How has the spread of English as a global language impacted on English language teaching?
England and America are two countries separated by a common language.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950)
From a pragmatic personal perspective taken from a student undertaking studies in teaching English, it is very encouraging to write an essay on the implications of the spread of English as a global language. Clearly a very important implication for me is that of my expanded opportunities as an English Language teacher. Of course it’s purely chance that I’m an Australian first language speaker of English rather than for example a Russian teacher in Poland in the late eighties, watching powerless as international events devalue my intellectual capital to a degree that I am unemployable.
Before considering the implications, what does it mean for a language to become “Global” and what evidence do we have that English has attained this?
David Crystal in his book “English as a Global Language” states “A language achieves a genuinely global status when it develops a special role that is recognised in every country.” (2003: 3) Crystal indicates that English is not the most significant global language because it is the mother tongue in the most countries, as Spanish holds that position, but rather it is because of the special roles English plays within countries. He indicates that there are two main ways that countries do this. Firstly they make English an official language where it is used in areas like the law, government and education. “English …now has some kind of special status in over seventy countries. This is far more than the status achieved by any other language.” (2003: 4)
Secondly English is given status as the preferred foreign, second or additional language taught in schools or made available and desirable to be learnt within the community generally. “English is now the language most widely taught as a foreign language – in over 100 countries…and in most of these countries it is emerging as the chief foreign language to be encountered in schools, often displacing another language in the process.” (2003: 5)
Crystal cements the position of English by indicating that around a quarter of the world’s population are either fluent or competent in its use. (2003:6)
The diverse uses for English, the implications for different cultures, the changing nature of the language itself and the roles it plays in different communities are all infinitely complex. A method of simplifying and interpreting these interactions is represented within Karchru’s “Concentric Circles Model”(1985) as discussed by Joanne Rajadurai in her article, “Revisiting the Concentric Circles: Conceptual and Sociolinguistic Considerations”. This model rejects the legitimacy of the “native” and “non-native” speaker model and instead adopts one that reflects, “the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages” (Kachru, 1985, p.12). (Radjadurai, 2005)
Kachru’s model describes three concentric circles in the spread of the English language. These are the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle.
The inner circle consists of what might have once been considered the “native speakers”. It includes countries like England the United States and Australia. People in these countries may often represent their cultures as being monolingual, and though this can easily be demonstrated to be inaccurate, it does indicate the very high regard in which English is held, and indeed there is probably a majority in each nation that only speak the one language.
The Outer Circle countries are ones that have a history of English Colonialism. Examples are countries including India, Malaysia and the West Indies. As in the example of India, people from Outer Circle countries will generally speak at least one or two languages as well as English. English has a particular function in legal, government and educational matters and is a lingua franca for peoples with different mother tongues. There are great regional and national variations within the English’s spoken. The Expanding circle countries account for the rest of the world. Speakers learn English for particular purposes but especially for international communication.
This model moves away from notions of a standard English possessed by native speakers, and therefore the relative inferiority of non-native speaker English. Coupled with the statistics for the exponential growth in global English use, it causes a great deal of concern for some people in the way it may be seen to be representing both a historical and continuing expansion of a hegemonic power centered in an “Inner Circle” of English language speaking countries. This theory of a deliberate expansion of hegemonic power using English as a weapon is known as Linguistic Imperialism, widely attributed to the work of Robert Phillipson who wrote a book with this title in 1992. The issues surrounding English linguistic imperialism are discussed by Phan Le Ha in her article “Teaching English as an International Language” (2008) She paraphrases Phillipson (1992) as saying that “…the dominance of English and ELT as ‘Linguistic Imperialism’ when he draws readers’ attention to the claim that the ‘Centre’ (English speaking countries) imposes it’s own cultural values, military and economic power, wants and needs upon the ‘Periphery’ through ELT and so called ‘aid’. (2008: 72)
Ha notes that under a model of Linguistic Imperialism ELT can be seen as a “weapon” or “tool” of colonialism and sites an argument from Pennycook (1998) that “ELT today is used to back up and strengthen the current global expansion of English and its underlying cultural values.” (2008:72)
Understanding the implications of this power relationship is a crucial concern for English language teachers, and has clear implications for pedagogy and practice within the classroom. The issue is acknowledged by Skehen in his article “Second and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching” where he recognises its’ importance alongside other issues in language teaching. He summarises the argument as saying that,”…the teaching of English is not a neutral activity, but contributes to the perpetuation of existing international power structures, and implicitly the downgrading of local cultures and power. (2006 :57) He makes a more specific observation, citing Adrian Holliday, in “the insufficient attention paid to local needs and to the different conditions that operate in many language teaching contexts.” (2006: 57) This second point is very important. Not only does the language teacher need to be aware of the power relations they may be inappropriately perpetuating through their pedagogy and practices, but that in strict practical terms, these practices may well be inappropriate and ineffectual anyway, in relation to the objective of English language acquisition amongst the target group. The solution to deconstructing hegemonic power relations and providing an appropriate and effectual curriculum for the diversity of English learners globally is to create resources and pedagogy that suits the individual context. In this sense the identity and experience of the teacher, meaning their cultural background and their relationship with the English language, is included as pedagogy and as a resource in the classroom.
Perhaps the most important theoretical approach educators have in deconstructing the colonialising effects implicit in ELT comes from the study of Critical Pedagogy (CP). In the article “Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching” Canagarajah reflects on the skills CP can provide for the student. The idea is that no matter who we are or what we teach, learning is always situated and is never neutral in relation to power. In the absence of a neutral space, the best tools you can provide the student with are the tools to determine for themselves the power relationships and implicit agendas within information and teaching so as to make their own informed opinions. Canagarajah explains this “..mainstream pedagogies assume that learning is value free, pragmatic, and autonomous, they can practice teaching as an innocent and practical activity of passing on correct facts, truths and skills to students…For CP, however, teachers have the ethical responsibility of negotiating the hidden values and interest behind knowledge, and are expected to help students to adopt a critical orientation to learning.” (1999: 16-17)
It is from an understanding of CP that I feel I can best address the issues that arise in relation to my place as a teacher in an expanding or outer circle country, given that I am a representative of the inner circle hegemonic power.
Andy Kirkpatrick in his article “Implications for English Language Teaching” (2007) discusses the different models that have been used within English language teaching globally and their advantages and disadvantages within different contexts. These models are particularly useful in relation to the notion of English teaching within Kachru’s concentric circles, and in addressing issues related to the hegemonic power relations and the different needs of English students in different contexts.
Kirkpatrick presents three models. An exonormative native speaker model, an endonormative nativised model, and a lingua franca model. The exonormative native speaker model (2007:184-189) is one that has historically been chosen by the majority of outer circle countries and is probably ubiquitous amongst those in the expanding circle. The first reason it is so popular is because models based upon inner circle or what has been understood as “native speaker” English are seen to possess “prestige and legitimacy”. Complementing this, Kirkpatrick explains that exonormative models have been codified, meaning they are supported by established grammars and dictionaries. These provide a standard which learning can be easily measured against. (2007: 184)
Resources that support codified exonormative native speaker models are also far more plentiful than resources that support forms of English spoken outside of the inner circle. A massive industry exists that continually produces and promotes these resources. Accompanying them is a veritable army of native speaking middle class English teachers, desirous of employment in destinations made attractive by their lack of middle class English teachers.
Kirkpatrick also notes that there exists an innate prejudice towards inner circle English. It is often seen as the “proper” or “standard” English and that governments that strive towards this standard are “seen to be providing the best for their people”. (2007: 185)
The advantages then of this type of English teaching, according to Kirkpatrick, are that a) It has prestige and legitimacy, b) that it is codified, c) that there are numerous resources, d) it may be a popular decision for legislators. I would add two benefits to this. Firstly, along with the sense of prestige and legitimacy is the fact that studying “Native Speaker” English may meet the educational expectations of the students and therefore they may be more motivated to learn it. Secondly that governments may choose this model as it is most in line with international English testing, and so will best prepare students for success when they are measured against codified international standards.
Before considering the disadvantages, I believe it’s worth reflecting on what I consider are the two key considerations when teaching English as a Global Language. These are; where are you teaching? And, what are the students reasons for learning the language? Continuing with this in mind, Kirkpatrick presents a very sound case for the disadvantages of an exonormative model within outer circle countries, and, I believe, a less conclusive case for the disadvantages in expanding circle countries.
As a “Native Speaker” and a prospective ELT, this model very much benefits my employability and, before I commenced studies in the area, it was the only view of ELT that I was aware of. Kirkpatrick rightly points out a number of serious limitations contained in this model, with one of the main ones being how it may unjustly benefit teachers like myself, to the detriment of locally trained teachers and more importantly, the students. Turning to his words, “… the choice of an exonormative model automatically undermines the value and apparent legitimacy of a local teacher’s own model of English.” He notes that this model does not recognise the many advantages of having an English teacher that speaks the same first language as the students and has been through the same process of language acquisition that the students are undertaking. He further notes that students are presented with examples of language speaking that even their local English teachers cannot master.
Overall then, imposing a exonormative model greatly advantages the hegemonic dominance and the capitalist enterprise of inner circle countries. It undermines the skills of local teachers and provides a model that may appear unrealistic and unattainable. It fails to appreciate the benefits that accompany a bilingual teacher familiar with the students first language.
The legitimacy of this model varies when it is examined in relation to my two key considerations for English as a Global Language, being location and motivation. This model is least appropriate in outer circle countries. As Kirkpatrick points out, it is only appropriate in these contexts for students whose reason for learning English is to use it in inner circle countries, and these students are a small minority. If the motivation to learn English is other than for it’s use within an inner circle country, and if their exists a nativised form of English, then it seems reasonable that an endonormative model would both empower the local community and function better.
An endonormative model is one where “a localised version of the language has become socially acceptable.” (2007: 189) A summary of the benefits includes; the multilingualism of the teacher is recognised as an asset, the teacher provides a model of English that seems attainable by the students, the teachers are familiar with the social norms and the school community as a whole and therefore able to integrate their practice within the system, teachers are aware of and sensitive to the cultural norms and therefore are “less likely to promote Anglo-American values in the classroom.” (2007: 189), money is not wasted on employing expensive foreign teachers and purchasing expensive teaching materials.
There are some disadvantages however. The main one is consideration as to whether the language has been codified. Are there sufficient resources in terms of grammar and dictionaries to support a meaningful curriculum? Another is will the students, within a Global English context, be intelligible?
One of the biggest differences found in endomorphic localised versions of English is that they may be syllable timed rather than stress timed. This is because English is adapted to take on the structure of the first language that exists in the community that has adopted it. Returning to Crystal’s book “English as a Global Language” we can see that he recognises the importance of the issue. “…some kind of syllable-based speech among second-language English learners is widespread, apparently affecting all areas where new varieties are emerging, in Africa, South Asia, South-East Asia and the Caribbean. “ (2003: 171) He stresses the extent of this problem, suggesting that it is perhaps the most significant between established and developing Englishes. “The emergence of widespread syllable-based speech in what was formerly a stress-based hegemony has repeatedly given rise to problems of comprehension, when speakers from both constituencies interact.” (2003: 171)
Kirkpatrick dismisses the issue with the statement “…as long as speakers have a genuine motivation to communicate across cultural and linguistic boundaries, they will be able to communicate.” (2007: 189) I agree with him but I would extend this idea of motivation further to suggest that the model, overall, is far less important than the students desire to learn the language.
Consideration as to the appropriateness of an exonormative or endonormative model in expanding circle countries is more complex. On the one hand, the same negative issues are present in that it represents an extension of inner circle English culture and values. It provides a vehicle for the industry of language resources generation, it disempowers local teachers and it provides an example that students may feel is impossible to attain. However if they have to pick one model and, unless there is a regional imperative to teach a nativised English, it would seem for pragmatic reasons in terms of availability of resources and for a sense of prestige, legitimacy and potential opportunities within inner circle countries, that an exonormative model might be applied. This is a particularly sensitive issue when considered in light of regional hegemonic power as being a far more pressing issue than distant hegemonic power. China would hardly take on an Indian endonormative English.
Kirkpatrick presents a model of English as a Lingua Franca which may best address the needs of students whose purpose is to learn English as a Global Language, particularly if they reside within expanding circle countries but also within the outer circle. This model is problematised in that it cannot be codified. In this sense it is more of an approach than a model. An approach based on the aim of successful cross-cultural communication within the use of English. Kirkpatrick enthusiastically supports this approach. “In aiming to teach and learn English in ways that would allow for effective communication across linguistic and cultural boundaries the focus of the classroom moves from the acquisition of the norms associated with a standard model to a focus on learning linguistic features, cultural information and communicative strategies that will facilitate communication.” (2007: 194)
This discussion of desired approaches within the ELT classroom is a vital segue into the second part of this essay, which will consider practical tasks aimed at addressing the needs of students in a range of Global contexts, and who are studying English for a variety of purposes.
Within this essay I have presented several different global contexts where English is being studied and examined relevant issues effecting how English should be taught in each of them. I will now examine an example of how English may be taught within each of these learning environments. The environments I
have determined are; an expanding circle country using an exonormative example as a norm rather than a model and an ELF approach; an outer circle country using an endonormative model within a codified strand of English; an inner circle country teaching English with an exonormative approach to foreign students.
For each of the three I am assuming that I am the teacher. The challenge is how can a 36 year old, white, male, inner circle native speaker with university training and little experience of the language or culture of the host country, meet the language needs of students in such a global context?
My example of an expanding circle country where I am teaching an English class is in Cambodia. The group is a class of fifteen adult students between the ages of 18 and 30. Their abilities range from beginner to intermediate. It is an evening class and I am working for a volunteer organisation. Students take the classes free of charge. The motivation for students to undertake the class is primarily to enhance their employment opportunities within the service and tourism industry.
The language model is one that uses an exonormative English as a guide rather than a model, but is primarily focused upon ELF as the students will encounter more speakers who do not have English as a first language as do. Being measured against a native model is irrelevant. In fact developing a stress timed language rather than a syllable timed one could, as Crystal indicates, be a hindrance to communication. However in the absence of an appropriate nativised model, I believe that the advantages indicated by Kirkpatrick, support “native” English as a guide.
I base the structure of the class upon continuum of five categories suggested as a basis for Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task Based Language Teaching (TBL) in the article “Language teaching in East Asian Classrooms” by William Littlewood. (2006: 247)
The objective of the class is for students to become familiar with the language they will experience in a hotel environment and to have experienced using this language in verbal exchanges.
i) Form focused
Students will be given a list of 16 vocabulary words. These are written on the board as well as given on a handout. On the hand out they are accompanied by a picture. Students repeat the words after the teacher. The focus is on pronunciation.
ii) Pre Communicative Language Practice.
The teacher holds up the picture. The beginner students say what the word is using their sheet. More advanced students don’t use the sheet and are encouraged to put the word into a sentence.
iii) Communicative Language Practice.
Along with an assistant. Ideally another English teacher who comes from a country other than my own. Role model interactions in a hotel that might use these words.
Perform them simply first and then, especially for the benefit of more advanced students, improvise. Make it funny and relevant to personal experience.
Students break into pairs and create interactions related to the vocab.
iv) Structured Communication.
Students break into groups of three. Spread ability levels amongst the groups. They are to produce a roleplay around the vocab and hotel situation. They are to present it back to the group.
Show a funny scene from Faulty Towers, one that relies on visual comedy more than language.
v) Authentic Communication.
Students that are ready take the role of a manager or receptionist at a hotel. The teacher becomes a customer who makes a series of requests. Adapt the requests to the level of the student. Students that are not ready for this will still benefit from observation.
Assessment is based upon being able to successfully communicate meaning in the class. They are not working towards an accreditation. During each task the teacher will provide feedback and suggestion to the students. Given that there are students of varying levels, attention to error treatment is dynamic in that confidence in speaking far more important than students being precise.
I feel that this task is realized as a CLT activity and is appropriate in relation to the aims of ELF indicated by Kirkpatrick. Particularly moving away from norms and focusing on cultural information and communicative strategies that will facilitate communication. (2007: 194)
Within this lesson and series of lessons, it is the sharing of the cultural information from cultures other than that of Cambodia, especially in my case Australian, but hopefully representing many other cultures through a range of teachers and student identities, that is just as important as the lexicon or grammar.
I make a final point about this context and this lesson in relation to linguistic imperialism and CP. Teaching English to poor students in a developing nation such that they can better serve rich English speaking tourists sets off flashing red lights in terms of power inequality. The answer is CP. Throughout the discourse in the classroom students need to made aware of empowerment strategies, deliberately noticing ways they may be exploited and appropriate and inappropriate ways tourists may interact with them.
For the second example I wish to examine what it would mean for me to teach English in a country that recognises an endonormative nativised model. Interestingly I’ve found it almost impossible to find a relevant example. Instead I have decided to consider myself as a teacher within a high school in Singapore teaching students in year 7 in a less affluent area.
I am making the assumption that whilst I am employed specifically for the purpose of my inner circle English, the school students will predominantly use Singlish and will demonstrate some resistance to the curriculum.
The use of English in Singapore is a fascinating issue when investigated in light of empowerment and CP. The government has imposed a strict curriculum based upon an exonormative native English. But there exists a very strong endonormative English known as Singlish. Kramer-Dahl in the article, “Reading The Singlish Debate” (2003) indicates that there is a direct correlation between English usage in the home and income levels. She suggests that the closer your language is to native speaker, the higher your living standard is likely to be. In this sense it seems empowering to have all students studying an exonormative model. However she points out that “…even though the English-knowing bilingual policy makes the highly valued English language available to everyone, the various proficiency levels among the population will ensure that “the power base of the ruling English – educated elite will not be eroded” (S.H. Tan, 1996, p.118 in Kramer Dahl, 2003: 163)
With this background I believe that the best way to approach the class is in a bi-lingual way. This will empower the students to value their own form of English and will utalise students first language as a means to explain concepts in native English. To do this I will have to operate with a native speaker and so this lesson will be run in a team teaching situation. It can be assumed that during the lesson the other teacher will be adding to my instruction and working directly with the less proficient students.
I wish to base this lesson firstly around the differences between syllable timed Singlish with stress timed “Standard English”. The lesson will be based upon the strategy of “noticing” the differences and being able to adjust their speech for different situations.
Although I have not set out this lesson plan in a communicative framework like in the lesson plan for the Cambodian classroom, I place the pedagogy for this lesson firmly within a CLT framework.
In order to present my culture and my identity to the students in a realistic and hopefully engaging way, I am basing the class on the “real text” the film “Crocodile Dundee”.
This is a 50 minute class. There are 25 year 7 students in it.
Introduce the topic.
This class fits into a unit of work where students have already focused on some rules of stress in English. They have done exercises in noticing stresses and are working towards more communicative strategies that will get them talking in the class.
Hand out the script from the knife scene in Crocodile Dundee (As found in the appendix). Ask the co-teacher to read out the extract as it would be pronounced in Singlish. Ask if there are any volunteers to read it out with a “Standard English” stress.
Allow them to attempt it.
I read through it once. Then play the film clip on You Tube. The first time they are to enjoy the clip. The second time they are to mark where the stresses are on each word.
Students are to form into groups of three. They are to practice saying the lines from the film. They are encouraged to experiment with the stress to change meaning or to repeat the stress as it is found in the film.
Students have the opportunity to present their script to the class is they wish, although this is not compulsory.
Students are then set the task of researching a scene from film script of their choice for which they can also find a video clip on the internet.
Their project, to be completed in the next class, is to highlight where the stresses are within the dialogue and to present it to the class with correct stress. They are then to present the video clip for the classes comparison.
Students may, if interested, and as an extension, present the script with their translation into Singlish.
Assessment for this class will be based on observation of the students’ participation and grasping of the concept of stress. It will also be based on the accuracy of the submitted film script which will have the stresses marked. It is assumed that first language interference will continue within the stress/syllable divide within class. It will even continue through choice. In this sense it’s about encouraging the students to continually “notice” when the use one or the other register so as to gain the skill to switch between them.
The third class that I wish to present a lesson for is important because I feel that it is set in a context that is neglected within Kirkpatrick’s models. It is for a year 10 ESL class in Melbourne. Within Global English there is clearly a role for inner circle countries teaching English to students from other cultures that celebrates rather than deconstructs the values of the inner circle nation. A curriculum that values their culture and a CP approach that gives them the skills to interpret their new classroom and community are just as important, just that the influence of a Western hegemonic English is, in this case, appropriate as it represents the world they are integrating into instead of a colonialising power.
CLT approaches are also just as valid in an inner circle country as elsewhere. In this instance the class fits into a VELS (Victorian Essential Learning Standards) framework where students attend ESL classes that run parallel to mainstream English strands. VELS allows a great scope for teachers to use innovative strategies to foster learning within curriculum and assessment. Also, student can reach VELS standards within ESL classes in the areas of Personal Development and even Work Related Learning with a VET framework. (Vocational Education and Training.) I have selected a lesson that reflects the opportunity to integrate ESL teaching alongside the social and vocational needs of the student.
The Lesson Plan has been selected from the text “New Ways In English for Specific Purposes” by Peter Master and Donna M. Brinton, Editors. (1998: 296-300) It is titled “Name that Job”. The full text is provided in the Appendix however this is a summary.
The game is based upon Pictionary. Students are asked what jobs they know (an adaptation from the text) List these jobs on the blackboard. The text suggests that you separate these jobs into blue collar and white collar. I would not use this distinction as I find it represents a value system that I am not comfortable representing. Instead I would divide the jobs into; needs higher education and doesn’t need higher education. These words are placed on vocab cards and two different games are played with the words.
The purpose of the activity is to familiarize students with job terms, as well as being an introduction to the topic of what training is required for what job.
Being a fun and dynamic activity, it provides multiple avenues for communication and feedback from the teacher. It also provides a pathway into a more structured investigation into individual career pathways. Assessment and feedback is entirely immediate and vocal.
These are simply three examples that relate my understanding of best practice of ELT to three very different contexts. The spread of English as a Global Language is a fascinating and frightening phenomenon that may turn out to be one of the most significant sociological events in human history. Particular when witnessed within a synergistic relationship with technology. I have sort to present an overview of the impact of this Globalisation on language teaching, both generally and in specific contexts. Being aware of these implications within whatever context we are teaching in must be one of the key considerations when we form our pedagogy and practice.
Vocabulary for working in a hotel.
Script Handout for Knife Scene for Crocodile Dundee.
You got a light buddy?
Yeh sure kid. There you go.
And your wallet!
Mic! Give him your wallet!
He’s got a knife.
Ha Ha Ha Ha. That’s not a knife. That’s a knife!
Just kids having fun. You alright?
I’m always alright when I’m with you Dundee.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999) Adopting a critical perspective on pedagogy. In Resisting linguistic imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.9-37.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kramer-Dahl, A. (2003) Readi ng the “Singlish Debate”: Construction of a Crisis of Language Standards and Language Teaching in Singapore, Journal of Language,
Identity & Education, 2(3), 159-190.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007) Implications for English Language Teaching. In A. Kirkpatrick World Englishes:Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching. Pp. 184 – 197. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Litlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language teaching, 40. Pp.243-249.
Master, P and Brinton, D (Ed) (1998) New Ways in English for Specific Purposes Pantagraph Printing, Bloomington, Illinois USA Pp. 296-300.
Shehan, P. (2006) Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. In K. Brown (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Pp. 51-59. Elsevier. Oxford.
Rajadurai, J. (2005) Revisiting the Concentric Circles: Conceptual and Sociolinguistic Considerations. Asian EFL Journal 7 (4) Retrieved on October 10, 2010 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December05PDF%20issue.pdf#page=111
Film (1986) Crocodile Dundee, Director: Faiman, P. Writers: Hogan, P and Shadle K; Producer: Cornell, J. Paramount Pictures. Accessed November 6, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01NHcTM5IA4