Research and Pedagogy of English

as a Global Language

Gergana Vitanova

University of Central Florida

Orlando, Florida

Markham Woods Middle School in
Lake Mary, Florida

In our increasingly global community, English has clearly become the dominant language for cross-cultural and cross-linguistic communication in a variety of international contexts (Campbell, Ekniyom, Hague, & Smith, 1982). Seidlhofer (2004) sums up the unquestionable presence of English as an international language in stating that “for the first time in history, a language has reached truly global dimensions, and as a consequence, is being shaped, in its international uses, at least as much by its non-native speakers as its native speakers” (p. 211).    

How widely used is English?  Although the exact number of English-language users worldwide is difficult to determine, conservative estimates have put the number at 2,236 million in 2002 (Crystal, 2003).  As a result, English today is a language that has moved far beyond its native lands.  English has been changed and adapted by other cultures to include the functions and forms appropriate for their needs, giving rise to multiple identities and multiple varieties of English (Kachru, 1989).  Accordingly, scholars in the field have called for a more pluralistic view of English that encompasses its global role and recognizes the importance of its non-native speakers.  

And yet, despite this significant increase of research interest in English as a World language and the body of literature it has produced, language teachers are not always cognizant of the global nature of English in the world today or of the implications for their practices. For instance, in a recent study (Vitanova, 2007) found that graduates of MATESOL programs in North America are generally unaware of the term English as a lingua franca, or what it meant within the local contexts of their teaching. This paper stresses the need for current and future language teachers to increase their awareness about the role of English as a global language. Thus, it has several overarching goals. First, it elucidates the status of English as an international language in the world today and the most important concepts pre- or in-service teachers should be familiar with. Second, it aims to dispel some prevalent myths about the use of English in international settings. Third, it raises the issue of multiple varieties of English. Finally, it looks at the impact of English as an international language on the field of language education, along with the challenges it presents for both teachers and teacher trainers.

English as an international language

            A variety of terms has been employed to describe the global nature of English in our profession. English as a global language, English as a world language, and English as a lingua franca have been used to label the widespread changes and roles that the English language has undertaken in all parts of the world.  Throughout this paper, English as an International language (EIL) will be used as the term to refer to the various functions and multiple varieties of English around the world.      

What makes English a global language and what are its major features as such? Kachru (1985) has proposed what is now a widely-used concentric model of English that illustrates its impressive global spread: the Inner-, the Outer-, and the Expanding-circle countries.

In i

In the Inner-circle countries, English is the main language (e.g., the U.S.A., Canada, Britain, and Australia). In the Outer circle, English has spread as a result of colonization and has been used there mainly for administrative purposes. There, it functions as one of the official languages alongside with the native tongues of these countries. This is, for example, the situation in the Philippines, Singapore, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and others. The Expanding circle encompasses all countries in which English is being taught as a foreign or additional language. Examples in this circle are too numerous to list here; they include Korea, Germany, Japan, Romania, Saudi Arabia, among many others. Crystal (2003) estimates that there are up to 1000 million people in the Expanding circle. This is a significant number, suggesting that there are more speakers of English in the world today who speak it as a non-native language rather than what the field of second language acquisition (SLA) has traditionally termed native speakers of English.

Brutt-Griffler (2002) outlines four main features that have led to the development of English as the dominant international language and that make it different from other known lingua francas. The first feature states that English attained its international status through global developments in world markets, science, technology, culture, and the media. The second stresses that English is not an elite language, spoken only by the privileged, upper-classes of society.  On the contrary, English is learned and spoken by people in all levels of the socioeconomic classes.  The third feature is that English as world language does not tend to replace other languages in foreign environments but functions as a second or third language for its non-native speakers. Lastly, but very importantly,  English, the modern-age lingua franca, has spread through macroacquisition, in other words individual learners acquiring the language locally rather than through the migration of native speakers. Macroacquisition is a phenomenon that is particularly relevant to the Outer- and Expanding-circle countries, where the result of the lingua franca spread is not monolingualism, but what could be described as large-scale bilingualism.  Brutt-Griffler’s framework of EIL suggests that the non-native speakers have played a very active role in its spread. This claim carries significant implications as it raises the question of ownership of English and the related to this issue of the native speaker. It also suggests that learners of English all over the globe today are not necessarily acquiring the language to communicate with speakers from the Inner circles, but are more likely to use English to communicate with other non-native speakers. The last one is, indeed, one of the most important features of English as an international language.

 Challenges of EIL to second language acquisition

            Research of EIL has dispelled many commonly held beliefs regarding the use and functions of English around the world, and we believe that language teachers should be aware of these myths (Kachru, 1989).  The first myth of English in international settings is that English is used foremost as a means to communicate with its native speakers.  This is only partially true.  English has now become the “main vehicle for interactions among its non-native speakers” (p. 87).  In many places around the world, non-native speakers have limited or no interactions with the native speakers of English.  In fact, in countries like India, Nigeria, Singapore, and the Philippines where multiple, local languages coexist, English is used as the local lingua franca (Kachru, 1990).  English for international interaction and communication is “less important” for the citizens of these outer-circle countries (1990, p. 10).  Therefore, non-native speakers’ use of English is to cross linguistic, as well as national boundaries, in order to communicate with other non-native speakers. 

            Another common belief is that those who were born in the Inner-circle countries and acquired English as their first language speak the “correct” variety English. However, with the number of non-native speakers of English exceeding the number of native speakers in the world, this belief does not hold true. Widdowson (1998) suggests that granting ownership of English to its native speakers and allowing them to promote their inter-circle standards, gives authority to native speakers who are in actuality the minority. Widdowson phrases this claim in even stronger words:

The very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it… But the point is that it is only international to the extent that it is not their language. It is not a possession which they lease out to others, while still retaining the freehold. Other people actually own it (244-245).

It is important for language teachers who wish to teach abroad to realize that it is not always the goal of learners to adopt the native models of grammar or pronunciation.   As stated previously, if non-native speakers of English rarely interact with a native speaker, their need for a native-like proficiency is almost non-existent.  For instance, Campbell et al. (1982) write that “speakers of EIL are mainly concerned with effective cross-cultural communication” and are not necessarily “concerned with imitating and achieving native-like proficiency” (p. 66).  Hence, language models based upon British or American English may be inappropriate for speakers of EIL.

            A third myth of English is that non-native speakers in the outer and expanding-circles use English “as an important tool to impart [their] local traditions and cultural values” (Kachru, 1989, p.88).  This is not necessarily the case.  According to Kachru, English can be used for functions that are outside a speaker’s culture. First, a speaker may choose to use English because of the neutrality English can provide among many different local languages.  Second, English is used as a lingua franca that traverses linguistical boundaries within a speaker’s own country (Kachru, 1990).  Lastly, English has become the international language of higher education, politics, international and national business, defense, and the media.  These functions may not necessarily reflect the speaker’s own culture or values, but those that can be internationally understood.

Another traditional and fairly prevalent concept in the field of second language acquisition that has been challenged by the spread of English is Interlanguage and the related it to it terms transfer, interference, and fossilization. In a way, these have been at the core of theoretical basis of SLA curricula.  However, Kachru (2005), as well as Jenkins (2006) argue that the very existence of World Englishes contests Selinker’s concepts of interlanguage and fossilization—notions upon which prevalent SLA theory is built on and are still among the most frequently taught in second language courses.  Moreover, Jenkins (2006) asserts that Outer- and Expanding-circle English speakers are not attempting to identify with these from the Inner circle speakers, nor are they attempting to produce native-like language norms.  She also contends that “attempts to label the English of entire speech communities as fossilized or interlanguages are unjustifiable and the result of monolingual bias” (p. 167).  In addition, Kachru (1990) argues that interlanguage and fossilization do not take into consideration that World Englishes are creative in their own right and suggests that interference should not always be viewed as the result of acquisitional deficiency, but it is purposeful.  This means that language teachers preparing to work abroad may have to re-evaluate not only the mainstream model of the native speaker, but also what constitutes an error. In other words, what could be viewed as an error by a speaker in the Inner-circle countries may be the norm in one of the new varieties of English. For instance,  Seidlehofer (2004) outlines features of the lexico-grammar of English as an international language. Some of these features are different from the Standard British or Standard American English, and they include: the non-use of the third person singular marker, an interchangeable use of the relative pronouns who and which, the heavy reliance on verbs of high semantic generality (e.g., do, make) and others. 

           It appears that EIL has not only its own lexico-grammar features, but also its own phonological system. At the level of pronunciation, Jenkins has been at the forefront in researching what she called the Lingua Franca Core.  She has identified the following core areas in the phonology of English as a lingua franca (2000): (1) The consonant inventory of Standard English without the interdentals and the “dark,” velar [l]; (2) aspiration of word-initial voiceless stops; (3) consonant clusters (no omission of sounds in word-initial clusters, as in proper was allowed); (4) maintenance of vowel tense and lax contrasts, and others.  

    Despite this increasing area of research, professionals even within the field of language teaching still seem to find it difficult to accept the existence of the varieties of Englishes.  As one example, Jenkins (2006) recalled an instance when a conference organizer asked if the plural –es at the end of English was a typo (p. 157).  This echoes Brutt-Griffler’s (2002)  concern, who argues that scholars in the field of second language acquisition are centered too much on individual acquisition and interlanguage error rather than the acquisition by entire speech communities and on the new, emerging varieties of English.  The status of EIL has raised questions and defined challenges not only for scholars and theorists, but also for teaching practices in international contexts.  English language instruction based upon the Inner-circle varieties is rapidly becoming outdated due to English’s international status. With the rise of multiple varieties and identities of English speakers, it is imperative for the field of ELT to encourage teachers and language programs to reconsider and, if needed, adjust their pedagogical goals.

Implications for English language teaching

As the myths of English are dispelled and awareness increases regarding the role that EIL plays in international settings, the implications for the field of English language teaching are growing as well.  The traditional approaches to English language teaching have primarily focused upon the standard British and American varieties of English, with native-like proficiency as the eventual educational goal for most English language learners.  However, recent scholars (e.g., Matsuda, 2003) maintain that this approach is only appropriate within the Inner-circle setting.   Thus, changes to pedagogy and approaches require the status and the role of English in the classroom to be reevaluated and reconceptualized in the minds of many school administrators, teachers, parents, and even the learners themselves.                

If perpetuating the native-speaker model is not the main goal in teaching EIL, what should our pedagogical priorities be, then? McKay (2002), summarizing the research in this area, stresses the following as the most important goals. Intelligibility, when it comes to pronunciation, is more important than “correctness” or than imitating a British English or American English accent (there are many dialects and accents within these two major varieties anyway). Interaction strategies that promote friendly relations among different groups of speakers and textual competence (reading and writing skills for learner-selected purposes) are the other two predominant goals for teachers of English as a global language. McKay also recommends that teachers develop a sensitivity in the choice of cultural content in materials and critical reflexivity in pedagogical choices. Here, we should like a draw a connection between the pedagogical goals that McKay outlines for teaching English as an international language and the strategies that another TESOL scholar, Kumaravadivelu (2001) stresses as the benchmark for a language teacher in our era. While Kumaravadivelu does not write specifically about EIL, his view of the role of the teacher dovetails with McKay’s call for more general strategies rather than the implementation of a specific method or technique. According to Kumaravidevelu, the teacher in what he calls the post-method era has the general strategies allowing her/him to identify learners’ needs and attitudes. It would also allow them to evaluate a wide range of teaching materials and incorporate resources generated by learners themselves.

Given the wide range of linguistic, political, and ideological settings that English language teachers may encounter, it is not possible to prescribe an easy and uniform pedagogical formula for success. This is why we believe that the most useful recommendation for language teachers in international settings is that they should carefully consider and evaluate the particulars of their local context rather than trying to transplant Western technologies or pedagogies blindly there.  An important example in this sense has been the promotion of the communicative language approach to language teaching (CLT) (McKay, 2002).  Holliday (2005) warns against transferring Western pedagogies, and particularly the CLT,  to another learning environment as many of the principles of CLT reflect characteristics of Western culture such as individualism, creativity, self-expression, and social interaction which may not be productive learning strategies for students in some international contexts. Since English functions differently for a variety of sociolinguistic contexts, a more pluralistic approach to teacher training, curriculum development, and materials production must be adopted.

It is a “meaningful pedagogy” rather and not “meaningful methodology” that language teachers and their trainers should focus on, as Berns argued in a recent conference presentation (Berns, 2006). In other words, teachers should not only rely on methodologies developed in the Inner-circle countries such as the United States or Britain, but they should also draw on the already existing traditions in the local settings in which they are functioning. In addition, teachers should understand that no method or approach is culture-neutral; methodologies also carry values with them that may not be appropriate for all societies, even in a global world.

Learner-centeredness is one of those concepts, for instance, that has been pervasive in the professional discourse and practices of the TESOL community in North America. However, this is also a concept that is imbued with a particularly western cultural value.  In this vein, Vitanova (ibid.) provides an example of a young, enthusiastic teacher trained in an M.A. program in North America, who couldn’t understand or accept her Asian students’ resistance to group work. Instead of re-visiting the values she has been trained in and incorporating some of the already established traditions in this very specific community of learners in China, the teacher became increasingly frustrated with what she thought was resistance to her novel methods and techniques—the very ones she had recently acquired in her MATESOL classes. In Vitanova’s study—one of the very few studies examining how well prepared MATESOL graduates are for teaching abroad—the successful teachers were the ones who were willing to abandon “the book” and to start drawing on the local pedagogical traditions. Similarly, Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) argue that “an appropriate pedagogy must also be a pedagogy of appropriation” (p. 211). In other words, English will enable learners all over the world and in different local communities to communicate with other speakers of English; it will give them the grammar they need and the vocabulary to achieve this communicative goal, but at the same time, the learners should have the final say over how they use it.

In order to create such meaningful pedagogies, it is reasonable to start with teacher training programs. MATESOL programs should address a variety of learning and ideological situations their students may encounter worldwide. Govardhan, Nayar, and Sheorey (1999) found that MATESOL programs in the U.S. did not do enough to prepare their students for teaching abroad. A major limitation, in their view, was that many of the current MATESOL programs teach methodology as a collection of disconnected approaches and provided a limited profile of the role and identity of the learners acquiring English in international contexts. It is necessary for MATESOL programs to recognize that teaching Engish in a global setting is not a mere extension of ESL instruction within Inner-circle nations. With the current status of English as an international medium, teachers, especially the ones preparing to teach abroad should receive special training in conducting needs analyses and developing a linguistic and social awareness of the various functions of English(es) today. 

An international perspective of the status of English could be incorporated through courses centering on the role of English as a global language or through seminars dealing with sociolinguistic issues such as the diverse varieties of English(es) and the diverse nature of learners’ identities and goals in acquiring additional languages. Core courses describing the process of second language acquisition could also attempt to challenge the traditional monolingual model that many theoretical textbooks still embrace. While terms such as Interlanguage and fossilization are still useful in describing processes of SLA, teacher trainers should keep in mind that their meaning shifts depending on where the acquisition takes place. Creating competent bilingual or multilingual users of English should be the main goal of a language teacher anywhere in the world. Thus, we call for an inclusion of the perspectives of English as a lingua franca and World Englishes into TESOL curricula. While we acknowledge that incorporating these perspectives in TESOL programs will not provide easy or universal pedagogical panaceas, it will enable pre- and in-service teachers to analyze critically how English is being used throughout the world, and it will help them re-evaluate methodologies, techniques, and prevalent concepts in the discourse of our profession within the very specific communities of learners in which they function.

Conclusion

A better understanding of the issues in English as an international language is critical for teachers of English considering its status in the world today. Understanding that English does not function for the same purposes in the Outer and Expanding-circles as it does within the Inner-circle countries and recognizing the existence and importance of multiple Englishes can help teacher to serve their students better.  Additionally, it is important to understand that the common description of a native English speaker as a speaker whose first language is English and born in one of the inner-circle countries is losing validity within this global community.  English speakers from the Outer and Expanding-circles have an important role in the future of EIL, and Inner-circle speakers no longer have control over the spread and use of English in other countries.

 Lastly, with so many varieties of English in existence, approaches and frameworks based upon the Inner-circle models of English are only suitable within the environments of the Inner-circle countries, not for English in international settings.  MATESOL programs will serve their students better if they incorporate this body of knowledge in their curricula through sociolinguistic courses, seminars specifically designed to address this issue, or by adding components to their already existing methodology and theoretical courses. While it is impossible for future language teachers to know all varieties of English in the world, an awareness of their existence and the challenges they present would help internationalize our profession.

References

Berns, M. (2006, March). Pedagogy, intelligibility, and World Englishes. Paper presented at the 40^th Annual Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) conference. Tampa, Florida.

Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Campbell, D., Ekniyom, P., Hague, A., & Smith, L. (1982). English in international settings: Problems and their causes. English World-Wide, 3(1), 66-76.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2^nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Govardhan, A., Nayar, B., & Sheorey, R. (1999). Do U.S. MATESOL programs prepare students to teach abroad? TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 114-125.

Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.

Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson (Eds.). English in the world, teaching and learning the languages and literatures, 11-30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kachru, B. (1989). Teaching world Englishes. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 85-93.

Kachru, B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3-20.

Kachru, Y. (2005). Teaching and learning of World Englishes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.).  Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 155-173.

Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50, 199-212.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.

Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating world Englishes in teaching English as an international language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729.

McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 209-239.

Vitanova, G. (2007). English as an international language pedagogy: What teachers’ voices tell us. TESL Reporter, 40(1), 1-16.

Widdowson, H.G. (1998). The ownership of English. In V. Zamel and R. Spack (Eds.). Negotiating academic literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 237-248.

Author Bio