Reframing English from a broader perspective
Guest Authors: Mariia Borovska , Jakub Doroszkiewicz, Sylwia Ruducha and Cezary Zieliński
1st Year Students at the MA in English Philology, University of Białystok, Poland
Throughout the millennia of its history, English evolved and changed a countless number of times. With the advent of the internet and the age of globalisation, the pace of those metamorphoses achieved staggering speeds. Said changes were a direct reason for diversification of English language. New dialectal forms appear all over the world. Many questions and conundrums regarding the teaching of language can be raised as a consequence of the process. In our paper, we are going to explore how English as a second language can be reframed in a broader perspective from the viewpoint of an L2 teacher.
In the field of linguistic didactics, a notion of language teacher identity, abbreviated LTI, is gaining popularity (see Fan and de Jong, 2019, p. 2; Slay and Smith, 2010, p. 86). Ever-developing globalisation, and increasing migration rates connected with it, yield new cases that can be studied in terms of language, languaging and bilingualism. The teachers arriving from abroad are often required to reframe their notion of teaching. On one hand it may lead to improvement of their methodology, while on the other, the pressure of higher proficiency of the society may inhibit one’s ability to continue the job in the same form it was conducted before. In the case of Wan, a Chinese teacher interviewed by Fan and de Jong, the study determined two “transitional periods” in her professional identity transformation (p. 7). The change of environment from ESL to EFL resulted in a decline of confidence in terms of English language proficiency due to comparison with native speakers.
Despite the insufficient data, collected from one person only (p. 14), the study unveils an interesting psychological phenomenon. One’s own assessment of linguistic proficiency is dependent on how well the society speaks the given language. This discovery has far-reaching implications for language teachers. A distinction between different “Englishes” (or any other language variants) becomes evident, and poses a question of how proficient a teacher is ought to be in order to be considered a “good” one. One could potentially argue that the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is sufficient as a means of establishing the proficiency level of a language teacher, and should be considered a standard of assessing their competence. However, the framework, as a “socially constructed concept” does not encompass all the nuances of a language, especially in terms of dialectological division (Foley, 2019, p. 30). This could result in discrepancies between the theoretical proficiency of a teacher and their actual competence in comparison with the native speakers in a specific area.
Defying the Idea of “Purism”
Linguistic purism is another common notion that dominates the field of didactics. The high level of standardisation of a language taught in schools does not seem to be questioned. However, in a modern approach, it may be argued that teaching a dialectal version of a language such as English is superior to the puristic methods. Such a variety “is a linguistic marker of the distinctive hybridised … identity” (Lin, 2006, p. 288), which in case of former British colonies is a vital element of life for the inhabitants. It appears that English does not by any means have to be the only language used in an ESL classroom. Instead, a mix of L1 and L2 can be applied as a method of building rapport, “promoting bilingual academic knowledge” and encouraging the students to become active participants of the class, among other purposes (p. 292).
While several Indo-European languages, such as French or Icelandic, may display puristic tendencies, English is by no means a pure speech. Its numerous loans from Latin, Greek, French, and a great variety of other languages, render it as the total opposite of linguistic purism. Interchangeable use of L1 and L2 in case of English language teaching should not, then, be considered strange. Especially in the broad perspective, incorporating multilingualism and translanguaging into the curriculum is an important means of promoting diversity and equality. As the language in the outside world evolves, so should the methods of its acquisition.
Increasing Awareness of English Varieties
Nowadays it is important to promote awareness of learners of different instances of English. The users of English have already outnumbered the native speakers. Hence the variety of forms of the language cannot be ignored. (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015, p.27). Traditional English Language Teaching that is based only on standard English (British or American) may be incomplete today. For their lessons teachers tend to bring only “authentic materials” that may create a common assumption that the English language is used only by native speakers and only in countries where it is the first or dominant language, for instance the United States or the United Kingdom. This may lead to the limitations of users’ understanding of how and for what purposes the language is used (Matsuda, 2012, p.171).
In the article by Lucilla Lopriore and Paola Vettorel titled “Promoting Awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English Language Classroom” it is suggested how to raise awareness of World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. (p.14)
“The suggestions offered so far are in terms of:
- ELF-orientation in coursebooks, materials, teacher education and classroom activities;
- Awareness-raising approaches through languaging in both teacher education courses and language classroom;
- Use of currently available audio, video and web resources in material development and classroom activities take into consideration the fact that changes are by nature slow to be implemented, and demand for a shared understanding on the part of both teachers, course-book authors and publishers.” (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015, p.28)
Awareness-based approach to WE and ELF curriculum may be used in different ways, but notwithstanding this, students will learn more about the language and how it works differently (Lopriore & Vettorel, 2015, p.18).
Teachers play an important role in fostering the awareness of Englishes and ELT. They should prepare class materials that go beyond established and standard representation of English. Learners should be aware of a diverse use of language.
Looking at Globalisation Vis-á-vis English
According to Crystal (1997), the process of globalisation has had a direct influence on English and still continues to do so. With an ever-growing number of its users, it is estimated that more people use English as their second (or additional) language, as opposed to those who call it their first language. It means that speakers coming from the ‘core’ English-speaking countries currently remain in the substantial minority amongst the total number of English users (Clyne and Sharifian, 2015, p. 28.2). McKay (2002) remarks that because the number of people who speak English as a second language is so sizeable, English cannot be perceived as belonging solely to native speakers (Menard-Warwick et al., 2019, p. 369). She further adds that “English has been discursively reconstructed as an ‘international language’, a paradigm in which English belongs to all users” (p. 366).
As noted by Clyne and Sharifian, English is not only an international language but it is also pluricentric in nature (2015, p. 28.4). Pluricentricity of English was presented by Kachru (1986) in terms of “circles”. Kachru distinguished three main circles of English using countries: The “Inner Circle” where English constitutes the primary language (US, Australia, Canada, and the UK), the “Outer Circle” where it is used by people as a second language (India and Singapore), and the “Expanding Circle” in which people learn English as a foreign language (Korea, China, Japan, and Egypt). However, the process of globalisation of English language contributed to the spread of World Englishes which as a result began leaving their traditional circles and continued mixing with the remaining ones (Clyne and Sharifian, 2015, p. 28.4–28.5).
In her article, titled “Incorporating World Englishes in Teaching English as an International Language”, Matsuda points out that even though English is considered to be an international language (EIL) worldwide and multiple varieties of English have been widely accepted within the applied linguistics profession, different pedagogical approaches still fail to include varieties of World Englishes into their scope. The author draws on her analysis of English language teaching (ELT) practices in the country of Japan which showed that English still continues to be taught as an inner-circle language. Matsuda criticises the inner-circle orientation to ELT on the grounds that it does not meet EIL students’ English needs. By the limited exposure to different forms and functions of English, students fail to be adequately prepared for their future use of English which will most probably involve both non-native and native speakers of English in virtually any part of the world. She also adds that teaching inner-circle English “eclipses their education about the history and politics of English, and fails to empower them with ownership of English” (p. 721). Furthermore, Matsuda calls for a change in English teaching practice and offers a wide array of methods that would help incorporate World Englishes into EIL curricula. Some of her suggestions include recruiting speakers of multiple varieties, evaluating learners on their communicative correctness instead of exclusively on grammatical correctness built around the American or British norm, choosing teaching materials that would reflect the growing role of non-native speakers in defining EIL, and finally enrolling preservice teachers in a World Englishes course (see Matsuda, 2003, p. 719–727; Clyne and Sharifian, 2015, p. 28.12).
Conclusion
Despite its constant evolution, English is still viewed from a very narrow perspective. The conservative methods of teaching seem to be prevalent in modern contexts, raising the question of how much the L2 teacher circles are lagging behind the linguistic development of the society. Taking into consideration the rise of globalisation, and resulting strong interconnection between people around the globe, this perspective should be broadened in order to include all the many varieties of English. A teacher’s professional identity needs to be flexible in order for them to achieve success. The language taught by them has to account for dialectal variations, for example by the use of authentic materials in the classroom. It seems that in order to truly reframe English in a broader perspective, the example of the L2 teachers has to inspire future generations to change the prevailing status quo.
References
Clyne, M., & Sharifian, F. (2015). English as an International Language: Challenges and possibilities. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 31(3), 28.1–28.16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250079417_English_as_an_international_language_Challenges_and_possibilities
Fan, F., & de Jong, E. J. (2019). Exploring professional identities of nonnative-English-speaking teachers in the United States: A narrative case study. TESOL Journal, 10(4), e495. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.495
Foley, J. A. (2019). Issues on Assessment using CEFR in the Region. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network Journal, 12(2).
Lin, Angel. (2006). Beyond Linguistic Purism in Language-in-education Policy and Practice: Exploring Bilingual Pedagogies in a Hong Kong Science Classroom. Language and Education 20(4). https://doi.org/10.2167/le643.0
Lopriore, L., & Vettorel, P. (2015). Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the English language classroom. International Perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137398093_2
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating world Englishes in teaching English as an international language. Tesol Quarterly, 37(4), 719–729. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3588220
Matsuda, A. (2012). Teaching materials in EIL. Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203819159
Menard-Warwick, J., Bybee, E. R., Degollado, E. D., Jin, S., Kehoe, S., & Masters, K. (2019). Same language, different histories: Developing a “critical” English teacher identity. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 18(6), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2019.1671195
Slay, H. S., & Smith, D. A. (2010). Professional identity construction: Using narrative to understand the negotiation of professional and stigmatised cultural identities. Human Relations, 64(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710384290
