English as a Lingua Franca in Teacher Education

Telma Gimenez,Michele Salles El Kadri,Luciana Cabrini Simões Calvo

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781501503795
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Lingue e linguistica
• Subtopic: Linguistica

A lingua franca perspective into English language teaching in Brazil has only recently take flight. As an emerging economy, the country faces enormous challenges when it comes to language education in schools, where English has traditionally been taught as a foreign language. This collection brings the perspectives of academics and language practitioners in their efforts to incorporate an ELF approach into teacher education, thus offering a voice sorely missed in the international community interested in developing new approaches to English in a global world.

Part I:Conceptualizing English as a global lingua franca in teacher education

Vanderlei J. Zacchi

Global Englishes, local histories

Vanderlei J. Zacchi, Universidade Federal de Sergipe

1Introduction

It has been common sense, even among English language teachers, that English is the language of globalization. This notion usually comes together with the idea that this status happened naturally, with no account to historical, political and cultural events. As a result, both globalization and the English language are seen as contemporary phenomena that simply meet the demands of our times. A third element comes into play here as well: new information and communication technologies. Just like English, they are usually seen as intrinsic to globalization.

This commonsensical view was detected in at least two research projects, both carried out by myself. The first one involved teachers from Belo Horizonte, who were interviewed in 2002, and the second one took place in Sergipe in 2011. It seems that the way that teachers see the status of English worldwide has not changed significantly in the past few years, which makes the case for questioning language teacher education in Brazil as regards English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). The scenario, in fact, points to a situation where teachers should not rely on stability, but rather be prepared for the uncertain and the unexpected (Zacchi 2015b).

ELF can be seen as a global project (Mignolo 2003) and is connected with transcultural flows of communication. It can no longer be said that English is defined by a few and selected varieties. Instead, there are distinct varieties, referred to by Pennycook (2007) as global Englishes, which are appropriated by local subjects and adapted to specific contexts. Therefore, when we think of English as the language of globalization, we also have to take into account a contextualized teaching, in connection with a language that is appropriated by teachers and students locally. In that case, we might have the following questions in mind: what English? what globalization?

This chapter will draw on a few concepts related to the global spread of ELF, especially: global Englishes (Pennycook 2007), English as a hegemonic language (Zacchi 2003, 2006), cosmopolitanism and transnational literacies (Brydon 2011; Rizvi 2009; Zacchi 2014, 2015a). The aim is to discuss possible implications for a) English language teacher education in preparing teachers to critically deal with English in the era of globalization; and b) the appropriation of English locally so as to be used in context. The data presented in the following discussion come from diverse research contexts and are only meant to illustrate and exemplify the points in question.

2English and globalization

Both globalization and the role played by English in the world today have been dealt with at length in an ongoing discussion around one main aspect: the cultural (and linguistic) imperialism thesis, i.e. the idea that the world is dominated by powerful media corporations, especially from the US, which disseminate Western cultural values (the English language included) and threaten local cultures.

The idea of linguistic imperialism was advanced by Phillipson (1992) to describe the threat posed to local cultures and languages (some of them to the point of extinction) due to the dominance of a few European languages. So English linguistic imperialism takes place when “the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages” (1992: 47). He also seeks to describe to what extent the spread of English around the world was natural or motivated. Phillipson gives a number of examples to show that, not only English, but also English language teaching (ELT), have been promoted both by the US and Great Britain to feature prominently as a global lingua franca.

The first movement towards that dissemination had its root in British colonialism, when the British, through colonial power, imposed English as the medium of education in several countries. English would feature then as a superior language, with “civilizing properties” (Phillipson 1992: 128). So the colonized people “internalized the language and many of the attitudes of their masters” (Phillipson 1992: 128), setting the foundation for English linguistic imperialism. The spread of English continued with the rise of the US as a global power, especially after World War II. The promotion of English worldwide under US dominance remained a politically as well as economically motivated initiative.

Phillipson argues that English as a strategic resource has been explored by both Britain and the US as a way to advance their interests. In this process, the English language’s intrinsic and extrinsic qualities (what it is and what it has) are reinforced. For example, English is “civilizing” and “well adapted for change and development” (intrinsic – Phillipson 1992: 276). It is also “the language of technology” (extrinsic – Phillipson 1992: 279). He concludes that “The labels currently used in political and academic discourse to describe English are almost invariably positive ascriptions. By implication other languages lack these properties or are inferior” (Phillipson 1992: 281). Such an imbalance, according to Phillipson, is perpetuated by present-day English language imperialism.

Kumaravadivelu (2008: 186–187) gives a good example of a similar pattern concerning cultural differences. It comes from a book called Topics in language and culture for teachers, published in 2004 in the US. He focuses on one exercise about different cultures, which was totally built on stereotypes and dichotomies, such as individualism/community, tradition/innovation, religious/ secular. The exercise asks students to separate these aspects into two columns: one for US culture and one for “other cultures”. Kumaravadivelu concludes that it is not unreasonable to assume that students will link words such as individualism, innovation and secular (seen as positive ascriptions) with US culture and community, tradition and religious (seen as negative ascriptions) with “other cultures”.

But Pennycook tends to relativize Phillipson’s portrayal of the global spread of English as “indelibly linked to Americanization and homogenization of world culture and to media imperialism” (Pennycook 2007: 7). Instead, he makes the case for the existence of “global Englishes”, in the plural, which produce new forms of global identification. Therefore, he suggests,

we need to move beyond arguments about homogeneity or hegerogeneity, or imperialism and nation states, and instead focus on translocal and transcultural flows. […] I am interested, then, in locating English within a complex view of globalization here, not one that assumes that we are necessarily witnessing increasing levels of global similarity, but one that tries to understand the effects of cultural flows. (Pennycook 2007: 5–6)

Thus, Pennycook comes to dismiss visions of cultural and linguistic imperialism that imply a homogenization of the world by the English language and US popular culture “as they are thrust on to local populations” (2007: 97). Central to his argument is the notion of “transcultural flows”: cultural forms that not only move but also change and are used “to fashion new identities in diverse contexts” (2007: 6). So, besides cultural movement, there is a process of appropriation, change and refashioning that presupposes active engagement by those who are exposed to these transcultural flows, contrary to Phillipson’s tendency to overlook processes of resistance and agency towards imperialism. In the same vein, Pennycook believes that, if globalization brings new forms of power and control, on the other hand it also engenders processes of resistance, change and appropriation. Therefore, he proposes, we need to see English as a crucial part of globalization and not as a mere reflection of economic relations, so that we can ask “what kinds of desires and mobilizations are at stake when English is invoked?” (Pennycook 2007: 30).

Fairclough (2006: 40) also shows a more flexible approach to globalization. He classifies it into two main categories. One is globalism: discourses that link globalization to the integration of markets and define it as inevitable, irreversible and beneficial to everyone. Such discourses represent globalization from a reductive neoliberal economic point of view. So, according to him, discourse can be used, among other things, to project a particular point of view about globalization and thus legitimate actions and strategies that are consistent with that point of view. But, on the other hand, he also identifies a type of globalization from below (Fairclough 2006: 121) that makes use of new discourses, practices and identities for the development of local and particular strategies.

Appiah also disputes the idea that globalization produces homogenization. He uses Ghana, his country of origin, as an example when he states that even villagers are connected with a series of places, but homogeneity is crafted locally (Appiah 2006: 102). Radio and TV programs are produced locally and broadcast in a local language. These villagers may engage in discussions about the Footbal World Cup, but the teams that they know best are from Ghana. Appiah concludes that the idea that cultural imperialism structures the consciousness of those in the periphery is deeply condescending. For him, what really happens is that people respond to Western products in accordance with their cultural context: “people in each place make their own uses even of the most famous global commodities” (Appiah 2006: 113).

In a similar vein, Thomas Friedman suggests that the Indians “take the view that the Moguls come, the Moguls go, the British come, the British go, we take the best and leave the rest – but we still eat our curry, our women still wear saris, and we still live in tightly bound extended family units” (apud Kumaravadivelu 2008: 149). Kumaravadivelu (2008: 147) refers to this process as “glocalization” as a result of the ongoing tension between forces of cultural homogenization and cultural heterogeneity. According to him, despite the free flow of cultural products and information services around the world, they seem to be received and used variedly according to people’s own purposes, echoing Pennycook’s concept of transcultural flows (2007) mentioned above.

According to Scholte (2005: 320), traditional, territorially based social movements, like trade unionism and anti-colonialism, have been losing ground. On the other hand, globalization would be facilitating a growth of new, supraterritorial social movements based on issues such as gender justice, racial equalities and disability. For him, the feeling of rejection to globalization is inflated by fears that global communication is threatening national cultures and that global capital is destroying national jobs, among others. Globalization’s implicit supraterritoriality would be motivating nationalist reactions in groups and persons that resent the end of the feeling of protection represented by territorial boundaries. Consequently, defensive action has been adopted to preserve national identities.

Scholte, among other commentators, has also pointed out that globalization is not necessarily a threat to local and national bonds. In some cases, it has even propelled them. He believes that the losses of cultural diversity are not intrinsic to globalization, but due to the “voracity of western modernity” (2005: 81). In fact, “There can be, and are, many globalizations”,1 and there can be not only homogenization, but heterogeneization too. Globalization may be a threat to identities through cultural destruction caused by the electronic media, transplanetary tourism and the English language. But on the other hand, he argues, the technologies of globalization can also be used to revitalize “dormant” identities. For all these reasons, he believes that resisting globalization is not a solution, but it is possible to transform it and remodel it for better results.

For Mignolo (2003: 347), globalization has made it possible for languages eliminated during colonial and imperial expansion to reappear. Also, it allows for subaltern communities to create transnational alliances for aligning their struggles. Further still, it can create conditions for a “barbarian theorizing” (2003: 417), spreading from subaltern communities to the whole world. Mignolo admits that Western global designs may cause some type of cultural homogeneity, but he also suggests that fundamentalist resistance based on the local history is equally counterproductive. So he defends the need for a transient culture which rejects the assumption of “benefits for all” (2003: 407) in global designs from both leftwing and right-wing perspectives, since nationalist projects can also be responsible for homogenizing policies and practices.

Finally, Fairclough (2006: 122) believes that globalization allows for local access to universal resources and facilitates coalitions between different places and among groups that operate on a local scale and those that operate on national, regional or global scales, thus promoting new forms of “transnational activism”. One example of such activism comes from Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers’ Movement when it uses English and the new media to forge alliances with similar movements around the world (Zacchi 2010).

3Global Englishes, global designs

As mentioned before, the spread of English did not take place naturally, but as a result of political, social and economic moves from mainly Great Britain and the US. It took advantage of, but also fuelled, what Walter Mignolo (2003) calls “global designs”: colonialism, imperialism, capitalism. So globalization might just be another knot in that thread. However, such spread does not necessarily mean cultural and linguistic homogenization, so that different contexts will probably result in different ways of taking up and using English.

A second aspect worth mentioning is that many people, English teachers included, see English as the natural language of globalization, regardless of the historical, political and cultural contexts that may have shaped such relations...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Telma Gimenez, Michele Salles El Kadri and Luciana Cabrini Simões Calvo Introduction
• Part I: Conceptualizing English as a global lingua franca in teacher education
• Part II: Teachers and learners’ beliefs about ELF
• Part III: ELF in teacher education programs