I here imply the use of a basic regression model, though, to account for likely class and student random effects, a mixed-effects approach is actually encouraged.

REFERENCES Ahn, S.-Y. and H.-S. Kang (2017), ‘South Korean University Students’ Perceptions of Different English Varieties and Their Contribution to the Learning of English as a Foreign Language’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38 (8): 712–25. Ates, B., Z. R. Eslami and K. L. Wright (2015), ‘Incorporating World Englishes into Undergraduate ESL Education Courses’, World Englishes, 34 (1): 485–501. Atkinson, D., ed. (2011), Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, New York: Routledge. Baker, W. (2015), Culture and Identity Through English as a Lingua Franca, Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2020), ‘One Functional Approach to SLA: The Concept-Oriented Approach’, in B. VanPatten and G. Keating and S. Wulff (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 3rd edn, 40–61, New York: Routledge. Bayyurt, Y. and S. Akcan, eds (2015), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. Blair, A. (2017), ‘Standard Language Models, Variable Lingua Franca Goals: How Can ELF Aware Teacher Education Square the Circle?’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 6 (2): 345–66. Block, D. (2003), The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bolton, K. (2018), ‘World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition’, World Englishes, 37 (1): 5–18.

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL ENGLISHES CLASSROOM



39

Bolton, K. and P. I. De Costa (2018), ‘World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition: Introduction’, World Englishes, 37 (1): 2–4. Canagarajah, S. (2013), ‘Redefining Proficiency in Global English’, in N. Zacharias and C. Manara (eds), Contextualizing the Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Issues and Tensions, 2–11, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Crowther, D. (2019), ‘Addressing Pedagogical Inquiry in World Englishes’, in P. I. De Costa, D. Crowther and J. Maloney (eds), Investigating World Englishes: Research Methodology and Practical Applications, 147–86, New York: Routledge. Crowther, D. and J. Maloney (forthcoming), ‘Pedagogical Inquiry in Global Englishes: A Synthesis’. De Costa, P. I. and D. Crowther (2018), ‘SLA and World Englishes: Establishing a Dialogue and Common Reserve’, World Englishes, 37 (1): 19–33. DeKeyser, R. (2020), ‘Skill Acquisition Theory’, in B. VanPatten, G. Keating and S. Wulff (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 3rd edn, 83–103, New York: Routledge. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. and J. Hardman (2018), ‘Teaching of English as an International Language in Various Contexts: Nothing Is as Practical as Good Theory’, RELC Journal, 49 (1): 74–87. Douglas Fir Group. (2016), ‘A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World’, The Modern Language Journal, 100 (1): 19–47. Ellis, N. C. and S. Wulff (2020), ‘Usage-Based Approaches to SLA’, in B. VanPatten, G. Keating and S. Wulff (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 3rd edn, 63–81, New York: Routledge. Ellis, R. (2005), ‘Measuring Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of a Second Language’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2): 141–72. Erling, E. (2007), ‘Local Identities, Global Connections: Affinities to English Among Students at the Freie Universität Berlin’, World Englishes, 26 (2): 111–30. Firth, A. and J. Wagner (1997), ‘On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental Concepts in SLA Research’, The Modern Language Journal, 81 (3): 285–300. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2014), ‘Using Listening Journals to Raise Awareness of Global Englishes in ELT’, ELT Journal, 68 (4): 386–96. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2015), Introducing Global Englishes, New York: Routledge. Gass, S. M. and A. Mackey (2020), ‘Input, Interaction, and Output in Second Language Acquisition’, in B. VanPatten, G. Keating and S. Wulff (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 3rd edn, 192–221, New York: Routledge. Gass, S. with J. Behney and L. Plonsky (2013), Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course, 4th edn, New York: Routledge. Hall, C. J. (2018), ‘Cognitive Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 74–84, New York: Routledge. Hulstijn, J. H., R. F. Young, L. Ortega, M. Bigelow, R. DeKeyser, N. C. Ellis, ... and S. Talmy (2014), ‘Bridging the Gap: Cognitive and Social Approaches to Research in Second Language Learning and Teaching’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36 (3): 361–421. Ishikawa, T. (2017), ‘Japanese University Students’ Attitudes Towards Their English and the Possibility of ELF Awareness’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 6 (2): 237–63. Jenkins, J. (2002), ‘A Sociolinguistically Based, Empirically Researched Pronunciation Syllabus for English as an International Language’, Applied Linguistics, 23 (1): 83–103 Jenkins, J. (2006), ‘Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca’, TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1): 157–81.

40

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Jenkins, J. (2018), ‘ELF and WE: Competing or Complementing Paradigms?’, in E. L. Low and A. Pakir (eds), World Englishes: Rethinking Paradigms, 12–28, New York: Routledge. Kachru, B. B. (1982), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kang, O. and D. Lu (2019), ‘The Effects of World Englishes-Oriented Instruction on Students’ Listening Comprehension Skills in EFL Classrooms’, Presented at the 2019 American Association for Applied Linguistics conference, Atlanta, Georgia. Kang, O., R. Thomson and M. Moran (2019), ‘The Effects of International Accents and Shared First Language on Listening Comprehension Tests’, TESOL Quarterly, 53 (1): 56–81. Kaypak, E. and D. Ortactepe (2014), ‘Language Learner Beliefs and Study Abroad: A Study on English as a Lingua Franca’, System, 42: 355–67. Khany, R. and K. Tazik (2019), ‘Levels of Statistical Use in Applied Linguistics Research Articles: From 1986 to 2015’, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 26 (1): 48–65. King, K. A. and A. Mackey (2016), ‘Research Methodology in Second Language Studies: Trends, Concerns, and New Directions’, The Modern Language Journal, 100 (s1): 209–27. Lantolf, J. P., S. L. Thorne and M. E. Poehner (2020), ‘Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Development’, in B. VanPatten, G. Keating and S. Wulff (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 3rd edn, 223–46, New York: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015), ‘Saying What We Mean: Making a Case for ‘Language Acquisition’ to Become “Language Development”’, Language Teaching, 48 (4): 491–505. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018), ‘Complexity and ELF’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 51–60, New York: Routledge. Leow, R., ed. (2019), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Research in Classroom Learning, New York: Routledge. Lim, S. (2016), ‘Learning to Teach Intelligible Pronunciation for ASEAN English as a Lingua Franca: A Sociocultural Investigation of Cambodian Pre-Service Teacher Cognition and Practice’, RELC Journal, 47 (3): 313–29. Loewen, S. (2015), Introduction to Instructed Second Language Acquisition, New York: Routledge. Loewen, S. and M. Sato (2017), ‘Instructed Second Language Acquisition (ISLA): An Overview’, in S. Loewen and M. Sato (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 1–12, New York: Routledge. Loewen, S. and M. Sato (2018), ‘Interaction and Instructed Second Language Acquisition’, Language Teaching, 51 (3): 285–329. Low, E. L. (2015), Pronunciation for English as an International Language: From Research to Practice, New York: Routledge. Luo, W.-H. (2017), ‘Teacher Perception of Teaching and Learning English as a Lingua Franca in the Expanding Circle: A Study of Taiwan’, English Today, 33 (1): 2–11. MacKenzie, I. (2014), English as a Lingua Franca: Theorizing and Teaching English, New York: Routledge. Marlina, R. and R. A. Giri, eds (2014), The Pedagogy of English as an International Language, London: Springer. Matsuda, A. (2003), ‘The Ownership of English in Japanese Secondary Schools’, World Englishes, 22 (4): 483–96. Mitchell, R., F. Myles and E. Marsden (2019), Second Language Learning Theories, 4th edn, New York: Routledge. Mortensen, J. (2013), ‘Notes on English Used as a Lingua Franca as an Object of Study’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2: 25–46.

LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT IN THE GLOBAL ENGLISHES CLASSROOM



41

Ortega, L. (2013), ‘SLA for the 21st Century: Disciplinary Progress, Transdisciplinary Relevance, and the Bi/Multilingual Turn’, Language Learning, 63 (1): 1–24. Pan, L. and D. Block (2011), ‘English as a “Global Language” in China: An Investigation into Learners’ and Teachers’ Language Beliefs’, System, 39 (3): 391–401. 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. Rose, H. and N. Galloway (2019), Global Englishes in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sato, M. and S. Loewen (2019a), ‘Do Teachers Care About Research? The Research-Pedagogy Divide’, ELT Journal, 73 (1): 1–10. Sato, M. and S. Loewen, eds (2019b), Evidence-Based Second Language Pedagogy, New York: Routledge. Sifakis, N. C. (2019), ‘ELF Awareness in English Language Teaching: Principles and Processes’, Applied Linguistics, 40 (2): 288–306. Sifakis, N. C. and Y. Bayyurt (2018), ‘ELF-Aware Teacher Education and Development’, in J.  Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 456–67, New York: Routledge. Sung, C. C. M. (2015), ‘Implementing a Global Englishes Component in a University English Course in Hong Kong’, English Today, 31 (4): 42–49. Sung, C. C. M. (2016), ‘Does Accent Matter? Investigating the Relationship Between Accent and Identity in English as a Lingua Franca Communication’, System, 60: 55–65. Suzuki, A. (2011), ‘Introducing Diversity of English into ELT: Student Teachers’ Responses’, ELT Journal, 65 (2): 145–53. Suzuki, Y. (2017), ‘Validity of New Measures of Implicit Knowledge: Distinguishing Implicit Knowledge from Automatized Explicit Knowledge’, Applied Psycholinguistics, 38 (5): 1229–61. Timmis, I. (2002), ‘Native-Speaker Norms and International English: A Classroom View’, ELT Journal, 56 (3): 240–9. Tsou, W. and F. Chen (2014), ‘EFL and ELF College Students’ Perceptions Towards English’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3 (2): 363–86. Ullman, M. T. (2020), ‘The Declarative/Procedural Model: A Neurobiologically Motivated Theory of First and Second Language’, in B. VanPatten, G. Keating and S. Wulff (eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 3rd edn, 128–60, New York: Routledge. Vafaee, P., Y. Suzuki and I. Kachinske (2017), ‘Validating Grammaticality Judgment Tests: Evidence from Two New Psycholinguistic Measures’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39 (1): 59–95. VanPatten, B. (1990), ‘Attending to Content and Form in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12 (2): 287–301. VanPatten, B. and A. G. Benati (2010), Key Terms in Second Language Acquisition, London: Continuum. VanPatten, B., G. Keating and S. Wulff, eds (2020), Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 3rd edn, New York: Routledge. Yang, C. and L. J. Zhang (2015), ‘China English in Trouble: Evidence from Dyadic Teacher Talk’, System, 51: 39–50. Yoshikawa, H. (2005), ‘Recognition of World Englishes: Change in Chukyo University Students’ Attitudes’, World Englishes, 24 (3): 351–60. Zoghbor, W. S. (2018), ‘Teaching English Pronunciation to Multi-Dialect First Language Learners: The Revival of the Lingua Franca Core (LFC)’, System, 78: 1–14.

Chapter 3

Moving from Conceptualizations to Implementation of a Global Englishes Perspective in ELT Critical issues in pedagogy SERAN DOĞANÇAY-AKTUNA AND JOEL HARDMAN

I  INTRODUCTION Among the most prominent developments in applied linguistics in the past three decades is research on globalization and evolution of English as an international language (EIL), its dynamic and contextually variant use as a lingua franca (ELF) in intercultural communication, and the formation of nativized varieties of Englishes in post-colonial nations (WE). In light of these developments, most applied linguists now argue for a paradigm change in English language teaching from a monolithic, native speaker orientation to a plurilithic global Englishes one to reflect the current sociolinguistic reality of English in its teaching and to prepare English language learners to communicate effectively across Englishes with its highly diverse communities of users. A global Englishes paradigm in English language teaching (ELT) means raising teachers’ awareness of concepts of WE, ELF and EIL, fostering attitudinal adjustments regarding the globalization and evolution of English as a plurilithic language, and helping teachers situate and appropriate these concepts for their own contexts of teaching. This emerging paradigm is alternately referred to as Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL) (Marlina and Giri 2014; Matsuda 2012, 2017; Selvi and Yazan 2013), ELF-Aware Pedagogy (Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015), Global English Language Teaching (GELT) (Galloway and Rose 2015), or WE-Informed ELT (Matsuda and Matsuda 2018)1. Adoption of a new paradigm is a complex process that involves learning about an innovation, followed by fundamental changes in the basic assumptions and practices long held to be the norms in a discipline. A quick review of ELT literature on attempts to introduce Communicative Language Teaching into classrooms around the world in the 1990s shows clearly how difficult it is to implement a new teaching approach that would challenge the status quo (e.g., Holliday 1994a, 1994b; Hu 2002; Humphries and Burns

MOVING FROM CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION



43

2015; Karavas-Doukas 1998; Li 1998). We begin this chapter with a brief review of literature on the diffusion of innovation that we believe should inform all attempts at a paradigm change in TESOL. We then share reflections of English language teachers on how a global Englishes perspective would impact their pedagogical decisions and actions based on the view that the role of teachers is central in implementing an innovation (Borg 2006; Wedell 2003). We conclude the chapter with some suggestions toward a more intentional move in teaching of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) teacher education that can help teachers understand and adapt an innovation as they move from a monolithic native speaker orientation to a plurilithic global Englishes one.

2  DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION: A BRIEF OVERVIEW Diffusion of innovation refers to the process whereby innovation, defined as “something which is perceived by implementers as new or different” (Carless 2013: 1), is learned about, accepted, and implemented toward making a change in the status quo. Following a review of literature on the management/diffusion of innovation in education, Hyland and Wong (2013: 2) point out that, The stages through which innovation might move can be messy, with reinterpretations and additions made along the way which accommodate individual preferences, institutional ideologies and fiscal necessitates. Teachers get different versions of the same story and are motivated to different degrees. Innovation, in other words, does not always mean change, or at least the kind of change that may have been intended. It is successful to the extent that targeted clients are reached, informed and persuaded to buy into it. Not all teachers are ready for change and not all institutions are prepared to support it. Given these complexities, the introduction of an innovation into a discipline and especially into a particular context needs to be managed carefully. Diffusion of innovation has been widely studied for more than fifty years in a variety of fields ranging from economics, technology, and public health to education, where scholars aimed to understand the processes of adopting an innovation and the factors that facilitated or complicated this process. The study of innovation in language education started to receive attention as of the 1980s, with important contributions by Kennedy (1987, 1988), Henrichsen (1989), Markee (1997), Fullan (2007), Wedell (2003, 2009a, 2009b) and Waters (2009, 2014) who based their work on insights from innovation management theory and feedback from less-than-successful curriculum innovation attempts around the world. An important body of work is now available that can aid ELT professionals who want to initiate and manage innovation to bring about positive changes to the status quo. One of the most influential theoretical models to explain the diffusion of innovation is by Everett Rogers (2003), who describes the five processes of diffusion as follows:

1. Knowledge: Learning the “what?,” “why?,” and “how?” of the innovation.



2. Persuasion: Being persuaded of the value of the innovation based on a perception/evaluation of the five attributes of an innovation: relative advantage over what it replaces; compatibility with existing values, past experiences, needs of potential adopters; complexity as the degree to which an innovation is seen as difficult to understand and use; trialability referring to the possibility

44

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

of experimenting with the innovation on a limited basis before adoption; and observability as the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others such as peers2. Rogers (2003) states that while the knowledge stage is more cognitive in nature, the persuasion stage is more affective and open to influence by evaluations of peers.

3. Decision: Deciding to adopt (or reject) the innovation.



4. Implementation: Putting the innovation into practice. In this phase, the innovation can be ‘reinvented’, that is, modified in line with the beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, experience, and identity of teachers and other stakeholders.



5. Confirmation: Confirming the decision to continue using the innovation or discontinue due to perceived lack of success, resistance from stakeholders, and so on.3

Through the processes listed out here, an innovation can be adopted, rejected or ‘reinvented’ by users to better fit a particular context. According to Rogers (2003:186), reinvention is more common if an innovation is “loosely bundled”, that is, consists of “a general concept or tool with many possible applications, and it could be used by different users for diverse challenges” (cited in Sansom 2017: 425). Teachers can reinvent classroom innovations in order to simplify an innovation that is too complex and to make it more locally acceptable (Pennington and Richards 2016). Three main types of strategies can be used when introducing an innovation into a system as conceptualized by organizational development scholars Chin and Benne (1976):

1. Power-coercive strategies: Based on an assumption that change needs to stem from an authority for people to engage in it, this top-down strategy to manage change is seen in decisions to adopt a prescribed innovation regardless of local contexts, for instance centralized moves in some countries to adopt a particular approach to ELT in all schools.



2. Empirical-rational strategies: Following on the belief that rational people can be persuaded to adopt an innovation if it can be shown that it is in their interest to do so, this strategy assumes that innovations that are perceived positively will lead to change in behavior. It also assumes that gaining knowledge about an innovation will lead to positive attitudes on the part of stakeholders.



3. Normative-reeducative strategies: Grounded in the premise that change is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by stakeholders’ deeply rooted social, cultural and educational beliefs, this strategy reinforces the idea that existing norms and values need to be redefined and reinterpreted, with commitments developing to new norms, for change to occur.

Kennedy (1987) argues that the normative-reeducative strategy is the only viable path for positive change in ELT because it recognizes how teaching is a cognitive, behavioral, and attitudinal activity while also acknowledging the role of the teacher, as the insider, in the process of innovation management. A normative-reeducative strategy would take more time than the other two strategies but can be more effective in creating conditions that can foster the adoption and successful implementation of an innovation. White (1988) and Stoller (2009) remind us that top-down innovations are rarely successful without teacher enthusiasm and endorsement. Similarly, bottom-up approaches are rarely

MOVING FROM CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION



45

sustainable without support from administrators and policy-makers showing, once again, the complexity of diffusion of innovation. As aforementioned, assumptions underlying innovations need to be accepted by stakeholders, especially teachers, for them to be persuaded to try the innovation. This persuasion is subjected to stakeholders’ attitudes that act as a screen through which a proposed innovation is going to be filtered. Given the central role of teachers in the implementation of a proposed innovation, it is crucial then that we consider teacher reactions to innovations in their field. As noted in Rose and Montakantiwong (2018) and Xu (2018) among others, the voices and attitudes of teachers and student-teachers are often missing from most discussions of how a global Englishes framework should be implemented in classrooms. In the next section, we turn to teacher perspectives to examine whether and how knowledge of the evolution of English into a global language and attendant changes in the nature of English are perceived by teachers as a factor in their pedagogical decisions and actions.

3  TEACHER PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL ENGLISHES IN THE CLASSROOM As Hyland and Wong (2013: 2) maintain, “ultimately, it is the EFL (and ESL or EIL) teacher who decides what innovations find their way into the classroom: how new methods are implemented, new technologies are deployed and new textbooks are used” (parentheses added). In this section, we focus on teacher perceptions of global Englishes and how they view this as a factor in their teaching to understand how key players in innovation management react to paradigm changes in their discipline. We examine the critical reflections of MA TESL candidates who are preparing to teach English in and outside the United States about how their awareness of global Englishes (EIL, ELF, and WE) would impact their pedagogical practices in their imagined or real contexts of teaching. These eighteen student-teachers, most of whom had been raised and/or educated within inner-circle contexts, were completing a course in an MA TESL program designed to raise awareness of the global forms and functions of English. These participants included nine native speakers of English, six nonnative speakers from a variety of countries, and three immigrant Americans. The course was titled “Teaching and Learning English as an International Language”, and included readings on the spread and globalization of English and subsequent developments including WE, EIL, ELF, and their implications for English language teaching. The main course text was Jenkins, J. (2015) Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students, third edition, along with many other book chapters and articles. The readings were followed by guided online discussions and individual journaling. The data presented in this chapter was elicited from participants’ online discussions in response to specific questions that asked them to situate concepts from the course in their current/imagined contexts of teaching. From 50 posted reflections on course readings, we identified over 100 examples of expressed personal beliefs of the participants (not just summaries of course readings, or questions about them). We thematically analyzed the reflections of these student-teachers, and then categorized those themes according to whether they demonstrated agreement with the dominant perspectives within the field of Global Englishes, or were a form of resistance to those perspectives. In particular, we examined the attitudes of these student-teachers

46

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

toward the idea of ‘monolithic norms’ in ELT and toward more plurilithic views of English. Over a dozen initial coding categories were used, which were narrowed down to eight to avoid overlapping themes and to account for the greatest amount of the data. Overall, the data reflect the participants’ thinking that seeks to find balance between monolithic and plurilithic norms, and seeks to find a situated practice that expresses tolerance for variation and commitment to student needs. Excerpts from the reflection data are presented in the following text, along with some linguistic background about the participants, each identified by a pseudonym. No other modifications were made to their reflections.

Monolithic norms By far, the most dominant theme throughout the participant reflection data was a respect for the idea of ‘standards’ in English teaching. Often, this support for standards was attached to a preference for native speaker norms: Maria (naturalized American originally from an outer-circle country, L2 user of English) While recognizing the importance of raising students’ awareness of other forms of English, I will continue to use only the native standard of English as my model in my teaching. In other words, I will continue to incorporate the core-features in my teaching to help my students be proficient users of English. Penny (American) Given that these individuals have come to make their home here, the English that they need the most is the standard American variety. At other times, the belief is simply that there should be some standard ensuring mutual intelligibility of various Global Englishes, though that standard didn’t necessarily have to be tied to a native speaker norm: Angela (American) Jenkins’ ELF core and non-core pronunciation features do have pedagogic value. Reflecting back on Jenkins’ ELF features, as an EFL teacher in Korea, I would look to the Lingua Franca Core (LFC) for help when correcting mutually unintelligible ‘errors’, and acknowledge the non-core features as mutually intelligible, local variations. Anna (L2 user of English from the expanding circle) I am not saying here that a native variety should be the norm. I think teachers have to respect the cultural backgrounds of their students and their different accents but why not teaching an English variety that embraces those differences but that requires a consistent writing system. A related common theme in the reflection data was some form of the belief that a nonstandard Global English variety (either ELF communication generally or an EIL variety) represented a ‘lower’ proficiency of English: Penny (American) My favorite feature, however, is the way Tomlinson scales the learning of English where lingua franca core becomes the basis for lingua franca expanded, which in turn

MOVING FROM CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION



47

becomes the basis for standard English – IF you choose to go beyond ELF. I really like this because I kept thinking that if ELF is put into place, there will still be those who will want to learn standard English. Lora (American) I certainly agree that ‘reduced’ grammars are helpful in certain situations, but it would be a disservice to students not to provide some kind of feedback about deviations from the standard that could have consequences in their lives outside the classroom. A final attitude supporting monolithic norms was that a Global Englishes framework was either not relevant to teaching in inner-circle environments, such as the US, or was unrealistic: Jill (American) Because I hope to teach youth in the United States, my awareness of EIL, EFL and WE will not impact my teaching so much. Alisha (American) As a final point, in teaching EFL the effectiveness of English among leaners will be lower than expected and learners are not able to completely receive the pedagogical instructions and immediate instructions needed. The idea of teaching the varieties rather is indeed unrealistic. We see in the reflection data that the participants are struggling to accept the critique of monolithic standard of Global Englishes paradigm, which shows a type of resistance to the innovation.

Plurilithic norms Balancing the beliefs expressed earlier, often from the same individual, were positive attitudes toward the variation that exists in Global Englishes. A number of participants wrote about the importance of acceptance for different types of English spoken around the world: Maria (naturalized American originally from an outer-circle country, L2 user of English) Being a previous learner myself of Standard English and having the opportunity to have constant exposure to different varieties of English had taught me to have better understanding, more patience, more tolerance and (being) more accommodating with my students and others who speak different forms of Englishes. Cathy (naturalized American from an expanding-circle country, L2 user of English) After choosing their target of instruction based on that context teacher should value their learners’ current English usage. Others wrote about how they intended to raise awareness in their classrooms about the different varieties of Global Englishes: Olusola (L2 user of English from an outer-circle country) With my exposure in this course, I have come to realize the fact that NE is just a variety of English and that several other varieties exist. I want to try as much as possible to

48

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

prepare my students for the reality ahead which is the fact that they will at a point in their lives encounter these other varieties either with other non-native speakers or even with native speakers. Denise (American) Whether it be abroad on in my backyard, I will continue to teach standard American English, unless my students express a desire to learn some other specific variety, in which case I’ll panic, with, at the minimum, an introduction to other varieties just so they have an awareness of the vast differences that exist around the world. Often, as noted in Denise’s reflection earlier, this intention to raise awareness of variation was coupled with a commitment to teaching a ‘standard,’ outlining a kind of ‘teach the standard-plus-teach variation’ curriculum: Denise (American) I have been impressed that, while there are only 5 of us in this class, we all support teaching standard English. Each of us agrees that we should inform our students that there are many other varieties of English being used in the world and that there are circumstances when we need to expose our students to some of these other varieties in depth. This is especially true if we are teaching outside of the United States. Pam (American) I want to explore the varieties of English used in the country where I live and point out to learners how varied and useful the English language is. Learn and use what you need, but also be aware that none of us knows what the future holds. Learn to read and write in the standard form just in case an odd opportunity to use it presents itself one day. In this section, we see that participants are developing acceptance along with positive perceptions of an innovation as part of their ‘socialization’ into a new paradigm.

Situated practice A number of identified themes in the reflection data can be grouped under the umbrella theme of situated practice that recognizes the importance of context in making pedagogical decisions, in particular focusing on local student needs and desires as the determining factors in curricular developments. Maria (naturalized American originally from an outer-circle country, L2 user of English) As a traditional ESL teacher, my first and foremost duty is to make sure the needs and aspirations of my students are optimally addressed. Tung-Mei (L2 user of English from the expanding circle) I agree with his [Tomlinson’s] statement that it is important to consider the EIL functions for learners and global English curricula need to be individualized. That is, language teachers need to consider what their learners need and want. I believe that if the learning conditions and methodology conform to the learners’ needs and expectations, learners learn best.

MOVING FROM CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION



49

The attention to English variation noted earlier was connected to this understanding of learner context, as participants often noted how local English norms would be recognized as the appropriate standard: Lora (American) As a teacher in the US, I fully intend to teach Standard English . . . That being said, the standard is locally dictated: Standard American English in the US, British English in Great Britain, Indian English, Nigerian English, etc . . . learning the variety appropriate to one’s context is essential, as is exercising some openness toward the varieties new members of a speech community bring with them. Jack (American) This said, developing and implementing EIL pedagogy is very complicated. EIL teachers must possess competent knowledge of the culture where they teach and understand the reasons their students are studying English . . . no universal EIL pedagogy can be implemented because all of its methods depend on the local environment and motivation for learning. To a certain extent, some of what can be seen in the reflection data is a variation on the common student-teacher concern of “it’s a nice idea in theory, but I can’t make it work in practice.” However, what comes out over and over is an attempt to reconcile debate in the Global Englishes literature over the role of standards in a world of plurilithic norms. There may be times when our participants do not entirely understand the true nature of the innovation in question, such as when they associate proficiency in a global English with a “lower” proficiency, rather than a full proficiency in a nonstandard variety of English. They are very similar to their peers in their view: there is a general pervasiveness of standard NS models among teachers (Cameron and Galloway 2019; Li 2017; Suzuki 2011), questioning the applicability of global Englishes for their own contexts despite holding positive views about global Englishes (Dewey 2014; Hall et al. 2013). Most teachers continue to value the prestigious, standardized varieties of English as the most efficient linguistic model for guiding instruction and for enabling learners to function effectively across situations and cultures (Decke-Cornill 2003; Sifakis and Fay 2011; Sifakis and Sougari 2005; Timmis 2002; Young and Walsh 2010). The excerpts presented in this chapter show that a paradigm change, which requires conceptual and attitudinal alterations, needs to be managed more carefully in teacher education. In the next section we outline how a paradigm change can me managed more intentionally in TESOL teacher education with a focus on management of innovation in language teaching.

4  INITIATING AND IMPLEMENTING A GLOBAL ENGLISHES PARADIGM IN ELT: A MODEL Adopting a global Englishes paradigm in TESOL necessitates making changes to teacher education curricula, as well as creating programs for in-service professional development, to prepare teachers to introduce and evaluate the use of English as a global language in a manner that is appropriate in their own contexts.4 As shown by the aforementioned reflection data and in Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovation model, gaining knowledge of an innovation is not sufficient to create change; widespread experimentation with the innovation is also necessary. A useful framework

50

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

to follow in teacher education to facilitate understanding and trialing of innovations is offered by Waters and Vilches (2001) who base their model on two main phases. The initial foundation-building phase is concerned with establishing a strong understanding and acceptance of the innovation that begins by ‘familiarizing’ those in charge of managing the innovation (e.g. policy-makers and teacher educators) and potential innovation users (e.g. teachers) with the background, rationale, and possible directions of the innovation. This is followed by providing the stakeholders with the opportunity to give input on proposed changes and offer modifications to meet the sociocultural and educational needs and demands of their particular contexts/populations (‘socialization’). The next phase is a potential-realizing one that is devoted to assisting innovation users in developing ownership of the innovation by helping them test out the innovation (‘application’) and modify it to fit their contextual needs and priorities (‘integration’). Deriving from their own and others’ experiences in innovation management, Waters and Vilches (2001) emphasize the role of teacher learning and trialing with ample opportunities for teachers to test, critically evaluate, and modify (or ‘reinvent’) the innovation to match the realities of their particular contexts of teaching. The course designed by Waters and Vilches (2005) using the above ideas to prepare teachers in the Philippines to learn and use Content-Based Instruction is a highly viable model for those attempting to implement a global Englishes perspective in ELT. Driven by two broad questions about the innovation, ‘what is there to be managed?’ and ‘how might it be managed?’ (p. 120, italics original), the course is based on the following four overlapping areas of content:

1. Understanding the innovation (i.e., attempting to answer the question: ‘What is the true nature of the innovation in question?’) to ensure clear understanding of the innovation;



2. Identifying potential changes (i.e., ‘What kinds of changes is the innovation likely to involve, and for whom?’) and having teachers consider how the innovation resemble and differ from their existing practice, in order to decide on the demands the innovation make on teachers and learners;



3. Appraising the management task (i.e., ‘How big/difficult/complex are the changes likely to be?’) where teachers decide on priorities. This analysis is done by helping teachers evaluate the innovation in terms of Rogers’ characteristics of innovations mentioned earlier because the research indicates that “innovations that are perceived by individuals as having greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability and less complexity will be adopted more rapidly than other innovations.” (Rogers 1995: 17, as cited in Waters and Vilches 2005: 126)



4. Formulating an implementation management approach (i.e., ‘What kind of change management strategies are needed?’) where participants identify the pros and cons of change strategies (e.g., power coercive, rational empirical, normative-reeducative, as described by Chin and Benne 197), and decide on the change process and the change agents.

The aforementioned model is valuable in that not only does it raise stakeholders’ awareness of the innovation and facilitates their reflections on its implications in their own contexts, but it also teaches them about the nature of the change process itself, which is another way of empowering them. We maintain that learning about the processes of innovation

MOVING FROM CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION



51

management and asking and answering questions like those mentioned earlier should be done before all innovation attempts to facilitate positive outcomes. There is significant body of literature to show that without strong training of people and appropriation of an innovation to make it compatible with the realities of the receiving context, and without sufficient support and materials for teachers, curriculum innovation attempts do not succeed (Cameron and Galloway 2019; Holliday 1994a, 1994b; Humphries and Burns 2015; Li 1998; Sansom 2017; Waters and Vilches 2008). The training described earlier can be offered for initiating and implementing a global Englishes paradigm in ELT through inservice training in the teachers’ own contexts or by integrating it into preservice training.

5  CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR OVERCOMING CHALLENGES IN INITIATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A GLOBAL ENGLISHES PERSPECTIVE IN ELT The review of the literature on diffusion of innovation and analysis of teacher reflections on the pedagogical implication of learning about global Englishes clearly show that awareness-raising in teachers, though a necessary component of diffusion of innovation, is not enough to change teacher attitudes and behavior. Before attempting to introduce innovation into a given context, it is also important to be aware of challenges commonly faced in this process and take the necessary precautionary steps. The first challenge is to modify teacher education programs effectively enough that they include not only awareness-raising about an innovation but also reinvention and trialing of new ideas in/ for real-life classrooms. A review of literature on courses designed to introduce teachers to global Englishes shows that the tendency in TESOL thus far has been to focus more on awareness-raising (i.e., foundation-building) than on the trialing and reinvention of an innovation (i.e., potential-realizing phases) (but see Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015 for an exception, as in their project they not only raised teachers’ ELF awareness through related readings and discussions, but also investigated how teachers made use of their knowledge in their actual situated teaching practices and elicited teachers’ reflections in return.) Given the fact that the setting and the scene of a teacher education program/ workshop are rather different from those of a real classroom, it is important to keep in mind that “while a course may meet the need for teachers to be ‘inducted’ into the innovation paradigm, it may not provide them with sufficient opportunity to make their ideas personally meaningful in terms of the realities of the context in which they normally work” (Waters and Vilches 2001:137). Through his work with Chinese teachers of English attending an in-service training program, Sansom (2017) shows that a teacher’s ability and willingness to reinvent innovative classroom practice can facilitate later implementation and continuation of changes in practice. He recommends that teacher educators should “purposefully demonstrate reinvention techniques and the process of adapting an innovation” because “intentions to change will not survive without the ability to reinvent innovations as an ongoing process” (p. 431). Such emphasis on demonstration of the reinvention of an innovation during the knowledge-building phase to respond to the “how” of the innovation can facilitate trialing of innovations, which will not only give teachers the opportunity to test out a new approach but also allow trainers to obtain feedback regarding how situationally appropriate an innovation is going to be in the teachers’ own contexts of practice. Further addition of activities such as supervised

52

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

micro-teaching based on the innovation, action research, peer collaboration, lesson study projects, lesson plan, and materials design to courses raising teachers’ awareness of an innovation would greatly aid teachers as they learn to make changes in their teaching to accommodate the innovation (Hyland and Wong 2013). A related challenge pertains to the powerful role of teacher attitudes that impact their acceptance of an innovation. Surveys of teacher reactions following courses on global Englishes show how, despite reporting positive attitudes toward an innovation, in this case, English as a plurilithic global language, they may not be willing to change their teaching practices (e.g. Dewey 2014; Hall et al. 2013), as also shown in our data mentioned earlier. Their hesitation or even refusal to implement an innovation is often related to perceived or real disapproval by gatekeepers (parents, administrators, etc.), rejection by the learners, and the strong hold of normative attitudes that have shaped their teaching philosophy and practice. As Hutchinson (1991) explains, significant change can threaten the individuals’ schemata of their practice that provide the predictability, security, and self-worth necessary for coping with their tasks, causing resistance to innovation. He suggests that teachers should be encouraged to express their resistance to an innovation during their training because resistance that remains dormant forms a threat to the success of change. Hutchinson also recommends teacher training in teachers’ own contexts of practice to develop group norms, rather than just focusing on individual behavior, which seems to be the standard in teacher education programs. Considering the important role of peers in the persuasion stage of diffusion of innovation, as outlined by Rogers (2003), training teachers in their own contexts and together with their peers should have precedence over other options. Another challenge encountered in the management of innovation is the high possibility of innovations being rejected due to their contexts of origins. Most ELT innovations emerge from Western scholarship and are led by organizations such as the British Council and professional organizations such as TESOL, IATEFL, and AILA. Though the latter are international in scope, it is mostly the Western or West-trained members who seem to be making calls for paradigm changes in ELT. They can thus be perceived as intending to advance the sociopolitical and economic interests of a small group of Western elite rather than focusing on benefits for the receivers, as Pennycook (1994), Canagarajah (1999), and Holliday (2005) remind us. It is therefore important to discuss and evaluate the source and the motivations behind innovations that are often presented as “best practices” without contextual distinctions in their evaluation. Related to the aforementioned are concerns regarding the cross-cultural or contextual fit of an innovation that is developed in a particular context. Studies that show how innovation attempts fail due to lack of fit between the design features of ELT innovations and their contexts of implementation abound in the literature. Tomlinson (1990), Holliday (1994a), Shamim (1996), Carless (1997) Karavas-Doukas (1998), Li (1998), Hu (2002), Waters and Vilches (2008), and case reports in Tribble (2012) all show how innovations that emerged from particular contexts were rejected in others due to educational policies that are incompatible with the realities of the receiving context, akin to what Holliday calls ‘tissue rejection’. Other scholars such as Borg (2006) and Humphries and Burns (2015) show how the settings in which teachers are to implement an innovation pose significant constraints. Some of these constraints are external to classrooms and the schools such as government policies, mandated materials, teacher evaluations, and stakeholders (i.e., parents and education authorities), while others are internal to a teachers’ workplace such as class size, number of contact hours, and internal

MOVING FROM CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION



53

assessment of teachers (see Humphries and Burs 2015 for further details). Suffice it to say that innovations need to be contextually appropriate or appropriated (‘reinvented’, to borrow Rogers’ terminology) to meet the realities of local classrooms and wider national cultures to succeed. One way of approaching this possible lack of fit is to prioritize supporting teachers as key players in the curriculum change process and view the management of innovation as a cultural change and challenge, as Wedell (2003) rightly argues. He links the limited success of curriculum innovation attempts in ELT to “planners’ failure to adequately consider what support classroom teachers will need, when, and for how long” (p. 439) when expecting teachers to make adjustments to their pedagogy. Wedell argues that analyzing the cultural shifts involved in the implementation of an innovation and the support mechanisms needed to facilitate implementation would endow innovation planners with a better understanding of the targeted settings and the types of issues that are likely to arise during the implementation and maintenance of an innovation. Policy-makers can also guide teacher educators toward taking the necessary steps in training and supporting teachers in their implementation of change. Adopting a normative-reeducative strategy (Kennedy 1987) for innovation management, which views change as a complex phenomenon influenced by stakeholders’ deeply rooted social, cultural, and educational beliefs and reinforces a collaborative problem-solving approach rather than a top-down approach to innovation, can alleviate the problem areas discussed earlier. Following a teacher education framework founded on understanding, trialing, and modifying an innovation in a particular context (Waters and Vilches 2005), engaging in situated praxis (Dogancay-Aktuna and Hardman 2012, 2017), and ensuring that exposure to concepts about global Englishes is followed by critical awareness of the contextual and personal challenges of teaching English as a plurilithic language and an action plan for planning, teaching, and evaluating English (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2017) can aid stakeholders in making decisions about the appropriateness of an innovation for their own contexts. Making greater use of existing theories and research in the fields of ELT as recommended by Waters (2014), for instance Holliday’s (1994b) idea of ‘tissue rejection’ of innovations emerging from inner-circle contexts by those on the receiving ends and theories of innovation management during the initiation, implementation, and institutionalization of new paradigms, would also benefit the implementation of innovation in TESOL. In sum, when we look at the attempts to institute a paradigm shift from a monolithic, native speaker orientation to a plurilithic global Englishes one in ELT from a management of innovation perspective, we see that we have a significant body of literature to help stakeholders with the foundation-building phase of understanding the nature and implications of a global Englishes perspective in ELT (e.g., Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015a,b; Dewey and Patsko 2017; Dogancay-Aktuna and Hardman 2012, 2017; Eslami et al. 2019; Galloway 2017; Hyland and Wong 2013; Li 2017; Marlina 2013, 2018; Marlina and Giri 2014; Matsuda 2012, 2017; Matsuda and Friedrich 2011; McKay and Brown 2016; Sifakis 2019; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015; Sifakis and Tsantila 2019). What we are in need of is data on programs and teachers who have started trialing this approach in their classrooms. Studies reporting on outcomes of introducing teachers to global Englishes paradigm have been cross-sectional, mostly Euro-centric and small scale, although we do have some data from Asian contexts, too (e.g., Ali 2014; Manara 2013; Sharifian and Marlina 2012). We also need data on teacher educators’ attitudes and practices about teaching English as plurilithic global language. There is a large body of professional literature on the globalization of English, but we do not yet know whether and to what

54

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

extent this literature is being used in teacher education programs. Nor do we have data on whether and how teaching materials or standardized tests are being modified to reflect a plurilithic view of English. Finding the answers to the aforementioned unknowns in different contexts of English language teaching are critical as we move from conceptualizing a global Englishes perspective in ELT toward successfully implementing it when desired.

NOTES 1. In this chapter, we refer to the combined work on EIL, ELF, and WE as the global Englishes perspective/paradigm, while recognizing the distinctions across the conceptualizations and research on these three areas of scholarship. As we have described elsewhere (DogancayAktuna and Hardman 2018: 75), despite their differences in focus, these three frameworks overlap in their emphasis that English is now a plurilithic language actively co-constructed by its multilingual users into diverse forms for inter- and intra-cultural communication, as well as having established nativized forms that are reflective of cultures outside of the socalled inner circle of native speakers. 2. In a manner overlapping with Rogers, Kelly (1980) refers to feasibility, acceptability, and relevance of innovations as key factors, while Henrichsen (1989) lists originality, explicitness, and perception of higher status afforded by an innovation. Stoller (2009) argues that whether or not an innovation is adopted depends largely on people’s perceptions of whether it falls in the ‘zone of innovation’. She identifies the parameters of this zone as compatibility with current practice; complexity, explicitness, flexibility, originality, and visibility afforded by an innovation. 3. Fullan (2007) describes the process of innovation management in education in the form of three steps: initiation/adoption (conceptualizing rationales for innovation that lead to decisions to adopt it), implementation (putting the innovation in practice), and institutionalization/continuation (working toward sustainability of the innovation). Readers are referred to Waters (2009, 2014) and Fullan (2007) for a comprehensive examination of management of innovation in English language education. 4. Teachers, of course, are not the only stakeholders to consider in an innovation attempt, although their role is primary. Because our emphasis in this chapter is on teacher education in the management of innovation, we focus only on what can be done to empower teachers in this process while acknowledging the important roles learners, parents, school administrators, materials and test developers, and the community at large play in ensuring and sustaining a successful innovation.

REFERENCES Ali, F. (2014), ‘Implementing EIL Paradigm in ELT Classrooms: Voices of Experienced and Pre-Service English Language Teachers in Malaysia’, in R. Marlina and R. A. Giri (eds), The Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Perspectives from Scholars, Teachers, and Students, 95–109, Switzerland: Springer. Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (2015a), ‘Developing an ELF-Aware Pedagogy: Insights from a Self-education Programme’, in P. Vettorel (ed.), New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English, 55–76, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (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, 117–35, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

MOVING FROM CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION



55

Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (2017), ‘Foundations of an EIL-Aware Teacher Education’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, 3–18, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Borg, S. (2006), Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice, London: Continuum. Cameron, A. and N. Galloway (2019), ‘Local Thoughts on Global Ideas: Pre- and In-Service TESOL Practitioners’ Attitudes to the Pedagogical Implications of the Globalization of English’, RELC Journal, 50 (1): 149–63. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999), Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carless, D. (1997), ‘Managing Systemic Curriculum Change: A Critical Analysis of Hong Kong’s Target-Oriented Curriculum Initiative’, International Review of Education, 43 (4): 349–66. Carless, D. (2013), ‘Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning’, in C. A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Blackwell Publishing. https​:/​/do​​i​.org​​/10​.1​​002​/9​​ 78140​​51984​​31​​.wb​​eal05​​40 Chin, R. and K. D. Benne (1976), ‘General Strategies for Effecting Change in Human Systems’, in W.G. Bennis, et al. (eds), The Planning of Change, 22–45, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Decke-Cornill, H. (2003), ‘“We Would Have to Invent the Language We Are Supposed to Teach”: The Issue of English as a Lingua Franca in Language Education in Germany’, in M. Byram and P. Grundy (eds), Context and Culture in Language Teaching, 59–71, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dewey, M. (2014), ‘Pedagogical Criticality and English as a Lingua Franca’, ATLANTIS: Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 36 (2): 11–30. Dewey, M. and L. Patsko (2017), ‘ELF and Teacher Education’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 441–55, Oxon: Routledge. Dogancay-Aktuna, S. and J. Hardman (2012), ‘Teacher Education for EIL: Working Toward a Situated Meta-Praxis’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 103–18, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dogancay-Aktuna, S. and J. Hardman (2017), ‘A Framework for Incorporating an EIL Perspective into TESOL Teacher Education’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, 19–31, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dogancay-Aktuna, S. and J. Hardman (2018), ‘Teaching of English as an International Language in Various Contexts: Nothing Is as Practical as Good Theory’, RELC Journal, 49 (1): 74–87. Eslami, Z., S. Moody and R. Pashmforoosh (2019), ‘Educating Pre-Service Teachers about World Englishes: Instructional Activities and Teachers’ Perceptions’, TESL-EJ, 22 (4): 1–17. Fullan, M. (2007), The New Meaning of Educational Language, 4th edn, New York; Teachers College Press. Galloway, N. (2017), Global Englishes and Change in English Language Teaching: Attitudes and Impact, Oxon, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2015), Introducing Global Englishes, Oxon, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Hall, C. R., S. Wicaksono, Y. Liu, J. Qian and X. Xiaoqing (2013), ‘English Reconceived: Raising Teachers’ Awareness of English as a “Plurilithic” Resource through an Online Course’, ELT Research Papers 13-05, The British Council, London, December.

56

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Henrichsen, L. E. (1989), Diffusion of Innovations in English Language Teaching: The ELEC Effort in Japan, 1956–1968, New York: Greenwood Press. Holliday, A. (1994a), Appropriate Methodology and Social Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, A. (1994b), ‘The House of TESEP and the Communicative Approach: The Special Needs of State English Language Education’, ELT Journal, 4 (1): 3–11. Holliday, A. (2005), The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hu, G. (2002), ‘Potential Cultural Resistance to Pedagogical Imports: The Case of Communicative Language Teaching in China’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15 (2): 93–105. Humphries, S. and A. Burns (2015), ‘“In Reality It’s Almost Impossible”: CLT-Oriented Curriculum Change’, ELT Journal, 69 (3): 239–48. Hutchinson, T. (1991), ‘The Management of Change’, The Teacher Trainer, 5 (3): 19–21. Hyland, K. and L. L. C. Wong, eds (2013), Innovation and Change in English Language Education, London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015), Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students, 3rd edn, Abingdon, GB: Routledge. Karavas-Doukas, K. (1998), ‘Evaluating the Implementation of Educational Innovations: Lessons from the Past’, in P. Rea-Dickins and K. P. Germaine (eds), Managing Evaluation and Innovation in Language Teaching: Building Bridges, 25–50, Harlow: Longman. Kelly, P. (1980), ‘From Innovation to Adaptability: The Changing Perspective of Curriculum Development’, in M. Galton (ed.), Curriculum Change: The Lessons of a Decade, 65–80, Leicester: Leicester University Press. Kennedy, C. (1987), ‘Innovation for a Change: Teacher Development and innovation’, ELT Journal, 41 (3): 163–70. Kennedy, C. (1988), ‘Evaluation of the Management of Change in ELT Projects’, Applied Linguistics, 9 (4): 329–42. Li, D. (1998), ‘“It’s Always More Difficult than You Plan and Imagine”: Teachers’ Perceived Difficulties in Introducing the Communicative Approach in South Korea’, TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4): 677–703. Li, G. (2017), ‘Preparing Culturally and Linguistically Competent Teacher for English as an International Language’, TESOL Journal, 8 (2): 250–76. Manara, C. (2013), ‘The Struggle of Moving Towards EIL: Competing and Conflicting Narratives of Professionalism in an Indonesian Context’, in N. T. Zacharias and C. Manara (eds), Contextualizing the Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Issues and Tensions, 150–67, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Markee, N. (1997), Managing Curricular Innovation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marlina, R. (2013), ‘Globalisation, Internationalisation, and Language Education: An Academic Program for Global Citizens’, Multilingual Education, 3 (5). https://doi​.org​/10​.1186​/2191​ -5059​-3-5 Marlina, R. (2018), Teaching English as an International Language: Implementing, Reviewing, and Re-Envisioning World Englishes in Language Education, London and New York: Routledge. Marlina R. and A. Giri, eds (2014), The Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Perspectives from Scholars, Teachers, and Students, Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Matsuda, A., ed. (2012), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

MOVING FROM CONCEPTUALIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENTATION



57

Matsuda, A., ed. (2017), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. and P. Friedrich (2011), ‘English as an International Language: A Curriculum Blueprint’, World Englishes, 30 (3): 332–44. Matsuda, A. and P. K. Matsuda (2018), ‘Teaching English as an International Language: A WEInformed Paradigm for English Language Teaching’, in E. L. Low and A. Pakir (eds), World Englishes: Rethinking Paradigms, 64–77. Routledge. McKay, S. and J. D. Brown (2016), Teaching and Assessing EIL in Local Contexts Around the World, New York: Taylor and Francis. Murray, H. (2003), ‘Swiss English Teachers and Euro-English: Attitudes to a Non-Native Variety’, Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Applique, 77: 147–65. Pennington, M. C. and J. C. Richards (2016), ‘Teacher Identity in Language Teaching: Integrating Personal, Contextual, and Professional Factors’, RELC Journal, 47 (1): 5–23. Pennycook, A. (1994), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Longman. Rogers, E. M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovation, 5th edn, New York: Free Press. Rose, H. and A. Montakantiwong (2018), ‘A Tale of Two Teachers: A Duoethnography of the Realistic and Idealistic Successes and Failures of Teaching English as an International Language’, RELC Journal, 49 (1): 88–101. Sansom, D. W. (2017), ‘Reinvention of Classroom Practice Innovations’, ELT Journal, 71 (4): 423–32. Selvi, A. F. and B. Yazan, eds (2013), Teaching English as an International Language, TESOL Publications. Shamim, F. (1996), ‘Learner Resistance to Innovation in Classroom Methodology’, in H. Coleman (ed.), Society and the Language Classroom, 105–21, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sharifian, F. and R. Marlina (2012), ‘English as an International Language (EIL): An Innovative Academic Program’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 140–54, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sifakis, N. (2019), ‘ELF Awareness in English Language Teaching: Principles and Processes’, Applied Linguistics, 40 (2): 288–306. Sifakis, N. and A. M. Sougari (2005), ‘Pronunciation Issues and EIL Pedagogy in the Periphery: A Survey of Greek State School Teachers’ Beliefs’, TESOL Quarterly, 39 (3): 467–88 Sifakis, N. and N. Tsantila, eds (2019), English as a Lingua Franca in EFL Contexts, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sifakis, N. and R. Fay (2011), ‘Integrating and ELF Pedagogy in a Changing World: The Case of Greek State Schooling’, in A. Archibald, A. Cogo and J. Jenkins (eds), Latest Trends in ELF Research, 285–97, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Sifakis, N. and Y. Bayyurt (2015), ‘Educating the ELF-Aware Teacher: Insight from a Teacher Training Project’, World Englishes, 34 (3): 471–84. Stoller, F. L. (2009), ‘Innovation and Effective Leadership’, in M. A. Christison and D. E. Murray (eds), Leadership in English Language Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Skills for Changing Times, 73–84, New York: Routledge. Suzuki, A. (2011), ‘Introducing Diversity of English into ELT: Student Teachers’ Responses’, ELT Journal, 65 (3): 145–53. Timmis, I. (2002), ‘Native-Speaker Norms and International English: A Classroom View’, ELT Journal, 56 (3): 240–9.

58

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Tomlinson, B. (1990), ‘Managing Change in Indonesian High Schools’, ELT Journal, 44 (1): 25–37. Tribble, C., ed. (2012), Managing Change in English Language Teaching: Lessons from Experience, The UK: British Council. Waters, A. (2009), ‘Managing Innovation in English Language Education’, Language Teaching, 42 (4): 421–58. Waters, A. (2014), ‘Managing Innovation in English Language Education: A Research Agenda’, Language Teaching, 47 (1): 92–110. Waters, A. and M. L. C. Vilches (2001), ‘Implementing ELT Innovations: A Need Analysis Framework’, ELT Journal, 55 (2): 133–41. Waters, A. and M. L. C. Vilches (2005), ‘Managing Innovation in Language Education: A Course for ELT Change Agents’, RELC Journal, 36 (2): 117–35. Waters, A. and M. L. C. Vilches (2008), ‘Factors Affecting ELT Reforms: The Case of the Philippines Basic Education Curriculum’, RELC Journal, 39 (1): 5–24. Wedell, M. (2003), ‘Giving TESOL Change a Chance: Supporting Key Players in the Curriculum Change Process’, System, 31: 439–56. Wedell, M. (2009a), Planning for Educational Change: Putting People and Their Contexts First, London: Continuum. Wedell, M. (2009b), ‘Innovation in ELT’, ELT Journal, 63 (4): 397–9. White, R. (1988), The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management, Oxford; Blackwell. Xu, Z. (2018), ‘Exploring English as an International Language – Curriculum, Materials and Pedagogical Strategies’, RELC Journal, 49 (1): 102–18. Young, T. and S. Walsh (2010), ‘Which English? Whose English? An Investigation of Non-native Teachers’ Beliefs about Target Varieties’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 23 (2): 123–37.

Chapter 4

World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca and ELT Materials A Critical Perspective PAOLA VETTOREL

1  INTRODUCTION The pedagogical implications of research findings into World Englishes (WE) and English as a lingua franca (ELF) have been widely investigated and discussed over the last decades. Researchers have highlighted how the plurality into which English has developed and its lingua franca role ought to be taken into account in English Language Teaching (ELT), from materials and teaching practices, to teacher education, educational policies and assessment. Over the last few years several proposals for a WE-informed and ELF-aware approach in ELT have been developed, and literature can now offer suggestions on how such an approach can be implemented in, and adapted to, different educational contexts and settings. Teaching materials, and coursebooks in particular, still represent a fundamental tool in classroom practices; despite some signs of innovation regarding the inclusion of Englishes in their plurality in ELT coursebooks, above all as to intercultural aspects, the main model of reference still remains that of standard native English, with little attention given to WE, and even less to ELF. This chapter discusses how published ELT materials can be used as a starting point to develop activities and tasks that provide a more realistic, and possibly motivating, perspective on teaching English today, one that is WE- and ELF-aware. In this perspective, teachers and learners take on the role of ‘active agents’ in the teaching/learning process, providing localized and authenticated opportunities for learners to familiarize with the current sociolinguistic diversity of English, towards the development of a communicative capability to interact through English, valuing their present and future dimension of ‘users’.

60

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

2  THE PLURALIZATION OF ENGLISH AND ‘AUTHENTICITY’ The pluralization of English in its WE varieties and the lingua franca role (ELF) this language largely plays in international communication are well-attested realities, as well as research fields. The fact that both WE and ELF see English belonging ‘to the global community of users’, rather than to its native speakers only, has manifold implications for ELT, too, amongst which the reference models and frameworks to be considered to prepare learners for actual language use in this complex sociolinguistic diversity. As Syrbe and Rose note, learners “need to be made fully aware that for many of them, they will be using the language to interact with a wide spectrum of language users, some of whom may be inner circle speakers in inner circle cultures, but many of whom will not” (2018: 155). Within this perspective, it has been pointed out that a WE- and ELF-aware perspective in ELT should include exposure to ‘authentic’ examples of the plurality of English and of ELF, in terms of both materials and opportunities for language use. Before looking at how this can be put into practice, I would like to focus on ‘authenticity’. The notion of ‘authenticity’ came to the fore with, and has generally been associated with, Communicative Language Teaching since the 1990s, with the call for instructional materials and language teaching to be based on communication and exposure to authentic, ‘real’ language, later to be drawn from corpora as they became available (e.g. Newby 2000; Tomlinson 2012; Widdowson 2012; see also Pinner 2016 for a detailed discussion). However, as Widdowson pointed out already in 1978, the “genuiness” of a text, that is, its being “a genuine instance of discourse, designed to meet a communicative purpose, directed at people playing their roles in a normal social context” (1978: 80) is inherently different from “authenticity”, which refers to how texts are used and received, and hence to how they can be ‘authenticated’ by learners. This can take place in terms of “pragmatic authenticity” (Newby 2000: 18), as “normal language behaviour in pursuit of an outcome” (Widdowson 1990: 46), or as “personal authenticity” – whereby “it is the students themselves who will set their own criteria for authenticity based on their own interpretation of relevance to their emotional and functional needs, interests, etc.“ (Newby 2000: 19); that is, materials students can “engage with and create discourse around for the purpose of furthering their language learning” (McKay 2012: 80). As Pinner discusses, authenticity as a process depends on various dynamic variables and components, from “the degrees of involvement and levels of personal engagement that will result from the interactions taking place in which the language is being used, which preferably will also feature some form of local contextualization”, to the context of the learners, also in terms of how relevant materials are (2016: 100). Furthermore, authenticity can be applied to different but interrelated areas in the classroom, that is, text/materials, tasks, language in use and output/production (2016: 80–1), and can be seen to work along a continuum that includes the social dimension with the two individual-community ends, and the context with classroom-use domain (ibid.: 101ff.). This conceptualization allows on the one hand to go beyond “polarizing the classroom context as ‘not-real’” (ibid.: 102) and on the other to include WE- and ELF-aware perspectives in ELT materials and practices in a more localized, motivating and personally relevant and engaging way. ELF research has highlighted how, rather than aiming primarily at native speaker competence and at conformity to ENL rules, what ought to be fostered in language learning and teaching is the “development of a capability for effective use”

WORLD ENGLISHES, ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND ELT MATERIALS



61

(Seidlhofer 2011: 197; Widdowson 2003). In this sense, ‘authentication’ of language by learners can be seen as a fundamental point, in that it can promote situations where the language is used for meaning making, in contexts that, to be meaningful, do not have to be related to native speakers’ production. Even though in the classroom “you cannot simply replicate the sociocultural conditions which made the language actual for its users” (Widdowson 2003: 112), adopting a sociocultural perspective (e.g. Grazzi 2013; Kohn 2018, 2019) and taking into account the contextual and social dimensions of language in use as an intrinsic element of the learning process can foster processes of ‘authentication’ and appropriation; these processes work towards the ELF competence dimensions highlighted by Kohn (2016, 2018, 2019, see below), and towards the “capability for putting the language they [learners] have learnt to effective communicative use” (Seidlhofer 2011: 189). Furthermore, creating opportunities for learners to ‘authenticate’ the language proposed in the learning process can foster a sense of ownership, making it ‘less foreign’ and ‘less other’ for them (Matsuda 2012b; Seidlhofer 2011, 2015; Widdowson 2012), thus appropriating it as “an adaptable resource for making meaning” (Widdowson 2003: 42). Indeed, ELF research has widely shown how ELF users “can make effective use of English despite their failure to conform to the kind of competence prescribed by their teachers,” constructing “their own version of the language they are being taught” (2012a: 23–4; cf. also Kohn 2018, 2019) and using it so that “what is actually performed in foreign language communication is a realisation of what has been learned” (Widdowson 2009: 214). In this perspective, as Widdowson remarks, rather than “simplistic notions of authenticity”, what should be explored is “how the language can key into the learners’ reality so that they can be induced to engaging with the language in their own terms, and learn from it” (2003: 178). However, as we will see later in the chapter, ELT materials are still largely based on models that relate to Anglophone, native speaker linguacultural dimensions, where “the ‘real world’ . . . appears to be a world where learners will use the target language [of and] with native speakers . . . Such materials promote native notions of correctness, where authenticity appears to be synonymous with native English” (Galloway 2018: 469–70; cf. also Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2019; Pinner 2016). The inclusion in ELT practices of materials and activities that integrate pre-packaged (and often global) coursebooks in localized ways can in this perspective represent a ‘mediating link’ with out-of-class contexts, where learners are likely to be users of English, and thus be/become for them ‘authenticated’ and perceived as less distant, ‘more real’ and motivating.

3  WORLD ENGLISHES, ELF AND ELT MATERIALS Over the last decade the inclusion of a WE/ELF plurilithic approach in ELT has received a lot of attention, with ELF research in particular throwing “a new perspective on the debate surrounding the orientation towards native English norms in ELT materials” (Galloway 2018: 470). This appears particularly relevant since the coursebook still represents “the main teaching resource used by many of the world’s English teachers”, often providing “the main basis for the curriculum” and determining “the goals and content of teaching, as well as the methods teachers use” (Richards 2014: 19). Research into published ELT materials from a WE/ELF viewpoint has shown that they seem to be still largely dominated by an Anglophone, native speaker model, with mostly British and, in some cases, American language blueprints, characters and contexts. This applies to both local and global coursebooks, which largely “derive from an anglocentric

62

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

view of the world and cultural realities that have little relevance for the majority of learners studying English outside English-speaking countries” (McGrath 2013: 9; see also Gray 2010; Pennycook 1994). This appears to be true also when coursebooks claim to have an international orientation (e.g. Dewey 2015; Leung and Lewkowick 2018). With a few exceptions, accents are largely centered on standard Received Pronunciation (RP), or on General American English (e.g. Buckledee 2010; Caleffi 2016; Eggert 2007; Kivistö 2005; Kopperoinen 2011; Naji Meidani and Pishghadam 2013; Sherman 2010; Syrbe and Rose 2018; Takahashi 2010; Tsantila and Georgountzou 2017). Other inner-circle territories, such as Australia or South Africa, and especially outer-circle ones, seem to be only partially represented, generally more in cultural-geographical than in language varieties terms (e.g. Syrbe and Rose 2018; Vettorel and Lopriore 2013). Similarly, characters and settings remain prevalently Anglophone (Siqueira 2015; Takahashi 2014; Vettorel and Lopriore 2013); even when bilingual speakers of English are, albeit occasionally, present, the aim is in the greatest majority of cases interaction with native speakers of English (e.g. Bayyurt, Lopriore and Vettorel 2018; Cavalheiro 2013; Cook 2003; Galloway 2018; Lopriore and Vettorel 2015; Matsuda 2002; Siqueira and Matos 2019; Syrbe and Rose 2018; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2013; Vettorel submitted), rarely presenting “activities requiring learners to seek and explore English input in the environment outside the classroom” (Mashuhara and Tomlinson 2008: 35). It should be mentioned that coursebooks seem to increasingly include activities and texts aimed at raising awareness of different varieties of World Englishes (WE) and of its global spread (Takahashi 2014; Vettorel and Corrizzato 2012; Vettorel and Lopriore 2013; Xu 2013), acknowledging to some point the current sociolinguistic diversity of English. However, besides being dealt with marginally and often confined to specific sections, this inclusion is generally very superficial or even misleading, and not mirrored in the main coursebook contents and activities (e.g. Eggert 2007; Vettorel submitted; Takahashi 2014). As to cultural representations, research has shown that the dominant ones still refer to Anglophone aspects, above all in factual, ‘small c’ terms, which are at times rather stereotypical, with expanding and outer circles not receiving a balanced and fair representation (e.g. Gray 2010; Munandar and Ulwiyah 2012; Sándorová 2014 also for a review of literature). At the same time, multicultural viewpoints seem to start to be increasingly included, and intercultural perspectives presented, also taking into account the learners’ home cultures (e.g. Byram and Masuhara 2013; Lopriore and Vettorel 2015; Naji Meidani and Pishghadam 2013; Vettorel 2010; Vettorel and Lopriore 2013; Xu 2013). Calls have been made on several sides for ELT materials to provide a more representative view of the current sociolinguistic and sociocultural reality, both for WE and for ELF, for example through exposure to diversity in linguistic and intercultural terms (Baker 2015), by raising awareness of the global function of a lingua franca that English retains, and of how communication effectively works in these contexts through accommodation strategies and the plurilingual resources of its users (e.g. Cogo and Dewey 2012). Last but not least, the fluid and dynamic way in which different linguacultures interact in these cross/transcultural contexts should also be acknowledged, fostering Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC; Byram 1997) and Intercultural Communicative Awareness (ICA; Baker 2015) rather than monolithic representations of a ‘target culture’. In sum, coursebooks should “provide opportunities to encourage learners to critically engage with the content, raise their awareness of the flexibility of ELF communication

WORLD ENGLISHES, ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND ELT MATERIALS



63

and that certain examples of the target language may only be one way of saying something or communicating a point” (Galloway 2018: 476), providing hence a more representative picture of how communication works in international contexts.

4  LOCALIZING MATERIALS: THE ACTIVE ROLE OF TEACHERS AND LEARNERS The need to adapt ELT coursebooks to the specificity of each teaching/learning context, both for locally produced and, above all, for globally produced materials, has been repeatedly highlighted. With Leung and Lewkowicz (2018: 70), joint and concurrent efforts by ELT stakeholders should be put into place to “actively promote the idea of ‘localization’ to extend classroom pedagogy and materials production. The ‘universal’ textbook can be regarded as one of its 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”. Adaptation of materials can of course be enacted in different ways, from modifying and/or reorganizing content to integrating and expanding texts, tasks and activities, in order to contextualize them in the local learning situation (e.g. Islam and Mares 2003; Richards 2014; Tomlinson 2003b). Such localization processes refer to language in terms of different varieties of Englishes and of language awareness, for example with the involvement of local language(s); it applies to cultural aspects, too, especially through the promotion of intercultural awareness and reflection on local cultures (e.g. López-Barrios and Villanueva de Debat 2014). Localizing the coursebook means of course gearing it to the contextual reality of the classroom, taking into account its specificities from a sociocultural, cognitive as well as human point of view, both for learners and for teachers. “Localising contents enables learners to talk and write about their own experiences, concerns and culture through English. Providing global content gives a platform for learning about other perspectives and becoming interculturally competent” (Garton and Graves 2014: 272) – where ‘global’ here reads as interconnected, including a variety of linguacultures, similarly to what is encountered in communication through English, particularly in ELF contexts. Several proposals have been made for the localization of ELT coursebooks from a WE- and ELF-aware perspective. Recent research studies have, for example, highlighted the importance of exposure to different WE varieties and to examples of effective communication in ELF contexts in order to increase learners’ awareness of difference and “to provide opportunities for students to interact with English users from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds” (Matsuda and Friedrich 2012: 25). The inclusion of different cultural perspectives, amongst which the local and the learners’ ones, emerges as another relevant aspect in the localization of materials and classroom practices, not least in terms of appropriation: “[t]hrough activities that privilege local knowledge and individual experience, the teacher can integrate other similar initiatives that stimulate students to reflect over the aspect of the English language as belonging to them, with its many colors and many possibilities” (Siqueira and Matos 2019: 138; cf. also Lopriore and Vettorel 2015). Enacting localization processes also allows teachers’ critical engagement, first in evaluating ELT coursebooks, and consequently in considering alternative ways of using them through locally suited and creative adaptation and integration. This is particularly

64

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

true when considering Global Englishes, an area that still seems largely neglected by publishers. In Siqueira and Matos’ words, “[e]ven when textbooks are not organized and produced under an ELF-sensitive perspective, teachers can critically use these resources to trigger their students’ awareness of ELF and of what it might imply for the process of learning English”; what is present can be used as a springboard “to create new activities which may stimulate learners to debate issues related to various variations, accents, intelligibility, etc.” (2019: 145–6), as well as “to show, for example, ELF’s adaptive moves and pragmatic strategies used by speakers in their intercultural interactions” (ibid.: 147).

4.1  Localizing materials: The Internet as a resource Within this perspective, in the process of materials adaptation and localization teachers (as well as students), rather than ‘consumers’, are to be seen as reflexive, creative agents, who take on a critical perspective on how to use and integrate materials in their classroom practices. Research has shown that teachers increasingly acknowledge the plurality of World Englishes, and its lingua franca function for international communication, together with the “need to expose students to a greater range of accents on the tapes used in class” (Gray 2010: 171); even though the reference model may still be that of the native speaker, there is also a growing awareness with teachers that pedagogic practices should prepare students for the variety of contexts and speakers they will interact with through English; hence, “[f]inding other L2 speakers intelligible will be partly the result of familiarity with the accents and the variable grammar students are likely to encounter” (Gray 2010: 185). Exposing learners to a variety of accents and communicative contexts that represent both World Englishes and ELF is an area that has started to be taken into consideration in ELT coursebooks, and that should be further expanded, together with the inclusion of successful bilinguals as legitimate models. Materials can also be locally implemented through a variety of resources. The internet, for example, can offer multiple resources to supplement existing materials, and multiple ways of including them in classroom practices. As Gray maintains, the internet has a “potential power . . . as a means of challenging the hegemony of the global coursebook”, which can be further exploited “to share alternative activities and ways of reading against existing commercially produced materials” (Gray 2010: 189). Official and institutional websites can be referred to, for instance, to retrieve information for group or class projects on (inter)cultural issues (e.g. Matsuda 2012b). Web resources can also represent opportunities to introduce World Englishes varieties through audio/video materials, from films and videos to news channels, songs and online archives (see e.g. Guerra and Cavalheiro 2019; Matsuda and Duran 2012 for a comprehensive list). In ELF-aware terms, exemplifications of interactions can be used, for instance drawing from existing corpora (VOICE, CASE/VIMELF1), as well as from telecollaboration (e.g. projects such as BACKBONE, TELF, TILA, cf. Kohn 2016, 2018, 2019; Kohn and Hoffstaedter 2017). Examples from these interactions can be employed in awareness-raising activities, in terms of both language use and how accommodation and communication strategies are part of effective interaction. Using exemplifications from such naturally occurring ELF can provide learners with instances of successful L2 users, and hence constitute an empowering opportunity to move away from and beyond the idealized native speaker model that we still find in coursebooks, where L2 users are shown as “tourists or students who ask their way in the street, decipher a restaurant menu, or try to get a train from one

WORLD ENGLISHES, ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND ELT MATERIALS



65

place to another. They are supplicants to native speakers, not people in their own right who are successful because of their command of a second language” (Cook 2002: 337).

4.2  Digital environments for active experiences: ‘Opening’ the classroom walls Digital environments can represent a valuable space in constructivist terms to experience language use, too, not least seen that in many cases our students are “’digital English natives’, people who have grown up using English to a greater or lesser extent with various forms of technology in their daily lives” (Garton and Graves 2014: 277, citing Chien 2012). In these digital environments, English is very often used as a lingua franca, where learners already take on the role of ELF users (Seidlhofer 2011; Vettorel 2014). Hence, as Ware, Liaw and Warshauer point out, “the Internet provides a social environment that that students enter with increasingly frequency outside the classroom” (2012: 72; cf. also Alsagoff 2012; Pinner 2016; Vettorel 2014). In this perspective, social media and networking sites/platforms can constitute opportunities for interaction in lingua franca contexts (Cavalheiro 2018; Kirkpatrick 2014, 2019; Matsuda 2012b for ELF contexts as valuable spaces for language learning) that can be fruitfully exploited in pedagogical terms, for example creating digital spaces for international cooperation with students of different linguacultures. Indeed, participation in international school partnerships can be seen as a space where learners can actively experience communication with peers of different linguacultures, in meaningful (ELF) contexts of language use, which is ‘made real’ in that it represents “language that learners can authenticate for themselves” (Widdowson 2003: 115). Telecollaboration (Grazzi 2013; Kohn 2016, 2018, 2019; cf. also Ware, Liaw Warshauer 2012) and eTwinning (Vettorel 2013), which are increasingly used to this aim, constitute, for example, relevant instances of how learners and teachers alike engage in communication in intercultural contexts, experiencing ‘authentic’ and ‘authenticated’ language use (e.g. Kohn 2018, 2019). If in coursebooks L2 users are (still) relegated to minor roles, implementing materials with digital experiences involving bilingual language users “who are similar to the learners” would allow “learners to see themselves as someone who can become a legitimate user of the language” (Matsuda 2012b: 175). Furthermore, a side effect would be to encourage students to use English in their environment, an aspect that seems to be most neglected in coursebooks (e.g. Tomlinson and Mashuhara 2013; Vettorel and Lopriore 2013). Including digital media as a complement to coursebooks would thus mean exploiting their “potential to bridge in-class activities with out-of-class use, to blur the lines between formal instruction and informal learning, and to validate the wide range of registers and uses of English on the global scene” (Ware, Liaw and Warshauer 2012: 77). Several studies related to telecollaboration have indeed shown that higher levels of motivation, curiosity and tolerance are prompted, together with “a genuine willingness to communicate with peers about a diversity of aspects, including personally-chosen ones”, whereby “authenticity is closely linked to thematic autonomy” and learner agency (Kohn and Hoffstaedter 2017: 363). Such a dimension would not only contribute to ‘relocating’ perspectives in language learning, not least in terms of motivation, but also work towards the development of what Kohn has defined as the five dimensions of ELF competence, that is, “awareness of linguistic communicative lingua franca manifestations of English and requirements of successful and satisfactory ELF communication” (2016: 26), that is, ELF-aware comprehension, production, strategic communicative interaction and non-native speaker creativity.

66

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

It should be noted that over the last years literature providing exemplifications on how to introduce WE-/ELF-aware activities, and implement coursebooks accordingly, has greatly expanded (e.g. Alsagoff 2012; Fang and Ren 2018; Galloway 2017; Galloway and Rose 2014, 2018; Kordia 2019; Lopriore and Vettorel 2015, 2016, 2019; Matsuda and Duran 2012; Matsuda 2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Siqueira and Matos 2019). These exemplifications can offer teachers a wide variety of resources to start from, which can be further expanded drawing on other, possibly more localized ones, also by including knowledge and experiences of both teachers and learners. Importantly, in some cases the resources that are available from literature refer to activities and lesson plans that were developed by teachers (e.g. Gimenez, Calvo and El Kadri 2015; Kemaloglu-Er and Bayyurt 2019; Sifakis et al. 2018), at times using the coursebook as a springboard (Vettorel 2016, 2017; Lopriore and Vettorel 2016); these resources can also constitute a possible starting point to implement a critical and creative approach to localized ELT materials. Indeed, one of the critiques that coursebooks have received relates to their increasingly tighter structure and to the wealth of additional resources they offer, which tend to marginalize the teacher: as Hutchinson and Torres remarked more than twenty years ago, coursebooks increasingly seem “more like a prepared script. Less and less appears to be left to the teacher to decide and work out” (1994: 316), a view that has been shared by other researchers, too.

5  CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES Calls for a more flexible, adaptable and open use of published, ready-made (globalized) materials in classroom practices has been made on several sides (see McGrath 2013: 12ff. for an overview). It should not be forgotten that ELT publishing is a multimillion industry, above all in the Western world, and that the coursebook still constitutes a main reference point both for teachers and for learners in most educational contexts. Published ELT materials are subject to constraints of several types, among which that of being profitable; changes and innovations are thus likely to be a very slow process – as Seidlhofer summarizes, “for teachers these books represent not only authority, but security. They give them clear guidelines about what to teach” (2011: 201). And, she continues, advocating a change of thinking, especially when ELT materials do not take account of a plurilithic and ELF-oriented perspective, can be unsettling. However, she argues, “what matters is not the language content but how it is exploited for learning. What is crucial is therefore not what teaching materials are used but how they are used” (ibid., emphasis in original). And, as she maintains elsewhere, “[t]he appropriate question to ask is not what textbooks of ELF teachers can be provided with, but how an understanding of ELF might inform the way they might use their existing textbooks” (Seidlhofer 2015: 26; cf. also Widdowson 2015). As we have argued earlier, both teachers and students are to be seen as active agents in the teaching/learning process; in this sense, the need for a WE-informed and ELF-aware approach in ELT materials can be connected to more general calls to ‘humanize the coursebook’ (e.g. Tomlinson 2003b), whereby learners and teachers are actively engaged both cognitively and affectively in the teaching/learning process, making it ‘authenticated’ and meaningful for them (see e.g. Pinner 2016). This would mean also making their voices legitimately heard: as Leung and Lewkowicz put it, “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 . . . Giving students a voice

WORLD ENGLISHES, ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND ELT MATERIALS



67

in the learning activities is what would make language learning activities more authentic” (2018: 67). As maintained, for instance, by the Dogme movement (e.g. Thornbury 2000), the coursebook should represent one of the teaching and learning resources in ELT, whereby “[i]n the hands of engaged teachers, coursebooks, far from being straitjackets, are spurs to creativity, somewhere to start, something for teachers to work with and react with or against” (Harmer 2001: 8, as quoted in McGrath 2013: 15). Along the same lines, enriching the learning experience through localized materials would contribute to contrast the tendency some coursebooks (especially for lower levels) show to “underestimate learners”; as pointed out by Tomlinson: “[t]hey are empoverishing the learning experience in a misguided attempt to make learning easier and many of us would like to find ways of providing learners with appropriate and achievable challenges” (2008: 319; cf. also Tomlinson 2003a). Or, as Tarone puts it, referring above all to the development of strategic competence, “it is worth asking language teachers to consider whether current textbooks and pedagogies, in their overemphasis on accuracy as the sole criterion for success, actually restrict – create a glass ceiling on – classroom students’ development of communicative competence” (Tarone 2016: 223–4; cf. also Seidlhofer 2015; Pinner 2016). What a WE-informed and ELF-aware approach implies in the first place is to move away from an unrealistic native speaker model, providing representation of how English is successfully used by bilingual users, since the latter can represent an alternative, realistic and ‘authentic’ model: “[w]ith an achievable goal in mind, the atmosphere in teaching can be more positive, always looking at how successful the students are in building up their second language rather than how unsuccessful they are in closing the unbridgeable gap with the native speaker” (Cook 2003: 281; cf. also McKay 2012; Seidlhofer 2011; Widdowson 2003, 2015). This implies of course problematizing assumptions that have for long constituted unquestioned tenets in SLA (and ELT), in the first place that of ENL as a reference model. As Seidlhofer and Widdowson remark, the E of English taught as a foreign language (ETFL) should no longer be the E of ENL, but rather “English learnt as a Foreign Language”, that is, fostering “a capability for making meaning beyond the confines of imposed competence” (2019: 27). And, in this perspective and in line with our reasoning, [t]he teacher would retain a proactive role in activating the learning process. The difference would lie in the kind of process involved, and what allowance is made for learner initiative. Our argument is that instead of basing what and how we teach on how we think the students in classrooms ought to us their English as teachers, we should pay primary attention to how they actually do use their English as learners [and users], and so guide them in the development of their communicative capability. (ibid.: 28, cf. also Widdowson 2015) Including an L2/ELF user perspective in terms of legitimate roles, context and authentic(ated) language use would provide learners with a set of tools to effectively communicate with speakers of other linguacultures and English varieties; it would also empower them in realizing that native-like pronunciation and grammar are not prerequisites in successful (ELF) communication. Seeing both teachers and students as active agents would imply allowing them to find, express and value ‘their voices’. Indeed, as Kohn argues, “successful teaching is about enabling successful learning by unleashing students’ available resources and capabilities . . . Pedagogical interventions should make

68

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

students aware of the processes and conditions of translingual ELF communication, the shaping forces underlying their MY English profiles, and their responsibility as emancipated agents of their own communication and learning” (Kohn 2018: 20-21, emphasis mine). In this perspective, as Kohn and Hoffstaedter point out, adopting an “open NS/SL [native speaker – standard language] orientation . . . acknowledges and values a learner’s social constructivist involvement in the learning process”, and quoting Swain (2006: 100–1), they stress that “it ‘is the learner, with his or her history, in his or her immediate environment, who has options and makes choices. This is the learner as agent: as an individual who perceives, analyses, rejects or accepts solutions offered, makes decisions, and so on’” (2017: 353). This can certainly be promoted through a WE-informed and ELF-aware approach in ELT; it can however be a challenging task, particularly since ELT has generally been based on traditional notions and assumptions, as discussed earlier, which teachers are most likely to be familiar with both from their learning and professional paths. Furthermore, as we have seen, traditional ELT materials “tend to focus on the ‘standard’ varieties from the UK and the US” because “the EFL curricula by default have focused almost exclusively on these varieties of English” which “have dominated the ELT profession for a long time, and thus seem ‘natural’ to most teachers and students” (Matsuda 2012c: 171). With Gimenez et al., “[p]erhaps we can gradually move from a stage where there is the recognition of language diversity, as one would normally associate with the ‘World Englishes’ paradigm, to one where there is acknowledgement that ELF is about the dynamics of using language to engage in the production of meanings” (2015: 234). Teacher education can play a pivotal role in promoting critical reflection towards a WE-informed and ELF-aware approach (e.g. Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015; Dewey and Patsko 2018; Kohn 2016; Matsuda 2017; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018), not least concerning ELT materials, in terms of both evaluation and adaptation, integration and localization. This can in turn help to challenge the widespread assumption that the coursebook is an ‘unquestionable authority’, and the ‘only source’ upon which teaching should take place. A critical approach to ELT, and to ELT coursebooks, can contribute to question the current appropriateness of consolidated approaches and ideologies in ELT, and foster the realization that “what is needed is both a curriculum and a methodology for teaching English for global communication which identifies what its learners need and want to do in that language, which predicts the contexts in which they will need and want to do it, and which helps them to learn to do so in ways which will facilitate both language acquisition and the development of a global and personal voice” (Tomlinson 2006: 135). As ELF research has shown, adopting a WE-informed and ELF-aware approach is not a matter of ‘replacing’ traditional current approaches with ELF or of “teaching ELF” (Sifakis et al. 2018), but rather of adding “to teachers and teacher educators’ repertoires of teaching examples” (Yu 2015: 50). This is of course linked to the development of critical reflection, whereby “teachers can be encouraged to take a new look on materials. Identifying critical points as well as opportunities for reinterpretation and expansion of texts, tasks and activities in a plurilithic and ELF-aware perspective” (Vettorel 2018: 182). Teachers would then be encouraged to reflect such a challenge in their pedagogic practices, as the exemplifications of localized materials produced by teachers in teacher education courses showcase (e.g. Gimenez, Calvo and El Kadri 2015; Lopriore and Vettorel 2016; Sifakis et al. 2018; Vettorel 2016, 2017). It can thus work towards empowering teachers, and learners, as active agents in the teaching/learning process, encouraging them to make their voice relevant in coursebook adaptation, localization

WORLD ENGLISHES, ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND ELT MATERIALS



69

and expansion, for a more realistic and inclusive approach to learning, and using, English, ‘in the real world’.

NOTE 1. Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English https://www​.univie​.ac​.at​/voice/; CASE/ VIMELF – A Corpus of Video-Mediated English as a Lingua Franca Conversations https​:/​/ ww​​w​.umw​​elt​-c​​ampus​​.de​/c​​ampus​​/orga​​nisat​​ion​/f​​achbe​​reich​​uwur/​​sprac​​he​-ko​​mmuni​​k​atio​​n​/cas​​e​ -pro​​ject/​

REFERENCES Alsagoff, L. (2012), ‘Identity and the EIL Learner’, in L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renadya (eds), Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language, 104–22, London: Routledge. Baker, W. (2015), Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca. Rethinking Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication, Berlin: De Gruyter. Bayyurt, Y., L. Lopriore and P. Vettorel (2018), ‘WE/ELF Awareness in English Language Teacher Education: Starting from Materials’, in X. Martin-Rubió (ed.), Contextualizing ELF: From Data to Insights, 251–75, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (2015), ‘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, 117–35, Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Buckledee, S. (2010), ‘Global English and ELT Coursebooks’, in C. Gagliardi and A. Maley (eds), EIL, ELF, Global English: Teaching and Learning Issues, 141–52, Bern: Peter Lang. Byram, M. (1997), Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Competence, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. and H. Mashuhara (2013), ‘Intercultural Competence’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Applied Linguistics and Materials Development, 143–59, London: Bloomsbury. Caleffi, P. (2016), ‘ELF in the Speaking and Listening Activities of Recently Published EnglishLanguage Coursebooks’, in L. Lopriore and E. Grazzi (eds), Intercultural Communication: New Perspectives from ELF, 63–82, Rome: RomaTrE-Press. Cavalheiro, L. (2013), ‘Language and Teaching Materials in ELT’, e-Teals, 4: 71–84. Cavalheiro, L. (2018), ‘ELF-Aware Materials within the ELF Context’, in N. C. Sifakis, L. Lopriore, M. Dewey, Y. Bayyurt, P. Vettorel, L. Cvalheiro, D. S. P. Siqueira and S. Kordia, ‘ELF-Awareness in ELT: Bringing Together Theory and Practice’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7 (1): 184–9. Chien, Y. H. (2012), Life in the 21st Century: A Study of Pre-service Teachers’ Uses of Technology and English, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Cogo, A. and M. Dewey (2012), Analysing English as a Lingua Franca, London and New York: Continuum. Cook, V. (2002), ‘Language Teaching Methodology and the L2 User Perspective’, in V. Cook (ed.), Portraits of the L2 User, 327–43, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, V. (2003), ‘Materials for Adult Beginners from an L2 User Perspective’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching, 275–90, London: Continuum. 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, 121–34, Berlin: De Gruyter.

70

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Dewey, M. and L. Patsko (2018), ‘ELF and Teacher Education’, in J. Jenkins, M. Dewey and W. Baker (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 441–55, Abingdon: Routledge. Eggert, B. (2007), Global English and Listening Materials. A Textbook Analysis, Karlstads Universitet Essay. Fang, F. G. and W. Ren (2018), ‘Developing Students’ Awareness of Global Englishes’, ELT Journal, 72 (4): 384–94. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2014), ‘Using Listening Journals Ro Raise Awareness of Global Englishes in ELT’, ELT Journal, 68 (4): 386–96. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2018), ‘Incorporating Global Englishes into the ELT Classroom’, ELT Journal, 72 (1): 3–14. Galloway, R. (2017), Global Englishes and Change in English Language Teaching, Abingdon: Routledge. Galloway, R. (2018), ‘ELF and ELT Teaching Materials’, in J. Jenkins, M. Dewey and W. Baker (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 468–80, Abingdon: Routledge. Garton, S. and K. Graves (2014), ‘Materials and ELT: Looking Ahead’, in S. Garton and K. Graves (eds), International Perspectives on Materials in ELT, 270–9, Basingtoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Gimenez, T., L. C. S. Calvo and M. S. El Kadri (2015), ‘Beyond Madonna: Teaching Materials as Windows into Pre-service Teachers’ Understanding of ELF’, in Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, 225–38, Berlin: De Gruyter. Grazzi, E. (2013), The Sociocultural Dimension of ELF in the English Classroom, Roma: ANICIA. Gray, J. (2010), The Construction of English. Culture, Consumerism and the Promotion in the ELT Global Coursebook, Basingtoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Guerra, L. and L. Cavalheiro (2019), ‘When the Textbook Is Not Enough: How to Shape and ELF Classroom?’, in N. C. Sifakis and N. Tsantila (eds), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, 117–31, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Harmer, J. (2001), ‘Coursebooks: A Human, Cultural and Linguistic Disaster’, Modern English Teacher, 10 (3): 5–10. Hutchinson T. and E. Torres (1994), ‘The Textbook as Agent of Change’, ELT Journal, 48 (4): 315–28. Islam, C. and C. Mares (2003), ‘Adapting Classroom Materials’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching, 72–85, London: Continuum. Kemaloglu-Er, E. and Y. Bayyurt (2019), ‘ELF-Awareness in Teaching and Teacher Education: Explicit and Implicit Ways of Integrating ELF into the English Language Classroom’, in N. C. Sifakis and N. Tsantila (eds), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, 159–74, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kirkpatrick, A. (2014), ‘Teaching English in Asia in Non-Anglo Cultural Contexts: Principles of the “Lingua Franca Approach”’, in R. Marlina and R. A. Giri (eds), The Pedagogy of English as an International Language, 23–34, Cham: Springer. Kirkpatrick, A. (2019), ‘Concluding Chapter’, in N. C. Sifakis and N. Tsantila (eds), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, 247–60, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kivistö, A. (2005), Accents of English as a Lingua Franca: A Study of Finnish Textbooks, Unpublished thesis. University of Tampere, Finland.

WORLD ENGLISHES, ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND ELT MATERIALS



71

Kohn, K. (2016), ‘Teaching towards ELF Competence’, in N. Tsantila, J. Mandalios and M. Ilkos (eds), ELF: Pedagogical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 25–32, Athens: Deree-The American College of Greece. Kohn, K. (2018), ‘MY English: A Social Constructivist Perspective on ELF’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7 (1): 1–24. Kohn, K. (2019), ‘Towards the Reconciliation of ELF and EFL: Theoretical Issues and Pedagogical Challenges’, in N. C. Sifakis and N. Tsantila (eds), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, 32–49, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kohn, K. and P. Hoffstaedter (2017), ‘Learner Agency and On-Native Speaker Identity in Pedagogical Lingua Franca Conversations: Insights from Intercultural Telecollaboration in Foreign Language Education’, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30 (5): 351–67. Kopperoinen, A. (2011), ‘Accents of English as a Lingua Franca’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21 (1): 71–93. Kordia, S. (2019), ‘ELF-Aware Teaching in Practice: A Teacher’s Perspective’, in N. C. Sifakis and N. Tsantila (eds), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, 53–71, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Leung, C. and J. Lewkowicz (2018), ‘English Language Teaching: Pedagogic Reconnection with the Social’, in J. Jenkins, M. Dewey and W. Baker (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 61–73, Abingdon: Routledge. López-Barrios, M. and Villanueva de Debat E. (2014), ‘Global vs Local: Does It Matter?’, in S. Garton and K. Graves (eds), International Perspectives on Materials in ELT, 37–52, Basingtoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Lopriore, L. and P. Vettorel (2015), ‘Promoting Awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English Language Classroom’, in H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds), International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Pedagogical Insights, 13–34, Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lopriore, L. and P. Vettorel (2016), ‘A Shift in ELT Perspective: World Englishes and ELF in the EFL Classroom’, in N. Tsantila, J. Mandalios and M. Ilkos (eds), ELF: Pedagogical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 8–15, Athens: Deree – The American College of Greece. Lopriore, L. and P. Vettorel (2019), ‘Perspectives in WE- and ELF-Informed ELT Materials in Teacher Education’, in N. C. Sifakis and N. Tsantila (eds), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, 97–116, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mashuhara, H. and B. Tomlinson (2008), ‘Materials for General English’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), English Language Learning Materials. A Critical Review, 15–37, London: Continuum. Matsuda, A. (2002), ‘Representation of Users and Uses of English in Beginning Japanese EFL Textbooks’, JALT Journal, 24 (2): 182–200. Matsuda, A., ed. (2012a), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (2012b), ‘Teaching English as an International Language’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 1–27, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (2012c), ‘Teaching Materials in EIL’, in L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renandya (eds), Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language, 168–85, New York: Routledge. Matsuda, A., ed. (2017), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language (EIL), Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. and C. S. Duran (2012), ‘EIL Activities and Tasks for Traditional English Classrooms’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 201–37, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

72

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Matsuda, A. and P. Friedrich (2012), ‘Selecting an instructional Variety for an EIL Curriculum’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 17–27, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McGrath, I. (2013), Teaching Materials and the Roles of EFL/ESL Teachers, London: Bloomsbury. McKay, S. L. (2012), ‘Teaching Materials for English as an International Language’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 70–83, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Munandar, M. and I. Ulwiyah (2012), ‘Intercultural Approaches to the Cultural Content of Indonesia’s High School ELT Textbooks’, Cross-Cultural Communication, 8 (5): 67–73. Naji Meidani, E. and R. Pishghadam (2013), ‘Analysis of English Language Textbooks in the Light of English as an International Language (EIL): A Comparative Study’, International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2 (2): 83–96. Newby, D. (2000), ‘Authenticity’, in A.-B. Fenner and D. Newby, Approaches to Materials Design in European Textbooks, 16–24, Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages/ Council of Europe. Pennycook, A. (1994), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Longman. Pinner, R. S. (2016), Reconceptualising Authenticity for English as a Global Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Richards, J. C. (2014), ‘The ELT Textbook’, in S. Garton and K. Graves (eds), International Perspectives on Materials in ELT, 19–36, Basingtoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Sándorová, Z. (2014), ‘Content Analysis as a Research Method in Investigating the Cultural Components in Foreign Language Textbooks’, Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2 (1): 95–128. 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 P. Vettorel (ed.), New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English, 19–30, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Seidlhofer, B. and H. Widdowson (2019), ‘ELF for ELF: A Change of Subject?’, in N. C. Sifakis and N. Tsantila (eds), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, 17–31, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sherman, J. E. (2010), ‘Uncovering Cultural Bias in EFL Textbooks’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18 (1): 27–53. Sifakis, N. C. and Y. Bayyurt (2018), ‘ELF-Aware Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education’, in J. Jenkins, M. Dewey and W. Baker (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 456–67, Abingdon: Routledge. Sifakis, N. C., L. Lopriore, M. Dewey, Y. Bayyurt, P. Vettorel, L. Cavalheiro, D. S. P. Siqueira and S. Kordia (2018), ‘ELF-Awareness in ELT: Bringing Together Theory and Practice’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7 (1): 155–209. 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, 239–57, Berlin: De Gruyter. Siqueira, D. S. P. and J. V. G. Matos (2019), ‘ELT Materials for Basic Education in Brazil: Has the Time for an ELF-Aware Practice Arrived?’, in N. C. Sifakis and N. Tsantila (eds), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, 132–56, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

WORLD ENGLISHES, ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND ELT MATERIALS



73

Swain, M. (2006). ‘Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language Proficiency’, in H. Byrnes (ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky, 95–108, London: Continuum. Syrbe, M. and H. Rose (2018), ‘An Evaluation of the Global Orientation of English Coursebooks in Germany’, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12 (2): 152–63. Takahashi, R. (2010), English as a Lingua Franca in a Japanese Context: An Analysis of ELFOriented Features in Teaching Materials and the Attitudes of Japanese Teachers and Learners of English to ELF-Oriented Materials, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Takahashi, R. (2014), ‘An Analysis of ELF-Oriented Features in ELT Coursebooks’, English Today, 30 (1): 28–34. Tarone, E. (2016), ‘Learner Language in ELF and SLA’, in M.-L. Pitzl and R. Osimik-Teasdale (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects, 217–25, Berlin: De Gruyter. Thornbury, S. (2000), ‘A Dogma for ELT’, IATEFL Issues, 153, February/March 2000. Tomlinson, B. (2003a), ‘Developing Principled Frameworks for Materials Development’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching, 162–73, London: Continuum. Tomlinson, B. (2003b), ‘Humanizing the Coursebook’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), Developing Materials for Language Teaching, 107–29, London: Continuum. Tomlinson B. (2006), ‘A Multi-dimensional Approach to Teaching English for the World’, in R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni (eds), English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles, 130–50, London: Continuum. Tomlinson, B. (2008), ‘Conclusions about ELT Materials in Use Around the World’, in B. Tomlinson (ed.), English Language Learning Materials. A Critical Review, 319–22, London: Continuum. Tomlinson, B. (2012), ‘Materials Development for Language Learning and Teaching’, Language Teaching, 45 (2): 143–79. Tomlinson, B. and H. Mashuhara, (2013), ‘Adult Coursebooks’, ELT Journal, 67 (2): 233–49. Tsantila, N. and A. Georgountzou (2017), ‘ELT Coursebooks and Global English: The Case of Greek Lower Secondary State Schools’, A Cor das Letras, 18: 122–44 Vettorel, P. (2010), ‘EIL/ELF and Representation of Culture in Textbooks: Only Food, Fairs, Folklore and Facts?’, in C. Gagliardi and A. Maley (eds), EIL, ELF, Global English: Teaching and Learning Issues, 154–85, Bern: Peter Lang. Vettorel, P. (2013), ‘ELF in International School Exchanges: Stepping into the Role of ELF Users’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2 (1): 147–73. Vettorel, P. (2014), English as a Lingua Franca in Wider Networking. Blogging Practices, Berlin: De Gruyter. Vettorel, P. (2016), ‘WE- and ELF-Informed Classroom Practices: Proposals from a Pre-service Teacher Education Programme in Italy’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5 (1): 107–33. Vettorel, P. (2017), ‘Including World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca in Classroom Practices: Proposals from “Good Practices” in Teacher Education’, in C. Battisti, S. Fiorato, P. Vettorel and C. Richieri (eds), Teacher Education. English Language, Literature and Culture. Good Practices, 211–37, Lecce/Rovato: Pensa MultiMedia. Vettorel, P. (2018), ‘Can ELF-Aware ELT Practices Start from Textbooks?’, in N. C. Sifakis, L. Lopriore, M. Dewey, Y. Bayyurt, P. Vettorel, L. Cavalheiro, D. S. P. Siqueirs and S. Kordia, ‘ELF-Awareness in ELT: Bringing Together Theory and Practice’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7 (1): 179–84.

74

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Vettorel, P. (submitted), ‘World Englishes and ELF in ELT Coursebooks’, in Y. Bayyurt and E. Illés (eds), Critical Perspectives on ELF in English Language Teaching and Learning: A Guidebook for Teachers. Vettorel, P. and S. Corrizzato (2012), ‘World Englishes and ELF in ELT Textbooks: How Is Plurality Represented?’, in R. Facchinetti (ed.), A Cultural Journey through the English Lexicon, 201–34, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Vettorel, P. and L. Lopriore (2013), ‘Is There ELF in ELT Course-Books?’, Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3 (4): 483–504. Ware, P., M.-L. Liaw and M. Warschauer (2012), ‘The Use of Digital Media in Teaching English as an International Language’, in L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renadya (eds), Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language, 67–84, Abingdon: Routledge. Widdowson, H. (1978), Teaching Language as Communication, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (1990), Aspects of Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (2003), Defining Issues in English Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. (2009), ‘The Linguistic Perspective’, in K. Knapp and B. Seidlhofer (eds), Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning, 193–218, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Widdowson, H. (2012), ‘Closing the Gap, Changing the Subject’, in J. Hüttner, B. MehlmauerLarcher, S. Reichl and B. Seidlhofer (eds), Theory and Practice in EFL Teacher Education, 3–15, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Widdowson, H. (2015), ‘Frontiers of English and the Challenge of Change’, in P. Vettorel (ed.), New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English, 227–32, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Xu, Z. (2013), ‘Globalization, Culture and ELT Materials: A Focus on China’, Multilingual Education, 3 (6): 1–19. 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 a Lingua Franca. Pedagogical Insights, 35–54, Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter 5

Materials and Activities in Teaching English as a Global Language Using Online Resources to Stimulate Innovation MONA SYRBE AND HEATH ROSE

INTRODUCTION In the context of this chapter, when we speak of materials, we refer to anything from textbooks as well as real-world materials that are used for language teaching contexts. Most commonly, however, materials refer to commercially produced textbooks, as this is what teaching is based on in the majority of contexts, and are thus a main source of exposure and information in language teaching (Kachru and Nelson 2001). While it is true that commercially produced textbooks have started including a greater variety of Englishes, for example Indian or South African English, it is important to note that creating World Englishes-oriented materials is not simply a matter of adding diversity to the accents available in a text’s audio materials but requires reconsideration of all elements of teaching. In the same way that taking a World Englishes approach to teaching requires an epistemic break (Kumaravadivelu 2012), true World Englishes materials cannot be designed within an inner-circle native speaker frame of reference. In other words, truly global textbooks should reconsider the norms and values that underpin varieties, speakers, cultures, assessments, tasks, and proficiency, which all need to be redefined within a World Englishes frame of reference. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section provides a thorough overview for material analysis and evaluation, including the presentation of useful tools for this task. Addressing each of the aforementioned elements of material design, this section explains the necessary changes to achieve a World Englishes frame of reference and offers a nominal scale from native speaker orientation to World Englishes orientation against which materials can be analyzed and evaluated. This part is followed by an overview of relevant research that has explored World Englishes content within current English language teaching (ELT) materials. While most of this research reveals the shortcomings of most commercially developed materials, our review of research points to some positive innovations in materials development in recent years. Finally, given the lack

76

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

of good World Englishes teaching materials, the chapter concludes by advising readers how and where to locate real-world materials as additional resources. Covering all major online resources, we offer advice on how to utilize publicly available online resources for varying purposes, such as raising awareness of global uses of English, exposing learners to varieties of English, teaching culture, and integrating these authentic materials within specific lessons and activities.

TEXTBOOK EVALUATION Textbook evaluation is important because we need to make sure that we choose suitable materials for our specific learning context and the particular learner needs. That is, not every textbook is suitable in the same way for any given teaching context. With regards to teaching World Englishes, careful analysis and evaluation of materials is specifically important because of the prevalent reliance on the native speaker model in mainstream textbooks (Galloway and Rose 2015). In recent years, many scholars of materials evaluation have observed a need for teaching materials to better reflect World Englishes realities. McDonough, Shaw, and Masuhara (2013), for example, point out that World Englishes research necessitates that teachers “be able to evaluate, and adapt and develop, their own approaches in the form of principled materials based on their own judgement and experience” (p. 48). McGrath (2013) similarly observes that it is difficult for teachers to justify textbooks that only promote native speaker norms, when they are used in multilingual teaching contexts where learners are going to use English predominantly with other L2 speakers in the future. Tomlinson (2016) has also criticized “global coursebooks for not catering for the needs of learners of English as a global language” (p. 53). Systematic textbook analysis is crucial for teachers to reveal how, and in what ways, their materials perpetuate the idea of the native speaker as target interlocutor or as the only available model for successful English use. In other words, teachers need to be aware of the hidden curriculum within their materials (Rashidi and Meihami 2016). This term refers to underlying norms and structure within materials, which can be communicated to the students. While evaluation does not remove an overreliance on native-referenced content within the textbooks themselves, it enables teachers to be more critical with their materials, more knowledgeable in using them, and more aware of which parts to emphasize and where to make substitutions or additions. While there are numerous frameworks available to carry out an evaluation of materials for language teaching in general (e.g. Grant 1987; McGrath 2013; Tomlinson 2010), there are far fewer frameworks that are useful for teachers to carry out an evaluation for World Englishes appropriacy. While some frameworks have been proposed for English as a lingua franca (ELF) evaluation (e.g. Galloway 2018), English as an international language (EIL; e.g. Tomlinson 2016), and Global Englishes (e.g. Rose and Galloway 2019), more work is needed to trial them with a range of materials. The following section outlines the various facets of World Englishes within materials that could be used to underpin an evaluation by teachers. These are summarized in the evaluation grid in Table 5.1.

Evaluating Varieties It has long been acknowledged that English today is a pluricentric language with many codified varieties that have emerged in inner- and outer-circle countries out of localized communication needs. In the twenty-first century, understanding English on a global scale

MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING ENGLISH



77

TABLE 5.1  Materials evaluation grid for World Englishes content 1. How is the pluricentricity of English presented? NS-oriented materials

Nominal Scale

WE-oriented materials

Monocentric representation of English as the language of innercircle countries.

←------------------------→

Pluricentric representation of English as the language of inner- and outer-circle countries in their own right.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2. Who is presented as speakers of English? Native speakers from ←------------------------→ inner-circle countries.

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

3

4

5

4. How is culture represented? NS-oriented materials Monolithic and static inner-circle cultures. 1

2

3

4

6

9

10

Native and nonnative speakers from all three circles at different levels of English. 7

3. What are the contexts of English use? Native speakers ←------------------------→ communicating in innercircle contexts. 1

8

8

9

10

Native and nonnative speakers communicating within and across all three circles. 7

8

9

10

Nominal Scale

WE-oriented materials

←------------------------→

Fluid cultures from all three circles, global cultural topics.

5

6

7

8

9

10

5. How is proficiency represented? Linguistic accuracy as the ←------------------------→ Multiple competencies that only relevant competence. emphasize content over accuracy. 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

now requires an ability to understand an array of varieties, rather than just British and/ or American English. It seems obvious then that authentic and relevant materials should represent the English language in its diverse variations. This concerns the selection of instructional models as well as the inclusion of further varieties. Obviously, the relevance of certain varieties for students depends on their particular learning contexts and the speakers with whom they are going to use English. For outer-circle countries specifically, using the local variety as instructional model seems the most obvious choice. Where those are not available, for example, in expanding circle countries or for materials produced for international use, it seems reasonable to choose an established variety such as American or British English (Matsuda and Friedrich 2012), so long as it is salient to learners. More importantly though, portraying English in its diversity requires the inclusion of a number of Englishes alongside an instructional model. Matsuda and Friedrich (2012) highlight

78

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

the importance of presenting those as legitimate communication models, that is, materials should expose learners to an array of varieties as equal in their own right. Exposure to as many varieties as possible is fundamental as it allows learners to develop a more realistic and comprehensive understanding of the English language (Matsuda 2003), which helps them use English successfully when they encounter unfamiliar varieties. To evaluate the degree to which English is presented as a pluricentric language, one has to investigate the range of varieties included in the materials as well as the way in which different varieties are presented. Identifying individual varieties requires an analysis of all spoken and written English in terms of pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, and grammar. Understanding how varieties are presented is a question of quantitative analysis, in which one has to look at how varieties are depicted, described, and contextualized. Based on this analysis, materials can be evaluated according to where their representation of pluricentric English falls on a scale of ‘monocentric representation’ of English as the language of ‘inner-circle countries’ to ‘pluricentric representation of English as the language of inner and outer circle countries in their own right’ (see Table 5.1, item 1).

Evaluating Speakers and Interlocutors Global speakers of English are diverse, but one thing that can be said for sure is that nonnative users greatly outnumber native users of the language. Speakers of English come from diverse linguistic backgrounds and have various levels of linguistic and communicative competence. To best prepare learners to use English with a global community of English users, teaching materials should represent the global Englishspeaking community authentically. That is, speakers of English should be from all three circles, exhibiting not only different varieties but also different levels of proficiency in English. Exposure to diverse speakers is obviously crucial to skills development but also plays a role in the development of positive attitudes to a diverse range of speakers. When encountering diverse native or nonnative speakers of unfamiliar Englishes, learners may react with confusion or resistance if only exposed to small number of speakers (Matsuda 2003). Though it is impossible to predict the exact backgrounds of a particular learner’s future interlocutors, materials should generally represent speakers from similar backgrounds as the learners, as well as a variety of speakers from geographically close areas, if they constitute likely future interlocutors. For someone learning English in Japan, for example, it is reasonable to assume, based on tourism and business data that their future interlocutors will likely come from other Asian countries, and materials should represent this reality accordingly. An evaluation of the speakers of English can be conducted by analyzing the nationality of those who are represented as using English. Speakers’ nationality can be derived from their English use as well as other contextual clues. Understanding the ratio of native to nonnative speakers as well the circles speakers are from should be seen as the starting point of this analysis. However, one should also examine how native and nonnative speakers are represented alongside each other by analyzing elements such as their roles within dialogues, the amount of speaking time, authenticity of their English, or dominance within dialogues. In doing so, one can determine the presentation of speakers ranging from ‘native speakers from inner circle countries’ to ‘native and non-native speakers from all three circles at different levels of English proficiency’ (see Table 5.1, item 2). To fully understand how future interlocutors are portrayed, it is also important to go beyond the mere analysis of speakers and to also consider the contexts of English use.

MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING ENGLISH



79

Contexts of English use refers to the interlocutors in dialogues as well as the proposed target audience for production tasks. Analyzing interlocutors requires the evaluator to identify who uses English with whom within different dialogues in a textbook. For one, that means finding out if the dialogues are intra- or international, but also to identify the role of the inner-circle native speaker within these dialogues. That is, whether the dialogues are between inner-circle speakers alone, between inner-circle and outer- or expanding-circle speakers, or between speakers from outer- and expanding circles, without any native speaker present. By the same token, it is worth exploring if the dialogues take place in mostly inner-circle contexts or if the materials also depict outerand expanding-circle contexts of English use. Lastly, one can explore the target audience of certain production tasks, such as ‘Imagine you are writing an article for XYZ’, to further evaluate the real-world use of English learners are exposed to within a particular set of materials. Accordingly, materials can be allocated somewhere between ‘Native speakers communicating in inner circle contexts’ and ‘Native and non-native speakers communicating within and across all three circles’ (see Table 5.1, item 2).

Evaluating Intercultural Competence In native speaker-referenced materials, culture is mostly linked to inner-circle countries and tends to be portrayed as a static concept. That is, learners are presented with a list of behavioral norms to adhere to when potentially ‘visiting English-speaking countries’ or in ‘English-speaking situations’. These are problematic as they are based on inner-circle cultures and thus limited in representation of the real cultures in which English is used globally. More importantly, they suggest cultural behavioral norms to be something that can be learned a priori and is dictated by the minority of native speakers. WE-oriented materials, on the other hand, represent a fluid image of culture (Baker 2012) that is uncoupled from particular countries (Seidlhofer 2011). So, in WE-oriented materials, cultural content is taken from countries of all circles, including content from the learners’ own culture. Beyond that, the focus should be on supranational, global cultural topics such as climate change, global trends in pop culture, or issues related to the economy or broader society. When specific cultures are discussed, learners need to be exposed to various cultures and the notion that culture is fluid in international communication; that is, cultural norms are relative as they develop within communication (Baker 2012). Learners also need to develop an awareness of the difficulties connected to intercultural communication (Friedrich 2012), and the need for good communication strategies to overcome such difficulties. In order to analyze the representation of culture, one should focus on two things, namely the range of contexts used to situate cultural references and cultural material and the representation of intercultural norms. Cultural references include any mention of a specific country’s and region’s culture, be it music, TV, famous people, customs, traditions, history, and the like. Cultural material is any real-world material included in the textbook materials, such as newspaper articles, songs, or book excerpts. Mainly, this analysis should focus on understanding the positioning of cultural references and cultural materials. In other words, this analysis focuses on understanding the extent to which culture is connected to particular countries or a particular circle, and to what extent the materials allow learners to explore their own cultures and intercultural or transcultural contexts. Through cultural analysis, it is worth exploring what kind of references and materials are found, to better understand which elements are suited for an in-depth approach

80

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

to culture. For example, references to famous people are rather superficial, whereas references to customs or habits tend to allow for more detailed exploration, which is more likely to lead to a better understanding of diversity within culture. By the same token, an evaluation of culture should take a critical look at static representations of culture. For example, does the representation of culture suggest that all people from one country act and think in the same way or does it acknowledge the existence of subcultures and diversity within one country? By the same token, one needs to question whether or not learners are told to always behave a certain way in intercultural interactions, or if the materials present these situations as fluid and negotiated between all interlocutors (Baker 2012). Based on these analyses, materials can be evaluated according to the extent to which they present ‘inner circle static cultures’ to ‘fluid cultures from all three circles, global cultural topics’ (see Table 5.1, item 4).

Evaluating Proficiency At the core of ELT, and the core of teaching World Englishes, is an understanding of what it means to be proficient in English. Most models of communicative competence consider linguistic knowledge as the cornerstone of proficiency. That is, (English) language proficiency is most often defined in terms of an individual’s knowledge of the language system. As research has shown, linguistic accuracy is not a determining factor for successful ELF communication, in which content and efficient communication is emphasized over accuracy (Jenkins et al. 2011). To achieve successful communication, English speakers employ a number of communication strategies, and ELF or WE-oriented materials expose students to those, and provide opportunity for practice. Within the large number of existing communication strategies, particular ones have been observed as useful and prevalent in ELF communication (Cogo and Dewey 2012). Two of the most important strategies are rephrasing/paraphrasing and negotiation of meaning (Galloway and Rose 2015). Negotiation as a process can involve several strategies, which are ‘comprehension checks’, ‘confirmation checks’, and ‘requests for clarification’(Foster and Ohta 2005). An evaluation of proficiency should investigate whether materials expose learners to communication strategies, handling miscommunication, and the extent to which tasks allow learners to practice such strategies. Exposure can be identified through a closer look at the dialogues, to see whether any of them showcase the use of communication strategies. Further, one should look for comprehension questions and activities that prompt learners to reflect on the use of communication strategies. A second element to examine is the amount of miscommunication learners are exposed to within interactions, and whether or not they have a chance to further explore reasons for and strategies to resolve these. The key element of this analysis, however, is a focus on the tasks and activities presented in the materials. Here, one should identify whether they facilitate practice linguistic accuracy or communication strategies. Linguistic accuracy refers to the practice of grammatical accuracy, spelling, or pronunciation, where production of ‘correct’ English is the central aim of a task. Communication strategies refer to the practice of the aforementioned strategies, where successful communication of ideas is the central aim of the task. Thus, the analysis should explore the ratio of tasks that allow learners to practice these two skills. Specific attention during this evaluation should be given to speaking and communication activities as these often only superficially address actual communication, but when closely examined reveal an actual purpose to practice and consolidate a specific grammar point. These features of a textbook could be evaluated on a scale, with ‘Linguistic accuracy as the

MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING ENGLISH



81

only relevant competence’ at one end and ‘Multiple competencies that emphasize content over accuracy’ at the other (see Table 5.1, item 5).

TEXTBOOK EVALUATION RESEARCH There is an important distinction between materials evaluation, for the purposes of selecting and implementing the right materials for classroom implementation in a given context, and materials research for the purposes of analyzing specific features within materials. Materials research aims to explore constructs that underpin resources, usually according to key constructs of theoretical or social interest to researchers. In the wider spectrum of textbook research, these could include constructs such as gender, sexuality, religion, age, discrimination, and race. Gray (2016) states that materials research currently reveals a variety of disciplinary influences. In World Englishes, materials research has centered on constructs such of the native speaker, the contexts of language use, cultural representations of English users, and depictions of linguistic variation. A number of critical studies evaluating local and global textbooks have shown a strong reliance on the native speaker model in commercially produced materials. Caleffi (2016), Vettorel (2018), Yuen (2011) examined particular WE-related elements. Examining ELF, Caleffi (2016) found little incorporation of this type of communication as well as nonnative speakers in general, a finding that is corroborated by Syrbe and Rose (2018). Vettorel’s study, on the other hand, found that more recent textbooks published after 2000 do provide opportunity for learners to practice communication strategies, which are essential for ELF communication. Yuen’s (2011) study revealed a strong focus on native speakers by showing that most textbooks emphasized inner-circle English-speaking cultures. Examining a variety of WE-related elements, Matsuda (2002) found an overemphasis on American English in terms of speakers, language-use contexts, and varieties. Syrbe and Rose (2018) found a similar reliance on native speakers across elements such as varieties, speakers, and culture. When target interlocutors were analyzed, they found only one task where students needed to imagine themselves using English with another L2 English speaker within an expanding-circle context. However, the German secondary school textbooks in their study did feature some outer-circle and more so expanding-circle speakers in dialogues and audio materials. Similarly, Naji Meidani and Pishghadam (2012) identify a change towards stronger inclusion of the outer- and the expanding circle in more recent textbooks. Within the same line, Rose and Galloway’s (2019) investigation of language models, target interlocutors and ownership found that only one of the six globally used textbooks somewhat challenged the native speaker model with a high representation of L2 speakers communicating with each other in global contexts. Their study revealed that business textbooks were more likely to include a range of English varieties and depict interactions between L2 English users, without a native speaker present. This was in stark contrast to popular general English textbooks, which were shown to be very inner-circle references. This suggests that positive trends found in other studies may only refer to individual elements but the target and model for successful English use remains the domain of the native speaker.

WORLD ENGLISHES MATERIALS As most research suggests a strong reliance on native speaker-oriented materials, it seems paramount for teachers to substitute their textbooks with additional materials. Substitute

82

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

materials can be found anywhere in the real world, although the internet arguably offers the greatest resource, albeit one that needs to be used carefully. Teachers can substitute materials according to the evaluation of their own materials and add additional materials to fill areas where commercial textbooks are lacking. Where possible, teachers may also be able to move towards an increased use of outside materials rather than relying on textbooks. Bearing this in mind, TED Talks and YouTube offer the most extensive resources to expose learners to different World Englishes and relevant topics. TED Talks have a huge array of materials on diverse topics, are presented in different lengths, and showcase authentic native and nonnative speakers, and thus make excellent teaching resources. Many of these talks are also accompanied by transcripts which can be used for further study. Increasingly, even commercial publishers such as National Geographic Learning, are organizing their online instructional materials around TED Talks (National Geographic Learning 2019). Specifically, as outer- and expanding-circle speakers are regularly featured as speakers and experts on the TED Talk platform, this resource greatly legitimizes their use of English. It shows learners that they can be considered an expert on a given topic and globally educate people on this topic without a need to sound like a native speaker. The sheer amount of materials on the TED Talk platform makes it difficult to find suitable talks. It is especially time consuming if teachers are looking for speakers of a particular variety as the only language-related filters allows choice between languages, but not by speaker background. YouTube is another valuable resource if used correctly. Again, the sheer number of videos on any and every topic makes it a very fruitful yet difficult platform to navigate resource. Moreover, there is no quality control for this platform, so teachers will need to determine suitability and credibility of a video for classroom use. However, teachers who are willing to put in effort will find a large number of suitable informational videos and expert interviews, which showcase speakers of different varieties of English as positive role models. News websites are another valuable online resource that can be utilized as WE-oriented materials. They offer short and relevant input on up-to-date topics, and are easily accessible and easier to navigate. As most of their material is written language, they are not likely to exhibit much variation and are thus less suitable to expose learners to different varieties. Nevertheless, an increasing number of news websites feature video content. News sources such as BBC World have historically been criticized for promoting singular varieties of UK English, but in recent decades there has been conscious effort by the broadcaster to move away from the use of presenters who speak ‘BBC English’ (i.e. Received Pronunciation) and towards the showcasing of presenters and reporters of a greater range of other Englishes. Thus, even inner-circle news websites might prove useful as global sources of materials. Another recent, but ever-growing, online resource is the movie database Netflix (or similar streaming websites). There, teachers can find a number of movies, series, and documentaries showcasing different varieties, especially from outer-circle contexts. Despite their initial focus on North-American-based productions, there is an increasing number of movies and series produced in nonnative-speaking countries, for example Germany or Sweden. Moreover, those originally recorded in local languages have often been dubbed into English using local, nonnative speakers. That is, learners can be exposed to different nonnative accents for an extended period of time. However, the local speakers, who sometimes are the actual actors, are well trained, and unfortunately their English is not always characteristic of the local nonnative accents and at times sounds almost native-like.

MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING ENGLISH



83

Lastly, teachers can also use postcolonial writings and audiobooks to bring World Englishes into the English language classroom. These are useful as they are authentic representation of local cultures and offer opportunity for in-depth study. On the other hand, they require much time and effort to work with and may not be available for a particular context or desired topic. Especially audio books, if read by local speaker/ author, can be good exposure to particular variety but there is very limited availability.

WORLD ENGLISHES ACTIVITIES In order to illustrate World Englishes materials in practice, the following section provides examples of how online resources can be used to create tasks to expose learners to World Englishes, beyond exposure to just varieties. First, two example tasks are provided that use TED Talk and YouTube platforms to raise learners’ awareness of World Englishes. This is followed by two tasks which aim to challenge students’ attitudes towards World Englishes using TED Talks and BBC online news media. Finally, one task is presented to get students to engage with online news media via different cultural lenses.

Activities to Raise Awareness of World Englishes Issues Raising awareness refers to explicitly exploring how and why English developed the way it did, and how it got to take its current status. This includes learning about the language’s history but also critically exploring its current status, and the sociolinguistic and sociocultural elements of the development of new English varieties. Depending on students’ level, there is a variety of materials that can be used to raise this awareness. For lower levels, there is an increasing number of resources, such as Kiczkowiak and Lowe’s (2019) resource pack for teaching ELF, which includes a lot of World Englishes awarenessraising topics. For higher levels, there is the companion website to Galloway and Rose’s (2015) Introducing Global Englishes. According to the book chapters, the authors offer additional materials and resources with ready-made activities including reading tasks and debates. Teachers can also use adapted textbook materials, for example Gramley’s (2012) The History of English, or McIntyre’s (2009) History of English. To visualize the global use of English, teachers can further use different models and maps of the spread of English such as Kachru’s Three Circles model. Further, language-use-related reports such as the so-called Eurobarometer (Commissie 2012), which reports about second language learning and use among EU citizens, can be used to raise awareness about the ways in which nonnative speakers use English, and the importance of the language in educational systems. Online resources can also inform learners about the current use and status of World Englishes. For example, in one study by Rose and Galloway (2017), the teachers used online resources on the Speak Good English Movement in Singapore to stimulate an organized debate on standard language ideology. The Speak Good English Movement has its own YouTube channel, as well as other online resources that challenge and debate this movement’s aims. Activities can range from reading and listening comprehension to (extended) research. Two further examples of activities are provided in the following text. 1. TED Talk-based lesson: The role of English in the world This lesson is based on two TED Talks, both of which address the role of English in the world. They were not produced specifically to teach World Englishes but do increase

84

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

TABLE 5.2  Sample lesson plan for World Englishes awareness-raising Materials:  J ay Walker: The world’s English Goal: Students develop their knowledge mania (TED Talk) and Patricia Ryan: of and critically evaluate the Don’t insist on English (TED Talk) current status of English Lesson: Warm-Up: Students discuss the role of English in their country with a partner. TED Talk 1: 1. Students watch ‘The world’s English mania’ and answer questions; teachers ensure that students understand the positive attitude and insistence of English as tool for problem -solving. 2. Students discuss whether they agree or disagree with a partner and give reasons why. TED Talk 2: 1. Students watch ‘Don’t insist on English’ and check understanding with a partner to ensure students understand the main idea that different languages open up new ways of thinking 2. In groups, students discuss how this speaker’s opinion is different from the first speaker and with which speaker they agree more. Discussion: Students ask questions that arose from both TED Talks. Students critically discuss the role of English as an international language through question such as ‘Do we need a global language?’ ‘Should everyone learn English?’

awareness about English used globally and develop learners’ meta-knowledge. The goal of this lesson is for students to critically engage with the role and status of EIL, though this can be expanded to also include a language-related goal such as discussion language or linking words, for example. The overview of this lesson plan is provided in Table 5.2. 2. YouTube-based lesson: The history of English This lesson is to teach learners about the history of English as a contact language, and can be used as a starting point for more detailed exploration into many different directions. The video History of English (Open University 2011) is well suited as it is freely available on YouTube, is ten-minute long, has a humorous approach, and is published by Open University and made publicly available. The only disadvantage is that some of the jokes require a certain level of knowledge and maturity, which makes it less suited for younger learners. The goal is for learners to understand that English, as any other language, is constantly changing and has always been influenced by other languages, and that there have always been (unsuccessful) movements to standardize the language, such as British or American standard English.

Activities to Develop Attitudes Attitudes can have a strong influence on how we approach speakers of different varieties of English and thus influence our ability to communicate with speakers of different varieties (Rose, Syrbe, Funada and Montakantiwong 2020). In terms of World Englishes, ELT should stimulate learners to develop positive attitudes towards speakers of all varieties as well as other nonnative speakers by understanding diversity as an expression

MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING ENGLISH



85

TABLE 5.3  Sample lesson plan on the history of English Materials:  The history of English by Goal:  Students develop their knowledge of the Open University current status and form of English by learning about its history as a contact language Lesson: Warm-Up: Students are tested on their knowledge about the spread of English by asking what countries speak English. Additionally, students collect questions they have about the spread and history of English. Pre-watch Students are given a variety of common English words and sort them into two categories: ‘from English’ and ‘from other language’. Watch: Students watch video and answer comprehension questions. Questions should focus on language contact and language change to help learners understand the fluid and flexible nature of English. Post-watch: Students critically explore the current role of English and the assumed need for language standards by discussing quotes from the video such as ‘Whose language is it anyway?’, ‘The sun never sets on the English language’, or ‘We might stop calling it English altogether’.

of local identity. At an advanced level, postcolonial writings are a rich resource, as they offer opportunities to explore language form but also carry sociolinguistic and cultural knowledge and significance. If teachers prefer to focus on smaller units, TED Talks exhibiting different speakers can be a good opportunity for learners to be exposed to experts using different varieties. Similarly, the BBC’s Pidgin English news published online offer various writing and speaking samples to explore West African Pidgin English. Activities can focus on language form as well as sociolinguistic content about life in postcolonial settings. When focusing on features, however, it is paramount not to compare introduced varieties with prestigious varieties, as this will likely develop a hierarchical understanding of varieties (Saraceni 2015). 1. TED Talk-based lesson: Different registers This activity develops students’ attitudes by exploring the fact that different social contexts require different registers, none of which are more prestigious than the other. The key is for students to understand how to use language most efficiently in various contexts. The example lesson is provided in Table 5.4.

2. BBC Pidgin based: Story telling

This activity (Table 5.5) develops students’ positive attitudes towards West African Pidgin English (and by association other nonstandard Englishes), and to expose them to this New English variety in detail. New Englishes are those varieties that have developed in outer-circle postcolonial contexts (Galloway and Rose 2015). This activity can be done as a one-time activity or extended over any period of time.

Activities to Explore Issues through Different Cultural Perspectives Teaching culture in a World Englishes framework requires two things: sampling cultural materials from all three circles as well as international contexts and allowing learners to understand the relative nature of norms in intercultural interactions. Thus, realia from any and every country are suitable and can be utilized to start exploring different cultures.

86

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

TABLE 5.4  Sample lesson plan for developing positive attitudes towards nonstandard Englishes Materials:  TED Talk: Jamila Lyiscott – 3 ways to speak English

Goal:  Students develop more positive attitude towards speakers of non standard Englishes

Lesson: Warm-Up: Students reflect on using their native language by thinking of different situations in which they change to different registers. Pre-watch: Students discuss what it means to be “articulate” in a foreign language. Watch: Students watch TED Talk and take notes about the different domains and how the speaker changes her English accordingly. Discussion: Students are provided an example text written in formal academic style and are asked (in groups) to adjust the language in the text for a variety of different contexts.

TABLE 5.5  Sample lesson plan for developing positive attitudes towards New Englishes Materials: BBC Pidgin news website

Goal: Students are expected to develop positive attitudes towards New Englishes by (continuous) exposure

Lesson: Warm-Up: Teacher presents a variety of pictures taken from real news stories and students guess what the stories are is about. Pre-read 1. Students are provided corresponding headlines to match to those pictures.

2. Students choose one story to read according to their interest

Read: Students read story as homework and prepare a short presentation. Students also identify vocabulary items particular for West African Pidgin English to teach their classmates. Students further prepare comprehension and discussion question for their classmates. Presentation: Students present their stories, share vocabulary, and lead the discussion.

News outlets from different countries can be used in order to explore the diversity within local cultures and how local, national, and global cultures relate to each other (Baker 2012). In contexts where students come from different countries, materials (e.g. news) that cover global topics can be used and discussed to foster intercultural understanding. However, in places where students come from the same cultural background, teachers may need to find different ways to make the classroom more intercultural. One approach is to address cultural stereotypes, as overcoming those is essential in developing intercultural awareness (Baker 2012). Exploring and discussing stereotypes in textbooks critically against the backdrop of students own knowledge and experience can be a worthwhile activity. It would also be interesting for students to explore their own cultures’ stereotypes in order to gain a better understanding of the mostly ill-informed nature of these. Following is an example of a series of activities that would allow learners to explore national cultures in relation to each other and to global cultural topics.

MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING ENGLISH



87

TABLE 5.6  Sample lesson plan for developing intercultural awareness. Materials:  English-speaking online news Goal:  Students develop their intercultural website from all three circles skills by gaining a better understanding of similarities and differences among cultures Lesson: Activity 1: Students find a given number of news stories reported on in each country. Activity 2: Students compare the top ten stories to identify how many of those report on the same events vs different events. Activity 3: Students compare the top ten stories to how many of those report on the international versus local events. Activity 4: Students compare type of news reported in most countries (e.g. culture, sports, and politics). Activity 5: Students compare one or two stories reported in each newspaper and analyze differences/similarities in reporting.

1. Online News based: Cultural understanding Table 5.6 outlines a series of activities that can be carried out individually or in sequence. The goal of these activities is for students to develop a better understanding of the similarities and differences among particular cultures.

CONCLUSION Teaching World Englishes is a challenge in itself but one that is perpetuated by the overreliance on the native speaker model in most commercially produced materials. Though the native speaker model is everywhere, it tends to not be questioned by many teachers and students. In order to help teachers be more critical with their materials in regards to World Englishes, this chapter has provided evaluation guidelines, which allow teachers to examine their materials in terms of varieties, language-use contexts, speakers, culture, and proficiency. Doing so will make it easier for teachers to use their materials more critically. However, evaluation is not enough to bring World Englishes into the English language classroom, and this chapter has thus suggested a variety of other authentic resources that teachers can utilize. In this chapter we have aimed to not only provide an overview of materials evaluation, but to give some ideas and prompts as to how alternative materials can be utilized to teach under a World Englishes perspective. Encouraging teachers to make use of good online resources is important as it may be some time before we see commercial publishers provide ready-packaged World Englishes materials. With regards to materials, Galloway (2018) argues that given publishers want to make money from textbook sales, it is uncertain whether they will ‘dare to be different’ (McGrath 2013: 198), and move away from native English norms. Thus, it may be up to teachers to demonstrate to publishers that different materials are desired, and in the face of a lack of provision of them, they are willing to adopt other materials beyond textbooks. Leading on from the creation of new materials for teaching World Englishes is the need also for reporting on their development and implementation in the classroom. If teachers are able to share resources and lesson plans with each other, it lessens the considerable

88

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

barrier to innovation that has been caused by the current lack of language teaching materials. Further to this, if researcher-practitioners are able to report on the effects of the use of such materials on learning, it can add evidence for the current paradigm shift in ELT towards a more World Englishes informed pedagogy.

REFERENCES Baker, W. (2012), ‘From Cultural Awareness to Intercultural Awareness: Culture in ELT’, ELT Journal, 66 (1): 62–70. Caleffi, P. (2016), ‘ELF in the Speaking and Listening Activities of Recently Published EnglishLanguage Coursebooks’, Intercultural Communication, New Perspectives from ELF. Available online: https​:/​/pd​​fs​.se​​manti​​cscho​​lar​.o​​rg​/fd​​c5​/ae​​4f749​​6b75f​​0b160​​5d18c​​27fe​c​​eda6a​​ 067d.​​pdf (accessed 14 July 2019). Cogo, A. and M. Dewey (2012), Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation, London: Continuum Commissie, E. (2012), ‘Special Eurobarometer 386, Europeans and Their Languages’. Available online: http:​/​/ec.​​europ​​a​.eu/​​publi​​c​_opi​​nion/​​archi​​ves​/e​​bs​/eb​​​s​_386​​_en​.P​​df (accessed 14 July 2019). Foster, P. and A. S. Ohta (2005), ‘Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms’, Applied Linguistics, 26 (3): 402–30. Friedrich, P. (2012), ‘ELF, Intercultural Communication and the Strategic Aspect of Communicative Competence’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 44–54, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Galloway, N. (2018), ‘ELF and ELT Teaching Materials’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 468–80, London: Routledge. Galloway, N. and H. Rose, (2015), Introducing Global Englishes, Abingdon: Routledge. Gramley, S. (2012), The History of English: An Introduction, London: Routledge. Grant, N. (1987), Making the Most of Your Textbook, London: Longman. Gray, J. (2016), ‘ELT Materials: Claims, Critiques and Controversies’, in G. Hall (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching, 90–104, Abingdon: Routledge. 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. Kachru, B. and C. Nelson, (2001), ‘World Englishes’, in A. Burns and C. Coffin (eds), Analysing English in a Global Context: A Reader, 9–25, London: Routledge in association with Macquarie University and the Open University. Kiczkowiak, M. and R. J. Lowe (2019), Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: The Journey from EFL to ELF, London: Delta Publishing. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012), ‘Individual Identity, Cultural Globalization and Teaching English as an International Language: The Case for an Epistemic Break’, in L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renandya (eds), Teaching English as an International Language: Principles and Practices, 9–27, New York, NY: Routledge. Matsuda, A. (2002), ‘International Understanding through Teaching World Englishes’, World Englishes, 21 (3): 436–40. Matsuda, A. (2003), ‘Incorporating World Englishes in Teaching English as an International Language’, TESOL Quarterly, 37 (4): 719–29. Matsuda, A. and P. Friedrich (2012), ‘Selecting an Instructional Variety for an EIL Curriculum’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International

MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING ENGLISH



89

Language. New Perspectives on Language and Education, 17–27, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McDonough, J., C. Shaw and H. Masuhara (2013), Materials and Methods in ELT: A Teacher’s Guide, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. McGrath, I. (2013), Materials Evaluation and Design for Language Teaching, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McIntyre, D. (2009), History of English: A Resource Book for Students, London: Routledge. Naji Meidani, E. and R. Pishghadam (2012), ‘Analysis of English Language Textbooks in the Light of English as an International Language (EIL): A Comparative Study’, International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2 (2): 83–96. National Geographic Learning. (2019). Learn English with TED Talks. (Online resource). Available online: https​:/​/ww​​w​.elt​​ngl​.c​​om​/si​​tes​/t​​edt​al​​ks​/ho​​me (accessed 14 July 2019). Open University. (2011), ‘The History of English in Ten Minutes’, Open Learn, 22 June. Available online: https​:/​/ww​​w​.ope​​n​.edu​​/open​​learn​​/lang​​uages​​/engl​​ish​-l​​angua​​ge​/th​​e​-his​​tory-​​en​ gli​​sh​-te​​n​-min​​utes Rashidi, N. and H. Meihami (2016), ‘Hidden Curriculum: An Analysis of Cultural Content of the ELT Textbooks in Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circle Countries’, Cogent Education, 3 (1): 1–18. Rose, H. and N. Galloway (2017), ‘Debating Standard Language Ideology in the Classroom: Using the “Speak Good English Movement” to Raise Awareness of Global Englishes’, RELC Journal, 48 (3): 294–301. Rose, H. and N. Galloway (2019), Global Englishes for Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, H., M. Syrbe, N. Funada and A. Montakantiwong (2020), Global TESOL for the 21st Century: Teaching English in a Changing World, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Saraceni, M. (2015), World Englishes: A Critical Analysis, London and New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Seidlhofer, B. (2011), Understanding English as a Lingua Franca, Oxford: Oxford University Press Syrbe, M. and H. Rose (2018), ‘An Evaluation of the Global Orientation of English Textbooks in Germany’, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12 (2): 152–63. Tomlinson, B. (2010), ‘Principles of Effective Materials Development’, in N. Harwood (ed.), English Language Teaching Materials: Theory and Practice, 81–108, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomlinson, B. (2016), ‘Current Issues in the Development of Materials for Learners of English as an International Language (EIL)’, in W. Renandya and H. Widodo (eds), English Language Teaching Today, 53–66, Cham: Springer. Vettorel, P. (2018), ‘ELF and Communication Strategies: Are They Taken into Account in ELT Materials?’, RELC Journal, 49 (1): 58–73. Yuen, K. M. (2011), ‘The Representation of Foreign Cultures in English Textbooks’, ELT Journal, 65 (4): 458–66.

Chapter 6

Negotiating NativeSpeakerism in TESOL Curriculum Innovation NICOLA GALLOWAY

INTRODUCTION In today’s globalized world, multilingualism is the norm and non-native speakers of English using the language as a global lingua franca are in the majority. The global spread of the English language has resulted in a wealth of research in the Global Englishes paradigm showcasing the diversity of the language and how it has adapted to its surroundings. Scholars are also increasingly discussing the pedagogical implications of such research. However, despite growing research in Global Englishes, which challenges native speaker hegemony, and despite growing recognition of multilingualism and the emergence of a ‘multilingual turn’ in the field of second language acquisition (SLA), mainstream teaching of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) and curricula continue to be dominated by native norms. An idealized ‘standard’ version of the English language is promoted. This is a version of curricula that is not reflective of how the language functions outside of the classroom and one that sees knowledge of an additional language as a hindrance.

NATIVE-SPEAKERISM Problematization of the concept of ‘native’ speaker is certainly not new to the field of Global Englishes. Indeed, the term has been problematized for decades and has been described as a ‘fallacy’ (Phillipson 1992) and a myth. It is a term that is “notoriously difficult to define, and only exists as a concept in people’s minds, rather than being an identifiable reality” (Rose and Galloway 2019: 14). With globalization and the movement of people internationally, as well as the use of English as a contact language and multilingualism, the distinction between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ is even more problematic. However, the terms ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ continue to be in use due to the lack of a consensus over a suitable alternative and their continued use has been used to drive a wedge in Englishusing communities, a phenomenon referred to as native-speakerism. Native-speakerism has been defined as

94

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

the idealisation and promotion of teachers who are constructed as ‘native speakers’ as representing a ‘Western culture’, from which springs the ideals both of English and of the methodology for teaching it. (Holliday 2005: 6; Holliday 2015: 13) In essence, the term refers to the privileged status of ‘native’ English speakers and teachers, deemed to be legitimate speakers of the English language and, therefore, credible teachers of the language. It impacts the entire TESOL curricula, manifesting itself in discriminatory recruitment practices, the continued use of high-stakes tests benchmarked to ‘native’ standards and the use of Western-centric TESOL methodology and materials. There have been many attempts to address this within the field of TESOL over the years. Developments such as the Non-Native English Speaking Teachers Interest Section (NNEST-IS) of the TESOL organization in 1991 (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 1991) and the 2006 position statement condemned hiring based on the native speaker criterion as discriminatory (TESOL 2006). Nevertheless, around the world, we continue to see recruitment adds for ‘natives’ or ‘near-natives’, and sometimes even Caucasians with a ‘neutral’ accent (Galloway 2017a). ‘Native’ English speakers dominate billboards and websites advertising language schools, used to attract parents seeking an ‘authentic’ English experience for their child. They are recruited in large numbers throughout the world to work in public schools as part of the government agenda to improve the English proficiency of its citizens, something that is becoming more prevalent in universities with the growing global phenomenon of English-Medium Instruction (EMI), which is closely linked to government goals to improve English proficiency in some contexts. Native-speakerism extends beyond recruitment to all aspects of the TESOL curricula, curricula in which the ‘native’ speaker is posited as the benchmark to which the English learner is to be measured. To speak English like a ‘native’ is the ultimate goal, albeit an unachievable and irrelevant one. ‘Native’ English speakers are also posited as the target interlocutor, which again is unrepresentative of how the English language functions as a global lingua franca. The superiority of Western TESOL methods and approaches are evident in TESOL policies and practices around the globe. In Thailand, for example, the Regional English Training Centres Project (The British Council 2018), which followed on from a ‘Boot Camp’ of intensive teacher training in 2016, involved training Thai English teachers by ‘native’ English speakers to boost their confidence in English and their communicative teaching techniques (Mala 2016). It followed from a survey conducted by the Ministry of Education that found that 6 out of more than 43,000 teachers in public schools had achieved native-like fluency, or C2 level, on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (ibid.) and these scores, on a test benchmarked to ‘native’ English, were used to select teachers for the boot camp. TESOL materials also focus on ‘native’ English and the ‘native’ English bias is also evident in TESOL practitioner materials (Galloway 2017b). While some recent texts do at least acknowledge Global Englishes, it is unfortunate that they do not problematize the implications of this for TESOL curricula. In Ur’s (2012) ‘A Course in English language Teaching’, for example, it is recognized that ‘English is today being used for all sorts of purposes worldwide’ and that ‘it is important for our students to know that there is not just one “English style”’ (p. 2). There is also a section on ‘English as an International Language’ (EIL), which makes reference to the fact that ‘non-native’ English speakers outnumber ‘native’ English speakers, that English is a globally owned language, that global intelligibility should be prioritized over ‘native’ English and that importance

NEGOTIATING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM IN TESOL CURRICULUM INNOVATION



95

should be placed on both ‘non-native’ English speakers and ‘non-native’ English– speaking teachers, who are in the majority. While there is no mention of Global Englishes research, nor consideration of how to integrate Global Englishes into the curricula, such content, however superficial, is promising for global English language teaching (GELT). Several recent Global Englishes texts also include practical suggestions and ideas (e.g., Alsagoff, McKay, Hu, and Renandya 2012; Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; Galloway 2017a; Galloway and Rose 2015; Matsuda 2012), although, overall, these are limited and, overall, ‘traditional’ TESOL curricula continue to position ‘non-native’ English speakers as inferior and never-ending learners on a cline towards ‘native’ speaker competence. They are tested and benchmarked to ‘native’ standards, and the construct of competence in English is not reflective of how English as a lingua franca (ELF) users negotiate meaning on the use of successful ELF strategies, or on how English users draw on their linguistic and other resources to negotiate meaning. Competence in English is measured by how a learner approximates to fixed ‘native’ English norms. Multilingualism and the hybrid use of languages are simply ignored, and English is promoted as a fixed, bound entity that constitutes fixed grammatical structures. The washback effect is immense, and it is these fixed ‘standard’ structures that are to be taught by those deemed competent in them: the ‘native’ speakers. Such curricula clearly do not meet the needs of those learning the language to use as a global lingua franca. The dominance of native-speakerism and standard language ideology is strong, so strong that it overshadows the development of the English language and how it is used outside of the classroom, something that is increasingly being showcased within the field of Global Englishes.

GLOBAL ENGLISHES: CHALLENGING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM Discussions over the dominance of native-speakerism are not new, but flourishing Global Englishes research provides a new perspective on this. The global spread of EIL has changed how the language is used and, therefore, how it should be taught and learned. ‘Global Englishes’, an umbrella term to unite research on World Englishes, ELF and EIL explore the diversity of this global language, as well as the implications of the globalization of English on multifaceted aspects of society (Galloway and Rose 2015; Rose and Galloway 2019). Research in this field showcases that multilingualism is not subordinate to monolingualism, that the former is the norm and aims to raise awareness that the idea of a standard ‘native’ English is an idealized construct – ‘native’ speakers are not even one homogeneous group. It has been fundamental in raising people’s awareness that ‘native’ English is merely one variety, an idealized construct and not superior to others. It has, then, prompted a shift in the perspective of language and scholars in all of these fields have also discussed the implications of their research for TESOL curricula. With a changed sociolinguistic landscape and changed needs of those learning the language, we have witnessed increased calls within the field for a paradigm shift away from ‘native’ English–speaking norms (see Rose and Galloway 2019 for an overview). New needs require new goals, new assessments, new materials and new perspectives. New needs require new curricula. The GELT framework (Galloway 2011; Galloway and Rose 2015; Rose and Galloway 2019) was a response to the need for both a critical evaluation of current TESOL curricula and the need to design new curricula that incorporate a Global Englishes perspective to ensure that it meets the needs of the twenty-first-century

96

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

English learners. Aiming to encourage a movement away from monolingual bias and native-speakerism, it provides practitioners and curriculum planners with a detailed framework to evaluate and design curricula. It is based on the proposals for, and barriers towards, change identified in the literature (Galloway 2011; Galloway and Rose 2015). Identification of such proposals and barriers was seen as an important first step towards curricular innovation in light of the need to bridge the gap between theory and practice and establish what exactly scholars were calling for in their discussions of the need for curricular innovation. Calls for change were categorized into five main proposals (Galloway 2011; Galloway and Rose 2015; Rose and Galloway 2019) that called for a need to:

1. Increase World Englishes and ELF exposure in English language teaching (ELT) curricula



2. Emphasize respect for multilingualism



3. Raise awareness of Global Englishes



4. Raise awareness of ELF strategies



5. Emphasize respect for diverse English-using cultures/communities

These GELT proposals call for a need to re-examine the traditions that underpin TESOL curricula. This was not an attempt to tell practitioners what to do, nor bombard them with new ideas and practices. In order to encourage critical reflection of both their own curricula and TESOL contexts, a number of possible ‘barriers’ to curriculum innovation were also identified (Galloway 2011; Galloway and Rose 2015; Rose and Galloway 2019), including a lack of GELT materials, language assessment, teacher education, attachment to ‘standard’ English and teacher recruitment practices. Native-speakerism and standard language ideology underline such barriers and the GELT framework aims to encourage critical reflection of these. It aims to encourage them to explore the feasibility of GELT by questioning norms and monolingual ideology in their current curricula. In a GELT curriculum, the bi/multilingual speakers’ entire language repertoire and semiotic system is foregrounded and it aims to emancipate learners from adhering to strict ‘native’ norms. Based on learners’ needs, learner agency and autonomy are central. Learners are also encouraged to draw on their additional languages to negotiate communication, as opposed to a curricula that highlights learning how to communicate in one set way. Ideal teachers are also seen to be multilingual expert ELF users, as opposed to ‘native’ English speakers. In essence, it is a vision of the TESOL curriculum that reflects how the language functions today as a global language and one with a global ownership.

IMPLEMENTING GELT Rose and Galloway (2019) draw on curriculum innovation theory to explore the potential for successful and sustained GELT-related innovation. Their curriculum innovation framework aims to help practitioners understand curriculum innovation and the various factors involved in relation to their own contexts and curricula. Different phases of curriculum innovation are outlined and they call for research at each stage, particularly in the ‘institutionalization’ phase. Here, practitioners or ‘innovators’ are encouraged to ask questions regarding the feasibility of GELT in their context, considering factors such as resources, education and language policies – the GELT ‘barriers’. Exploration of such factors can help them examine whether GELT can exist as ‘part of the ‘fabric’

NEGOTIATING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM IN TESOL CURRICULUM INNOVATION



97

of the ‘host’ system into which it has been introduced’ (Waters 2014: 98), or whether it may need to be adapted. It also enables them to consider what kind of support may be needed to make the transition towards GELT, emphasizing the need for a contextsensitive approach and also for research with key stakeholders. Rogers (2003) states, “One indication of the compatibility of an innovation is the degree to which it meets a felt need” (p. 246). Growing research in the Global Englishes paradigm is certainly highlighting the changed sociolinguistic landscape of the English language, and, as noted, there is increased recognition of ELF, as a phenomenon at least, in some TESOL practitioner texts. Nevertheless, research exploring the compatibility of GELT in diverse TESOL contexts is needed. The study reported in this chapter aimed to address this need for research into the compatibility of GELT in diverse classrooms to ensure we consult key stakeholders in the process and also gain an in-depth understanding of diverse TESOL contexts and the feasibility of GELT in different curricula. As Breen, Hird, Milton and Thawaite (2001) point out, any innovation in classroom practice from the adoption of a new technique or textbook to the implementation of a new curriculum has to be accommodated within the teacher’s own framework of teaching principles. (p. 472) GELT, with its promotion of multilingualism, requires a new ontological stance and may be daunting. It involves a reconceptualization of both the English language and how it should be taught and practitioners may reject it if it clashes with their beliefs. Research with practitioners is crucial to both understanding the feasibility of GELT and also for successful and sustained GELT innovation. Practitioners’ attitudes may not only influence the curriculum, but they may also help explain any possible reluctance/resistance to change. There is a small body of research that has examined practitioners’ attitudes towards Global Englishes, and some have also examined their attitudes towards ELT (see Rose and Galloway, 2019 for an overview). They reveal similar findings that teachers cling to standard English and have an idea about how it should be taught. However, they also reveal the complex nature of their attitudes and that ELF is often accepted in the abstract but rejected in the classroom. As receivers of the innovation working with curricula and in TESOL contexts where native-speakerism and standard language norms prevail, it is important to understand how potential adopters may have been socialized into thinking that ‘native’ English is not only right, but that ‘native’ norms are best. Native-speakerism and standard language ideology are promoted through language and education policies and in the curricula through testing, materials and the continued recruitment of ‘native’ English teachers. As such, there has been little pedagogical uptake of GELT and native-speakerism prevails in TESOL. However, there has been some headway with teacher education (see Matsuda 2017 for an overview of teacher education programmes to teach EIL). A number of postgraduate TESOL programmes now include Global Englishes components (Galloway 2017c) and the University of Southampton now has an entire graduate programme on the topic. With an increased understanding of Global Englishes research, its relevance for TESOL and GELT itself, it is hoped that such courses and programmes will encourage more pedagogical uptake of GELT. However, in encouraging practitioners to challenge native-speakerism and monolingual norms in their curricula, it is important for such courses to provide more than a surface-level understanding. They should provide a chance to critically reflect on current practices and norms and also consider the relevance and feasibility

98

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

of GELT in relation to curriculum innovation theory. It is also important for pre- and in-service TESOL practitioners to explore the criticism that Global Englishes research often suffers when it is related to pedagogy. Several studies on practitioners’ attitudes have found a degree of ambivalence in many practitioners’ attitudes. Blair (2015), for example, found many tensions and uncertainties about things like error correction and participants referred to a lack of teacher training to deal with ‘new’ models. Reflection on such ‘barriers’ in their contexts is important, and it is essential for such courses and programmes to both include such debates and also enable participants to reflect on their contexts in relation to theory introduced on the course.

THE STUDY It is clear from the discussion above that recent years have seen increased discussions on the pedagogical implications of Global Englishes research and many proposals for change have been put forward in the literature. The study reported here aimed to explore the possible ‘barriers’ to GELT in more depth, focusing on accounts of native-speakerism in TESOL curricula in the participants’ contexts. Thus, the study focused on one key barrier to curriculum innovation: native-speakerism. It builds on a previous study (Rose and Galloway 2019) with pre-and in-service TESOL practitioners’ on a one-year postgraduate TESOL programme taking a GELT course. Twenty-one interview transcripts were reexamined to explore this ‘barrier’ in further depth to provide further insights into the potential for curriculum innovation in the participants’ contexts. It also aimed to explore how those exposed to Global Englishes and GELT see the feasibility of incorporating this into their curricula in their familiar TESOL contexts to inform GELT innovations and also teacher education courses incorporating a Global Englishes perspective.

THE SETTING Participants on a one-year MSc TESOL programme at a Russel Group University were taking a GELT course (for an overview see Galloway 2017c) introduced in 2013. It encourages reflection of key TESOL and SLA concepts and theories introduced in the first semester and critical reflection of the feasibility of GELT in their familiar teaching and learning contexts. The eight-week course includes eight lectures, and eight 2-hour workshops and topics include the history of English, language variation, World Englishes, EIL, ELF and translanguaging research, the role of English in different contexts, language attitudes, identity, ELT, GELT, the internationalization of higher education and the future of English. The core text is Rose and Galloway (2019), and recommended reading includes key sources from World Englishes, EIL, ELF and translanguaging. Reflective practice is central and the GELT framework is utilized to aid this reflection. The course also engages with the recently established online Global Englishes network (Teaching English and Teaching IN English in global contexts), which aims to provide researchers and practitioners with a platform to share resources (http​:/​/ww​​w​.glo​​balen​​glish​​es​.ed​​ucati​​ on​​.ed​​.ac​.u​k).

RESEARCH DESIGN Interviews (n=21) were administered at the start and end of the semester and analysed in NVivo 11. Instruments were piloted prior to the data collection, which took place

NEGOTIATING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM IN TESOL CURRICULUM INNOVATION



99

between 2016 and 2017 via two cohorts of students. The syllabus and methodology remained consistent. The interviews elicited their attitudes towards the GELT proposals and barriers in relation to their familiar teaching/learning context. As both the instructor and the researcher, I was conscious of influencing the data and of the unequal power caused by the researcher being the course organizer and instructor. The voluntary nature of the study was made clear from the outset, anonymity has been protected and participation did not influence the delivery of the course or grades. Interviews provided an opportunity for participants to voice their opinions, and member checking of transcripts and crosscoder analysis were conducted.

RESULTS Of the interviewees, thirteen were from China, two from Indonesia, one from the United States, two from Taiwan, two from the United Kingdom and one from Japan. For ‘nonnative’ speakers, their familiar TESOL contexts related to their country of origin, the US participant had experience teaching in Japan and the two British participants taught in South Korea and Japan. Teaching experience varied from no experience (five), zero to three months (four), one to three years (six), eight years (one), five years (one) and eighteen years (one). Of the participants, sixteen were female, five were male and ages ranged between twenty and twenty-five (eleven), twenty-five to thirty (eight) and thirty + (two).

EVIDENCE OF NATIVE-SPEAKERISM Discussions of Discriminatory teacher hiring practices (coded twenty-eight times across twenty interviews) revealed a strong preference for Native English Speaking Teachers (NESTs). “[The] most important criteria [considered] is to be a native speaker of English” (Ching) and the employers “prefer British or American accents” (Yang). Sam, who has experience working in Japan, noted that “teacher recruitment practices is a big issue, certainly in my context”, adding that “you won’t get a job basically if you’re not a native English speaker”. Nobuko, an experienced Japanese teacher, confirmed this, noting, “They hire Japanese teachers, but it’s so rare. Usually the schools only hire native teachers. That’s their selling point ‘We only have native English teachers’”. This was noted to be regardless of their qualifications and educational background. They often “just come without any qualification degree because they speak the language from birth” (Indah). As Chengxin noted: the teachers they hire, they can speak English of course, they are so called native speakers, but they are not trained in language teaching, they have other majors back in their country but they come here and teach language. Indah was also critical of this in the Indonesian context, noting: I don’t think it actually works effectively in a sense, because, like they just came and they teach the way they know how to teach, it wasn’t at University level, but other than that, I don’t think they succeed in making any connection with the students at all, or sympathising with the culture, they just project what they know from their background and it’s hard to follow for some students. One participant also provided an account of a Belgian teacher who was asked to conceal his nationality and pretend to be American and several commented on the higher salaries

100

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

given to ‘natives’ because “ in the English teaching area many countries, just like Japan and China, they look high of the native speakers and they have high salaries” (Fan-ko) and “native speakers in China have much more money [laugh]”. There was an acknowledgement that such unprofessional favouritism should be addressed, but they were unsure how to achieve this. Yang noted that discrimination should be addressed “from the basis of the employment, but to be honest I don’t know what kind of suggestions could be made to be done”, noting that “it is related to many things” and while they “should be doing something but what exactly I don’t know” The participants also discussed the dominance of standard English in their curricula (coded twenty-two times across thirteen interviews) revealing the dominance of British or American English, which Fan-Ko believed had a negative impact on the English spoken in the students’ own context: The teacher, they emphasise the British or American English and the students will be influenced by the teacher and they will look down on their own variety. Jiajing noted that “most of the teachers in China will focus on teaching the so called standard English and students will focus on using, are required to use standard English, especially RP”. Her use of “so called” indicates her uncertainty over the appropriateness of this and she questioned whether this was a form of linguistic imperialism: a lot of teachers are emphasising on standard English. I don’t know if it is correct to, if we have to use the term standard English the whole time, because to me it’s kind of like imperialism. Ching’s teachers did introduce the English spoken in other ‘non-native’ speaking contexts, but as examples of ‘bad’ English, and the teachers “tried to emphasise the idea that Indian English, like Japanese English . . . were examples of bad English” and the “whole class just laughed at the speaker of the local Indian or Japanese”. On the other hand, the teacher asked them “to imitate Obama’s pronunciation”, which “the girls” found “hard to imitate because it is a male’s voice and pronunciation, but teachers say ‘try to be strong, try to change your voice to be like Obama’, it’s ridiculous”. Several participants also referred to the dominance of ‘Standard’ English in materials (coded thirteen times across nine interviews) that promote Western culture and models of behaviour and mostly “the British English or American English context” (Lingyi). As Fei noted, because the textbook includes “standard English” so “we need to teach standard” and “we don’t have Global Englishes materials”, so the “emphasis” remains “on standard English”. In Ching’s school textbook there was “a huge picture of David Beckham” giving the impression that “If I learn English well then maybe I could go to England to meet him [laughter]”. Fan-ko also referred to the fact that government published textbooks expose students to “western culture, table manners or something else . . . so I think the native cultures are presented in Chinese textbooks”. Yun’s textbook did have a reading passage on “the history of English, how English is developed, and in the reading test we know that English is made up of other languages too”, although “it was still written by native speakers who use Oxford English, so the topic is still from a native speaker’s perspective”. The participants problematized these materials, discussing how they portray the English language and its speakers. Chengxin feels that it is because of “the materials” that people “are still obsessed with the standard”, because they only expose students to “native speakers”. He noted that he is not aware of any textbook that exposes students to

NEGOTIATING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM IN TESOL CURRICULUM INNOVATION

 101

“one person speaking with an accent, they are always British English or American English, not even Australian English, in our text books”. This was also the case in assessment (coded twenty-two times across twenty interviews). Tests focus on the “native speaker norm” (Sihan). Yifan noted how this acts as a barrier to GELT as even if “we can accept all students’ errors or their varieties of English”, when it comes to “assessment of their English exams”, they have to “employ their native speaker norm”. Indah also criticized the Indonesian “national exam to graduate at a certain level at school”, as the listening test does not include “Indonesian English speakers” but native speakers, which, even with her “level of English proficiency”, is “sometimes . . . difficult to understand”. They discussed the washback effect on practice. As noted earlier, Yun’s textbook did raise students’ awareness of Global Englishes to some extent, but in “the assessment, yes we use standard English, there is a requirement for the test, and I don’t know, maybe it’s a barrier, I think”. Similarly, Peng noted that teachers “need to” focus on “standard” English, as “one of the big, major purposes of learning English is to pass examinations”.

FACTORS INFLUENCING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM When discussing how native-speakerism manifests itself in the TESOL curricula, three clear factors were noted to influence this: government policies, parents’ beliefs and attachments to Standard English. Government policies (coded fourteen times across thirteen interviews) influenced the curricula and participants demonstrated awareness that, for curriculum innovation to be successful, or even be considered, government policy would have to change first: Yeah. And recently in China, because the government is very strong, and they give you instructions and the government will change the recruitment, change the language testing policies, so the teachers have the washback and that kind of thing, so maybe the policy has to be changed first. But of course before the policy we have to have a complete theory. We do have something like that at this stage. Chengxin There were concerns that government policies are hard to change, as they have “existed in China for a very long time and it is very difficult to adjust it” (Yang). Yang noted that “if the officers don’t have the awareness then teachers will not have it and students will not have it, because of these policies”, noting the need for awareness raising, not only amongst teachers and students, but also other key stakeholders. Similarly, Wanrong feels that “basically all these changes are possible in the Chinese context” and is, therefore, positive about the feasibility of GELT, yet “the most thing we need to do is about the policy of China”, due to the fact that Chinese teachers in all levels of education “will mainly focus on the syllabus given by the Ministry of Education”. In Japan, Sam noted that, even if there are “teachers who want to look at maybe other versions of English”, they are “constrained by what the government and the ministry of education want them to teach”. In a discussion of attachments to standard English, Yun noted that the most difficult barrier is the ideology of people. By people I mean the top level of this business who can make decisions, like the policy makers, not just teachers but the administrators, like the people who make educational policies in the government departments. If these people’s ideologies cannot be changed, no matter how teachers

102

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

and students make efforts, they still need to face the reality, which is the language assessment or the hiring practice. Parents’ beliefs (coded forty-three times across seventeen interviews) were also discussed at length, and they are reported to have an influence over teacher hiring practices and the models used in the curriculum. They “still think the standard English, standard native English will be the best type for their children” (Ching). Most Taiwanese parents were reported to “focus on accent”, believing that “the American accent or the British accent should be acquired” (Do). Yang discussed an experience working at an English language school; there was a teacher from another country, not Britain, a non-native English teacher, and the parents, they suggest they don’t want their kids to be taught by this teacher because they are not native speakers. Parents really do have influence in some English institutions Similarly, Sihan also noted that “In China the parents and the students prefer to choose the native speakers”, although she questions, “what is native speaker”, but adds that their preference is “American, Australian or Canadians”. Ruiqin also discussed an experience where her friend “got really, really mad with this principal, she was going to take some action” regarding discriminatory recruitment practices. The principal “apologised to her and explained by saying ‘Only the parents don’t think so, I do think so’”, leading her to comment “the attachment doesn’t only exist with the teachers in school but also with parents as well”. Parental influence was discussed at length and the interviewees wanted to explain this. Sihan noted that young people in China “cannot make the decisions” and while “Maybe you can train the teachers to accept the GE perspective and the students as well, but how can you persuade the parents to accept it”. Nobuko explained a similar situation in Japan, where students are “under their parents’ protection”, making GELT “kind of difficult” as “the parents are kind of difficult to deal with, they have a very strong idea of what the real English is and, eh, to them, to some of them the English tutors look like Caucasian, the kind of stereotype”. Similarly, in South Korea, Rob observed that “parents want their children to be taught by western teachers” and look for “that perfect pronunciation”. Although he does not “believe it’s possible”, he doesn’t “think you can convince those parents”. Parents, then, who “still think the standard English, standard native English will be the best type for their children”(Ching), present a barrier to GELT. The effect of the dominance of native-speakerism was also evident in accounts of attachments to Standard English (coded fourteen times across thirteen interviews). Ruiqin discussed her desire to “talk with native speaker teachers” because “they can give us the right pronunciation and the right tongue of how to speak English”. She added that this is more “than the vocabulary and the grammar” and that “they can give us more standard English, because the grammar is just intuitive, right”. For her, “most Chinese people, like me” make “many errors” when speaking English and, therefore, “contact with a native speaker teacher can reduce this kind of errors.” Yating discussed how native-speakerism is deeply ingrained in society. She explained that “the attachment to standard English is also a very difficult part to overcome” and felt that “you cannot learn all the varieties at the same time” so people learn one variety first and because of this “when we grow up, even though I know the concept of ELF and Global Englishes, I will still concentrate on the British English, even though I know all the varieties are equal to each other, but because this kind of norm is formed in my mind, it is very difficult to change”. Fan-ko also noted that “before knowing global English the teachers of students should know more about

NEGOTIATING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM IN TESOL CURRICULUM INNOVATION

 103

the standard English, because this is the original of this language” and questions whether “if you don’t know, understand about the standard English well, how can you teach this language?”, adding that standard English is important for teachers. However, despite these attachments to the idea of a ‘standard’ English, they were aware of the difficulty in achieving native or native-like proficiency, and several made comments similar to Sihan on the fact that, even though they have been learning “English for maybe fifteen” years, they “cannot speak like a native speaker” because “it’s very hard”.

DISCUSSION Discussions on native-speakerism and professionalism in TESOL began several decades ago. Phillipson (1992) referred to the ‘native speaker fallacy’ in his discussion of Linguistic Imperialism, challenging the view that native English speakers represented the best teacher of the language. We may be three decades on from Phillipson’s discussion, but this study showcases how native-speakerism prevails in TESOL curricula. The continuing recruitment of NESTS in large numbers and reports over unprofessional favouritism, as well as studies highlighting that the native criterion is still important in teacher hiring practices (Clark and Paran 2007; Selvi 2010), are problematic for GELT. This study highlights the need to challenge the privileged position afforded to the native speaker to challenge such prejudice. The participants are clearly aware of the ‘native speaker fallacy’, making references to a lack of qualifications and, in some cases, a lack of understanding of the students’ contexts. At the essence of native speakerism is the idea of ‘Othering’, which creates an ‘us and them’ dichotomy in society where native speakers are assigned certain cultural, intellectual and linguistic attributes, and non-native speakers are assigned other qualities. However, even if these assigned attributes were justifiable (and the participants in this study are aware that they are not), “being a ‘native speaker’ has nothing to do with the abilities to be a teacher of a particular language” (Holliday 2015: 16). Unsurprisingly, British and American English dominate the curricula, and reports over exposure to ‘non-native’ English as something to ridicule and as an example of ‘bad’ English are not only detrimental to the self-confidence of language learners but also unrepresentative of how the language is used today. Instead, students are to learn how to speak like the US president, learn how to eat and act like a Westerner and learn about their culture and customs and prepare to meet David Beckman. It is also interesting that the participants were critical of the Western publishers and that topics are ‘from a native speaker’s perspective’, seeing a need for locally sourced materials. The participants also show concern that the dominance of such materials presents a false image of English, one that is owned by native English speakers. Tests are also seen to be a major barrier and they are aware of the washback effect on pedagogical practice. The study also provided insights into the importance of teacher education courses on Global Englishes. The use of “so called” in reference to ‘standard’ English indicates a level of uncertainty over both the appropriateness of this and whether it exists, and the dominance of this in the curriculum was also referred to as “kind of like imperialism”. The course prompted reflection on ‘standard’ English and on their own beliefs and stereotypes and, for some, their “normative mindset” (Seidlhofer 2008: 3–4). The study revealed how the participants reflect on their established attitudes and curricula. As Humphries and Burns (2015) note, “If teachers gain understanding of an innovation, they can adapt it to their context in a principled manner” (p. 246), and one of the main aims of this study

104

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

was to explore both the expectations and the beliefs of the teachers, who will ultimately be responsible for implementing change. It also aimed to explore how native-speakerism is embedded within their context. The transition to GELT will be gradual. It requires a conceptual transition and may be viewed as somewhat controversial and an innovation with many barriers. It creates a dilemma for teachers – what should we teach? Do we have to abolish current practice? How do we deal with materials, tests and policies that continue to focus on native monolingual norms? The results provide important insights into what practitioners feel needs to be addressed and also where further research is needed. Government policies, the important influence of parents and overall attachments to standard English are key barriers to GELT, and there is a feeling that there is little flexibility to adapt the curriculum to incorporate a GELT perspective. Indeed, government educational policies that promote native-speakerism have “existed . . . for a very long time “, but, while they may be “very difficult to adjust”, it is hoped that with more research exploring how to raise awareness amongst “the officers” and parents that “the attachment to standard English” is lessened and that “the ideology of people” is more favourable to a curriculum that better reflects the use of English as a global language. The results call for the need for more research with parents and also those “who can make decisions, like the policy makers”. The participants recognize that we may be making headway with raising awareness of Global Englishes amongst teachers and students, but they see a need to work with other influential stakeholders. Good teaching and successful curricula meet the needs of learners, and it is hoped that, with more studies exploring both the feasibility of GELT and the positive influence of GELT curricula on learners’ attitudes towards English, and also their self-confidence as legitimate speakers of a global language, all key stakeholders will recognize that ‘traditional’ approaches that focus on ‘native’ English speaker norms are simply not meeting the needs of those learning the language in today’s globalized world. The participants themselves recognize that their own attachments to the notion of a ‘standard’ English stems from the dominance of ‘native’ norms in their curricula and also calls for more work with younger learners before stereotypes about English and English speakers form. While an increasing body of Global Englishes studies is being conducted in the classroom to explore how to incorporate GELT and also the influence of this perspective on learners’ attitudes towards English, the majority is with university students and teachers.

CONCLUSION This study reveals that pedagogic traditions and beliefs are largely built on a monolingual attitude and native-speakerism prevails in TESOL curricula. The native speaker myth is certainly hard to shift, and this study revealed that participants see a need for awareness raising amongst other stakeholders, including policymakers and parents. There are certainly ‘barrier’s to GELT; yet a paradigm shift was achieved in the 1970s with the movement towards communicative language teaching. Since then, the world has witnessed increased globalization, and there is a clear need for a further shift to meet the needs of twenty-first-century learners, however gradual it may have to be. Practitioners, the potential innovators, are important and this study aimed to position them as ‘experts’ in their contexts and as important agents of change in the curriculum innovation process. However, there is a need for research with different stakeholders

NEGOTIATING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM IN TESOL CURRICULUM INNOVATION

 105

and also at different stages of the innovation process. A successful and sustainable GELT innovation strategy can only be achieved with consideration of institutionalization factors from the outset and the study reported here provides some insights into the dominance of native-speakerism. Needs analysis is important, yet we also need more longitudinal studies examining what happens after teacher education, when the innovation is introduced. Such prospective (before implementation) and retrospective (after implementation) research is needed to increase our understanding of the feasibility of GELT and how it can be adapted into different curricula.

REFERENCES Alsagoff, L., S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renandya (2012), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, eds L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renandya, Bristol: Routledge. Bayyurt, Y. and S. Akcan eds (2015), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, Berlin: De Gruyter. Blair, A. (2015), ‘Evolving a Post-native, Mutilingual Model for ELF-Aware Teacher Education’, in Y. Bayyurt and S. Akcan (eds), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, 89–102, Berlin: De Gruyter. Breen, M., B. Hird, O. Milton and A. Thawaite (2001), ‘Making Sense of Language Teaching: Teachers’ Principles and Classroom Practices’, Applied Linguistics, 22 (4): 470–501. Clark, E. and A. Paran (2007), ‘The Employability of Non-Native-Speaker Teachers of EFL: A UK Survey’, System, 35 (4): 407–30. Cogo, A. and H. Bowles eds (2015), International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca: Pedagogical Insights, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Galloway, N. (2011), An Investigation of Japanese Students’ Attitudes Towards English. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Southampton. Galloway, N. (2017a), ‘ELF and ELT Teaching Materials’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 468–480, London: Routledge. Galloway, N. (2017b), Global Englishes and Change in English Language Teaching. Attitudes and Impact, London: Routledge. Galloway, N. (2017c), Global Englishes for Language Teaching: Preparing MSc TESOL Students to Teach in a Globalized World, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, 69–86, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2015), Introducing Global Englishes, London: Routledge. Holliday, A. (2015), ‘Native-speakerism: Taking the Concept Forward and Achieving Cultural Belief ’, in (En)Countering Native-Speakerism: Global Perspectives, 11–25, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Humphries, S. and A. Burns (2015), ‘“In Reality It’s Almost Impossible”: CLT-Oriented Curriculum Change’, ELT Journal, 69 (3): 239–48. Jenkins, J. (2007), English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mala, D. (2016), Dept Kicks Off Teacher ‘Boot Camp’. Retrieved 24 January 2018, from https​ :/​/ww​​w​.pre​​ssrea​​der​.c​​om​/th​​ailan​​d​/ban​​gkok-​​post/​​20160​​308​/2​​​81522​​22518​​2612 Matsuda, A. ed (2012), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language (New Perspectives on Language and Education), Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (2017), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

106

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Phillipson, R. (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rajagopalan, K. (2016), Introducing Global Englishes. Book Review (Vol. 7956), Routledge. https​:/​/do​​i​.org​​/10​.1​​080​/0​​04379​​56​.20​​​15​.11​​12962​ Rogers, E. (2003), Diffusions of Innovations, 5th edn, New York: Free Press. Rose, H. and N.Galloway (2019), Global Englishes for Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2008), ‘Of Norms and Mindsets’, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 (3): 1–7. https://doi​.org​/10​.2104​/aral0833 Selvi, A. F. (2010), ‘All Teachers Are Equal, but Some Teachers Are More Equal than Others’: Trend Analysis of Job Advertisements in English Language Teaching’, WATESOL NNEST Caucus Annual Review, 1: 156–81. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) (1991), A TESOL Statement on NNEST and Hiring Practices​.p​df. Retrieved from http:​/​/nne​​st​.mo​​ussu.​​net​/d​​ocs​/T​​ESOL_​​Posit​​ io​nSt​​ateme​​nt(19​91).p​df TESOL (2006), A TESOL Statement on Non-native Speakers of English and Hiring Practices. Retrieved 15 August 2017, from http:​/​/nne​​st​.mo​​ussu.​​net​/d​​ocs​/T​​ESOL_​​Posit​​io​nSt​​ateme​​nt (20​06).p​df The British Council. (2018), Regional English Training Centres Project (RETC Project) | British Council. Retrieved 24 January 2018, from https​:/​/ww​​w​.bri​​tishc​​ounci​​l​.or.​​th​/en​​/regi​​onal-​​engli​​ sh​-tr​​ainin​​g​-cen​​tres-​​pro​je​​ct​-re​​tc​-pr​​oject​ Waters, A. (2014), ‘Managing Innovation in English Language Education: A Research Agenda’, Language Teaching, 47 (1): 92–110. https​:/​/do​​i​.org​​/10​.1​​017​/S​​02614​​448​13​​00042​6

Chapter 7

Beyond ‘Native’ and ‘Non-Native’ EnglishSpeaking Teachers Teacher Identity and the Knowledge Base of Global Englishes Language Teachers ALI FUAD SELVI AND BEDRETTIN YAZAN

INTRODUCTION For centuries, the English language has traveled around the world to find new ‘homes’ and acquired a diverse set of ‘glocal’ forms, roles, functions, uses, and users therein. Either by force or choice, it eventually became a globalized and localized communicative tool for billions of users across the globe. Recognizing this increasingly complex sociolinguistic landscape of the English language, scholars in applied linguistics developed a series of frameworks (e.g., World Englishes (WE), English as an international language (EIL), and English as a lingua franca (ELF)), collectively known as the Global Englishes (GE) paradigm to scrutinize both the diachronic and synchronic trajectory of the English language. These efforts in applied linguistics have ultimately traversed the field of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) and paved the way to the emergence of a series of interesting and important debates concerning (English) language education. What lies at the crux of these discussions is the understanding that “the teaching and learning of an international language must be based on an entirely different set of assumptions than the teaching and learning of any other second and foreign language” (McKay 2002: 1). As a result, teaching professionals are tackling a series of profound questions undergirding their everyday practices: Who owns the English language (if anyone)? Who is a non/ native speaker of English? What constitutes ‘broken’ and ‘standard’ English? Is English a neutral language? Which/whose culture is associated with the English language? Who is a competent teacher of English? How does a culturally appropriate English language pedagogy look like? These questions, along with others, have collectively served as a prime impetus for TESOL professionals and applied linguists to reexamine and reconceptualize the well-established values and practices in ELT in light of the present-day sociolinguistic realities of English. In response, scholars working in different paradigms constituting of

108

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

GE have developed frameworks (e.g., ELF-aware pedagogy; Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015; Sifakis 2014), WE-informed ELT (Matsuda 2020), EIL pedagogy (McKay 2018), Global Englishes Language Teaching (Galloway 2017; Galloway and Rose 2015) to inform teaching and teacher education practices sensitive to the complexities posed by the dynamic sociolinguistic order in the world. The common denominator of these efforts is “a constant flow,” “(de‐)centralization,” “deterritorialization,” “pluricentricity,” and “interdependence” of the English language, which led to the questioning of native-speaking norms (Holliday, Aboshiha, and Swan 2015) and the recognition of local use(r)s of English vis‐à‐vis other languages, serving as a “glocal” linguistic repertoire cutting across national borders and boundaries (Selvi 2019a). While language teacher identity has recently become a prime concern in the broader bilingual and second language (teacher) education (e.g., linguistic identity, race and gender, cognition, and emotion and values) (see Yazan 2018a for a comprehensive review), the negotiation of personal and professional identities within the Global Englishes paradigm is often reduced to linguistic identities in a juxtaposed fashion (‘native’ vs. ‘non-native’ speakers) (Yazan 2018b) and therefore still remains largely understudied (Le Ha 2008). Furthermore, Freeman (2020) underscores the content as the central concern in ELT today and argues that “something to teach and that can be taught in English language classrooms has de facto become a driver in the new knowledge-base” (p. 2). Departing from these premises, this chapter argues that the Global Englishes paradigm needs a clear and convincing exploration of teacher identity in relation to the English language teachers’ professional learning and knowledge base. It argues that conventional formulations and critiques of teacher identity through juxtaposed binaries of ‘NEST’ and ‘NNEST’ fail to conceptualize the kind of expertise English teachers need in order to teach Global Englishes. Rather than utilizing the reductionist formulation equating language fluency with instructional competence through problematic terms of identity (‘NEST’ and ‘NNEST’), this chapter portrays the characteristics of Global Englishes to define the knowledge base of language teaching professionals. Furthermore, it asserts that policies, practices, and experiences organized around these terms (‘NEST’ and ‘NNEST’) do not make the necessary contributions to the knowledge base of GE language teachers.

UNPACKING THE TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE BASE IN SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING First introduced to the field of computer science in the 1980s, the term ‘knowledge base’ has traditionally meant the collection (database) of expert knowledge operationalized in the processes of acquisition, compilation, and execution of information to perform a task (see Freeman and Johnson 1998). Since then, various disciplines and fields have adopted the term, and education is not an exception. Teacher educators explored the knowledge and descriptions of the components necessary for creating effective teaching and learning environments (Shulman 1987). To this end, teacher educators, researchers, professional associations, and even governmental bodies attempted to identify standards to define the required set of knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for effective teaching practices. Collectively, these efforts were so powerful that they formed the foundation of the initiatives, innovations, reforms, and assessment of teacher education and professional development (Farrell 2004).

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 109

Since the inception of the field of second language teaching in the 1960s, the knowledge base phenomenon has become one of the greatest puzzles for scholars who explored the depth and breadth of the constituents serving as the knowledge base for teaching and its complex interplay with the actual task of teaching (e.g., Freeman 2018, 2020; Freeman and Johnson 1998; Tedick 2005). Traditionally speaking, the field of second language teaching relied primarily on linguistics and psychology, and the emergence of disciplinary subfields (e.g., applied linguistics, second language acquisition, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics) formulated the disciplinary knowledge or content (i.e., what?) of the knowledge base (Freeman 2018). The proliferation of methodologies in the 1980s could be regarded as a manifestation of the shift from the “what the content is” to “how the content is taught.” Resting upon a reconceptualized understanding of the language (Canale and Swain 1980), “[t]he communicative revolution consolidated the pedagogical dimension of the knowledge base around the central notion of language as ‘communication’” often articulated by the singular and universal view of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (Freeman 2018: 3). The 1990s witnessed yet another shift in the focus of our quest for knowledge base and brought teachers under the spotlight as individuals with “principled decision making” capabilities and responsibilities related to teaching (Larsen-Freeman 1986). In other words, this new focus “pushed the how of methodologies in the second generation toward the particularities of teacher and students: who was planning, preparing, and enacting lessons for whom” (Freeman 2018: 4). Along these lines, one of the earliest formulations of teachers’ knowledge base consisted of seven categories, namely (1) content knowledge, (2) general pedagogical knowledge, (3) pedagogical content knowledge, (4) curriculum knowledge, (5) knowledge of learners and their characteristics, (6) knowledge of educational contexts, and (7) knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values (Shulman 1987). This clear emphasis forged new frontiers (e.g., teacher effectiveness, pedagogical content knowledge, personal practical knowledge, situated learning, reflective practice, and action research) and recognized second language teacher education as a subfield of language teaching (Richards and Nunan 1990; Roberts 1998). In their influential reconceptualization of the knowledge base of language teacher education, Freeman and Johnson (1998) argued that the core of the knowledge base should foreground (1) the activity of teaching itself, (2) the teacher who does it, (3) the contexts in which it is done, and (4) the pedagogy by which it is done. They also argued that “this knowledge-base should include forms of knowledge representation that document teacher learning within the social, cultural and institutional contexts in which it occurs” (p. 398). Their “work-driven” argument underscored the importance of the actual work of classroom teaching in defining what language teachers needed to know to effectively create teaching and learning environments (Freeman 2020). Eventually, teachers’ knowledge base in second language teaching is defined as “what it is that second language teachers need to know and understand to be effective teachers and how that knowledge is incorporated into second language teacher education” (Tedick 2005: xviii).

THEORIZING LANGUAGE TEACHER IDENTITY What Is Teacher Identity? The introduction of sociocultural theory of teacher learning to ELT led to more focus on language teacher, that is, what they know, how they know it, and how they learn what

110

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

they know (Freeman and Johnson 1998; Golombek 1998), which started to humanize the teaching and teachers of language. From this perspective, language teachers engage in “a form of activity based on a professional learning process that was identity- or meaningoriented, contingent of the settings of learning and of work, and that developed over time” (Freeman 2009: 13). Such a shift in focus and further interaction with the general teacher education research (Akkerman and Meijer 2011; Olsen 2008) have prepared the backdrop for the burgeoning research on language teacher identity (Barkhuizen 2017; De Costa and Norton 2017; Lindahl and Yazan 2019; Tsui 2007; Varghese, Motha, Park, Reeves and Trent 2016). Although a substantive body of research has initially conceptualized language teacher identities primarily based on their linguistic identities, particularly (non)nativeness in language, there has been a theoretical push for expanded conceptualization incorporating the intersectionality with other social identities (Motha 2006, 2014; Rudolph, Yazan and Rudolph 2019; Selvi 2014; Solano-Campos 2014). Even though their focus is teachers’ professional identities, studies on language teacher identity tend to theoretically use Norton Peirce’s (1995) conceptualization of identity, which was initially used to theorize the identities of language learners in relation to investment. There are several exceptions to this use. To name a few, for example, exploring bilingual teachers’ identities, Varghese (2006) defines teacher identity as “the influences on teachers, how individuals see themselves and how they enact their profession in their settings” (p. 213). In the same vein, Martel (2017) proposed that it “is an internalized set of meanings associated with the role of language teacher that are negotiated and constructed in interaction with others and/or generated and maintained by oneself” (p. 89). We believe such definitions contribute to the theorization of language teacher identity and conceptualize the ways in which teacher identity and teacher learning are interrelated to better support language teacher education. Furthering the scholarly conversations on the conceptual understanding of teacher identity would help the “treatment of teacher identity that offers a nuanced and complex discussion of identity as a concept or theory” (Olsen 2011: 259).

Why Does Teacher Identity Matter? The research on language teacher identities lies on the argument that there is a close and rather complicated relationship between teacher identity, teacher learning, and teacher practices, which answers the question of why language teacher identity matters. Teacher identity is “an organizing element in teachers’ professional lives” (Beauchamp and Thomas 2009: 175) that they rely on “to explain, justify and make sense of themselves in relation to others, and to the world at large” (MacLure 1993: 311). In other words, it is a framework through which teachers construct their ideas of being a teacher, acting as a teacher, and understanding their practice and their place in society (Sachs 2005). Teachers rest upon this framework when making decisions and taking actions in their professional life, and all their decisions and actions serve as identity negotiation in the political context of teaching (Britzman 2003). The earlier studies on teacher identity contend that becoming a teacher means engaging with identity work and developing an identity as a teacher (Danielewicz 2001); it is an identity transformation or identity reconstruction. This transformation usually starts in formal teacher education programs into which teacher candidates bring their (language) ideologies and preconceived notions about the nature, teaching, learning, use, and ownership of language. They rely on these notions and ideologies as an “interpretive

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 111

frame” (Olsen 2016) as they begin their professional learning experience through courses and practice teaching. Interacting with the content of teacher education, this interpretive frame evolves into their emerging identities. This intricate relationship between teacher learning and identity led researchers to argue that learning and identity are one and the same (Beijaard 2019; Kanno and Stuart 2011; Yazan 2018c). Teacher identity serves as a guiding frame as teachers socialize into professional discourses, negotiate the ideologies about teaching and learning languages, and participate in the practices of the professional communities. Concomitantly, all their experiences learning to teach and practicing what they learn lead teachers to (re)negotiate their identities. Their interactions with others colleagues, students, and parents could always include instances of identity enactment and negotiation. In short, there exists an ongoing, dynamic, and dialogic relationship between professional learning, practice, and identity that teachers constantly negotiate. Therefore, the teacher identity approach can capture this relationship to support teachers’ professional growth and well-being.

‘Language’ in Language Teacher Identity Language teaching is a profession that is indisputably distinct from all the other subject areas of teaching that are typically taught through formal schooling. It involves teaching the means of communication, all kinds of “semiotic resources” (Blommaert 2010; Canagarajah 2013), that become the most prevalent part of individuals’ life both in school and beyond. Then, language teachers’ job becomes facilitating language learners to construct this essential component in their life which is closely intertwined with all the important aspects of their social practices and identities such as culture, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, and community membership. Therefore, understanding language teacher identities, we need to consider the following premises that summarize the distinct nature of language as content (or subject matter):

(a) Language is the content of ELT that is codified via curriculum development and ideologically shaped by the micro, meso, and macro policing;



(b) Language is the medium of instruction that orients the interaction in language classes;



(c) Language is the space and venue in which language teachers and learners negotiate and construct their identities via multiple modalities within and beyond the classroom; and



(d) Language is a significant part of language teachers’ and learners’ social identities.

These premises are further complicated by language ideologies that, mostly invisibly, construct and perpetuate individuals’ beliefs about the nature, use, learning, teaching, and structure of language. Thus, it is intriguing but not surprising that professional identity in ELT has been seldom treated in isolation from linguistic and any of the other social identities that teachers bring into their teaching. However, for the clearer theorization of language teacher identity, scholars need to demonstrate the relationship between professional identities and all other relevant identities or “I-positions” (Akkerman and Meijer 2011) that impact English language teachers’ professional learning and practices. One of the issues with the theorization has been the binary teacher identities, that is, native (English) speaker teachers and non-native (English) speaker teachers which is the consequence of the ideologies of nativeness pervading individuals’ experiences using,

112

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

learning and teaching languages. The field of ELT has witnessed a proliferation of studies on language teacher identities that foregrounded teachers’ linguistic identities with this binary lens which impedes the further exploration of the complexities involved in language teacher identity. What teachers in each binary group ‘can’ and ‘should’ do is ideologically defined by the unquestioned labels of NEST and NNEST, which has a lot more ramifications for teachers’ lives than their perceived linguistic competence (Rudolph et al. 2019; Selvi 2019b). Especially in the contexts of Global Englishes, language teachers’ identities are influenced by the ways in which they view or imagine themselves as learners, users, and owners of English and that influence would shape their practices and interactions with language learners. However, conceptualizing Global Englishes teachers’ professional learning and knowledge base requires further complexifying the theorization of teacher identities through problematization of the simplistic, ideologically laden hierarchized identities of NEST-NNEST.

TOWARD A NEW UNDERSTANDING: KNOWLEDGE BASE IN GLOBAL ENGLISHES LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION Over the years, our perennial quest to understand what constitutes the knowledge base of language teachers has been constantly redefined in relation to the changing roles of language teaching professionals, insights gleaned from educational research, trends in TESOL and applied linguistics, and a greater recognition and innovative responses to address the inherent complexity of language teaching in an increasingly superdiverse world (Doğançay-Aktuna 2006). Moving from the previous “work-driven” arguments highlighting the actual work of classroom teaching to a more “field-driven” argument reshaping what language teachers needed to know, Freeman (2020) proposes that the current ELT knowledge base needs to address the following: ●●

The content: what is taught;

●●

The teaching force: who is teaching it;

●●

Learners: who are learning it and why;

●●

Pedagogy: how it is being taught; and

●●

Teacher education: how teachers are being prepared and supported in teaching.

Therefore, the remainder of the chapter presents a Global Englishes orientation to defining the teachers’ knowledge base in English language teaching and teacher education.

The Content: What is Taught? Perhaps the most important piece in the knowledge base puzzle is our growing understanding and appreciation of the changing forms, roles, functions, statuses, uses, and users of the English language around the world today. The “globalinguistic” status of the twenty-first century (Dewey and Jenkins 2010) is under the omnipresent influence of this diversity of the English language around the globe (Kumaravadivelu 2012). Over the centuries, the emergence of English varieties in different parts of the world pluralized ‘the’ English language and formed English‘es’ that are used both in Outer-Circle contexts (i.e., former British and American colonies) and in Expanding-Circle countries (i.e., contexts

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 113

where English is mainly taught as a foreign language). Furthermore, it encouraged a reconsideration of the notions of ‘standard,’ ‘legitimacy,’ ‘target,’ and ‘norms,’ which are often equated to standardized English owned by and used in predominantly InnerCircle countries (i.e., the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). The changing role and nature of English manifesting itself in the diversity of forms, uses, and functions permeate into institutional and national educational curricula, shapes instructional materials, and defines the benchmarks used in assessments. A categorical and hierarchical assignment of single native variety as the ultimate yardstick in pedagogical decisions and practices is a fixated mentality eradicating the dynamism of the language and eventually prioritizes meaningless imitation over successful communication as the ultimate goal in language teaching settings (Burns 2005; Cook 2007). In the last couple of decades, our contemporary understanding of language has been enhanced by translanguaging research which views successful communication as a performative action in which all kinds of translinguistic repertoires and semiotic resources available to users are deployed (Blommaert 2010; Canagarajah 2013). It refers to the process of engaging in the “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds” (Garcia 2009: 45). Along those lines and taking the WE’s emphasis on linguistic diversity to a more focused position, the ELF paradigm has examined linguistic and sociopragmatic features of English communication among individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Seidlhofer 2011). In essence, this understanding presents us with three major implications for ELT profession(als): (1) moving away from strict adherence to the inner circle norms, (2) prioritizing intelligibility over linguistic accuracy defined by a standardized view of the language, and (3) capitalizing the plurilingual and translingual orientations in the classroom which maximizes opportunities of interaction with diverse users of English (Kubota 2019). These implications can only be realized with the support of educational policies and practices “focusing on linguistic repertoires rather than languages, on practices rather than proficiency, and on translanguaging rather than code-switching in which students use multiple, multilingual discursive resources in achieving communicative aims” (Stroud and Kerfoot 2013: 397; italics in original).

The Teaching Force: Who is Teaching it? Traditionally speaking, the field of ELT—as an activity, profession, and bona fide area of scholarly inquiry—has been under the decisive and destructive influences of a set of mutually exclusive juxtaposed binaries, and perhaps the most important of these is the ‘native speaker (NS)/non-native speaker (NNS)’ (and concomitantly, ‘native Englishspeaking Teachers (NESTs)/non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs)’). The ‘idealized NS’ (and ‘NEST’) in ELT has traditionally been defined as white, Western, (often) male, middle-class, (often) monolingual individual living in urban contexts and equipped with the unquestionable privilege of linguistic, cultural, and pedagogical authority to serve as the benchmark by which various aspects of the ELT enterprise (e.g., theory, research, learning, teaching, publishing, instructional materials, assessment, teacher training, and hiring practices) might be defined and/or measured (Kubota and Lin 2009; Rudolph, Selvi and Yazan 2015). By proxy, ‘NNSs’ (and ‘NNESTs’) are defined as individuals whose linguistic, cultural, and instructional abilities as users and teachers are defined vis-à-vis their ‘NS’/‘NEST’ ‘other’, perpetually confined into the prefix of ‘non-’, and therefore are often associated with discrimination and marginalization of professional

114

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

identities and personas (Selvi 2019b). Often referred to as “native speaker fallacy” (Phillipson 1992) or “native speakerism” (Holliday 2006), this ideological position brings detrimental impacts on teachers’ professional identity, leads to unprofessional favoritism, and frequently results in hiring and workplace discrimination1 (Selvi 2014). Recent scholarship on criticality in language teacher identity acknowledges the multifaceted, complex, and messy situation surrounding ELT profession(als), and recognizes the importance of sociohistorically situated negotiations of identities and lived experiences as translinguistic/transcultural professionals aligned with the needs of the present-day sociolinguistic realities of the glocalized world (Selvi and Rudolph 2017). This insight encourages us to abandon reductionist and simplistic ways to define teacher competencies and effectiveness in a decontextualized fashion (NEST and NNEST). In essence, this worldview prioritizes professionalism over nativeness (or lack thereof) and considers teacher education as a potential stepping stone in achieving Kumaravadivelu’s (2012) “epistemic break” from native English-speaking norms. Thus, our redefined conception of teachers’ knowledge base should capitalize upon “approaching learner, user and instructor identity, introducing inquiry and practice beyond the ‘idealized NS’ construct, and addressing equity in ELT contexts around the globe” (Selvi and Rudolph 2017:. 247).

Learners: Who are Learning it and Why? The present-day ‘triumph’ of the English language could be attributed to the intersection of several interrelated factors: power relations (e.g., colonial exploitations, contemporary inequalities, and neoliberal ideologies), domain-specific implications (e.g., commerce, culture, technology, travel, and religion), and trajectories across boundaries (e.g., (in) voluntary migration, transnational mobility, border-crossing practices, and intercultural communication) (Pennycook 2016; Selvi 2016, 2019a, 2019b)). As the world around the English language and the ELT profession(als) change, so do the learners involved in the whole teaching and learning process. Since language learning goals and expectations of the language users unpredictably change due to sociopolitical dynamics and the varying roles, functions, and values attached to English, those well-established and neat categorizations such as ‘foreign’ or ‘second’ language (learners) are now incapable of capturing the dynamic, fluid, multifaceted, and unpredictable nature of English use(r)s in the superdiverse world (Freeman 2020). Furthermore, the discursive learning spaces and environments available to language users further transcend traditional barriers of time and space and afford language learners’ participation in the virtual and social world.

Pedagogy: How is English Being Taught? At a time when everything about ELT (e.g., the language per se, individuals who learn and those who teach it) is in a constant state of flux, it would be naïve to expect that the pedagogy (in terms of both ‘how to teach?’ and ‘where to teach’) would be immune to these changes. The pedagogical orientation to ELT has become more diverse than ever, from formal classrooms (e.g., schools from pre-K to postgraduate levels) to non-profit settings, (e.g., adult ESOL classes and refugee centers), for-profit ELT ‘sector’ (e.g., language schools and private tutoring) to multimodal environments (e.g., online instruction platforms) and even to language schemes (e.g., EPIK, JET, and NET). In order to respond to this dizzying diversity, scholars attempted to define teaching knowledge used in ELT practices. Thus, new orientations to define English language instruction have recently begun to emerge,

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 115

including content and language integration (as in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)), the language in schools (as in ‘academic language’), and a more encompassing orientation of linguistic repertoire in learning (as in translanguaging and plurilingual approaches) (Freeman 2020). In addition, new literacies and technologies (e.g., mobile device applications, software, web-based tools, and augmented reality applications) alter both the content and the delivery of instruction around the world.

Teacher Education: How are Teachers Being Prepared and Supported in Teaching? English Language Teacher Education programs around the world are charged with an important task—bringing together the aforementioned streams (i.e., the content, who teaches it, who is learning it and for what purpose, and how it is taught) in such a meaningful and coherent manner to make the utmost contribution to the preparation of teachers of English for diverse settings. The changes in the fundamental pillars of the ELT enterprise summarized thus far inevitably serve as a catalyst in the transformation process of English Language Teacher Education programs. As we place more emphasis on the criticality of the contextualized lived experiences of individuals negotiating their identity ‘within’ and ‘across’ borders (Motha, Jain, and Tecle 2012), contextually sensitive knowledge, skills, and dispositions of teacher candidates become more relevant than ever. Today, we see a greater presence of the major issues articulated by these paradigms in mainstream Second Language Teacher Education programs—historical spread and current use of Englishes (Matsuda 2009; McKay 2012), cultural aspects (Kubota 2004), proficiency (Jenkins 2006; McKay 2012), teacher and learner identity (Canagarajah 2004; Kumaravadivelu 2012), (post)methodology (Kumaravadivelu 2006), and the diversity of uses and users today (Matsuda 2020). However, despite this tremendous interest, English Language Teacher Education practices are still characterized by concerted efforts and the paucity of sustainable practices through a Global Englishes perspective. We contend that Global Englishes Language teacher education necessitates three major cornerstones: 1. Teacher educators with experience, expertise in, and commitment to critical approaches to language teaching; 2. Ethnolinguistically diverse teacher-learners whose negotiation of (linguistic, cultural, ethnic, national, economic, academic, professional, and genderrelated) identity and agency is recognized and supported with respect to their instructional contexts; and 3. Teacher education practices orchestrated in such a way as to create a professional dialogic space building on teachers’ past histories, present realities, and future trajectories, as translinguistic, transcultural, transnational, and transacademic border crossers (Motha et al. 2012; Selvi 2013; Selvi and Rudolph 2017).

IMPLICATIONS REGARDING TEACHER IDENTITY FOR GLOBAL ENGLISHES LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION In this section, we intend to present a set of implications and suggestions for Global Englishes Language Teacher Education, particularly through the specific dimension of teacher identity (Selvi 2019b). We hope that these ideas will inform practices, experiences, and reflections to promote an enhanced knowledge base aligned with the present-day

116

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

sociolinguistic realities of the glocalized world in which English is characterized by a diversity of forms, uses, users, and functions.

Create Spaces and Opportunities for Reflexivity with Regards to Personal/Professional Identity For a long time, the broader field of teacher education has placed considerable emphasis on externalizing teacher candidates’ initial points of departure in their respective programs—their preconceived notions about teaching, learning, students, teachers, and schooling (Johnson and Golombek 2011). Commonly referred to as “the apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie 1975), it refers to the ideas, values, beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions brought to teacher education setting as a culmination of their long years of education as students. Adopting Kamhi-Stein’s (2014) and Yazan’s (2019) suggestions, teacher educators utilize their personal/professional narratives and autobiographies of the individuals they work with and collectively forge ways to unearth their preconceived notions surrounding teaching, learning, students, teachers, and schooling. Responding to such questions as ‘Who is a qualified teacher?’ ‘What are the personal/professional qualities of an effective teacher?’ ‘What is the relationship between language proficiency and language teaching?’ and ‘How do you perceive yourself as a language user/teacher?’ (Kamhi-Stein 2014), teacher candidates may establish links to their own sociohistorical backgrounds and experiences as language users and teachers. Alternatively, teacher-learners’ individual stance on teacher identity could be externalized through discussions of positions on ‘NS’ and ‘NNS’ labels (as summarized in Figure 7.1), including (1) ‘Native English Speaking (NES) professionals and Non-Native English Speaking (NNES) professionals are different’; (2) ‘With difficulty, NNS professionals can become NS professionals’; and (3) ‘NS and NNS labels are perceived as problematic’ (Kamhi-Stein 2014). Through small- and large-group discussions, reflection papers, and narratives connected to lived experiences, teacher educators may form a foundation for discussions pertinent to individuals’ personal and professional identities. More importantly, such discussions enable individuals to formulate their operational definitions and rationalize their stances with regards to these constructs.

Promote Alternative Ways of Being and Becoming with Regards to Professional Identity When teacher-learners, either at pre- and in-service levels, are encouraged to ‘move beyond’ essentialized and idealized ways of being and becoming characterized by such

FIGURE 7.1:  Individual stances on teacher identity (adapted from Kamhi-Stein 2014).

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 117

FIGURE 7.2:  A framework of professional identity (adapted from Pasternak and Bailey 2004).

demarcations as ‘NEST’” and ‘NNEST,’ they may feel the necessity to have an alternative model or framework as a replacement. Teacher educators who would like to empower the individuals they work with and offer them an alternative framework to inform their professional identity may consider Pasternak and Bailey’s (2004) continua of language proficiency and professional preparation (see Figure 7.2:). This framework offers an example of a theoretical conceptualization that aims to move beyond the problematic labels of NS/NNS (and NEST/NNEST). According to this model, teachers in Quadrant 1 are both proficient in the target language and are professionally prepared as a language teacher, whereas teachers in Quadrant 4 are neither proficient in the target language nor professionally prepared as language teachers. On the other hand, teachers in Quadrant 2 are professionally prepared as language teachers but not proficient in the target language. Finally, teachers in Quadrant 3 are proficient in the target language but not professionally prepared as language teachers. Thus, the model places the professional qualities of effective language teachers (i.e. linguistic proficiency and professional preparation) on a continuum without any utilization of ‘NS’/‘NNS’ (and ‘NEST’/‘NNEST’) serving as definitive benchmarks of identity. Instead, it highlights the importance of both declarative knowledge (the knowledge about the target language, culture, and teaching) and procedural knowledge (the knowledge about how to use the target language, to teach in culturally appropriate ways, and to behave appropriately in the target language) to serve learners effectively in the classroom.

Enhance Teachers’ Professional Language Proficiency Skills For many years, the notion of ‘general language proficiency’ has been loaded with a priori assumptions about language professionals’ instructional qualities and effectiveness (and thereby idealize ‘nativeness’ and perpetuate the ‘non-nativeness’). Consequently, the concept of ‘language fluency’ served as a marker of teaching competence (Freeman 2017). Realizing the need to move beyond this simplistic view, Freeman, Katz, Gomez and Burns (2015) developed English-for-Teaching (see Figure 7.3:)—a new model based on the

118

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

FIGURE 7.3:  Functional areas of classroom language use in English-for-Teaching (adapted from Freeman et al. 2015: 135).

“reconceptualization of teachers’ language proficiency, not as general English proficiency but as a specialized subset of language skills required to prepare and teach lessons” (p. 129). This new model “repositions English as a practical communicative tool to carry out certain defined responsibilities within a professional or work context, the language classroom” (p. 134) and identifies three major areas: (1) managing the classroom (e.g., greetings and salutations, directions to students to settle down and begin work), (2) understanding and communicating lesson content (e.g., activity instructions and explanations, definitions and explanations of new words, examples), and (3) assessing students and giving them feedback (e.g., texts of various types as presented in students’ instructional materials and feedback on target language). That way, it reconsiders the phenomenon of teachers’ language proficiency away from the perennial ‘NS’/‘NNS’ divide and within the professional parameters.

Define the Knowledge Base of Teachers around the Principles of Global Englishes Language Teaching In today’s complex sociolinguistic landscape, language educators are charged with an important task—preparing language users who can successfully navigate within and across linguistic and cultural borders and boundaries. To perform this task successfully, they need to go through rigorous teacher education programs that have the potential to offer them a non-deficit orientation to linguistic hybridity, variability, and fluidity in today’s glocalized world. It is at this important juncture that the Global Englishes paradigm offers a viable option, known as Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT). This solution encourages teacher-learners to destabilize the ‘idealized and essentialized NS-as-target’ ideology, which runs through the different aspects (e.g., target interlocutor, ownership, target culture, instructor, role models, materials, the role of first language and own culture, and ideology) of the traditional ELT practices (see Table 7.1). The shift from the traditional ELT to GELT may serve as a blueprint to reexamine and re-orchestrate existing practices, and inform future experiences and structures (e.g., curricula, course objectives and scope, tools of assessment, practicum experience,

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 119

TABLE 7.1  A comparison of ELT and GELT ELT

GELT

Target interlocutor

NSs of English

NSs and NNSs of English

Owners

NSs of English

NSs and NNSs of English

Target culture

Fixed NS culture

Fluid cultures

Teachers

NESTs and NNEST (same L1)

NESTs and NNESTs (both same and different L1s)

Norms

NS and concept of standard English

Diversity, flexibility, and multiple forms of competence

Role model

NSs

Successful ELF users

Materials

Native English and NSs of English

Native English, non-native English, ELF, and ELF communities and contexts

First language and own culture

Seen as hindrance and source of Seen as a resource interference

Ideology

Underpinned by an exclusive and ethnocentric view of English

Underpinned by an inclusive Global Englishes perspective

Source: (Galloway and Rose 2015: 208).

among others) as well as the first step towards equity, diversity, and professionalism in the negotiation and construction of identity and practice (Selvi 2019b). Today, teacher educators in different parts of the world actually engage in this transformative practice at various levels and through different options (showcased in Matsuda 2017): ●●

●●

●●

●●

Frameworks and approaches infusing Global Englishes into English Language Teacher Education, for example, ‘situated meta-praxis model of EIL teacher education’ (Doğançay-Aktuna and Hardman 2017), ‘ELF-aware teacher education’ (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015), or paradigms with similar goals such as ‘translanguaging’ (García and Wei 2014) or ‘multilingual turn’ (May 2013); Teacher education programs organized around the idea(l)s of GEs, for example, Program of English as an International Language at Monash University, Australia (Sharifian and Marlina 2012), and the College of World Englishes at Chukyo University, Japan (D’Angelo 2012); Courses dedicated to teaching Global Englishes, for example, Global Englishes for Language Teaching at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland (Galloway 2017), Global English at Middle East Technical University, Northern Cyprus Campus, (Selvi 2017); Global Englishes-informed courses on another ELT topic, for example, Rose (2017).

CONCLUSION The global influx of the English language, both in quantitative and in qualitative terms, is probably best manifested in the context of English language teaching across the world. As

120

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

a result of the increased importance attributed to the English language in both formal and informal settings, it is omnipresent at every level of the educational curricula worldwide. This global demand necessitates a high-quality education for language users with different needs in a variety of different contexts with different tools and practices. As a response to this pressing need, governments and English language teaching professional associations (both at local and global levels) embark upon projects and initiate educational reforms to equip individuals with stronger links to the English language (Ferguson 2013). It is in this important juncture that several scholars critically situate the importance of aligning teachers’ knowledge base with the changing needs of ELT and providing sustainable initial and continuing teacher education (Matsuda 2017; Selvi 2016; Selvi and Rudolph 2017). In this chapter, we argued the importance of aligning second language teacher education practices with the present-day sociolinguistic realities of the glocalized world characterized by a wide variety of forms, uses, users, and functions of English (alongside other languages in the glocal linguistic ecology). Although the unprecedented spread of the English language around the world is recognized as a prominent phenomenon by second language teacher education programs around the world, the knowledge base of ELT professionals is still defined by traditional terms and practices. Teacher education programs around the world are facing an important task—preparing an ethnolinguistically diverse teacher workforce for diverse teaching settings in which language users adopt the language to fulfill a wide range of roles and functions. The contested, value-laden, and ideologically infused conceptualizations of teacher identity (i.e., NEST/NNEST) that have plagued the ELT profession for so long are not compatible with Global Englishes language teacher education. Therefore, a paradigm shift beyond these terms (and the worldviews they are equipped with) and sustainable, systematic, creative, and collaborative practices are necessary to build the knowledge base of teachers and teacher candidates both in preand in-service teacher education settings.

NOTE 1. Interested readers who would like to read more about the institutionalized advocacy efforts and responses against inequity, marginalization, and discrimination in the ELT profession may refer to Selvi (2019b).

REFERENCES Akkerman, S. F. and P. C. Meijer (2011), ‘A Dialogical Approach to Conceptualizing Teacher Identity’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 27 (2): 308–19. Barkhuizen, G., ed. (2017), Reflections on Language Teacher Identity Research, New York, NY: Routledge. Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (2015), ‘Developing an ELF‐Aware Pedagogy: Insights from a Self Education Programme’, in P. Vettorel (ed.), New Frontiers in Teaching and References Learning English, 55–76, Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Beauchamp, C. and L. Thomas (2009), ‘Understanding Teacher Identity: An Overview of Issues in the Literature and Implications for Teacher Education’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 39 (2): 175–89. Beijaard, D. (2019), ‘Teacher Learning as Identity Learning: Models, Practices, and Topics’, Teachers and Teaching, 25 (1): 1–6.

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 121

Blommaert, J. (2010), The Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Britzman, D. P. (2003), Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Burns, A. (2005), Teaching English from a Global Perspective, Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Canagarajah, S. (2004), ‘Subversive Identities, Pedagogical Safe Houses, and Critical Learning’, in B. Norton and K. Toohey (eds), Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, 116–37, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, S. (2013), Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations, New York, NY: Routledge. Canale, M. and M. Swain (1980), ‘Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing’, Applied Linguistics, 1: 1–47. Cook, V. (2007), ‘The Goals of ELT: Reproducing Native Speakers or Promoting Multicompetence Among Second Language Use’, in J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds), International Handbook of English Language Teaching, 237–48, Norwell, MA: Springer. D’Angelo, J. (2012), ‘WE-Informed EIL Curriculum in Chukyo: Towards a Functional, Educated, Multilingual Outcome’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Teaching English as an International Language: Principles and Practices, 121–39, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Danielewicz, J. (2001), Teaching Selves: Identity, Pedagogy, and Teacher Education, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. De Costa, P. I. and B. Norton, eds (2017), ‘Introduction: Identity, Transdisciplinarity and the Good Language Teacher [special issue]’, The Modern Language Journal, 101, 3–14. Dewey, M. and J. Jenkins (2010), ‘English as a Lingua Franca in the Global Context: Interconnectedness, Variation and Change’, in M. Saxena and T. Omoniyi (eds), Contending with Globalization in World Englishes, 72–92, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. (2006), ‘Expanding the Socio-Cultural Knowledge Base of TESOL Teacher Education’, Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 19: 278–95. Doğançay-Aktuna, S. and J. Hardman (2017), ‘A Framework for Incorporating an English as an International Language Perspective into TESOL Teacher Education’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, 19–34, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Farrell, T. S. C. (2004), Reflective Practice in Action, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ferguson, G. (2013), ‘The Language of Instruction Issue: Reality, Aspiration and the Wider Context’, in H. Mcilwraith (ed.), Multilingual Education in Africa: Lessons from the Juba Language-In-Education Conference, 17–22, London: British Council. Freeman, D. (2009), ‘The Scope of Second Language Teacher Education’, in A. Burns and J. Richards (eds), The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education, 11–19, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, D. (2017), ‘The Case for Teachers’ Classroom English Proficiency’, RELC Journal, 48 (1): 31–52. Freeman, D. (2018), ‘Knowledge Base for Second Language Teaching’, in J. I. Liontas, The International Association and M. DelliCarpini (eds), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–8. Freeman, D. (2020), ‘Arguing for a Knowledge-Base in Language Teaching Education Then (1998) and Now (2018)’, Language Teaching Research, 24 (1): 5–16. Freeman, D. and K. E. Johnson (1998), ‘Reconceptualizing the Knowledge Base of Language Teacher Education’, TESOL Quarterly, 32 (3): 397–417.

122

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Freeman, D., A. Katz, P. Garcia Gomez and A. Burns (2015), ‘English-for-Teaching: Rethinking Teacher Proficiency in the Classroom’, ELT Journal, 69 (2): 130–9. Galloway, N. (2017), Global Englishes and Change in English Language Teaching, London: Routledge. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2015), Introducing Global Englishes, Abingdon: Routledge. García, O. (2009), ‘Education, Multilingualism and Translanguaging in the 21st Century’, in T. Skutnabb Kangas, R. Phillipson, A. Mohanty and M. Panda (eds), Social Justice through Multilingual Education, 140–58, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. García, O. and L. Wei (2014), Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Golombek, P. (1998), ‘A Study of Language Teachers’ Personal Practical Knowledge’, TESOL Quarterly, 32: 447–64. Holliday, A. (2006), ‘Native-Speakerism’, ELT Journal, 60: 385–7. Holliday, A., P. Aboshiha and A. Swan (2015), (En)countering Native Speakerism, New York: Palgrave. Jenkins, J. (2006), ‘Points of View and Blind Spots: ELF and SLA’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16: 137–62. Johnson, K. E. and P. R. Golombek (2011), ‘The Transformative Power of Narrative in Second Language Teacher Education’, TESOL Quarterly, 45: 486–509. Kamhi-Stein, L. (2014), ‘Nonnative English-Speaking Professionals’, in M. Celce-Murcia, M. A. Snow and D. Brinton (eds), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 586–600, Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage. Kanno, Y. and C. Stuart (2011), ‘Learning to Become a Second Language Teacher: Identities-In Practice’, The Modern Language Journal, 95 (2): 236–52. Kubota, R. (2004), ‘Critical Multiculturalism and Second Language Education’, in B. Norton and K. Toohey (eds), Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, 30–52, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kubota, R. (2019), ‘A Critical Examination of Common Beliefs about Language Teaching: From Research Insights to Professional Engagement’, in F. Fang and H. P. Widodo (eds), Critical Perspectives on Global Englishes in Asia: Language Policy, Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, 10–26, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kubota, R. and A. Lin (2009), Race, Culture, and Identities in Second Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice, New York: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006), Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod, New York, NY: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012), Language Teacher Education for a Global Society, New York, NY: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986), Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Le Ha, P. (2008), Teaching English as an International Language: Identity, Resistance and Negotiation, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Lindahl, K. M. and B. Yazan (2019), ‘An Identity-Oriented Lens to TESOL Teachers’ Lives: From Teacher Education to Classroom Contexts’, TESOL Journal, 10 (4): e506. doi:10.1002/tesj.506. Lortie, D. (1975), Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, London: University of Chicago Press. MacLure, M. (1993), ‘Arguing for Yourself: Identity as an Organising Principle in Teachers’ Jobs and Lives’, British Educational Research Journal, 19 (4): 311–22.

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 123

Martel, J. (2017), ‘Identity, Innovation, and Learning to Teach a Foreign/Second Language’, in G. Barkhuizen (ed.), Reflections on Language Teacher Identity, New York, NY: Routledge. Matsuda, A. (2009), ‘Desirable but Not Necessary? The Place of World Englishes and English as an International Language in English Teacher Preparation Programs in Japan’, in F. Sharifian (ed.), English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, 169–89, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (2017), ‘Introduction’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, xiii–xxi, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (2020), ‘World Englishes and English Language Teaching’, in B. Kachru, C. Nelson, Z. Proshina and D. Davis (eds), The Handbook of World Englishes, 2nd edn, 686–702, Oxford: Blackwell. May, S. (2013), The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education, London: Taylor and Francis. McKay, S. L. (2002), Teaching English as an International Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKay, S. L. (2012), ‘Principles of Teaching English as an International Language’, in L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. Renandya (eds), Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language, 28–46, London: Routledge. McKay, S. L. (2018), ‘English as an International Language: What It Is and What It Means for Pedagogy’, RELC Journal, 49 (1): 9–23. Motha, S. (2006), ‘Decolonizing ESOL: Negotiating Linguistic Power in U.S. Public School Classrooms’, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 3: 75–100. Motha, S. (2014), Race, Empire, and English Language Teaching: Creating Responsible and Ethical Anti-Racist Practice, New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Motha, S., R. Jain and T. Tecle (2012), ‘Translinguistic Identity-As-Pedagogy: Implications for Language Teacher Education’, International Journal of Innovation in English Language Teaching, 1: 13–27. Norton Peirce, B. (1995), ‘Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning’, TESOL Quarterly, 29: 9–32. Olsen, B. (2008), Teaching What They Learn, Learning What They Live: How Teachers’ Personal Histories Shape Their Professional Development, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Olsen, B. (2011), ‘“I Am Large, I Contain Multitudes”: Teacher Identity as Useful Frame for Research, Practice, and Diversity in Teacher Education’, in A. Ball and C. Tyson (eds), The American Educational Research Association Handbook on Studying Diversity in Teacher Education, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Olsen, B. (2016), Teaching for Success: Developing Your Teacher Identity in Today’s Classroom, New York, NY: Routledge. Pasternak, M. and K. Bailey (2004), ‘Preparing Nonnative and Native English-Speaking Teachers: Issues of Professionalism and Proficiency’, in L. D. Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on Nonnative English-Speaking Professionals, 155–75, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Pennycook, A. (2016), ‘Politics, Power Relationships and ELT’, in G. Hall (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching, 26–37, New York: Routledge. Phillipson, R. (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards, J. C. and D. Nunan (1990), Second Language Teacher Education, New York: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, J. R. (1998), Language Teacher Education, London: Arnold.

124

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Rose, H. (2017), ‘A Global Approach to English Language Teaching: Integrating an International Perspective into a Teaching Methods Course’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, 169–80, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Rudolph, N., A. F. Selvi and B. Yazan (2015), ‘Worldviews of Constructing and Confronting Native Speakerism: Orientations In and New Directions for the “NNEST Movement”’, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 12 (1): 27–50. Rudolph, N., B. Yazan and J. Rudolph (2019), ‘Negotiating “Ares,” “Cans” and “Shoulds” of Being and Becoming in ELT: Two Teacher Accounts from One Japanese University’, Asian Englishes, 21 (1): 22–37. doi:10.1080/13488678.2018.1471639 Sachs, J. (2005), ‘Teacher Education and the Development of Professional Identity: Learning to be a Teacher’, in P. Denicolo and M. Kompf (eds), Connecting Policy and Practice: Challenges for Teaching and Learning in Schools and Universities, 5–21, Oxford, UK: Routledge. Selvi, A. F. (2013), ‘Towards EIL Teacher Education: Exploring Challenges and Potentials of MATESOL Programs in the United States’, In N. T. Zacharias and C. Manara (eds), Contextualizing the Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Issues and Tensions, 42–58, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Selvi, A. F. (2014), ‘Myths and Misconceptions about the Non-Native English Speakers in TESOL (NNEST) Movement’, TESOL Journal, 5 (3): 573–611. Selvi, A. F. (2016), ‘The Role of Teacher Education at a Crossroads of Tensions and Opportunities’, Asian Englishes, 3 (18): 258–64. Selvi, A. F. (2017), ‘Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language: Reflections from Northern Cyprus’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, 115–29, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Selvi, A. F. (2019a), ‘Incorporating World Englishes in K-12 Classrooms’, in L. de Oliveira (ed.), The Handbook of TESOL in K-12, 83–99, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Selvi, A. F. (2019b), ‘The Non-native Teacher’, in S. Mann and S. Walsh (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education, 184–98, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Selvi, A. F. and N. Rudolph (2017), ‘Non-native English Teachers’ Professional Identities: Implications and Challenges for Teacher Education’, in J. D. Martinez Agudo (ed.), Native and Non-native Teachers in English Language Teaching: Professional Challenges and Teacher Education, 257–72, Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter. Seidlhofer, B. (2011), Understanding English as a Lingua Franca, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sharifian, F., and R. Marlina (2012), ‘English as an International Language (EIL): An Innovative Academic Program’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Teaching English as an International Language: Principles and Practices, 40–53, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Shulman, L. S. (1987), ‘Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform’, Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1): 1–22. 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): 317–35. Solano-Campos, A. (2014), ‘The Making of an International Educator: Transnationalism and Nonnativeness in English Teaching and Learning’, TESOL Journal, 5 (3): 412–43. Stroud, C. and C. Kerfoo (2013), ‘Towards Rethinking Multilingualism and Language Policy for Academic Literacies’, Linguistics and Education, 24 (4): 396–405.

BEYOND ‘NATIVE’ AND ‘NON-NATIVE’ ENGLISH-SPEAKING TEACHERS

 125

Tedick, D. J. (2005), Second Language Teacher Education: International Perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Tsui, A. B. M. (2007), ‘Complexities of Identity Formation: A Narrative Inquiry of an EFL Teacher’, TESOL Quarterly, 41 (4): 657–80. Varghese, M. (2006), ‘Bilingual Teachers-In-The-Making in Urbantown’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27 (3): 211–24. Varghese, M. M., S. Motha, G. Park, J. Reeves and J. Trent (2016), In this issue. [Special Themed Issue on Teacher Identity]. TESOL Quarterly, 50 (3): 545–71. Yazan, B. (2018a), ‘A Conceptual Framework to Understand Language Teacher Identities’, Journal of Second Language Teacher Education, 1 (1): 21–48. Yazan, B. (2018b), ‘Identity and Non-native English Speaker Teachers’, The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing (Area Editor: Ali Fuad Selvi; Editor-in-chief: John I. Liontas). doi:10.1002/9781118784235. Yazan, B. (2018c), ‘Being and Becoming an ESOL Teacher through Coursework and Internship: Three Teacher Candidates’ Identity Negotiation’, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 15 (3): 205–27. Yazan, B. (2019), ‘Towards Identity-Oriented Teacher Education: Critical Autoethnographic Narrative’, TESOL Journal, 10 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1002/tesj.388

Chapter 8

Reconceptualizing “(Non-) Native English Speakers” within the Paradigm of Teaching English as an International Language AYA MATSUDA

INTRODUCTION The notion of “native English speakers”1 (NES) has been extensively critiqued and contested in the field of applied linguistics. Studies in World Englishes (WE), English as an international language (EIL), and English as a lingua franca (ELF) challenge the traditional definition of NESs and their privileges in the context of the global spread of English and resulting diversity in forms, uses, and users of English. However, the critical perspective of NES or the NES/non-NES (NNES) dichotomy is not well translated into ELT practices today, and the native speaker (NS) bias continues to prevail. The goal of this chapter is to critically reflect on the aspects of ELT that are heavily influenced by the NS bias and to propose new ways to align a curriculum with a more critical and nuanced perspective on English language users today, with a special focus on the role that WE studies plays in this paradigm shift. I first trace how the notion of “NES” as well as NS bias has been problematized in the field of ELT. I then present three myths about “NESs” that continue to influence critical aspects of ELT and demonstrate how insights from WE studies2 challenge and deconstruct them. Finally, using the framework of Teaching English as an International Language (Matsuda 2012), I suggest new ways to think about different types of English users and their proficiency so that ELT can be freed from the NES/NNES dichotomy, focusing on four domains of practices where the influence of NS bias seems particularly strong. In other words, my goal is not only to critique current practices but also to suggest alternative ways to think about the English language users and teaching English, drawing from the insights of WE studies.

RECONCEPTUALIZING “(NON-)NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS”

 127

“NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS” IN ELT In the field of ELT, the notion of “NESs” has traditionally held a sacred place. NESs typically refer to L1 users of English from the Inner-Circle (IC) countries, such as Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These are the people English learners imagine interacting with someday, and their language use is considered the norm toward which English learners should work. There is an assumption that NESs make better teachers than their NNES counterparts, because they (are believed to) speak “better” English and because they (are assumed to) know more about the English-speaking culture. In reality, anyone who has worked with NES teachers (NESTs) and NNES teachers (NNETs) as a student, colleague, or teacher educator knows that this is not always the case. There is a wide range of linguistic and cultural competences among NESTs (as well as NNESTs), and the ability to use the language, although prerequisite, does not guarantee effective teaching. Yet, the NES bias is so strong that cases of NESs who lack linguistic or cultural knowledge and/or who are not competent teachers seem to be dismissed as exceptions and do not compromise the privileged status of NESs in the field. In practice, these a priori assumptions about idealized NESs are evident in different ways. Job ads that state “NES only” are probably the most explicit manifestation of the NES bias. NESs are also better presented than NNESs in teaching materials (Matsuda 2002; Sherman 2010; Vettorel and Lopriore 2013; but see Naji Meidani and Pishghadam 2013, and Takahashi 2014, for recent changes), and assessments almost always are based on the NES norm (Hu 2012; Lowenberg 2012). Students are assumed to prefer NESTs, although research shows that it is not necessarily the case (Moussu and Llurda 2008), and some researchers (e.g., Yazan 2018) have argued that the NES bias is having a detrimental effect on NNESTs’ identities. The NES bias can be found anywhere from the hiring policy to teaching assignments to NNESTs’ self-deprecating comments in classroom, perpetuating the bias and privilege while systematically keeping NNESs and NNESTs in their peripheral position in both the English-speaking world and ELT profession.

Responses to the Native English Speaker Bias In the past two decades or so, the NES bias has been heavily criticized in the field of applied linguistics and ELT. Some scholars scrutinized the conceptualization of NES itself, arguing that the traditional definition of NES fails to capture the complex relationship people often have with the language, especially when they are multilingual users and/or transnational citizens. In response, alternative definitions have been suggested, calling for a more refined understanding of “NES” and “NNES” (e.g., Brutt-Griffler and Samimy 2001; Davies 2003; Liu 1999). Others challenge common assumptions about NESs and the roles they should play in different aspects of ELT: Are they actually the people English learners will interact with in future? Should their use be considered the target and norm in learning, teaching, and assessment? Do they really make better teachers than NNESs? Furthermore, there has been an attempt to capture characteristics and strengths of certain teachers that are more relevant than “nativeness” by using such other terms as multicompetent teachers, bilingual and multilingual teachers, and translingual teachers (Jain 2018). The backdrop of some of these discussions is the postmodern/postcultural perspective that problematizes the privileging of NES(T)s as an institutional practice and calls for

128

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

a more critical and contextually informed understanding of privilege, marginalization, (in)equity, and discrimination in the profession (e.g., Canagarajah 1999; Kubota 2001; Pennycook 1994; Phillipson 1992). This shift in the construction and positioning of “(N)NES(T)s” owes greatly to the NNEST movement, an organized effort which began in late 1990s “to counter the discriminatory practices in TESOL” and “to establish a professional milieu characterized by such values as democracy, justice, equity, participation, and professionalism” (Braine and Selvi 2018: 1). Previously, too, there were scholars who challenged the NES bias in the field (e.g., Davies 1991; Medgyes 1994; Paikeday 1985; Phillipson 1992; Widdowson 1994), but the general tendency was to position “NNESTs” as deficient users of the language and juxtaposed with “NESTs.” The orchestrated labor of the NNEST movement to develop and disseminate ideas through research, teaching, teacher education, and advocacy has made a significant impact on the thinking on this issue among teaching of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) professionals. Starting with a colloquium organized by George Braine at its convention in 1996, TESOL International Association served as the home of the NNEST movement (Braine and Selvi 2018), but the phenomena it concerns as well as the impact of this movement are by no means limited to this association. There are now special interest groups dedicated to the NNEST issues at several TESOL affiliates, and the efforts to raise awareness, educate stakeholders, and bring changes to our practices are found in other professional associations (e.g., IATEFL) and dedicated groups (e.g., TEFL Equity Advocates). Early work on NNEST issues focused on comparing and contrasting “NESTs” and “NNESTs,” attempting to identify their unique characteristics. Although those studies tended to overgeneralize each group (Huang 2013; Kubota and Lin 2009; Park 2012) and be insensitive to individuals’ trajectories as language users and ELT professionals, they were critical in repositioning “NNESTs” as a group of legitimate teachers of English, rather than a less-than-perfect version of their NES counterparts. Since then, the NNEST research collectively has examined the notion of (N)NES(T), challenged the NS bias, and investigated not only the characteristics of NNESTs but also their identity construction as well as the attitudes of various stakeholders (see Braine and Selvi 2018, for more detailed history and contributions of the NNEST Movement).

Current State Over the past twenty years, some significant, visible changes have taken place in the way “(non)nativeness” is understood in the profession. It is probably safe to say that scholars and practitioners actively involved in professional development are aware that there is a body of literature and conversation surrounding the NNEST issues, that the notion of NES/NNES is contentious, and that there are concerns about the counterproductive NES bias in the profession. It does not mean, however, that all ELT professionals embrace it. Some may not be fully convinced that this is a problem, and others may see the problem but choose to maintain the status quo, rather than to fight it. After all, as Selvi (2018) states, the oversimplified and essentialized notion of “NES” and “NNES” (and consequently, “NESTs” and “NNESTs”) “have been coded into the DNA of ELT activity” (p. 2) and cannot be overwritten overnight without any resistance. In addition, there are ELT professionals who have not been exposed to the NNEST movement at all because they have not had access to it. Such teachers may be engaging

RECONCEPTUALIZING “(NON-)NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS”

 129

in practices that reinforce the NS bias, not with the discriminatory intention but because that is the only way they know and because they have not had the opportunity to look at the issues differently. In short, some significant changes have taken place in the field, but they have not necessarily reached to every corner of the world. It should also be noted that, even in contexts where ELT professionals are working together to fight the NES bias, things may not have transformed in all domains completely. It is simply because change takes time. In other words, there has been some significant changes in the positioning of “(non)nativeness” in the field of ELT as a whole, but the extent of changes we observe in actual practices varies from a context to another.

WE STUDIES AND (N)NES(T)S It would be a stretch to say that WE studies started or lead the NNEST movement described earlier. But WE is considered “the theoretical foundation of the NNEST movement” (Braine and Selvi 2018: 1), and its ideological stances, perspectives, and empirical data have helped the field of ELT adopt a more complex understanding of diverse users and uses of English today (see Matsuda 2018b, for more on WE and NNEST research). The diversity of linguistic forms, users, uses, and cultures associated with English today, which WE research highlights, directly challenges the notion of (homogeneous and idealized) “NESs” and their privileged place in the English-speaking world. In this section, I present three common assumptions—or myths—about (N)NES(T)s that are particularly influential in ELT and unpack how insights from the WE (as well as EIL and ELF) studies debunk each of them.

Myth 1: Only NESs Can Be the Linguistic and Cultural Experts One common myth related to the linguistic and cultural knowledge of English is that only NESs can be the experts. Even if we accept the questionable idea of “expert knowledge” itself for the sake of argument, this assumption that such a privilege is reserved exclusively for NESs becomes moot vis-à-vis WE research, which tells us about the linguistic and cultural diversity of English today. The best-known type of WE research probably is the structural and functional description of different varieties of English, which confronts the monolithic and homogeneous perception of English that is common in the field of ELT. In WE research, systematic and reasoned “deviations” from the “norms” in the IC are not perceived as errors but rather as manifestations of linguistic nativization that has occurred in order to better meet the needs of local English users. Consequently, the resulting “new varieties” of English are not considered as substandard versions of IC varieties of English (e.g., “British English with an Indian accent”) but instead a newly emerged, legitimate varieties of English (e.g., “Indian English”), each encompassing various regional, social, and situational dialects within it. In other words, this line of research has established that, as a result of the global spread of English, there are many legitimate varieties of English other than IC varieties that are being used successfully for domestic and international communication in various parts of the world today. In terms of culture, too, insights from the WE research complicate the understanding of “English-speaking culture,” what cultural knowledge is needed for English users and teachers, and who possess such knowledge. WE research on domestic use of English in the Outer Circle (OC) and Expanding Circle (EC) shows that English in those contexts have

130

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

been “de-Anglicized” (Hino 2009; Kachru 1992a). That is, English now plays “an important tool to impact local traditions and cultural values” (Kachru 1992b: 358), and it is the local cultural frame of reference that English users use to express something through English and to interpret such English among themselves. If so, it can be argued that “local cultures” which were not traditionally regarded as an “English-speaking culture”—for example, those in former British colonies in Asia and Africa—are now part of the diverse “English-speaking culture” because these cultures are also expressed through and embedded in English. In the context of EIL/ELF context, the “cultures” represented are even more diverse and complicated because the “cultures” represented are broader, diverse, and unpredictable. Each participant brings their own cultural frame of references, which is not only influenced by where they were originally from or where they first learned to use English but also from all other multilingual and multicultural encounters they have had in the past. If the EIL/ELF community is somewhat stable, such as the case of a group of international students attending the same school or a multiethnic immigrant neighborhood, there may be a unique “culture” that has emerged as a result of sustained communication. Such a “culture” would be likely to show the influence of multiple national or other cultures that members bring with, but it would also be distinct from any particular one of them and uniquely local. Contrastively, if it is a more spontaneous EIL/ELF communication, such as a conversation among international tourists who met in a long-distance train, cultural frames of references are unpredictable and there may be a higher need of meaning negotiation on the spot. The point is that WE studies have demonstrated that “English-speaking culture” today goes much beyond that of IC, particularly that of “mainstream” US and UK cultures that dominate English language classrooms, in both domestic and international use. Such linguistic and cultural diversity and heterogeneity of English question the assumption that NESs are the only linguistic and cultural experts. One reason why NESTs from the IC are preferred over NNESTs is because they are believed to be more proficient in English. This may reflect the reality to some extent if the assumption was that there is only one variety of English and that is the variety all NESTs have learned growing up, but this no longer holds true once the pluricentric nature of today’s English is acknowledged. That is, the variety a particular NEST happens to know as their “native” variety may not necessarily be the variety a particular group of students need to learn, and someone who knows the variety that students need may be someone who is traditionally regarded as an “NNEST.” For instance, English used by a monolingual English speaker who grew up in the United States and has interacted only with people from the United States may not be the most appropriate variety of English for a group of Japanese businesspeople who are learning English to better communicate with clients in Singapore, where British English and Singapore English dominate. In such a case, someone who has lived in Singapore— and more specifically, who has experience in business scenes in Singapore—is likely to have the kind of linguistic knowledge needed, regardless of their nativeness. It is not to suggest that we cannot teach students a language or a variety of a language that we did not learn as our native language—NNESTs across the world do this every day—but it does mean that we cannot assume that NESs automatically possess the linguistic knowledge that matches the needs of a particular student simply because they are “NESs.” Similarly, NESs are often appreciated for their (assumed) intimate knowledge of the English-speaking culture, which is typically equated with that of the IC, but again, that may or may not be the English-speaking culture students need to be familiar with. The ability to negotiate differences in a multilingual, multicultural setting—as it is often the

RECONCEPTUALIZING “(NON-)NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS”

 131

case where English is used as an international and multilingual lingua franca—is also something that needs to be learned, and thus NESs do not necessarily have an advantage. Just as in linguistics knowledge, cultural knowledge needed for successful use of English varies from one context to another, and thus whether a person has learned the language natively or not is not the best indicator of their cultural knowledge and experience needed for the particular use of English. In other words, WE studies debunk myth in two folds: NESs may not necessarily be the linguistic or cultural experts as they related to the needs of a particular (group of) student(s), and English users not traditionally considered NESs may possess the type of linguistic/cultural most relevant in a particular instructional context.

Myth 2: NESs are the Most Effective Users of English Another belief that privileges NESs in ELT is that they are the most effective users of English and thus their norm should be used as the target. This belief, too, has been defied by WE studies. For instance, as I have already alluded earlier to in the discussion of pluricentricity of English, studies have shown that the “norm” that is relevant in a particular situation does not necessarily come from NESs. This is especially the case in the OC where localized and institutionalized (endonormative) varieties of English exist. The “norm” in Indian English, for instance, emerges from and is determined by the uses and users of Indian English, and “deviates” systematically from the “NES norm(s)” from the IC. Attitudinal studies from the OC also suggest that the “native-like” speech of IC varieties is not necessarily the most preferred way of communication, possibly because they are associated with the country’s former colonial power and/or perceived as being snobbish (e.g., Bamgboṣe 1992). In such contexts, then, English used by the “NSs” of IC varieties of English does not serve as the appropriate target model (see also Adegbija 1994; and Obanya, Dada and Oderinde 1979). The idea of “NES norm” is challenged in the EIL and ELF studies as well. One of the key findings of EIL intelligibility studies (Smith and Nelson 1985) is that “NESs” are not always more intelligible than “NNESs” (Smith and Nelson 1985; Smith and Rafiqzad 1979). This directly contradicts with the belief that “NESs” make the best teacher because they are the easiest to understand, and challenges the taken-for-granted assumption that the more “native-like” a learner sounds, the more understandable they become. EIL researchers also argue that the successful EIL communication depends not necessarily on the NNES’s ability to understand and being understood but rather on the mutual efforts on all participants, “NESs” and “NNESs” alike (Nelson 2011; Smith 1978, 1981). Research also shows that the more involvement a listener has had with a particular variety of English and its speakers, the more likely they find the variety and speaker intelligible and the more intelligible they will be to those speakers (Smith and Nelson 1985). What these studies collectively suggest is that “NESs” are not automatically better at using EIL simply for being a NES. And if both “NESs” and “NNESs” must learn to become a competent user of EIL, the norm EIL learners should strive for is not that of “NESs” but instead that of competent EIL users, who may be “NESs” or “NNESs.”

Myth 3: NESs are the Exclusive Norm-Setters of English The aforementioned last point in fact relates to the third myth, which is about the role “NESs” and “NNESs” play in defining the norm(s) in English today. If we use a

132

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

(problematic but) common assumption that English users of the IC are NESs and those in the OC and EC are NNESs, the number of “NNESs” significantly greater than that of “NESs” (Canagarajah 2005; Crystal 2003). As a result, substantial amount of English use today takes place exclusively among the so-called NNESs, particularly in the context of EIL/ELF, and, consequently, a new norm can emerge based on the “NNES” use. Such a norm may not be—and does not need to be—same as the norm based on the “NES” use. As Smith (1981) reminds us: A Thai doesn’t need to sound like an American in order to use English well with a Filipino at an ASEAN meeting. A Japanese doesn’t need an appreciation of a British lifestyle in order to use English in his business dealings with a Malaysian. The Chinese do not need a background in western literature in order to use English effectively as a language for publications of worldwide distribution. The political leaders of France and Germany use English in private political discussions but this doesn’t mean that they take on the political attitudes of Americans. It is clear that in these situations there is no attempt for the user to be like a native speaker of English. (p. 27) In other words, one does not need to follow the “NES norm” in order to be an effective user of English. In fact, ELF studies contribute significantly to the understanding and description of the norms that do not rely on the “NES” use. While most ELF scholars today acknowledge the presence of L1 speakers of English in ELF communication and do not exclude them from the theoretical definition of ELF (Jenkins 2015), their operational definitions often exclude or intentionally limit NESs “for fear of too much native English influence on other participants” (Jenkins 2015: 56), which would “make it more difficult to identify emerging ELF forms” (Jenkins 2007: 2). After all, “NESs are not considered arbiters of acceptable or appropriate forms in ELF communication” (Jenkins 2018: 18), the point WE and EIL studies also have made. This bold move to push “NESs” out of the central space in the conceptualization of ELF is one of the unique contributions of ELF studies, in my opinion, as it represents the shift in the use and ownership of English in the global context. That is, this new conceptualization realizes what the description of English as “a distinct manifestation of English not tied to its native speakers” (Seidlhofer 2004: 229) may look like. While the idea of norms that do not rely on NESs is underscored in both WE and EIL studies, ELF research and corpus have empirically shown what such a norm may look like, in both linguistics and sociolinguistic terms. In addition, that there are more “NNESs” than “NESs” implies that the majority of English users today are multilingual, showing varying degrees of proficiencies. English users in the OC and EC have learned English in addition to the local, indigenous, and/or home language(s), and a significant number of NESs are also fluent in other languages. Both WE studies and the latest phase of the ELF studies have shed light on the multilingual resources of English users, as demonstrated in such practices as linguistic creativity (Bhatt 2001; Kachru 2013) and translanguaging (Canagarajah 2013; Garcia and Li Wei 2014). These perspectives diametrically challenge the assumption that the English monolingualism is the norm, in terms of both quantity and quality. So far in this chapter I traced how the notion of “NES” as well as NES bias has been problematized in the field of ELT, and demonstrated how insights from WE studies in particular challenge the common assumptions about “NES” and their privileged status in ELT practices. In the rest of the chapter, I will explore how to reconceptualize ELT so

RECONCEPTUALIZING “(NON-)NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS”

 133

that it does not rely on the contested notion of “NES,” using the framework of Teaching English as an International Language.

“NES” AND “NNESS” IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE (TEIL) Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL) is a new ELT paradigm that is informed by the WE studies (Alsagoff, McKay, Hu and Renandya 2012; Marlina and Giri 2014; Matsuda 2012a; McKay 2002; Sharifian 2009).3 It embraces the plurality of English and diversity of its users and uses, and strives to prepare English language learners for the heterogeneous and complex sociolinguistic reality of English (e.g., Alsagoff et al. 2012; Matsuda 2012a; Matsuda and Friedrich 2011). TEIL does not assume or promote one variety of English dedicated to international communication or even the idea that there is one variety that is always preferred in EIL contexts. Rather, it assumes that there will be multiple varieties of English accompanied by different cultural frames of reference brought to the table by participants, and EIL users must be equipped to negotiate linguistic and cultural differences in order to use English effectively to achieve their communicative and other goals. In practice, TEIL typically encourages: ●●

Exposure to, awareness of, and respect for different varieties of English and their users,

●●

Focus on communication strategies to negotiate linguistic differences,

●●

Use of and critical engagement with the cultural materials from diverse sources, and

●●

Understanding of the politics of EIL among teachers and students.

As for the place of (N)NESs is concerned, because it draws heavily from the WE perspective, TEIL positions them fundamentally differently from the way they have been positioned in ELT. “NNESs” are recognized not only as legitimate users of English but also the ones who have increasing influence in shaping the future of English. At the same time, the concept of “NESs” and “NNESs” are not considered as useful as they have been believed to be because, as discussed earlier, they are not a useful indicator of knowledge or proficiency needed for effective users of English today. Although this shift in perspective manifests in all aspects of ELT, in the following section I will highlight four examples to illustrate how ELT that does not depend on the “NES” construct may look like.

Representation of Diverse English Users One direct outcome of embracing diversity among English users today is the attempt to introduce learners to—and raise their awareness and consciousness of—various users of English through teaching materials, guest speakers, and strategic hiring of teaching staff. The obvious and primary benefit of this shift is that English learners will develop accurate expectations about their future interlocutors and be better prepared to interact with them. In addition, bringing in diverse users of English, regardless of their “nativeness” or the circle they may belong to, is an authentic way to introduce students to different varieties of English. TEIL is based on the assumption that it is important to expose students to varieties of Englishes and to raise their awareness about them because, as WE studies have suggested, the lack of awareness may adversely affect the students’ attitudes toward other varieties of English as well as their confidence and competence in successful communication involving

134

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

multiple varieties of English (Matsuura, Chiba and Fujieda 1999; Smith and Nelson 2006). English users who speak different varieties of English, especially guest speakers and teachers who can provide opportunities for students to not just listen to but also to interact with them, can introduce students to Englishes in meaningful ways. Similarly, TEIL embraces the broadened and diversified conceptualization of English-speaking culture discussed earlier and attempts to diversify the source of cultural materials in classroom (Cortazzi and Jin 1999; Matsuda 2006, 2012b; McKay 2002, 2012). Diverse English users, both NESs and NNESs, can contribute towards this goal, too, by serving as legitimate cultural informants and hence helping students develop awareness of the heterogeneity of the English-speaking culture. Furthermore, competent EIL users, especially the so-called NNESs, can serve as a powerful role model to English language learners. Students are reminded that one can be an “NNES” and still be a competent, effective, and successful EIL user. This helps students develop more realistic expectations regarding how proficient they can become as an English user and set achievable goals, rather than thinking about their potential in terms of what they lack compared to “NESs.”

Assessment In the context of assessment in ELT, there are two practices that are particularly problematic from the WE perspective and TEIL attempts to approach differently. One concerning practice is that, because of the monolithic construction of “correctness,” especially in standardized, high-stake English proficiency tests, “correct” usages in some Englishes are regarded as “incorrect” (Canagarajah 2006; Davies 2009; Hu 2012; Lowenberg 2012). The other is that, although the “(monolingual) NES norm” has been shown neither necessary nor desirable in many situations and it fails to account for the rich linguistic and cultural resources that English language learners possess, English learners are continued to be measured against the “(monolingual) NES norm” for the assessment of their proficiency and progress. Fortunately, some changes, although still limited, are taking place to address these problems. In standard testing, for instance, widely used tests such as IELTS and TOEFL now incorporate spoken and written texts that reflect more regional and speaker variations; their raters also include proficient NNESs. Further possibilities include the development of tests based on the local usage as well as those that include test items drawn from the actual WE/EIL/ELF communication (e.g., Hill 1996), although they have their own limitations: localized standardized tests may not be appropriate beyond their specific contexts (which itself is not a problem but creates less incentive for testing business), and tests based on the actual usages may eventually lead to a new hegemony through the unintentional-but-inevitable codification (Berns 2008; Elder and Davies 2006; Hu 2012). In classroom setting, too, there are forms of assessment that do not rely exclusively on the “NS norms” and can focus on the functional effectiveness and appropriateness, use of communication strategies, and intelligibility—an approach not unique to but are compatible with TEIL. They typically employ “alternative” assessment methods (Brown and Abeywickrama 2010: 123), such as role-plays and portfolio. These methods are increasingly adopted in ELT classrooms in general to capture the progress and achievement beyond what traditional paper-and-pencil tests can measure, including such skills as the use of accommodation and other communicative strategies essential in EIL/ ELF communication (e.g., Kouvdou 2014; Xu 2014).

RECONCEPTUALIZING “(NON-)NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS”

 135

Critical Perspective on English TEIL also acknowledges the importance of raising sensitivity and critical awareness of issues surrounding English, including its relationship with and power over other languages, its potential to create or further socioeconomic and cultural divide, and respect for multilingualism and linguistic rights (e.g., Barratt 2018; Canagarajah 1999; Hilgendorf 2018; Kubota and McKay 2009; McKay 2012; Phillipson 1992, 2018). Which topics to cover, to what extent, and how would vary greatly depending on the institutional setting and the nature and goal of the course as well as the age and proficiency level of students. But this mindset certainly creates opportunities for students to critically reflect on the notion of “(N)NESs” and their own “nonnative-ness” as an English user. Any activity that informs students about the global spread of English and different varieties of English is a good starting point (see Matsuda and Duran 2012, for examples of such activities), but those that do not explicit address WE can also be impactful. For instance, if there is an “NNES” guest speaker—something already suggested earlier in this chapter—students can later reflect on whether the term “NNES” fairly represents the guest’s effectiveness as an English user. Whatever the assumptions they have about “NNESs” can be challenged or complicated by such real-life experience, and students overtime may develop a more nuanced understanding of what “NESs” and “NNESs” may mean in real life. Opportunities to interact with different types of English users outside the classroom can also allow for a critical reflection. I vividly remember a conversation I had in college with four other bilingual classmates, in which we agreed how our weaker language (English, in my case) seemed to become stronger when talking to another “NNS” of that language (NNES, in my case). We laughed and dismissed it because it seemed improbable that our proficiency changes depending on our interlocutors, but with an appropriate guidance, we could have engaged in a discussion of our conceptualization of “NSs,” our own NS bias, how they would play out at a bilingual university where the conversation took place, and how we were (or not) embracing our “nativeness” and “nonnativeness.” Such an engagement would have led to a critical perspective on (N)NES, a viewpoint essential for responsible and effective users of English in todays’ world.

Teacher Preparation In fact, students are not the only ones who need to critically reflect on their own assumptions and biases. All teachers,4 regardless of how they have learned the language, need to confront the NES bias in the field as well as in their own practices. Teacher preparation and professional development programs play critical roles in this, as they provide a (hopefully safe) space where pre-service and in-service teachers are introduced to the WE perspectives and can examine their own beliefs about (N)NES(T) issues. People who decide to become an ELT professional are typically ones who not only survived but also thrived in the current system where native speaker bias prevails, and thus its critique is likely to be new, confusing, and even threatening as it questions the foundation of their professional experience. It is especially so if the criticism focuses on the ideology and discriminatory practices associated with it, because they may feel their beliefs are attacked or feel implicated as an agent of discrimination. WE research can ease the process by providing empirical facts that teachers can process without feeling threatened or personally attacked. In addition, “NNESTs” in particular would benefit from opportunities to reflect on their NNEST identity and how such self-identification affects their teacher identity

136

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

and efficacy. It would empower them significantly if they could learn to see their “nonnativeness” as resources rather than the cause for self-marginalization (Zacharias 2018; see also Matsuda 2017, for a more in-depth discussion of incorporating TEIL perspective into teacher preparation).

CONCLUSION The NES bias that prevails in ELT is problematic and counterproductive, to say the least. It prevents ELT from aligning itself with the reality of English-speaking world today (and thus from serving our students best). It also is detrimental to the identity, confidence, and sense of efficacy for English learners and teachers. At the same time, the bias found in English classrooms is also a reflection of the bias in a larger society. Students will find themselves in situations where they are judged for their “nonnativeness,” just as they may feel discriminated against based on their race, gender, age, and so on. Both students and teachers of English today must be well informed and equipped well enough to fight the NES bias so that they are not discouraged by it but be empowered enough to advocate for themselves and other English users. Pedagogical approaches such as TEIL, which challenge the assumptions behind the NES bias and allow for the alternative construction of identity as English users, as well as professional development opportunities for teachers to critically examine their beliefs about the concepts of “NES” and their places in the profession, are examples of how such a goal can be accomplished. WE research has much to offer in this area, by illuminating the effective use of English that may or may not conform to the “NES norms”—the concept that is oversimplified to start with—and different ways English users, both “NES” or “NNES,” can own the language. Yet, whether such insights can make a meaningful difference in the lives of English learners depend on what we, ELT specialists, decide to do with the research insights. As I argued previously: whether a teacher believes that there should be different varieties of English, or if the majority of EIL use should take place exclusively among NNESs, or if EIL users should deviate from the NES norms, or if there should be languages other than English used for international communication, is not relevant. The reality is that there are different varieties of English, the majority of EIL use does take place exclusively among NNESs, EIL users do often deviate from the NES norms in both forms and usage, and there are languages used in international communication, sometimes in tandem with English in one text or dialogue, and the goal of TEIL is to align our practices within this reality. (Matsuda 2018a: 32) We must engage in the constant examination of such powerful constructs as “NES” and “NNES,” experiment with new approaches to teaching (such as TEIL), and assess their effectiveness in order to ensure that our pedagogy aligns with the students’ needs and reality they will live in as an English user.

NOTES 1. As I have expressed in my other writing and as I hope it will become evident in this chapter as well, my position regarding the notion of NES as well as the distinction between NESs and NNESs is that they are irrelevant in the context of English language learning and

RECONCEPTUALIZING “(NON-)NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS”

 137

teaching. Accordingly, I have been arguing to move away from these concepts and harmful shorthands when discussing the knowledge, experience, and skills relevant for EIL users, students, and teachers (e.g., Matsuda 2014, 2016). At the same time, I fully recognize that the concepts “have a very real currency within the popular discourse of ELT” (Holliday 2006: 385) and strongly believe that avoiding the terms does not solve the problem. That is, unless we address the roots of problem—for example, misconception, bias, discrimination— any alternative terms we use to refer to different types of English users will become loaded with the same problematic assumptions. And addressing the roots of the problem requires us to use the very terms we are problematizing. For this reason, I continue use such terms as NES and NNES in this chapter, even in the context of TEIL where such distinction is irrelevant, because the primary goal of this chapter is to demonstrate how WE challenges the commonly used notion of (N)NES(T) in the context of ELT, and it cannot be achieved without using those terms. Quotation marks are used to acknowledge the contested nature of those terms. 2. In this chapter, WE studies refers to the study of the global spread of English and its linguistic, literary, pedagogical, and other implications. The best-known type of WE research is the structural and functional description of different varieties of English (or Englishes), but it also includes such other topics as the use of English in a wide range of functional domains, attitudes and language ideology, language policy and planning, debates about English as a cause of language death, literary creativity, identity, English in various media, and pedagogy. When WE and EIL are contrasted, the distinction is usually between the WE’s focus on the uniqueness of national-regional varieties of English and intranational uses and the EIL’s focus on the international use (Hino 2018). However, the interrelated and codependent relationship between the intranational and international use of English is well recognized and thus they are not perceived to be in conflict or competition. There has been close articulation between the two, and the term “WE” is often used to encompass both WE and EIL studies. ELF studies, on the other hand, took a distinctively different approach, especially in its early days. “ELF research” that is contrasted with the WE and EIL studies refers to the (re)conceptualization of the ELF in 1990s by such scholars as Jennifer Jenkins, Barbara Seidlhofer, and Anna Mauranen and the body of empirical studies that followed it. In the earliest phase of ELF research, the ELF was conceptualized as a linguistic entity that may eventually be recognized as legitimate varieties of highly proficient NNS multilinguals (Jenkins 2015; Kirkpatrick 2007); since then, more recent ELF research view it as a sociolinguistic construct and the focus of the ELF studies has shifted to the variability and its underlying process and then to multilingualism (Jenkins 2015). Following the focus of the book, I concentrate primarily on the contribution of WE studies, but in most part they apply to EIL and ELF studies as well. When there are perspectives particular to EIL and/or ELF, I use those terms to highlight their unique contributions, but they do not contradict with the insights from WE either. 3. In this chapter, I use the term TEIL as an umbrella term for approaches with other names, such as English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)-aware pedagogy (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015; Sifakis 2014) and Global English Language Teaching (GELT) (Galloway 2011, 2013; Galloway and Rose 2015), which also draw from WE/EIL/ELF studies and share the same assumptions, visions, and suggested practices. 4. Although this section focuses on the needed shift in the mindset for English language teachers, the same shift is necessary for teacher educators, too. They need an opportunity to acknowledge the assumptions, hesitation, indifference, idealization, and resistance they have toward the notion of “NESs” and what they imply in the context of ELT and critically reflect on how they affect the way they work with teachers.

138

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

REFERENCES Adegbija, E. (1994), ‘English and Indigenous Languages in Kwara State (Nigeria): The Bottom-Line Attitudinal Factors’, Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 13 (3): 253–84. Alsagoff, L., S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renandya eds (2012), ‘Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language, New York: Routledge. Bamgbose, A. (1992), ‘Standard Nigerian English: Issues of identification’, in B. B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd edn, 148–61, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Barratt, L. (2018), ‘Monolingual Bias’, in M. DelliCarpini (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0024 Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (2015), ‘Developing an ELF-Aware Pedagogy: Insights from a SelfEducation Programme’, in P. Vettorel (ed.), New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English, 55–76, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Berns, M. (2008), ‘World Englishes, English as a Lingua Franca, and Intelligibility’, World Englishes, 27 (3/4): 327–34. Bhatt, R. (2001), ‘World Englishes’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 31: 527–50. Braine, G. and A. F. Selvi (2018), ‘NNEST Movement’, in M. DelliCarpini (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0039. Brown, H. D. and P. Abeywickrama (2010), Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices, 2nd edn, White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. Brutt-Griffler, J. and K. K. Samimy (2001), ‘Transcending the Nativeness Paradigm’, World Englishes, 20: 99–106. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999), Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A. S. (2005), Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Canagarajah, S. (2006), ‘Changing Communicative Needs, Revised Assessment Objectives: Testing English as an International Language’, Language Assessment Quarterly, 3 (3): 229–42. Canagarajah, S. (2013), Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations, New York and Abingdon: Routledge. Cortazzi, M. and L. Jin (1999), ‘Cultural Mirrors: Materials and Methods in the EFL CLASSROOM’, in E. Hinkel (ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 196–219, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (2003), English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, A. (1991), The Native Speaker in Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Davies, A. (2003), The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Davies, A. (2009), ‘Assessing World Englishes’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29: 80–9. Elder, C. and A. Davies (2006), ‘Assessing English as a Lingua Franca’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26: 282–301. Galloway, N. (2011), An Investigation of Japanese Students’ Attitudes Towards English, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton, UK. Galloway, N. (2013), ‘Global Englishes and English Language Teaching (ELT)—Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice in a Japanese Context’, System, 41 (3): 786–803.

RECONCEPTUALIZING “(NON-)NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS”

 139

Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2015), Introducing Global Englishes, Arbingdon: Routledge. Garcia, O. and Li Wei (2014), Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education, New York: NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Hilgendorf, S. K. (2018), ‘Center and Periphery’, in M. DelliCarpini (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0009 Hill, K. (1996), ‘Who Should Be the Judge? The Use of Non-native Speakers as Raters on a Test of English as an International Language’, Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 5 (2): 29–50. Hino, N. (2009), ‘The Teaching of English as an International Language in Japan: An Answer to the Dilemma of Indigenous Values and Global Needs in the Expanding Circle’, AILA Review, 22 (1): 103–19. Hino, N. (2018), EIL Education for the Expanding Circle: A Japanese Model, London and New York: Routledge. Holliday, A. (2006), ‘Native-Speakerism’, ELT Journal, 60 (4): 385–7. Hu, G. (2012), ‘Assessing English as an International Language’, in L. Alsagoff, S. L. Mckay, G. Hu and W. A. Renandya (eds), Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language, 123–43, New York: Routledge. Huang, I. (2013), ‘Contextualizing Teacher Identity of Non-native-English Speakers in U.S. Secondary ESL Classrooms: A Bakhtinian Perspective’, Linguistics and Education, 25: 119–28. Jain, R. (2018), ‘Alternative Terms in NNESTs’, in M. DelliCarpini (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0005 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. Jenkins, J. (2018), ‘ELF and WE: Competing or Complementing Paradigms?’ in E. L. Low and A. Pakir (eds), World Englishes: Rethinking Paradigms, 12–28, London and New York: Routledge. Kachru, B. B. (1992a), ‘Models for Non-native Englishes’, in B. B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edn, 48–74, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. B. (1992b), ‘Teaching World Englishes’, in B. B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edn, 355–65, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Y. (2013), ‘Linguistic Creativity and World Englishes Literatures’, in C. A. Chapelle (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Appleid lInguistics. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0714 Kirkpatrick, A. (2007), World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kouvdou, A. (2014), ‘Potential Links between ELF and Alternative Assessment in the EFL Multicultural Class: Researching Teachers’ Perspectives’, Paper presented at the ELF7 Conference. DEREE-The American College of Greece, Athens. Kubota, R. (2001), ‘Discursive Construction of the Images of US Classrooms’, TESOL Quarterly, 35 (1): 9–37. Kubota, R. and A. M. Y. Lin, eds (2009), Race, Culture and Identities in Second Language Education: Exploring Critically Engaged Practice, New York, NY: Routledge. Kubota, R. and S. McKay (2009), ‘Globalization and Language Learning in Rural Japan: The Role of English in the Local Linguistic Ecology’, TESOL Quarterly, 43: 593–619.

140

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Liu, J. (1999), ‘Nonnative-English-Speaking Professionals in TESOL’, TESOL Quarterly, 33 (1): 85–102. Lowenberg, P. (2012), ‘Assessing Proficiency in EIL’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 84–102, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Marlina, R. and R. A. Giri eds (2014), The Pedagogy of English as an International Language: Perspectives from Scholars, Teachers, and Students, New York: Springer. Matsuda, A. (2002), ‘Representation of Users and Uses of English in Beginning Japanese EFL Textbooks’, JALT Journal, 24 (2): 182–200. Matsuda, A. (2006), ‘Negotiating ELT Assumptions in EIL Classrooms’, in J. Edge (ed.), (Re)Locating TESOL in an Age of Empire, 158–70, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Matsuda, A., ed. (2012a), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (2012b), ‘Teaching Materials in EIL’, in L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G. Hu and W. A. Renandya (eds), Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language, 168–85, New York: Routledge. Matsuda, A. (2014), ‘Beyond the Native Speaker: My Life as an NJS, NNES, and Bilingual User of Japanese and English’, NNEST Newsletter: The Newsletter of the TESOL NNEST Interest Section. Available at http:​/​/new​​smana​​ger​.c​​ommpa​​rtner​​s​.com​​/teso​​lnnes​​t​/iss​​ues​/2​​014​​-0​​9​-09/​​2​ .htm​l Matsuda, A. (2016), ‘Reconceptualizing Teacher Qualification’, in F. Copland, S. Garton and S. Mann (eds), LETs and NESTs: Voices, Views and Vignettes, 257, London, UK: British Council. Matsuda, A., ed. (2017), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. (2018a), ‘Is Teaching English as an International Language All about Being Politically Correct?’ RELC Journal, 49 (1): 24–35. Matsuda, A. (2018b), ‘World Englishes and Nonnative English Speaking Teachers’, in M. DelliCaripni (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Malden, MA: Wiley. Available at DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0041 Matsuda, A. and C. S. Duran eds (2012), ‘Pedagogical Ideas’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 201–37, Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A. and P. Friedrich (2011), ‘English as an International Language: A Curriculum Blueprint’, World Englishes, 30 (3): 332–44. Matsuura, H., R. Chiba and M. Fujieda (1999), ‘Intelligibility and Comprehensibility of American and Irish Englishes in Japan’, World Englishes, 18 (1): 49–62. McKay, S. L. (2002), Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKay, S. L. (2012), ‘Teaching Materials for English as an International Language’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, 70–83, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Medgyes, P. (1994), The Non-native Teacher, London: Macmillan. Moussu, L. and E. Llurda (2008), ‘Non-native English-Speaking English Language Teachers: History and Research’, Language Teaching, 41 (3): 315–48. Naji Meidani, E. and R. Pishghadam (2013), ‘Analysis of English Language Textbooks in the Light of English as an International Language (EIL): A Comparative Study’, International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2 (2): 83–96.

RECONCEPTUALIZING “(NON-)NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS”

 141

Nelson, C. L. (2011), Intelligibility in World Englishes, New York, NY: Routledge. Obanya, P., A. Dada and T. Oderinde (1979), ‘An Empirical Study of the Acceptability of Four Accents of Spoken English in Nigeria’, in E. Ubahakwe (ed.), Varieties and Functions of English in Nigeria, 242–56, Ibadan: African University Press. Paikeday, T. M. (1985), The Native Speaker Is Dead, Toronto: Paikeday Publishing. Park, G. (2012), ‘“I’m Never Afraid of Being Recognized as an NNES”: One Teacher’s Journey in Claiming and Embracing Her Nonnative-speaker Identity’, TESOL Quarterly, 47 (1): 127–51. Pennycook, A. (1994), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Longman. Phillipson, R. (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2018), ‘Linguistic Imperialism and NNESTs’, in M. DelliCaripni (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Hoboken, NJ: Wiliey. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0023 Seidlhofer, B. (2004), ‘Research Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua Franca’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 209–39. Selvi, A. F. (2018), ‘Introduction to Non-native English-Speaking Teachers (NNESTs)’, in M. DelliCaripni (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eeltv02b Sharifian, F., ed. (2009), English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sherman, J. E. (2010), ‘Uncovering Cultural Bias in EFL Textbooks’, Issues in Applied Linguistics, 18 (1): 27–53. Sifakis, N. C. (2014), ‘ELF Awareness as an Opportunity for Change: A Transformative Perspective for ESOL Teacher Education’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3 (2): 317–35. Smith, L. E. (1978), ‘Some Distinctive Features of EIL vs ESOL in English Language Education’, Reprinted in Smith, L. E. (ed.) (1983), Readings in English as an International Language, 13–20, Oxford: Pergamon. Smith, L. E. (1981), ‘English as an International Language: No Room for Linguistic Chauvinism’, Ngoya Gakuein Daigaku Gaikokugo Kyoiku Kiyo, 3: 27–32. Smith, L. E. and C. L. Nelson (1985), ‘International Intelligibility of English: Directions and Resources’, World Englishes, 4 (3): 333–42. Smith, L. E. and C. L. Nelson (2006), ‘World Englishes and Issues of Intelligibility’, in B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru and C. Nelson (eds), The Handbook of World Englishes, 428–45, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Smith, L. E. and K. Rafiqzad (1979), ‘English for Cross-Cultural Communication: The Question of Intelligibility’, TESOL Quarterly, 13 (3): 371–80. Takahashi, R. (2014), ‘An Analysis of ELF-Oriented Features in ELT Coursebooks: Are Attitudes Towards Non-native Varieties Changing in English Language Teaching Policy and Practice in Japan?’ English Today, 30 (1): 28–34. Vettorel, P. and L. Lopriore (2013), ‘Is There ELF in ELT Coursebooks?’ Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4 (3): 483–504. Widdowson, H. G. (1994), ‘The Ownership of English’, TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2): 377–89. Xu, Z. (2014), ‘Teaching and Assessing EIL Vocabulary in Hong Kong’, in R. Marlina and R. A. Giri (eds), The Pedagogy of English as an International Language, 143–56, New York: Springer.

142

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Yazan, B. (2018), ‘Identity and NNESTs’, in M. DelliCarpini (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0020 Zacharias, N. T. (2018), ‘Attitudes of NNESTs Toward Themselves’, in M. DelliCaripni (ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0007

Chapter 9

Tackling NativeSpeakerism through ELF-Aware Pedagogy ROBERT J. LOWE AND MAREK KICZKOWIAK

INTRODUCTION Native-speakerism is a deeply rooted ideology in English language teaching (ELT), which is influenced and sustained through an interconnected network of seemingly commonsense beliefs and practices among teachers, teacher educators, students, publishers, institutions, and educational systems. These beliefs include the notion that those perceived as ‘native speakers’ are inherently superior teachers to those perceived to be ‘non-native speakers’, that only a limited number of Western English varieties are suitable for learning and teaching, and that English is inextricably tied to the cultures which those varieties represent. This set of beliefs is further reflected in an array of ELT social practices, such as a predominant focus on teaching a standard ‘native speaker’ pronunciation, promoting teaching materials where interactions between ‘native speakers’ dominate, or discrimination against ‘non-native speakers’ in job advertisements. These beliefs and practices result in discrimination against teachers and students whose linguistic or cultural backgrounds fall outside the accepted native-speakerist norms. However, such a native-speakerist worldview conflicts with the globalization of English, and with conceptualizations of the language such as English as a lingua franca (ELF), which seeks to explore how English is used as a language of international communication between people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This chapter will therefore outline how, through employing ELF-aware pedagogy, teachers and teacher trainers can challenge native-speakerist ideology, and therefore contribute to creating a more critical, equal, as well as a more culturally and linguistically pluralistic orientation in ELT.

NATIVE-SPEAKERISM: DEFINITION AND SCOPE Native-speakerism, as defined by Holliday (2005, 2006), is a widespread ideology in ELT in which the voices and institutions of the West and its ‘native speaker’ representatives are privileged over those from non-Western countries. While, as Haughton and Rivers (2013) rightly point out, native-speakerism can also affect ‘native speakers’ negatively and is

144

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

thus bidirectional, it seems that it is those perceived as ‘non-native speakers’ who suffer the bulk of the negative consequences of this ideology (Lowe and Kiczkowiak 2016). Similarly to other ideologies, such as sexism or racism, native-speakerism is normalized, justified, and spread by what on the surface seem to be commonsense beliefs and social practices (Eagleton 2007). While ideologies can also be positive and potentially lead to more equality and social justice (e.g., feminism), in this chapter we take a view of ideology as a negative force which allows for the maintenance of the privilege and power of the elite (Van Dijk 1998), typically through the spread of false beliefs that are nevertheless to an extent reflective of common views among a particular group of people or a society. These beliefs then form the basis of social practices which further reinforce the normality of the ideology. There are a number of beliefs which lead to the entrenchment and normalization of native-speakerism. One such native-speakerist belief is the notion that those perceived to be ‘native speakers’ are best suited to teach the language. The word perceived is crucial here since research clearly shows that as far as ELT is concerned being a ‘native speaker’ is a socially constructed category based more on the political assignment of labels than on objective and measurable differences in linguistic competence or ability (Oral 2015). Consequently, those who are not perceived to be ‘native speakers’, because they do not fit the idealized image of a ‘native speaker’, which is frequently associated with white and Western-looking individuals, can also face discrimination (Ali 2009; Geluso 2013; Javier 2016). This belief can be seen in the discriminatory hiring and contract conditions of teachers perceived to be ‘non-native speakers’. This has been shown in numerous studies of online job boards, which listed job advertisements asking for ‘native speakers’ specifically (Mahboob and Golden 2013; Ruecker and Ives 2015; Selvi 2010), and can also be seen in the preferences of program managers for ‘native speaker’ teachers (Clark and Paran 2007; Mahboob, Uhrig, Newman and Hartford 2004). Another belief that helps justify and normalize native-speakerism is the idea that those perceived as ‘native speakers’ are also the ideal models of the English language for our students. The word perceived is again important because not all ‘native speaker’ Englishes will be perceived as such and benefit from this privileging. Numerous studies show that students prefer standard American or British pronunciation (Luk 2009; Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard and Wu 2006; Timmis 2002). Nevertheless, as Amin (2004: 65) observes, a ‘native speaker’ is often reified as someone who has a “White accent”, while being a ‘native speaker’ is “a proxy of whiteness” (Kubota and Fujimoto 2013: 197). These beliefs are clearly visible in social practices in terms of which Englishes and which accents are present in ELT coursebooks, for example. Despite some positive changes and attempts to include a wider variety of Englishes in their recordings, many ELT coursebooks still predominantly feature standard British and American ‘native speaker’ voices (Syrbe and Rose 2016; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2013). Another prominent belief that normalizes native-speakerism is the notion that what is perceived as ‘native speaker’ culture should play an important role in the classroom. This is reflected in the way in which English is often taught with the aim of familiarizing students with some form of Western target culture, which again tends to be associated with dominant varieties of the language. For example, Rai and Deng (2016) studied four coursebooks used widely in China, and found that they predominantly featured examples of Western daily life and culture, reflected for instance in the topics, characters, and places presented. Similar observations have been made about coursebooks in other contexts (Modiano 2005; Shin, Eslami and Chen 2011; Tomlinson and Masuhara 2013).

TACKLING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM THROUGH ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY

 145

These are perhaps the most easily recognizable beliefs and social practices that lead to the normalization and entrenchment of the ideology of native-speakerism, and it is these which will be our main focus when discussing how ELF-aware pedagogy can help tackle native-speakerism in this chapter. However, it is important to recognize that there are other native-speakerist beliefs and social practices such as chauvinistic attitudes towards non-Western educational approaches, a profound disbelief that those perceived as ‘non-native speakers’ can make any meaningful contributions to ELT, and the cultural Othering of students (Holliday 2013). While these will not be a primary focus of this chapter, we will deal with them briefly towards the end. Native-speakerism is currently a focus of much research and writing in ELT. Indeed, Kamhi-Stein (2016) has noted the increasing volume of publications on this issue, pointing out that there have been over 350 publications on this or related topics in the ELT academic literature. And yet, little appears to have changed on the ground. Kumaravadivelu (2016: 17) notes that “seldom in the annals of an academic discipline have so many toiled for so long and achieved so little”. As such, we believe that for critical applied linguistic academics to achieve the change they wish to see, their work must shift away solely from theory, and focus more overtly on praxis; they must, in other words, focus their attention on the practical means by which emancipatory change may be achieved. We believe that ELF theory and research, as well as ELF-aware pedagogy, offer a promising direction for the ELT profession to move in if it is serious about challenging the ideology of native-speakerism and the beliefs and social practices supporting it. ELF research is based not only on theoretically and empirically supported propositions concerning the ways in which English functions and is used in the world today, but also has political implications which challenge the native-speakerist hegemony in ELT.

ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA: DESCRIPTIVE AND POLITICAL English as a lingua franca (ELF) can be summarized as “the communicative use of linguistic resources, by native as well as non-native speakers of English, when no other shared means of communication are available or appropriate” (Widdowson 2013: 190). More recently, ELF has been reconceptualized as English as a multilingua franca; that is, “[m]ultilingual communication in which English is available as a contact language of choice, but is not necessarily chosen” (Jenkins 2015: 73). While the phenomenon of international English has been discussed for decades (see Hill 1967; Lester 1978 for examples; see also Lowe and Smith 2020; Widdowson 2017), ELF became popularized in the early twenty-first century with the work of Jenkins (2000), who sought to identify the features of English pronunciation which are most salient for international communication. This and subsequent work into key features of phonology and lexicogrammar (see Seidlhofer 2011) were based largely on the analysis of corpus data, from which regular patterns in the speech of multilingual English users were extracted. This research focused on describing how English is employed by its users in international contexts, originally with the purpose of attempting to identify core features which could be used to construct a new ‘international’ variety of the language. While later research moved away from attempting to classify ELF as a variety of English (with research focusing more heavily on the pragmatics of successful international communication and the communication strategies employed by speakers), the orientation towards descriptive,

146

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

empirical research has remained strong in ELF studies. ELF is, in many ways, a scientific and descriptive enterprise focused on recording and understanding how English is used in international communication, without reference to the so-called ‘native speaker’ norms. However, while the study of ELF language use may be carried out in a way which is primarily descriptive and empirical, it is undeniable that there is also a political component to the field. As Seidlhofer (2011) notes, the global spread of English has led us to question the “native speakers’ ownership of English” (p. 12), and therefore to reconsider the assumed pedagogical authority and expertise of the so-called ‘native speaker’ teachers. This further prompts us to question the legitimacy of language models, a discussion which has clear repercussions for a wide range of areas of applied linguistics, including language assessment (Jenkins 2006), authenticity in teaching materials (Pinner 2014), and pedagogical approaches (Holliday 1994). These are practical concerns for the profession; however, they also necessarily have political implications, particularly, for the purposes of this chapter, regarding the teaching and learning of English. Indeed, ELF can lead us to raise questions concerning who has the authority to decide on the legitimacy of particular forms of English use, about who can teach the language, and about whether these decisions may serve the interests of some groups over others. We believe that attempting to sidestep these political questions is not only impossible, but also undesirable. On the contrary, it is our contention here that the political issues raised by ELF scholarship should be taken seriously. We believe that moving towards a pedagogy which is conscious of these issues may be one step towards challenging entrenched native-speakerist ideology in the ELT profession. Accepting the empirically established phenomenon of ELF powerfully challenges the native-speakerist assumptions which lie at the heart of much ELT practice, and incorporating aspects of this phenomenon into our teaching is one means by which emancipatory change may be achieved.

TACKLING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM THROUGH ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY In this section, we will describe what we mean by ‘ELF-aware pedagogy’ and outline some of the shifts in perspective that are required for teachers and students to move towards an ELF-aware way of thinking regarding principles and practice in ELT. We will further argue that making such a change will act as a challenge to the native-speakerism present in the field. As Dewey (2012) argues, a good deal of what we have learnt about ELF interaction is at variance with current principles and practice as established by the ELT profession. It is therefore paramount that we consider what ELF means with regard to teacher knowledge about language and language teaching methods. (p. 143) Developing ELF-aware pedagogy will thus inevitably involve both teacher education and training, and classroom language teaching itself. We will tackle both in the following sections. Before we begin, however, it is important to note that ‘ELF-aware pedagogy’ should not be understood as ‘teaching ELF’, where ELF would mean a ‘thing’ or a fixed set of language norms, as is the case when we say ‘teaching British English’. Similarly to Bayyurt and Sifakis (2015) and Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018), we see ‘ELF-aware pedagogy’ as involving both the understanding of ELF research findings and theory and the

TACKLING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM THROUGH ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY

 147

application of these in the classroom. It involves awareness of the language and how it is used, of instructional practice and of learning (Sifakis 2019). In other words, ELF-aware pedagogy  – both in terms of teacher training and education and in terms of teaching students – would, we believe, include awareness-raising regarding these issues, as well as practising the language skills necessary to use English successfully in lingua franca contexts. We will describe these key changes, focusing first on teacher training and education, and, subsequently, on implementing these ideas with students.

ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY IN TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION In order for any meaningful change to occur in teaching, it is of course necessary to first disseminate these ideas among teachers themselves. We therefore stress the primary importance of implementing ELF-aware pedagogy in teacher education and training in order to adequately prepare teachers for a shift towards ELF-aware teaching. This is vital, since teacher training and education “is where people begin to develop their perspectives on teaching and learning as well as their identities as teachers” (Barratt 2010: 1). In recent years, although the concept of ELF has begun to penetrate into initial and continuing teacher education (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015; Dewey and Patsko 2018; Kiczkowiak, Baines and Krummenacher 2016), the amount and length of focus varies wildly depending on the type of training in question. There have been some experiments with including ELF awareness in initial teacher training programs (more specifically on a Trinity CertTESOL program), with Kiczkowiak et al. (2016) proposing how raising awareness of native-speakerism could be conducted in practice, and Dewey and Patsko (2018) examining a case in which ELF-related topics were included in a course, focusing mainly on phonology. However, considering the limited time available on such programs, it is perhaps unsurprising that little attention is currently paid to native-speakerism or ELF, with the focus being primarily on inculcating basic teaching skills (Borg 2005; Brandt 2006). Additionally, there is no record (to our knowledge) of native-speakerism and related political issues being raised or discussed in any kind of deep or systematic way on these courses. While this is to an extent understandable, the fact that these issues are not discussed (or discussed only briefly and infrequently) on such courses is lamentable from both a pedagogical and a political standpoint. By giving either no or only a small amount of attention to ELF during input sessions, these courses may find themselves presenting a largely outmoded view of the global use of English, failing to equip trainees with key knowledge regarding the ways that English is used for international communication, and the changes in pedagogy that may be required when taking these facts into account. Similarly, neglecting discussion of native-speakerism on these courses can lead to a situation where, rather than make teachers aware of and prepared to challenge this ideology, such courses may educate them to “work within the confines of the institutions of the existing hegemonic order” (Kumaravadivelu 2016: 77). Indeed, failing to give voice to these issues can be seen as a disservice to the so-called ‘non-native speaker’ trainees, who may find themselves being trained for a profession which systematically disqualifies them from participating within it (Canagarajah 1999a). Hence, similarly to other scholars (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015; Dewey 2012), we believe it is vital that teachers develop an ELF-aware orientation during teacher training and education programs, both to promote a useful knowledge base regarding the global spread

148

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

and use of English and to raise awareness and critical reflection regarding native-speakerism and related critical issues. This could not only allow teachers to better implement an ELF-aware pedagogy in class, but also help tackle some of the native-speakerist beliefs that lead to the perpetuation of the ideology (Kiczkowiak et al. 2016). Bearing in mind the intensity of programs such as Trinity CertTESOL or CELTA, this could be achieved through a more modular approach to the program where participants can choose from a arrange of input sessions. When possible, devoting more input sessions to discussing and confronting these issues, and including more critical and ELF-focused material on the reading lists of such courses, is also recommended. In some contexts, postgraduate training programs such as MA programs in TESOL and Applied Linguistics may form the basis of many teachers’ initial or continuing training and development. These courses are carried out over a much longer time frame than an initial certificate, and as such there is greater scope for discussion of ELF, native-speakerism, and related critical issues to be included. Indeed, there is evidence to show that such topics are becoming a regular feature of these academic programs (Galloway 2017). However, as Long (2015) points out, the actual content of these programs varies wildly from institution to institution, and as such the exposure to these topics may be either extensive, slight, or non-existent, depending both on where teachers choose to study and what they choose to focus on in those studies. This is a somewhat difficult issue to tackle as applied linguistics is not a clearly bounded discipline with a universally agreed knowledge base (Pennycook 2018), and as such there is bound to be debate over what constitutes essential knowledge for teachers. However, we believe that making ELF and native-speakerism more overt focuses of these programs, perhaps with one core module focusing on such issues, would be highly beneficial for teachers both in terms of expanding their knowledge base and raising their critical consciousness around these issues. In short, it is argued here that helping teachers to develop an ELF-aware approach to their teaching would serve both practical and political purposes. By including discussions of ELF, native-speakerism, and related issues, teachers would be in a better position to help their learners move towards effective communicative practices in a globalized world. Such a change would also create the conditions in which native-speakerist attitudes could be gradually eroded and discriminatory practices reduced. It is therefore, we believe, vital that training courses begin to work towards encouraging and developing ELF-awareness among their trainees.

ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY IN THE CLASSROOM Once teachers have been made aware of ELF in their training or as part of their development, we face the thorny question of how to implement an ELF-aware pedagogy in the classroom. We will propose here some ways of doing so in terms of fostering what we have described elsewhere (Kiczkowiak and Lowe 2018: 33) as an ELF mindset and an ELF skillset. An ELF mindset refers to an awareness of the global role of English and the diversity of its spread and usage, while an ELF skillset can be understood as a set of tangible linguistic, communicative, and intercultural skills which students can employ in international communicative situations.

FOSTERING AN ELF MINDSET As with teacher training and education, one major pedagogical shift that needs to take place in order to tackle native-speakerism is greater awareness-raising in the classroom to

TACKLING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM THROUGH ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY

 149

foster an ELF mindset among students. It is clear that despite scholarly criticisms of the insistence on what are perceived as ‘native speaker’ language and culture models in ELT practice, many students still exhibit a preference for such models. This is understandable, and for some students with specific learning goals may even be defensible or desirable. However, it is the assumption that these models are by definition superior which serves to propagate native-speakerism, and thus it is these assumptions that an ELF-aware pedagogy would hope to question. Therefore, before an attempt is made to put other aspects of ELF-aware pedagogy (e.g., focus on intelligible pronunciation, use of a wide range of accents in listening materials), it is suggested that students’ awareness of the global spread of the English language and of native-speakerism is raised. Teachers could foster an ELF mindset by discussing some of the beliefs supporting native-speakerism as well as the global spread of English and the implications this has for learning and teaching the language. To give a more specific example regarding the teaching of pronunciation, teachers could show students a video of someone who would be perceived to have a ‘foreign’ accent. This could be a celebrity or a person the students are familiar with. Following comprehension exercises, the teacher can ask students to discuss the person’s accent, for example by asking if the accent makes them difficult to understand, if they would sound better if they did not have a ‘foreign’ accent, whether students themselves worry about having a ‘foreign’ accent, or if they think it is necessary to reduce their ‘foreign’ accent to speak clearly. Students could then be asked to keep a journal in which they note down their thoughts about the speakers’ English as they watch recordings of other speakers from around the world at home, as was suggested by Galloway and Rose (2014). For more examples of specific activities focused on fostering an ELF mindset among students, see Kiczkowiak and Lowe (2019: 35–54).

FOSTERING AN ELF SKILLSET Having raised students’ awareness and fostered an ELF mindset, we can now focus on developing an ELF skillset; that is, the ability to use English in an international, multilingual, multicultural, lingua franca contexts. In addition to equipping students with the necessary skills to use English as a lingua franca, this approach can also help ELT professionals move away from some of the problematic beliefs and practices outlined earlier, which lead to the normalization of native-speakerism. One pervasive native-speakerist belief which we have already covered is the idea that those perceived as ‘native speakers’ are better models of the language in general, and of pronunciation more specifically. As a result, when pronunciation is taught, frequently a standard British or General American accent serves as a model, and students might be encouraged to practice pronunciation features such as vowel quality, weak forms, word stress, or features of connected speech, perhaps with the assumption that these will allow learners to approximate this standard ‘native speaker’ model. Apart from further perpetuating the notion that in order to be a successful user of the language one has to speak with a standard accent, such an approach does not necessarily promote intelligibility in lingua franca settings. For example, research shows that standard ‘native speaker’ pronunciation is not the most but often the least intelligible in international contexts (Smith and Rafiqzad 1979). In addition, studies also indicate that it is vowel length, consonants, consonant clusters, and nuclear stress that are crucial for intelligibility (Deterding 2011, 2013; Jenkins 2000; Zoghbor 2011a), features which are much less frequently practised in the ELT classroom. Finally, research suggests that a pronunciation

150

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

model based on Lingua Franca Core (LFC) can help improve learners’ pronunciation more than one based on British or American pronunciation (Rahimi and Ruzrokh 2016; Zoghbor 2011b). As a result, it is proposed here that more focus should be placed on pronunciation features that have been shown by research to be important for intelligibility, rather than on any standard ‘native speaker’ model. Secondly, it is important to foster intercultural communicative skills. While teaching materials have moved a long way forward in terms of how cultures are depicted, as mentioned previously, what is perceived as ‘native speaker’ culture still often dominates. What is more, published materials might still rely on rather stereotypical cultural images of what Kramsch (1991) referred to as the ‘four Fs’ (food, festivals, flags, and famous people), and, as a result, students are given the impression that intercultural skills involve the learning of specific differences which define distinct and static ‘cultures’ (Guest 2002; Holliday 2005; Kubota 1999). This approach to intercultural education has been criticized for being essentialist and for treating people from particular cultural backgrounds as if they had some kind of unchangeable shared essence (Holliday, Kullman and Hyde 2017). From an ELF perspective, this focus on Western cultures in English teaching could reduce the ability of students to communicate with people from a variety of cultural backgrounds, while the methods taken in much intercultural communication education might encourage the students to take a chauvinistic and reductionist approach to communicating with people from different backgrounds, again impeding their ability to engage in successful international communication. As a result, it is suggested that greater emphasis be placed on fostering intercultural communicative skills. This should not be understood as giving people the keys they can use to unlock the doors of a culture and access its speakers, but rather as teaching the skills and abilities to observe and understand different cultural practices. Holliday (2018) suggests that there are universal cultural processes underlying all intercultural encounters, whether they be with ‘small cultures’ such as a family with different habits than your own or with people from what we might think of more traditionally as different ‘national cultures’ (though understanding these are illusory). By helping students to identify and recognize the strategies people use to negotiate their everyday intercultural encounters, teachers can help them to develop a set of transferrable intercultural skills which they can employ in any intercultural situation. Students can also be encouraged to reflect on the assumptions they have about their own and other cultures. For example, they could be asked to list what defines them as individuals and what defines the people in their country. Through discussion with classmates, they would be encouraged to notice that culture is fluid, changeable, and can vary from individual to individual. Thirdly, it is vital to put greater emphasis on communicative skills, especially those which ELF research shows to facilitate communication. As Vettorel (2018) observes, communicative skills are often covered neither adequately nor consistently in ELT materials. Despite the proliferation of CLT methodology over the last few decades, in our experience as teachers, there is a greater emphasis on grammar and lexical correctness than on developing students’ ability to communicate effectively in international contexts. In order to redress this balance, ELF research findings can be used to identify the key communicative skills that need to be practised in class. Paraphrasing appears to be one centrally important skill for this purpose (Basso 2012), and rephrasing, reformulation, and left dislocation have also been found to facilitate communication (Mauranen 2012, 2015). Finally, what is also vital for the success of ELF communication is the willingness of both parties to be understood and to cooperate (Mauranen 2015). In order to

TACKLING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM THROUGH ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY

 151

practise these skills, students could first be presented with communicative situations (either in written or in aural form) in which examples of specific skills are present. Students can then discuss what happens in the dialogue and how the speakers prevent misunderstandings from occurring. To practise a given skill, students could then be presented with situation cards which require them to use communicative skills to resolve a potential misunderstanding. These are just a few examples of activities, and there are numerous other ways in which an ELF mindset and skillset could be fostered in the classroom. Teachers interested in developing ELF-aware classroom materials can consult Kiczkowiak (2020). For specific activities we would direct the reader to Kiczkowiak (2017) and Kiczkowiak and Lowe (2018: 55–92), where numerous examples are provided.

A WORD OF CAUTION So far in this chapter we have argued that native-speakerism, in the form of discriminatory practices against so-called ‘non-native speakers’, a focus on Western varieties of English, and a focus on Western target cultures, can be tackled through the use of ELF-aware pedagogy. However, this argument needs to be tempered with a note of caution. One of the more insidious aspects of native-speakerism is the way in which it allows teachers to unconsciously hold patronizing and chauvinistic attitudes about the students, the education systems, and the educational technology of non-Western countries and cultures. This may be seen in narratives which paint students from non-Western backgrounds as ‘passive’, ‘docile’, or ‘collectivist’ (Holliday 2006), and non-Western educational technology as ‘traditional’, ‘unsophisticated’, or based on innate and unchangeable “ethno-religious practices” (Canagarajah 1999b: 108; see also Lowe and Lawrence 2018). There is a danger that in failing to recognize these elements of native-speakerism, those who seek to challenge the ideology may very well end up perpetuating it instead, through the propagation of these less obvious values and beliefs. With regard to ELF, this argument has been made by a number of researchers. Notably, Kuo (2006) has argued that ELF represents simply another example of Western academics telling students what is best for them, without taking into account the beliefs and desires of these students themselves. Pennycook (2012) has similarly argued that promoting ELF without regard for students’ wishes may be patronizing and simply push the ideology into a more subtle form of operation – native-speakerism by other means. O’Regan (2014) has further argued that the promotion of ELF ignores the prestige attached to particular forms of English, and as such while the promotion of ELF may on the surface be intended to promote egalitarianism and remove power from the centre, it may in fact serve to disenfranchise the very voices it wishes to uplift by consigning them to using only lower prestige forms of the language. The promotion and application of ELF-aware pedagogy, therefore, cannot be a unilateral decision on the part of the teacher. It must instead be done in dialogue with students, and with sensitivity to their desires and needs placed at the forefront of decision-making. Certainly, critical discussion of these issues can be encouraged, and ideas raised by teachers for debate in the classroom, but this must form part of a broader process in which the voices and values of learners are taken into account, rather than those of the teacher being assumed as correct. Any implementation of ELF-aware pedagogy must take this into account if it is to challenge, rather than become a form of, native-speakerism.

152

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

CONCLUSION Native-speakerism is a serious and endemic ideology in ELT, manifested in a range of pernicious and deeply rooted beliefs and practices regarding the appropriate teachers, models, and cultural contexts of English. Despite much research and theory on this topic, little has changed in real-world terms. In this chapter we have suggested that the implementation of ELF-aware pedagogy might be one practical way to effect the kind of positive change in the profession which has so long eluded us. Making such a change has wide-ranging implications and entails serious reforms in the way we conduct both teacher training and classroom practice. Were such a change proposed only on the basis of this political issue, this wide-ranging set of suggestions might seem overzealous. This is, however, not only a political question, but a practical one as well. The findings of ELF research tell us a great deal about the ways in which English is used today for international communication, and this has serious implications for the focus we give to different linguistic and communicative skills in the classroom. In other words, ELF research has both practical and political implications, the two of which cannot be disentangled. Indeed, it is in large part the change in the functions of English globally that make native-speakerism so untenable, and it is native-speakerism which in large part prevents us from teaching English in a truly international way. We therefore suggest that ELF-aware pedagogy recommends itself on two fronts: first, as an approach to teaching which reflects the modern use of the language and which best reflects the needs of the majority of learners; and second, as a way of challenging the endemic native-speakerist ideology of the ELT profession. We have suggested that this can be done through the inclusion of more discussion regarding ELF and native-speakerism in teacher education and training, and through the development of an ELF mindset and skillset in the classroom. However, with such a change it is vital to ensure that we take the voices and wants of learners into account and make decisions in negotiation and consultation with them. It is only through taking a considered and careful approach that this kind of change can be truly emancipatory, rather than simply representing and normalizing other forms of oppression.

REFERENCES 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, 34–57, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Amin, N. (2004), ‘Nativism, the Native Speaker Construct, and Minority Immigrant Women Teachers of English as a Second Language’, in L. D. Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on Nonnative English-Speaking Professionals, 61–80, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Barratt, L. (2010), ‘Strategies to Prepare Teachers Equally for Equity’, in A. Mahboob (ed.), The NNEST Lens: Non-native English Speakers in TESOL, 180–201, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Basso, N. (2012), ‘Dealing with the Unexpected: The Use of ELF in an International Academic Context’, in G. Ludbrook and D. Newbold (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Contexts, Strategies, and International Relations, 21–40, Venezia: Cafoscarina.

TACKLING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM THROUGH ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY

 153

Bayyurt, Y. and N. C. Sifakis (2015), ‘ELF-Aware In-Service Teacher Education: A Transformative Perspective’, in H. Bowles and A. Cogo (eds), International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca, 117–35, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Borg, M. (2005), ‘A Case Study of the Development in Pedagogic Thinking of a Pre-service Teacher’, TESL-EJ, 9 (2), 1–30 Brandt, C. (2006), ‘Allowing for Practice: A Critical Issue in TESOL Teacher Preparation’, ELT Journal, 60 (4): 355–64. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999a), ‘Interrogating the “Native Speaker Fallacy”: Non-linguistic Roots, Non-pedagogical Results’, in G. Braine (ed.), Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching, 77–92, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999b), Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clark, E. and A. Paran (2007), ‘The Employability of Non-native-speaker Teachers of EFL: A UK Survey’, System, 35 (4): 407–30. Deterding, D. (2011), 'ELF-Based Pronunciation Teaching in China’, Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33: 3–15. Deterding, D. (2013), Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An Analysis of ELF Interactions in South-East Asia, Berlin: De Gruyter. Dewey, M. (2012), ‘Towards a Post-normative Approach: Learning the Pedagogy of ELF’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1): 141–70. Dewey, M. and L. Patsko (2018), ‘ELF and Teacher Education’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 441–55, London: Routledge. Eagleton, T. (2007), Ideology: An Introduction, London: Verso. Galloway, N. (2017), ‘Global Englishes for Language Teaching: Preparing MSc Students to Teach in a Globalized World’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, 69–86, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2014), ‘Using Listening Journals to Raise Awareness of Global Englishes in ELT’, ELT Journal, 68 (4): 386–96. Geluso, J. (2013), ‘Negotitating a Professional Identity: Non-Japanese Teachers of English in Pretertiary Education in Japan’, in S. Houghton and D. J. Rivers (eds), Native-Speakerism in Japan. Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education, 92–104, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Guest, M. (2002), ‘A Critical “Checkbook” for Culture Teaching and Learning’, ELT Journal, 56 (2): 154–61. Hill, L. A. (1967), ‘Neutral English’, in L. A. Hill (ed.), Selected Articles on the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language, 90–5, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (1994), Appropriate Methodology and Social Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, A. (2005), The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (2006), ‘Native-Speakerism’, ELT Journal, 60 (4): 385–7. Holliday, A. (2013), ‘“Native speaker” Teachers and Cultural Belief ’, in S. Houghton and D. J. Rivers (eds), Native-Speakerism in Japan. Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education, 17–27, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Holliday, A. (2018), Understanding Intercultural Communication: Negotiating a Grammar of Culture, 2nd edn, London: Routledge. Holliday, A., J. Kullman and M. Hyde (2017), Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book for Students, 3rd edn, London: Routledge.

154

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Houghton, S. and D. J. Rivers (2013), ‘Introduction: Redefining Native-Speakerism’, in S. Houghton and D. J. Rivers (eds), Native-speakerism in Japan. Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education, 1–16, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Javier, E. (2016), ‘“Almost” Native Speakers: The Experiences of Visible Ethnic-Minority Native English-Speaking Teachers’, in F. Copland, S. Garton and S. Mann (eds), LETs and NESTs: Voices, Views and Vignettes, 227–39, London: British Council. Jenkins, J. (2000), The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Models, New Norms, New Goals, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2006), ‘The Spread of EIL: A Testing Time for Testers’, ELT Journal, 60 (1): 42–50. Jenkins, J. (2015), ‘Repositioning English and Multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca’, Englishes in Practice, 2 (3): 49–85. Kamhi-Stein, Lía D. (2016), ‘The Non-native English Speaker Teachers in TESOL Movement’, ELT Journal, 70 (2): 180–9. Kiczkowiak, M. (2017), ‘Confronting Native Speakerism in an ELT Classroom: Practical Awareness-Raising Activities’, The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 6 (1): 1–30. Kiczkowiak, M. (2020), ‘Seven Principles for Writing Materials for English as a Lingua Franca’, ELT Journal, 74 (1). Kiczkowiak, M., D. Baines and K. Krummenacher (2016), ‘Using Awareness Raising Activities on Initial Teacher Training Courses to Tackle “Native Speakerism”’, English Language Teacher Education and Development Journal, 19: 45–53. Kiczkowiak, M. and R. J. Lowe (2018), Teaching English as a Lingua Franca: The Journey from EFL to ELF, Stuttgart: DELTA Publishing Kramsch, C. (1991), ‘Culture in Language Learning: A View from the United States’, in K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (eds), Studies in Bilingualism (Vol. 2), 217, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kubota, R. (1999), ‘Japanese Culture Constructed by Discourses: Implications for Applied Linguistics Research and ELT’, TESOL Quarterly, 33 (1): 9–35. Kubota, R. and D. Fujimoto (2013), ‘Racialized Native Speakers: Voices of Japanese American English Language Professionals’, in S. Houghton and D. J. Rivers (eds), Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education, 196–206, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016), ‘The Decolonial Option in English Teaching: Can the Subaltern Act?’ TESOL Quarterly, 50 (1): 66–85. Kuo, I.-C. (2006), ‘Addressing the Issue of Teaching English as a Lingua Franca’, ELT Journal, 60 (3): 213–21. Lester, M. (1978), ‘International English and Language Variation’, in British Council (ed.), English as an lnternational Language (ELT Documents), 6–14, London: British Council. Long, M. (2015), Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Lowe, R. J. and Kiczkowiak, M. (2016), ‘Native-Speakerism and the Complexity of Personal Experience: A Duoethnographic Study’, Cogent Education, 3 (1): 1264171. ​ Lowe, R. J. and L. Lawrence (2018), ‘Native-Speakerism and “Hidden Curricula” in ELT Training: A Duoethnography’, Journal of Language and Discrimination, 2 (2): 162–87. Lowe, R. J. and R. Smith (2020), ‘L.A. Hill’s “Neutral English” – A Historical Counterpoint to ELF’, ELT Journal 74 (1): 20–28.

TACKLING NATIVE-SPEAKERISM THROUGH ELF-AWARE PEDAGOGY

 155

Luk, J. C. M. (2009), ‘Hong Kong Students’ Awareness of and Reactions to Accent Differences’, Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 17 (1): 93–106. Mahboob, A. and R. Golden (2013), ‘Looking for Native Speakers of English: Discrimination in English Language Teaching Job Advertisements’, Voices in Asia Journal, 1 (1): 72–81. Mahboob, A., K. Uhrig, K. Newman and B. A. S. Hartford (2004), ‘Children of a Lesser English: Nonnative English Speakers as ESL Teachers in English Language Programs in the United States’, in L. D. Kamhi-Stein (ed.), Learning and Teaching from Experience: Perspectives on Nonnative English-Speaking Professionals, 100–120, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 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, 31–52, Newcastle-UponTyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Modiano, M. (2005), ‘Cultural Studies, Foreign Language Teaching and Learning Practices, and the NNS Practitioner’, in E. Llurda (ed.), Non-native Language Teachers: Perceptions, Challenges, and Contributions to the Profession, 25–43, New York: Springer. Oral, Y. (2015), ‘The Challenge of Native-Speakerism in ELT: Labelling and Categorising’, in A. Swan, P. Aboshiha and A. Holliday (eds), (En)Countering Native-Speakerism, 93–108, Palgrave Macmillan. O’Regan, J. P. (2014), ‘English as a Lingua Franca: An Immanent Critique’, Applied Linguistics, 35 (5): 533–52. Pennycook, A. (2012), Language and Mobility: Unexpected Places, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pennycook, A. (2018), ‘Applied Linguistics as Epistemic Assemblage’, AILA Review, 31: 113–34. Pinner, R. (2014), ‘The Authenticity Continuum: Towards a Definition Incorporating International Voices’, English Today, 30 (4): 22–7. Rahimi, M. and S. Ruzrokh (2016), ‘The Impact of Teaching Lingua Franca Core on English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Intelligibility and Attitudes Towards English Pronunciation’, Asian Englishes, 18 (2): 141–56. ​ Rai, L. and C. Deng (2016), ‘Glocalisation and English Language Education in Chinese Context’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14 (1): 127–44. Ruecker, T. and L. Ives (2015), ‘White Native English Speakers Needed: The Rhetorical Construction of Privilege in Online Teacher Recruitment Spaces’, TESOL Quarterly, 49 (4): 733–56. Scales, J., A. Wennerstrom, D. Richard and S. H. Wu (2006), ‘Language Learners’ Perceptions of Accent’, TESOL Quarterly, 40 (4): 715–38. Seidlhofer, B. (2011), Understanding English as a Lingua Franca, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selvi, A. F. (2010), ‘All Teachers Are Equal, but Some Teachers Are More Equal than Others: Trend Analysis of Job Advertisements in English Language Teaching’, WATESOL NNEST Caucus Annual Review, 1 (1): 155–81. Shin, J., Z. R. Eslami and W.-C. Chen (2011), ‘Presentation of Local and International Culture in Current International English-Language Teaching Textbooks’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 24 (3): 253–68.

156

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Sifakis, N. C. (2019), ‘ELF Awareness in English Language Teaching: Principles and Processes’, Applied Linguistics, 40 (2): 288–306. Sifakis, N. C. and Y. Bayyurt (2018), ‘ELF-Aware Teaching, Learning and Teacher Development’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 456–67. Smith, L. E. and K. Rafiqzad (1979), ‘English for Cross-Cultural Communication: The Question of Intelligibility’, TESOL Quarterly, 13 (3): 371–80. Syrbe, M. and H. Rose (2016), ‘An Evaluation of the Global Orientation of English Textbooks in Germany’, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12 (2): 152–63. ​ Timmis, I. (2002), ‘Native‐Speaker Norms and International English: A Classroom View’, ELT Journal, 56 (3): 240–9. Tomlinson, B. and H. Masuhara (2013), ‘Adult Coursebooks’, ELT Journal, 67 (2): 233–49. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998), Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach, London: Sage. Vettorel, P. (2018), ‘ELF and Communication Strategies: Are They Taken into Account in ELT Materials?’ RELC Journal, 49 (1): 58–73. Widdowson, H. G. (2013), ‘ELF and EFL: What’s the Difference? Comments on Michael Swan’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2 (1): 187–193. Widdowson, H. G. (2017), ‘Historical Perspectives on ELF’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 101–12, London: Routledge. Zoghbor, W. (2011a), ‘Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca: Reducing Skepticism and Increasing Practicality’, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1 (8): 285–8. Zoghbor, W. (2011b), The Effectiveness of the Lingua Franca Core (LFC) in Improving the Perceived Intelligibility and Perceived Comprehensibility of Arab Learners at Post-secondary Level, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Leicester.

Chapter 10

Teaching WE and ELF in EMI from an ELF Perspective A Case Study at a University in the Expanding Circle KUMIKO MURATA

INTRODUCTION It is by now a well-known fact that English as a lingua franca (ELF) is used worldwide in diverse contexts, most notably in business and academic ones (Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Murata 2016a). The focus of this chapter is on the latter, the academic context, where attention will be paid to English-medium instruction (EMI). EMI in this chapter is broadly defined based on Murata and Iino (2018), 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’ (p. 404), which, however also includes EMI ‘in the environment where students and instructors mostly share the same linguacultural backgrounds’ and that ‘in English-related departments’ (ibid.) as exemplified in the current research site. EMI has been increasingly introduced to higher education (HE) the world over, in particular, in Europe with its ERASMUS (The European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students) project (see, for example, Dafouz and Smit 2016; Kuteeva 2019; Mauranen 2012; Smit 2010, 2019), but also in both South East and East Asia, the former being closely connected in its original introduction to the past colonial history, and the latter, with the acceleration of globalization, which has promoted the mobility of both students and faculty (Jenkins 2014, 2019; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Kirkpatrick 2012; Murata 2019a; Murata and Iino 2018). The chapter is also characterized with its inclusion of an ELF perspective, critically scrutinizing the nature of the ‘E’ (English) in EMI. This is because despite ELF being often used in conducting EMI in various EMI communities, where students and faculty from diverse linguacultural backgrounds learn/ teach subject matters using English, and where otherwise mutual communication would be difficult or impossible,1 that is, in ELF situations (Jenkins 2009; Seidlhofer 2011; Widdowson 2016a), the reality of EMI use is often disparately perceived, the ‘E’ of EMI being ‘naturally’ and unquestionably assumed to be that of native English speakers (NESs)

160

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

(Jenkins 2019; Murata 2019b; Seidlhofer 2018; Widdowson 2019). This fact is often unnoticed or not seriously considered by EMI policymakers, by practitioners and even by students. To further investigate the situation, therefore, the chapter introduces an example of EMI practice in a Japanese HE context, focusing on students’ changes (and/or unchanges) of awareness of the ‘E’ in EMI through explicit instruction of ELF and WE as a subject, while simultaneously using ELF as a means of instruction and interaction in the EMI setting. The chapter thus attempts to offer one way of raising awareness of ELF (and WE, for that matter) through actually using ELF in an EMI setting, teaching the subject ‘ELF and WE’.

EMI IN HIGHER EDUCATION FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE EMI has been practiced for many years even before the advent of current globalization, for example, in South East Asia with its colonial link (Kirkpatrick 2010, 2012, see also Murata and Iino 2018), and also in other countries in introducing Western technologies (see, for example, Karakaş 2016; Murata and Iino 2018). The recent drastic increase of the introduction of EMI worldwide, however, is unprecedented. EMI has been introduced in many parts of the world as a consequence of globalization in order to cope with students and faculty from diverse linguacultural backgrounds as well as to promote internationalization of HE, making it possible to attract students and faculty by establishing English as a common means of education and communication. In this context, research on EMI has also attracted great attention, particularly in the European context due largely to the launch of the ERASMUS project enhanced by the Bologna Declaration in 1999 (see, for example, Coleman 2006; Jenkins 2014). With this official encouragement, EMI is widely practiced to promote the mobility (and employability) of both academic staff and students in multilingual Europe (Björkman 2016; Coleman 2006; Cots, Llurda and Garrett 2014; Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2013; Jenkins 2014; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Mauranen 2012; Smit 2010, 2019; Smit and Dafouz 2012). In Asian contexts as well, the South East Asian countries, such as Brunei, the Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore, have long been practicing EMI, which was originally introduced by their British and American colonizers, but recently being more actively and positively promoted as part of respective governments’ strategies for promoting economic development in the globalized world (see, for example, Gill 2005; Hasim 2009; Kirkpatrick 2010, 2012; Low and Pakir 2018). In addition to these South East EMI-advanced nations, East Asian countries, such as China, Korea and Japan, have also started promoting EMI as part of strategy for attracting international students as well as educating their home students as global citizens (Cheng 2012; Cho 2012; D’Angelo 2019; Hino 2019; Hu 2009; Hu and McKay 2012; Murata 2019a; Murata and Iino 2018; Park 2009, 2019). Notwithstanding this drastic increase of research on EMI, however, only a limited number of existing research projects on EMI discuss it from an ELF perspective, despite the fact that EMI in these multilingual contexts cannot be discussed without understanding the reality of English use, that is, the use of ELF (see, for example, Jenkins 2014, 2019; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Murata 2016b, 2019b; Murata and Iino 2018; Seidlhofer 2018; Widdowson 2019). This chapter therefore aims to fill this gap, investigating EMI from an ELF perspective and also discussing necessity for awareness raising.

TEACHING WE AND ELF IN EMI FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE

 161

THE CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND AND THE CURRENT RESEARCH SITE As discussed in the preceding section, EMI is burgeoning worldwide due to the acceleration of globalization, which is applicable to the local context of Japan. This section, therefore, briefly introduces the specific local context where the current research site is located, namely Japan. Slightly later than universities in neighbouring East Asian countries such as China and Korea, Japanese universities also started introducing EMI programmes and courses, first, in a limited number of universities (see Murata 2019a,b; Murata and Iino 2018). Then about ten years ago, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology’s (MEXT’s) initiative in introducing two major policies (MEXT 2011, 2014), which promoted internationalization of Japanese universities to bring about ‘global human resources’, accelerated the spread of EMI courses and programmes in Japanese HE (Iino 2019; Murata 2019a). The current research site is located in one of these limited numbers of universities which introduced EMI programmes prior to the aforementioned government’s promotion of EMI. Since then, different schools and departments of the same university have also respectively introduced their own EMI programmes or courses,2 making it possible to attract more international students as well as making their home students communicatively capable (Widdowson 2003, 2016b). The current research site is one of these departments which is endeavouring to increase EMI courses to teach specialists subjects in English in the department, such as discourse analysis and pragmatics, phonetics, second language acquisition and testing, in consideration for the nature of the department, that is, the Department of English Language and Literature, on the basis of its curriculum reform introduced a few years ago (see Harada 2017, for the details of its new curriculum). The course entitled World Englishes (WE) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) has been launched as one of the EMI courses considering the change in English use in the globalized world, combined also with the consideration for meeting students’ needs and desire for more exposure to English (Murata, Iino and Konakahara 2017). The specific course is taught by the current researcher and aims at not only teaching WE and ELF but also heightening students’ awareness of the use of ELF in the globalized world, using ELF in their actual learning and interacting with their peers and international teaching assistants (TAs). Thus, for students it is an opportunity both for the acquisition of knowledge on ‘WE and ELF’ and the exposure to actual ELF use. Furthermore, it is also an occasion for students for intercultural understanding as will be seen in their comments to be provided later. The course is thus characterized with both the uniqueness of its content and the aim of awareness-raising in an ELF environment. This has been made possible partly thanks to the participation of international TAs from different linguacultural backgrounds. They have contributed to the course at two levels: firstly, in producing more ELF-like environments, which is consequential in this expanding-circle country, where a typical scene of classroom consists of the teacher and students sharing the same L1, thus courses usually being conducted in their shared L1, in this case Japanese, despite the department being English-related; secondly, in providing students with opportunities of exchanging opinions with international graduate students, that is, the TA themselves, using ELF in discussion sessions. This will be further elaborated in the following section.

162

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

EMI METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES Through the investigation of students’ opinions on EMI in our earlier research (Konakahara, Murata and Iino 2019; Murata and Iino 2018; Murata et al. 2017, Murata, Konakahara, Iino and Toyoshima 2018), it emerged that not only providing students with opportunities of being exposed to English through EMI but also methods of conducting EMI courses are very important (Cots 2013; Iino and Murata 2016; Murata and Iino 2018; Wilkinson 2013). More specifically, many of the student respondents and interviewees explicitly pointed out the importance of being provided with chances to use English and to negotiate meaning in EMI classes and that having just EMI courses with traditional teacher-fronted one-sided lecture style is not satisfactory. Furthermore, previous research results often found students’ reluctance in giving opinions and asking questions even in communicating in their L1 let alone in English, which they regard as a foreign language (Iino and Murata 2016; Murata 2011; Murata et al. 2017, 2018), themselves not owning it (Widdowson 1994). Taking these findings from our earlier research into consideration, I have introduced small-group discussions and group-based presentations as well as international TAs in the aforementioned EMI course entitled WE and ELF, thus providing students with opportunities to actually ‘use’ ELF in their classroom interaction. The participation of international TAs from expanding- and outer-circle countries, namely China, Indonesia and Malaysia in the academic years 2017 and 2018, to the course, offered the students opportunities to actually interact with other ELF users in a less-threatening small-group environment,3 which has made it easier for the students to voice their opinions without their face being threatened (see Iino and Murata 2016; Murata 2011; Murata et al. 2017, 2018).4 With these pedagogical/ methodological issues in introducing EMI courses, particularly in ELF settings, in mind, the following section briefly discusses the research methods and data deployed in the current research.

RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA The data for this research is mostly obtained through post-course open-ended questionnaires administered to the students enrolled in the course in Academic Years 2017 and 2018,5 which were the second and third years after the implementation of this specific EMI course.6 The questionnaires comprised seven open-ended questions, and identical questions were asked in both 2017 and 2018 academic years. In both years the questionnaires were administered in the final session of the fifteen-week course, taking approximately ten to fifteen minutes of the class time of ninety minutes. They were administered in the students’ L1, that is, Japanese, and then the answers were translated by the current author. In addition, interviews with two of the international TAs, an Indonesian PhD student and a Malaysian MA student, were conducted in English in March 2019 to obtain opinions on the EMI class from the TAs’ perspective. The content of each question in the questionnaires will be discussed together with the results of the questionnaires in the following section, starting with an overview of the answers to each question and then proceeding to a detailed examination of the answers to each question in a qualitative manner.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY The questions are broadly classified into four related themes, namely ELF (Qs 1 and 2), EMI (Qs 1, 3 and 5), EMI methodology (Qs 4, 5 and 6) and the use of L1 in EMI classes

TEACHING WE AND ELF IN EMI FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE

 163

(Qs 5 and 6). Clear demarcation among them, however, is not necessarily possible as seen in the explanation of the background to each question in the following text and also in the answers to each question. That is, all the questions are interrelated to a certain extent, some being more closely connected as seen in the questions categorized earlier under the four different themes, where some being placed in more than two categories. Bearing these broadly defined categories in mind, in the following section the answers to each question will be examined more closely, also comparing the results of the questionnaires from the two consecutive academic years (2017 and 2018).

THE ANSWERS TO EACH QUESTION The first question asked the students assessment of their understanding of the content of the EMI course, in particular, the concepts of WE and ELF, and its reasons. Another purpose of this question was to check not only the students’ literal but also deeper understanding of what it means for them to have learnt the concepts, namely whether their awareness has risen through the acquisition of the knowledge. Table 10.1 describes the overall tendency of the students’ responses to this question.7 As stated earlier, Q1 literally asked the students’ understanding of the concepts of WE and ELF. Table 10.1 shows that the majority of them indicated their understanding at least according to their self-assessment; in particular, all the students in the academic year 2018 stated that they understood the concepts. Following are the typical answers to the question, claiming understanding: Yes [I have understood them]. Before taking this course, I didn’t know the concepts at all, so it was eye-opening for me. (2017-#8)8 Yes. この授業を受ける前はそのような概念を全く知らなかったので、新しい発見でした。  es. I didn’t know the concepts at all before taking this course, so it was interesting [to Y learn them]. (2017-#22) Yes. 2つの概念すら知らなかったため、おもしろかった。 Most of the aforementioned respondents pointed out that because they had been unfamiliar to the concepts, what they learnt was new and eye-opening. The following respondent not only acknowledged the acquisition of the new knowledge but also gave the reason why she/he appreciated her/his understanding of the knowledge by explicitly stating that her/his way of thinking changed by understanding the concepts:

TABLE 10.1  The results of Q1 (understanding of the concepts of WE and ELF) Q1: Whether the students think they have understood the concepts of ELF and WE and have deepened their understanding of the fields, and reasons for the answer. 2017

2017

2018

2018

Yes

35

89.74%

40

100%

No

3

7.69%

0

0%

Others

1

2.56%

0

0%

40

100.0%

Total

39

100.0%

164

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Yes. Before taking this course, I didn’t have knowledge on ELF at all, but by learning it, my way of thinking towards English has changed. (2018-#35) Yes. 今までELFに関する知識が全くといっていいほどなかったが、知識がつく ことで英語に対する考え方が変わったため。 Thus, this student explicitly points out she/he not only has come to understand the new concept but by doing so, her/his way of thinking towards English has also changed. Furthermore, some other students also indicated deeper understanding beyond the literal understanding of the factual knowledge, connecting it to the current globalized world and considering its meaning as seen in the following comments. Having learnt the concept of ELF, I thought understanding the concept is a must for this globalizing world, where English is used as a means of communication. ELFの概念を学習し、どんどんグローバル化が進み英語がコミュニケーシ ョンツールとなっていくこれからの時代に必須の考え方だと感じた。(2017-#1) Learning the concepts of WE and ELF has definitely brought me a new world. WE,ELFという考え方を学んだことは間違いなく新しい世界を与えてくれたと考えてい ます。 (2018-#40) All the opinions listed above emphasize the meaning of using ELF in this globalized world, and accordingly the meaning of learning/teaching English in this context. One of the students even stated as follows: I thought by understanding WE, various people would be rescued [from the constraint of NES norms] and that it is OK for everybody to be different. WEによって色んな人が救われると思った。みんな違ってみんな良いんだなと思 った。 (2017-#31) This respondent specifically emphasizes the importance of recognizing the diversity of the use of English and the people who use it. This comment in turn shows how students are constrained by NES norms to the extent that it is almost stressful for them, trying to conform to the norms and be same as others. In order to further investigate the students’ understanding and its influence at a deeper level, Question 2, which directly asked whether their way of thinking towards English and English language teaching (ELT) has changed, has been asked (see Table 10.2). The course is not directly linked to ELT, but the question was asked since the topic is closely and indirectly related to ELT. The majority of the students (2017, 87.2 per cent,

TABLE 10.2  The results of Q2 (attitudes’ change towards English and ELT) Q2: Whether the students’ way of thinking towards English and ELT has changed after taking the course, and, if ‘yes’, in what ways, if ‘no’, in what sense. 2017

2017

2018

2018

Yes

34

87.2%

31

77.5%

No

3

7.7%

9

22.5%

Yes and No

2

5.1%

0

0%

39

100.0%

40

100.0%

Total

TEACHING WE AND ELF IN EMI FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE

 165

2018, 77.5 per cent) clearly stated that they have in fact changed their way of thinking, as detailed in one of the following typical responses: Before taking this course, I’d been thinking that native English such as American and British is the correct one and that I wouldn’t be able to reach that level being a Japanese, but having learnt the concept of ELF, I have become slightly more positive about English. (2017-#30) 今 まではア​メ リカ、イ​ギ リスなど​の ネイティ​ブ の英語が​正 しいと思​っ ており日​ 本人の自分​が 英語がで​き るように​な るわけな​い と思って​い たが、E​L Fという​ 意味での英​語であれば​、と英語に対して少し前向きに考えられるようになった。 This respondent clearly states how she/he had been constrained by NS norms and standard and that as a consequence she/he had not been confident about her/his own English. Having attended the course, however, she/he claims that she/he feels more positive about her/his English. Some other students even used the expression that they feel more relieved (気が楽になった)(2018-#22) or feel slightly more relieved (気持ちが少し楽になることがあった)(2018-#34) being freed from native-norm const­ raints. These answers in turn prove how the students had been inhibited by thinking that they should strictly follow NS norms in learning and using English. The reason for the slightly lower rate of positive answers in the 2018 result (see Table 10.2) is some students attended a related course entitled ‘Intercultural Communication’, in which the lecturer also touched on the concepts of ELF and WE. Some students explicitly mentioned this fact and that they became interested in furthering their knowledge in the field, being briefly informed of the concepts in another course. So for them, awareness had already been heightened at least to some extent when they registered for this course at the outset. However, the majority of other students clearly stated that their way of thinking towards English and ELT has changed as seen in the following comments: My thought has changed having learnt the concept of ELF. I used to think that aiming at the NES norms is the best ELT practice, but not any more. 変 化 し ま し た 。 E N L の 基 準 に 合 わ せ る こ と が 至 上 の 英 語 教 育 で あ る と いう考え方から、ELFという概念を取り入れた新しい英語教育法を学習した ため。(2017-#13) I have come to think that oral communication classes should incorporate the concept of ELF more. (2017-#26) S peak​i ngの授​業 等でもっ​と ELFの​概 念をもと​に した授業​が 行われれ​ば 良いのに​ と思った。 It is clear from these statements that by understanding the concept of ELF the students’ opinion about ELT practice itself has drastically changed. On the other hand, Question 3 has asked a question on EMI (English-medium instruction), temporarily leaving the topic of WE and ELF, although in reality EMI is closely connected to ELF regarding its ‘E’ part, that is, the medium, English (see Murata 2019a,b). Question 3 is subdivided into two: (1) whether the students have understood the content taught in English regarding the instructor’s explanation and their peers’ presentations and (2) whether they are satisfied with this EMI course and also the reasons for their answers. The first sub-question, Question 3-(1) asked simultaneously both the students’ understanding of the instructors’ lectures on the content and their peers’ presentations

166

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

on the related issue, which perhaps should have been asked as separate questions since the respondents have often differentiated their answers to these two. That is, both in the years 2017 and 2018, about 18 per cent of the students (seven out of thirty-eight responses) have stated both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ simultaneously, most of them stating that they have understood the instructor’s lectures, but not necessarily their peers’ presentations due to varying levels of their presentation skills (see Table 10.3; see also Note 4). Overall, the students stated that they understood the instructor’s explanation, while some students commented that they had some difficulty at times in understanding some of their peers’ presentations, not only because of their ways of presenting the content matters but also (or more so) because of their presentation skills. This has resulted in some Yes/ No answers, that is, ‘Yes’, in terms of understanding the instructor’s lectures, but ‘No’, regarding some of their peers’ presentations. As the researcher herself had noticed these facts, this aspect also needs to be paid more attention to when incorporating students’ presentations in EMI classes since obviously there are individual differences among the student population regarding academic skills as well as the understanding of the subject matters. Having said that, it also has to be acknowledged that many of the students clearly stated that they enjoyed the presentation sessions and were simultaneously inspired by their peers’ achievement. Thus, this has more to do with methodological issues in EMI courses or rather teaching in general, not necessarily peculiar to ELF and WE-related courses. The second part of Question 3 asked the students’ satisfaction in attending the EMI course, inviting also reasons for their answers (see Table 10.4). As Table 10.4 shows, overall, the majority of the students showed certain satisfaction, attending this EMI course. The reasons vary. However, the most popular one is the fact they had opportunities to use English in addition to having been exposed to it through the instructor’s lectures and their peers’ presentations as well as discussions with their group members and the international TAs. Accordingly, from the students’ perspective, this EMI class was also beneficial for them to secure opportunities to actually use English or rather ELF, as is evident in the following in some of the students’ answers: It was good to have English as a medium of communication in class as we have very few chances to actually give our opinions in English in Japan. (2017-#3)

TABLE 10.3  The results of Q3-1 (EMI – understanding of the instructor’s lectures and students’ presentations) Q3: On EMI: (1) Whether the students have understood the content taught in English, specifically in terms of the instructor’s explanation and their peers’ presentations. 2017

2017

2018

2018

Yes

22

57.9%

21

55.3%

No

7

18.4%

9

23.7%

Yes and No

7

18.4%

7

18.4%

Others

2

5.3%

1

2.6%

38

100.0%　

38

100.0%　

Total

TEACHING WE AND ELF IN EMI FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE

 167

TABLE 10.4  The results of Q3-2 (students’ satisfaction in attending the EMI course) Q3: On EMI: (3-2) whether they are satisfied in attending this EMI course and the reasons for the answers. 2017

2017

2018

2018

Yes

30

81.1%

24

68.6%

No

2

5.4%

2

5.7%

Yes and No

2

5.4%

3

8.6%

Others

3

8.1%

6

17.1%

37

100.0%

35

100.0%

Total

 かなか日本にいて、英語で自分の意見を伝える機会がないので、 な 英語が使用言語でよかった。 It was good practice to give my opinions extemporaneously. I felt as if I was actually using ELF (as well as Japanese English). (2018-#17) 英 語 で 即 興 で 意 見 を 述 べ る 良 い 練 習 に な っ た 。 E L F を 体 現 し て い る 気分になった（Japanese Englishも） This is also evident in our (my research colleagues and my) earlier research on students’ attitudes towards English and EMI in EMI programmes and courses (see Murata, Iino and Konakahara 2019; Murata 2019 b,c; Murata et al. 2017, 2018, 2019). At students’ conscious level, the EMI course is also regarded as an opportunity to practice and improve their ‘English’ apart from learning the content. This, in turn, is closely connected to methodological issues of subject teaching (see Widdowson 2019 for the difference between ‘content’ and ‘subject’). Question 4 investigated this issue and asked questions on methodological issues on EMI practice, focusing, in particular, on the use of smallgroup discussions. The question is divided into two: (1) the students’ opinions about the use of small-group discussions in class and (2) their active participation in discussion as well as the reason for the answers. In the following, only the results from the second part of the question, which asked specifically whether the students actively participated in discussion, are shown in Table 10.5, as the first part, which asked the students’ opinions about the use of small-group discussions, is not appropriate for quantitative description. The descriptive raw data in Table 10.5 indicates that in both years nearly 60 per cent of the students thought they actively participated in the discussion, while one-third of them answered otherwise. Those who stated that they did not manage to actively participate in the discussion have listed their English proficiency as the main reason for their non-active participation. It has to be noted here, however, that in fact many of them often used their L1, Japanese, in their group discussion, when all the members’ L1 was Japanese, and often only used ELF when the international TAs participated in their group discussion as revealed in one of the answers to Question 5,9 whose answers are also closely related to Q4. Thus, the ‘Yes and No’ answers to Q4 observed here exemplify this situation.

168

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

TABLE 10.5  The results of Q4-2 (students’ active participation in discussion) Question (4-2): Question on students’ active participation in discussion. 2017

2017

2018

2018

Yes

21

55.3%

23

59.0%

No

13

34.2%

14

35.9%

Yes and No

4

10.5%

0

0%

Others

0

0%

2

5.1%

38

100.0%

39

100.0%

Total

(An answer to Q5) Half and half. When the TAs joined us, we used English, but otherwise we used Japanese as we were a bit embarrassed to use English among ourselves. Besides, we were not confident about communicating in English. (2018-#17) 半 々。TA​さ んが入っ​て きてくれ​た 時は英語​で 皆話した​が 、いない​と 日本語に​ なった。→​は ずかしいとか、うまく伝えられる自信がないからだと思う。 Accordingly, the relatively high proportion of students’ positive answers to Question 4 is also related to the answers to Question 5 below. Apart from the use of L1, the students also listed the role of the international TAs in promoting discussion and encouraging the students’ participation as also stated earlier. This is also confirmed by the international TAs themselves at an individual post-course interview in enquiring about what kind of strategies they utilized to promote students’ active participation in discussion sessions. In addition, it has also emerged that the students used the small-group discussion session not only for exchanging opinions but also for checking their and their peers’ understanding of the issue related to the discussion question as seen in the following example. (An answer to Q5) When some of the group members didn’t understand the questions, which were asked in English, we discussed in Japanese. (2018-#27) Questionが英語だったので、理解できていない人がいる場合は日本語で行った。 Another noteworthy point is that quite a few students have stated that through the discussion session they come to understand the diversity of opinions of both their peers and the TAs from different linguacultural backgrounds as clearly stated in the following comments: There were so many different opinions and I came to realize the diversity of people in the world. (2017-#31) 色んな意見があり、世界が広いんだなと感じた。 The presentation together with the group members made me realize the diversity of opinions among us. (2018-#9) メンバーと協力しながらのプレゼンは様々な考えを知ることにつな がったと思います。

TEACHING WE AND ELF IN EMI FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE

 169

Question 5, some of whose answers are already partially touched on earlier in relation to the answers to Question 4, asked the students about the language they mainly used for the group discussions, namely whether they used mainly English or Japanese in them and the reason(s) for the choice. The question might sound strange as this is part of class activities in EMI, thus naturally English should be used, the readers might think. Here the context in which this EMI course was conducted carries a significant meaning. As described earlier, both the students and professor in this EMI course in an expanding-circle country were L1 Japanese speakers with the exception of the international TAs (two in the year 2017, and three in the year 2018); thus, in a sense it was natural for the students to use their L1 in the group discussions especially when more importance is placed on the content than the language improvement (see Murata and Iino 2018). The purpose of including this question was to investigate multilingual backgrounds of the students and the effective use of their L1 and other available resources even in EMI settings, where traditionally the use of English is encouraged or de facto. The results are shown in Table 10.6. As seen in Table 10.6, in the academic year 2017, nearly 60 per cent of the respondents answered they mainly used Japanese in their group discussions, while using both English and Japanese has reached one quarter of the respondents. On the other hand, those who mainly used English totalled only 13 per cent. By contrast, in the academic year 2018, 45 per cent of the respondents claimed to have mainly used English in the group discussions, while 17.5 per cent stated they used both English and Japanese, and 25 per cent of them used Japanese. Thus, the situation seemed to have reversed in the academic year 2018, more students having used English than Japanese. Several factors might have affected this change. Firstly, the students were more used to attending EMI courses in 2018 than in 2017 as it was already the third year after the implementation of the new curriculum which introduced nearly forty-four new EMI-related courses. In 2017, as it was only the second year of the new curriculum, most of the third- and fourth-year students had very limited experience in EMI courses; thus, they were not used to communicating in class using ELF (see Murata et al. 2017 and 2018 for the changes observed between the respondents in the 2016 and 2017 questionnaire survey on EMI). Another noteworthy point in relation to this is, considering the aforementioned situation, in the academic year 2017, I (the professor in charge of the course and current author) often encouraged the students to participate in discussion and give opinions even using Japanese, explicitly stating that it is better to give opinions using Japanese even in EMI courses than not

TABLE 10.6  The results of Q5 (the language used for the group discussions) Questions 5: On the language used for the group discussions: Whether the students used mainly English or Japanese in the group discussions and the reason for that. 2017

2017

2018

2018

ENG

5

12.8%

18

45.0%

JPN

23

59.0%

10

25.0%

Both

10

25.6%

7

17.5%

1

2.6%

5

12.5%

39

100.0%

40

100.0%

Others Total

170

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

to give them at all or participate in discussion. More students, therefore, might have resorted to Japanese when participating in discussion in Academic Year 2017. The first factor for students’ choice of Japanese, thus, in fact included two aspects, the students’ inexperience in communicating in ELF and the instructor’s explicit encouragement that exchanging opinions even in their L1 in the EMI class is more important than not doing so at all. The second factor that might have influenced the students’ choice of the language in the discussion session could have been because there were more international TAs in the year 2018 than the previous year. That is, in the academic year 2017, there were only two international TAs, whereas there were three in the academic year 2018, while the total number of registered students remained almost the same. This meant that there were more chances for each discussion group to have one of the international TAs as a kind of discussion leader and that they naturally needed to communicate using ELF with them as the following students’ comments clearly illustrate the situation: [I used] Japanese more as it is easier to explain opinions as I wish in Japanese. However, when the TAs joined us in our discussion, I naturally managed to communicate in English. (2017-#7) 日本語が多​か った。日​本 語で話す​方 がやはり​自 分の意見​を 思ったと​お り説明で​ きるから。​しかしALTの方がいると自然と英語で話せた。 [We] mostly discussed in English. The TAs often visited our group, and when discussing with them, we made it sure to use English. (2018-#1) 大体英語でやった。TAさんがよく回ってきたので、一緒にディス カッションするときは英語を使うようにした。 Thus, the participation of the international TAs has necessitated the students using ELF, which has great implications for EMI pedagogy, particularly in the East Asian context, where otherwise often both instructors and students are from the same L1 background, and thus it is more natural and efficient to use their shared L1 when discussing the content. The next question, Question 6, is also closely related to Question 5 in that it has directly asked the question about the participation of the international TAs in the course and the discussion session as well as the reason(s) for their answer. The results are listed in Table 10.7.

TABLE 10.7  The results of Q6 (the participation of the international TAs) Question 6: The students’ opinions about the participation of the TAs from different linguacultural backgrounds and the reason for their answers. 2017

2017

2018

2018

Positive

34

87.2%

37

94.9%

Negative

2

5.1%

1

2.6%

Both

1

2.6%

1

2.6%

Others

2

5.1%

0

0.0%

39

100.0%

39

100.0%

Total

TEACHING WE AND ELF IN EMI FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE

 171

As seen in Table 10.7, the majority of the respondents evaluated the participation of the international TAs in class positively. In particular, in the academic year 2018, when there were three international TAs, 95 per cent of the students were positive about having them as TAs as also seen in some of the many positive remarks for having them in class: When the TAs participated in the discussion, they stated various opinions, which made us understand the content better. We really appreciated their participation. ディスカッ​シ ョンに参​加 してもら​え ると色々​な 意見を言​っ てもらえ​る ので、授​ 業の理解が​深まり、あ​りがたかっ​た。(20​17-#1​7) By communicating with the TAs from different linguacultural backgrounds, I really came to understand what is meant by ELF and WE. It was really great. 異なるバックグラウンドの人とのコミュニケーションを通して、ELF, WEを直で感じることもありよかった。(2017-#3) The TAs’ diverse backgrounds were good. By having them, I’ve better understood not only theory but also actual practice of the use of diverse pronunciation from ELF and WE perspectives (2018-#22) 多様なbackgroundがあって良かった。また理論だけでなく、発音も実際にきけたので、より実感が湧いた。 As can be seen in these comments, the students evaluated the participation of the international TAs mainly from three perspectives:(1) their role in helping the students understand the content, (2) their role as exemplification of the use of ELF and WE, and (3) their role as facilitators of inter-/multicultural understanding. Positive comments regarding the role of the international TAs are listed not only in the answers to Question 6 but also in relation to at least four other questions (e.g. in response to Qs 1, 3, 4 and most notably to Q5 regarding the use of English (or rather ELF) in class as already discussed). This means having these international TAs in attending this specific EMI course has greatly impacted on the students’ active participation and satisfaction. Having detailed the answers to each question,10 the following concluding section will briefly summarize the findings of this research and discuss their implications for EMI pedagogy.

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EMI PEDAGOGY This chapter has discussed the results of classroom-based research on EMI from an ELF perspective, investigating students’ change of awareness after explicitly studying ELF and WE as subject in an EMI course while using ELF as a medium of communication in class. The analysis has mostly based on the results from the post-course open-ended questionnaires administered to the students enrolled in the course in two consecutive academic years of 2017 and 2018. The results have revealed that most of the students have claimed that they not only have acquired the knowledge on ELF and WE but also their awareness about the use of English has risen, which often has resulted in being freed from their restraints in giving opinions in English lest they make mistakes or be penalized if not following NES norms. This has great implications for language pedagogy. That is, it has ascertained the value of equipping students with these new concepts by explicitly teaching them as a subject matter as it has been made clear that most of the students did not know the concepts of WE and ELF before attending the course and thus

172

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

described understanding them through EMI as eye-opening and that by so doing they claimed to have also naturally heightened their awareness. Furthermore, the results have also revealed the importance of providing students with an ELF environment so that they really understand and appreciate the concept of ELF, particularly in the context such as the current research site, where the instructor and the majority of the students share the same L1. In the current case, this was made possible by employing international TAs to assist students with small-group discussions as well as to provide them with valuable information on the use of WE and ELF in the globalized world. Accordingly, this small-scale classroombased research has ensured that awareness-raising about ELF is possible by combining both explicit teaching of the content matter and providing students with opportunities to actually experience communication in ELF. Finally, before closing this chapter I would like to share the following students’ comments with the readers, which emphasize how their way of thinking towards English has changed after attending this EMI course: I have become confident in my English. Before attending this course, I’d been thinking that my learning goal was NSE competence, and therefore I wasn’t confident in my Japanese English at all. By attending the course I have become able to give my opinions in English without being embarrassed. 自分の英語​に自信がも​てるように​なった。以​前はNSE​が私の英語​学習のgo​alであり​ 、それ故自​分 の日本語​英 語に自信​が もてなか​っ た。この​授 業を受け​、 恥ずかし​ がることな​く自分の意​見を英語で​伝えること​ができるよ​うになった​。(Ans​wer to Q 2, 2017-#1) And another one: I have become able to use English more actively irrespective of pronunciation or whether [my English] is good or bad, and I wished that people in general could have chances to be informed of the concepts I have learnt. 発音や上手い下手に関わらず、もっと積極的に英語を使えるように なりました。また、この内容を一般の人にも知ってほしいと思いました。(Answer to Q 2, 2018-#39)

NOTES 1. However, it has to be borne in mind that, as stated earlier, my definition of EMI includes the context where ‘students and instructors mostly share the same linguacultural backgrounds’ (Murata and Iino 2018: 404, see also Karakaş 2016 for the research in the similar situation). 2. I have differentiated here EMI programmes and courses on the basis of the terms used in our (my research colleagues’ and my) earlier research, that is, EMI programmes offer all the classes in a department or school in EMI, whereas in EMI courses only some of the classes in a department or school are offered in EMI by individual instructors but not department or school widely (see Konakahara et al. 2019; Murata et al. 2017, 2018). 3. Employing these TAs was made possible by obtaining funding from the university’s newly introduced system entitled the employment of specialist TAs, through which the academic staff can apply for special funding for employing TAs for specific teaching purposes. 4. Another methodological characteristic in this specific EMI course is the introduction of students’ group presentations. This however is found still much to be improved. There is, for example, a need for strengthening students’ basic presentation skills as there exist individual differences. Some students are not yet fully equipped with these skills despite all of them

TEACHING WE AND ELF IN EMI FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE

 173

having attended the course in academic skills as part of the curriculum requirement in the preceding years. Thus, individual differences in presentation skills also need to be considered when introducing students’ presentations in order to secure their peers’ understanding. 5. The questionnaires were administered in January 2018 and January 2019, respectively, at the end of the academic years 2017 and 2018, the total number of respondents being thirty-nine in the academic year 2017 and forty in 2018, although the numbers of the respondents varied slightly depending on specific questions within the questionnaire as some respondents skipped answering certain questions. 6. The course was first introduced in Academic Year 2016, when the new curriculum for the department was enforced by which the total of forty-four CLIL and EMI-based courses were introduced to the Department of English Language and Literature; see Harada 2017 for the detailed description of the new curriculum. 7. As stated, all the questions are open-ended; however, as some questions take the format of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, the respondents often initially answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ before giving detailed answers. In principle, however, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ in the result shown was judged on close examination of the content of their answers. There are thus sometimes yes/no answers as some respondents’ answers indicated ‘both’, explaining the reasons. In addition, when their answers were uncategorizable, they were also classified as ‘Others’. 8. (2017-#8) indicates the questionnaire administered in the academic year 2017 and the respondent number as eight. 9. Although Q5 asked the language choice during the discussion sessions, the respondents often referred to the international TAs in relation to their language choice and active participation. 10. Question 7 invited the students’ additional comments. As most of them skipped answering this question, it will not be discussed in this chapter.

REFERENCES 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, 57–68, Berlin: De Gruyter. 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): 327–30. Cho, J. (2012), ‘Campus in English or Campus in Shock?’, English Today, 28 (2): 18–25. 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 Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra, eds (2013), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges, 106–28, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 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: 311–17. Dafouz, E. and U. Smit (2016), ‘Towards a Dynamic Conceptual Framework for EnglishMedium Education in Multilingual University Settings’, Applied Linguistics, 37 (3): 397–413.

174

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

D’Angelo, J. F. (2019), ‘Expanding ELF-Informed EMI in Expanding Circle Higher Education: A Case Study of Actual Graduates’ Needs’, in K. Murata (ed.), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, 239–58, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra, eds (2013), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gill, S. K. (2005), ‘Language Policy in Malaysia: Revisiting Direction’, Language Policy, 4 (3): 241–60. Harada, T. (2017), ‘Developing a Content-Based English as a Foreign Language Program: Needs Analysis and Curriculum Design at the University Level’, in M. A. Snow and D. M. Brinton (eds), The Content-Based Classroom: New Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content, 37–52, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Hasim A. (2009), ‘Not Plain Sailing: Malaysia’s Language Choice in Policy and Education’, AILA Review, 22: 36–51. Hino, N. (2019), ‘Designing CELFIL (Content and ELF Integrated Learning) for EMI Classes in Higher Education’, in K. Murata (ed.), pp. 219–38. 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: 345–62. Iino, M. (2019), ‘EMI (English-Medium Instruction) in Japanese Higher Education: A Paradoxical Space for Global and Local Sociolinguistic Habitats’, in K. Murata (ed.), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, 78–95, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 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.), EnglishMedium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, 111–31, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 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, 40–56, Houndmills and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Jenkins, J. (2014), English as a Lingua Franca in the International University – The Politics of Academic Language Policy, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2019), ‘The Internationalization of Higher Education: But What About Its Lingua Franca?’, in K. Murata (ed.), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, 15–31, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. and A. Mauranen (eds) (2019), Linguistic Diversity in International Universities, Oxon: Routledge. Karakaş, A. (2016), ‘Turkish Lectures’ Views on the Place of Mother Tongue in the Teaching of Content Courses Through English Medium’, Asian Englishes, 18 (3): 242–57. 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): 331–44. Konakahara, M., K. Murata and M. Iino (2019), ‘“English”-Medium Instruction in a Japanese University: Exploring Students’ and Lectures’ Voices from an ELF Perspective’, in K. Murata (ed.), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, 157–75, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

TEACHING WE AND ELF IN EMI FROM AN ELF PERSPECTIVE

 175

Kuteeva, M. (2019), ‘Researching English-Medium Instruction at Swedish Universities: Developments over the Past Decade’, in K. Murata (ed.), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, pp. 46–63, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Low, E. L. and A. Pakir (2018), ‘English in Singapore: Striking a New Balance for FutureReadiness’, Asian Englishes, 20 (1):41–53. Mauranen, A. (2012), Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MEXT. (2011), ‘An Interim Report of the Council on Promotion of Human Resource for Globalization Development’. Available online: http:​/​/www​​.kant​​ei​.go​​.jp​/j​​p​/sin​​gi​/gl​​obal/​​12060​​ 11int​​er​im_​​repor​​t​.pdf​ (English) (accessed 29 March 2016). MEXT. (2014), ‘Press release “Selection for the FY 2014 top Global University Project”’. Available online: http:​/​/www​​.mext​​.go​.j​​p​/b​_m​​enu​/h​​oudou​​/26​/0​​9/_​_i​​csFil​​es​/af​​i eldf​​i l​e​/2​​014​/1​​0​ /07/​​1352 218​_02​.​pdf (accessed 29 March 2016). 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., ed. (2016a), Exploring ELF in Japanese Academic and Business Contexts: conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Implications, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Murata, K. (2016b), ‘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, 77–86. Berlin: De Gruyter. Murata, K., ed. (2019a), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Murata, K. (2019b), ‘The Realities of the Use of English in the Globalised World and the Teaching of English: A Discrepancy?’, JACET Journal, 63: 7–26. Murata, K. and Iino, M. (2018), ‘EMI in Higher Education: An ELF Perspective’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 165–75, Oxon: Routledge. Murata, K., M. Iino and M. Konakahara (2017), ‘An Investigation into the Use of and Attitudes Towards ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) in English-Medium Instruction (EMI) Classes and Its Implications for English Language Teaching’ (In Japanese), Waseda Review of Education, 31 (1): 21–38. Murata, K., M. Iino and M. Konakahara (2019), ‘Realities of EMI Practices Among Multilingual Students in a Japanese University’, in Jenkins, J. and A. Mauranen (eds), Linguistic Diversity in International Universities, 149–71, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Murata, K., M. Konakahara, M. Iino and N. Toyoshima (2018), ‘An Investigation into Attitudes Towards English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in English-Medium Instruction (EMI) and Business Settings and Its Implications for English Language Pedagogy’ (In Japanese), Waseda Review of Education, 32 (1): 55–75. Park, J.-K. (2009), ‘“English Fever” in South Korea: Its History and Symptoms’, English Today, 25 (1): 50–7. Park, J.-K. (2019), ‘English-Medium Instruction in the Korean Higher Education Context: From an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective’, in K. Murata (ed.), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, 64–77, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Seidlhofer, B. (2011), Understanding English as a Lingua Franca, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2018), ‘English as a Lingua Franca: Why Is It so Controversial?’, JACET International Convention Selected Papers, 5, 2–24. Tokyo: JACET.

176

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Smit, U. (2010), English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse, Berlin: De Gruyter. Smit, U. (2019), ‘Classroom Discourse in EMI: On the Dynamics of Multilingual Practices’, in K. Murata (ed.), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective -Exploring the Higher Education Context, 99–117, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 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. Widdowson, H. G. (1994), ‘The Ownership of English’, TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2): 377–89. Widdowson, H. G. (2003), Defining Issues in English Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. G. (2016a), ‘ELF and the Pragmatics of Language Variation’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5 (2): 359–72. Widdowson, H. G. (2016b), ‘Competence and Capability: Rethinking the Subject English’, in K. Murata (ed.) , English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective-Exploring the Higher Education Context, 213–23, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Widdowson, H. G. (2019), ‘TESOL: What Does the Acronym Stand For?’ JACET Journal, 63: 1–6. Wilkinson, R. (2013), ‘English-Medium Instruction at a Dutch University: Challenges and Pitfalls’, in Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra, eds (2013), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges, 3–24, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Chapter 11

Implementing a Critical Pedagogy of Global Englishes in ELT from the Lens of EMI and Intercultural Citizenship FAN FANG AND WILL BAKER

1  INTRODUCTION It is hardly a disputable fact that the English language is used as the predominant global lingua franca for intercultural communication, across various domains and for various purposes among people who do not share their first languages (L1). It is, therefore, the language spoken and learned by the largest number of people across the world. However, the issue of how this learning takes place through English language teaching (ELT) has continued to experience various debates concerning the role of standard language and the traditional native speaker model versus the multilingual and multicultural reality of today’s world (e.g. Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; Sifakis, Lopriore, Dewey, Bayyurt, Kordia 2018; Sifakis and Tsantila 2019). On the one hand, an Anglo-centric idealized native English speaker approach in the ELT industry ‘led from the US and the UK continues to thrive while ignoring the sociolinguistic reality around it’ (Jenkins and Leung 2019: 92). A similar Anglophone and standard language perspective underpins much of the growth of general education through English such as English medium instruction (EMI) and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) (Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Hüttner 2018). On the other hand, there has been the development of Global Englishes approaches (including World Englishes (WE), English as an International Language (EIL) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)) where English is viewed not simply as a closed system or an entity belonging to its native speakers, but as a multilingual resource which can be adopted and adapted by all who use it to facilitate intercultural communication. This chapter adopts ‘Global Englishes’ as an inclusive umbrella term describing both the phenomenon of the global spread of English and research in that area (see Centre for Global Englishes https://www​.southampton​.ac​ .uk​/cge/ and Baker 2015; Jenkins 2015). Global Englishes has recognized varieties of English (the focus of WE) and the dynamic and fluid nature of English (the focus of ELF),

178

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

as well as pointing out its significance in language pedagogy (the focus of EIL) (see more discussions in Galloway 2017; Jenkins 2015). Global Englishes perspectives have, thus, challenged the traditional ownership of English, and associated Anglophone norms, and have instead advocated reforms in ELT and EMI to emphasize the notion of successful multilingual and intercultural communication (e.g. Fang and Ren 2018; Galloway and Rose 2015; Rose and Galloway 2019). A recent approach to both language and general education, which also incorporates the multilingual and multicultural perspective of Global Englishes to communication and learning, is intercultural/global citizenship. Intercultural citizenship has been influential as a notion in higher education (HE) in general in which graduates are expected to leave education equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to engage in diverse global communities (e.g. Clifford and Montgomery 2014; Killick 2013). Within language education, intercultural citizenship has been proposed as an approach which engages language learners fully in the intercultural elements of using another language, as well as the intercultural citizen as an alternative to the inappropriate native speaker model (e.g. Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner 2017; Porto, Houghton and Byram 2018). As well as a model or aim in language education, intercultural citizenship has also been proposed as an educational approach with Byram’s work especially influential. Byram (2008: 107) defines intercultural citizenship education as:

1. Causing/facilitating intercultural citizenship experience, and analysis and reflection on it and on the possibility of further social and/or political activity, that is, activity that involves working with others to achieve an agreed end.



2. Creating learning/change in the individual: cognitive, attitudinal, behavioural change; change in self-perception; change in relationships with Others (i.e. people of a different social group); change that is based in the particular but is related to the universal.

As can be seen in Byram’s characterization, intercultural citizenship education combines elements of intercultural communicative competence with citizenship education. Crucially it goes beyond just learning about and experiencing interculturality (part 1), and adds an important dimension of change in students (part 2), which it is hoped will then lead to action. However, at present Global Englishes and intercultural citizenship approaches are not well represented in ELT and EMI practice (Baker and Fang 2019; Fang and Baker 2018; Fang and Widodo 2019; Low and Ao 2018). In particular, English is still largely seen as belonging to its native speakers with an entrenched ideology of native-speakerism in the mainstream ELT pedagogy and assessment (Holliday 2005, 2011; Houghton and Rivers 2013; Llurda 2018). Furthermore, Anglophone cultures may still be regarded as the target culture when teaching English regardless of the complexity of cultural representation constructed through English (Baker 2015). This chapter, therefore, addresses such misconceptions in today’s English language education and argues for the necessity to move beyond native-speakerism and Anglophone ideology to envisage multilingualism, multiculturalism and interculturality in ELT and EMI from the Global Englishes and intercultural citizenship perspective.

2  A CRITICAL VIEW ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING If we look back to the English Today debate in terms of what kind of English should be taught to English learners between Quirk and Kachru (Kachru 1991; Quirk 1990), it is

IMPLEMENTING CRITICAL PEDAGOGY OF GLOBAL ENGLISHES

 179

not difficult to see the different language ideologies in ELT. On the one hand, there is a concern that the non-native usage of English will ‘contaminate’ the language from a prescriptive perspective; that a single monochrome native standard form ‘that looks as good on paper as it sounds in speech’ (Quirk 1985: 6) should remain as the teaching model in ELT; and that non-native English–speaking teachers (NNEST) will need the support by native teachers ‘to be in constant touch with the native language’ (Quirk 1990: 7). On the other hand, given the currency of the English language used around the world and the development of the post-colonial varieties of English within and across different linguistic communities, it is no longer sufficient to simply attach English to the inner-circle nation states and the native speaker. Kachru (1991), from the perspective of liberation linguistics, critiqued Quirk’s deficit linguistics position and argued that non-native use of English should not be regarded as ‘deficient’ but ‘different’. In his subsequent argument addressing the post-colonial varieties of English, Kachru (1992) voiced that English ‘acquires a new identity, a local habitat, and a name . . . English has now, as a consequence of its status, been associated with universalism, liberalism, secularism, and internationalism’ (pp. 10–11). With the popularity and global use of English in the twentieth century, people started to broaden their perspectives regarding the English language, in that a restricted focus on the outer-circle (post-colonial) varieties of English could no longer represent the diversified and fluid use of English transcending boundaries. Therefore, research has been expanded from WE to ELF to recognize the complexity of English use and legitimating the English used in expanding-circle contexts. As defined by Seidlhofer (2011), ELF is ‘any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option’ (p. 7). Similar to WE, ELF research has reinterpreted English to match the plurilinguistic, hybrid and fluid nature of the language use (Jenkins 2015). Today, English is used by speakers of various L1s and is changing in a natural process ‘by mechanisms we do not fully understand’ (Gupta 2006: 98). The complex use of English in reality also challenges the traditional approach of teaching English as a foreign language. As a language used by a majority of non-native speakers, a simplified teaching model based on a native standard should also be revised. For instance, from an EIL perspective, McKay (2002) argued the importance of teaching EIL. She challenged the traditional understanding of what counts as ‘standard’ for the international use of English and what ‘target culture’ means in ELT as an international language. She believed that ‘it cannot be assumed that the culture of any one particular country, especially an Inner Circle country, should provide the basis for cultural content when teaching EIL’ (McKay 2002: 82). In her proposal, she indicates that local educators should also be recognized when designing and implementing appropriate pedagogies. In a similar vein, Matsuda (2012) discussed key principles in teaching English as an international language and showcased various courses and programmes adopting such perspective in various contexts. Another aspect in relation to preparing teachers to teach EIL is also discussed by Matsuda (2017). In this collection, both theoretical frameworks and practical courses and programmes are presented. Thus, a prescriptive rule of English teaching based on a restricted Anglophone ‘code’ can no longer fulfil the need of the majority of English language learners. In the twenty-first century, where English has been used in a fluid and diverse manner in various settings by speakers of different L1s, we therefore argue that English language education should be revisited from a critical view in order to incorporate Global Englishes (including both ELF and WE) into practice to address the multilayered needs and goals of language learners in various contexts.

180

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

One issue addressed in this section is the diverse profile of language learners across the world. If we take the Asian context as an example, we can easily realize the complexity of the linguistic situation. For instance, according to the Ethnologue (https://www​.ethnologue​ .com), China (East Asia) has 299 languages (regardless of numerous dialects), Indonesia (Southeast Asia) has 719 languages, the Philippines (Southeast Asia) has 187 languages, Viet Nam has 110 languages, while India (South Asia) has 462 languages and Pakistan (South Asia) has 74 languages. Although some countries have fewer languages and may be traditionally regarded as monolingual contexts, such as Japan, South Korea, and countries in the Middle-East, we should recognize global mobility and emergent linguistic contact which brings the complexity of language use to almost all of Asia (Ra 2019). From a traditional WE perspective in the Asian context, many post-colonial varieties of ‘New Englishes’ (Brutt-Griffler 2002; Platt, Weber and Ho 1984) have been formed and widely used such as Indian English, Singaporean English and Brunei English. Although many other contexts in Asia do not use particular varieties of English, they have been promoting and expanding English language education across basic to HE (Wang 2017). For example, English is now the official working language in Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The role of English has become important as a medium of instruction (EMI) (Baker and Hüttner 2018) and also ‘as a crucial determinant for university entrance and procuring well-paid jobs in the commercial sector’ (Adamson 2004: 195) in many outer-circle and expanding-circle contexts in Asia. The issue, however, remains as to the relationship of English with other local languages, and what type of English, if any, should be taught as well as how English should be assessed in various contexts in multilingual Asia (Kirkpatrick 2011); a situation that is also repeated in many other contexts globally. This leads to the issue of reconsidering the approaches and goals of ELT to fit in various purposes and contexts of learners of English. Given the diversity of English use and the multilingual settings in which it occurs we, therefore, argue that English should be viewed as part of a repertoire of multilingual resources (Blommaert 2010). It should be taught from a critical perspective that adopts a more ecological stance, recognizing the diversified sociocultural users and uses, leading in turn to language learning that empowers English language education practitioners as legitimate users of English in their own right (Baker 2012b; Tollefson and Tsui 2004). English language education today should adopt a critical lens to deal with English language instruction in a broader sociolinguistic, sociocultural and sociopolitical perspective with relevant issues in relation to intercultural communication brought to the fore as this is the primary use of English globally. In the following sections, we shall address the issue of implementing critical pedagogy of Global Englishes from the perspective of EMI and intercultural citizenship. We shall explain the misconception of taking idealized Anglophone native English as the default language in English language education and instead link ELT to the awareness and development of intercultural citizenship education from a Global Englishes perspective. One of the approaches of ELT from the Global Englishes perspective is the proposal of Global Englishes Language Teaching (GELT) (Galloway 2017; Galloway and Rose 2015; Rose and Galloway 2019) where the main themes include ‘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’ (Galloway 2017: viii). Here, GELT presents a broad picture in relation to ELT against the backdrop of globalization and challenges some

IMPLEMENTING CRITICAL PEDAGOGY OF GLOBAL ENGLISHES

 181

entrenched native-speakerism ideology. GELT also challenges the unequal geopolitics of language ideology in various contexts (Holliday 2011). The traditional native-speaker (NS) model no longer serves as the ultimate aim from the GELT framework. Echoing the proposal of GELT, we argue that students should be provided with various scenarios from the process of English learning and intercultural citizenship development in order for them to perceive ways of ‘changing how people are represented and can represent themselves in English’ (Pennycook 2017: 308) and to recognize the complexity and challenge the assumed ties between the English language and Anglophone culture (Baker 2015). It is hoped that GELT will serve as a key approach in ELT for researchers, practitioners and students, resulting in a reconsideration of a myriad of questions concerning language ideologies, language policies, curricula, educational systems, classroom practices and assessment.

3  CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ENGLISH AS A MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION Against the background of the growth of English as a global language for intercultural communication, there has been a policy response resulting in a similar increase in EMI programmes over the last few decades. EMI is conceptualized here following Dafouz and Smit’s (2016) English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings (EMEMUS). While it ‘focuses on English-medium education because of the particular role that English plays both as an academic language of teaching and learning as well as a means of international communication’ (Dafouz and Smit 2016: 399), it also recognizes the multilingual nature of HE and the diversity of settings (including Anglophone settings) and approaches to pedagogy and language this can entail. For example, in Asia, as mentioned, many countries have adopted and adapted English as both a postcolonial language and a common regional lingua franca, for example in ASEAN. This extensive use of English has also resulted in an expanding implementation of EMI programmes in both outer- and expanding-circle settings (Baker and Hüttner 2017). Nonetheless, regarding the EMI policy in HE from the Global Englishes paradigm, researchers and practitioners still need to deal with the key questions, as discussed by Jenkins (2014): What does ‘multiculturalism’ or ‘multilingualism’ mean to HE, and when people are advocating ‘language diversity’ and ‘intercultural communication’, what do these mean to HE through EMI? One of the purposes of EMI lies in the promotion of internationally shared content knowledge and the increase in international connections through English. This policy might on the surface seem to be beneficial to universities if the adoption is for university ranking through promoting the internationalization of universities, and for the prestige of learners, who are competent language users of English, to acquire cutting-edge content knowledge and enhance their global competitiveness, as revealed in some previous studies (Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri 2017; Hu and Lei 2014; Murata 2019). However, given the current complexity of the linguistic situation as regards the multilingualism present in HE, many studies have called for greater attention to be given to the sociocultural and sociopolitical aspects of EMI (Kedzierski 2016; Shohamy 2013; Tollefson and Tsui 2004). This has included greater respect for multilingualism and multiculturalism in EMI policy and practices (Baker and Hüttner 2018; Dafouz and Smit 2016; Jenkins 2014; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019). Moreover, the blind adoption of EMI may generate social and

182

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

cultural inequality from which people’s local languages are marginalized and even erased. Furthermore, such policies through the commodification of English language education may be detrimental to many groups and simply further entrench existing inequalities between elite and non-elite universities and students. The mismatch between policy and practice requires both teachers and students to challenge the traditional Anglophone native standard language ideology in the process of questioning and reflecting on what they have seen, read and been told. In particular, language is seen as a social practice, while stakeholders should see themselves as agents who view and use English critically to ‘appropriate the language in their own terms, according to their needs, values, and aspirations’ (Canagarajah 1999: 176). As an alternative, from the critical perspective of Global Englishes, people’s L1s are seen not as a hindrance but rather as a resource facilitating intercultural communication (Galloway 2017; Sridhar and Sridhar 2018). This notion is particularly important if Global Englishes is incorporated in the language classroom under the EMI policy in terms of language support and preparation. Global Englishes courses or programmes for EMI should contextualize and recognize multilingualism as a central part of an EMI environment rather than imposing a monolingual English only education policy. Indeed, the mismatch between monolingual EMI as a policy and the actual multilingual emergent language practices in EMI has begun to receive attention from researchers in a number of settings, including Asia (Baker and Hüttner 2018; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Murata 2019). Furthermore, EMI language policy should also take into account that English might not even be the language of choice in many emergent communication settings, and that even when English is chosen it is unlikely to be native varieties of English in multilingual contexts. Therefore, the E in EMI should be reconceptualized (Hu and Lei 2014; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019; Kirkpatrick 2014) because it should not mean monolingual English only in today’s multilingual world – EMI should recognize linguistic resources and encourage multilingualism as also advocated in a Global Englishes perspective (Galloway, et al. 2017; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019). We therefore argue for the need to readdress EMI policy from more bottom-up perspectives that recognize the multilingualism that is present and English used as global lingua franca, although, currently there is an urgent need for more empirical studies on this aspect (see, for example, Airey et al. 2017; Dafouz and Smit 2016). A Global Englishes-oriented EMI policy should be placed firmly within multilingualism to raise people’s awareness of the diversity of English and that English in EMI cannot simply be judged from the monolingual idealized Anglophone native standard. It is also important to compare mother tongue instruction with the necessity of EMI, as well as to evaluate stakeholders’ linguistic competence before implementing such policy into practice to avoid conflicts and struggles between policymakers and the stakeholders involved. Finally, a Global Englishes-oriented EMI policy should be open to translanguaging practices and instruction (García 2019; García and Li 2014; Mazak and Carroll 2016) that recognizes multiple dynamic language practices as legitimate pedagogic resources and acknowledges ‘the speakers’ construction and use of original and complex interrelated discursive practices’ (García and Li 2014: 22). This chapter distinguishes the term ‘translanguaging’ from ‘code-switching’, because language learning is regarded as ‘a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond language(s)’ (Li 2018: 15, italics in original). In other words, translanguaging refers to ‘the speakers’ construction and use of original and complex interrelated discursive practices that cannot be easily assigned to one or another additional definition of a language, but that make up the speakers’ complete language

IMPLEMENTING CRITICAL PEDAGOGY OF GLOBAL ENGLISHES

 183

repertoire’ (García and Li 2014: 22). The application of translanguaging is also key to Global Englishes-informed ELT pedagogy as it sees that language users can ‘negotiate and co-construct meaning through complex discursive practices’ (Fang 2020: 20). Below we will discuss the manner in which a Global Englishes-informed ELT pedagogy can benefit preparation for EMI in more detail.

4  INTERCULTURAL CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN EMI AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION A recent approach to both language teaching and HE in general, which deals with many of the critical intercultural issues already discussed, is the notion of intercultural citizenship. ‘Intercultural citizenship’ or ‘global citizenship’ (the two terms will be used interchangeably here) has been increasingly discussed in general HE literature as an aim and model for students in international universities (e.g. Clifford and Montgomery 2014; Killick 2013). Given the intercultural environment of international universities, and the similarly international and intercultural nature of many contemporary work places, graduates are expected to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes to successfully function in such settings. In the intercultural citizenship literature, this is often conceptualized as developing a sense of citizenship that extends beyond national borders, and recognizes the global scale of social relations, accompanied by respect for diversity and participation in and responsibility to communities at multiple levels from the local to the global (Byram 2008; Gaudelli 2016; Killick 2013). However, there is currently a lack of empirical research in this area and also tensions between, on the one hand, more neo-liberal conceptions of intercultural citizenship that promote individual gain and, on the other hand, conceptions that promote increased social responsibility across borders (as advocated here) (e.g. Aktas, Pitts, Richards and Silova 2017; Gaudelli 2016). Within language education, intercultural citizenship has been proposed as an alternative to the inappropriate and heavily criticized model of the native speaker. In particular, intercultural citizenship builds on earlier ideas of intercultural communicative competence which itself offers an expanded conception of communicative competence that incorporates the intercultural dimensions of second language use (Byram 2008). Again, research in this area is still relatively new, although initial results of classroom-based studies show generally positive, albeit tentative, findings in relation to outcomes as well as teacher and student perspectives (Byram et al. 2017; Porto 2018; Porto et al. 2018). Given the focus of intercultural citizenship education on multiple scales from the local to the global, and recognition of diversity in education and language learning/use, it is an approach well matched to Global Englishes perspectives. Furthermore, it aligns closely with Global Englishes perspectives on HE and EMI in which the multilingual and multicultural nature of international universities is foregrounded (Jenkins 2014; Jenkins and Mauranen 2019). The ‘superdiverse’ linguistic and cultural landscape of international HE means that the use of and teaching of one particular variety of English, such as British or American, and cultural practices associated with them is difficult to justify as we can no longer assume a target language/target culture correlation. This also has important implications for ELT, which is the main channel through which students are prepared for EMI, with the aim now being to prepare learners for the complex and diverse linguistic and cultural landscapes of international HE, rather than mastery of any one particular variety of English (Baker and Fang 2019). Global Englishes approaches advocate a number

184

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

of useful suggestions in relation to preparation for EMI that also align with intercultural citizenship perspectives. These include the following: a ‘post-normative’ pedagogy (Dewey 2012) with an emphasis on the processes of language learning and use and in which language and communication are approached as adaptable and contextually varied rather than fixed; an emphasis on the importance of adaptable communicative practices especially through communicative and pragmatic strategies (Cogo and Pitzl 2016); and, most relevant to intercultural citizenship education, a widening of communicative competence to include a more intercultural dimension which is related to multiple cultures rather than a single national frame of reference (Baker 2015, 2016).

5  TOWARDS A GLOBAL ENGLISHESORIENTED CRITICAL PEDAGOGY We therefore call for a Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy in ELT in today’s multilingual world. This approach matches the current linguistic landscape of multilingualism and ELF in international HE. The critical perspective challenges the misbeliefs constituted largely in ELT today from a monolingual approach, the nativespeakerism ideology and cultural essentialism (see Holliday 2011; Kubota 2019). The main target of the Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy aims to foster language learners’ language and cultural awareness of linguistic diversity and multilingualism and multiculturalism that can be reflected in their language performance and their ability to deal with encounters with people from various lingua-cultural backgrounds. This also requires their recognition of multiple identity (re)negotiation and (re)construction in intercultural communication processes and being critical of the essentialist and reductionist view on language and culture at the national scale (Baker 2015; Sung 2014). First, a Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy should challenge cultural essentialism and reductionism and raise students’ awareness of multilingualism and multiculturalism in order to develop students’ sense of global citizenship. As has been asked by Jenkins (2014: 206): ‘How do we respond in our teaching to an academic culture that is becoming more and more globalized, and the needs of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds’, and it is key to take this question into consideration in local ELT practices. Although Jenkins (2014) did not explore directly about ELT practices when raising this question, she did raise the awareness to ELT practitioners and ELT in terms of urging the field to a more multilingual and multicultural perspective, which echoes the Global Englishes-oriented pedagogy. A Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy recognizes the importance of bottom-up voices and aims to present an overall picture of linguistic and cultural diversity and complexity for students in order to incorporate GELT into practice. From this approach, we encourage conversations between teachers and students, from which they are able to address both teaching goals and learning needs. It is hoped that WE and ELF exposure will be a focus for the stakeholders to discuss issues related to language ideology, identity, native-speakerism to raise their awareness of multilingualism and to respect diverse and multifaceted relationships between culture and identity in ELT. Thus, a fixed monolingual approach should be challenged in this sense. From a big picture, the mono- prefix should be replaced by the multi- and trans- prefixes in order to raise the awareness of the current language landscape. It is important for both teachers and students to address the complex relationship between language and culture during the process of ELT to challenge the essentialist and reductionist understanding of culture (Baker 2012a, 2015). It is hoped that the stakeholders will recognize the complexity of language contact and intercultural communication at

IMPLEMENTING CRITICAL PEDAGOGY OF GLOBAL ENGLISHES

 185

least from a cognitive level as the first step, giving them knowledge of the processes of intercultural communication. Baker (2012a; 2015) recommends a number of approaches that can be implemented in classroom practices to develop intercultural awareness. These include exploring local cultural diversity, critically evaluating cultural representations in classroom materials, exploring cultural representations in the media and arts, cultural informants and intercultural exchanges (both virtual and face to face). In addition to this, as outlined previously, intercultural citizenship education advocates active engagement in different intercultural communities through shared projects (for example, Porto et al. 2018), going beyond just awareness of intercultural difference to affective, cognitive and behavioural changes in students. However, as has been claimed, ‘classroom instruction offered only limited channels for students to experience and understand intercultural communication and citizenship’ (Fang and Baker 2018: 608); it is, therefore, key, where possible, to incorporate extracurricular activities and study-abroad exchange for students to extend the conversations to the actual experiences. From this perspective, a global mindset of intercultural awareness should be emphasized through the teaching and learning process. It is hoped that with open conversations and experiences communicating with people from various lingua-cultures in and beyond classrooms, students will develop a more ecological perspective for lingua-cultural diversity in order to challenge the ideology of Anglophone cultures and native-speakerism. Although it may not always be practical or possible to organize exchanges or activities outside the classroom, at the very least it should be possible to include the types of classroom based intercultural activities suggested by Baker (2012a; 2015, discussed above), which challenge essentialist perspectives on language, culture and identity. Second, but closely related to the critique of essentialist Anglophone cultural assumptions, a Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy should challenge the native-speakerism ideology and the privilege of Anglophone native speakers (often associated with white middle classes) in ELT. A traditional model of ELT idealizes native standard English as the ultimate target of English learning, which creates privilege for Anglophone English speakers and marginalization for others (Yazan and Rudolph 2018), or what is termed ‘nativeness’ and ‘otherness’ (Holliday 2005; Fang and Widodo 2019). This neo-racist ideology (Holliday 2006) is unfortunately not well recognized in many ELT contexts today, while English is still largely regarded as the property of its Anglophone native speakers. Therefore, a Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy should provide platforms for conversations between teachers and students where they can question dominant discourses in ELT, particularly around native speakerism through, for example, critiques of language learning materials (Gray 2012; Sifakis 2019). Third, a Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy should recognize students’ L1s as language resource and allow translanguaging practice. We live in the multilingual world where multiple languages are in constant contact. Traditional monolingual English classroom practice regards English as a foreign language (EFL) in which students are not allowed to use their L1s during the process of English learning. Such practice, as well as some institutional policies in which teachers are expected to use English exclusively in the classroom, have been challenged by research focusing on bilingual education and critical perspectives on GELT (Gorter and Cenoz 2017; Ortega 2019; Rose and Galloway 2019). Translanguaging as a practical theory and practice (García and Li 2014; Li 2018; Li and Zhu 2019) reflects the current linguistic landscape of multilingualism and translingualism for emergent language contact. Global Englishes-oriented critical

186

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

pedagogy underscores the importance for ELT educators to understand how students make use their linguistic resources to negotiate and construct their identities and cultural practices in the communication process. Instead of penalizing students’ use of L1s in the classroom, critical pedagogy from the GELT framework should seek to understand why and how students facilitate communication through translanguaging. An understanding of GELT for stakeholders is therefore key to the implementation of critical pedagogy of GELT in ELT classroom. Recognizing students’ L1s as language resource and allowing translanguaging as a natural linguistic practice is a key step if a GE-oriented critical pedagogy is to be taken into consideration. Fourthly, teacher training and professional development are required in Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy. As teachers are the main stakeholders who pass along this concept in their practicum, they should be equipped with certain knowledge on how to conduct Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy (Matsuda 2017; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2015). It is important that teachers should challenge the entrenched native standard ideology to incorporate the concept of Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy in practice. Local practitioners should be encouraged to design the syllabi based on local contexts and find ways to incorporate new assessment models (although this still needs further investigation at the moment) into the teaching contexts (Jenkins and Leung 2019). Some specific pedagogical models based in local settings have been explored in various contexts (Baker 2015; Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; Fang and Ren 2018; Galloway and Rose 2018; Hino 2018; Sifakis, and Tsantila 772019; Sung 2015) and should be further investigated for the implementation of Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy. Finally, we believe that these Global Englishes approaches to ELT will better prepare English language learners and users for EMI. This will be through making them aware and giving them experience of English as multilingua franca (Jenkins 2015), alongside other languages, since this is the diverse linguistic environment they are most likely to find themselves in EMI programmes. Additionally, it will help to make English users aware of the different varieties and variable uses of English in EMI and the inappropriateness of a single idealized Anglophone standard. Furthermore, a Global Englishes approach also emphasizes the importance of intercultural communication skills and an acceptance of cultural diversity linked to linguistic diversity, again reflecting the environment of many EMI programmes.

6  CONCLUSION From the perspective of Global Englishes, this chapter has presented how linguistic and cultural diversity requires ELT to readdress both its policy-level and classroom practices. We have argued for the importance of adopting a critical perspective to challenge the English-only practice based on native-speakerism ideology, and instead to recognize linguistic and cultural resources of language learners from a multilingual and multicultural perspective from the Global Englishes paradigm to develop students’ intercultural/ global citizenship. In this chapter we have proposed that this is particularly important in preparing and providing support for students who are undertaking EMI courses. Due to the multicultural and multilingual nature of international HE, we suggest that a Global Englishes perspective and pedagogy is especially relevant. In terms of incorporating intercultural citizenship education in ELT, this can provide learners with meaningful intercultural experiences and groupings and an alternative model to the inappropriate

IMPLEMENTING CRITICAL PEDAGOGY OF GLOBAL ENGLISHES

 187

native English speaker and further prepare them for both the environment and aims of international HE and EMI programmes. Nonetheless, how ELT shall respond to the multilingual and multicultural reality to fit in the various needs and goals of learners of English is a question to be dealt with further. In sum, from a critical perspective, this chapter has proposed a Global Englishes-oriented pedagogy and argued the importance of implementing such critical pedagogy in ELT from the lens of EMI and intercultural/global citizenship. Echoing the proposal of GELT (Galloway and Rose 2015; Rose and Galloway 2019), we believe a Global Englishes-oriented critical pedagogy should challenge cultural essentialism and reductionism, instead cultivating students’ sense of intercultural/global citizenship, to challenge the native-speakerism ideology, to recognize students’ L1 as a linguistic resource and allow translanguaging practices in communication. It is hoped that future ELT policies and practices will address these issues discussed in this chapter and aim for a Global Englishes-oriented ELT to raise students’ linguistic and cultural awareness for a sense of intercultural citizenship.

REFERENCES Adamson, B. (2004), China’s English: A History of English in Chinese Education, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Airey, J., K. M. Lauridsen, A. Räsänen L. Salö, and V. Schwach (2017), ‘The Expansion of English-Medium Instruction in the Nordic Countries: Can Top-Down University Language Policies Encourage Bottom-Up Disciplinary Literacy Goals?’ Higher Education, 73 (4): 561–76. Aktas, F., K. Pitts J. C. Richards and I. Silova (2017), ‘Institutionalizing Global Citizenship: A Critical Analysis of Higher Education Programs and Curricula’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 21 (1): 65–80. Baker, W. (2012a), ‘From Cultural Awareness to Intercultural Awareness: Culture in ELT’, ELT Journal, 66 (1): 62–70. Baker, W. (2012b), ‘Global Cultures and Identities: Refocusing the Aims of ELT in Asia through Intercultural Awareness’, in T. Muller, S. Herder, J. Adamson and P. Shigeo Brown (eds), Innovating EFL Education in Asia, 23–34, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Baker, W. (2015), Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca, Berlin: De Gruyter. Baker, W. (2016), ‘English as an Academic Lingua Franca and Intercultural Awareness: Student Mobility in the Transcultural University’, Language and Intercultural Communication, 16 (3): 437–51. Baker, W. and J. Hüttner (2017), ‘English and More: A Multisite Study of Roles and Conceptualisations of Language in English Medium Multilingual Universities from Europe to Asia’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38 (6): 501–16. Baker, W. and J. Hüttner (2018), “We Are Not the Language Police”: Comparing Multilingual EMI Programmes in Europe and Asia’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29 (1): 78–94. Baker, W. and F. Fang (2019), From English Language Learners to Intercultural Citizens: Chinese Student Sojourners’ Development of Intercultural Citizenship in ELT and EMI Programmes, London: British Council. Bayyurt, Y. and S. Akcan, eds (2015), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, Berlin: De Gruyter.

188

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Blommaert, J. (2010), The Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002), World English: A Study of Its Development, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2008), From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural Citizenship: Essays and Reflections, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., I. Golubeva, H. Han and M. Wagner, eds (2017), From Principles to Practice in Education for Intercultural Citizenship, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999), Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clifford, V. and C. Montgomery (2014), ‘Challenging Conceptions of Western Higher Education and Promoting Graduates as Global Citizens’, Higher Education Quarterly, 68 (1): 28–45. Cogo, A. and M.-L. Pitzl (2016), ‘Pre-empting and Signalling Non-Understanding in ELF’, ELT Journal, 70 (3): 339–45. Dafouz, E. and U. Smit (2016), ‘Towards a Dynamic Conceptual Framework for EnglishMedium Education in Multilingual University Settings’, Applied Linguistics, 37 (3): 397–415. Dewey, M. (2012), ‘Towards a Post-normative Approach: Learning the Pedagogy of ELF’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1 (1): 141–70. Fang, F. (2020), Re-positioning Accent Attitude in the Global Englishes Paradigm: A Critical Phenomenological Case Study in the Chinese Context, Abingdon: Routledge. Fang, F. and W. Baker (2018), ‘A More Inclusive Mind Towards the World’: English Language Teaching and Study Abroad in China from Intercultural Citizenship and English as a Lingua Franca Perspectives’, Language Teaching Research, 22 (5): 608–24. Fang, F. and W. Ren (2018), ‘Developing Students’ Awareness of Global Englishes’, ELT Journal, 72 (4): 384–94. Fang, F. and H. P. Widodo, eds (2019), Critical Perspectives on Global Englishes in Asia, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gaudelli, W. (2016), Global Citizenship Education: Everyday Transcendence, Abingdon: Routledge. Galloway, G., J. Kriukow and T. Numajiri (2017), Internationalisation, Higher Education and the Growing Demand for English: An Investigation into the English Medium of Instruction (EMI), London: British Council. Galloway, N. (2017), Global Englishes and Change in English Language Teaching, Abingdon: Routledge. Galloway, N. and H. Rose (2015), Introducing Global Englishes, Abingdon: Routledge. Galloway, N., and H. Rose (2018), ‘Incorporating Global Englishes into the ELT Classroom’, ELT Journal, 72 (1): 3–14. García, O. (2019), ‘The Curvas of Translanguaging’, Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 5 (1): 86–93. García, O. and W. Li (2014), Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gorter, D. and J. Cenoz (2017), ‘Language Education Policy and Multilingual Assessment’, Language and Education, 31 (3): 231–48. Gray, J. (2012), ‘Neoliberalism, Celebrity and “Aspirational Content” in English Language Teaching Textbooks for the Global Market’, in D. Block, J. Gray and M. Holborow (eds), Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics, 86–113, Abingdon: Routledge.

IMPLEMENTING CRITICAL PEDAGOGY OF GLOBAL ENGLISHES

 189

Gupta, A. F. (2006), ‘Standard English in the World’, in R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni (eds), English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles, 95–109, London: Continuum. Hino, N. (2018), EIL Education for the Expanding Circle: A Japanese Model, Abingdon: Routledge. Holliday, A. (2005), The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holliday, A. (2006), ‘Native-speakerism’, ELT Journal, 60 (4): 385–7. Holliday, A. (2011), Intercultural Communication and Ideology, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Houghton, S. A. and D. J. Rivers, eds (2013), Native-Speakerism in Japan: Intergroup Dynamics in Foreign Language Education, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hüttner, J. (2018), ‘ELF and Content and Language Integrated Learning’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 481–93, Abingdon: Routledge. Hu, G. W. and J. Lei (2014), ‘English-Medium Instruction in Chinese Higher Education: A Case Study’, Higher Education, 67 (5): 551–67. 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 C. Leung (2019), ‘From Mythical ‘Standard’ to Standard Reality: The Need for Alternatives to Standardized English Language Tests’, Language Teaching, 52 (1): 86–110. Jenkins, J. and A. Mauranen, eds (2019), Linguistic Diversity on the EMI Campus, Abingdon: Routledge. Kachru, B. B. (1991), ‘Liberation Linguistics and the Quirk Concern’, English Today, 7 (1): 3–13. Kachru, B. B. (1992), ‘Introduction: The Other Side of English and the 1990s’, in B. B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 1–15, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kedzierski, M. (2016), ‘English as a Medium of Instruction in East Asia’s Higher Education Sector: A Critical Realist Cultural Political Economy Analysis of Underlying Logics’, Comparative Education, 52 (3): 375–91. Killick, D. (2013), ‘Global Citizenship, Sojourning Students and Campus Communities’, Teaching in Higher Education, 18 (7): 721–35. Kirkpatrick, A. (2011), ‘English as an Asian Lingua Franca and the Multilingual Model of ELT’, Language Teaching, 44 (2): 212–24. Kirkpatrick, A. (2014), ‘The Language(s) of HE: EMI and/or ELF and/or Multilingualism’, The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (1): 4–15. Kubota, R. (2019), ‘A Critical Examination of Common Beliefs About Language Teaching: From Research Insights to Professional Engagement’, in F. Fang and H. P. Widodo (eds), Critical Perspectives on Global Englishes in Asia, 10–26, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Li, W. (2018), ‘Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language’, Applied Linguistics, 39 (1): 9–30. Li, W. and H. Zhu (2019), ‘Tranßcripting: Playful Subversion with Chinese Characters’, International Journal of Multilingualism, 16 (2): 145–61. Llurda, E. (2018), ‘English Language Teachers and ELF’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 518–28, Abingdon: Routledge. Lopriore, L., M. Dewey, Y. Bayyurt, P. Vettorel, L. Cavalheiro, S. Siqueira and K. Kordia (2018), ‘ELF-Awareness in ELT: Bringing together Theory and Practice’, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7 (1): 155–209.

190

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Low, E. L. . and R. Ao (2018), ‘The Spread of English in ASEAN: Policies and Issues’, RELC Journal, 49 (2): 131–48. Mazak, C. M. and K. S. Carroll, eds (2016), Translanguaging in Higher Education: Beyond Monolingual Ideologies, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McKay, S. L. (2002), Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matsuda, A., ed. (2012), Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Matsuda, A., ed. (2017), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Murata, K., ed. (2019), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective, Abingdon: Routledge. Ortega, L. (2019), ‘SLA and the Study of Equitable Multilingualism’, The Modern Language Journal, 103 (S1): 23–38. Pennycook, A. (2017), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, Abingdon: Routledge. Platt, J. T., H. Weber and M. L. Ho (1984), The New Englishes, London, Melbourne: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Porto, M. (2018), ‘Does Education for Intercultural Citizenship Lead to Language Learning?’ Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32 (1): 16–33. Porto, M., S. A. Houghton and M. Byram (2018), ‘Intercultural Citizenship in the (Foreign) Language Classroom’, Language Teaching Research, 22 (5): 484–98. Quirk, R. (1985), ‘The English Language in a Global Context’, in R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, 1–6, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quirk, R. (1990), ‘Language Varieties and Standard Language’, English Today, 6 (1): 3–10. Ra, J. J. (2019), ‘Exploring the Spread of English Language Learning in South Korea and Reflections of the Diversifying Sociolinguistic Context for Future English Language Teaching Practices’, Asian Englishes, 21 (3): 305–19. Rose, H. and N. Galloway (2019), Global Englishes for Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 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 at Universities’, in A. Doiz, D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (eds), English-Medium Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges, 196–210, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sifakis, N. C. (2019), ‘ELF Awareness in English Language Teaching: Principles and Processes’, Applied Linguistics, 40 (2): 288–306. Sifakis, N. C. and N. Tsantila, eds (2019), English as a Lingua Franca for EFL Contexts, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sifakis, N. C. and Y. Bayyurt (2015), ‘Insights from ELF and WE in Teacher Training in Greece and Turkey’, World Englishes, 34 (3): 471–84. Sifakis, N., Lopriore, L., Dewey, M., Bayyurt, Y., Vettorel, P., Cavalheiro, L., Siqueira, D.S.P & Kordia, S. (2018). ELF-awareness in ELT: Bringing together theory and practice. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca (JELF), 7(1), 155–209. Sridhar, S. N. and K. K. Sridhar (2018), ‘Coda 2 A Bridge Half‐Built: Toward a Holistic Theory of Second Language Acquisition and World Englishes’, World Englishes, 37 (1): 127–39.

IMPLEMENTING CRITICAL PEDAGOGY OF GLOBAL ENGLISHES

 191

Sung, C. C. M. (2014), ‘Global, Local or Glocal?: Identities of L2 Learners in English as a Lingua Franca Communication’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27 (1): 43–57. Sung, C. C. M. (2015), ‘Exposing Learners to Global Englishes in ELT: Some Suggestions’, ELT Journal, 69 (2): 198–201. Tollefson, J. W. and A. B. M. Tsui (2004), Medium of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda? Whose Agenda?. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wang, Y. (2017), ‘Language Policy in Asian Contexts (Special Issue)’, European Journal of Language Policy, 9 (1): 1–5. Yazan, B. and N. Rudolph (eds) (2018), Criticality, Teacher Identity, and (In)Equity in English Language Teaching: Issues and Implications, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Chapter 12

Problematizing EMI Programs in Turkish Higher Education Voices from Stakeholders DİLEK İNAL, YASEMİN BAYYURT AND FEZA KERESTECİOĞLU

INTRODUCTION Today the unifying effect of globalization and the demands of a competitive market in higher education have led universities across the world to adopt policies of internationalization (Coleman 2006). Even though the processes operating under these policies change, there appears to be one common component: English-medium instruction (EMI). Positioned as a global lingua franca, English is predominantly assigned the role of the medium of instruction in designing and organizing the academic environment at local and global scales. Consequently, it has become the main foreign language that is used as a means of instruction at universities around the world. A study undertaken by Wächter and Maiworm (2014) indicated that 2,637 higher education institutions around the world provided a total of 8,089 programs taught entirely in English in 2014, which is a remarkable increase from 2,389 programs in 2007. This is a trend not specific to Europe only, as regional investigations show that an increasing number of universities in countries in Asia and Africa also implement EMI programs. It is interesting to observe, however, that “English as a medium of instruction” is understood and interpreted in a variety of ways across the world. These variations arise as a result of changing conditions in different settings, different educational systems and stakeholders with different interests. Therefore, it is difficult to offer a universal definition of the term, EMI. In a broad sense, EMI can be defined as the “use of the English language to teach academic subjects (other than English itself) in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English” (Macaro, Curle, Pun, An and Dearden 2017: 37). It is the aim of this chapter to problematize EMI in the context of Turkish higher education, approaching the phenomenon by this definition. Following the discussion of EMI from a global perspective, the chapter reviews the body of research conducted in Turkey, highlighting the major issues related to EMI practices in Turkish higher education as revealed by administrators, English teachers, content instructors and

PROBLEMATIZING EMI PROGRAMS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

 193

students. The final part of the chapter discusses how the status quo necessitates a World Englishes (WE) perspective.

EMI ON A GLOBAL SCALE The increasing use of English as the medium of instruction on an international scale (Dearden 2014) has duly warranted the academic investigation of the phenomenon. Drawing attention to the fast spread of EMI at European universities, Jenkins (2018) remarks that this has been most notably driven by the aim to support staff and student mobility. English serving as the common denominator for people who speak different languages and have different cultures apparently makes EMI an opportunity. However, there are varying motives in different settings. According to Bradford (2013), although EMI has become a significant issue closely linked to globalization in the European context, international awareness and communication skills surface as major motivation factors in some Northern European countries more than elsewhere. In his study on EMI in East Asian contexts, Baird (2013) found that most of the East Asian countries chose EMI without paying much attention to whether there were any international students or not, and in most cases without much linguistic diversity in their campuses. Macaro, Akıncıoğlu and Han (2020) focus on methodological motives and discuss the growth of EMI in relation to the integration of content and language in higher education (ICLHE) inspired by the content and language integrated learning (CLIL) in secondary education. Similarly focusing on methodology but allowing a comparative perspective, in their recent study Baker and Hüttner (2019) explored in a comparative perspective the ways policy-level decisions and contextual factors also influence the understanding of how content and language integration in EMI contexts was perceived by various stakeholders. Some of the findings of their study raised important issues such as the appropriate level of English proficiency needed for “non-native” English-speaking instructors and the contribution of “native” English-speaking instructors to the success of EMI contexts in multilingual and multicultural contexts. Particularly drawing attention to the finding that “instead of the expected similarities between the non-Anglophone EMI settings (Austria and Thailand) or the European settings (UK and Austria), many similarities emerged between the UK and Thailand with Austria most different” (p. 92), the researchers indicated the need to further investigate language proficiency constructs and revisit the definition of EMI in terms of the conceptualization of “English language proficiency” in diverse contexts. Studies conducted in different settings across the world feature a positive attitude towards EMI, drawing attention to numerous benefits. Lasagabaster and Sierra (2009)’s finding that EMI has a motivating effect on English language learning is recurring (Byun, Chu, Kim, Park, Kim and Jung 2011). Appeal to foreign students, access to resources in English, opportunities abroad for students and the importance of English for international communication are listed as the main advantages of EMI (Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2011; Macaro et al. 2017; Muthanna and Miao 2015). There are, on the other hand, various concerns regarding EMI. One of these is the political aspect of the spread of English that has been taken up with reservations by several scholars (e.g., Phillipson 1992, 2015; Pennycook 2004). It is argued that particularly through the Bologna Process, which aims to attract international students and enhance mobility among them in Europe, the European goal of multilingualism has been undermined. In due course, Englishizing the curriculum in higher education has a

194

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

negative effect and serves to advance the globalized market in higher education (Costa and Coleman 2012). The disadvantageous position of the local language as the academic means and the de-prioritization of multilingualism in the face of EMI at tertiary level has also been discussed (e.g., Coleman 2006; Jensen and Thøgersen 2011; Lasagabaster 2015; Macaro et al. 2017). The main problems that appear for students are the insufficiency of their English level, the negative effect this has on their desire to learn the content and the opportunity gaps. Disadvantages for academics center around the workload that comes with EMI and the lack of professional development and support opportunities made available for EMI academics (Macaro et al. 2017). In view of comprehensive studies conducted in the field of EMI, Bradford (2013) focused on the challenges of EMI as experienced by both students and academics and categorized them in three groups. These are linguistic, cultural and structural (organizational) difficulties. Linguistic difficulties are those experienced by both students and academics, and surface when they have low English proficiency. Existing literature reveals a significant number of studies focusing on proficiency-related difficulties experienced by students (Pessoa, Miller and Kaufer 2014; Troudi and Jendli 2011) and academics (Vu and Burns 2014), resulting in problems in tackling the course content, comprehension and difficulties in responding to questions. In terms of cultural difficulties, conflicts appear when academics and students from different cultural backgrounds come together in an academic context. These may surface in the form of disagreements regarding appropriate classroom behavior, as well as assessment and evaluation (Bradford 2013). On a more encompassing note, EMI, as a manifestation and tool for internationalization, has been criticized for its “adoption of curricula from native-English speaking contexts” and creating “a dependency culture” (Mok 2007). Pulcini and Campagna’s (2015) study conducted in Turin, Italy, for instance, revealed that local concerns as “the desire to keep and foster one’s own culture and identity” (84) in the face of global concerns of internationalization and competition are to be considered in order to strike a balance between the local and the global educational goals. Bradford’s (2013) last category of EMI-related difficulties refer to the organizational obstacles and administrative drawbacks. Working on the Chinese higher education system, Lei and Hu (2014) marked the incompatibilities between expected EMI policies and real classroom applications. Also marked by Kırkgöz (2009), the discrepancy that appears is the difference between the expected ideal language education policies and the micro-policies that apply. Findings of related studies show variety. A study conducted by Jensen and Thøgersen (2011), for instance, revealed that academics’ attitudes to EMI may change according to the different aspects of EMI. Academics adopt a negative attitude with regard to their mother tongue’s disadvantageous positioning as the language of science next to English, whereas they adopt a positive attitude when internationalization is the issue. This is a valid sign of how multilayered and complicated a concept EMI is (Jensen and Thøgersen 2011).

EMI IN TURKEY Although it holds no official status, English has a prominent role in Turkish education, manifesting itself as the primary foreign language generally at all levels of education, and as the medium of instruction particularly at secondary and tertiary levels. In an attempt to keep pace with the globalizing world, policy-makers place more emphasis on English

PROBLEMATIZING EMI PROGRAMS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

 195

in the larger educational setup and aim, in the long run, to educate a labor force which can respond to the demands of the global economy and, thereby, increase the competition potential of the country. Turkish higher education has been significantly shaped by the guidelines of the Bologna Process, positioning internationalization as a strategic driving goal, ushering in a significant number of EMI programs. The consequent allocation of English in the educational sphere has accordingly created appeal for international students. Higher education statistics suggest that Turkish universities with EMI programs have become learning centers for students from Europe, Asia and Africa. In fact, adoption of English as the language of instruction is hardly a new phenomenon for the Turkish context. A historical examination traces its appearance in the beginning of the nineteenth-century Ottoman Era. Propagated as an act of “Westernization”, at a time when the empire began to lose power against the West, education in a foreign tongue has been favored and upheld on educational, political, financial and social grounds. Military academies, medical schools and higher education institutes that offered political science education instructed primarily in French, which was then the language of the West for the Ottomans. The shift from French to English took place with the declaration of the Turkish Republic in 1923 but not overnight. English and French instruction coexisted in the educational organization of the newly founded republic but mostly at high school level and at schools that officially held a special status, such as Robert College—an American Board School instructing in English—and Le Lycée Imperial Ottoman instructing in both Turkish and French. Popularity of instruction in a foreign language continued in the following decades of the twentieth century. Particularly due to the American military and economic power following the Second World War and alliance with NATO (Demircan 1988), the forces of globalization and prospects of integration with the European Union, the importance attached to English grew exponentially. It even paved the way for the creation of a new high school type where only high scoring students were selected for enrollment and received general education in English following a preparatory year of only English. EMI did not remain limited to high school education and English-medium universities soon appeared. EMI was soon conceptualized as using English to teach and learn content in English. The first two EMI universities—Middle East Technical University, 1956, and Boğaziçi University, 1971 (which was the successor to Robert College, “the oldest continually running American school founded outside the United States”) — were both state-owned public universities and required high achievement in the centralized university exam. A third university—Bilkent University—was opened later (1984) but with a different status. It was a foundation-owned private university and the first of many to follow it. The spread of English in Turkey and the desire to attain the elitism and prestige that entailed English speakerism had created a market for higher education institutions which provided academic degrees in EMI contexts. Most private universities that followed, therefore, offered EMI programs to prospective students and when placed next to a public university which did not, this alone became a distinguishing factor and the prime reason of preference. Thus, the number of private universities rocketed after Bilkent University and reached 73 in 2019 next to 129 public universities. EMI in Turkish higher education has thus become an issue that is hard to ignore. It has received rejection as much as admiration. Scholars, teachers and laymen have voiced their opposing opinions on the matter, making the rift among EMI advocates and opponents more tangible. This debate between the two sides is referred to as “the medium-of-instruction pendulum” by Selvi (2014) and is noted to oscillate between

196

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

“national ideas and bilingual ideals, and consequently creates a tremendous influence on social and educational strata of Turkish society” (p. 133). Scholars involved in this debate and supporting EMI mostly base their argument on the understanding that English has an instructional effectiveness, cognitive advantages, impact power in keeping pace with scientific and technological developments and incentive effect towards internationalization (e.g., Alptekin 1998; Alptekin and Tatar 2011; Sayarı 2007). They further argue against those who claim that immersion in English hinders the development of the mother tongue (i.e., Turkish) contending that it actually has a positive effect on the development of the native tongue proficiency as well as intercultural awareness. Scholars opposing EMI, on the other hand, center their criticism on difficulty to understand concepts in a foreign tongue in academic content, negligence of the mother tongue and culture, and excessive cost of education (e.g., Arslantunalı 1998; Demircan 1995; Kocaman 1998; Köksal 1995), describing the phenomenon in negative terms ranging from a “mistake” to “danger” and “betrayal” (Selvi 2014). The issues and controversies related to EMI in the Turkish context have been studied by academics and researchers in an effort to investigate the phenomenon in all its aspects. Parallel to studies conducted in different parts of the world, EMI research in Turkey has also questioned the impact EMI programs have on students’ English language skills and the efficiency of these programs in terms of learning content courses (e.g., Kırkgöz 2005, 2009; Sert 2008). They also aimed to investigate the resources that facilitate EMI programs (e.g., British Council 2015; Kırkgöz 2005, 2009). A study done by Kırkgöz (2005) in a state university revealed the motivating aspects of EMI programs and the difficulties experienced by a participating group of more than 200 students enrolled in various EMI programs. Findings showed that the participants preferred EMI programs mostly based on instrumental motivation and that receiving an advanced education, getting a high-income job and being able to discuss issues in their fields were their primary goals. In accordance with the studies in other settings, Turkish studies focusing on EMI also brought to the foreground perceptions of both academics and students. Review of research conducted with academic staff teaching in an English-medium context highlights the pedagogical difficulty arising from students’ low English proficiency (e.g., Kılıçkaya 2006). Studies where students exposed to EMI reported on their experiences, perceptions and attitudes reveal that learning content through EMI is difficult (e.g., Arkın 2013, 2010; Gülle, Özata and Bayyurt 2015; Kırkgöz 2014) and that lecturers’ inefficient delivery in English causes problems (e.g., Ekoç 2020). Students reported on experiencing problems such as inability to understand general concepts and undergoing a shallow learning experience (e.g., Kırkgöz 2005) and that speaking was their weakest skill in English (e.g., Karakaş 2016). There is, however, also evidence that students have positive attitudes towards EMI as they reportedly find themselves improving their language skills in EMI settings (e.g., Atik 2010). Students also find EMI useful in getting ready for work life where English plays a significant role on a global scale (e.g., Ekoç 2020). Research reveals that academics also found EMI challenging—mostly in terms of potential linguistic difficulties. As revealed by Kılıçkaya (2006), they believed that the students understood the content better through Turkish and that they delivered it both faster and in more detail in Turkish, even though there is more course material in English and finding the Turkish equivalents of some of the terminology was problematic. With regard to the English that they use, a study conducted by Karakaş (2016) revealed that academics working in three established EMI universities expressed a favorable opinion of

PROBLEMATIZING EMI PROGRAMS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

 197

their own use of English with some feeling that it was influenced by their mother tongue. In terms of the delivery of the courses, on the other hand, Arkın and Osam’s study (2015), which compared courses delivered in both Turkish and English in an EMI university, showed that delivery in English was slower with frequent repetitions, which, according to the researchers, allows less time for in-class discussions and questions. Similarly focusing on classroom dynamics in EMI courses, Duran and Sert (2019) discussed how in the academic-student exchange in an EMI context the instructor prioritized content through verbal and non-verbal reactions and how they encouraged the students to use more complicated structures. Some studies also focus on the preparatory year of English language learning programs that are part of English-medium university settings. Students who are enrolled in an English-medium university will have to go through a program referred to as Preparatory Year Program (PYP) unless they succeed in the exemption exam. Research conducted with students and instructors in these programs indicate inadequacies in equipping students with a basic framework and necessary skills before starting EMI programs (e.g., Kırkgöz 2009) and the need for more practice on academic reading and writing (e.g., Akyel and Özek 2010).

EMI IN TURKISH UNIVERSITIES: A STUDY ON DEMANDS, AFFORDANCES AND CHALLENGES It is undeniable that EMI is becoming increasingly more popular in both state- and privateowned higher education institutions in Turkey, compelling a thorough investigation with the collaboration of all parties involved (e.g., decision-makers, teachers and students). Thus, a significant step was taken with the organization of a series of workshops to bring together EMI scholars, researchers, academics, administrators, policy-makers, students and graduates to exchange their perspectives about the problems with EMI in the Turkish higher education contexts (Kerestecioğlu and Bayyurt 2018). The aim was to enable these parties to hear each other’s voices and to find joint solutions to solve the problems. Therefore, dedicated meetings, four symposia and integrated workshops (between June 2018 and April 2019) were organized to establish a platform for the scrutiny of EMIrelated issues. As an unprecedented attempt that brought all the stakeholders together to address EMI in its entirety in the local context, these regional symposia provided all stakeholders significant findings to better frame, structure and operationalize this phenomenon. In order to grasp the demands, affordances and challenges EMI holds in the Turkish context, we believe a discussion of these findings with reference to the questions posed at the stakeholders is imperative. As two of the authors were the organizers of the event, this chapter focuses on the first meeting of this series of symposia which took place at Kadir Has University in Istanbul. The event was jointly organized by Kadir Has University and Boğaziçi University in which the medium of instruction was English and took place on June 19, 2018. The event started with two plenaries—one on EMI in the World and the other on EMI in Turkey, followed by two colloquia—one focusing on “Why EMI in the Turkish context?” and the other focusing on quality of medium of instruction in EMI contexts. Both the plenary talks and the colloquia functioned as the basis of the discussions that took place in the afternoon during the workshops.1 Although the total number of participants was 126, only 90 people participated in the workshops. During the workshops, the participants were divided into six subgroups and

198

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

a workshop leader—that is, event organizers, plenary speakers and panel participants— were assigned as workshop leaders guiding the participants and leading the discussion during the workshop—and a reporter—a volunteer from the participants taking notes of answers given to the questions during the workshop, were assigned to each group. The workshop leaders were asked to direct the whole process by dividing the chores between participants and asking them to work on each question at a time and giving feedback to the whole group at regular intervals. The consent of the participants was taken to use their responses to the questions anonymously for research purposes. Based on the issues raised in the first part of the event, the following questions were formulated for workshop discussions:

1. What are the major pros and cons of EMI at university level, in order of their significance?



2. What are the major requirements for being an EMI university?



3. How should the English Preparatory Schools (EPSs) of the EMI universities be coordinated with the departments offering EMI programs?



4. How is EMI perceived on campus and in what way does it affect the communication among students?



5. Should the EMI programs adopt a mission related to improving English language skills besides teaching the programme content? If yes, what should it be?



6. What kind of changes in teaching strategies and pedagogical approaches are necessary in an EMI course?

The first part of the workshop involved the participants to work/give feedback on these questions in smaller groups (ninety minutes), and the second part of the workshop brought all these smaller groups together to exchange views on the reports of the individual work groups (sixty minutes).

The analysis of the data In this section, first a summary of responses given to questions as gathered from all the workshop groups is presented. This is then followed by a critical analysis and discussion of the responses in relation to the underlying themes of workshop questions and emerging themes from the responses (see Table 12.1). Overall, the results of the analysis of the responses to the questions reveal that there should be a continuous collaboration between preparatory units and departments to achieve better outcomes—academic (e.g., teaching and learning outcomes) and professional (e.g., job opportunities)—of EMI universities. In the next section we discuss the responses given to each question. EMI in higher education The first question aimed to identify the major advantages and disadvantages of EMI at tertiary level as perceived by different participants. Responses revealed that all stakeholders agreed upon the driving impact of three advantages provided by EMI, namely (1) better career and job opportunities for its graduates, (2) ease in accessing professional and scientific professional resources, and (3) greater ability to follow professional advancements and international communication, and hence, acquisition of capacity of adaptability worldwide (e.g., internationalization). As for the disadvantages,

PROBLEMATIZING EMI PROGRAMS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

 199

TABLE 12.1  Underlying themes of the workshop questions and the responses Underlying themes of the questions

Themes emerging from the responses

EMI in higher education

Pros of EMI • Better career and job opportunities • Ease in accessing resources • Internationalization Cons of EMI • Loss of motivation and self-confidence • Felt linguistic insecurity both by instructors and by students • Hindering content learning and in-class discussions

Requirements of being an EMI university

• Academic staff having relevant linguistic and academic knowledge • Having sound language policies • Access opportunities to international academic resources • Having the necessary technological infrastructure • Adoption of quality assurance approaches

Coordination of EPSs and EMI departments

• Building an academic bond between language and content teachers • Building a social bond among students

Purpose of EMI—that is, content learning and/or language learning

• Unwillingness and lack of linguistic confidence to directly help students’ language learning • Offering only indirect support to language learning

Implementation of EMI—teaching strategies and approaches in content courses

• Utilizing visual materials for low-proficient learners • Increasing the use of interactive methods • Providing students with the keywords and terminology prior to courses and with summaries after courses

Impact of EMI on students and instructors—on campus

• Construction of an international identity • Creation of a multilingual environment • Increasing use of code-switching

a similar consensus was expressed concerning the loss of motivation and self-confidence of students who found it difficult to relate to and follow EMI courses (1). The two other disadvantages were both students’ and instructors’ low proficiency in English which indicated problems with participation in in-class discussions. In this section, we are excluding universities like Boğaziçi University, which has been an EMI university since its foundation in 1863—that is, long before it has become a Turkish State University in 1971—and universities like Middle East Technical University (1956) and Bilkent University (1984), which have been established as EMI universities by law in the beginning (Selvi 2014). Since the differences and similarities between these

200

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

two major types of EMI universities is beyond the scope of this chapter, we focus only on emerging EMI universities showing similar characteristics to other EMI universities around the globe. The discussion around the first question was centered around the linguistic proficiency of both instructors and students. We did not find it surprising since instructors’/students’ low proficiency of English presenting a major impediment in EMI was commonplace in this line of research. When we grouped the responses, we observed that for instructors, linguistic proficiency referred to general proficiency or discipline-specific proficiency in English. In order to be recruited in an EMI university, a content instructor is required to achieve a minimum score on a centralized English exam, which hardly guarantees desirable delivery of course content in English. Similarly, students who enroll in EMI programs need to score high in the English part of the university entrance exam, which is based on grammar, vocabulary and reading comprehension. It is often observed that even the high achievers on this exam fail in academic skills in English, particularly the “speaking” skill. Capitalizing on the necessity to deal with linguistic inadequacy and the resulting insecurity on both sides, Kırkgöz (2009) moves the discussion of the linguistic requirements of EMI from language skills development towards shaping the foundations of an English academic discourse community. Reiterating Swales’ (1990) definition of a discourse community, Kırkgöz (2009) argues that it is not the acquisition of language skills only but a discourse community driven philosophy that is needed for linguistic preparation. She states that each EMI program is an academic discourse community which has chosen English as the medium of instruction and through which disciplinary knowledge is conveyed. In such an academic discourse community, “lecturers” as the “expert” members of the community, “have responsibility for transmitting professional knowledge to students” (p. 83), who will need to understand discipline-specific conventions and communicate with experts. Inadequate proficiency of English in EMI programs, therefore, necessitates a different perspective on language pedagogy, one that “must make the transition from English language learners to subject-specific English users” (p. 92). This is significant in the sense that it affects both the requirements that the teachers must meet and the organization of the preparatory programs that will equip students for their departmental work. Therefore, as indicated by the participating teachers and instructors, stronger bonds between English preparatory units and the departments should be established to raise content instructors’ and students’ awareness towards the fact that they belong to an academic community whose common language is English in local and global contexts. This requires students to find ways to improve their linguistic proficiency in English beyond EPSs. When students’ level of proficiency is at a desired level, it eases the instructors’ use of English in the classrooms unless they themselves need to improve their levels of linguistic proficiency. We believe higher education institutions should take into consideration these issues before establishing EMI programs and admitting students to these programs. What makes matters complicated is that fact that while students’ levels of proficiency can be remedied, it may be difficult for institutions to question instructors’ levels of proficiency and ask them to improve their English after they start teaching in EMI contexts. EMI universities have particular standards whereby they select the instructors who will be teaching in English. Unlike those in Macaro et al.’s study (2020), instructors may not accept going through training for their low levels of proficiency in English. After all, those instructors who find positions to work in EMI universities gain their higher academic degrees in universities abroad, and they may be offended when asked to improve their English.

PROBLEMATIZING EMI PROGRAMS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

 201

Requirements for an EMI university All the participants expressed that the sine-qua-non of EMI in higher education is academic staff that are competent—not only in teaching the course content but also doing it in English. It is vital to make a distinction between “speaking English during the lecture” and being academically competent in a subject and pedagogically adept to deliver its content in English. It is critical for institutions to have sound language policies that are both internalized and proceduralized in every aspect. Besides, access opportunities of an EMI university to international academic resources and allocation made towards the development of technological infrastructure are also among the most required features. It is important to note that adoption of quality assurance approaches in education is also mentioned as one of the requirements for EMI in higher education. The discussions also revealed that EMI in Turkey was endorsed by the government but without a specific policy and it was mainly the universities’ own decision to implement it. Therefore, EMI practices were diverse and did not always yield success (see, e.g., Dearden 2014). This variety in the implementation of EMI by universities (see Gülle et al. 2015) led to misinterpretations of the 30 percent, 70 percent and/or 100 percent English-medium programs in universities. The common belief about these programs was that lower levels of proficiency would be acceptable if the program was not 100 percent English medium. An institutional policy of varying degrees of EMI is problematic in every aspect. Coordination of EPSs and EMI departments The necessity to establish academic coordination between the English Preparatory Schools and departments offering EMI programs was an all-accepted fact among the participants but with an additional aspect. Participating stakeholders voiced their belief that there needed to be a social bond between the two units as well. It was noted that prep schools were not isolated “English-speaking islands” but, instead, expected to share the same campus with EMI departments. In some EMI universities, the prep school students were reported to have no contact with the department that they would move on to upon completion of their prep year of English. Some of the participants coming from such universities reported that this caused a delay in developing a sense of belonging in both the academic and the social context. Therefore, as some of the teachers in the prep school and content instructors indicated, there was a critical need for prep school students to academically and socially invest in their academic selves by positioning themselves closer to their departments. To this end, participants suggested prep school students be made part of their departmental activities and events. Academics could also give seminars on particular subjects of the field to which prep school students could also attend, or they could actually teach in the prep school. Although this might seem practical and applicable, it sounds like a one-size-fits-all approach to higher education at EMI level. This discussion further supported the findings of a study based on collaboration between EMI instructors and English preparatory school teachers in which Dearden and Akıncıoğlu (2016) indicated that in the collaborative planning study “the PYP (Preparatory Year English language Programme) and EMI teachers gained an understanding of each other’s work: EMI teachers gained an awareness of the linguistic challenges to be faced in an EMI lecture and PYP teachers gained valuable knowledge of the subject content” (p. 12). Hence, any collaboration between prep teachers and content instructors would have a positive impact on students’ understanding and learning of the content of the EMI courses as supported by the workshop results.

202

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Purpose of EMI: Content learning and language learning The answer to this question by the vast majority of participants was negative. Instructors did not only refuse, but also felt unqualified for such a mission. Nevertheless, the general opinion was that the faculty members teaching EMI courses may only help or direct students in English-medium learning, by enriching the course material suitably, for instance. They may also create in-class or out-of-class opportunities for the students to practice and develop their English skills. The responses to this question were not totally in line with the perceived inherent benefit of EMI increasing English proficiency of students. Although this topic needs further investigation and elaboration, the students in EMI contexts seem to gain an understanding of the subject-specific knowledge leading to mastering of the language skills within the discourse community they belong in the university context (Swales 1998). Stakeholders did not think that content knowledge delivered through extensive exposure to the target language had to allocate any means of improving students’ English language skills. More research is needed to find out whether or not students enroll in EMI programs to improve their English and what the extent of impact of EMI on their linguistic proficiency is. Lei and Hu’s study (2014) focusing on these issues with Chinese undergraduates revealed that EMI did not necessarily improve the students’ language skills and that their prior proficiency had a pivotal effect, thereby questioning the expected effectiveness of EMI to enhance English language skills. Implementation of EMI: Teaching strategies and approaches in content courses The participants’ responses to this question covered a variety of components, ranging from useful methodology to specific techniques for the classroom. Particular emphasis was placed on the importance of utilizing visual materials in order to help students with limited language competency. Methods that foreground interaction in the learning process were suggested as much as innovative ones, such as flipped classrooms and blended learning. These were thought to enhance English-medium learning and create opportunities for students to practice their English skills. A significant number of participants also declared that they benefited from providing students with keywords and terminology before the lectures in their EMI courses and summarizing the content of their lectures frequently. Interestingly, although the question above is phrased neutrally, most of the participants’ answers highlighted remedies for students’ low proficiency of English and other inadequacies that may arise in an EMI classroom. Ways of exploiting the advantages of EMI were hardly mentioned. This resonated with Macaro et al.’s study (2020) that asserted the significance of teacher competencies as an important factor influencing the language used in the classrooms rather than paying attention to other merits of EMI. It is our opinion that teaching an academic subject through English does require a pedagogical approach and teaching strategies, but it should not be geared towards teaching or improving the language. It is not the lecturers’ job to teach English to their undergraduate students or improve their students’ general English language proficiency. Moreover, it is important to note that it is domain-specific proficiency. Any professional development opportunity to be offered to EMI lecturers should enable them to gain the necessary delivery skills such as making frequent and various comprehension checks during the lesson, asking students a variety of questions, clarifying points where complicated topics are covered by rewording what they have already said.

PROBLEMATIZING EMI PROGRAMS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

 203

Impact of EMI on students and instructors: On campus One is likely to expect that EMI will boost the number of exchange and international students, as previously stated. This, in turn, is the first step in the creation of a multilingual environment. In a university setting, the languages in official communication may be limited to the local language (Turkish) and English; however, non-official communication in this multilingual environment may transcend these languages depending on the international student population. The frequency of translanguaging also increases considerably in daily conversations. Use of Turkish and English in combination appears in signs, announcements on bulletin boards and written communique, paving the way for students (both domestic and international, alike) to experience a bilingual context. These multimodal and multilingual signs enable students to be exposed to more English, which is very important in instructed second language learning settings like Turkey. In their study of the linguistic landscape of an EMI university in Turkey, Karakaş and Bayyurt (2019) found that there was a dominance of Turkish and English signs on the university campus. Arguing that for a university to provide an international environment the languages of the diverse student population should be equally represented, the researchers drew attention to the fact that Turkish and English were insufficient to provide a truly international linguistic landscape. Without developing a sociolinguistic understanding of the university context where all stakeholders have their contributions, it may be difficult to understand why there are problems in the implementation of EMI in higher education programs.

CONCLUSION Discussions driven by the aforementioned questions revealed a number of issues that required reconsideration. First and foremost, all the stakeholders agreed about the potential benefits of EMI: better career opportunities in a globalized world for the students and a prestigious asset for the universities through internationalized learning environments. There is, however, the issue of quality management. Programs that make use of English as the language of instruction need to be grounded on right and justifiable policies and geared towards quality education. It is crucial to acknowledge that exposure to foreign language education prior to enrollment in an EMI program is also a defining factor of success. Through internationalization, English has consolidated its role as the lingua franca of higher education. English-speaking countries have naturally become educational hubs for students all over the world and dominated the internationalization market of higher education (McCambridge and Saarinen 2015). The growing number of EMI programs offered by universities in non-native settings indicates, in a way, an attempt to find a place in the increasingly international student market, challenging the native-speaker ideology in the English enterprise. Turkey is such a setting where the policies and initiatives formed towards internationalization of higher education have almost promoted EMI to the position of de facto standard. State as well as private universities offer EMI programs and market themselves on it. What seems to be ignored in due course is the nature of the English language that is used as the instructive tool and the features of its speakers it is used among. The diverse international student population enrolled in Turkish EMI universities or programs are mostly non-native speakers of English, not necessarily speaking a native variety of the language. They are most likely bi/multilinguals who have learnt English as an additional language and now use it for academic purposes. The EMI

204

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

courses, then, are settings where the English used may contain non-standard features, reflecting the linguistic repertoire of the speakers. It is, in fact, English as a lingua franca (ELF)—which is hardly (if not little) known to the policy-makers or content instructors. Acknowledgment of WE as a concept and different varieties of English as a reality will undoubtedly influence the way “proficiency” in and “successful interaction” via English are defined by instructors, university administrators and policy-makers and perceived by students. As marked by Jenkins (2014), emergence of new varieties of English and the use of ELF by multilinguals need to be taken into account and reflected in the language policies of universities claiming to be “international”. According to Galloway, Kriukow and Numajiri (2017), the global EMI movement marks a new era for English language use in the academic domain and raises questions about standard academic norms, particularly since students in often traditionally monolingual classrooms, now use ELF with their international peers and lecturers. Where the students’ and the instructors’ use of English are reportedly problematic, such an acknowledgment stands to reason. Moreover, it is important to note that language learning is an ongoing process and there is no exception for students in EMI programs. Learning content and learning English may not be simultaneous; nevertheless, students will need to continue with their English language studies in their departments. These studies, and the previous preparatory English studies will benefit from WE and ELF awareness. Where EMI means “English only”, students coming in from different English-related backgrounds will need to learn the strategies to accommodate different Englishes. A preparatory program that notices this need and works to that end is likely to better equip students for their future studies in English. We, therefore, believe that research on EMI should now move beyond the driving forces, attitudes, benefits and challenges, and problematize first the “E” and then the “I” in all their capacity and interaction. The realities of WE, English as a global lingua franca and their use in EMI contexts will undoubtedly create new avenues of discussion in the field.

NOTE 1. See Kerestecioğlu and Bayyurt (2018) for a detailed description and explanation of the event.

REFERENCES Akyel, A. S. and Y. Özek (2010), ‘A Language Needs Analysis Research at an English Medium University in Turkey’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2): 969–75. Alptekin, C. (1998), ‘İkinci dil, anadil yeteneğini arttırır [Second Language Increases the Competence in Mother-Tongue]’, in A. Kilimci (ed.), Anadilinde Çocuk Olmak: Yabancı Dilde Eğitim [To Be a Child in Mother-Tongue: Education in Foreign Language], 39–41, Istanbul: Papirüs. Alptekin, C. and S. Tatar (2011), ‘Research on Foreign Language Teaching and Learning in Turkey (2005–2009)’, Language Teaching, 44 (3): 328–53. Arkın, E. (2013), English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education: A Case Study in a Turkish University Context, Unpublished PhD Thesis, Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus.

PROBLEMATIZING EMI PROGRAMS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

 205

Arkın, E. and N. Osam (2015), ‘English-Medium Higher Education. A Case Study in a Turkish University Context’, in S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds), English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education, 177–200, Berlin: De Gruyter. Arslantunalı, M. (1998), ‘Education in yabancı dil: There Are çok Problems [Education in English: There Are Many Problems]’, in A. Kilimci (ed.), Anadilinde Çocuk Olmak: Yabancı Dilde Eğitim [To Be a Child in Mother-Tongue: Education in Foreign Language], 74–6, Istanbul: Papirüs. Atik, E. (2010), Perceptions of Students Towards English Medium Instruction at Tertiary Level: The Case of a Turkish Private University, Unpublished MA thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Baird, R. (2013), Investigating Perceptions of Master's Students on English-as-a-Medium-ofInstruction Programmes in East Asia, Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Baker, W. and J. Hüttner (2019), ‘We Are Not the Language Police: Comparing Multilingual EMI Programmes in Europe and Asia’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29 (1): 78–94. Bradford, A. (2013), ‘English-Medium Degree Programs in Japanese Universities: Learning from the European Experience’, Asian Education and Development Studies, 2 (3): 225–40. British Council (2015), Türkiye’de Yükseköğretim Kurumlarındaki İngilizce Eğitimi (English Language Education in Higher Education Institutions in Turkey), Ankara: TEPAV. Byun, K., H. Chu, M. Kim, I. Park, S. Kim and J. Jung (2011), ‘English-Medium Teaching in Korean Higher Education: Policy Debates and Reality’, Higher Education, 62 (4): 431–49. Coleman, J. A. (2006), ‘English-Medium Teaching in European Higher Education’, Language Teaching, 39: 1–14. Costa, F. and J. A. Coleman (2012), ‘A Survey of English-Medium Instruction in Italian Higher Education’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16 (1): 3–19. Dearden, J. (2014), English as a Medium of Instruction — A Growing Global Phenomenon, London: British Council. Dearden, J. and M. Akıncıoğlu (2016), EMI in Turkish Universities: Collaborative Planning and Student Voices, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Demircan, Ö. (1988), Türkiye'de Yabancı Dil [Foreign Language in Turkey] (Vol. 86), İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi. Demircan, Ö. (1995), ‘Yabancı öğretim diliyle nereye? [Where to Go by Teaching through Foreign Language?]’, Öğretmen Dünyası, 16 (182): 19. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. Sierra (2011), ‘Internationalisation, Multilingualism and English‐Medium Instruction’, World Englishes, 30 (3): 345–59. Duran, D. and O. Sert (2019). ‘Preference Organization in English as a Medium of Instruction Classrooms in a Turkish Higher Education Setting’, Linguistics and Education, 49: 72–85. Ekoç, A. (2020), ‘English Medium Instruction (EMI) from the Perspectives of Students at a Technical University in Turkey’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44 (2): 231–243. Galloway, N., J. Kriukow and T. Numajiri (2017), ‘Internationalisation, Higher Education and the Growing Demand for English: An Investigation into the English Medium of Instruction (EMI) Movement in China and Japan’, British Council ELT Research Papers, 17 (2): 4–39. Gülle, T., H. Özata and Y. Bayyurt (2015), ‘A Case Study on Attitudes and Perceptions Towards English-Medium Instruction and Internationalisation of Higher Education’, Paper presented at 21st IAWE Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, 8–10 October.

206

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Jenkins, J. (2014), English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic English Language Policy, London: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2018), ‘English Medium Instruction in Higher Education: The Role of ELF’, in A. Gao, C. Davison and C. Leung (eds), Second Handbook of English Language Teaching, 1–18, Cham: Springer. Jensen, C. and J. Thøgersen (2011), ‘Danish University Lecturers’ Attitudes Towards English as the Medium of Instruction’, Ibérica, 22: 13–33. Karakaş, A. (2016), Turkish Lecturers’ and Students’ Perceptions of English in English-Medium Instruction Universities, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Karakaş, A. and Y. Bayyurt (2019), ‘The Scope of Linguistic Diversity in the Language Policies, Practices, and Linguistic Landscape of a Turkish EMI University’, in J. Jenkins and A. Mauranen (eds), Linguistic Diversity on the International Campus, 96–122, London: Routledge. Kerestecioğlu, F. and Y. Bayyurt (2018), English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Turkey: A Wholistic Approach (Üniversitelerde İngilizce'nin Eğitim Dili Olarak Kullanımı: Bütüncül Bir Yaklaşım). Online EMI Seminar Report, https​:/​/ww​​w​.res​​earch​​gate.​​net​/p​​ublic​​ ation​​/3275​​62164​​_Univ​​ersit​​eler​d​​e​_Ing​​ilizc​e'nin​_Egit​im_Di​li_Ol​arak_​Kulla​nimi_​Butun​cul_B​ ir_Ya​klasi​m. Kılıçkaya, F. (2006), ‘Instructors’ Attitudes Towards English-Medium Instruction in Turkey’, Humanising Language Teaching, 8 (6): 1–16. Kırkgöz, Y. (2005), ‘Motivation and Student Perception of Studying in an English-Medium University’, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 1 (1): 101–23. Kırkgöz, Y. (2009), ‘Students’ and Lecturers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Foreign Language Instruction in an English-Medium University in Turkey’, Teaching in Higher Education, 14 (1): 81–93. Kırkgöz, Y. (2014), ‘Students’ Perceptions of English Language Versus Turkish Language Used as the Medium of Instruction in Higher Education in Turkey’, Turkish Studies, 9 (12): 443–59. Kocaman, A. (1998), ‘Çözüm, nitelikli dil öğretimi [The Solution, High Quality Language Teaching]’, in A. Kilimci (ed.), Anadilinde çocuk olmak: Yabancı dilde eğitim [To Be a Child in Mother-Tongue: Education in Foreign Language], 53–55, Istanbul: Papirüs. Köksal, A. (1995), ‘Yabancı dilde öğretim konusunda öğretmenler ne diyor: Öğrenci zorlanıyor [What Are the Teachers Saying about Education though Foreign Languages: Students Are Having Difficulties]’, Öğretmen Dünyası, 16 (182): 24–5. Lasagabaster, D. (2015), ‘Multilingual Language Policy: Is It Becoming a Misnomer at University Level’, in S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds), English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education, 115–34, Berlin: De Gruyter. Lasagabaster, D. and J. M. Sierra (2009), ‘Language Attitudes in CLIL and Traditional EFL Classes’, International CLIL Research Journal, 1 (2): 4–17. Lei, J. and G. Hu (2014), ‘Is English-Medium Instruction Effective in Improving Chinese Undergraduate Students and English Competence?’ International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52 (2): 99–126. Macaro, E., M. Akıncıoğlu and S. Han (2020), ‘English Medium Instruction in Higher Education: Teacher Perspectives on Professional Development and Certification’, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30 (1): 144–157. Macaro, E., S. Curle, J. Pun, J. An and J. Dearden (2017), ‘A Systematic Review of English Medium Instruction in Higher Education’, Language Teaching, 51 (1): 36–76.

PROBLEMATIZING EMI PROGRAMS IN TURKISH HIGHER EDUCATION

 207

McCambridge, L. and T. Saarinen (2015), ‘I Know That the Natives Must Suffer Every Now and Then: Native/Non-native Indexing Language Ideologies in Finnish Higher Education’, in S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds), English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education, 65–87, Berlin: De Gruyter. Mok, K. H. (2007), ‘Questing for Internationalization of Universities in Asia: Critical Reflections’, Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (3–4): 433–54. Muthanna, A. and P. Miao (2015), ‘Chinese Students’ Attitudes Towards the Use of EnglishMedium Instruction into the Curriculum Courses: A Case Study of a National Key University in BEIJING’, Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3 (5): 59–69. Pennycook, A. (2004), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Routledge. Pessoa, S., R. T. Miller and D. Kaufer (2014), ‘Students’ Challenges and Development in the Transition to Academic Writing at an English-Medium University in Qatar’, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52 (2): 127–56. Phillipson, R. H. L. (1992), Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, R. (2015), ‘English as Threat or Opportunity in European Higher Education’, in S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds), English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education: English in Europe, Volume 3, 19–42, Berlin: De Gruyter. Pulcini, V. and S. Campagna (2015), ‘Internationalisation and the EMI Controversy in Italian Higher Education’, in S. Dimova, A. K. Hultgren and C. Jensen (eds), English-Medium Instruction in European Higher Education, 65–87, Berlin: De Gruyter. Sayarı, I. M. (2007), Implications of Foreign Language Learning in Terms of Turkey’s Cultural Integration into the EU: A Survey Study on EFL Students in Turkey, Unpublished PhD thesis, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Selvi, A. F. (2014), ‘The Medium-of-Instruction Debate in Turkey: Oscillating between National Ideas and Bilingual Ideals’, Current Issues in Language Planning, 15 (2): 133–52. Sert, N. (2008), ‘The Language of Instruction Dilemma in the Turkish Context’, System, 36: 156–71. Swales, J. (1990), Genre Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (1998), Other Floors, Other Voices: A Textography of a Small University Building, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Troudi, S. and A. Jendli (2011), Emirati Students’ Experiences of English as a Medium of Instruction, Bern: Peter Lang. Vu, N. T. and A. Burns (2014), ‘English as a Medium of Instruction: Challenges for Vietnamese Tertiary Lecturers’, The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11 (3): 1–31. Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm (2014), English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The State of Play in 2014, Bonn: Lemmens Medien GmbH.

Chapter 13

A Critical View of Globalization within the Expanded Role of EMI in Japan Case Study of an Actual Implementation JAMES F. D’ANGELO

1  INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the author’s evolving experience over the past fifteen years in implementing content-based EMI classes in Japanese higher education, in the area of applied linguistics, business management, and the humanities/liberal arts. These classes from their inception have been theoretically informed by the inherently critical pluralistic paradigms of World Englishes (WE) and English as a lingua franca (ELF), within the College of World Englishes (CWE) at Chukyo University. The chapter will go on to outline a small new all-EMI major: ‘Global Liberal Studies’ (GLS), opening in April 2020 as part of the new School of Global Studies, at Chukyo University. The GLS takes a critical yet realistic stance in its focus on various disciplines as viewed through the lens of globalization, employing insights from the aforementioned pluralistic paradigms to inform the approach to pedagogy and higher education for an international group of students. The chapter highlights the ongoing debates, challenges, contradictions and opportunities which globally minded educational institutions face in the twenty-first century. The new School of Global Studies builds on the foundation which was provided by the CWE, which began at Chukyo University in 2002—much to the delight of Braj Kachru and Larry Smith—by Dean Sanzo Sakai: the first undergraduate college of WE in the world.1 The early years and general program of the DWE are well documented (D’Angelo 2012, 2018, 2019; Sakai and D’Angelo 2005; Yoshikawa 2005) so I will not go into great detail here about the overall curriculum. I would, however, like the reader to note that this was one of the first undergraduate programs in Japan to take a critical view of English, in opposition to the dominant, entrenched native-speakerist orientation which the majority of programs in Japan followed (Honna and Takeshita 1998), and still in large

A CRITICAL VIEW OF GLOBALIZATION

 209

part follow today. The chapter will provide a balanced critique of these two programs, of which the author has the most direct knowledge.

2  BACKGROUND ON EMI IN JAPAN English-medium instruction (EMI) in Japan has been growing slowly but steadily over the past twenty years, and an increasing number of studies are available on the phenomenon (Bjorkman 2013; Bradford and Brown 2017; Breeze and Guinda 2017; Fenton-Smith et al. 2017; Murata and Iino 2014; Murata 2018). One of the first full-scale undergraduate EMI programs was developed when the venerable Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto opened an entirely new university in Beppu City on the southern island of Kyushu in 2002, called Asia Pacific University. The humanities-based majors in the areas of Asia Pacific Studies and International Management (each admitting a total of 500 freshmen per year) were from the start designed to accommodate a student body which is 50 percent from overseas, and 50 percent Japanese (mainly “returnees” who had sufficient English skills to handle an all-EMI program of study). While not perfect (D’Angelo 2011), the program has succeeded in maintaining the 50/50 balance in its student body and a high level of satisfaction (About APU 2019). One of Tokyo’s largest and most prestigious private universities, Waseda University, then opened its School of International Liberal Studies (SILS) in 2004, which is part of the “Global 30” Japanese universities which enthusiastically focus on globalized mindsets and strong English skills (School of International Studies 2019). The program is relatively small, (considering the overall university has more than 40,000 undergraduates) admitting just over 250 students per year via an April and September intake of students “of all nationalities” (Melfi 2010; Waseda 2019). The program is quite successful, although at first quite difficult for the Japanese students who are rather overwhelmed by the outspokenness of their international counterparts (Murata and Iino 2014). In another case of a large Tokyo institution making a commitment to an EMI department within the larger university, Watanabe (2019) mentions that the program of the prestigious Hosei University in central Tokyo has been gradually growing since 2006 (see Hosei 2019): I hope that we can help to change the traditional perspective on liberal arts and English in Japan. Our annual enrolment is 100 students, consisting of 90 for spring intake and 10 for fall intake. GIS, a fully-fledged faculty now, was established as an interdepartmental institute for 20 students in 2006. I remember those good old days. Currently two thirds of our enrolment are returnees or have dual nationality. Nevertheless, we have learned enough that a high TOEFL score does not guarantee a strong motivation to study. We have decided to require SAT/GCE-A level/IB results in some routes of admission. Including some of the aforementioned examples of elite private universities with growing commitments to EMI—at least in a subset of their larger programs—a significant number of public, former “Imperial” universities have also ventured strongly into the realm of EMI offerings within the Global 30 program, a program promoted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MECSST; more commonly referred to as “MEXT”), which formally ran from 2009 to 2013, but which continues to operate in practice (Keio 2019; MEXT 2017). The Global 30 program ironically does not include

210

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

thirty universities, but rather, thirteen “core” universities. These are listed here by city/ region from Northeast to Southwest Japan: Sendai: Tohoku University Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba Tokyo: The University of Tokyo, Keio University, Sophia University, Meiji University, Waseda University Nagoya: Nagoya University Osaka: Osaka University Kyoto: Kyoto University, Doshisha University, Ritsumeikan University Fukuoka: Kyushu University In contrast to these listed programs at APU, Waseda and Hosei, whose large EMI programs are primarily situated in the humanities, in the case of the former imperial (now “national”) universities, a range of majors in the sciences are also on offer. For example, at Nagoya University, the programs under the aegis of the Global 30 include Automotive Engineering, Fundamental and Applied Physics, Chemistry, Biological Science, Social Sciences, and Japan-in-Asia Cultural Studies (Nagoya University 2019). While not all of the programs at these schools, and other smaller-scale efforts at myriad other universities across Japan, have totally positive results (see Toh 2016), there is reason for optimism, and the trend towards a plurilingual, multicultural, and translanguaging form of EMI is generally viewed as a positive step for Japan’s effort to increase its international profile and competitiveness in the increasingly globalized field of higher education (D’Angelo 2011). In addition, at the masters and doctoral level of graduate studies, each of the aforementioned universities offer significant programs conducted in EMI. In Section 3, I will investigate Chukyo Universities’ foray into this growing, increasingly competitive, yet still rather small market (Sano 2019).

3  EMI WITHIN THE COLLEGE OF WORLD ENGLISHES 3.1  First Incarnation As outlined in previous work of mine (D’Angelo 2012, 2016), the program within the CWE was and remains partially a traditional English skills-based program, partially EMI, and partially taught in Japanese for a wide range of elective classes. In its first incarnation (2002–13), the concept of WE was communicated to students via a two-semester class (Outline of World Englishes I/II) taught in Japanese by H. Yoshikawa (Yoshikawa 2005). Beyond that, concepts of WE partially permeated the skills curriculum (D’Angelo 2012), but this was quite inconsistent, due to the heavy reliance in Japan on part-time native speaker adjunct faculty, who in many cases were not on board with the theories of WE or English as an International Language (EIL). In addition, in terms of EMI, there were limited offerings. These included first-year “workshop” classes in which adjunct faculty taught a content class in their area of interest, with students rotating twice, every ten weeks, to a new teacher. These classes could perhaps more accurately be categorized as content and language integrated learning (CLIL), since the primarily native instructors also viewed the

A CRITICAL VIEW OF GLOBALIZATION

 211

classes as having a strong language learning component, and they were also essentially all language teachers by trade. In a similar vein, all second-year seminars were taught by the same type of adjunct faculty, with the exception of one full-time tenured assistant professor who also considers himself mainly a language teacher. These classes could perhaps have been taught by more research-oriented faculty from other linguacultural backgrounds than Japanese, but the programs were overseen by a full-time English language teacher, and fell under the “skills” part of the curriculum. Among the third-year seminars, the author and two fellow native professors taught three of the seven seminars. These also would better be categorized as CLIL, than EMI, although in the case of the author, overseas exchange students from the United States, Australia, and Finland were allowed to register for the seminar and get credit at their home institutions, which pushed the classes closer to fully-EMI courses, rather than a hybrid/CLIL type. The author’s one pure elective offering, “International Business Theory,” was probably the class which most closely approximated a true EMI setting. Having an MBA as one of my first graduate degree, I was able to approximate a case study approach, with relatively difficult (if brief) readings, and a certain degree of active discussion occurred among the thirty Japanese students and four or five international students. It was often hard to bridge the gap between our Japanese students and the more proficient international students, but this provided me with a solid training ground for working in EMI, which has proven useful in the succeeding years, as Chukyo has gradually moved towards a larger investment in EMI.

3.2  First Reincarnation: The World Englishes Career Major In 2014, twelve years after its foundation and after a two-year planning process and gaining the necessary approval the Ministry of Education (MEXT), a reorganized CWE admitted its first freshman. Whereas the previous college had two departments, namely the Department of World Englishes and the Department of British and American Cultural Studies, each admitting ninety-six freshmen, the reorganized college now consisted of three “majors,” each admitting up to sixty-four freshmen. These consisted of the World Englishes Career Major (to which the author belongs), the English-Area Cultural Studies Major (a broader version of the former British/American department), and the Information Technology and International Studies Major. One exciting aspect of the reorganized college for me personally was that after studying WE and related paradigms since 2002, with the retirement of the Japanese professor who had taught the class previously, I would be given the task of teaching the “Introduction to World Englishes” class. It was now reduced to just a one-semester class, but whereas from 2002 to 13 only the WE half of our program enrolled in the class (it was not in the British and American Cultural Studies curriculum), I now would teach WE as a required class for the first year of all three new majors, some 196 students. This has been an ideal opportunity to try and convince all the CWE’s freshmen of the reality of WE today, although trying to do so via EMI, with a large group of first-semester students with a quite wide variance in their proficiency (incoming Michigan placement test scores typically ranging from 90 down to 38), has been a true challenge. To accomplish this and try to insure a decent level of comprehension, I speak slowly, delivering twenty to twenty-four PowerPoint slides in roughly eighty minutes, with the final ten minutes used to show a YouTube clip of an English variety). I also do a fair amount of code-mixing

212

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

and code-switching to communicate the more complex concepts, and this form of translanguaging generates a fair amount of tittering among the higher-level students; I can see by their faces that they are thinking, “Here he goes again!” But I feel that providing about 10–15 percent Japanese provides the lower-proficiency students with much-needed scaffolding support. In addition to this required class conducted in EMI, within the new major, the most influential Japanese colleague and I have increased the EMI component. We have retained the Singapore Seminar class and sixteen-day trip which existed in the previous Department of WE, as well as designing four new electives taught by the author. Two are based on business, that is, New Management Trends and Global Economic Trends, and two fall more into my current area of specialization in WE, that is, Language and Culture, and Language Variation. In all of these electives, there are also a fair number of international exchange students in each. Regarding Language and Culture, in Spring 2019 among seventy-two students there were sixty-six Japanese and six exchange students (five American, one, British). In the same semester, for New Management Trends, there were thirty-four Japanese and four exchange students (two Americans, two French). Yet in these mixed classes, once again while the level of reading is difficult, the readings themselves are quite short (basically two textbook pages/week), and similar problems occur—with some notable exceptions of course—in getting the Japanese students to speak out in front of the larger group. A large number of WE Career students go overseas in the Fall of their second year for either a semester or one year, and these students are often the ones who are more comfortable speaking out. This was also found to be true in the case of the Waseda SILS program discussed in Section 2 of this chapter (see Murata and Iino 2014). An additional EMI class which I teach is my year-long third-year seminar class (now only one of five seminars in our career major is taught in English), entitled “The Multilingual Multicultural World and Globalization.” This class then continues on into the fourth year with the same students, in which I guide them through the writing of a graduation thesis on a related topic, of at least 4,500 words (often reaching up to as much as 8,000 words). In the third year, students—usually in groups of five—choose particular nation contexts to study and present about multilingualism, multiculturalism, and globalization in that setting. With one member each presenting on the traditional language(s), more recent multilingual situation, traditional culture, more recent multicultural issues, and finally globalization, the structure provides students with an opportunity to go beyond the usual rather stereotypical and essentialized perception of nation-states, and to critically question what it means to be American, British, French, Singaporean, Brazilian, or Japanese. While the new career major has offered a chance to increase our EMI offerings in the past six years, several problems persist. For one, the varied level of student proficiency renders it difficult to aim too high in terms of reading and sophisticated classroom discussion. As a result, the exchange students in the class, who are quite outspoken in the early weeks, often lose motivation, and become more reticent as well. Hence it is very difficult to deliver adequate satisfaction and stimulation of the exchange students, without concurrently leaving the majority of the Japanese students far behind. Finding a common form of assessment/evaluation for these two distinct groups is also a puzzle. A final problem with the career major’s curriculum is that while EMI scholars in Japan have realized for some time that just teaching English is inadequate, that we need ‘English plus’, we fall well short of really delivering the ‘plus’, that is, any type of deeper understanding of another discipline. With only a smattering of electives in linguistics and cultural fields,

A CRITICAL VIEW OF GLOBALIZATION

 213

and a few others that are business/management related, we cannot say the students gain a meaningful understanding of these fields. But through this experience in travelling up the EMI learning curve, we can now see the fruits of our effort about to be realized in a new School of Global Studies (Kokusai Gakubu in Japanese)—the subject of the next section.

4  MERGER AND DEMISE OF CWE Beginning in 2009, within the University, a campus-wide planning committee entitled “The Next 10” was formed. While four or five years later many wondered (or even joked about) what the committee would eventually recommend, rumors of a major change began to surface in 2015. And eventually, as was announced formally in mid-2017, a major change was indeed to be implemented. The major initiative to come out of the work of the committee is the merger of the CWE with an annual intake of 180 students and the College of International Liberal Studies (ILS) with an annual complement of 110 freshmen—creating a new School of Global Studies (SGS) with an intake of 290 freshmen. This has been a very large undertaking, since the ILS also functions as the typical Japanese university’s “kyoyo-bu” or College of Liberal Arts—with by far the largest faculty within the university (over seventy members) and responsibility for teaching all of the general liberal arts requirements to every department/college within the university.2 These “zengaku-kyotsu-kamoku” make up roughly one-third of the total credits every student takes in the course of their four years, and include all additional foreign language classes, general English classes for other departments, P.E. classes, basic classes in the natural sciences, as well as certain humanities classes such as Gender Studies, Peace Studies, Law, and Introduction to Economics, and so on. Several years after the formation of the CWE in 2002, the ILS was created within the College of Liberal Arts, the first time for that larger department to have its own majors, as well as their traditional role of servicing the other departments. The main attraction of the ILS—aiming for students to become proficient in two non-Japanese languages, is mapped out in English version of the University’s webpage (Chukyo HP 2019): Reorganized from the Faculty of Liberal Arts in April 2008, the School of International Liberal Studies (ILS) aims to foster students who will be able to contribute to greater understanding and interaction between nations. In order to achieve this goal, ILS offers to its students a unique program that focuses on two key areas: Languages and Humanities and Social Sciences. ILS helps its students develop proficiency in two foreign languages: one major language (French, Spanish, German, Russian or Chinese) and English. As part of this program, many of the 110 ILS majors would spend a semester overseas in Spain, Germany, France, Russia, or China, although this was not a requirement. This focus on English PLUS one other “foreign” language remains in the new School of Global Studies. Perhaps the main focus of the new SGS is to make Chukyo and its graduates more truly “internationally-able,” as a realization of the much-needed global human resources (gurobaru jinzai) to which the Japanese media so often refer (D’Angelo 2016). To accomplish this, the designers of the new school emphasize acquisition of a high degree of English proficiency, as well as requiring students to select a major and sub-major

214

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

within the school wherein they can truly focus on a particular discipline (we also offer a double-major option)—thus addressing the perennial problem that just being good at English is not enough. In order to achieve the proficiency aims, all first-year students within the SGS take a very intensive English skills program in their first semester (9 one-hour sessions per week), and then they are all required to spend the autumn semester of their first year overseas. Since it is a huge undertaking to arrange semester study for 290 first-year students, it was decided this was too large a task for the university’s own International Center to undertake, although they have managed to arrange overseas study for roughly 75 students per year for the past fifteen years. In addition, from a governance point of view, it is probably safer and smarter to work with a well-established agent who shares in the responsibility for so many young people going overseas. As a result, Chukyo decided to enlist the services of the Benesse Corporation, a major educational and testing organization, as partner in the undertaking. From a critical stance regarding the hegemony of Inner Circle Englishes there is one regrettable point here. During the eighteen years of the CWE, all freshmen were required to take a full-semester class on Singapore History, Language, and Culture and then take part in a sixteen-day study tour based at The Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organization, Regional Language Center (SEAMEO RELC), in which they were taught by local Singaporeans from all three main ethnic and first-language groups (Chinese, Malay, and Indian). As a result, they gained an appreciation for English in Kachru’s Outer Circle, and an understanding that with its global spread, English is a language in which the connection between the original Inner-Circle cultures and the use of the language is no longer of importance. So it is rather unfortunate that this Singapore component is being lost. Nevertheless, by combining a stress on English and plurilingualism with a deeper competency in certain important disciplines within the social sciences, I feel that in spite of the fact that the concept of WE is no longer invoked explicitly, the spirit of WE now more fully permeates the curriculum implicitly, as will be outlined below. To accomplish the goal of providing students with ongoing specialization in their chosen discipline, and also to strengthen the EMI component, the university gathered from the two merging departments, as well as from other departments not involved in the merger, those PhD-holding3faculty members who they felt were most able (and willing) to conduct classes in English within their area. Again, this move created some tensions within the university, for those faculty not included in the new department were either assigned to remain in the general liberal arts support area or assigned to a Global Languages Center. In one additional initiative, the designers of the new school decided to further strengthen the EMI presence at Chukyo by beginning one small major within the SIS which would be totally EMI. I will serve as chair of this new major. The major is entitled the GLS Major, and is intended to have an intake of just twenty-two freshmen students, all of whom are expected to be at the B2 level of CEFR upon entering, and to reach at least C1 level during the course of their years in the GLS. As a result, the GLS (outlined in detail in Section 4.1) is expected to take in students from international schools in Japan who already have English as a first or second language, as well as those Japanese students studying overseas who have reached the equivalent of CEFR B2 level as measured on a variety of standardized tests (e.g. TOEFL iBT between 72 and 94, IELTS 5.5 to 6.5, and GTEC 1190~1349).

A CRITICAL VIEW OF GLOBALIZATION

 215

The new SGS also has a general concept or theme. On the cover of the glossy brochure which was used at the first Open Campus weekend (July 13–14, 2019) where the SGS was introduced, it states, “Discover What Matters” (2019), in very large type. The back of the brochure, also in large type, has three lines: We cover the world. You discover what matters. That’s education. At first discussion of this promotional copy, I felt that “discover what matters” might not be accessible to Japanese high school students. I felt that “What matters” could easily be confused with an expression such as “What’s the matter” and so on. But at the Open Campus opening sessions for the new department, held in a large lecture hall, Assistant Dean Nomura—a Chomskyan transformational grammar scholar who did his doctoral work in the United States—showed a video interview of Noam Chomsky, in which he explains that a freshman at MIT came up to him at the beginning of the semester and asked, “What are we going to cover this semester?” To which Chomsky replied, “It doesn’t matter what we cover. What’s important is what you discover.” And this comment provided the driving theme for the new department, where it is hoped students will undertake a liberal arts-informed quest to find out what is important. Let me now introduce the overall structure of the new department. Among all the majors (with the exception of the GLS), students are expected to have the equivalent of CEFR B1 level at entering. The SIS is divided into two main Departments (Gakka), and then further divided into majors (senko) and sub-majors (senshu). The basic structure is shown in Table 13.1. The Department of Global Studies contains four separate majors and six sub-majors, while the Department of Linguistics and Cultural Studies contains two majors and four sub-majors. Thus, the overall school consists of six majors and ten sub-majors. A rather intimidating design for the average Japanese high school student to ponder, but it does force them to consider, beyond English and the oft-expressed

TABLE 13.1  School of Global Studies Department

Global Studies

Linguistics and Cultural Studies

Major 1

International Human Studies

Plurilingual and Pluricultural Studies

Sub-majors

Philosophy and the Humanities Global History

Linguistics Intercultural Communication

Major 2

International Politics

British and American Studies

Sub-majors

International Politics International Development

English Linguistics and English Education English Area Literature and Culture

Major 3

International Economics International Economics International Business

Major 4

Global Liberal Studies

Sub-major

(n/a)

216

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

“wanting to get a job using English” (D’Angelo 2016), what field would they actually like to concentrate on. Through this structure, high school students are required to apply to a specific major, and then within that major (with the exception of the GLS) they wait until the beginning of the second year to declare with sub-major they plan to enter. The school also offers the opportunity to do a double-major (although writing only one graduation thesis in their first major), or, to enroll in a plurilingual option within any of the majors, in which they would take an additional concentration in one of seven languages: French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Italian, or Korean. In order to deliver the intensive English program in the first semester freshman year, the university has made the bold move of hiring fifteen new full-time English teachers (shokutaku—on limited-term contracts), and has also hired several instructors with similar status in each of the other languages. This also has created some awkwardness for the existing veteran staff of adjunct faculty, people who have worked many years for the university on a part-time basis, and who now will find themselves gradually losing classes as the former merged departments no longer have freshmen in 2020, and then so sophomores in 2021, and so on until being phased out completely by April 2023. A significant benefit of the fifteen new language teachers—largely master’s holders in their thirties—is that there will be two managers for that group (one Japanese, one Native Canadian). Let us now turn to my own major, the GLS, and consider its formation and curriculum.

4.1  GLS Curriculum When semi-official news began to spread about the formation of a new merged department, at the July 2017 faculty meeting, it was mentioned by our Dean of the CWE that “working groups” would be formed to work out the finer points of the curriculum details for the SGS. While many professors took a “wait and see” attitude and were very upset that the CWE would no longer exist, I took a more pro-active approach, and volunteered. In universities (and probably in any large institution), to bring about revolutionary change, a key person or core of key persons is needed. In 2002 and the years leading up to that, it was Dean Sanzo Sakai who had influence with the administration and university board, who was able to translate the idea of WE into a new Department/College. Looking back at that time, there were certain Anglophile faculty who did not at first agree with the concept of WE. Similarly, with news of this new combined department beginning to spread, many faculty members were not happy about the “top down” approach, and not being consulted. Indeed, the process was quite top-down, but to get something done, one does at least need a core of people (such as the aforementioned Next 10 group) to begin the process. So at least at the initial stages, a smaller group has to advocate for change. But once news came that the new department was to be a reality, I sent an e-mail to the person rumored to be a key person and expressed my interest in taking part in one of the working groups. The professor replied to me the following day, to say he was not in such a position, but that he would pass word of my interest on to the university president and head of the Next 10 committee. Lo and behold, one week later, I was invited to take part in a working group that would map out the details of a new all-EMI boutique major to be called Global Liberal Studies! The person rumored to be a key person was in fact the key person.

A CRITICAL VIEW OF GLOBALIZATION

 217

Fortunately, although the designers of the new department are not necessarily WE scholars, they do have an appreciation for the importance of English in today’s world, and also an appreciation that it is a plurilingual and pluricultural reality. One of the important enhancements in the new SGS curriculum is that all content classes after the intensive language program the first year are to be held twice a week for ninety minutes. Traditionally, many Japanese universities have operated with all classes being just once a week, and students often take as many as fourteen different subjects per semester. By having experience doing a PhD in the United States, the main designer understood the problem of students being “spread too thin” (D’Angelo 2016), and under SGS they will be able to focus more on particular classes. Within the GLS, I work with one other main tenured faculty member, and a few adjunct staff. The students who enter GLS must, as mentioned earlier, already have a very high level of English proficiency, in order for the classes to be at a similar level to what one would take in and EMI program in, for example Australia, Malaysia, Holland, and Sweden. Students have fifteen dedicated classes to choose from in the GLS, and may also select from the handful of EMI offerings in each of the other SGS majors. In addition, one major selling point is that non-Japanese international students who enroll in the GLS must take forty credits of Japanese language classes. In this way, they are expected to eventually reach CEFR B1/B2 level in Japanese at the end of their four years—giving them the opportunity to take electives in Japanese in their third or fourth year, and to work in a bilingual Japanese company in the future. Japanese nationals who return from some years overseas in an international high school, or achieve a very high level of English proficiency without spending years overseas, may choose one of the other seven languages offered within the SGS, such as Spanish or Chinese—giving them an opportunity to become more plurilingual. Following is a list of classes specific to the GLS, with short descriptions. In general, these classes take an open-minded view of globalization, but also look at the phenomenon critically, as can be gleaned from the short version of the class descriptions. Foundation Subjects Ancient Civilizations: The course introduces the artistic, literary, and technological achievements of classical civilizations with an eye towards their relevance in the world today. Critical Thought and Expression: The course provides the analytical and logical foundations for researching and writing about global issues. Its focus is on how Systems Theory enables novel approaches to complex problems. Intellectual Traditions: The course takes the world’s major intellectual traditions and its prominent thinkers as the focal point for understanding global economic, political, social, and cultural systems. Area Major Subjects: Global Culture and Ideology: The course addresses the cultural dimensions of globalization, including the homogenization and hybridization of values and beliefs. The Global Economy: This course addresses the economic dimensions of globalization, including the increasing power of transnational corporations and institutions

218

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Global Governance and Society: This course addresses the political dimensions of globalization, with a focus on the role of the nation-state as a sovereign entity. The Global Environment: The course addresses the ecological dimensions of globalization, such as trans-boundary pollution, acid rain, and species extinction. Elective/Required (Third-/Fourth-year Seminars) Contemporary Global Issues: This course addresses the causes and consequences of the most pressing global issues, such as terrorism and refugees. Ethical Inquiry: This course provides students with an analytical framework for approaching global issues from an informed ethical perspective. Society, Language, and Globalization: This course provides a thorough understanding of the social implications of language and the variations between different speech communities. Intercultural Communication Today: This course provides a foundation in traditional models of intercultural communication as well as an understanding of more recent developments in the field. Graduation Research: Senior students will work with one faculty member on a capstone project which allows them to integrate what they have learned of a particular culture or discipline into a broader global framework. Elective Subjects Global Media and Culture: The course takes the ongoing consolidation of the media as its focal point in order to examine its central role in the globalization process. Global Peace and Security: This course examines the seemingly intractable nature of conflicts by focusing on symptoms and causes. Twenty-First-Century Cities: This course attempts to uncover both integrative and disruptive tendencies of large cities where most people now reside. International Academic Relations: This course examines the role of academic mobility in economic development and the cultivation of intercultural competence. In addition to classes within the GLS, in which the same cohort of twenty-two students will frequently interact, at times mixing first-, second-, and third-year students, GLS students also need to take forty elective credits from EMI offerings of the other majors, where they will have an opportunity to mix with the more English-proficient students from within the larger school. These classes include Introduction to International Politics, International Development Studies, Understanding Film and Popular Culture, Global Business and Leadership, Introduction to International Economics, Introduction to Linguistics, American Literary and Cultural Studies, Lecture on Foreign Policy, Lecture on Economic Policy, and so on. Via these electives, students can structure their education to focus on the area(s) within the humanities in which they wish to gain a deeper understanding of working with Japanese scholars who teach in English. The first incoming cohort for the GLS will go through the admissions process this coming Autumn, so at the time of writing, I am not yet sure of the makeup of the group and of our degree of success in recruiting. As mentioned by a colleague whose spouse is in charge of international recruiting at one of the Global 30 universities, it is a small market, and not

A CRITICAL VIEW OF GLOBALIZATION

 219

easy to recruit such students to choose Japan. At the first open campus, the GLS booth was visited by students from Vietnam, Nepal, Germany, and Korea and by “returnee” Japanese students, so I have guarded optimism for the first incoming group.

5  CONCLUDING REMARKS With all its well-discussed drawbacks and negatives, globalization is nevertheless an unrelenting force (Friedman 2008), which we must learn to deal with, manage, balance, and at times do battle with. With the increasing competitiveness of global higher education, and other challenges such as the low birth rate in Japan (and concomitant shrinking of the annual pool of eighteen-year-olds), Japanese universities are increasingly called upon to take positive action towards further internationalization to survive in the twenty-first century. While there are voices of opposition to the spread of English and EMI (Mahboob 2020), I believe it is important for Japan to increase its EMI “footprint” on the global stage, while still maintaining the strength of its mother tongue. The new School of Global Studies is a major attempt to visualize the role of English in higher education in the Expanding Circle, to take it beyond simple language proficiency to make students consider the real reasons and areas within global society in which they wish to play a role. The program may not be perfect, and it will not be easy to transition to a completely new curriculum. But we scholars need to work within our institutions and broader local, national and global contexts to bring about change in a positive direction, which looks critically at various phenomenon and, most importantly, which helps our students to also take a critical yet positive view of their own roles in the hot, flat, and crowded world in which we live and which we can help to shape. Even in a world with COVID-19, globalization—whether it be online or face to face—will continue to march forward and we need to prepare students for this.

NOTES 1. The University of Leicester, UK, established a graduate concentration in world Englishes some years before the foundation of the CWE. See www2.​​le​.ac​​.uk​/d​​eparm​​ents/​​Engli​​sh​/re​​ searc​​h​/clu​​sters​​/Engl​​ish​-a​​nguag​​e​​-and​​-ling​​uisti​​cs for further information. 2. While this is not the subject of this chapter, one can also imagine how gut-wrenching a process it is to combine these two departments, and where to place the seventy-plus faculty members of the ILS and the fourteen members of the CWE. 3. Up until roughly ten or twelve years ago, a minority of tenured Japanese faculty held a PhD, but this is rapidly changing today, and a doctorate is now an essential qualification for all newly hired tenured faculty.

REFERENCES About APU (2019), APU Outline. Retrieved 21 July 2019 from http:​/​/en.​​apu​.a​​c​.jp/​​home/​​about​​/ con​t​​ent55​/ APU Shape Your World (2012), Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, 2012 University Handbook—Crossroads. Beppu, Oita, Japan: Ritsumeikan APU University. Bjorkman, B. (2013), English as an Academic Lingua Franca: An Investigation of Form and Communication Effectiveness, Berlin: De Gruyter. Bradford, A. and H. Brown, eds (2017), English Medium Instruction in Japanese Higher Education: Policy, Challenges and Outcomes, Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

220

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Breeze, R. and C. S. Guinda, eds (2017), Essential Competencies for English-Medium University Teaching, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Chukyo HP (2019), English Language Version of Chukyo University Homepage. Retrieved 24 June from https​:/​/ww​​w​.chu​​kyo​-u​​.ac​.j​​p​/eng​​lish/​​unde​r​​/b11.​​html Chukyo University, Net Campus (2019), School of Global Studies starts April 2020. Retrieved 14 July 2020 from https://www.chukyo-u.ac.jp/english/under/b14.html D’Angelo, J. (2011), ‘What Nearby Models Can Japan Consider in the Era of Globalized Higher Education?’ Journal of College of World Englishes, Chukyo University, 14: 1–16. D’Angelo, J. (2012), ‘WEs-Informed EIL Curriculum at Chukyo: Towards a Functional, Educated, Multilingual Outcome’, in A. Matsuda (ed.), Principles and Practices of English as an International Language, 121–39, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. D’Angelo, J. (2016), A Broader Concept of World Englishes for Educational Contexts: Applying the “WE Enterprise” to Japanese Higher Education Curricula, Unpublished doctoral thesis, North-West University Library, Vaal Triangle Campus, South Africa. D’Angelo, J. (2018), ‘The Status of ELF in Japan’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, London: Routledge. D’Angelo, J. (2019), ‘Expanding ELF-Informed EMI in Japanese Higher Education: A Case Study of Actual Graduates’ Needs’, in K. Murata (ed.), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective, 239–58, London: Routledge. Discover What Matters (2019), Promotional Brochure, Chukyo University School of Global Studies. Fenton-Smith, B., P. Humphreys and I. Walkinshaw (2017), English Medium Instruction in Higher Education in Asia-Pacific, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International. Friedman, Thomas L. (2008), Hot, Flat and Crowded, New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. Honna, N. and Y. Takeshita (1998), ‘On Japan’s Propensity for Native Speaker English: A Change in Sight’, Asian Englishes, 1 (1): 117–37. Hosei University Global and Interdisciplinary Studies Homepage. Retrieved 20 July 2019 from http://gis​.hosei​.ac​.jp Keio (2019), Global 30. Retrieved 6 July 2019 from www​.keio​.ac​.jp​/en​/about​/vision​/g30/ Mahboob, A. (2020), ‘Has English Medium Instruction Failed in Pakistan’, in R. Giri, A. Sharma and J. D’Angelo (eds), Functional Variations in English, 261–276, London: Springer. Melfi, L. (2010), Is Waseda SILS Right for Me. Retrieved 27 July 2019 from nadswhiko​ .lastsecret​.n​et. MEXT (2017), Retrieved 8 July 2019 from www​.m​​ext​.g​​o​.jp/​​compo​​nent/​​a​_men​​u​/edu​​catio​​n/ Murata, K., ed. (2018), English-Medium Instruction from an English as a Lingua Franca Perspective, London: Routledge. Murata, K. and M. Iino (2014), ‘Japanese Students’ Changing Views of Communicative Competence through ELF Experiences’, Paper delivered at the 7 International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, The American College of Greece, 5 September 2014. Nagoya University (2019), Nagoya University International Programs for Academic Year 2019. Retrieved 27 July 2019 from https​:/​/ad​​missi​​ons​.g​​30​.na​​goya-​​u​.ac.​​jp​/up​​load/​​​d​_new​​s​/fil​​es Sakai, S. and J. D’Angelo (2005), ‘A Vision for English in the Expanding Circle’, World Englishes, 24 (3): 323–8, August. Sano, Y. (2019), Professor of Chukyo University. Personal Communication. School of International Liberal Studies (2019), Retrieved 18 July 2019 from https​:/​/en​​.wiki​​ pedia​​.org/​​wiki/​​Schoo​​l​_of_​​Inter​​natio​​nal​_L​​ibera​​​l​_Stu​​dies. Toh, G. (2016), English as a Medium of Instruction in Japanese Higher Education, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

A CRITICAL VIEW OF GLOBALIZATION

 221

Waseda (2019), Waseda University: School of International Liberal Studies. Retrieved 27 July 2019 from www​.w​​aseda​​.jp​/f​​i re​/s​​ils​/e​​n​/abo​​ut​/ov​​ervie​​w. Watanabe, Y. (2019), Personal e-mail communication with the author, 15 July 2019. Yoshikawa, H. (2005), ‘Recognition of World Englishes: Changes in Chukyo University Students’ Attitudes’, World Englishes, 24 (3): 352–60.

Chapter 14

The Impact of World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca in Tertiary Education in the Expanding Circle1 ENRIC LLURDA AND GUZMAN MANCHO-BARÉS

INTRODUCTION The de facto adoption of English as the international language during the final decades of the twentieth century, and more acutely in the twenty-first century, has led to the generalization of English language teaching at all educational levels worldwide. Thus, one may find a countless number of countries in which English is taught in school from a very early age and it continues to be offered in courses at the college level. In Spain, for instance, children are exposed to compulsory English lessons2 as early as age 6, but many schools offer an initiation to the language in kindergarten, and some parents are not content with this and choose to bring their children to nursery schools that offer English exposure at age 1 or 2. Universities have not escaped this English frenzy and have implemented language policies aimed at promoting the learning and use of English by faculty members, administration staff and students. Such policies have mainly targeted students, but they have also had an impact on the other two constituencies (Lasagabaster, Cots and Mancho-Barés 2013; Llurda, Cots and Armengol 2014). Often, the expansion of English in tertiary education has been carried out through the implementation of internationalization policies. The construct of internationalization of higher education is understood as “[t]he process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education” (Knight 2003: 2). Such a process rests on the inclusion of an international or intercultural dimension into policies and practices. More often than not, English has been selected as the language of internationalization, due to its outstanding position as an academic lingua franca. Resulting from this language selection, internationalization and Englishization are often seen as synonyms, and this inevitably brings a complex interplay of tensions

226

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

between the possibility to communicate widely and the threat of English displacing local languages in academic uses (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1999; Sabaté-Dalmau 2016). Perhaps the most tangible phenomenon of institutional internationalization is reforming the curriculum by offering English-medium instruction (EMI) programmes. The presence of subjects in English in HE programmes in the Expanding Circle is not new. In fact, degrees specializing in English Studies or English Philology have abounded, and many other degrees, especially in business but also in technological disciplines, have incorporated courses typified as English for specific purposes (ESP, henceforth). Yet, there are some new elements that have appeared in the last fifteen years that deserve attention. The functions of English in the Expanding Circle have swiftly evolved to the point that the language now serves local functions as well as international ones. This has transformed how we need to examine its presence in educational institutions (Jenkins 2014; Seidlhofer 2011; Smit 2010). The University of Lleida (UdL) is a case in point, characterized by the fact that English has no official presence in the institution, nor is it used in the sociolinguistic context where the UdL is located, Catalan and Spanish being the most commonly used languages of everyday communication in Catalonia. Moreover, the UdL’s de jure official policy promoting internationalization has been linked to the development of multilingualism, which includes active policy aimed at the protection of Catalan (the local language, the survival of which is threatened by its coexistence alongside Spanish) and the promotion of English, even though the word ‘English’ is very rarely mentioned in official policy documents, instead being replaced by the euphemistic expression “a third language” (Cots, Lasagabaster and Garrett 2012; Llurda, Cots and Armengol 2013). It is this particular higher education (HE) institution in the Expanding Circle that will constitute the main focus of this chapter. This institutional case study (Dörnyei 2007) is presented as a series of three more specific situated case studies that exemplify three ways in which English impacts current teaching in this institution, and we presume that a similar impact can be found in many other institutional contexts. In line with Arnbjörnsdóttir and Ingvarsdóttir’s (2018) study, set in Iceland, we observe how the multilingual uses of English are evidenced, and how the shift from a monolingual view of English into the World Englishes (WE) paradigm has implied understanding English not as a static set of language forms and use, but a rather dynamic organism constructed in negotiated interaction (Wright and Zheng 2018), in which speakers make use of their multilingual repertoires for communicative purposes. Specifically, we will reflect on the teaching, learning and assessment of English from a WE perspective as it impacts university degrees of the University of Lleida in the following three different ways: through the increasing implementation of EMI programmes, the transformation of traditional ESP courses taking into account WE principles in combination with a multilingual perspective, and the incorporation in an English Studies degree of a specific course dealing with WE and English as a Global Language. The chapter will be divided into three sections, each presenting a case study focused on each of the three different situations in which WE and English as a lingua franca (ELF) impact teaching at the University of Lleida, with English being a relatively new player taking an increasing role as third academic language.

CHALLENGES OF EMI IN EUROPEAN UNIVERSITIES EMI has flourished with the increasing demand for English as the predominant language for international communication. In HE, the number of courses and whole programmes

THE IMPACT OF WORLD ENGLISHES AND ENGLISH

 227

offered in English has increased dramatically in the last few decades. Only in Europe, Wächter and Maiworm (2008, 2014) documented the presence of EMI courses and programmes in Europe, claiming that the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Sweden are the countries where such programmes are more widely used. In the last few years, the presence of English has exponentially increased all over the continent and elsewhere within the Expanding Circle (Björkman 2011; Byun et al. 2011; Cavanagh 2016; Earls 2013). More than a decade ago, Coleman (2006) identified seven reasons for the process of Englishization of universities in Europe (understood as the process whereby English mediates a full range of activities): content and language integrated learning (CLIL), internationalization, student exchanges, teaching and research materials, staff mobility, graduate employability and the market in international students. Interestingly, according to this view, learning (or improving the competence of) English was not on the agenda of European universities adopting EMI. By zooming in on universities from Southern Europe, in a questionnaire distributed to EMI administrators in Italy, only 8 per cent of the respondents considered local students’ improvement of English proficiency as a driving force to implement EMI (Costa and Coleman 2013), and the figure went down to 6 per cent in an updated survey published four years later (Broggini and Costa 2017). Despite these low numbers, the level of students’ English is considered a hampering factor for EMI in Italy (31 per cent of the respondents, in both studies), and the Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università Italiane (the governing body of Italian universities) has published a working paper on internationalization indicators of the Italian university system, urging to take actions towards “students’ linguistic training attending the European goal of multilingualism” (Gruppo di Lavoro CRUI 2015, 12, translated from the original in Italian). Another governing body of universities from a Southern European country followed a similar trend: the Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas (the governing body of Spanish universities; known by the acronym CRUE) published the Documento marco de política lingüística para la internacionalización del sistema universitario español, which explicitly mentions the improvement of students’ foreign language competence (Bazo et al. 2017) as a driving force to make provision of EMI programmes. In fact, local students’ low proficiency in English has also been found to hinder the quality of EMI programmes (Arnó-Macià and Mancho-Barés 2015; Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2011, 2013). Before the CRUE published their framework document, Spanish universities had already been trying to foster students’ English proficiency with the implementation of EMI programmes, as in the case of Operative Internationalization Plan at the UdL (2012–16) (Soler-Carbonell and Gallego-Balsà 2019) or the Multilingual Programme at the University of the Basque Country (Doiz, Lasagabaster and Sierra 2011). In all, learning English has become central to the agenda of Southern European universities implementing EMI. Hence, Coleman’s (2006) list of driving forces to adopt EMI can be enlarged to include the need to increase Southern European students’ English proficiency. Delving into studies from Southern European HE settings, as it is our case, an issue for which there are not conclusive findings is the effect of language of instruction (namely, English vs. L1) on content learning. Qualitative studies have evidenced the stakeholders’ positions in this regard. Students are worried about the possibility of jeopardizing disciplinary content learning and future career development when EMI is imposed in the syllabus as an obligatory subject taught entirely in English, as claimed by a Catalan undergraduate EMI student: “You need to become an engineer, not a ‘half-engineer’ with English – you can learn English outside university, but not calculus” (Arno-Macià and

228

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Mancho-Barés 2015: 69). Opposite opinions are held by university policymakers, such as the one reported in Wilkinson (2017: 56): “it is impossible to be an economist in an international context without solid control of English in the field.” Moreover, quantitative studies also provide unsettled results on the impact of language of instruction on content learning. Importantly enough, two radically opposing results emerge out of these studies. On the one hand, the language of instruction did not have any statistically significant effect on the students’ final grade. This result was reported on in Dafouz and Camacho-Miñano (2016), Costa and Mariotti (2017) and Arnau, Borràs-Comes and Escobar-Urmeneta (2018). Dafouz and Camacho-Miñano’s (2016) explanation for the result can epitomize the justification for the lack of effect: Accounting typically requires less language production as compared to other disciplines in Economics, which rely more on language literacy for knowledge-building (as opposed to numeracy). On the other hand, EMI students outperformed their L1-counterpart students in the studies by Chostelidou and Griva (2014), Hernandez-Nanclares and Jimenez-Munoz (2015), and Costa and Mariotti (2017). The extent to which research design plays a role in getting inconclusive results is worth exemplifying. In fact, Costa and Mariotti (2017) studied academic achievement based on the final exam marks in Economics and International Relations subjects at a university in Northern Italy, each offered both in English and in Italian by the same instructor. The very slight difference between the means in the final exam in Italian versus English shows that the selection of language did not impact on content learning. A follow-up study by Costa and Mariotti, (2017) looked into three MA courses and one BA course. Each of the four courses offered instruction in English and in Italian. Findings showed that EMI students at the undergraduate level scored lower than their L1-counterpart students, but no differences were found in the three MA courses. Therefore, by adding a different source of data (hence changing the research design), the results differ: the level of studies (BA vs. MA) emerged as variable yielding different results. All in all, the analysis of the impact of EMI on content learning rests on the comparison of EMI and L1 students. What is lacking in these studies, however, is (i) differences in grading between teachers, or the use of grading methods, such as curved grading; (ii) differences in grade inflation policies between universities, if that is the case; (iii) a full description of the format questions of the exams; (iv) the extent to which individual student’s language selection was optional; and (v) whether or not the selection of the L1 was somehow penalized as evidenced in instructors’ exam marking practice, and more broadly in content learning. Neither reading comprehension tasks, multiple choice tests, nor problem-based exercises can yield information about how students strive for communicating their understanding of disciplinary content for accreditation purposes. So important data is missing as to how EMI students make use of their linguistic repertoire in language-based questions; and how such usage affects (or not) on instructors’ marking practice of exam questions. Little is known about the role of language used in assignments in EMI programmes, specifically in exams. As a baseline finding, selecting English as the language for assessment seems not be dependent on the fact that English is the vehicular language of lectures, but exams could be written in the L1 due to “university policy, student pressure or the law” (Dearden 2015: 26). This variability is further emphasized when content communication is at risk. In fact, Söderlundh (2012: 88) has reported on Swedish EMI instructors not only allowing for the use of students’ L1 (even in foreign students’ L1) when answering exam questions but also telling their students: “if you’re writing and you get stuck . . . go

THE IMPACT OF WORLD ENGLISHES AND ENGLISH

 229

ahead and blend your language . . . A paragraph makes sense even if you jump through three languages as long as it has a subject, and a beginning and an ending and is logical”, but no further research was carried out on this topic. Arguably, this quotation epitomizes the complexity of de facto language policies in EMI instruction, underscoring the tension between precision in textual coherence (even though other languages apart from English may be used) and using only English (albeit imprecisely) when communicating content comprehension and understanding. Against this backdrop, the analysis of content learning needs to broaden the scope to embrace other types of data to find out whether or not they shed light on the role of language in content learning. Therefore, the data presented below will look at students’ language selection when answering the questions in exams, together with the mark awarded and the lecturer’s comment written by hand. Specifically, we will present some data collected from mid-term exams and final exams of four EMI undergraduate science and technology subjects at the UdL: Animal Biotechnology (AB), Biotechnology in production and animal health (BIO), Services 2 (SERV2) and Services 3 (SERV3). The assessment of the four subjects comprised different formats: written assignments (cf. Mancho-Barés and Arnó-Macia 2017, for example), oral presentations, and mid-term and final exams (similar assessment formats are reported in Dafouz and Camacho-Miñano 2016). As stated in the online study guide of each subject (comprising the syllabus, assessment and bibliography), the medium of instruction of these four subjects is English. None of the study guides explicitly mention the language required for assessment purposes. This raises the issue of the actual linguistic rights students have in using other languages apart from English. These data come from a broader research project on EMI in Catalonia, where students and instructors were interviewed. However, interview data were not used for this chapter. In terms of the planning of exam administration, these four subjects had mid-term exams and final exams. The weight of the mid-term exams and final exams in the final mark was between 15 per cent and 35 per cent. One important difference between exams and other assessment formats is the fact that students are officially scheduled to sit for the exams at the university premises and answer the exam question during the period allocated, while other (written) assignments can be produced over a period of time. Therefore, more time is granted in these latter assignments; consequently, it is believed that students can produce more elaborated and more accurate written texts in take-home assignments than in university-taken exams. As a consequence of this, different issues emerged: first, the instructor of SERV3 applied penalization to language errors present in assignments but not in exams, because having more time “students can revise it [the written assignment type] better” (quoted in Mancho-Barés and Aguilar-Pérez 2020); and secondly, because of the focus on content communication in exams, lecturers allow students to ask them doubts on technical vocabulary, as mentioned by the AB lecturer in one of the interviews: “I tell them [students] in the exams that they can ask me any doubts they have on vocabulary; as many as they need” [authors’ translation], and also translingual practices: “I know that [a student] has used the Spanish term of a concept, ok? . . . Sometimes someone writes it in Catalan and underscores it to mark that it is in Catalan or Spanish. [The student] underscores it because he has not been able to say it.” In all, the corpus of exam questions amounts to 169 questions, 90 per cent of which just required a numerical answer after the application of a formula, as in the case of SERV2 “Calculate the thermal efficiency” (question 3b of the final exam). So it comes unsurprisingly that the corpus of language-based answers is small (n=17; barely

230

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

10 per cent), given that all the subjects belong to the STEM disciplines. In our sample, students selected English as their language of assessment for more than 70 per cent of the language-based questions. Slightly over 20 per cent of the questions were left unanswered. And most interestingly for this paper, sixteen of the answers (8.1 per cent) were written in the students’ L1 (mostly Catalan) or mixing English and Catalan (classified also as L1-answers for ease of reference), as in the following example: “If we examinate the compression ratio is equal to 10 and for R502, it has to be higher than 10. És a dir, el ratio de compressió dona justament 10, i el que busquem és obtenir un ratio superior a 10. Work with one compressor is 2,4KW and work with two compressors is 2,22KW. L’estalvi energetic no és massa, uns 180 W aproximadament” (see Figure 14.1). Centring on these L1-using answers, Table 14.1 shows that eleven of these answers were awarded 100 per cent of the expected marks, four answers 70 per cent, and one answer 50 per cent, respectively. No penalization was applied, therefore, to almost 80 per cent of the answers written in L1, including the answers using Catalan and English (see Figure 14.1). The remaining 20 per cent of answers received a passing mark. And, quite relevantly, EMI instructors' feedback on the student answers made no comment to any penalization because of the selection of L1 as the language of assessment; instead, teachers’ feedback was basically on mislearned content or partially answered questions. In Figure 14.2, the SERV2 instructor wrote in red: “No, you need stators to increase veloc[ity]”, which instances feedback on mislearned content because the student employed rotors instead of stators as the source to increase velocity (this feedback is given to the answer awarded 50 per cent of the mark). Moreover, in Figure 14.3, the SERV2 instructor wrote also in red in Catalan: “OK, but eq[uation] of BE is missing, and how to calculate enthalpy” (authors’ translation of Figure 14.3), which exemplifies feedback on partially answered question as some mathematical information is missing. The answer was penalized by 30 per cent. The findings in this section bring to light the complexity of the linguistic scenario of EMI programmes in the Southern European university in case. By looking into the language-based questions in the exams of four EMI subjects, findings reveal that mostly students select English as the language of exams. Additionally, students’ L1 is also selected to a fewer extent, and one case of translingual practice is recorded. Another finding

FIGURE 14.1:  Example of translingual practice of student in SERV1 subject.

THE IMPACT OF WORLD ENGLISHES AND ENGLISH

 231

TABLE 14.1  Distribution of marks awarded to questions answered in L1 Subject

Exam

Number of Q Question number in L1

Marks awarded

SERV2

Mid-term

2b

2

100% to 2 Qs

Final

1

2

100% to 2 Qs

5a

2

50% and 100%

5c

2

100 to 2 Qs

Mid-term

2e

3

70% to 3 Qs

Final

2f

1

70% to 1 Q

AB

Mid-term and final

None

None

Non-applicable

BIO

Mid-term

19

2

100% to 2 Qs

20

2

100% to 2 Qs

SERV3

worth commenting on is that no feedback is handwritten by EMI lecturers, which would foreground that the selection of L1 as the language of exams would not be the reason why the answer was awarded less than 100 per cent of the mark; instead, lower marks are awarded because of content misrepresentation or missing information. Therefore, students’ language selection for assessment in the exams does not impact adversely on student’s marks, which accredit content learning. Content instructors seem to prioritize the communication of disciplinary content in whichever language over the selection of only English for such purposes. This calls into debate the extent to which EMI can emerge as a driver for local students to increase their proficiency in English.

THE TEACHING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH A WORLD ENGLISHES/ELF PERSPECTIVE WITH A PLURILINGUAL APPROACH While in the previous section we have set the focus on the implementation of EMI courses at the UdL, we will now turn our attention to another experience that aims to bring a WE/ELF perspective, including a plurilingual approach, to an English for Business course taught at the same university (Llurda and Cots 2020). Traditionally, the teaching of English at university level has often taken the form of ESP. Through ESP teaching, students are exposed to the practices and communication needs of individuals who are in professional or academic contexts (Robinson 1980). More precisely, ESP focuses on communicative and linguistic traits and conventions of

FIGURE 14.2:  Example of feedback on mislearned content.

232

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

FIGURE 14.3:  Example of feedback on missing information.

professional disciplines, which implies having a command of the vocabulary, registers, styles and genres likely to be used in specific disciplines. For instance, a course in Legal English will have to deal with specific terminology, as well as the genres involved in the deployment of law-related professions. And a course on Business English will need to look at a fairly standardized genre, such as commercial correspondence, or may also attempt to develop oral skills necessary in the presentation of a product in front of a potential customer or client. So, the relevant features of ESP courses include a deep reliance on careful and accurate needs analysis procedures (Mancho-Barés and Llurda 2013) as a means to identify the linguistic and communicative aspects that need to be prioritized; the use of authentic materials, genres and exercises which are as similar as those students will come across in professional contexts; and a focus on discipline-specific contents and skills, considering that each discipline makes use of different linguistic resources to “create specialized knowledge” (Hyland 2017: 9). The increasing popularity and implementation of EMI courses has sometimes meant the disappearance of ESP courses. In fact, resulting from the advent of the Bologna Process, Räisänen and Fortanet-Gómez (2008) have noticed an increase in EMI programmes at the expense of ESP in the newly designed syllabuses in Europe. And yet, both EMI and ESP complement each other to the extent that EMI arises as a real context for an authentic and meaningful communication in the discipline, while ESP employs materials, activities and language of the specific discipline. In fact, it is the notion of genre which underpins the complementation, as it arises as a cornerstone of communication in the disciplines (Mancho-Barés and Arnó-Macià 2017; Morton 2010). Hence, it is reasonable to claim that EMI should ideally be offered in combination with ESP courses that provided strong support to students’ language skills development. However, on some occasions, EMI has been promoted in HE programmes in Southern Europe as the magical solution that would once and for all solve the problem of low English skills among students, and by doing so it has been presented as a substitute for traditional ESP courses that will kill two birds with one stone: it will increase the level of English of students and reduce costs by saving on language teachers. One point of criticism to traditional ways of implementing ESP worldwide is that although ESP spins around the importance of students’ needs, it has nevertheless been often assumed that the language would be used to communicate with native speakers, and thus the needs have been described based on native speakers’ usage of the language. Yet, if we think carefully about the actual needs of learners of Business English, Legal English, or Medicine English, to name just a few examples of ESP courses, these will most likely involve the use of English to communicate with other non-native speakers, or, one may say, speakers of WE and ELF. We may now turn our attention to a Business English course taught at the UdL. It is quite unreasonable to expect that students will in the future use English to conduct business with native speakers only. In fact, there is a high probability that they will have to deploy their English skills in a wide range of contexts and with a wide variety of speakers from different areas of the world, a

THE IMPACT OF WORLD ENGLISHES AND ENGLISH

 233

majority of whom will be speakers of WE or ELF. Not only that, it is also quite likely that the interactions will not exclusively be conducted in English, but will instead include elements from the range of different languages spoken by interlocutors. Sociolinguistic research has shown the increasing hybridity and complexity of conversations in multilingual environments (Cogo 2012; Pennycook and Otsuji 2015). Thus, the work by Makoni and Pennycook (2007) on the need to disinvent languages, and Blommaert and Rampton’s (2011) in relation to superdiversity, as well as all the work devoted to translanguaging (Blackledge and Creese 2010; Li 2018) and transidiomatic practices (Jacquenet 2005) serve as a basis for innovative translinguistic approaches to language teaching, in general, and ESP in particular. Kramsch and Huffmaster (2015) claim that globalization has transformed language learners’ expectations and needs. It is increasingly necessary in human communication to be able to communicate in translingual and transcultural environments. And also from a pedagogical point of view, it makes sense for teachers to promote and develop learners’ existing multilingual repertoires, which may be regarded as resources for language development rather than as obstacles or barriers (Cenoz and Gorter 2013, 2015). One of such approaches was developed by a group of researchers at the UdL working in the PLURELF project, which stands for ‘A plurilingual and ELF-based approach to the teaching of English’. The project aimed at developing and assessing a plurilingual ELF-based methodology of teaching ESP to a group of first-year students of a BA in Business Administration. The programme included two compulsory semesters of English for Business, and thus could be considered an example of a prototypical pre-service ESP course. Students were between eighteen and twenty years of age, and they had been randomly assigned to a given class section. The members of the research team had designed a specific set of materials that would be used in parallel by two of the class sections with one key difference between the two: one of the sections would be taught following a classic monolingual approach with exclusive use of English in class and exclusive use of native speaker models in audio and video materials; the other section was presented with audio and video materials produced by non-native speakers, and the teacher made extensive use and encouraged students to use their first languages in carrying out the required tasks. Thus, for instance, students in this group were required to prepare and deliver an oral presentation in Catalan or Spanish prior to a subsequent task in which they would deliver the presentation in English, whereas in the monolingual group all the tasks were conducted in English. In the course, the models offered to students were non-native, thus exposing learners to different accents and varieties and at the same time sending the subliminal message that English spoken for international communication has a wide array of possible variation, and there is no canonical model that learners are supposed to imitate as part of the language learning process. The two groups were tested at the beginning and at the end of the semester and the results were compared for any difference that would validate one approach over the other. We combined ethnographic observation of the classes with group and individual interviews, and we tested students on oral spontaneous production (a ‘sales pitch’ task, in which they had to ‘sell a product’, by means of speaking for around two minutes), written production (writing an enquiry letter to a commercial firm) and general English language skills. The results of statistical comparisons were not conclusive, in part probably due to the limited time available within a single semester for any significant change to take place.

234

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Yet, in the focus-group sessions we could observe that students expressed some resistance to the use of plurilingual resources. They felt that promoting the use of the L1 made the task too easy and less challenging, which might be detrimental to their language development. Students did, however, show enthusiastic acceptance of non-native forms of English as models of use, and they appeared to appreciate the coherence in being presented models of non-native English in anticipation of the likeliness of their own future interactions with other non-native speakers. With regard to quantitative measures of English proficiency, results of the two groups at the end of the semester differed in only one of the measures: the oral ‘sales pitch’ production task. The students’ oral productions were recorded and given to an external rater with long experience as an examiner of a well-known international English test, who rated the oral productions numerically (0–5) in four dimensions: content, communicative achievement, organization and language, with a maximum score of 20 points. Students in the PLURELF (plurilingual+ELF) group performed significantly better than students in the canonical monolingual native-oriented group. Such results provide a strong support to previous literature advocating for more plurilingual and non-native oriented approaches to language teaching. It turned out in this project that bringing to class ordinary ‘street’ practices, namely plurilingual and non-native interactions, not only did not do any harm to students’ learning but did actually contribute to language gains in oral speech production.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ‘ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE’ COURSE IN A DEGREE ON ENGLISH STUDIES The third case illustrating the impact of WE and ELF in tertiary education is a course offered to students of the English Studies BA program at the UdL, specifically dealing with the role of English as a global language. Such a course, taught by one of the authors, aims at incorporating a critical view on future graduates of English and its main goal is to challenge the mainly native-oriented views that students bring with them and develop a critical awareness of the complexity inherent in the global expansion of English. Students choosing English Studies as their major in Catalan universities often do so because they have enjoyed learning English at school and want to further develop their language skills with the potential perspective of becoming English teachers themselves. Plus, many of them have had some experience taking summer courses in traditional English-speaking countries, mainly the United Kingdom and Ireland due to their geographical proximity. Their teachers have a predominantly native speaker orientation in their classes, focusing on standard British English and often explicitly downplaying any other varieties of English, including other native varieties. Thus, the model of English they have been exposed to through their education is predominantly Standard British English. Consequently, they start their degree with a generally positive bias towards native speakers of English, and their goal is to approximate and imitate as much as possible native-speaker production. This orientation often comes with a feeling of inferiority (described in Llurda 2009), for not been able to produce English in the same exact form as native speakers do. The course “English as a global language”, thus, aims at questioning and, to some extent, changing previous views so that they can picture English in its global dimension and become empowered by developing a more comprehensive idea of the ownership

THE IMPACT OF WORLD ENGLISHES AND ENGLISH

 235

of English (Widdowson 1994). In this course, Kachru’s (1992) vision of the concentric circles of WE is complemented by Modiano’s (1999) centripetal model of English as an international language, and Seidlhofer’s (2003) conceptualization of English as a lingua franca (ELF), which naturally developed Kachru’s model beyond the Outer Circle and conceptualized the uses of English in the Expanding Circle. Students are intended to develop a critical analysis skill with regard to the role of English on contemporary society, and its contribution to the formation of a globalized space worldwide. Such competence is complemented by two specific objectives: (1) to be able to enumerate the causes and evolution of the global expansion of English; (2) to develop a critical awareness with regard to the impact of globalization and the predominance of English over local languages at a global scale. Thus, the course is intended as a tool for empowering students (all of them non-native speakers of English) in the use of English without suffering from lack of self-esteem or being affected by the Impostor Syndrome (Bernat 2008), which comes alongside the idealization of the native speaker as the only valid model, and the devaluation of alternative forms of using English. The course aims at questioning the notion of standard language and its subsequent standard language ideology (Lippi-Green 2012) and the monolingual bias that is present in many public discourses about language. Additionally, it is intended to present human communication in its complex nature (Canagarajah 2007; Makoni and Pennycook 2007), emphasizing how it goes beyond monolingual interactions and mingles in a mixing and meshing of codes that are constantly negotiated and renegotiated to provide meaning to real-life interactions. As argued in the previous section, this multilingual vision that looks beyond a monolingual idea of language constitutes a key feature of any language teaching approach that incorporates a WE and ELF paradigm. Focusing on such complexity is the first step to question the validity of a single unitarian model, which invariably ends with the dominance of the native speaker and the devaluation of other non-standard or non-native forms of communication. The only available data to measure the impact of such a course on undergraduate students majoring in English Studies comes from their course evaluation and more importantly their informal comments during and after the semester. Such comments range from acknowledging that the course gave them a new vision over English that may moderately affect their lives to claiming that this was a mind-opener and to some extent career-changing experience. This is the case of students who drastically realize that the old way in which they envisioned English is no longer valid and so they become fervent supporters of non-native varieties and uses of English and the notions of WE and ELF. These are students of an English Studies BA, who have interest in both language and literature and mostly plan to start a career as language teachers in Catalan high schools. Some students, though, have decided to embark on a research career in ELF after taking this course, and others have reported to us to have introduced these notions in their own teaching and interactions. It is most rewarding to observe this change, especially when many of these students will eventually become English language teachers who, with their change of views, will contribute to change the way English is perceived and taught in society at large (Llurda 2016). This is relevant in light of Cook’s (2007) distinction between users and learners, which was used by Llurda (2016) to argue that, unlike other highly proficient speakers of English whose successful efforts at communicating in English contribute to their development of an awareness of being users of the language, non-native language teachers of English do often remain trapped within the native speakerist paradigm and insist on having the native speaker as the only model, thus refusing to accept non-standard forms. In other

236

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

words, they see themselves as ambassadors or custodians of the English language norm. This affects the way they teach the language, making the class less spontaneous and transferring a rigid normativist view of the language that does not correspond to its actual uses. Teachers who can dissociate themselves from this mindset and regard themselves as highly accomplished users of the language, whose job is to transmit the capacity to use the language to their students, will be several steps ahead in the development of a positive and effective classroom atmosphere, by setting realistic goals that contribute to the development of highly proficient L2 users (Cook 2007). Such teachers are mediators and facilitators instead of ambassadors or essentialist custodians of the language. Llurda (2009) has contended the need to start promoting English as an international language as non-dependent from native speakerist models, by incorporating the WE/ELF perspective among non-native language teachers. We need to change non-native speakers’ mentality and help set them free from the native speakerist ideology, and by changing their own views, language teachers will significantly contribute to the transformation of global discourses on language and particularly on English. A global English course, such as the one described earlier, is a useful tool to transform future teachers’ views regarding English and English speakers.

CONCLUDING REMARKS In this chapter, we have seen how WE and ELF have impacted HE in the Expanding Circle, by focusing on three specific instantiations of educational programmes that are founded on the need to reconsider the English language and its uses. The three cases presented earlier are found in the same university, set in a context that one may qualify as low-international and local, in opposition to highly internationalized contexts, such as universities in big cities (e.g., Barcelona), and they are a direct consequence of the expansion of WE in the Expanding Circle and the transformation this has brought to traditional ways of teaching and learning English in academic settings, even in environments that may not be described as highly internationalized. These three cases also exemplify how an HE institution in the Expanding circle approaches English and its global spread. The implementation of EMI programmes and the challenges and concerns that come alongside this educational innovation are discussed. Results show that content learning is not negatively affected by the implementation of EMI programmes. However, the selection of other languages apart from English calls into question the capacity of such programmes to comply with the institutional demands of making them a platform for language learning (Block and Mancho-Barés 2021). Then, we present a successful experience designed to tackle ESP teaching from a plurilingual and ELF position, which turns away from a monolingual native speakerist orientation to embrace multilingualism and non-native speaker performance as the paradigmatic setting, in which real-life communication is increasingly taking place at the international level. Finally, the specific introduction of a subject that openly reflects on English as a global language and the change of perspective regarding the English language brought by WE and ELF is described, and arguments are given to support its usefulness in raising critical awareness towards English among future English graduates, of which a good deal are likely to become English teachers in the future. We have thus provided an overview of the complexity and overarching impact of WE and ELF in a Catalan university, which we believe may serve as an epitome of the situation in many other universities in the Expanding Circle.

THE IMPACT OF WORLD ENGLISHES AND ENGLISH

 237

NOTES 1. This chapter was possible thanks to the financial support obtained from the Spanish Ministry of Education (projects FFI2015-67769-P and FFI2016-76383-P), the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (project PID2019-107451GB-I00) and AGAUR (project 2017 SGR 1522). We are also grateful to all the members of the research groups involved in the projects PLURELF and ASSEMID. 2. Technically, schools may offer other foreign languages, but in practice English is the language that is offered by the vast majority of schools in the country.

REFERENCES Arnau, L., J. Borràs-Comes and C. Escobar Urmeneta (2018), ‘Rendimiento académico de estudiantes de estudios universitarios con docencia en inglés (DUI): El caso del Grado en Educación Primaria de la UAB’, in C. Escobar Urmeneta and L. Arnau (eds), Los retos de la internacionalización de los Grados Universitarios en el Contexto del Espacio Europeo de Educación Superior (EEES), 77–93, Madrid: Ed. Síntesis.  Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. and H. Ingvarsdóttir, eds (2018), Language Development across the Life Span, Cham: Springer. Arnó-Macià, E. and G. Mancho-Barés (2015), ‘The Role of Content and Language in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at University: Challenges and Implications for ESP’, English for Specific Purposes, 37: 63–73. Bazo, P., A. Centellas, E. Dafouz, A. Fernández, D. González and V. Pavón (2017), Documento marco de política lingüística para la internacionalización del sistema universitario español, Madrid: CRUE. Bernat, E. (2008), ‘Towards a Pedagogy of Empowerment: The Case of ‘Impostor Syndrome’ Among Pre-service Non-native Speaker Teachers in TESOL’, ELTED, 11: 1–8. Björkman, B. (2011), ‘Pragmatic Strategies in English as an Academic Lingua Franca: Ways of Achieving Communicative Effectiveness?’, Journal of Pragmatics, 43: 950–64. Blackledge, A. and A. Creese (2010), Multilingualism: Critical Perspectives, London: Continuum. Block, D. and G. Mancho-Barés (2021), ‘NOT English Teachers, Except When They Are: The Curious Case of Oral Presentation Evaluation Rubrics’, in D. Block and S. Khan (eds), The Secret Life of English-Medium Instruction in Higher Education: Examining Microphenomena in Context, 96–119, London: Routledge. Blommaert, J. and B. Rampton (2011), ‘Language and Superdiversity’, Diversities, 13 (2): 1–21. Broggini, S. and F. Costa (2017), ‘A Survey of English-Medium Instruction in Italian Higher Education: An Updated Perspective from 2012 to 2015’, Journal of Immersion and ContentBased Language Education, 5 (2): 238–64. Byun, K., H. Chu, M. Kim, I. Park, S. Kim and J. Jung (2011), ‘English-Medium Teaching in Korean Higher Education: Policy Debates and Reality’, Higher Education, 62 (4): 431–49. Canagarajah, S. (2007), ‘Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities, and Language Acquisition’, The Modern Language Journal, 91: 923–39. Cavanagh, C. (2016), The Role of English in Internationalisation and Global Citizenship Identity in South Korean Higher Education, PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. Available at https://eprints​.soton​.ac​.uk​/411813/. Access: 16/9/2019. Cenoz, J. and D. Gorter (2013), ‘Towards a Plurilingual Approach in English Language Teaching: Softening the Boundaries between Languages’, TESOL Quarterly, 47 (3): 591–99.

238

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Cenoz, J. and D. Gorter (2015), Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chostelidou, D. and E. Griva (2014), ‘Measuring the Effect of Implementing CLIL in Higher Education: An Experimental Research Project’, Procedia, 116: 2169–74. 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. Coleman, J. (2006), ‘English-Medium Teaching in European Higher Education’, Language Teaching, 39: 1–14. Cook, V. (2007), ‘The Goals of ELT’, in J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds), International Handbook of English Language Teaching, 237–48, New York: Springer. Costa, F. and J. Coleman (2013), ‘A Survey of English-Medium Instruction in Italian Higher Education’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16 (1): 3–19. Costa, F. and C. Mariotti (2017), ‘Students’ Outcomes in English-Medium Instruction: Is There Any Difference Related to Discipline’, L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 25: 361–71. Cots, J.M., D. Lasagabaster and P. Garrett (2012), ‘Multilingual Policies and Practices of Universities in Three Bilingual Regions in Europe’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 216: 7–32. Dafouz, E. and M. Camacho-Miñano (2016), ‘Exploring the Impact of English-Medium Instruction on University Student Academic Achievement: The Case of Accounting’, English for Specific Purposes, 44: 57–67. Dearden, J. (2015), English as a Medium of Instruction – A Growing Global Phenomenon, London: British Council. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra (2011), ‘Internationalization, Multilingualism and English-Medium Instruction’, World Englishes, 30 (2): 345–59. Doiz, A., D. Lasagabaster and J. M. Sierra, eds (2013), English-Medium Instruction at Universities. Global Challenges, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. (2007), Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Earls, C. (2013), ‘Setting the Catherine Wheel in Motion. An Exploration of “Englishization” in the German Higher Education System’, Language Problems and Language Planning, 37 (2): 125–50. Gruppo di Lavoro CRUI sull’Internazionalizzazione (2015), Indicatori di internazionalizzazione del sistema universitario italiano, Roma: CRUI. Retrieved from http:​/​/www​​2​.cru​​i​.it/​​HomeP​​ age​.a​​spx​?​r​​ef​=20​​38# Hernandez-Nanclares, N. and A. Jimenez-Munoz (2015), ‘English as a Medium of Instruction: Evidence for Language and Content Targets in Bilingual Education in Economics’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20 (7): 883–96. Hyland, K. (2017), ‘English in the Disciplines: Arguments for Specificity’, ESP Today, 5 (1): 5–23. Jacquenet, M. (2005), ‘Transidiomatic Practices: Language and Power in the Age of Globalization’, Language and Communication, 25: 257–77. Jenkins, J. (2014), English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The Politics of Academic Language Policy, Abingdon: Routledge. Kachru, B. B., ed. (1992), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd edn, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Knight, J. (2003), ‘Updating the Definition of Internationalization’, International Higher Education, 3 (3): 2–3. Kramsch, C. and M. Huffmaster (2015), ‘Multilingual Practices in Foreign Language Study’, in J. Cenoz and D. Gorter (eds), Multilingual Education: Between Language Learning and Translanguaging, 114–36, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

THE IMPACT OF WORLD ENGLISHES AND ENGLISH

 239

Lasagabaster, D., J. M. Cots and G. Mancho-Barés (2013), ‘Teaching Staff ’s Views About Internationalisation of Higher Education: The Case of Two Bilingual Communities in Spain’, Multilingua, 32 (6): 751–78. Li Wei (2018), ‘Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language’, Applied Linguistics, 39 (1): 9–30. Lippi-Green, R. (2012), English with an Accent, 2nd edn, 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, 119–34, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Llurda, E. (2016), ‘Native Speakers, English, and ELT: Changing Perspectives’, in G. Hall (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching, 51–63, Abingdon: Routledge. Llurda, E. and J. M. Cots (2020), ‘PLURELF: A Project Implementing Plurilingualism and English as a Lingua Franca in English Language Teaching at University’, Status Quaestionis, 19: 259–276. Llurda, E., J.M. Cots and L. Armengol (2013), ‘Expanding Language Borders in a Bilingual Institution Aiming at Trilingualism’, in H. Haberland, D. Lonsman and B. Preisler (eds), Language Alternation, Language Choice, and Language Encounter in International Tertiary Education, 203–22, Dordrecht: Springer. Llurda, E., J.M. Cots and L. Armengol (2014), ‘Administrative Staff in the Spotlight: Views on Multilingualism and Internationalisation’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35 (4): 376–91. Makoni, S. and A. Pennycook, eds (2007), Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mancho-Barés, G. and E. Llurda (2013), ‘Internationalization of Business English Communication at University: A Three-Fold Needs Analysis’, Ibérica, 26: 153–72. Mancho-Barés, G. and E. Arnó-Macià (2017), ‘EMI Lecturer Training Programmes and Acadèmic Literacies: A Critical Insight from ESP’, ESP Today, 5 (2): 266–90. Mancho-Barés, G. and M. Aguilar-Pérez (2020), ‘EMI Lecturers’ Practices in Correcting English: Resources for Language Teaching?’, Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 8 (2): 257–284. Modiano, M. (1999), ‘International English in the Global Village’, English Today, 15 (2): 22–8. Morton, T. (2010), ‘Using a Genre-Based Approach to Integrating Content and Language in CLIL: The Example of Secondary History’, in C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit (eds), Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms, 81–104, Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pennycook, A. and E. Otsuji (2015), Metrolingualism. Language in the City, London: Routledge. Phillipson, R. and T. Skutnabb-Kangas (1999), ‘Englishization: One Dimension of Globalization’, in D. Graddol and U. H. Menhof (eds), English in a Changing World, 19–36, Gulidford, UK: AILA. Räisänen, C. and I. Fortanet-Gómez (2008), ‘The State of ESP Teaching and Learning in Western European Higher Education After Bologna’, in I. Fortanet-Gómez and C. Räisänen (eds), ESP in European Higher Education, 11–51, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Robinson, P. (1980), ESP (English for Specific Purposes), Oxford: Pergamon Press. Sabaté-Dalmau, M. (2016), ‘The Englishisation of Higher Education in Catalonia: A Critical Sociolinguistic Ethnographic Approach to the Students’ Perspectives’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29 (3): 263–85.

240

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Seidlhofer, B. (2003), A Concept of International English and Related Issues: From ‘Real English’ to ‘Realistic English’? Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Seidlhofer, B. (2011), Understanding English as a Lingua Franca, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smit, U. (2010), English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education. A Longitudinal Study of Classroom Discourse, Berlin: De Gruyter. Söderlundh, H. (2012), ‘Global Practices and Local Norms: Sociolinguistic Awareness and Language Choice at an International University’, International Journal of Sociology of Language, 216: 87–109. Soler-Carbonell, J. and L. Gallego-Balsà (2019), The Sociolinguistics of Higher Education, Cham: Palgrave. Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm (2008), English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The Picture in 2007, Bonn: Lemmens. Wächter, B. and F. Maiworm (2014), English-Taught Programmes in European Higher Education: The State of Play in 2014, Bonn: Lemmens. Widdowson, H. G. (1994), ‘The Ownership of English’, TESOL Quarterly, 28 (2): 377–89. Wilkinson, R. (2017), ‘Trends and Issues in English-Medium Instruction in Europe’, in K. Ackerley, M. Guarda and F. Helm (eds), Sharing Perspectives on English-Medium Instruction, 35–75, Bern: Peter Lang. Wright, S. and L. Zheng (2018), ‘Language as System and Language as Dialogic Creativity’, in J. Jenkins, W. Baker and M. Dewey (eds), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 506–17, Abingdon: Routledge.

Chapter 15

World Englishes and Critical Pedagogy Reflections on Paulo Freire’s Contributions to the Brazilian National English as a Lingua Franca Curriculum SÁVIO SIQUEIRA 1 AND TELMA GIMENEZ 2

INTRODUCTION The explicit endorsement of a lingua franca perspective into the new National Curriculum Framework,3 to be implemented by 2021 in Brazilian schools, represents an important move in English language education at secondary level in our country. The official recognition of the current status of English in the world scene suggests the intention of incorporating linguistic diversity in the school curriculum and poses many challenges to teachers educated within an English as a foreign language (EFL) approach. Other pedagogical implications found the literature on World Englishes (WE; Jenkins 2003; Kirkpatrick 2007), English as a lingua franca (ELF; Bayyurt and Akcan 2015) and English as an international language (EIL; Matsuda 2017) imply the relevance of considering critical educational approaches and these language paradigms4. For Brazilians, the key reference in critical pedagogy (CP) is Paulo Freire, whose ideas can help address the destabilization of linguistic ideologies sustained by prescriptive approaches that deny non-native speakers of English the legitimacy to “read the world with their own words.” CP concepts such as the rejection of banking education, conscientization, action and reflection, among others, can be enacted in the ELF classroom as a component of holistic critical education. In this chapter, which basically derives from the authors’ analyses and reflections, not from a formal research study, we will discuss some of these concepts with reference to the National Curriculum (hereafter BNCC). Among other aspects, we will point out the relevance of considering the alignment of ELF with critical pedagogy, to what extent that BNCC’s desired learning outcomes reflect an ELF perspective and the complexity of translating contemporary views of English into the curriculum. Brazil, the largest country in South America and the twelfth world economy, has recently been swept over by a highly conservative political agenda which, among other issues, intends to implement certain radical changes that jeopardize important advances in social rights in several areas, including general education. Once right-wing activists took office in the newly elected cabinet, an open campaign towards the deconstruction and the consequent debunking of the prestigious figure of world-renowned educator and philosopher, Paulo Freire, the

242

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

“patron of Brazilian education,” was put into practice. This chapter reinforces his role as an inspiring educational philosopher by revealing the convergence of his pedagogical approach and the implications of teaching within an ELF perspective.

PAULO FREIRE AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING Paulo Freire (1921–97) is the author of a great number of books and manuscripts which have become the founding intellectual basis of one of the strands of the CP movement,5 extending his influence well beyond Latin America and inspiring other intellectuals around the world (e.g. Giroux 1992; Guilherme 2002; McLaren and Lankshear 1994). His educational vision has also influenced scholars in the field of second and foreign language (FL) learning (e.g. Auerbach and Wallerstein 1987; Norton and Toohey 2004;) especially in relation to the role of English language teaching (ELT) in developing, for instance, intercultural awareness, critical language and cultural awareness, critical literacy, and citizenship education (Crookes 2013; Guilherme 2002; Siqueira 2008). Other pedagogical implications derived from studies under the ELF umbrella suggest that critical pedagogies inspired by the work of Paulo Freire can adequately address the destabilization of linguistic ideologies informed and sustained by prescriptive approaches that deny non-native speakers of English the legitimacy to “read the world with their own words.” CP’s important concepts such as the rejection of banking education,6 conscientization, action and reflection, problem-posing, teaching for social justice, among others, can surely be enacted in the ELF classroom as a component of holistic critical education. ELF, taken here as a transcultural space of decolonization of beliefs, premises and practices (Siqueira 2018a), holds the great potential to embrace CP, being the main challenge to make CP’s premises pragmatically accessible, thus having teachers see themselves as those critical pedagogues who pave the way for learners to create and voice their (counter)discourses in the global lingua franca. Empowerment and voice are keywords in CP. They are crucial to the work of critical pedagogues who know that they are to always provide students with their own reading of the word and the world, as defended by Freire. Consequently, in Freire’s thought, one of the most powerful weapons available to the critical pedagogue is “conscientization” (conscientização),7 which, in his own words, “is the most critical look of reality, which ‘unveils’ the latter in order to get to know it and the other myths that cheat [people] and help maintain the reality of the dominant structure”8 (Freire 1980: 29). These ideas do make sense when one considers that ELT has consolidated its power and influence anchored in traditional tenets that, despite their overall acceptance, have been overtly and continuously questioned by the development and results of research fields like WE and ELF.

CRITICAL PEDAGOGY AND THE ELF CLASSROOM 9 Pedagogy, more than Linguistics, seems to be at the heart of ELF research. For this reason, much of the rationale for sociolinguistic investigations on the English used largely by non-native speakers derived from the need to consider what teachers around the world were taking as models, as Seidlhofer (2001) pointed out in her seminal work. Renaming English became, therefore, central to the establishment of a new perspective that could influence language teaching and learning. In this sense, description was at the service of education.

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGY

 243

Freire’s insistence on the need to “name the world in our own terms” resonates with this process of conceptualizing the language to be learned by millions of people around the world. This is not just a change in nomenclature; it implies a change in the way we experience communication in English. Renaming is then part of the efforts for empowerment of scholars, teachers and learners, and as such it is also a battlefield for legitimation of alternative viewpoints (Gimenez 2015). Not surprisingly, terminology and definitions have been addressed by many scholars in an attempt to shed light on the similarities and differences among the several names for English. In Brazil, authors like Rajagopalan (2004), Jordão (2014), Gimenez, El Kadri and Calvo (2018) have tried to clarify the issue, although recognizing that we are far from achieving consensus. The implications of renaming English as a lingua franca (and thus embracing diversity and resisting the status quo) signal proximity with CP tenets, especially the recognition that education is always a political act. ELF, seen by Siqueira (2018b: 109) as a transcultural zone of power negotiation, “points to ways which destabilize an entire chain of beliefs, ideas, postures and principles emanated from hegemonic centers as much as unmask a state of things that traditionally lives and feeds on the powerful coloniality of the English language.”10 This makes us realize that, once we consolidate the idea that the political and pedagogical implications of ELF are intrinsically associated with CP orientations, we can surely envision the possibility of having English teachers engage in their daily practice as “transformative intellectuals” (Giroux 1988). This means that practitioners will be able to turn the ELF classroom into a space in which concepts like conscientization, dissent, empowerment, dialogue, action and reflection, hope, social transformation and so on are to be activated in order to naturally relate ELT to the real world, challenging the “EFL bubble” teachers are forced to live with and propagate along their careers. Bearing this in mind, we see as vital to rethink and reconceptualize English teaching practices traditionally oriented by methodological principles and processes imported from the so-called hegemonic centers of knowledge and solely designed for communication. As Ortega (1999: 249) reminds us, “hegemonic beliefs and attitudes in FL education are crucially related to nested notions of nativeness and standardness.” In many ways, as already mentioned, these deep-rooted practices need to be challenged, including the ones which generally take as reference cultural aspects and values of the target language and/ or community(ies), disregarding any political or ideological concern that should support the FL teaching profession. Within a CP perspective, the teaching of English outside Eurocentric circles needs to take into account the condition of English today as a denationalized language, massively operating in lingua franca intercultural interactions. Within this process, national educational policies are to play a crucial role, especially those related to curriculum design and implementation.

ELF AND THE NATIONAL CORE CURRICULUM (BNCC) Having established the importance of critical approaches to English language teaching, a goal that can be achieved by adopting an ELF perspective in the curriculum, in this section we will briefly describe the rationale and the objectives of teaching English in the Brazilian school curriculum according to the aforementioned BNCC. As mentioned, the document endorses ELF as the approach to be followed by teachers, who, nevertheless, may be puzzled by its unfolding in the outlined contents and expected outcomes, seemingly in contradiction

244

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

with such a view of language. We will exemplify the contradictions with a focus on two of the BNCC’s organizing axes: “linguistic knowledge” and “intercultural dimension,” since these two aspects relate directly to the challenges posed by an ELF perspective. The year 2017 saw a turning point in the educational legislation that had guided FL teaching and learning in Brazil since 1996: it made English a compulsory subject in the curriculum from lower secondary level on (equivalent to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels 2 and 3,)11 instead of one of the potential languages to be offered to basic education students. Although English was already the language taught in the majority of schools in the country, that decision meant that the choice of which FL to teach allowed by the national educational law was no longer part of the policy mindset, thus creating obstacles to other languages and whose offer now depends on the individual efforts of those interested in fostering and keeping a multilingual approach in education. That change took place while a new national curriculum was being discussed in a process that started in 2014 and was concluded in 2017 for ISCED 2 students (sixth to ninth graders) with the approval of the third version of a document by the Ministry of Education upon a favorable report by the National Council for Education (Conselho Nacional de Educação). In this final version, the national curriculum framework known as BNCC (Base Nacional Comum Curricular – National Core Curriculum)12 outlines the learning objectives and expected outcomes for all disciplinary areas. In 2018, the Ministry of Education finally approved the BNCC for ISCED 3–level students (high school), with the publication of a 600-page consolidated document, including both lower and upper secondary levels (ISCED 2 and 3), with the recommendation that the new curriculum be implemented within the next two years. The curriculum is conceived within an interdisciplinary perspective and English is introduced as a component of the “Languages” area, which includes Portuguese, Arts and Physical Education. The objective is to “enable students to participate in diversified language practices, allowing the expansion of their expressive capacities in artistic, body and linguistic forms, as well as knowledge of those languages” (Brasil 2018: 63).13 The result of several attempts at initially producing a rationale for FL learning and later having to direct the guidelines to a specific language led to a broad focus on English with the understanding that “learning the English language creates new forms of engagement and participation in a social world increasingly globalized and plural, where the boundaries between countries and local, regional, national and transnational interests are increasingly fuzzy and contradictory”14 (Brasil 2018: 241). The recognition that English plays an important role in creating possibilities for further participation in a “global world,” that is, a borderless one, is framed within a critical perspective. Keywords in the introductory section of the English language component are “critical agency,” “active citizenship,” “interaction” and “mobility.” Moving away from an instrumental view, the text highlights the formative character (caráter formativo) of learning English as an educational, critical and conscious activity in which pedagogy and politics are integrated. This rationale is perfectly coherent with a CP as envisaged by Paulo Freire, overtly discussed in earlier sections. As the BNCC text proceeds to consider the implications of adopting such an educational approach, it poses questions about what kind of English we should be trying to teach, given that speakers of this language are from countries other than those where it is an official language. That questioning paves the way for the proposal that it should focus on the social and political status of English by treating it as a lingua franca. The concept of an FL is rebuked as being Eurocentric and inadequate to refer to a language that has become “viral” and “mixed” (miscigenada), thus justifying the adoption of this terminology, despite

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGY

 245

acknowledging other terms such as global, international, additional, among others. The preference for ELF, not WE, for instance, is aligned with the understanding that English is no longer a “foreign” language, coming from countries whose speakers should not be considered models to be followed, nor is it a variety of English. The document further explains that according to this perspective, speakers from many parts of the world, with their varied linguistic and cultural repertoires, should have their ways of using the language legitimized and welcomed. In relation to “correctness,” the text suggests that it is possible to question (and problematize) the view that the only correct varieties – and those that should be taught – are those spoken by Americans or by the British people (Brasil 2018: 241).15 In other words, under this perspective, ELF speakers’ usage is to be interpreted as evidence of creativity not incompetence (Widdowson 2019). The short explanation of what the BNCC proponents understand by ELF can be taken as an important move towards de-stabilizing some of the tenets of EFL teaching, that is, that the only possible way to learn English is to adhere to native speakers’ linguistic and cultural norms. On the contrary, it recognizes the expansion of the language beyond national borders with more and more speakers adapting it to their own contexts in a multiplicity of unforeseen circumstances, not just interactions with native speakers who today comprise a sole minority within the groups of global speakers of English. The immediate implication it proposes is that English should be taught for the development of interculturality as the ability to recognize and respect differences and to understand how they are produced in social language practices, enabling critical reflection on oneself and others. Another implication is what is meant by literacy, by affirming that multiliteracies are to be developed within a more fluid conceptualization of language. Here, ELF is seen as compatible with that view since it is “a language that materializes itself in hybrid uses, marked by fluidity and that opens itself to other forms of expression, driven by pluri-multilingual speakers and their multicultural characteristics”16 (Brasil 2018: 240). The third implication, the document explains, is about teaching approaches to language. Teachers are supposed to distance themselves from seeing proficiency levels or “good English” as monolithic concepts and learn to relativize them. Intelligibility-in-interaction is to be favored, not native speakers’ idealizations. In spite of these ELF-oriented elaborations, it is unfortunate that the document does not bring references, since these concepts would need further clarification, especially considering that they hint at disruption with constructs dear to the language teaching tradition, such as “correctness” and “proficiency.” In this sense, Duboc (2019) rightly points out the multiplicity of voices from the ELF research literature that can be identified in the BNCC introductory text and the incoherence between a fluid view of language and the linear and hierarchical sequence presented in the section where thematic units, objects of knowledge and skills are suggested for each school year. On the one hand, the BNCC seems to innovate by acknowledging that conceptualizations of language are being challenged by the contemporary uses of English in the world, as part of the communicative processes where multiple identities, cultures and languages interact, and on the other it finds it difficult to reconciliate this perspective within a structured curriculum. For Duboc (2019), this apparent contradiction reveals a desire to break with mainstream conceptions of English, reflected in most of the EFL textbooks, while also presenting choices that slip into hegemonic discourses. Following a Bakhtinian perspective, she sees this positively, as an opportunity for creative appropriation. In her words, I conclude this article in favor of non-condemnation of the epistemological conflict evidenced in the presence of ELF in the BNCC in that it resides precisely the possible

246

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

meanings by the teacher-subject-interpreter in the encounter with ELF-as-sign.17 (Duboc 2019: 19) According to this view, there would be reasons to celebrate the fact that a non-hegemonic concept of language is officially recognized in a national curriculum document. However, there seems to be a distance between the theoretical rationale adhering to an ELF perspective and the proposed common curriculum structure. The gap can be more clearly seen in the BNCC-EF (Educação Fundamental) document, which outlines five organizing axes: (1) oral comprehension and production, (2) reading, (3) writing, (4) linguistic knowledge and (5) intercultural dimension, as outlined in Table 15.1.

TABLE 15.1  The five organizing axes Axis

Key aspects

Oral comprehension and production

Consider the genre characteristics, the speakers’ particular ways of using the language that sometimes signal their identities. Also consider lexical items and linguistic structures, pronunciation, intonation and rhythm, comprehension strategies (global, main points and specific), accommodation (conflict resolution) and negotiation (requests for clarification and confirmation, paraphrases and exemplification).

Reading

Comprehension and interpretation of hybrid and written genres. Presentation of reading situations organized around pre-reading, reading and post-reading as strategies to develop critical and autonomous reading that draws on competences already developed, especially in Portuguese. Consider different ways of reading (to have general comprehension, to search for specific information, to understand details) as well as different purposes (read to research, to review one’s own writing, reading aloud to expose ideas and arguments, to act in the world by positioning oneself critically, etc.).

Writing

Process and collaborative individual or collective writing. Consider stages of planning-production-review, having in mind the purpose of the text, its support and the intended audience. Writing is a social practice that enables students to exercise agency and should be lived as authentic, creative and autonomous.

Linguistic knowledge

Consolidated through use, analysis and reflection on contextualized language at the service of oral comprehension and production, reading and writing practices. The focus is to take the students to inductively discover the systemic functioning of English. Beyond what is right or wrong these discoveries should provide spaces for reflection on “appropriateness,” “standard,” “language variation” and “intelligibility.” Contrastively, explore similarities and differences between English and Portuguese or other languages the students might know to develop metalinguistic awareness.

Intercultural dimension

Consider the ELF scenario: different groups of people, with diverse interests, agendas, cultural and linguistic repertoires enact processes of open and plural identities. It means to problematize the different roles of English in the world, its values, its reach and effects on relationships among different people, now and from a historical perspective.

Source: Edited sections of BNCC (Brasil 2018: 243–5).

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGY

 247

In terms of language skills, this edited selection of features that teachers should take into account seems to give continuity to EFL proposals within a process, learner-centered approach, whereas the axes “linguistic knowledge” and “intercultural dimension,” more explicitly, address issues brought up and highlighted by ELF researchers. From the point of view of its theoretical foundations, this hybridity (or epistemological conflict as described by Duboc 2019) is reflected on a curriculum that draws both on innovation and disruption, as we can see in the “linguistic knowledge” axis for each grade and detailed in the following text (Brasil 2018: 250):

LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE – Linguistic analysis practices for the reflection on how English works, based on the language uses pertinent to the axes of oral comprehension and production, reading, writing and intercultural dimension.18

Sixth grade Thematic unit/knowledge object

Skills

Lexical study (EF06LI1619) Construct repertoire corresponding to Construction of lexical repertoire expressions used for the social conviviality and for Pronunciation classroom language. (EF06LI17) Construct lexical repertoire relative to familiar subjects (school, family, daily routine, leisure activities, sports, among others). (EF06LI18) Recognize similarities and differences in the pronunciation of English words and mother tongue and/ or other known languages. Grammar Simple present and present continuous (affirmative, negative, interrogative) Imperative Genitive case (‘s) Possessive adjectives

EF06LI19) Use simple present to identify people (verb to be) and describe daily routines. (EF06LI20) Use present continuous to describe actions in progress. (EF06LI21) Recognize the use of the imperative in statements of activities, commands and instructions. (EF06LI22) Describe relations by using apostrophe (‘) + s. (EF06LI23) Use, in an intelligible way, possessive adjectives.

Seventh grade Lexical study Construction of lexical repertoire Pronunciation Polysemy

(EF07LI15) Construct lexical repertoire corresponding to regular and irregular verbs (forms in the past), prepositions of time (in, on, at) and connectors (and, but, because, then, so, before, after, among others). (EF07LI16) Recognize the pronunciation of regular verbs in the past (-ed). (EF07LI17) Explore the polysemic character of words according to the context of use.

248

Grammar Past simple and continuous (affirmative forms, negative and interrogative) Object and subject Modal verb can (present and past)

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

(EF07LI18) Use the simple past and the past continuous to produce oral and written texts, evidencing relations of sequence and causality. (EF07LI19) Distinguish subject from object using appropriate pronouns. (EF07LI20) Employ, intelligibly, the modal verb “can” to describe skills (present and past).

Eighth grade Lexical study Construction of lexical repertoire Word formation: prefixes and suffixes

(EF08LI12) Construct lexical repertoire corresponding to plans, forecasts and expectations for the future. (EF08LI13) Recognize common suffixes and prefixes used in word formation in English.

Grammar Verbs to indicate the future Comparatives and superlatives Quantifiers Relative pronouns

(EF08LI14) Use verbal forms of the future to describe plans and expectations and to do forecasts. (EF08LI15) Use, intelligibly, the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives to compare qualities and quantities. (EF08LI16) Use, intelligibly, correctly, some, any, many, much. (EF08LI17) Employ, intelligibly, relative pronouns (who, which, that, whose) to construct subordinate clauses.

Ninth grade Lexical study Uses of language in digital media (“Internetese”) Linking words

(EF09LI13) Recognize, in new digital genres (blogs, instant messages, tweets, among others), new forms of writing (abbreviation of words, words with combination of letters and numbers, pictograms, graphic symbols, among others) in message construction. (EF09LI14) Use connectors for addition, condition, opposition, contrast, completion and synthesis as auxiliaries in the construction of argument and discursive intentionality.

Grammar Conditional sentences (types 1 and 2) Modal verbs: should, must, have to, may and might

(EF09LI15) Employ, intelligibly, verbal forms in conditional sentences of types 1 and 2 (If-clauses). (EF09LI16) Employ, intelligibly, the verbs should, must, have to, may and might to indicate recommendation, necessity or obligation and probability.

Source: Edited translated sections of BNCC (Brasil 2018: 248–62).

With the proviso that this is just a potential sequence and should not be taken as the only possible way of organizing the syllabus, the axis focusing on linguistic features is predominantly prescriptive, in contradiction with the key aspects that favored reflection on language within an ELF approach. The only intertextual reference that can be identified is the mention to “intelligibility,” but concomitant with “correctness” (e.g. EF08LI16 – Use, intelligibly, correctly, some, any, many, much). One of the potential reasons for the

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGY

 249

mismatch is the assumption that teachers in most contexts are used to grounding their practice on grammatical and lexical forms with reference to Standard English (StE), and this axis establishes a dialogue with that kind of practice, while trying to introduce the notion of intelligibility. The other possible explanation is that the ELF concept is not fully understood and/ or cannot be accommodated within a fixed, stable, monolithic view of language. The expected learning outcomes, in the column of “skills,” are hardly phrased as inductive discovery of how English works in real life contexts and in actual oral or written/ digital texts, let alone as language forms emerging from negotiated interactions between speakers from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The fact is that the list presented as knowledge objects (i.e. objects of learning) is completely alien to a reflective, awareness-raising, contextualized and critical view of language and seems to follow the traditional structural syllabus that introduces, for instance, the simple present tense before the simple past before the future, and so on. We assume that the axis “intercultural dimension” is the one that will more clearly address ELF and CP issues, given that the development of intercultural awareness is one of the central implications of considering English a deterritorialized language. The “intercultural dimension” axis in BNCC seems to advance understandings about the variability of English and its expansion as a result of colonialism, as seen next:

Intercultural Dimension – Reflection on aspects related to the interaction between cultures (of students and those related to other English speakers) so as to foster coexistence, respect, overcoming conflicts and enhancing diversity.20

Sixth grade Thematic unit/knowledge object

Skills

The English language in the world Countries where English is the official language and/or mother tongue

(EF06LI24) Investigate the reach of the English language in the world: as mother tongue and/or official (first or second language).

The English language in the daily life of Brazilian communities/ society The English language in daily life

(EF06LI25) Identify the presence of the English language in Brazilian society/community (words, expressions, supports and spheres of circulation and consumption) and their meaning. (EF06LI26) Evaluate, problematize cultural elements/ products of English-speaking countries absorbed by Brazilian society/community.

Seventh grade The English language in the world English as a global language in contemporary societies

(EF07LI21) Analyze the reach of the English language and its contexts of use in a globalized world.

250

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Intercultural communication Linguistic variation

(EF07LI22) Explore ways of speaking in English, refusing prejudices and recognizing linguistic variation as a natural language phenomenon. (EF07LI23) Recognize linguistic variation as a manifestation of ways of thinking and expressing the world.

Eighth grade Cultural manifestations Build artistic-cultural repertoire

(EF08LI18) Build cultural repertoire through contact with artistic and cultural manifestations linked to the English language (visual and visual arts, literature, music, cinema, dance, festivities, among others), valuing cultural diversity.

Intercultural communication Impact of cultural aspects on communication

(EF08LI19) Investigate how expressions, gestures, and behaviors are culturally interpreted. (EF08LI20) Examine factors that may prevent understanding between English speakers from different backgrounds.

Ninth grade The English language in the world The expansion of the English language: historical context The English language and its role in scientific, economic and political exchanges

(EF09LI17) Discuss the expansion of the English language around the world, as a result of colonialization in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. (EF09LI18) Analyze the importance of the English language for scientific development (production, dissemination and discussion of new knowledge), economics and politics in the world scenario.

Intercultural communication Identity construction in a globalized world

(EF09LI19) Discuss intercultural communication through the English language as a way of personal valuing and identity construction in the globalized world.

Source: Edited translated sections of BNCC (Brasil 2018: 250–62).

As the excerpts show, there is a stronger invitation to reflect on language use in multicultural encounters, but the syllabus falls short of embracing an ELF perspective tout court. While acknowledging the power of English as a global language (e.g. EF09LI18 – Analyze the importance of the English language for scientific development (production, dissemination and discussion of new knowledge), economics and politics in the world scenario), it does little to juxtapose that with an ELF perspective that would challenge the standardization ensued by the colonialities that control what is “proper” English in scientific, economic or political spheres. At times, it seems that a neutral stance is possible by accepting that all uses of the language are equal (EF07LI23 – Recognize linguistic variation as a manifestation of ways of thinking and expressing the world), at other times it encourages a critical perspective (EF07LI22 – Explore ways of speaking in English, refusing prejudices and recognizing linguistic variation as a natural language phenomenon). While one can celebrate the fact that, for the first time, an official curriculum document mentions ELF explicitly, it is doubtful whether teachers and curriculum designers at the local level21 will take the perspective outlined in the BNCC’s Introduction into account, given the lack of consensus on what that would entail and how that could be translated into a syllabus. After all, the tables listing potential learning foci do little to suggest an

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGY

 251

overhaul of existing teaching practices, as shown earlier. If ELF is about developing language awareness and challenging the status quo in ELT, a Freirean approach, as earlier discussed, would involve teachers and students problematizing and interrogating the multiplicity of meanings imparted by BNCC-EF. In relation to BNCC-EM, a stronger interdisciplinary focus is presented, with the reinforcement that ELF is the guiding concept, but unlike BNCC-EF, it does not suggest a syllabus specifically for English, framing it as part of the competences in languages, as exemplified in the following: Specific competence 4: (EM13LG403) Make use of English as a language for global communication, taking into account its multiplicity and variety of uses, users and functions in the contemporary world.22 (p. 494)

That English is a global language is an unescapable realization; however, this is far from equating it with ELF in its reconceptualization of language as fluid and emergent in interactions. Again, we can see a confusing view of ELF that can be illustrated by the following statement in the document: Aspects like precision, standardization, error, imitation and proficiency level or mastery of the language are replaced by more comprehensive notions related to discourses in situated practices, such as intelligibility, singularity, variety, creativity/invention and repertoire.23 (Brasil 2018: 485) Nevertheless, when suggesting the skills to be developed, the document falls back into a structural view of language, as exemplified in the expected learning outcome below for the eighth grade, already mentioned:

(EF08LI16) Use intelligibly, correctly, some, any, many, much. (Brasil 2018: 259)24

While most recent definitions of ELF situate it within translanguaging,25 the notion endorsed by BNCC seems to be more tuned to an understanding of language as a self-standing system (Canagarajah 2013). In other words, while it shuns “precision, standardization, error, imitation and proficiency level of the language,” BNCC finds it hard to recontextualize it in a structured syllabus. As we have presented, contradictions between the explicit alignment with ELF and the proposed syllabus remain, and in the next section we will discuss how CP can help address those tensions in practice.

ELF, CP AND THE CURRICULUM ELF advocates may argue that it is already a critical view of language, by its defiance of native speakerism and acknowledgment that it is widely used by speakers from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. According to this perspective, a teacher who does not

252

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

try to make students conform to native speakers’ norms and encourages the development of intercultural awareness is already practicing some form of critical pedagogy. However, there are differences between challenging the adoption of native speakers’ linguistic and cultural norms in teaching in a written document, and getting rid of the notion of standards in a suggested syllabus. For Freire, human beings are at the center of the educational process. It is his belief that “when challenged by a critical educator, students begin to understand that the more profound dimension of their freedom lies exactly in the recognition of constraints that can be overcome” (Freire 1987: 48). Although he refused to see his ideas as “methodologies,” three pedagogical guidelines can be inferred from his works: (a) an investigation of the thematic universe; (b) the intercultural dialogue; (c) conscientization (Mota Neto 2016). The thematization implies a deep immersion in one’s reality as a contradictory totality, that is, the identification of a generative theme that emerges from a concrete instance, or a social problem. For the curriculum the implication is that the contents would derive from an actual situation, reflecting the students’ reality and their aspirations. The learning outcomes would have to be negotiated between teacher and the students, and might even not be consistent with an ELF perspective. In an interview available at https​:/​/da​​vidwe​​es​ .co​​m​/con​​tent/​​paulo​​-frei​​re​-re​​flect​​​s​-his​​-life​, Freire explains what he sees as the relationship between language and power: Who says that this accent or this way of thinking is the cultivated one? If there is one which is cultivated is because there is another which is not. Do you see, it’s impossible to think of language without thinking of ideology and power? I defended the duty of the teachers to teach the cultivated pattern and I defended the rights of the kids or of the adults to learn the dominant pattern. But, it is necessary in being a democratic and tolerant teacher, it is necessary to explain, to make clear to the kids or the adults that their way of speaking is as beautiful as our way of speaking. Second, that they have the right to speak like this. Third, nevertheless, they need to learn the so-called dominant syntax for different reasons. That is, the more the oppressed, the poor people, grasp the dominant syntax, the more they can articulate their voices and their speech in the struggle against injustice. (Our emphasis). Dialogue, as widely recognized, is a central concept in Freire’s thinking, implying a culture of participation, not silence. As Guilherme (2002: 48) asserts, drawing on Freire’s thought, “a pedagogy of dialogue is . . . an open exchange of ideas that makes a difference . . . it’s about communication rather than persuasion, and empowerment rather than assertion.” In this sense, contrary to the previously cited “banking education,” the teacher encourages freedom with responsibility, questioning, cooperation, investigation and learning is co-constructed. Sensitive listening is fundamental in democratic pedagogy and a curriculum grounded on a critical perspective would encourage dissonant voices, thus not erasing the contradictions already pointed out in the previous sections. If teachers are to reflect on how to co-construct the syllabus with their students, this sensitivity has to be valued and take into account what their views are. The third guideline is conscientization, a critical unveiling of the reality that necessarily involves political engagement. Different from awareness, conscientization cannot be separated from action and from the problematization of the reality. According to Freire, the educator has the ethical and political responsibility to reveal situations of oppression. It is his or her duty to create ways of understanding of political and historical realities which can bring about possibilities of change (Mota Neto 2016: 220).

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGY

 253

For us, Freire’s ideas can surely help us reframe the teaching of English according to ELF (or WE) by engaging teachers and students in a dialogue and collaborative inquiry about the multiple realities of language use, the power relations involved in the different ways of using English and an assessment of the possibilities of action and change. And, in our specific case, that may mean problematizing the analyzed BNCC itself and what ELF may mean in specific contexts.

CONCLUDING REMARKS In this chapter, we have highlighted the importance of Paulo Freire’s educational vision as a potential avenue to deal with the contradictions of the recent national curriculum framework put into effect by the Brazilian Ministry of Education. After presenting some of the key concepts of his philosophy encapsulated in critical pedagogy, we argued that a Freirean perspective fits perfectly into the ELF implications for language teaching. While there is reason to celebrate the explicit introduction of ELF in the BNCC (as perhaps one of the few instances of such official recognition by a government normative document), it is our contention that there is a long way to translate it into a core curriculum. Along the text, we argued that CP in an overt dialogue with ELT can help teachers and learners address the challenge of transforming deeply ingrained views of language and its role in society. Through dialogue and conscientization, alternative ways of conceptualizing the curriculum become interesting and important possibilities. This is particularly relevant given the fact that the syllabus does not make clear distinctions between English as a standard native language and ELF. At times, it is treated as a colonial language, and, at other times, as a language practice drawing on contingencies of social interactions. At times, it seems to consider varieties of English, and, at other times, its uses in local contexts. We have argued that these contradictions represent an opportunity to approach English from a critical perspective. We conclude by reiterating that the plurality and diversity embedded in ELF can open up multiple channels for the production of a more ethical and locally relevant language learning, because what it advocates is the constant questioning of privilege, one of the dearest value of scholars and practitioners in the field.

NOTES 1. Associate Professor of English, Bahia Federal University, Salvador, Brazil. 2. Full professor at Londrina State University and CNPq scholar (Process n. 311655/2018-1). 3. Known as Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC). 4. Although we recognize the differences between these three denominations, we will refer to “English as a lingua franca” (ELF) as an umbrella term to cover the language perspective that moves away from prescriptivism based on idealized native speakers’ linguistic and cultural norms. 5. For a complete list of his publications, visit www​.freire​.org. 6. “Banking education” is the term used by Freire to describe and critique traditional educational systems which basically see students as containers into which teachers must deposit knowledge. 7. For Freire (1996: 183 as cited in Guilherme 2002: 32), “a person who has reached conscientization has a different understanding of history and of his or her role in it. He or she will refuse to become stagnant, but will move and mobilize to change the world.”

254

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

8. Original in Portuguese: a conscientização é o olhar mais crítico possível da realidade, que a “desvela” para conhecê-la e para conhecer os mitos que enganam e que ajudam a manter a realidade da estrutura dominante. 9. Although our arguments towards the dialogue between CP and ELF do apply to WE, our focus is geared towards ELF because this is intrinsically related to our ELT reality, and it is the perspective to be analyzed in the Brazilian National Core Curriculum (BNCC). 10. Original in Portuguese: O ILF aponta para caminhos que, de uma forma ou de outra, desestabilizam toda uma cadeia de crenças, ideias, posturas e princípios emanados dos chamados centros hegemônicos, assim como desmascaram um estado de coisas que, tradicionalmente, ainda vive e se alimenta da poderosa colonialidade da língua inglesa. 11. The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) is a statistical framework for organizing information on education maintained by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Level 2 refers to lower secondary education (typically beginning at the age of eleven to fourteen years) and Level 3 refers to upper secondary education (typically beginning at age of fifteen to seventeen years and completes secondary education level). 12 When information is specific to one of the levels, we will refer to the Level 2 document as BNCC-EF and the Level 3 document as BNCC-EM; otherwise, BNCC will be used to refer to the document in general. 13. Original in Portuguese: A finalidade é possibilitar aos estudantes participar de práticas de linguagem diversificadas, que lhes permitam ampliar suas capacidades expressivas em manifestações artísticas, corporais e linguísticas, como também seus conhecimentos sobre essas linguagens. 14. Original in Portuguese: Aprender a língua inglesa propicia a criação de novas formas de engajamento e participação dos alunos em um mundo social cada vez mais globalizado e plural, em que as fronteiras entre países e interesses pessoais, locais, regionais, nacionais e transnacionais estão cada vez mais difusas e contraditórias. 15. Original in Portuguese: Nessa proposta, a língua inglesa não é mais aquela do “estrangeiro,” oriundo de países hegemônicos, cujos falantes servem de modelo a ser seguido, nem tampouco trata-se de uma variante da língua inglesa. Nessa perspectiva, são acolhidos e legitimados os usos que dela fazem falantes espalhados no mundo inteiro, com diferentes repertórios linguísticos e culturais, o que possibilita, por exemplo, questionar a visão de que o único inglês “correto” – e a ser ensinado – é aquele falado por estadunidenses ou britânicos. 16. Original in Portuguese: Uma língua que se materializa em usos híbridos, marcada pela fluidez e que se abre para a invenção de novas formas de dizer, impulsionada por falantes pluri/multilíngues e suas características multiculturais. 17. Original in Portuguese: Concluo este artigo em favor da não condenação do conflito epistemológico evidenciado na presença do ILF na BNCC na medida em que nele reside justamente o jogo de sentidos do professor-sujeito-intérprete no encontro com o ILFenquanto-signo. 18. All the quotations in this section have been translated by the authors. 19. The codes are used by the BNCC to refer to EF (Ensino Fundamental), equivalent to ISCED 2 level; the number 06 refers to the sixth grade, LI (Língua Inglesa) refers to English and number 6 means that this is the sixth skill listed for this grade. 20. Original in Portuguese: EIXO DIMENSÃO INTERCULTURAL – Reflexão sobre aspectos relativos à interação entre culturas (dos alunos e aquelas relacionadas a demais falantes de língua inglesa), de modo a favorecer o convívio, o respeito, a superação de conflitos e a valorização da diversidade entre os povos (Brasil 2018: 250).

WORLD ENGLISHES AND CRITICAL PEDAGOGY

 255

21. The implementation of the BNCC at the local level will be done through state secretariats of education which will develop their own syllabuses. 22. Original in Portuguese: (EM13LGG403) Fazer uso do inglês como língua de comunicação global, levando em conta a multiplicidade e variedade de usos, usuários e funções dessa língua no mundo contemporâneo. 23. Original in Portuguese: Aspectos como precisão, padronização, erro, imitação e nível de proficiência ou domínio da língua são substituídos por noções mais abrangentes e relacionadas ao universo discursivo nas práticas situadas dentro dos campos de atuação, como inteligibilidade, singularidade, variedade, criatividade/invenção e repertório. 24. Original in Portuguese: Utilizar de modo inteligível, corretamente, some, any, many, much. 25. In a nutshell, García and Wei (2014: 2) define translanguaging as “an approach to the use of language, bilingualism and the education of bilinguals that considers the language practices of bilinguals not as two autonomous language systems . . . but as one linguistic repertoire with features that have been societally constructed as belonging to two separate languages.”

REFERENCES Auerbach, E. R. and N. Wallerstein (1987), ESL for Action – Problem Posing at Work, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bayyurt, Y. and S. Akcan, eds (2015), Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca, Berlin: De Gruyter. Brasil (2018), Base Nacional Comum Curricular, 586pp, Brasília: Ministério da Educação/ Secretaria da Educação Básica. Canagarajah, S. (2013), Translingual Practice – Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations, Abingdon: Routledge. Crookes, G. V. (2013), Critical ELT in Action – Foundations, Promises, Praxis, London: Routledge. Duboc, A. P. M. (2019), ‘Falando francamente: Uma leitura bakhtiniana do conceito de “Inglês como língua franca” no componente curricular língua inglesa da BNCC (Frankly speaking: Reading the concept of “English as a lingua franca” within the national common core curriculum in light of Bakhtinian thought)’, Revista da ANPOLL, 1 (48): 10–22. Freire, P. (1980), Conscientização: Teoria e prática da libertação – Uma introdução ao pensamento de Paulo Freire (Conscientização: Liberation Theory and Practice – An Introduction to Paulo Freire’s Thinking), São Paulo: Editora Moraes. Freire, P. (1987), ‘Literacy in Guinea-Bissau Revisited’, in P. Freire and D. Macedo (eds), Reading the Word and the World, 94–119, South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey Publishers. García, O. and L. Wei (2014), Translanguaging – Languaging, Bilingualism and Education, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gimenez, T. (2015), ‘Renomando o inglês e formando professores de uma língua global − (Renaming English and Educating Teachers of a Global Language)’, Estudos Linguísticos e Literários, 52: 73–93. Gimenez, T., M. S. El Kadri and L. C. S. Calvo (2018), ‘Awareness Raising about English as a Lingua Franca in Two Brazilian Teacher Education Programs’, in T. Gimenez, M. S. El Kadri and L. C. S. Calvo (eds), English as a Lingua Franca in Teacher Education – A Brazilian Perspective, 211–30, Berlin: De Gruyter.

256

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Giroux, H. A. (1988), Teachers as Intellectuals – Towards a Critical Pedagogy of Learning, Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey Publishers. Giroux, H. (1992), Border Crossings – Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education, London: Routledge. Guilherme, M. (2002), Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World – Foreign Language Education as Cultural Politics, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jenkins, J. (2003), World Englishes – A Resource Book for Students, London: Routledge. Jordão, C. M. (2014), ‘EAL – ELF – EFL – EGL: Same Difference?’, Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 14 (1): 13–40. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007), World Englishes – Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matsuda, A., ed. (2017), Preparing Teachers to Teach English as an International Language, Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McLaren, P. and C. Lankshear, eds (1994), Politics of Liberation – Paths from Freire, London: Routledge. Mota Neto, J. C. (2016), Por uma pedagogia decolonial na América Latina: reflexões em torno do pensamento de Paulo Freire e Orlando Fals Borda, Curitiba: CRV. Norton, B. and K. Toohey, eds (2004), Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ortega, L. (1999), ‘Language and Equality: Ideological and Structural Constraints in Foreign Language Education in the US’, in T. Huebner and K. A. Davis (eds), Sociopolitical Perspectives on Language Policy and Planning in the USA, 243–66, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rajagopalan, K. (2004), ‘The Concept of “World English” and Its Implications for ELT’, ELT Journal, 58 (2): 111–17. 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): 133–58. Siqueira, S. (2008), Inglês como língua internacional: por uma pedagogia intercultural crítica (English as an International Langugage: For a Critical Intercultural Pedagogy), Unpublished Phd Thesis, Bahia Federal University, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. Siqueira, S. (2018a), ‘Inglês como Língua Franca não é zona neutra, é zona transcultural de poder: por uma descolonização de concepções, práticas e atitudes (ELF Is not a Neutral Zone, It Is a Transcultural Zone of Power: For the Decolonization of Conceptions, Practices, and Atitudes)’, Línguas and Letras, 19 (44): 93–113. Siqueira, S. (2018b), ‘English as a Lingua Franca and Teacher Education: Critical Educators for an Intercultural World’, in T. Gimenez, M. S. El Kadri and L. C. S. Calvo (eds), English as a Lingua Franca in Teacher Education – A Brazilian Perspective, 87–114, Berlin: De Gruyter. Widdowson, H. (2019), ‘Creativity in English’, World Englishes, 38 (1–2): 312–18.

Chapter 16

Teaching English from a Critical Intercultural Perspective An experience with Afro-Colombian and Indigenous Students CLAUDIA GUTIÉRREZ, JANETH ORTIZ, AND JAIME USMA

INTRODUCTION Colombia is one of the many countries in the world that makes part of the expanding circle of English, in which this language is learned as a foreign language according to Kachru’s three-circle model (1992). This language has had a tremendous impact on the country’s education system and language policies in the last decades thanks to governmental agendas that aim at making Colombians internationally competitive in a globalized world. In their search to comply with the demands of globalization, Colombian foreign language policies have resorted to the importation of knowledge, experts and products (Le Gal 2018) coming from inner-circle countries in order to promote the teaching and learning of English in the country. Such tendency have been evidenced through several strategies, including the advising role that the British Council has played in the configuration of several official programs and policies to promote English language learning in elementary, secondary school and higher education since the 1990s (Bonilla and Tejada 2016; Gonzalez 2007, 2015; Usma 2009); the adoption by the Decree 3870 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) as the guiding document for the English teaching, learning, and testing processes in the country (Ayala Zárate and Álvarez 2005); the implementation of international tests to assess the English proficiency of English teachers and learners (Usma 2009), and even the hiring of native speaker teachers through the English Fellowship Program (Correa and González 2016). Many Colombian scholars have raised their voices to criticize the implementation of such government policies and programs that, following neoliberal agendas, overly advertise English as the language of success and the door to the international economic and knowledge markets. Some have expressed their concern about the fact that the instrumentalization of English promoted by these reforms has resulted in adding to the already-existing imbalances between local and foreign languages in our context and

258

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

placing English in a privileged position over them (García and García 2012; Usma 2009, 2015). Similarly, other scholars have brought attention to the subaltern position in which local knowledge, experts, students, and teachers have been relegated to through these initiatives, thus perpetuating coloniality (González 2007; Granados-Beltrán 2016; Guerrero 2009, 2010). Moreover, many Colombian scholars have claimed that most language policies, programs, and practices in English language teaching (ELT) have remained distant from acknowledging the immense cultural, linguistic, social, and ethnic diversity present in the country (De Mejía 2006; García and García 2012; Torres-Martínez 2009; Usma 2015). Consequently, many language teachers at all levels of education, who cannot escape this pressure to increase their students’ language competence to succeed in standardized national tests, resort to a variety of materials mainly designed by transnational agencies such as the British Council or Oxford University Press (Gonzalez 2007; Correa and Gonzalez 2016) and to a series of imported methodologies ranging from grammar translation to task-based learning (Le Gal 2018). These practices often place all the relevance on foreign cultures, leaving aside the local ones, along with the numerous languages spoken in this country and the cosmogonies of a vast number of peoples. This situation is not dissimilar at the university level. Different Colombian universities have started to formulate and implement new foreign language education policies for their academic programs. At the University of Antioquia, the second largest and one of the oldest public universities in Colombia, a new foreign language policy was created in 2014. Based on this reform, undergraduate students are required to achieve a B1 level of proficiency, according to the CEFR. This policy has been implemented through an institutional foreign language education program called PIFLE (Programa Institucional para el Fortalecimiento de Formación en Lengua Extranjera). As part of this program, different foreign and a few local languages are taught to university students who want to complement their language education, thus promoting the consolidation of a “plurilingual and pluricultural” university (Universidad de Antioquia 2018). Nevertheless, English enjoys an advantaged position over all of the other languages due to its mandatory status in the undergraduate curricula. Despite the University of Antioquia’s alignment with the logic of economic globalization and competitiveness, this institution has been also leading some initiatives intending to position itself as a cultural and scientific institution committed to the social realities of the region and the country. These initiatives are favored and materialized through a number of policies and programs that aim at enhancing diversity and encouraging students from different ethnic groups in the country to access, stay and graduate from a variety of academic fields. As part of these programs, students are given the possibility to learn one of the six ancestral languages being offered, on top of a number of seminars and courses designed around topics such as language, diversity, culture, peace, and society. At the same time, the university offers students from different ethnic groups coming from rural areas the continuous academic, psychological, social, and cultural support that may allow them to succeed while being far from their territories and peoples. Through this variety of programs, the university has facilitated that the indigenous and Afro-descendant students keep fundamental elements of their culture, which go from having their ancestral mechanisms of government inside the university, to participating in their cultural spaces and mechanisms to promote and preserve their identities, cosmogonies and knowledge. As part of these initiatives, a group of researchers and students in the university worked on a sociolinguistic profile of over 300 indigenous students at Universidad de Antioquia

TEACHING ENGLISH FROM A CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

 259

to understand the multiple perspectives and challenges they face in relation to their identities, languages, and academic literacies (Usma, Ortiz and Gutiérrez 2018). Results from this study showed that 3,537, or about 10 percent, of the students, come from indigenous or Afro-Colombian communities, and speak thirty-two ancestral languages. Additionally, the study suggested that indigenous students face a number of economic, personal, academic, and cultural challenges at the university, which go from their difficulty to be far from their families and live alone in the city, to their limitations in the use of academic Spanish. Furthermore, the researchers found that students from ethnic groups find that their courses and teachers do not recognize, highlight, and promote the epistemic, language, and sociocultural diversity that they represent. On the contrary, a number of students described multiple situations where they were discriminated in terms of their traditions, physical appearance or origin. These situations have led some students to hide their identity and origin, so as to protect themselves and their communities from pejorative comments or actions. Hence, this study called the attention about the need to explore and promote more inclusive and equitable pedagogical discourses and practices inside the university, coupled with more sensitive and effective policies that not only promote students access to higher education, but also their retention and graduation under conditions of justice, respect, and a real validation of their ancestral languages, cultures, and knowledge. Based on these findings, this chapter reports on a project conducted by a group of researchers and educators who planned and implemented an English course for Colombian Afro-descendant and indigenous students enrolled in different undergraduate programs at the University of Antioquia. This course departed from a decolonial paradigm and followed a critical intercultural perspective aimed at opening spaces for language learning in which students’ languages, cosmogonies, and knowledge were valued and placed at the core of the class, as students started their journey into learning English. The following sections describe the conceptual standpoints adopted, the program that was implemented, and the advances and challenges found.

CRITICAL INTERCULTURALITY AS A PEDAGOGICAL TOOL FOR POSSIBILITY In our search for more balanced, just relations among the local languages and cultures of all university students, particularly those from ethnic minority students, and the foreign cultures and language in the English classroom, we resorted to a tradition of thought that could help us think of alternative ways of teaching and learning in our multilingual and culturally diverse context and that considers our historical perspective and position in the planet as Latin-Americans. This critical paradigm known as the Decolonial Turn has been developed by a group of scholars and thinkers born in South America and the Caribbean and who have worked in Latin American and American Universities (Restrepo and Rojas 2010) such as Nelson Maldonado-Torres, Anibal Quijano, Sylvya Wynters, Walter Mignolo, Santiago Castro Gómez, and Ramón Grosfoguel, among others (CastroGómez and Grosfoguel 2007). It is founded on the recognition of coloniality, a historical phenomenon understood as a pattern of structural, colonial, racial power that has been constructed since the times of colonization, in which different peoples, cultures, knowledge and territories have been hierarchized through relations of domination, in order for some groups to guarantee not only the exploitation of other human beings at

260

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

a global scale but also the annihilation of their forms of knowledge, experiences, and ways of living (Restrepo and Rojas 2010). The decolonial turn intends to historically overcome coloniality and its power structure by putting into question all global, universal, mostly Eurocentric models that strengthen highly unequal social structures and continue to dehumanize and eliminate entire communities around the globe. Instead of universality, the decolonial project advocates for pluriversality, a world in which all forms of knowledge, identities, ways of living, hopes, and experiences are visibilized and validated (Restrepo and Rojas 2010). From this decolonial paradigm, a critical view of interculturality becomes an ethical, political project that searches for the construction of a fair society founded on a utopia of respect and dialogue (Godenzzi 2005). Interculturality in this sense is not a theory but an attitude, a way of being and behaving that is urgent in today’s societies, which are technologically interconnected but culturally isolated (Tubino 2004). The intercultural project transcends national borders and aims at ensuring good living conditions for all human beings, especially those historically excluded and discriminated through the following: the creation of inclusive policies that enable the sharing of power and resources; the establishment of a global, democratic, and plural control of the market forces; the construction of a world civil society in which discrimination and fear have no place; the validation of linguistic, cultural, and epistemic diversity; and the creation and strengthening of an ethics of dialogue founded on reciprocity, mutual recognition, and respect, justice, creative freedom, and solidarity that fuel a new way to make politics (Godenzzi 2005: 9–10). Critical interculturality in postcolonial Latin American nations must analyze ways to build different political organizations and intercultural relations that end with the historical, systematic processes of acculturation, displacement, and neglect of the fundamental rights of ancestral groups in our countries (Tubino 2004). In this sense, critical interculturality becomes a pedagogical tool for social critique of our societies and their colonial, naturalized power relations of racialization, subalternization, and inferiorization, as it also intends to strengthen and encourage the ways of life, knowledge, and cosmogonies that have systematically been hidden and eliminated through coloniality (Walsh 2009). Critical interculturality is a project under construction; it is not only an end but also a means and an ongoing process of communication, relation and learning among individuals, groups, forms of knowledge, practices that go beyond their sociocultural differences (Walsh 2005), and that allows the construction of multicultural democracies (Tubino 2004).

CULTURES, LANGUAGES, AND IDENTITIES IN CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE Dialogue is key to the intercultural project since it facilitates a shift from seeing diversity as fragmentation to seeing it as a possibility of new encounters (Godenzzi 2005). In this view, dialogue becomes an interlocutory practice in which individuals or groups recognize each other’s capacity and right to cultural construction; it is based on mutual respect and convergences, but it also demands for an exchange in equal conditions and the emergence of something new, a new creation from this exchange in which diversity shines (Op. cit, p. 10). Following Ortiz, Usma, and Gutiérrez (2020), we will refer to this form of dialogue as critical intercultural dialogue (CID).

TEACHING ENGLISH FROM A CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

 261

We believe that the promotion of CID in the language classroom may be a way to create more fair learning conditions for all English learners, and especially for those coming from different ethnic communities whose voices have traditionally been silenced in conventional language classrooms across different educational levels in our country. Therefore, the pedagogical intervention that will be presented in this chapter was guided by the principles of critical interculturality and the elements of CID. The first element for CID to take place is the need to build equal conditions for the participation of all interlocutors. CID does not try to hide the historical, social differences and imbalances among individuals and groups; on the contrary, the first step to build this exchange is by analyzing the economic, political, social, and military conditions that have determined inequalities among groups with different sociocultural backgrounds, ethnic and racial affiliations, sexual identities and orientations, among others (Ferrão 2010; Tubino 2005, 2008). The intercultural project aims at the construction of a just, plural society in which different cultural groups build new positive relations among them (Walsh 2013). Identities constitute the second fundamental element in CID. The construction of equal participation in social exchanges with other individuals, groups, perspectives, and cultural practices requires the recognition of one’s own identity, which is negotiated in relation to others through socialization (Tubino 2005). Identities are not considered to be fixed categories; they are seen as fluid, dynamic, and multiple; in other words, an individual holds different identities with different dimensions and ways of expressions (Norton 1995; Walsh 2005). Furthermore, a group identity is also formed when individuals share a history of conflict and memories of that history that help them construct a sense of community, which is also dynamic and changing (Quijano 2014). In today’s world, characterized by constant flows of people, technologies, images, information, and ideologies in what Appadurai (1990) has called postmodern globalization, identities and cultures cannot be seen as static. Therefore, interculturality does not advocate for the preservation of pure cultures, which have never been such; instead, it acknowledges that there are not fixed borders between cultures or between people: individuals and groups always carry traces of others in them (Walsh 2005). However, even with these massive, constant changes and dynamicity of cultures, cultural groups keep finding ways to construct and reinvent what identifies them and distinguishes them from other groups and thus challenge homogenizing views imposed on them (Op. cit., p. 8). Social exchanges in our multicultural but highly unequal postcolonial societies have been marked by the assimilation of subaltern groups into the mainstream culture of the majority (Tubino 2005). Educational settings and particularly universities continue to comply with this modern, civilizing project in which only Western knowledge, values, and cosmogonies have a place (Caicedo and Castrillo 2008). It is in this context in which a critical intercultural project gains significance, since it aims at the understanding and transformation of these imbalanced socialization processes by transforming schools into spaces for social deliberation and for the free construction of cultural identities (Tubino 2005). CID should ensure that the identities of all those involved are recognized and strengthened, especially those of historically minoritized groups, in order to stop the historic domination of a culture over others and guarantee their social exchanges on the basis of respect and mutual recognition (Ferrão 2010; Walsh 2005). Finally, CID cannot take place in a dominant language. Part of the construction of equal conditions of all participant entails the recognition of and respect for their languages.

262

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Languages in this interlocution are not considered as just tools for communication but as social practices that are shaped by the sociocultural and political settings in which they are used (Watson-Gegeo 2004). Languages allow individuals not only to express experiences but also to create them; language is to them a symbol of social identity, as they identify themselves and others as members of a group through language (Kramsch 1998). Furthermore, languages are the means through which individuals negotiate their selves and are included or excluded from powerful social networks (Heller as cited in Norton 1995). Seeing languages as complex and as attached to identity construction processes and negotiation in social interactions demands special attention to languages in intercultural dialogue and of course to languages in language education contexts. CID in education would require teachers and learners to gain critical awareness of the ideological tensions in the use and interaction among languages in their context, reflection of the hierarchical relations among languages and the ways such relations have been naturalized, and the unequal relations among speakers of different languages (García and García 2014). Furthermore, an intercultural view of language teaching and learning must open spaces not only to learn about the linguistic and social practices of the communities and languages that participate in the learning process, but also to explore and analyze the social, political, and economic struggles that those languages and communities have gone through in order to promote respect and equal treatment for all of them. (García and García 2014). As language teacher educators and researchers, we see critical interculturality as a powerful pedagogical tool to contribute to the transformation of our unequal social realities in Latin America. This transformation may start in classrooms. We see English teaching and learning as political activities (Pennycook 1989), and we believe English language educators should also be concerned about how discourses, practices, and policies around English in Colombia continue to deepen the social, cultural, and economic gaps among different peoples in our country, thus contributing to coloniality.

SEARCHING FOR PEDAGOGICAL ALTERNATIVES TO TRANSFORM LANGUAGE CLASSROOMS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ANTIOQUIA Starting from the lenses of critical interculturality and CID, considering the voices of students from ethnic communities in our university, and bearing in mind the new institutional demand to certify English as a graduation requirement, we implemented an action research project called “Pilot English and Spanish enhancement program for ethnic community students at the University of Antioquia”. This study aimed at strengthening learning processes of English and Spanish in indigenous and Afro-descendant students in order to favor their retention and graduation from the university. The project included three components: a professional development course carried out with English teachers at the institutional English program (Ortiz, Gutiérrez and Usma 2020), a tutoring service, and a short-duration English-Spanish enhancement course. For the purpose of this chapter, we will focus on this last component, particularly on the work developed in order to introduce students to English learning at the university. This introductory course intended to familiarize students with the English language from a critical intercultural perspective. It aimed at providing spaces to reflect on their views of English and their own languages, to gain awareness about the fundamental role

TEACHING ENGLISH FROM A CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

 263

that their mother tongues and their individual and cultural identities played in the process of exploring a new language, and in approaching other cultures in order to interact with them in a more balanced and fair way. The implementation was carried out in twenty hours and over a ten-week period. Although twenty-one students started this course, only ten of them remained until the end: three Afro-Colombians and seven indigenous students who belonged to four different communities. They came from different regions, located all across Colombia. In addition, these students belonged to a variety of university majors ranging from communication, physical education, mathematics, public health, and chemistry. In addition, one of these indigenous students had a visual impairment, which led to the incorporation of additional strategies such as assigning a peer to guide him through class activities. Mainly five sources of data collection were used during this intervention. Prior to the intervention, students completed a questionnaire that intended to collect data on some personal information such as their places of origin, ancestral communities, and first languages and also some ideas about their previous experience learning English and their expectations about the course. These data would become the basis to start the planning stage. Then, once the implementation began, all class sessions were video recorded and student’s artifacts were collected. Along the course students produced different texts such as short descriptions, dramatizations, and an identity book. These were used not only as pedagogical tools but also as evidence of how students understood and experienced the themes explored during the different sessions. Finally, students evaluated the class sessions, and, at the end of the course, individual interviews were conducted. Having analyzed and categorized all video recordings of class sessions, participants’ course evaluations, and artifacts, individual interviews were held to further explore initial findings. Through continuous triangulation of these various sources, it was possible to analyze participants’ different stances and experiences in this implementation and to favor a rich description and analysis of their voices in a narrative fashion (Richards 2003). In addition, all data were collected in Spanish and translated to English by the authors.

PLANNING STAGE Planning this introductory English language course for the first-semester students required the research team to consider ways in which the construction of CID among students and with the teacher could take place. In order to promote equal conditions for participation, we needed to hear students’ voices to guide our decisions. Therefore, we took into consideration the sociolinguistic profile presented in the background section and also the views of students in the current course as expressed in the initial questionnaire and in the evaluation of each lesson. We also needed to know about their expectations and suggestions regarding what a language class should offer to them. We learned from these students that English lessons were often far from their realities and that content was alien to them; that their first languages, cultural background, forms of communication and knowledge had not been considered. On the contrary, they had experienced instances of discrimination in academic settings due to their origin, physical appearance or cultural identity. In addition, oftentimes students found that English lessons departed from the assumption that they already mastered some basic concepts and skills in English, which led them to feel frustrated and to become resistant toward learning this language. Consequently, and based on the elements of intercultural dialogue, the team also decided that this short-duration course needed to revolve around the strengthening

264

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

of learners’ individual and cultural identities with the hope that this starting point led them to find better ways to position themselves as English learners and as students at the university who knew who they were and what they needed to succeed in academic life. Therefore, themes related to their cosmogonies, both Afro-Colombian and indigenous, were suggested as axes in the course contents, ensuring that several opportunities were provided for students to reflect on and strengthen their identities, and to question their position in the world. Thus, this unit was conceived around three themes: communication, resistance, and academic life, each including different sets of guiding questions. The first set asked students to talk about their communities and how each one contributed to Colombian cultural richness. Moreover, it intended to lead students to reflect on the aspects that made their communities unique and the ways they made their knowledge visible to others. The second set of questions asked students to think of ways their communities had survived in history and how they could continue resisting through time. Finally, the third set was designed to prompt students to see the way they positioned themselves at the university and how their identities played a role in this positioning. Additionally, a field trip around the city was planned to show students the huge contribution by Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities to the construction of the city and the significance of different places for their cultural identities and the guarantee of their rights. Another key aspect in the construction of an intercultural dialogue in the language classroom was a reflection on the role that languages like English, Spanish, and students’ ancestral languages were going to be granted. As teacher educators and researchers, we saw as necessary questioning the instrumentalist perspective of English as the only means of communication in the class that has pervaded most classrooms in our country; we were also aware that we needed to reposition students’ native languages in the classroom, Spanish and ancestral languages, as meaningful resources to participate in exchanges. In the first place, we decided that Spanish, as the language shared by all participants, was going to play an important role in communication, and little by little students were going to be provided with different linguistic strategies to start communicating by using English as well. Thus, linguistic content in English was neither predetermined nor forced in a linear way on the different themes. Additionally, the use of ancestral languages was going to be encouraged at different points during the implementation and as students felt comfortable doing so.

IMPLEMENTATION Having considered these aspects, the first questions were articulated around the theme “Communication”. As it was found in the sociolinguistic profile, the academic language required in the different majors students were enrolled had little regard to the different knowledge students brought from their communities and the several ways of communication they were familiar with. Hence, this theme allowed vindicating these aspects. After familiarizing students with some vocabulary and a few listening strategies, they watched some videos in English and Spanish from different indigenous and Afro communities in Colombia about what constituted knowledge to these communities. Thus, students explored and discussed comprehension questions, and later addressed questions, among others, such as the following: How do dancing, knitting, hair braiding, and face painting contribute to communicate our diversity in Colombia? What knowledge do these forms of communication transmit? How do we

TEACHING ENGLISH FROM A CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

 265

communicate in our communities? How do we communicate at the university? Which types of communication are favored and excluded at the university?. These discussions opened spaces for students to disrupt cultural logics and practices and to problematize how knowledge was connected to power relations instilled in university programs. Nonetheless, considering that these indigenous and Afro-Colombian students arrived with little to no knowledge of English, questions were first posed in Spanish, and students were gradually exposed to different vocabulary and expressions in English to participate in small and whole-class discussions and activities. Later, progressively, English was introduced through the questions that led class discussions and through expressions students could use to participate in them. To further provide these students with elements to see English language in a context close to them, an indigenous colleague, from the Kamentsá community, narrated the knowledge and ways of communication present in her community. This information was written down by the professor leading the pedagogical intervention, simplified in terms of the vocabulary and sentence structures used, and provided to students to have a model to write and draw about their own communities. Following is an example of this text: The name of my community is Kamëntsá. In my community we speak Kamëntsá and Spanish. In my community we use knitting to represent our environment, for example, the mountains, the sun, corn, the river, and some animals. We also use knitting to tell stories or give advice. Medicine is also important for my community because it represents a connection with our ancestors and our spirit. Finally, we have a traditional celebration. Its name is Bësnate. This celebration represents a new cycle. In this celebration we dance, sing, and eat. This knowledge is important because it is a living memory of our community. The aforementioned excerpt was accompanied with pictures of this community, which encouraged students to also bring pictures or draw their own about their communities. Additionally, for this exercise, students were introduced to different reading strategies. This experience led students to use different modes in their texts: writing, drawing, and speaking, to further show, acknowledge, and value the diversity found in this group, which was just a sample of the diversity found at this public university, and in Colombia at large. This diversity was also represented by means of dramatizations in which students showed how their specific communities found spaces for communication either when washing their clothes by the river, braiding boys’ and girls’ hair while telling stories, or gathering around fires. Throughout these lessons, and according to students’ linguistic needs, different explanations were provided, so that students were exposed to the language structures, vocabulary, and pronunciation they needed to talk about their specific communities and their practices. To introduce the theme of Resistance and aiming at opening spaces for students to see how strong their communities have been and the struggles some of them face, students were presented a video in which Afro-descendants showed how hair braiding had been a way of resistance throughout history. In the same line, these lessons included a video titled “I love my hair” and a reading about different protests taking place in schools where Afro-descendants from around the world had been suspended or punished for wearing their hair the way they liked it best. For these lessons, discussions revolved around questions such as the following: Why do we wear our hair the way we wear it? What does my hair represent? What about traditional clothing from our

266

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

communities? Why do/don’t we wear it to school? Thus, asking students about these sensitive topics led them to tell who they are, and the prejudices they resist or stand by, and to reflect on the value they and their communities bring to the classroom and to society as a whole. These materials and questions opened room for conversations about people’s identities, oppression and about how people start to lose their identities to comply with mandates or expectations set by dominant groups in every society. Likewise, several stories of discrimination in different scenarios were narrated by these students, making even more visible the struggles these communities have faced. Hence, from these conversations, students found spaces to talk about the diversity in each community and allowed others to realize that, for instance, knitting and storytelling around small fires in the kitchen, by the river, and in community gatherings were fundamental practices for they realized how hair braiding, singing “Alabaos”,1 and dancing were ways of telling their own stories and resisting and surviving in a country where indigenous people and Afro-descendants are still subjected to numerous forms of discrimination. To conclude this pedagogical intervention, students were asked to create an “Identity Book”, incorporating what they had learned or would like to express, from their participation in this experience. These creations were opportunities for students to speak about their communities, to strengthen their own identities, and, along with this, to incorporate the languages they spoke and were learning, that is, Spanish, ancestral languages, and English. Given the depth of class discussions, the time students took to internalize new concepts and to articulate this new knowledge to talk about their communities, it was not possible to address the final theme in this unit. In fact, pushing students to cover content might have resulted in a more superficial analysis and understanding of both themes and linguistic content. Moreover, formal assessment was not part of this process as this was by no means a pass or fail course. Instead, this experience was an attempt to show that it is possible to teach English from a more equitable perspective in which students’ culture, languages, and cosmogonies find a place to coexist.

FINDINGS Throughout the ten weeks this pedagogical intervention lasted, all information collected from the different sources was analyzed, yielding a significant amount of evidence pointing toward the impact it had had on students’ identities and how the learning of English provided opportunities to strengthen them and to question unequal relations of power fixed in society and in the university. Data analysis evidenced that, through their participation in this English course oriented from a critical intercultural perspective, students could find new connections to their cultural identities, learn about and value different forms of knowledge and languages interacting in the classroom, and build a sense of community with their peers.

RECONNECTING TO THEIR CULTURAL IDENTITIES One of the most salient findings in this pedagogical experience pointed toward the impact that class content related to Afro and indigenous community-based knowledge had on students. Such impact could be observed in different ways during the implementation

TEACHING ENGLISH FROM A CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

 267

phase. First, for those students who did not have close ties with their communities, the course became a space for self-recognition. I am from the Senú community, but we have lost a lot of our roots . . . So, it was just when I came here [to this project] that I reconnected [to my community] . . . that I reconnected to those roots I did not know about. (Student interview, 2018) Although this was an English course, it helped me a lot to realize who I am and the place I come from. (Student interview, 2018) Likewise, some students who were already very aware of their roots and cultural identity pointed out the relevance of this pedagogical space to promote not only the selfrecognition of indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities but also that other people acknowledge the contributions of those groups to the country. I think it [this course] is very good and interesting because there are indigenous and Afro-Colombian people who do not self-recognize, so when you go and talk about these cultures and know about these traditions, history and languages, it makes me love more who I am because I see it is a part of me. It makes me gain more awareness. (…) Plus, these topics are not addressed; they have been forgotten. So it is beautiful to know there is a space to self-recognize and that there are indigenous and AfroColombian people who have contributed to the history of our country. (Student interview, October 2018) These are beautiful spaces which must be strengthen to continue fostering cultural identity. (Course evaluation, October 2018) This finding becomes particularly relevant in the context of the University of Antioquia, if we consider that one of the results of the exploratory study reported by Usma, Ortiz and Gutiérrez (2018) was that some indigenous students tended to hide their identities to avoid being discriminated against and, even worse, that some of them did not recognize themselves as indigenous, all of this as a result of the imbalanced power relations in which they participate at the university. Consequently, this finding shows a very significant initial step in the construction of more equal conditions for CID to take place since, as stated by Walsh 2005 and Ferrão 2010, in order to participate in an intercultural exchange, all identities need to be strengthened and recognized.

VALUING AND VALIDATING DIFFERENT FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE AND LANGUAGES A significant finding from this implementation was how participants could become aware of their interest in the knowledge, traditions, and communication practices of their ethnic communities and find ways to validate and share that knowledge with their peers gaining a new perspective on it. When we started these classes and began to know these stories and to narrate the things we do in our communities, it made us become more interested in all this. (Student interview, 2018) In this sense, an initial realization by some participants was that, although they came from Afro or indigenous communities, they had little knowledge about them. In the following

268

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

excerpt, one of the participants describes his experience when doing an activity which required learners to talk to their relatives and find out about the types of knowledge their communities had and the way they communicated that knowledge. It was when I came here that I started to connect [to my community] . . . My grandma used some plants for certain things but all that had been lost. So in the group, when everybody speaks I feel like oh, that also happens at home, and I become aware we still have certain features but I had not realized it . . . I did not know anything about my community so being here made me wonder about my identity. (Student interview, 2018) This quote becomes an example of how this assignment allowed the student not only to gain knowledge about their communities’ traditions, but also to validate that knowledge when participating in class dialogues in which their peers were also sharing other forms of knowledge. Besides, the reflections also led them to ask more questions about their identity. This finding gains tremendous relevance considering that many of these indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and their cosmogonies have been rendered invisible in higher education (Caicedo and Castillo 2008) and in education at large as a result of coloniality. Thus, findings like this evidence that the field of ELT can break this cycle once language teaching and learning are envisioned from a more critical stance, encouraging learners not only to get familiar with the target culture and English-speaking communities but also to bring their own identities, cultures, and knowledge to dialogue in a space where mutual recognition and respect take place (Godenzzi 2005). Similarly, along with being interested in learning more about their own communities, students whose indigenous languages had been hidden in all classroom settings now started to talk about them and to incorporate them in their class productions, which was highly evidenced in their identity books. Figures 16.1 and 16.2 show examples of this.

FIGURE 16.1:  Identity Book, Part I.

TEACHING ENGLISH FROM A CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

 269

FIGURE 16.2:  Identity Book, Part II.

Figure 16.1 shows one page of the identity book written by an indigenous student from the Ēbēra community who uses English to describe her fear to be rejected when she first came to the city, her pride to identify as indigenous, and how learning languages has led them to feel proud of her own language and culture. Figure 16.2 shows another page written by the same student, this time mostly using her first language, Ēbēra, and a few words in Spanish. She describes the meaning that knitting has for her community as well as their traditional costume. In their identity books as well as in other class activities, students were free to choose the language they wanted to use. However, as this course intended to familiarize students with English as a tool better respond to academic life at the university, listening, reading, and writing in English were incorporated in every lesson in order to expose students to this language as much as possible. This led them to gradually become more familiar with this new language and use it to talk about their lives and their communities. The following excerpts show some students’ views in this regard: The vocabulary we learn here is much more real; it is what you really need to face and learn, unlike the one you receive in PIFLE (The institutional English program at the university). There they tell you – make a video for a foreigner and talk about your daily routine – That’s something very static. Here you talk about things close to you. (Student interview, 2018) This is very interesting because aside from learning to pronounce and speak in English, and to understand this language, you are also learning things you do not get to know in your daily life, like our history. This way people who do not self-recognize will

270

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

know more and will understand more the roots they come from. It is a beautiful way of teaching. (Student interview, 2018) These students describe how their perception of English changed in this course as they could use this language to talk about their realities and things that mattered to them. Besides, it is interesting to see how they not only acknowledge making progress in their learning process but also see a more transcending role of the knowledge gained about their communities to better understand and strengthen their identities. As shown by data, the role of English in this course departed from the traditionally instrumental use and superior status that this language is usually granted in conventional language classrooms. First, English was placed at the same level than Spanish and ancestral languages as students could resort to all of them as they needed it. Second, English became one more means for students to reflect about their social realities and to start transforming them by using this language to share knowledge about their communities and to strengthen their cultural identities. As expressed by some participants in this study, rare spaces are provided to talk about the knowledge, cultures, languages, places, and communities students come from in academic settings. This reality, in a country where more than sixty-five ancestral languages are spoken and where numerous indigenous and Afro-descendant communities coexist is just an instance of how diversity has been made invisible in the education system, and the language classroom is no exception. This pedagogical experience has shed some light on how the field of EFL can have the power to disrupt this reality and have English and English cultures to engage in a more balanced interaction with the local languages, cultures, and forms of knowledge, even providing opportunities for learners to further explore their roots and the value their communities have.

BUILDING A SENSE OF COMMUNITY For these students coming from several regions and communities from Colombia, this space became more than an opportunity to get familiar with English and to show and strengthen their identities; it became a community of its own. Class after class, different interactions began to take place among these Afro and indigenous students, not only to do class activities and engage in discussions, but to bond with each other. As I said, I didn’t have friends when I came here [to the city] so that space was like . . . well, there you can talk to people so it motivated me to come to these classes. (Student interview, 2018) I consider myself a very shy person, but here you feel you can trust people, both professors and your own classmates who are around you; it makes you feel like you are home and you feel at ease. So, when it comes to expressing in class or working with someone, it does not matter who you get to be with, because this is like a family. (Student interview, 2018) Ethnic students’ hiding their identity was not uncommon at the university level, as found by Usma, Ortiz and Gutiérrez (2018), due to issues such as discrimination and negative portrayals of their communities. This was undoubtedly not the case in this study where, instead, little by little participants opened up and became proud of talking about who they were. Thus, having this safe environment in which all communities were valued might have caused this sense of community among participants.

TEACHING ENGLISH FROM A CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

 271

Another factor in this finding was related to the nature of activities. For instance, aside from classes, a field trip around the city exploring representative places for indigenous and Afro-descendants also had an important impact on students’ sense of community and led them to further connect with each other. The field trip, in a way, made us become closer, like a family, so those are the little things that make this (group) become stronger. I find it very relevant because inside the classroom you talk, but it is taking care of each other and looking after each other outside what I think ultimately allowed us to become more united. (Student interview, 2018) This finding made us wonder about several things: Was it the fact that all participants felt valued, which led them to feel like a family? should not all EFL classrooms provide safe spaces for students to interact and show who they are, to trust each other in an ambiance of respect for their differences and diversity? What is certain about this finding is the fact that when only some cosmogonies and ways of seeing the world are privileged in EFL classrooms, chances are that learners excluded from those lessons will find it hard to feel valued. In summary, findings indicate that the field of EFL has myriad possibilities to contribute to the strengthening of learners’ identities, to the exploration of local communities, and to the creation of classrooms where all forms of knowledge, cultures, and languages are valued and interact with the target language and cultures in a respectful and just manner. This way, language classrooms can become spaces where learners not only feel at ease to reveal their ethnic identities and ancestral languages but also feel proud to do so as they begin to question the unequal relations of power that have traditionally taken place with Spanish and now with English as a mandatory language in educational settings across the nation.

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has described a pedagogical intervention conducted in an English course targeting indigenous and Afro-Colombian students in a large public university in Colombia. The study was conducted as a response to neoliberal educational policies and practices that tend to ignore diversity, promote homogeneity, and make students walk away from their own traditions, identities, and cosmogonies. Having critical interculturality as a point of departure and aiming at the construction of CID in the English classroom, this intervention evidenced that it was possible to open learning spaces in which different ways of life, knowledge, cultures, and languages converge and interact in more fair conditions. Findings of this action research study showed that participants could reconnect to their cultural identities, value, and validate different ways of knowledge and different languages and construct a community with their peers in the language classroom. Results from this study can contribute to disrupt different manifestations of coloniality that have gone unquestioned in the educational field and particularly in ELT in our country. Firstly, official policies and programs in Colombia have not only marketed English as the language to participate and succeed in the global market but also positioned it over local languages. In a country with a great linguistic diversity that is continuously threatened by dominant languages such as Spanish and more recently English, it is paramount that new pedagogies aim at breaking this linguistic hierarchy that has been naturalized. Teaching English from an intercultural perspective and promoting CID in the language classroom can help us delve into this endeavor, as it was demonstrated in the present study in which

272

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

English became an additional linguistic resource that students could use to question and describe their realities. Secondly, since colonization, indigenous, and Afro-descendant peoples in our region have faced exclusion from all spheres, including educational settings. By overlooking local forms of knowledge and cultures, ELT practices have perpetuated such oppression and continue to feed their systematic annihilation. Teaching English from a more equitable perspective through a critical intercultural approach, as evidenced in this study, can help transform such oppressive realities by providing chances for all learners to build stronger bonds with their communities, cultural identities, and languages. Moreover, these spaces can lead students to acknowledge the historical struggles different communities have undertaken in order to understand and question the different relations of power installed in our society. In this sense, language classrooms can become a meaningful means to strengthen all identities, promote respect for different cultural groups, either foreign or local, and thus build more balanced exchanges among them. Thirdly, mainstream ELT practices in Colombia have mainly relied on prescriptive syllabi and on materials, contents, and methodologies produced by inner-circle communities that naturally disregard locally produced knowledge and the social, historical, and cultural conditions of our region. As evidenced in this pedagogical experience, understanding how diverse students are and placing their cosmogonies at the core of this language learning experience allowed us to create new materials and design different pedagogical strategies that departed from Eurocentric models. Hence, taking a step toward the development of alternative pedagogies like the one presented in this chapter brings the need to design course programs and materials which celebrate diversity and which have an explicit intention to acknowledge and problematize issues of culture, ethnicity, and linguistic diversity in the classroom. Otherwise, language educators might run the risk of treating these issues as homogeneous matters and will continue to privilege dominant cultures and languages while excluding others. Further efforts need to be made to foster sensitive language policies and alternative pedagogies that respond to local realities so that the critical intercultural dialogue that took place among these Afro-Colombian and indigenous learners of English in the study presented here begins to gradually open room for diverse cosmogonies, knowledge, literacies, and ways of communication to coexist and to transform the unequal social structures dominating educational practices in our country.

NOTE 1. A traditional Afro-Colombian singing dedicated to the dead.

REFERENCES Appadurai, A. (1990), ‘Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’, Theory, Culture and Society, 7 (2–3): 295–310. Ayala Zárate, J. and J. A. Álvarez (2005), ‘A Perspective of the Implications of the Common European Framework Implementation in the Colombian Socio-Cultural Context’, Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 7: 7–26. Bonilla Carvajal, C. A. and I. Tejada-Sánchez (2016), ‘Unanswered Questions in Colombia’s Foreign Language Education Policy’, Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 18 (1): 185–201.

TEACHING ENGLISH FROM A CRITICAL INTERCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

 273

Caicedo, J. and E. Castillo (2008), ‘Indigenas y afrodescendientes en la universidad colombiana: Nuevos sujetos, viejas estructuras’, Cuadernos Interculturales, 6 (10): 62–90. Castro-Gómez, S. and R. Grosfoguel (2007), ‘Prólogo. Giro decolonial, teoría crítica y pensamiento heterárquico’, in S. Castro- Gómez and R. Grosfoguel (eds), El giro decolonial: Reflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capitalismo global, 9–23, Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores. Correa, D. and A. González (2016), ‘English in Public Primary Schools in Colombia: Achievements and Challenges Brought about by National Language Education Policies’, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24 (83): 1–26. De Mejía, A. M. (2006), ‘Bilingual Education in Colombia: Towards a Recognition of Languages, Cultures and Identities’, Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8: 152–68. Ferrão, V. M. (2010), ‘Educación intercultural en América Latina: distintas concepciones y tensiones actuales’, Estudios pedagógicos (Valdivia), 36 (2): 333–42. Garcia, D. and J. Garcia (2014), ‘Educacion bilingue y pluralidad:Reflexiones en torno de la interculturalidad critica’, Cuadernos de Linguistica Hispanica, 23: 49–65. García León, J. and D. García León (2012), ‘Políticas lingüísticas en Colombia: tensiones entre políticas para lenguas mayoritarias y lenguas minoritarias’, Boletín de filología, 47 (2): 47–70. Godenzzi, J. C. (2005), ‘Introducción/Diversidad histórica y diálogo intercultural: perspectiva latinoamericana’, Tinkuy: Boletín de investigación y debate, 1: 7–14. González, A. (2007), ‘Professional Development of EFL Teachers in Colombia: Between Colonial Discourses and Local Practices’, Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 12 (18): 309–32. González, A. (2015), ‘¿Nos han desplazado? ¿O hemos claudicado? El debilitado papel crítico de universidades públicas y los formadores de docentes en la implementación de la política educativa lingüística del inglés en Colombia’, in Kleber Aparecido da Silva, et al., (eds), A formação de professores de línguas: políticas, projetos e parcerias, 33–54, Campinas, SP: Pontes Editores. Granados-Beltran, C. (2016), ‘Critical Interculturality: A Path for Pre-service ELT Teachers’, Ikala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 21 (2): 171–87. Guerrero, C. H. (2009), ‘Language Policies in Colombia: The Inherited Disdain for Our Native Languages’, HOW, 16 (1): 11–24. Guerrero, C. H. (2010), ‘Is English the Key to access the Wonders of the Modern World? A Critical Discourse Analysis’, Signo y Pensamiento, 29 (57): 294–313 Kachru, B. B. (1992), ‘Models for Non-native Englishes’, in B. B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 48–74, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kramsch, C. (1998), Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Le Gal, D. (2018), ‘English Language Teaching in Colombia: A Necessary Paradigm Shift’, Matices en Lenguas Extranjeras, 12: 154–87. Norton Peirce, B. (1995), ‘Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning’, TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1): 9–29. Retrieved from shorturl​.at​/iz​GR4 Ortiz, J., J. Usma and C. Gutiérrez (2020), ‘Critical Intercultural Dialogue Opening New Paths to Internationalisation in HE: Repositioning Local Languages and Cultures in Foreign Language Policies’, in U. Lundgren, P. Castro and J. Woodin (eds), Educational Approaches to Internationalisation through Intercultural Dialogue: Reflections on Theory and Practice, 71–85, London: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (1989), ‘The Concept of Method, Interested Knowledge, and the Politics of Language Teaching’, TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4): 589–618. doi:10.2307/3587534.

274

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Quijano, A. (2014), ‘Colonialidad del poder y clasificación social’, in B. de S. Santos and M. P. Meneses (eds), Epistemologías del sur (perspectivas), 67–107, Madrid: Akal. Restrepo, E. and A. Rojas (2010), Inflexion decolonial: Fuentes, conceptos y cuestionamientos, Popayan: Editorial Universidad del Cauca. Richards, K. (2003), Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Torres-Martínez, S. (2009), ‘Las vicisitudes de la enseñanza de lenguas en Colombia’, Diálogos Latinoamericanos, 15: 56–75. Tubino, F. (2004), ‘Del interculturalismo funcional al interculturalismo crítico’, in M. Samaniego and C. Garbarini (eds), Rostros y fronteras de la identidad, 151–64, Temuco: UCT. Tubino, F. (2005), ‘La praxis de la interculturalidad en los Estados Nacionales Latinoamericanos’, Cuadernos Interculturales, 3 (5): 83–96. Tubino, F. (2008), ‘No una, sino muchas ciudadanías: una reflexión desde el Perú y América Latina’, Cuadernos Interculturales, 6 (10): 170–80. Universidad de Antioquia (2018), ¿Qué es el PIFLE?, Retrieved from: https://goo​.gl​/N4m14P Usma, J. (2009), ‘Education and Language Policy in Colombia: Exploring Processes of Inclusion, Exclusion, and Stratification in Times of Global Reform’, Profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 11: 129–43. Usma, J. (2015), From Transnational Language Policy Transfer to Local Appropriation: The Case of the National Bilingual Program in Medellín, Colombia, Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press. Usma, J., J. Ortiz and C. Gutiérrez (2018), ‘Indigenous Students Learning English in Higher Education: Challenges and Hopes’, Ikala Revista de Lengua y Cultura, 23 (2): 229–54. Walsh, C. (2005), La interculturalidad en educación, Perú Ministerio de Educación: Dirección Nacional de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural. Walsh, C. (2009), ‘Interculturalidad crítica y pedagogía decolonial: Apuestas (des)de el insurgir, re-existir y re-vivir’, in P. Medina (ed.), Educacion intercultural en America Latina: Memorias, horizontes historicos y disyuntivas politicas, 25–42, Mexico, DF: Plaza y Valdes, S. A. Walsh, C. (2013), ‘Interculturalidad y (de)colonialidad: Perspectivas críticas y políticas’, Visão Global, 15 (1–2): 61–74. Watson-Gegeo, K. (2004), ‘Mind, Language, and Epistemology: Toward a Language Socialization Paradigm for SLA’, The Modern Language Journal, 88 (3): 331–50.

Chapter 17

English-Medium Instruction and Heritage Language Development in Africa NKONKO M. KAMWANGAMALU

This chapter addresses the perennial issue of how to develop heritage languages for educational use against parental preference for English-medium instruction in postcolonial contexts, with a focus on Anglophone Africa (Bamgbose 2000; OAU, 2000). Traditionally, studies investigating this issue have concentrated mostly on what Haarmann (1990) in his framework of prestige planning has termed the production of language planning (LP), but they have hardly paid any attention to the reception of LP. The former concerns official policy declaration about the status of languages in a polity, while the latter concerns the attitude, positive or negative, of the target community toward the policy, whether they accept or reject it. This chapter breaks with the traditional approach by focusing on the often-overlooked issue of the missing link between an education through the medium of a heritage language on the one hand and economic outcomes of that education on the other. It argues that any language policy designed to develop heritage languages for educational use must simultaneously create a demand for these languages in the formal labor market if the intent is to succeed. It then explores how the demand can be created in the light of theoretical developments in critical theory, especially Bourdieu’s (1991) notions of capital and linguistic market, and of comparable developments in language economics, a field of study whose focus is on the interplay between linguistic and economic variables (Grin 2006; Grin, Sfreddo and Vaillancourt 2010; Kamwangamalu 2013a, 2016).

INTRODUCTION Nearly 200 years ago, seven European countries, including Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, held a conference in Berlin, Germany, with only one item on the agenda: the geopolitical partition of Africa. The partition, which came to be known as the scramble for Africa, set in motion the issue that postcolonial generations of African policymakers and linguists have addressed over the years and which is the focus of this chapter, namely how to develop Africa’s heritage languages for educational use against parental preference for an education through the medium of former colonial languages, among them English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. In this chapter, I will address this question with respect to English-medium instruction in Anglophone Africa

276

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

(Bamgbose 2000; OAU 2000). Africa’s policymakers have addressed this question by concentrating on what Haarmann (1990) in his framework of prestige planning describes as the production of language planning, but they have hardly paid any attention to the reception of language planning. The former refers to legislation or official policy declaration about the status of languages in a polity, while the latter has to do with the population’s attitude toward the policy – that is, whether they accept the policy or reject it. Traditionally, in Africa, the production of language planning has consisted mainly in giving official status to selected indigenous language to bring them, theoretically, to equality with inherited colonial languages. There is evidence, however, that the traditional approach to prestige planning for heritage languages has not necessarily equalized opportunities for these languages and their speakers (Djite 2008; Koffi 2012; Mchombo 2014). On the contrary, this approach has provided a cover for what Pennycook (1994) called the planned reproduction of socioeconomic inequality. In this chapter, I break with the traditional approach to prestige planning for the continent’s heritage languages. Following Haarmann (1990), and drawing on my previous work (e.g., Kamwangamalu 2001, 2004, 2009, 2013a and b, 2016, 2018), I propose prestige planning involving both the production and the reception of language planning as the way forward to promoting use of Africa’s heritage languages in education. Essentially, Prestige Planning is concerned with raising the prestige of any given language, in the present case Africa’s heritage languages, so that members of the target speech community develop a positive attitude toward it. The aforementioned argument, linking as it does an education through the medium of a heritage language with economic returns, avoids the pitfalls of postcolonial language policies, which pay lip-service to the empowerment of heritage languages while, by default, strengthening the stranglehold of the dominance of English and related European languages in the African continent (Djite 2008: 21–3; Kamwangamalu 2018: 133–5) and elsewhere in the world (Dua 1994; Tollefson 2013). The section that follows describes these policies. The subsequent section presents the theoretical frameworks undergirding the proposed prestige planning for Africa’s heritage languages. The focus will be on critical theory, especially Bourdieu’s notions of capital, market, habitus, and social fields, and on language economics, a field of study whose focus is on the ways in which linguistic and economic variables influence one another. The intent in using these theoretical frameworks is to shed light on why inherited colonial language policies persist in the continent. The last section discusses case studies of successful prestige planning for ancestral languages in communities around the world in support of the proposal of prestige planning for Africa’s ancestral languages.

COLONIAL AND POSTCOLONIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES Soon after European powers partitioned Africa, they confronted the question of “what to do with the languages spoken by the people they conquered” (Alexander 1997; Bamgbose 2003; Kamwangamalu 2009). In response, European powers all invariably used the ideology of the nation-state, which was popular in Europe at the time, to impose their languages in the conquered territories. By definition, the ideology of the nation-state requires unitary symbols, among them one nation, one language, one culture, one belief system, one religion, and so on. Following this ideology, the colonial authorities designed language policies that embraced monolingualism in a European language as the norm; treated the diversity of African languages as a problem and a threat to social order; and considered African languages themselves as primitive and

ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION

 277

inadequate for advanced learning and socioeconomic development (Djite 2008: 21–4; Kamwangamalu 2016: 41, 51). If for the colonial masters the question was what to do with the languages of the conquered people, for the elites who took power when colonialism ended the question was what to do with the languages that the colonial authorities left behind. Inspired by the ideology of the nation-state, postcolonial African elites adopted continual use of former colonial languages as the sole official languages in their respective independent nations. The literature explains that the elites retained inherited colonial language policies for various reasons, including the following:

(i) To avoid ethno-linguistic conflicts in Africa’s multilingual polities, since choosing one African language as the medium of instruction would anger those whose languages were not selected (Newton 1972);



(ii) To promote national unity because a former colonial language is ethnically neutral in the sense that it does not belong to nor privilege any specific indigenous ethnic group, and, therefore, it assumingly (dis)advantages everyone equally, both socioeconomically and politically (Weinstein 1990);

(iii) To use the language of wider communication, English for instance, for national socioeconomic development because African languages apparently lack higher literacy forms and linguistic complexity that European languages have (Revel 1988; Spencer 1985). Heine (1990) remarks that in retaining former colonial languages as the medium of instruction in schools, the elites expected the following:

a) The adopted European language would develop into a viable medium of national communication.



b) It would be adopted by the African populations.



c) It would spread as a lingua franca and perhaps eventually also as a first language by replacing the local languages, as was the case for Portuguese and Spanish in large parts of Latin America (Heine 1990: 176).

Contrary to the aforementioned and related expectations, Alexander (1997: 88) remarks that the social distribution of European languages in Africa remains very limited and is largely restricted to a minority elite group; economic development has not reached the majority of the continent’s population; language-based division has increased; and there is a continuing increase in school failure rates and dropouts, and the illiteracy rates among the populace remain high. According to UNESCO (2003), in 1990 there were 138 million illiterate persons in sub-Saharan Africa. In a more recent report, UNESCO (2014) says that Africa has the highest illiteracy rates in the world, estimated in 2011 to be 41 percent and 30 percent for adults and youth, respectively (http://stat​.uis​.unesco​.org). Also, UNESCO (2013) reports that “of the 11 countries with the lowest recorded adult literacy rates in the world, ten are in Africa.” Further, the organization notes that in sub-Saharan Africa more than 1 in 3 adults cannot read; 182 million adults are unable to read and write; and 48 million youths (ages fifteen to twenty-four) are illiterate. Along these lines, Balfour (1999) reports that in South Africa, for example, 80 percent of blacks and about 40 percent of whites are illiterate and innumerate at Standard Five level (i.e., grade 7). Muthwii and Kioko (2003) make a similar point concerning literacy in Uganda and Nigeria, noting that only about

278

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

15 percent of the population in those two countries have functional literacy in the official language, English. Likewise, Samuels (1995: 31) reports that in the so-called Anglophone Africa only a thin percentage of between 5 percent and 20 percent of the population can communicate in English. In agreement, Djite (2008: 66) remarks that after fifty years of experimenting with European languages as the main, and in most cases sole, mediums of instruction in African schools, 80 to 90 percent of the population in most African countries have yet to learn how to speak the (official) languages of their former colonial masters. In view of these statistics, Djite (2008: 67) asks, “What price are we prepared to put on the good education of the African people?” and “How many more centuries can Africans afford to wait” (2008: 180) to become literate in the languages of their former colonial masters? Any study interested in addressing these questions must explain why inherited colonial language-in-education policies persist in Africa’s educational systems, despite the fact that they have failed to deliver the expected literacy outcomes, as highlighted earlier. I contend that critical theory, particularly Pierre Bourdieu’s notions of capital, market, habitus, and social fields, offers the needed insights into why African elites, who came into power when colonialism ended, have retained inherited colonial language policies, which, in the present case, favor English-medium education at the expense of heritage languages. To resolve this issue, I will, in the subsequent section, frame my proposal of prestige planning for Africa’s heritage languages within language economics, which Grin (1996) defines as a field of study whose focus is on investigating the ways in which linguistic and economic variables influence one another. The intent is to reiterate the argument, made earlier in this chapter, that language policies succeed if they lead to desirable economic outcomes, such as access to employment. This argument, I contend, has the potential to curb what Koffi (2012) calls the continued glorification of former colonial languages, in this case English, as the sole suitable medium of instruction in African education.

WHY DO COLONIAL LANGUAGE POLICIES PERSIST? INSIGHTS FROM LANGUAGE ECONOMICS AND CRITICAL THEORY Tollefson (2006) describes critical language policy as an approach to language planning that investigates the processes by which systems of inequality are created and sustained through language. The goal of critical linguistics is to describe and explain hegemonic practices, which Gramsci (1988) defines as institutional practices that ensure that power remains in the hands of the few; to understand how dominant social groups use language for establishing and maintaining social hierarchies; and to investigate ways to alter those hierarchies (Tollefson 2002). Along these lines, Bourdieu (1991) says that all human actions take place within social fields, that is, areas of struggle for institutional resources and forms of privilege and power. He notes that the individuals who participate in this struggle, Bourdieu calls them ‘agents,’ have a set of dispositions or habitus, which incline them to act and react in certain ways. In other words, the dispositions give the agents “a feel for the game,” a sense of what is appropriate in the circumstances and what is not (Bourdieu 1991: 13) in a given linguistic market. In Bourdieu’s work, the concept of linguistic market refers to the fact that language use indexes [of] social, political, and economic inequality and

ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION

 279

that different variants of a language (or, by extension, of languages seen as different) do not enjoy the same degree of prestige in a given place at a given time (Grin, Sfreddo and Vaillancourt 2010: 32). The choices that individuals make about which language to use in a given market, in the present case Africa’s educational systems, is informed by the economic value with which a language is associated. This is because, Bourdieu says, in any given linguistic market, some products are valued more highly than others. Recent scholarship, both in sociolinguistics (e.g., De Costa, Park and Wee 2016; Flores and Chaparro 2018) and cognate disciplines such as economics (e.g., Grin 2006, 2019), has also sought, as Muth and Del Percio (2018: 130) remark, “to disentangle, analyze and make sense of the complex relationship between communicative resources and their potential economic value.” The main focus of this scholarship has been to explain why individuals in postcolonial settings and elsewhere choose to invest in learning a particular second/foreign language such as English rather than another, such as Kiswahili or Zulu, for example. De Costa, Park and Wee (2016) view such investments in terms of what they call linguistic entrepreneurship, defined as “an act of aligning with the moral imperative to strategically exploit language-related resources for enhancing one’s worth in the world” (p. 696). Linguistic entrepreneurship, it is noted further, is a manifestation of a neoliberal language policy, one that frames second/foreign language learning in moral terms; that is, it promotes investments in language learning in terms of attributes of entrepreneurship, self-reliance, sturdy individualism, autonomy, innovation, creativity, and strategy (Evans and Sewell 2013: 37). Linguistic entrepreneurship, along with the neoliberal ideology in which it is anchored, considers language learning “as an activity that the learner engages in as a path to better outcomes, such as better employment opportunities, and highlights the investments . . . and motivations . . . of language learners as reflections of their rational choices in pursuit of profit” (De Costa, Park and Wee 2016: 696). Like Bourdieu’s approach to language practices and related concepts of linguistic markets, the framework of linguistic entrepreneurship is in agreement with theoretical developments in language economics, a field of study whose focus is on the interplay between linguistic and economic variables, as noted earlier. More specifically, language economics is concerned with the relevance of language as a commodity in the acquisition of which individual actors may have good reason to invest; it considers language learning as a social investment that yields benefits for the investors; and it deals with the economic implications (costs and benefits) of language policies, whether these costs and benefits are market related or not (Grin 2001:66). Within language economics, linguistic products such as language, language varieties, utterances, and accents are seen not only as goods or commodities to which the market assigns a value, but as signs of wealth or capital, which receive their value only in relation to a market, characterized by what Bourdieu calls a particular law of price formation (Bourdieu 1991: 66–7). The market value of a linguistic capital such as language or language variety, says Coulmas (1992), is determined by a number of factors, all of which contribute to make language not only a medium but also an element of economic success (Coulmas 1992: 77–89). It follows that it is extremely important to understand the interplay between linguistic and economic variables, especially in the African context, for this understanding sheds light on why there is so much demand for foreign language skills in Africa’s labor market, but virtually no comparable demand for the continent’s heritage languages (Bamgbose 2003; Grin, Sfreddo and Vaillancourt 2010; Mchombo 2014). Both language economics and critical theory, especially Bourdieu’s work, allow scholars to understand why African parents in Anglophone Africa, for instance, value and

280

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

prefer English-medium education over an education through the medium of their own heritage languages. Parents evaluate English as a commodity that commands an exchange value; they perceive English as more advantageous than Africa’s heritage languages in the benefits that it can and does bring to the user or, in Bourdieu’s terms, they see linguistic capital inherent in that (ex-colonial) language, English (Tan and Rubdy 2008). As I have observed elsewhere (Kamwangamalu 2018: 133–5; also, see Kamwangamalu 2004: 138–9; 2009: 23–6), it seems that parents prefer English-medium education because it enhances individuals’ socioeconomic status and prestige (Giri 2010), while education through the medium of a heritage language does not. Against the background of language economics and critical theory, I argue that for African parents to accept an education through the medium of a heritage language for their children, that education must, like English-medium education, be associated with economic outcomes. As Vaillancourt (2006: 81) remarks, “individuals invest in language skills for their children or themselves according to the benefits and costs associated with these investments.” The ideas summarized in this paragraph are useful in two significant ways. One, they offer the lens through which we can understand why African parents favor English-medium education over an education through the medium of heritage languages. Two, with this understanding, we can explore ways in which English and heritage languages can coexist productively in education for the benefit of all rather than of select few, the elite. This study proposes prestige planning for African languages as the way forward to making these languages, like English, an economically viable medium of instruction in the educational systems.

PRESTIGE PLANNING FOR AFRICA’S HERITAGE LANGUAGES As noted earlier, prestige planning for African languages has, in general, consisted only in giving official recognition to selected indigenous languages to symbolically bring them to equality with former colonial languages. The most recent example is South Africa, where, as a result of the demise of the apartheid system and the birth of a democratic society, the government has adopted eleven languages including English and Afrikaans and nine African languages as official languages of the state. The reality, however, is that no official African language in South Africa or elsewhere in Anglophone Africa as a whole has the same socioeconomic status as English (Kamwangamalu 2003: 239–42). Success in language planning, says Ager (2005: 1039), is about “succeeding in influencing language behavior, whether this is behavior in using language, identified in the phrase language-as-instrument, or behavior toward language, often described as language-as-object.” Ager (2005: 1037) goes on to note, pointedly, that “planning that does not influence behavior, that does not convince hearts and minds of the target of planning, is pointless, no matter how well-researched.” I argue that negative attitudes toward Africa’s heritage languages as the medium of instruction in schools might change if an education through the medium of these languages were associated with economic outcomes, such as access to employment. I have proposed prestige planning undergirded by language economics and critical theory, as already described, as the way forward to promoting use of Africa’s heritage languages as the medium of instruction in the educational systems. The central assumption of this proposal is concerned with promoting Africa’s heritage languages in the educational system as first and foremost an economic or marketing problem in the sense that, unlike knowledge of

ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION

 281

English, knowledge of Africa’s heritage languages does not provide adequate compensation in the formal labor market. Viewing prestige planning for heritage languages as a linguistic marketing problem entails developing, promoting, and associating those languages with an economic value to make them a commodity in the acquisition of which individuals may have good reason to invest. For a legislation designed to elevate the status of heritage languages in the educational system to succeed, it must meet at least two intertwined conditions, as proposed in Kamwangamalu (2016: xi–xii). First, the legislation must simultaneously create a market or demand for these languages in Africa’s linguistic market place. Creating the demand for these languages means associating them with economic returns and raising awareness of their value in the formal labor market. Put differently, individuals who are interested in learning or being schooled through the medium of a heritage language must know what that education will do for them in terms of upward social mobility. Would it, for instance, be as rewarding as an English-medium education? What benefits would individuals actually reap, particularly in the labor market, because of their academic skills in a heritage language? I argue that the response to these questions lies in the relationship between language and economic returns. This explains why, as Grin (1999: 16) observes, “people learn certain languages and why, if they have the choice of using more than one, they prefer to use one or the other.” As economists would say, individuals respond to incentives and seek to acquire those language skills whose expected financial benefits exceed their expected costs (Bloom and Grenier 1996: 46–7). Second, certified skills or knowledge, that is, school-acquired knowledge of heritage languages must become one of the criteria for access to employment in the public and the private sector, much as is the case for skills in ex-colonial languages such as English and others. In the proposed Prestige Planning framework, heritage languages are seen as potential cash cows and as a commodity to which the market assigns a value. To view language as a commodity is, as Pennycook (2008: xii) notes, “to view language in instrumental, pragmatic and commercial terms, which is precisely the dominant discourse on language in many contemporary contexts.” Thus, at the core of the proposed Prestige Planning framework is “linguistic instrumentalism,” which Wee (2003: 211) describes as “a view of language that justifies its existence in a community in terms of its usefulness in achieving specific utilitarian goals, such as access to economic development or social mobility.” As we will see in the next and last section, the literature offers several case studies of prestige planning for heritage languages around the world. I argue that with the political will to change the status quo, I see no reason why prestige planning, as proposed in this chapter, would not succeed for Africa’s ancestral languages. This proposal can succeed because it requires legislation that not only gives official status to selected heritage languages, hence the production of language planning, but also, and most importantly, that changes hearts and behaviors of the target language community, hence the reception of language planning. The legislation can achieve this double goal by associating an education through the medium of heritage languages with economic returns and advantages, and requiring academic skills in these languages as one of the criteria for access to employment.

CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL PRESTIGE PLANNING FOR HERITAGE LANGUAGES It is worth noting at the outset that the African continent does not have a history of successful prestige planning for its indigenous languages. There are, however, the cases

282

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

of Somali in Somalia, Amharic in Ethiopia, kiSwahili in Tanzania, Ile Ife in Nigeria, and Afrikaans in South Africa that African scholars often point to as success stories (Akinnaso 1993; Bamgbose 2003; Batibo 2001; Djite 2008; Koffi 2012; Mchombo 2014). These cases are successful insofar as they demonstrate that children learn better when they are taught through the medium of a familiar language, which may or may not necessarily be their mother tongue/primary language, rather than through the medium of a foreign language, in this case English. Thus, as Tupas (2009: 30) remarks, “local languages must not only be seen as pedagogically superior because of their cognitive potential for faster learning . . .” but “they must also be seen as useful elements in the socioeconomic development of their speakers”. He further states that “. . . education and socioeconomic development must be seen as inextricably linked, with education seen as support for the social development of communities” (p.30). From the perspective of the proposed Prestige Planning framework, the success of the aforementioned case studies, except of Afrikaans in South Africa, is a limited one, for the economic returns deriving from an education through the medium of either of the languages (Amharic, kiSwahili, Somali) are comparatively lower than those deriving from an education through the medium of a former colonial language such as English. Indeed, African parents clamor for English-medium education because of its economic benefits, such as employment opportunities and higher wages. But, as Heugh (2002), Wright (2002) and others remark, economic considerations in language planning have, in the past, hardly been taken into account in the literature advocating for Africa’s heritage languages to be used as the medium of instruction in schools. However, the literature has increasingly recognized the importance of the linkage between language and the economy in determining the success or failure of any given language planning and policy (Paulston 1988; Walsh 2006). In particular, there is sufficient evidence that language planning and policy activities succeed if they lead to desirable economic outcomes. Examples include Macedonian in Macedonia (Tollefson 2002), Chinese Mandarin in Singapore (Gupta 1997), French in Quebec (Vaillancourt 2006), Nepali in Nepal (Giri 2010), Basque language in Spain (Fishman 2006), Malay in Malaysia and Indonesia (Gill 2006), Hindi and related indigenous languages in India (Gopinath 2008), Welsh in Wales (Edwards 2004; Ferguson 2006), Gaelic in Scotland (Grin 1996), to list but a few. Consider, for example, the case of the Macedonian language as reported in Tollefson (2002). Tollefson says that when the Republic of Macedonia was created within Yugoslavia, the Macedonian language served as the medium of government operations and education. The use of Macedonian in these higher domains guaranteed access to jobs in the administration and schools, and the communication industries enjoyed more clients for their books, newspapers, and music. Fishman (2006) makes a similar comment regarding prestige planning for the Basque language in Spain, pointing to the success of what he calls Basquecization activities, that is, activities intended to promote the Basque language in that country. He explains that Basquecization activities were successful because participation in these activities yielded certification at various levels of competence, entitling their bearers to qualify for promotions, raises, job tenure, and other perquisites of success in the workplace (e.g., Fishman 2006). Like Fishman, Giri (2010) explains why speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages in Nepal are attracted to Nepali as the medium of instruction rather than to their own heritage languages. She says that, in Nepal, Nepali and English are status symbol and, increasingly, serve as tools in the hands of the ruling elites who use those languages to create linguistic hegemony within the polity. As a result, speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages choose Nepali as their second

ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION

 283

language because their own heritage languages do not have the same value as Nepali in the linguistic marketplace.

CONCLUDING REMARKS It is perhaps opportune to conclude this chapter by sharing the experience I had some years ago at Moi University in Eldoret, Kenya, where I delivered a paper proposing Prestige Planning for the local indigenous lingua franca, Kiswahili. One member of the audience, a faculty at this university, reacted to the proposal as follows: Professor, what you are proposing will not work. Let us move on. English has brought us development; it has brought us jobs; it has brought us education; it has brought us literacy; but what have African languages done for us? Nothing! Let us just move on! (Kamwangamalu 2013c) This reaction sums up the elite’s attitude toward an education through the medium of a heritage language as compared with an education through the medium of a former colonial language such as English. Moving on simply means using English as the sole medium of instruction in the schools. And yet, despite the early introduction of English into the education system and the resources invested in its promotion, there have been numerous claims of ‘falling standards’ of English in educational institutions in Englishspeaking African countries, including Kenya (Mazrui 1997, 2013). It is telling that although English-medium education has not succeeded in spreading literacy in Anglophone Africa, language-in-education practices in the region continue to be informed by inherited colonial language policies, which favor English-medium education over an education through the medium of Africa’s heritage languages. One must ask whether it is pedagogically justified to continue investing only in what Coulmas (1992: 149) rightly describes as a ‘monolingual, elitist system,’ even if that educational system, practiced for nearly 200 years, has failed to spread literacy among the populations in the region or in the African continent as a whole. To change this state of affairs, and drawing on critical theory and language economics, I have proposed Prestige Planning for Africa’s heritage languages if these languages are to become, like English, an instrument for upward social mobility. For Prestige Planning to succeed in Anglophone Africa, the selected African heritage languages must bear economic returns for their users, for the attribution of real value has been the key ingredient for the success of Prestige Planning elsewhere. Unless an education in Africa’s heritage languages is associated with economic returns, English-medium education will continue to serve, to paraphrase Graddol (2006: 38), as one of the mechanisms for structuring inequality in developing economies, including Anglophone Africa.

REFERENCES Ager, D. (2005), ‘Prestige and Image Planning’, in E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 1035–54, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Akinnaso, F. N. (1993), ‘Policy and Experiment in Mother Tongue Literacy in Nigeria’, International Review of Education, 39 (4): 255–85. Alexander, N. (1997), ‘Language Policy and Planning in the New South Africa’, African Sociological Review, 1 (1): 82–98.

284

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Balfour, Robert J. (1999), ‘Naming the Father: Re-examining the Role of English as a Medium of Instruction in South African Education’, Changing English, 6 (1): 103–13. Bamgbose, A. (2000), Language and Exclusion: The Consequences of Language Policies in Africa, Hamburg: LIT Verlag Munster. Bamgbose, A. (2003), ‘A Recurring Decimal: English in Language Policy and Planning’, World Englishes, 22 (4): 419–31. Batibo, H. (2001), Language Decline and Death in Africa: Causes, Consequences and Challenges, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bloom, D. E. and G. Grenier (1996), ‘Language, Employment, and Earnings in the United States: Spanish-English Differentials from 1970 to 1990’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 121: 43–68. Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, translated from the French by G. Raymond and M. Adamson, Cambridge: Polity Press. Coulmas, F. (1992), Language and the Economy, Oxford: Blackwell. De Costa, P. I., J. S. Park, and L. Wee (2016), ‘Language Learning as Linguistic Entrepreneurship: Implications for Language Education’, The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25 (5–6): 695–702. Djite, P. (2008), The Sociolinguistics of Development, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dua, H. R. (1994), ‘Hindi Language Spread Policy and Its Implementation: Achievements and Prospects’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 107: 115–43. Edwards, V. (2004), Multilingualism in the English-Speaking World, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Evans, P. B. and W. H. Sewell Jr. (2013), ‘Neoliberalism: Policy Regimes, International Regimes, and Social Effects’, in P. A. Hall and M. Lamont (eds), Social Resilience in the Neoliberal Era, 35–68, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, G. (2006), Language Planning in Education, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fishman, J. A. (2006), ‘Language Policy and Language Shift’, in T. Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, 311–28, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Flores, N. and S. Chaparro (2018), ‘What Counts as Language Education Policy? Developing a Materialist Anti-racist Approach to Language Activism’, Language Policy, 17: 365–84. Gill, S. K. (2006), ‘Change in Language Policy in Malaysia: The Reality of Implementation in Public Universities’, Current Issues in Language Planning, 7 (1): 82–94. Giri, R. A. (2010), ‘Cultural Anarchism: The Consequences of Privileging Languages in Nepal’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31 (1): 87–100. Gopinath, C. (2008), Globalization: A Multildimensional System, Los Angeles: Sage. Graddol, D. (2006), English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of English as a Foreign Language, London: The British Council. Gramsci, A. (1988), A Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings, edited by D. Forgacs, London: Lawrence and Wishart. Grin, F. (1996), ‘The Economics of Language: Survey, Assessment, and Prospects’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 121: 17–44. Grin, F. (1999), ‘Economics’, in J. A. Fishman (ed.), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, 9–24, New York: Oxford University Press. Grin, F. (2001), ‘English as Economic Value: Facts and Fallacies’, World Englishes, 20 (1): 65–78. Grin, F. (2006), ‘Economic Considerations in Language Policy’, in T. Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, 77–94, Malden, MA: Blackwell. Grin, F. (2019), ‘Economics and Language Contact’, in J. Darquennes, J. Salmons and W. Vandenbussche (eds), Language Contact, 707–18, Berlin: De Gruyter.

ENGLISH-MEDIUM INSTRUCTION

 285

Grin, F., C. Sfreddo and F. Vaillancourt (2010), The Economics of the Multilingual Workplace, London and New York: Routledge. Gupta, A. (1997), ‘When Mother-Tongue Education Is Not Preferred’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18 (6): 496–506. Haarmann, H. (1990), ‘Language Planning in the Light of a General Theory of Language: A Methodological Framework’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 86: 103–26. Heine, B. (1990), ‘Language Policy in Africa’, in B. Weinstein (ed.), Language Policy and Political Development, 167–84, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Heugh, K. (2002), ‘Recovering Multilingualism: Recent Language-Policy Developments’, in R. Mesthrie (ed.), Language in South Africa, 449–75, Cape Town: Cambridge Africa Collection. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2001), ‘A Linguistic Renaissance for an African Renaissance: Language Policy and Planning for African Mass Development’, in E. Maloka and E. le Roux (eds), Africa in the New Millennium, 131–43, Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2003), ‘When 2+9=1: English and the Politics of Language Planning in a Multilingual Society: South Africa’, in C. Mair (ed.), The Politics of English as a World Language, 235–46. New York: Rodopi B. V. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2004), ‘Language Policy/ Language Economics Interface and Mother Tongue Education in Post-apartheid South Africa’, Language Problems and Language Planning, 28 (2): 131–46. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2009), ‘Reflections on the Language Policy Balance Sheet in Africa’, Language Matters, 40 (2): 133–44. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2013a), ‘English in Language Policy and Ideologies in Africa: Challenges and Prospects for Vernacularization’, in R. Bayley, R. Cameron and C. Lucas (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 545–62, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2013b), ‘Effects of Policies on English-Medium Instruction in Africa’, World Englishes, 32 (3): 325–37. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2013c), ‘Language Policy and Economics in Africa’, Seminar paper presented to the Department of Linguistics, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya, August 1. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2016), Language Policy and Economics – The Language Question in Africa, London: Palgrave McMillan Publishers Ltd. Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2018), ‘The Issue of the Medium of Instruction in Africa as “An Inheritance Situation”’, Current Issues in Language Planning, 19 (2): 133–3. Koffi, E. (2012), Paradigm Shift in Language Planning and Policy – Game Theoretic Solutions, Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter. Mazrui, A. (2013), ‘Language and Education in Kenya: Between the Colonial Legacy and the New Constitutional Order’, in James W. Tollefson (ed.), Language Policy in Education: Critical Issues, 2nd edn, 139–55, New York and London: Routledge. Mazrui, A. (1997), ‘The World Bank, the Language Question and the Future of African Education’, Race and Class. A Journal for Black and Third World Liberation, 38 (3): 35–49. Mchombo, S. (2014), ‘Language, Learning, and Education for All in Africa’, in Z. Babac-Wilhite (ed.), Giving Space to African Voice, 21–47, Boston: Sense Publications. Muth, S. and A. Del Percio (2018), ‘Policing for Commodification: Turning Communicative Resources into Commodities’, Language Policy, 17 (2): 129–35. Muthwii, M. J. and A. N. Kioko (2003), ‘A Fresh Quest for New Language Bearings in Africa’, Language, Culture and Curriculum, 16 (2): 97–105.

286

BLOOMSBURY WORLD ENGLISHES

Newton, E. S. (1972), ‘Linguistic Pluralism: Third World Impediment to Universal Literacy’, The Journal of Negro Education, 4 (3): 248–54. OAU (Organization of African Unity). (2000), Asmara Declaration on African Languages and Literatures. http//www​.queensu​.ca​/snid​/asmara​.htm. Accessed 12 May 2019. Paulston, C. B. (ed.) (1988), International Handbook of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, New York: Greenwood Press. Pennycook, A. (1994), The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Longman. Pennycook, A. (2008), ‘Praise for Language as Commodity: Global Structures, Local Marketplaces’, in P. Tan and R. Rubdy (eds), Language as Commodity, xii, London: Continuum. Revel, J.-F. (1988), La connaissance inutile, Paris: Grasset. Samuels, J. (1995), ‘Multilingualism in the Emerging Educational Dispensation’, in Proceedings of SAALA 15, 75–84, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University. Spencer, J. (1985), ‘Language and Development in Africa: The Unequal Equation. Language of Inequality’, in N. Wolfson and J. Manes (eds), Language of Inequality, 387–97, New York: Mouton Publishers. Tan, P. and R. Rubdy, eds (2008), Language as a Commodity: Global Structures, LocalMarketplaces, London: Continuum. Tollefson, J. W. (2002), ‘Language Rights and the Destruction of Yugoslavia’, in J. W. Tollefson (ed.), Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues, 179–99, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tollefson, J. W. (2006), ‘Critical Theory in Language Policy’, in T. Ricento (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, 42–59, Oxford: Blackwell. Tollefson, J. W. (2013), ‘Language Policy in a Time of Crisis and Transformation’, in J. W. Tollefson (ed.), Language Policies in Education – Critical Issues, 2nd edn, 11–34, New York and London: Routledge. Tupas, R. (2009), ‘Language as a Problem of Development: Ideological Debates and Comprehensive Education in the Phillippines’, AILA Review, 23: 23–35. UNESCO. (2003), Education in a Multilingual World. UNESCO Education Position Paper, Paris: UNESCO. http:​/​/une​​sdoc.​​unesc​​o​.org​​/imag​​es​/00​​12​/00​​1297/​​129​72​​8e​.pd​​f. Accessed 19 December 2018. UNESCO. (2013), Adult and Youth Literacy: National, Regional and Global Trends, 1985– 2015. UIS. June 2013. UNESCO. (2014), Adult and Youth Literacy. UIS Fact Sheet. September 2014. Vaillancourt, F. (2006), ‘Language and Socioeconomic Status in Quebec: Measurements, Findings, Determinants, and Policy Costs’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 126: 69–92. Walsh, J. (2006), ‘Language and Socio-economic Development: Towards a Theoretical Framework’, Language Problems and Language Planning, 30 (2): 127–48. Wee, L. (2003), ‘Linguistic Instrumentalism in Singapore’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24: 211–24. Weinstein, B., ed. (1990), Language Policy and Political Development, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Wright, L. (2002), ‘Why English Dominates The Central Economy. An Economic Perspective On “Elite Closure” and South African Language Policy’, Language Problems and Language Planning, 26 (2): 159–77.

INDEX

Page numbers in italics refer to Figures and Tables. accents  19, 36, 62, 64, 75, 82, 129, 144, 149, 233, 279 native-speakerism and  94, 99, 101, 102 Ager, D.  280 Akcan, S.  11 Akıncıoğlu, M.  201 Alexander, N.  277 Amin, N.  144 ancestral languages  6, 276, 281 critical intercultural perspective and  258, 259, 264, 266, 270, 271 Appadurai, A.  261 Applied Linguistics (journal)  27 applied linguistics, significance of  27, 36, 42, 126, 127 native-speakerism and  145, 146, 148 ontological reflections and  13, 14, 17, 18, 23 teacher identity and  107, 109, 112 apprenticeship of observation  116 Arkın, E.  197 Arnau, L.  228 Arnbjörnsdóttir, B.  226 Asia Pacific University (Japan)  209 Ates, B.  31 audio books, significance of  83 Austria  193 authenticity  36, 65, 67, 94, 133, 146, 232 of language  61 notion of  60 teaching English as global language and  76–8, 82, 83, 87 automatized explicit knowledge  38 n.5 awareness-raising pedagogy  35, 37 Bailey, K.  117 Baird, R.  193 Baker, W.  28, 193 Balfour, R. J.  277 banking education  253 n.6

Basquecization activities  282 Bayyurt, Y.  11, 19, 35, 137 n.3, 146 BBC World  82 Pidgin English of  85, 86 Behney, J.  27, 29 Benati, A. G.  38 n.1 Benesse Corporation  214 Benne, K. D.  44 Bilkent University (Turkey)  195, 199 Blair, A.  18, 19, 32, 98 Blommaert, J.  233 Boğaziçi University (Turkey)  195, 197, 199 Bologna Process  193, 232 Bolton, K.  28 Borg, S.  52 Borràs-Comes, J.  228 Bourdieu, P.  275, 278–80 Bradford, A.  193, 194 Braine, G.  128 Brazilian National Curriculum (BNCC)  241, 254 nn.9, 11, 255 n.21 ELF and  243–51 organizing axes  246–50, 246 Brazilian National English, as lingua franca curriculum  241 Breen, M.  97 British Council  257 Brown, K.  11 Brunei  160 Burns, A.  52, 103 Byram, M.  178 Caleffi, P.  81 Calvo, L. C. S.  243 Camacho-Miñano, M.  228 Campagna, S.  194 Canagarajah, S.  18, 20, 21, 52 Catalan language  226 Catalonia  226 CELTA  148

288

Changing Englishes (online course for teachers)  20, 22 Chin, R.  44 China  21, 160, 162, 180 Chomsky, N.  15, 215 Chostelidou, D.  228 Chukyo University (Japan) College of International Liberal Studies (ILS)  213 College of World Englishes (CWE)  208, 210 first incarnation  210–13 Global Liberal Studies (GLS) curriculum 216–19 merger and demise of  213–16 School of Global Studies (SGS)  213–16, 215 structure of  215–16 code-mixing  211 code-switching  29, 113, 182, 212 Coffey, S.  23 cognitive domain and language conceptualizations  14 Coleman, J.  227 Colombia, and English teaching from critical intercultural perspective  257–9 ancestral languages and  258, 259, 264, 266, 270, 271 communication theme and  264–5 community building and  270–1 critical intercultural dialogue (CID) and  260–2 critical interculturality and  259–60 pedagogical alternatives for language classroom transformation and  262–6 reconnection to cultural identities and  266–7 resistance theme and  265–6 valuing and validating knowledge and language forms and  267–70 Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)  258 Decree 3870 (Colombia)  257 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)  94 communication strategies, meaning of  80 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)  34, 42, 60, 104, 109, 150 Complexity Theory as metatheory  33 significance of  32–3

INDEX

Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas (Spanish universities governing body)  227 Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università Italiane (Italian universities governing body)  227 conscientization, significance of  242, 252, 253 n.7 construction grammar  19 content and language integrated learning (CLIL)  210, 211 content learning, analysis of  227–9 Cook, V.  235 Costa, F.  228 Coulmas, F.  279, 283 coursebooks  xvi, 144 global, criticism of  76 localization of  63–4 digital environments for active experiences 65–6 Internet as resource  64–5 L2 users and  65, 67 perspectives of  66–9 significance of  59, 61–3 ‘Course in English language Teaching, A’ (Ur)  94 critical intercultural dialogue (CID) elements of  261 language and  261–2 significance of  260–1 critical language policy, significance of  278 Crookes, G.  22 cultural difficulties and EMI  194 cultural shifts and innovation  53 curriculum innovation  43, 51, 53. See also teaching of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) GELT and  96–7 native speakerism and  96–8, 101, 104 Dafouz, E.  181, 228 Dearden, J.  201 declarative knowledge  33, 34, 117 decolonial turn  259–60 De Costa, P. I.  28, 29, 279 DeKeyser, R.  38 n.5 Del Percio, A.  279 Deng, C.  144 Dewey, M.  18, 146 dialogue interculturality and  260–2

INDEX

significance of  252 diffusion of innovation  52 meaning and significance of  43 processes of  43–4 strategies of  44–5 Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages (Makoni and Pennycook)  14 Djite, P.  278 Doğançay-Aktuna, S.  35 Dogme movement  67 Duboc, A. P. M.  245–6 Duran, D.  197 Ēbēra community  269 ELF-Aware Pedagogy  19, 32, 35, 42, 64. See also English as lingua franca (ELF); Global Englishes for Language Teaching (GELT) in classroom  148–51 tackling native-speakerism through  146– 7 in teacher training and education  147–8 El Kadri, M. S.  243 Ellis, R.  38 n.5 empirical-rational strategies  44 empowerment, significance of  117, 136, 180, 234, 235, 276 BNCC and  242, 243, 252 Global Englishes and  50, 54 n.4 World Englishes, ELF, and ELT and  64, 67, 68 English, as global language  234–6 English, F.  11 English as a foreign language (EFL)  45, 67 significance of  97 English as an international language (EIL)  27, 94, 130, 131 significance of  179 and World Englishes compared  137 n.2 English as lingua franca (ELF)  xiv, 68, 113, 184, 185. See also English-Medium Instruction (EMI) and Brazilian National Curriculum (BNCC)  243–51 and critical pedagogy  251–3 competence, dimensions of  65 critical pedagogy and  242–3 definition of  179 as descriptive and political  145–6 EMI in Turkey and  192, 203, 204 and English as an international language compared  27–8

 289

English as social practice and  18 Englishing and  18 in Japan  31 mindset  148–9 NES and  132 pluralization of English and authenticity and  60–1 significance of  2, 137 n.2, 143, 145, 159, 253 n.4 skillset  148, 149–51 World Englishes, ELT and  61–3 Englishes, significance of  1 English for specific purpose (ESP)  226 disappearance of courses of  232 EMI and  232 significance of  231–2 English-for-Teaching model  117–18 functional areas of classroom language use in  118 Englishing  15, 18, 21 Englishization, of European universities  227 English language teaching (ELT)  42, 59, 68. See also individual entries critical view on  178–81 Global Englishes perspective  42–3 challenges overcoming in  51–4 diffusion of innovation and  43–5 initiation and implementation of 49–51 monolithic norms  46–7 plurilithic norms  47–8 situated practice  48–9 teacher perspectives, in classroom 45–9 localizing materials and  63–6 native English speakers in  127–8 current state  128–9 shift to GELT  118–19 significance of  75–6 and textbook evaluation  76 of intercultural competence  79–80 of proficiency  80–1 research 81 of speakers and interlocutors  78–9 varieties 76–8 and World Englishes activities 83–7 materials 81–3 English-Medium Education in Multilingual University Settings (EMEMUS)  181

290

English-Medium Instruction (EMI)  94, 159–60, 180. See also Global Englishes; heritage language development, in Africa answers for  163–71 challenges, in European universities  226–31 contextual background of current research site and  161 critical perspectives on  181–3 criticism of  196 definition of  192 on global scale  193–4 in higher education, from ELF perspective  160–1 impact on students and instructors  203 implementation of  202 intercultural citizenship education in, and language education  183–4 in Japan  208–10 (see also Chukyo University (Japan)) methodological issues of  162 pedagogy implications  171–2 positive attitude towards  196 purpose of  202 questionnaire survey results overview for  162 research methods and data for  162 in Turkey  194–7 universities 197–203 Englishry  15–17 Escobar-Urmeneta, C.  228 Eslami, Z. R.  31 eTwinning  65 Eurobarometer  83 expanding-circle countries  77, 112, 179–81, 257 Expanding circle tertiary education  225–6 EMI challenges in European universities and  226–31 English as global language and  234–6 WE/ELF perspective with plurilingual approach of  231–4 expressive domain and language conceptualizations  14–15 feedback on mislearned content  231 on missing information  232 Ferrão, V. M.  267 Finland  227

INDEX

First Noun Principle  34 Firth, A.  28 Fishman, J. A.  282 Fortanet-Gómez, I.  232 Freeman, D.  108, 109, 112, 117 Freire, P.  241–2, 253 n.7 and English language teaching  242 on human beings and educational process  252 on language and power  252 Friedrich, P.  77 Fullan, M.  54 n.3 Galloway, N.  11, 12, 28, 30–3, 36, 81, 83, 87, 137 n.3, 149, 204 García, O.  255 n.25 Gass, S.  27, 29 Germany  227 Gimenez, T.  68 Giri, R. A.  282 Global 30 program (Japan)  209–10 global citizenship. See intercultural citizenship Global Englishes (Jenkins)  45 Global Englishes. See also Global Englishes for Language Teaching (GELT) critical pedagogy, in ELT  184–6 ELT and  42–54 and EMI and intercultural citizenship 177–87 ISLA research as guide for  35–6 language development and  27–37 native-speakerism and  93–6, 101–4 pedagogical research in  30–2 significance of  xv, 3–4, 11–13, 22, 28, 78, 236 SLA within  28–9 teacher identity and  107–20 teacher perspectives on  45–9 theoretical into  32–5 Global Englishes for Language Teaching (GELT)  11, 17, 32, 42, 95, 105, 185–6 and ELT compared  119 English as cognitive resource and  19 English as social practice and  18 Global Englishes perspective and  180–1 implementation of  96–8 knowledge base of teachers and  118–19 ontological stance and  12 research design  98–9 TESOL and Global Englishes and  95–6

INDEX

globalization  30, 53, 66, 104, 244 critical intercultural perspective and  257, 258, 261 ELF and World Englishes and  233, 235 EMI and  159–61, 164, 172, 180, 184, 192–5, 203, 208–10, 212, 217–19 Global Englishes and  42, 45 native-speakerism and  93, 95, 143, 148 postmodern  261 significance of  2, 4, 12 government policies and nativespeakerism  101–2 Graddol, D.  283 Gramley, S.  83 grammar construction  19 ontological reflections and  11, 18–20, 22 as shibboleth  19 significance of  67, 78, 80, 102, 150, 200, 258 Gramsci, A.  278 Gray, J.  81 Grin, F.  278, 281 Griva, E.  228 Guilherme, M.  252, 253 n.7 Haarmann, H.  275, 276 habitus  278 Hall, C. J.  33 Harada, T.  173 n.6 Hardman, J.  35 Harris, R.  14, 16 Haughton, S.  143 hegemonic practices, definition of  278 Heine, B.  277 Henrichsen, L. E.  54 n.2 heritage language development, in Africa  275–6 colonial and postcolonial language policies and  276–8 colonial language policy persistence and  278–80 and prestige planning  280–2 case studies  281–3 Hernandez-Nanclares, N.  228 Heugh, K.  282 Hino, N.  137 n.2 Hird, B.  97 History of English (McIntyre)  83 History of English (video)  84 History of English, The (Gramley)  83

 291

Holliday, A.  52, 53, 94, 137 n.1, 143, 150 Hosei University (Japan)  209 Hu, G.  194, 202 Huffmaster, M.  233 Hult, F. M.  22 Humphries, S.  52, 103 Hutchinson, T.  52, 66 Hüttner, J.  193 Hyland, K.  43, 45 Iceland  226 I-Englishes  15, 19 Iino, M.  159, 172 n.1 I-lanaguage  15 Impostor Syndrome  235 India  180 Indonesia  162 Ingvarsdóttir, H.  226 inner-circle countries  79, 113, 179, 214, 257 innovation  3, 59, 66, 202, 233, 236, 245, 247. See also native-speakerism critical issues in pedagogy and  42–3, 47–53, 54 nn.2–4 diffusion of  43–5 online resources for (see English language teaching (ELT)) input processing  34 instructed second language acquisition (ISLA)  30, 33 research, as guide for GE pedagogical inquiry  35–6 example of  36 Theoretical frameworks in  33–4 integration of content and language in higher education (ICLHE)  193 intercultural awareness  63, 86, 185, 196, 242, 249, 252 lesson plan to develop  87 intercultural citizenship  5, 180–1, 185–7 education, definition of  178 EMI and language education and  183–4 significance of  178 intercultural communication  42, 79, 150, 177–8, 180–6 Intercultural Communicative Awareness  62 Intercultural Communicative Competence  62, 178, 183 intercultural communicative skills, fostering  150 intercultural dimension, significance of  246, 249–50

292

internationalization  194–6, 198, 203, 227 of higher education  98, 160, 161, 181, 192, 219, 225–7, 236 International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED)  254 n.11 Introducing Global Englishes (Galloway and Rose)  83 Ishikawa, T.  31 Japan  31, 160, 161, 180. See also Chukyo University (Japan); English-Medium Instruction (EMI) Jenkins, J.  28, 45, 137 n.2, 145, 181, 184, 193 Jensen, C.  194 Jimenez-Munoz, A.  228 Johnson, K. E.  11, 109 Jordão, C. M.  243 Journal of English as a Lingua Franca  27 Kachinske, I.  38 n.5 Kachru, B. B.  2, 179, 234, 257 Kadir Has University (Turkey)  197 Kamentsá community  265 Kamhi-Stein, L.  116 Kamhi-Stein, L. D.  145 Karakaş, A.  172 n.1, 196, 203 Keating, G.  33 Kelly, P.  54 n.2 Kennedy, C.  44 Kiczkowiak, M.  83 Kılıçkaya, F.  196 Kioko, A. N.  277 Kırkgöz, Y.  194, 196, 200 Kirkpatrick, A.  137 n.2 knowledge base phenomenon categories of  109 defining, around GELT principles in Global Englishes language teacher education  112 content 112–13 learners 114 pedagogy 114–15 teacher education  115 teaching force  113–14 second language teaching and  108–9 Koffi, E.  278 Kohn, K.  21, 61, 65, 67–8 Konakahara, M.  172 n.2 Korea  160, 180 Kramsch, C.  150, 233 Kubanyiova, M.  22

INDEX

Kumaravadivelu, B.  11, 114, 145 Kuo, I.-C.  151 language acquisition, as language development  32 language-as-fixed-code fallacy  16–17 language development, in global Englishes classroom. See second language acquisition (SLA) language economics  275, 278–80 language education  5, 54 n.3, 107, 118, 241 critical intercultural perspective and  258, 262, 272 diffusion of innovation and  43–5 Global Englishes critical pedagogy and  179, 180, 182 and intercultural citizenship  178, 183–4 Turkish higher education and  194, 203 language-focused activity, domains of  12– 13 language learning, as knowledge construction process  182 language of instruction, on content learning  227–8 language planning (LP)  275, 278 economic considerations and  282 production of  276, 281 reception of  276, 281 success in  280 Larsen-Freeman, D.  32 Lasagabaster, D.  193 Lei, J.  194, 202 L-English  14–15 Leung, C.  63, 66–7 Lewkowicz, J.  63, 66–7 Liaw, M. -L.  65 Lim, S.  32 Lingua Franca Core (LFC)  150 linguistic accuracy  35, 80–1 linguistic difficulties and EMI  194 linguistic entrepreneurship  279 linguistic instrumentalism  281 linguistic knowledge, significance of  80, 130, 244, 246, 247–8 linguistic market  278–9, 281 linguistic variation, significance of  81, 250 listening journal, significance of  31 Loewen, S.  36, 38 n.4 Long, M.  148 Low, E. L.  28 Lowe, R. J.  83

INDEX

Macaro, E.  193, 200, 202 McDonough, J.  76 Macedonian language  282 McGrath, I.  76 McIntyre, D.  83 McKay, S. L.  179 MacKenzie, I.  28 Maiworm, F.  192, 227 Makoni, S.  14, 17, 233 Malaysia  160, 162 Mariotti, C.  228 Marr, T.  11 Marsden, E.  33 Martel, J.  110 Masuhara, H.  76 Matos, J. V. G.  64 Matsuda, A.  11, 30–1, 77, 81, 179 Mauranen, A.  137 n.2 medium-of-instruction pendulum  195 Middle East Technical University (Turkey)  195, 199 Milton, O.  97 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) (Japan)  161, 209 Mitchell, R.  33 Modiano, M.  235 Moi University (Kenya)  283 Montakantiwong, A.  45 multiculturalism  5, 36, 62, 130, 149, 171, 193 BNCC and  245, 250 critical intercultural perspective and  260, 261 Global Englishes critical pedagogy in ELT and  177, 178, 181, 183, 184, 186–7 globalization and EMI and  210, 212 multilingualism  5, 54 n.1, 76, 113, 244, 245, 259 English-medium instruction (EMI) and  160, 169, 177, 178, 180–7, 193–4, 203–4, 212 (with English) as lingua franca  xiv–xv native speakerism and  93, 95–7, 145, 149 ontological reflections and  17, 21 SLA theoretical inquiry and  28, 32, 33, 36 Teaching English as International Language (TEIL) and  127, 130–2, 135, 137 n.2

 293

World Englishes and English as lingua franca and  226–7, 233, 235, 236 Muth, S.  279 Muthwii, M. J.  277 Myles, F.  33 Nagoya University (Japan)  209 Naji Meidani, E.  81 National Geographic Learning  82 nation-state, ideology of  276–7 native English speakers (NES)  126 bias  127, 135, 136 responses to  127–8 in ELT  127–8 current state  128–9 Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL) and  133–6 World Englishes and  129 myths 129–33 native English-speaking teachers (NESTs)  108, 112, 127 native speaker fallacy  103, 104, 114. See also Native speakerism native-speakerism  xvi, 4–5, 31, 46, 135, 257. See also Standard English; teacher identity BNCC and  245, 251–2, 253 n.4 challenging  95–8 definition of  93–4, 143–4 discussions of  103–4 and ELF-aware pedagogy in classroom  148–51 tackling through  146–7 in teacher training and education and 147–8 English as lingua franca (ELF) and  145– 6, 232–6 English as medium of instruction (EMI) and  177–9, 181, 183–7, 203, 208 evidence of  99–101 factors influencing  101–3 normalization of  144–5 ontological reflections and  12–18, 20 scope of  144–5 significance of  93, 143 teaching English as global language and  75, 76, 79, 81–2, 87 World Englishes, ELF, and ELT and  61, 62, 64, 67, 68 native speaker model and textbook evaluation research  81

294

native speaker/standard language (NS/ SL)  68 negotiation of meaning, significance of  80 N-English  15, 16, 18, 22 neo-racist ideology  185 Nepali language  282–3 Netflix  82 Netherlands, the  227 news websites  82 Nigeria  277 N-language  15, 19 in China  21 and P-language compared  16 non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs)  108, 112, 127, 128, 179 movement of  128 teacher preparation and  135–6 World Englishes and  129–33 Non-Native English Speaking Teachers Interest Section (NNEST-IS)  94 normative-reeducative strategies  44, 53 Norton Peirce, B.  110 notional domain and language conceptualizations  14, 15 ontological relativity  16 ontologies of English, for language learning and teaching  12, 14–16 categories of  15 domains and  14–15 English as cognitive resource and  18–20 English as normative system and  16–17 English as social practice and  17–18 TEEGL guiding principles and  20–3 oral comprehension and production, significance of  246 O’Regan, J. P.  151 organizational difficulties and EMI  194 Ortega, L.  14, 33, 243 Osam, N.  197 Otheguy, R.  15 Othering  103 outer-circle countries  77, 112, 179, 180, 214 Pakistan  180 parents’ beliefs and native-speakerism  102 parents’ views of English, as commodity  280 Park, J. S.  279 Pasternak, M.  117 P-English  16–19, 22

INDEX

Pennycook, A.  12, 14, 17–18, 52, 151, 233, 276, 281 personal authenticity  60 Philippines  160, 180 Phillipson, R.  103 “Pilot English and Spanish enhancement program for ethnic community students at the University of Antioquia” study  262 Pinner, R. S.  60 Pishghadam, R.  81 P-language  15–17 rejection of  19, 20 Plonsky, L.  27, 29 PLURELF project (UdL)  233–4 pluricentric English  78 plurilingual approach  62, 113, 115, 258 EMI and globalization and  210, 214, 216, 217 World Englishes and ELF and  231–4, 236 pluriversality  260 postmodern globalization  261 post-normative pedagogy  184 power and language, relationship between  252 power-coercive strategies  44 pragmatic authenticity  60 Preparatory Year Program (PYP) (Turkey)  197 preservice-English language teachers and Global Englishes  31–2 prestige planning for Africa’s heritage languages  280–2 case studies of successful  281–3 significance of  275, 276, 283 Preston, D.  16 procedural knowledge  33, 34, 117 professional identity framework  117 Pulcini, V.  194 Quine, W. V.  16 Rai, L.  144 Räisänen, C.  232 Rajagopalan, K.  243 Rampton, B.  233 reading, significance of  246 reflective practice, significance of  98 Regional English Training Centres Project (Thailand)  94 reinvention and innovation  44

INDEX

Sansom on  51 rephrasing/paraphrasing, significance of  80, 150 research design, significance of  228 Ritsumeikan University (Japan)  209 Rivers, D. J.  143 Robert College (Turkey)  195 Rogers, E.  97 Rogers, E. M.  43, 44, 49, 52, 54 n.2 Rose, H.  11, 12, 28, 30–3, 36, 45, 60, 96, 98, 137 n.3, 149 Russel Group University  98 Samuels, J.  278 Sansom, D. W.  51 Sato, M.  36, 38 n.4 scramble for Africa, notion of  275 Searle, J. R.  16 second language acquisition (SLA)  67, 98 cognitive-oriented  29 Declarative/Procedural Model of  20 Global Englishes pedagogy and  32–5 within Global Englishes practice  28–9 ISLA research for GE pedagogical inquiry and  35–6 example of  36 pedagogical inquiry in  29–30 pedagogical research overview in Global Englishes and  30–2 social-oriented  29 social turn in  12, 28 Seidlhofer, B.  18, 66, 67, 137 n.2, 146, 179, 235, 242 Selvi, A. F.  128, 195 sensitive listening  252 Sert, O.  197 Sharpe, R. A.  22 Shaw, C.  76 Sierra, J. M.  193 Sifakis, N. C.  2, 3, 11, 19, 28, 35, 137 n.3, 146 Singapore  83, 130, 160 Siqueira, D. S. P.  64 skill acquisition theory  34 Smit, U.  181 Smith, L.  1 Smith, L. E.  132 social domain and language conceptualizations  14, 15 social fields  278 sociocultural theory  34 sociolinguistic research  233

 295

Söderlundh, H.  228 South Africa  277, 280 Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organization, Regional Language Center (SEAMEO RELC) (Japan)  214 Spain. See Expanding circle tertiary education Speak Good English Movement (Singapore)  83 standard English  84, 107, 185, 249 attachments to  102–3 critical issues in pedagogy and  47–9 native-speakerism and  96, 97, 100–4 ontological reflections and  12, 17, 20–1 significance of  100 Stoller, F. L.  44, 54 n.2 Suzuki, A.  20, 32 Suzuki, Y.  38 n.5 Swain, M.  68 Swales, J.  200 Sweden  227 Syrbe, M.  60 System (journal)  27 systematic textbook analysis  76 teacher education  11. See also individual entries Teacher education about English for global learners (TEEGL)  2–3, 13 construction grammar and  19 guiding principles for  20 language ontologies representation in accessible form  22–3 reconciliation between English conceptualizations 22 regard for local and historical contexts 21 regard for teachers’ beliefs about English 20–1 role play by languages  22 top-down constraints recognition 21–2 teacher hiring practices, discriminatory  99– 100 teacher identity  22, 107–8, 135–6 implications, for Global Englishes language teacher education  115–16 defining knowledge base around GELT principles 118–19 professional language proficiency skills enhancement 117–18

296

promotion of alternative ways of being and becoming  116–17 space and opportunity creation for reflexivity 116 knowledge base in Global Englishes language teacher education 112–15 second language teaching and  108–9 language  111–12 meaning of  109–10 significance of  110–11 teaching assistants (TAs)  161, 166–71, 172 n.3, 173 n.9 Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL)  42, 126 NES and NNES and  133 assessment 134 critical perspective on English  135 diverse English users’ representation 133–4 teacher preparation  135–6 significance of  137 n.3 teaching of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL)  33, 43, 49, 53, 107, 148 discussions  103–4 GELT implementation and  96–8 research design  98–9 results 99 setting 98 study 98 native-speakersim and  93–5 challenging 95–6 evidence of  99–101 factors influencing  101–3 NNEST movement and  128 TED Talks  82 on different registers  85, 86 on English role in the world  83–4 telecollaboration  65 TESOL Quarterly (journal)  27 Thailand  94, 193 Thawaite, A.  97 thematization, significance of  252 Thøgersen, J.  194 tissue rejection, of innovations  52, 53 Tollefson, J. W.  278, 282 Tomlinson, B.  67, 76 Toolan, M.  14 Torres, E.  66 translanguaging BNCC on  251

INDEX

concept of  2 definition of  255 n.25 EMI in Turkey and  203 as practical theory and practice  185–6 research  113 significance of  15, 98, 115, 182–3, 187, 210, 212, 233 translingual practice  68, 113, 185, 229, 230, 233 Trinity CertTESOL  148 Tupas, R.  282 Turkish higher education and EMI  192–4 linguistic proficiency and  200 significance of  194–7 universities  197–8 content learning and language learning 202 data analysis  198 EMI in higher education  198–200 EMI university requirements  201 EPSs and EMI departments coordination 201 impact on campus  203 teaching strategies and approaches in content courses  202 Turkish State University. See Boğaziçi University (Turkey) Uganda  277 UNESCO  277 United Kingdom (UK)  193 University of Antioquia (Colombia)  258 pedagogical alternatives for language classroom transformation at  262–3 findings 266 implementation 264–6 planning stage  263–4 PIFLE programme  258 University of Leicester (UK)  219 n.1 University of Lleida (UdL) (Spain)  226, 227, 229, 231–3. See also Expanding circle tertiary education University of Southampton  98 University of the Basque Country (Spain)  227 Ur  94 Usage-Based Linguistics (UBL)  19 Vafaee, P.  38 n.5 Vaillancourt, F.  280 VanPatten, B.  33, 34, 38 n.1 Varghese, M.  110

INDEX

Vettorel, P.  81, 150 Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English  69 n.1 Vilches, M. L. C.  50 voice, significance of  242 Wächter, B.  192, 227 Wagner, J.  28 Walsh, C.  267 Walsh, S.  16 Ware, P.  65 Warshauer, M.  65 Waseda University (Japan)  209 washback effect  95, 101 Watanabe, Y.  209 Waters, A.  50, 53, 54 n.3 Waters and Vilches model  50 Wedell, M.  53 Wee, L.  279, 281 Wei, L.  255 n.25 White, R.  44 Wicaksono, R.  14 Widdowson, H.  60, 61, 67 Widdowson, H. G.  14, 19 Wilkinson, R.  228 Wong, L. L. C.  43, 45 World Englishes (journal)  27 World Englishes. See also individual entries activities  83

 297

to develop attitudes  84–5 to explore issues through cultural perspectives 85–7 to raise awareness of issues  83–4, 84 and critical pedagogy  241–2 BNCC and  243–51 and ELF  242–3, 251–3 Freire and  242 and EIL compared  137 n.2 ELT and ELF and  61–3 materials of  81–3 native English speakers and  129 myths 129–33 significance of  137 n.2 Wright, K. L.  31 Wright, L.  282 writing, significance of  246 Wulff, S.  33 Xu, Z.  45 Yazan, B.  116 Young, T. J.  16 YouTube  82 on history of English  84 Yuen, K. M.  81 zone of innovation  54 n.2 Zone of Proximal Development  34

298

299

300

301

302