Teaching English as an International Language

Implementing, Reviewing, and Re-Envisioning World Englishes in Language Education

Roby Marlina

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315315744
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

How do teachers inspire students to learn to appreciate different Englishes? Has anyone tried to teach world Englishes? If so, what do they do and how do they feel about it? Most importantly, do students see the benefits in learning about world Englishes? This book responds to these questions by 1) offering a clear and solid foundation for the development of English as an International Language (EIL)-oriented curricula in an English Language program and a teacher education program, 2) critically reviewing the current pedagogical principles and practices of teaching EIL, and 3) offering an alternative way of conceptualising and teaching EIL. Using a three-year undergraduate program of EIL in an Australian university as a research site, this book provides a detailed account of actual classroom practices that raise students' awareness of world Englishes and engage them in learning how to communicate interculturally. This book is the first of its kind that explores the teaching of EIL in a country where English is a predominant and national language.

1The need to teach EIL

1.0. (Teaching) English as an International Language

The concept of ‘English as an International Language’ (henceforth EIL) and the need to study/teach it were initially proposed almost four decades ago by Larry Smith (1976, 1978), to be followed up and re-emphasised over 25 years later by Sandra McKay (2002) in her book, Teaching English as an International Language. Smith and McKay’s arguments about the need for a new paradigm of teaching and learning of English as an international language were prompted and motivated by observations and research that explicitly documented the changing sociolinguistic landscape of English as a result of its colonial and postcolonial expansion. This global spread of English, leading to the pluralisation of its users and forms, and its significant role in various international cultural and economic arenas, had seemingly given English the status of an international language. If English had acquired the status of an international language, then, Smith and McKay (and others) argued, it was no longer relevant to conceptualise it as a homogeneous language spoken only by so-called ‘native-English speakers’. Pedagogically, the teaching and learning of an international language needed to move beyond the teaching and learning of a singular language and culture as written and spoken by a single group of speakers from a particular speech community. The literature I discuss below helps to explain why.

There is broad consensus in the EIL literature that one of the main factors contributing to the status of English as an international language is the changing demographic background of its users. Most researchers agree that the predominant users of English in the world today are bi-/multilingual speakers of English from, what Kachru (1986) termed, ‘Outer-Circle’ and ‘Expanding-Circle’ countries¹. Statistically, there are approximately one billion reasonably competent speakers of English from those circles (Jenkins, 2009; McKay, 2012a). These speakers acquire English within their bi-/multilingual repertoires, use English and perhaps other languages in multilingual contexts, and use English to communicate predominantly with other bi-/multilingual speakers of English (Crystal, 1997; Graddol, 2006). Although it is difficult to determine the exact numbers of these speakers of English, it is clear that they exceeded the numbers of speakers from Inner-Circle countries long ago and are still increasing (Graddol, 1999; Jenkins, 2009; McKay, 2003). Thus, Graddol (2006) observes that nearly eighty percent of today’s communication in English takes place between these speakers, and only between ten and twelve percent of communication in English takes place between speakers of English from Inner-Circle countries and Outer- and/or Expanding-Circle countries. These statistics are changing week by week, and if anything, the landscape of English language users is becoming more complex.

It would seem that the status of an international language has been ‘bestowed’ on English as a result of its pluralised forms. The global expansion of English and the increase in the numbers of bi-/multilingual speakers of English in the world have led to the emergence of several varieties of world Englishes (Graddol, 2001; Kachru, 1986). Journals such as World Englishes, English Today, and English World Wide have been publishing research for decades about the newly emerging and emergent Englishes in different parts of the world. These publications tend to illustrate that when the English language ‘enters’ a particular society, the language and associated cultural practices tend to be ‘appropriated’ (Canagarajah, 1999a) and ‘re-nationalised’ (McKay, 2002) to project a new version of cultural and linguistic identities. With its pluralised forms, English can be seen as a vehicle for users of English to project their cultural identities and cultural conceptualisations (Sharifian, 2011) on those outside their local milieu. Users of English from Outer- and Expanding-Circle countries may not necessarily communicate in Inner-Circle varieties of English, and therefore communicate the worldviews, pragmatic norms, and cultural values of those countries. Rather, as bi-/multilingual speakers of English, these users of English are likely to develop their own language varieties in which their own cultural values, pragmatic norms, and worldviews are embedded within those that might be identifiable as the English language and cultural practices as spoken and enacted in Inner-Circle countries.

The various ‘-scapes’ (Table 1.1) created by globalisation have further complicated the sociolinguistic landscape of English at local levels. The advancement of information and communication technology (the internet, online chatting, online networking sites, etc.) and increased human mobility around the globe have allowed citizens from different parts of the world to be in freer contact with each other both without stepping outside their national boundaries and by travelling more easily. In the case of the English language specifically, Clyne and Sharifian (2008) observe that world Englishes have not remained comfortable within the ‘circles’ that Kachru (1986) has proposed. Thanks to forces of globalisation, these Englishes have travelled across borders and settled in other countries, and at the same time they have enriched the sociolinguistic landscape of English in those countries. Australia is an example that well illustrates this global phenomenon. In addition to indigenous Australian cultures and Englishes, the growing numbers of international students, travellers, and migrants in Australia have provided its citizens with abundant exposures to people from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds who are likely to speak their own varieties of English.

Table 1.1. Forces of globalisation (Appadurai, 1990)

The ‘-scapes’	Meaning	Examples
Ethnoscapes	Flows of people	Migrants, asylum seekers, exiles, tourists
Technoscapes	Flows of technology	Hardware components, technical know-how
Financescapes	Flows of money	National stock exchanges, commodity speculations
Mediascapes	Flows of information	Newspapers, magazines, satellite television channels, websites, the images and symbols they create and provide
Ideoscapes	Flows of ideas	Ideological discourses concerning freedom, democracy, human rights, environmentalism

These exposures are sometimes a remote-control switch away, as Australia has a television network – the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) – that broadcasts news, shows, films, entertainment, etc. from many different countries and in different languages and world Englishes. Given this sociolinguistic landscape, Australia, considered by some to be “a microcosm of the world in its cultural diversity” (Clyne, 2005, p. 181), is a context in which communicative exchanges are often international and intercultural in nature. In other words, more than one variety of English is likely to be found in interactions that take place in a multicultural context such as Australia. Therefore, thanks to globalisation, the lingua-cultural backgrounds of interlocutors as well as the varieties of English they might be speaking are often unpredictable. As Xu (2002) and many others have observed, for English, as for any other language in the world, today’s communicative exchanges are “characterised by variation in linguistic and cultural behaviour” (p. 231).

The changing ‘-scapes’ of English shown in Table 1.1 have led many scholars (including Canagarajah, 2006; Matsuda, 2012a; McKay & Brown, 2016) to call for an urgent revision and reassessment of the current practices of teaching English and their underlying principles or ideologies. They argue that the practices of English language teaching that have been traditionally oriented toward the ‘norms’ of Inner-Circle countries need to be challenged and replaced with practices that reflect a different set of perspectives, which take into consideration and respond to the dynamic scapes of English and thus the new sociolinguistic practices of a truly international notion of the English language. This perspective is what McKay (2002) and Sharifian (2009) term the EIL paradigm. Based on the assumption that “English, with its many varieties, is a language of international and intercultural communication” (Sharifian, 2009, p. 2), and the varieties of English and lingua-cultural backgrounds of interlocutors that are often unpredictable in today’s globalised communicative encounters, this EIL paradigm urges those who teach English in international contexts to professionally guide students from all Kachruvian circles to develop:

•a pluricentric view of the English language;

•a perception that all varieties of English should be equal and legitimately recognised; and

•an ability to negotiate and communicate respectfully across cultures and Englishes in today’s communicative settings, which are international and intercultural in nature.

This knowledge and its associated perceptions and skills have been perceived as crucial attributes for graduates seeking employment, especially in the current context of postmodern globalisation. Globalisation and the -scapes described in Table 1.1 have altered the occupational landscape for university graduates, who are now required to demonstrate international/intercultural communication skills, familiarity with world Englishes, and international perspectives that can help them function competently in social and work environments that are international and intercultural in nature (Briguglio, 2006, 2007; Edwards, Crosling, Petrovic-Lazarovic, & O’Neill, 2003; Leask, 2008; Singh & Shrestha, 2008; Webb, 2005). For example, Briguglio’s (2005) case study analysis of multinational companies in Malaysia and Hong Kong has shown that all graduates, regardless of the Kachruvian circles to which they belong, need to:

•expect and be able to deal with different varieties of English;

•show acceptance towards different accents in English; and

•develop accommodation strategies to deal with different accents and ways of speaking in English (where differences are perhaps more marked than in writing) (Briguglio, 2005, p. 180).

Therefore, a program, course, or curriculum that professionally develops graduates to demonstrate the above knowledge, perceptions, and skills is important and needed.

Despite numerous calls in the literature to implement some agreed principles of teaching EIL into everyday classroom practice, Matsuda (2012a; forthcoming) claims that the teaching of EIL still remains an abstract concept, and that there have not been many attempts from EIL-inspired scholars to illustrate how an EIL curriculum/program/course may look like (see also Brown, 2012). Teachers whose pedagogical practices have been critiqued for their lack of alignment with EIL principles have expressed some frustration (Matsuda, 2012a). They have stated that they do not have access to clear illustrations of EIL pedagogy that is explicitly informed by widely agreed principles for teaching EIL. Matsuda (2012a) believes that this may be because EIL educators are aware that pedagogical practices are contextually specific, and therefore they do not want to convey a message that their pedagogical practices are universally applicable. The problem is, however, that if this kind of practical knowledge is not shared, then those groups of frustrated teachers are going to feel even more frustrated and will continue to revert to habitual practices that promote the supremacy of varieties of English and cultures of Inner-Circle countries. This is one of the gaps in the literature that my book aims to fill.

There have already been some publications that briefly identify a set of principles of ethical EIL teaching and that illustrate how these principles should be implemented (e.g. Bayyurt & Altinmakas, 2012; D’Angelo, 2012; Lee, 2012; Matsuda, 2012a; forthcoming; McKay & Brown, 2016). However, in Wee’s (2013) review of a recently published edited book on teaching EIL, he claims, supported by Qu (2016), that a set of principles about teaching EIL would be more effective if it “trigger[ed] debates about just how realistic it might be to try to implement particular suggestions” (p. 203) rather than just informing teachers what needs to be taught in EIL curricula and how it should be taught. This book project responds to Wee (2013) and Qu’s (2016) concerns by exploring the benefits and challenges of teaching EIL in a particular institutional setting in Australia, a country where English is widely used as the national language. Research projects that provide more in-depth and reflexive accounts of the operationalisation of EIL principles in Inner-Circle countries are still relatively rare. This is also another gap that this book aims to fill. In providing accounts of EIL principles in action in a particular university teaching and learning setting in Australia, I do not wish to send a message that the practices and the outcomes I am reporting serve as the definitive account of how an EIL curriculum should be developed and taught. I acknowledge that this study is based on a single case of a single program in one particular institution in Australia and is not intended to be universally generalisable. Rather, I hope to provide a carefully theorised framework and some grounded reflexive accounts of EIL curriculum and practices that other EIL-inspired educators, especially those teaching in a similar context such as Australia, may engage with and use in examining and evaluating their own EIL or even traditional English language curriculum and pedagogical practices.

Furthermore, how realistic it might be to implement the principles advocated by the EIL paradigm I present in this book, it is also important to explore this through the eyes of another most important group of people involved in an EIL program, i.e. the students. As more studies emerge that advocate for the teaching of EIL, it is timely to understand how the main beneficiaries of these programs, i.e. the students, perceive, feel, or respond to what/how they have been taught. Brown (2012) agrees and argues that this is currently one of the gaps that needs to be empirically pursued. So far, a number of studies...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Boxes
• 1 The need to teach EIL
• 2 Teaching EIL: Calls to implement change
• 3 Studying teaching EIL
• 4 The journey to implement change: An autobiographical narrative
• 5 EIL teachers implementing change
• 6 Reviewing change: From teachers’ perspectives
• 7 EIL students’ responses to change
• 8 Reviewing change: From students’ perspectives
• 9 Re-envisioning a program of ongoing inquiry
• Appendices
• References
• Index