THE OWNERSHIP OF ENGLISH
This widespread use of English and the resultant diversity in its form has given rise to debate over the ‘ownership’ of English. With non-native speakers in the majority of English users in the world, what does this mean for the future of the language? Will it fracture into numerous and weak varieties that eventually will lose the commonality that facilitates the function of English as international language? Or should a standard English be used for international communication, and if yes, then which one? These are not easy questions to answer, and hence a debate of more than two decades has ensued.
Before the above questions can be addressed, the term of ‘ownership’ needs examination, as if sits uncomfortably with the topic of language. It implies that a language is a commodity that belongs to particular group of people, who have the right to control the access to, development of and usage of that commodity. When considering ‘English as an international language’, its development has occurred over a period of more than four hundred years and been shaped by generations of users from a multitude of cultural backgrounds, within the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Colonial Africa, South-East Asia (including Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Kowloon, The Philippines), and the South Pacific (Crystal 1995, pp.92-105), hence the notion of ownership seems somewhat misplaced. If it can be said to ‘belong’ to those involved in its development, its diversity in from means it must therefore ‘belong’ to many different groups of people.
To fracture or not to fracture?
With the benefit of hindsight, the increased usage of English for international communication around the world is evidence that the concern that diversity in varieties of English may cause the language to fracture and as a consequence, lose its capability to function as a global communication tool has not been realised. It seems that the more widely English has been used, the more it has been valued. As people invest considerable resources, including time and money, into acquiring another language, that is perceived as beneficial, it seems that a momentum of desire fuels the motivation necessary to generate further investment. Thus the result has been the burgeoning development of varieties of English and their wide ranging application worldwide.
In search of standard Global English
As international communication is being conducted using English everyday, the existence of Global English cannot be questioned. However, it can be elusive in form and therefore difficult to descriptively define comprehensively. This is due in part to the rapid rate of change in the ongoing development of its varieties, in diverse situations around the world, as the language is used in new ways according to need. When a language is being used to communicate internationally with other varieties of that language, then there will be a tendency towards the formation of a standard that is negotiated through its use in “extending networks of interaction”. Such a global standard in English would therefore exist in the common subsets of one ore more varieties known to the interlocutors.
It follows then that the diversification of English has resulted in an international language where the global standard is self-regulating, with its power for international communication in its flexibility of form. For the purposes of discussion in this paper, let us define standard ‘Global English’ as English that has been used for communication as an international language, that can be found in the common subsets of one or more of its varieties in the process of international communication. The elusiveness of standard Global English, however, raises one of many issues for educators and learners of English where international communication is one of the intended language applications.
IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS AND LEARNERS
A primary concern facing many teachers of English as a second or foreign language is to find ways to meet the learners’ wants and needs so that they may be empowered with the ability to use English flexibly in a variety of contexts as a means towards their own ends. English provides opportunities for non-native speakers to “explore it in their unique ways” which implies a high level of language skills to be able to manipulate its application in unusual ways to their own advantage. Whilst many will agree that such language empowerment is desirable in a democratic world, the challenge facing educators and learners of English as an international language is in how to achieve this.
Language use reflects culture. Therefore when English is being used for purposes of international communication, then more than one culture will be involved, that of the context and those of the interlocutors. This means that the task of international communication necessarily involves intercultural communication. Crozet & Liddicoat (1999) state that “Intercultural Language Teaching (ILT)… has shifted the aim of language learning from communicative competence to intercultural competence” and suggest that learners need to find a ‘cultural position’, ‘a third place’, which facilitates communication between these cultures.
The following definition by Byram (1995) of an intercultural speaker gives an indication of the complexity of the task of international communication:
An intercultural speaker is someone who can operate
their linguistic competence and their sociolinguistic
awareness of the relationship between language and the
context in which it is used, in order to manage interaction
across cultural boundaries, to anticipate misunderstandings
caused by difference in values, meanings and beliefs,
and thirdly, to cope with the affective as well as
cognitive demands of engagements with otherness.
(cited in Crozet & Liddicoat 1999, pp. 113-114)
It is clear that lexico-grammatical knowledge of a language is far from enough to be able to use it effectively as a global communication tool. Knowledge of linguistic theory that models the relationship between language and culture would also be highly desirable. This would assist the speaker in the prediction and analysis of responses received during communicative events with a view to responding in ways that permit the negotiation of an outcome that is satisfactory to the speakers. This, I believe, non-native speakers of English as intercultural speakers.
In relation to the teaching of English for international communication, if the general aim is providing learning opportunities that may help to empower language learners in their efforts to become effective intercultural speakers, then this has many pedagogical implications for English language education.
However, when considering teaching English as an international language, the diversity in varieties of English, the local context and/or the target context, the complexity of the task of international communication and the goals of its participants will make each teaching situation unique in many ways and the issues raised dependent upon that situation. Therefore, the following discussion of the pedagogical implications for English as an international language will be discussed in the light of one professional international context in Australia.
CONSIDERING EAP IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
The Context
Australia, a multicultural country, has a diverse range of cultural influences present in the community at large. The predominant forms of English used in mainstream Australia society include Australian English, British English and American English. As the Australian community consists of people from all over the world, from English speaking and non-English speaking backgrounds, from diverse cultural heritages, English is used in a variety of ways, wit ha wide range of accents and proficiency levels. Indeed, it is an environment that is both challenging for a non-native speaker of English, due to the extreme variation of English in use, and rich in opportunities for language exposure, learning and practice.
The Language Itself
In designing an English language course, educators must give initial consideration to which variety or varieties of English would be most beneficial for the learners, given the context and the goals (based on the wants and needs of the learners as perceived by both the learners and the educators.
As the learners are living and studying in Australia this also means they will be exposed to and required to communicate in English in the wider Australian community. This exposure and practice using English in less formal environments will be evidence of the diversity of English in accent and form within a multicultural society. Such a contrast between academic and non-academic contexts can be highlighted in the classroom as a means to analyse how the context influences the language chosen for use in those contexts. A conscious awareness of the relationship between language and the context in whish it is used is highly desirable for learners, if they are to make informed and effective choices in their language use.
Linguistic Theory
As mentioned in the opening paragraph, Widowson (1971) believes language is entwined with all that we do and all that we are. Similarly, Halliday (1978) states that “Language is as it is because of its function in the social structure”. Therefore, to use language effectively requires careful consideration of the social context in which it is to be applied. This is why a model of language is highly desirable for use in the classroom as a tool to communicate different aspects at play in the process of language application. In Halliday’s language model (1991), he represents the relationship between language and context in two dimensions, the potential and the instance. These can be considered as a width of focus: broad – context of the (potential) cultural domain or (potential) language system domain; or narrow – context of (an instance of culture) the situation domain or (an instance of language) text domain. This model is extremely useful in illustrating the depth of cultural influence in language use, with an instance of language use in a local cultural context being set within the broader sense of potential language use within the broader cultural context. When used in the classroom such a model will clearly justify studying cultural aspects of language use, as learners may be unaware of the cultural connection. Prodromou (1992) found that when learners were asked to identity the most appropriate content for language learning, they chose “facts about science and society” which was “the most neutral/universal cultural area” in the given list. Therefore, before teaching about culture in the English language classroom, the relationship between culture and language may need over justification.
Fitzgerald (2002) states that “Researchers discussing the need to teach culture in the language classroom suggest that the best method is to compare the socio-cultural and pragmatic norms of the learners’ first language with that of the target language, for teachers to act as cultural mediators and to explain the differences explicitly using a metacultural language” (p. 131). In EAP module, such an approach would seem most useful. Comparisons and contrast can be made between language use in the student’s home country and Australia. Hslliday’s model provides a framework useful fro analyzing particular examples of language use. Different language styles can be examined for the assumptions underlying the behaviour as a way to bring in culture, and analysis of the learner’s home culture, into the classroom. This acknowledges and validates the learner’s past experiences in language use in educational environments and presents language use in its cultural context as justification for differences.
In addition to a model of language use in context, a framework representing elements of culture would seem useful for purpose of analysis, teaching, teacher training and materials development. Fitzgerald (2000, p.133-134) suggests the following cultural frameworks, where different cultures can be placed on a continuum, as potentially the most useful: Hofstede (1991) identifies four main dimensions, including collectivism vs individualism, high vs low power distance; Rokeach (1976) identifies 36 values present in all societies where differentiation is made in terms of the hierarchical position accorded to the value; Hall (1976, 1987) makes a broad distinction between high and low context cultures; and Gudykunst et al (1988) extend Hall’s framework with four stylistic modes.
The teaching of culture in the language learning classroom should be seamless (Crozet & Liddicoat 1997, p. 18-19). This implies that it should be a fundamental aspect to be incorporated into language teacher training programmes, materials development and methodological decisions. Learners need to reflect on their own culture, so that they may come to understand others (Crozet & Liddicoat 1977, p.18-19). For learners to become intercultural speakers, cultural awareness and sensitivity will be needed.
Social Empowerment
Language, in its use by people, communicates culture by the expression ideas, values and beliefs, and establishes relationships between people within a society. These relationships within the social hierarchy place individuals at various levels within that society and are indeed reflections of relations of power. Fairclough (1989) argues that discourse practices of dominant classes establish and maintain power relationships within society. This connection, between language and power, means that the language classroom is, unavoidably, a political arena, which may shock many educators and learners. The influence of the cultural background of an educator is likely to be evident in their classroom. As argued by Auerbach (1995):
Pedagogical choices about curriculum development,
content, materials, classroom processes, and language
use, although appearing to be informed by apolitical
professional considerations are, in fact, inherently
ideological in nature, with significant implications
for learners’ socioeconomic roles (p. 9).
She also suggests that open recognition of the political nature of the classroom can be the first step in developing less subversive language education (Auerbach 1993, p.29). Tollefson (1995, p. 3) calls for “critical self-examination” in the fields of applied linguistic and language teaching, so that the needs of language learners may be better served.
Perhaps what is most alarming about the political aspect of language is the covert nature of its presence, its seemingly invisible form. If learners’ needs are to be attended then the learners themselves need to make language choices from a position of social and political awareness. Therefore, it would seem that educators need to overtly make the connection between language and power in their classrooms, presenting alternative views, so that the learners can make language choices based on more than linguistic considerations.
Pennycook (1994, p. 313) argues for a critical approach in language education pedagogy that starts with the concerns of the learner and ends with them possessing a “voice” so that they may speak-back, read-back and listen-back effectively in English. However, as societies are inherently political and power distributed unevenly within them, learners will also need to acknowledge this situation and make informed decisions about when and where to apply their “voice”.
In this EAP module, the teacher is placed in as awkward situation, between the dominant discourse styles and alternative “voices”. In their studies in Australia, the learners necessarily need to be aware of the dominant academic discourse styles and essentially to conform to those in order to be successful. However, even though the learners may, in reality, have little choice but to participate in discourse in dominant styles, the teacher can highlight assumptions and power relations underlying these discourse patterns, and make the distinction between participation and adoption, where the former may be necessary, the later is not. Gee (1986, p. 745) makes the point that new discourse styles, with their underlying world view, may be in conflict with the learner’s identity. Awareness of such conflicts may assist learners in their management of language use.
CONCLUSION
As English continues to spread around the world, reflecting a diverse range of cultures in its many varieties, it is applied in new ways, takes on new forms and projects new voices from its widening user base. The global use of English for international communication has lead to critical discussion with regard to its ‘ownership’ and its relationships with culture and power. This has resulted in calls for critical examination in the fields of applied linguistic and English education, as the impacts of English as a world language are far teaching. If English is to bring social empowerment to the majority of the user, as many educators and learners of English believe, then further research and changes in professional practice will be needed in this area.
REFERENCES
Auerbach, E. 1993, ‘Re-examining English Only in the ESL classroom’, TESOL Quarterly, 27 (1), pp. 9-32
Auberbach, E. 1995, ‘The politics of the ESL classroom: Issues of power in pedagogical choices’, in Tollefson, J. W. (ed), Power and Inequality Language and Education, pp. 9-33, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brumfit, C. 1982, ‘English as an International Language I: What do we mean by “English”?’ in Brumfit, C. (ed), English for International Communication, Pergamon, Oxford.
Crozet, C. & Liddicoat, A. J. 1997, ‘Teaching Culture as an Integrated Part of Language Teaching: An Introduction’, Australian Review of Apllied Linguistic, Series S (14), pp. 1-22.
Crozet, C. & Liddicoat, A. J. 1999, ‘The Challenge of Intercultural Language Teaching: Engaging with Culture in the Classroom’, in Bianco, J.L., Liddicoat, A. J. & Crozet, C. (eds), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural Competence through Language Education, pp. 113-125, Language Australia, Melbourne.
Crystal, D. 1995, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Crystal, D. 1997, English as a Global Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fairclough, N. 1989, Language and Power, Longman, New York.
Fitzgerald, H. 2000, ‘What culture do we teach?’, in Bianco, L. Liddicoat, A. J. & Crozet, C. Striving for a Third Place: Intercultural Competence through Language Education, pp. 127-142, Language Australia, Melbourne.
Gee, J. P. 1986, ‘Orality and Literacy: From The Savage Mind to Ways With Words’, TESOL Quarterly, 20 (4), pp. 719-746.
Halliday, M. A. K., 1978, Language as Social Semiotic, London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. 1991, ‘The notion of “Context” in Language Education’, in Le, T. & McCausland, M. (eds), 1991, Language Education: Interaction & Development, [Conference Proceeding, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 30 March – 1 April 1991], pp. 1-26, University of Tasmania, Launceston.
Hymes, D. H. 1971, On Communicative Competence, University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.
Hymes, D. H. 1986, ‘Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life’, in Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes D. H. (eds) 1986, Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp. 35-71, Holt, Reinehart & Winston, Inc., New York.
Lee, S. L. 1981, English Language indigenization and planning in Singapore. Paper presented at the 16th Regional Seminar, SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore.
Pennycook, A. 1994, The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, pp. 295-327, Longman: London; New York
Prodromou, L. 1992, Mixed Ability Classes, Illustrations Macmilla Publishers Ltd
Platt, J. & Weber, H. & Ho, M. L. 1984, The New Englishes, Routledge & Kegan Paul plc, England.
Tofflfson, J. W. 1995, Power and Inequality in Language Education, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1971, English Studies Series 8: Language Teaching Texts, in Mackin, R. (ed), Oxford University Press.