Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Download 287.99 Kb.

Page	4/11
Date	09.07.2017
Size	287.99 Kb.
	#23005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1.5Structure of the Study

In the following part of the thesis an overview of the literature providing base for the study will be presented. This section will be divided into three parts focusing on the issues raised in the introduction. In the next part, the selection of the method for the research will be explained and further described. Following the presentation of the method, the results of the study will be presented and later discussed in the next section focused on examination of the results. The thesis concludes with an overview of the major findings and synthesis of the results.

2.Literature Review

With the massive worldwide popularity of English language as a tool for international communication, there is an ever increasing demand for English education. English is the most commonly taught foreign language worldwide. It is the language of science, trade, politics, media, education, and internet communication. It is estimated that nowadays each one in four people can hold a conversation in English (Crystal, 2003). Another feature of present English use is that there are by far more non-native speakers who use it than there are its native speakers, therefore most situations requiring English as a means of communication will be among non-native speakers. This concept is referred to as English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and is typical for the European setting. The current role of ELF or English as an International Language (EIL) has lead us to reexamine the standard ideology of the native speaker as a model for English instruction, leaving space open for discussion about an alternative approach.

The topics presented in the literature review look at the ways this changing status of English influences the learning and use of the language in the European context. In the first chapter, some key concepts will be presented regarding the roles and varieties of the language worldwide, in the EU, and in the Czech Republic. In the next chapter the proposed changes in view of a standard for language instruction hinted by the suggestions of the current research will be discussed. Further, the issue of individual’s culture and identity and its manifestation in accent will be revisited in the last chapter of this section.

2.1Introducing WEs, ELF, and EIL

In this chapter the concept of various distinct Englishes will be introduced and the role of the English language as the language of international communication will be analyzed with regard to the relevance to the European context. Some terminology related to the key concepts will be addressed to prevent confusion, and the implications of the changing role of English discussed. This chapter also aims to support and encourage the spread of knowledge about these phenomena.

2.1.1The expansion of English

Harold B. Allen, the past president of TESOL, describes the early sizable spread of English language teaching to non-native speakers as being associated with the growth of the British Empire, and with economic power and imperialism of the colonizers. The learners then were not socially equal, and the knowledge of the language provided them with some opportunity for social and economic advancement (as cited in Alatis, 2005). Alatis then points out that this notion of the role of English language is still rooted in the discipline of English education. Although the major division between the British English as an English language in the United Kingdom and the American English language of the USA is now widely acknowledged and reflected in the educational materials, a belief that the proper and good English is only one is still held not only in the Czech Republic, but in other parts of the world as well. Undoubtedly, the attitudes towards American English have been changing over the past decades (see, for example, Maděřičová, 2003). It is important to stress the role the USA have played in the process of globalization of the English language and in making it the most widely used language for international communication. If it were not for the position of the USA as the leading nation of the social, technological, and scientific advancement in the 20^th century, the language might not have taken this function. As Crystal puts it, “A language becomes a world language for one reason only – the power of the people who speak it” (2004).

The dispersal of the language can be summarized into three main processes. When we look four centuries back, the original mother-tongue speakers of English language in England started to colonize America, and then Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. This gradually resulted in the first differentiation of English varieties, as the language adjusted to the new environments. The second dispersal took place in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when English was introduced among the population of West and East Africa and South Asia, where it was indigenized and appropriated by the speakers of local languages. However, the situation in each region varied and so varied the processes of acculturation and transformation of English. In South Asia, the language was accepted as a link language between people from various language regions, which stimulated the progress of education and business (Gargesh, 2009). Gargesh explains that there has always been a tradition of societal multilingualism; a language different from the one used locally has been used in the context of intellectual activities. In East Africa, schools based on the British system were introduced early by the British emigrants who inhabited the area, resulting in a variety of Englishes spoken as a mother-tongue, while West African Englishes are more distinct from the native varieties due to their relative isolation (Crystal, 2003). Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and the Philippines were among the next centers where the English language dispersed and influenced the local lifestyle. The Englishes in these regions have a similar history, related to the expansion of the British and later the American power, but evolved into distinct varieties with unique accents.

Figure : The three ‘circles’ of English (Crystal, 2003)

This expansion of the language gave rise to the status of English as a language providing economic growth, education, social status, and other advancement in the countries mentioned. But what makes it a world language is the consequent third dispersal into other territories. The most influential model of the spread of English is by Kachru. His model of three concentric circles (see, for example, 1988) explains the different status and role of English in the three groups of countries, namely the native speakers’ countries and non-native speakers’ countries which are further divided into two groups. Kachru (1982) claims that we must distinguish between English as a second language and as a foreign language, because the former comprises of varieties which have been institutionalized, as in South Asia and West Africa, while the latter serves as a “performance” variety – a foreign language which has a different role and functions in the educational, administrative, and sociocultural context of the country than a second language variety. Some characteristics of an institutionalized variety include extended range of intranational uses, registers and styles, an advanced degree of nativization, and a body of literature including typical code switching. Hence comes the division of English into three groups (see Figure 1): Inner Circle - English as a native language (ENL), Outer Circle - English as a second language (ESL), and Expanding circle - English as a foreign language (EFL).

2.1.2Who owns English?

How English develops in the world is no business whatever of native speakers in England, the United States, or anywhere else. They have no say in the matter, no right to intervene or pass judgement. They are irrelevant. The very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it. To grant such custody of the language, is necessarily to arrest its development and so under-mine its international status. (Widdowson, 1994, p. 38)
The importance of Kachru’s claims lied in the unprecedented accentuation of Outer Circle varieties as discrete, independent Englishes. Seidlhofer explains that his presentation of the varieties “is in effect a declaration of independence with each separate variety representing a separate communal identity” (2011, p. 79). Each variety is claimed to be independent of the Inner Circle language, and the plural expression “Englishes” is used to emphasize the notion that there is not one universal language (with some local varieties), but rather a multitude of autonomous, geographically distinct English languages. Stemming from this point is then an articulation of the need to abandon the native norms and the establishment of non-native norms. This (Kachruvian) approach was however challenged by many linguists in the 1990s; the most notable argument against Englishes was raised by Quirk (1990). He was disquieted by the growing popularity of study and preaching about distinct varieties, which he defined as “non-institutionalized”, and stressed the importance of the distinction between formally institutionalized native varieties, comprising of American and British English, and non-native varieties. Further, he refuses the call for alternative norms claiming that the language education needs support from native teachers, and non-native English teachers need to be “in constant touch with the native language” (Quirk, p. 10). Quirk stresses the need for respect for the value of Standard English and doesn’t agree with the call for “exposure to varieties”. He sees the local varieties’ deviations from this Standard as a surrender to a lower standard. Further, he argues that English learners in the Outer Circle might be ignoring the fact that they will need to use English to communicate with its native speakers, and not only among themselves, therefore they should be aiming for “the best”, meaning Standard English.

Kachru however emphasizes the use of English among the non-native speaker groups who use it without the intervention of native speakers. The idea that the Inner Circle English is “norm-providing”, the Outer Circle is “norm-developing”, and the Expanding circle is “norm-dependent” has been widely recognized and accepted by many linguists over the period of the past twenty years. Indian English and Singapore English are now two among many other varieties referred to as World Englishes. This term incorporates both the varieties from the Inner (ENL) and Outer Circle (ESL). Kachru’s view has been shared by Smith, another notable linguist, who also recognized the needs of non-native speakers and the socio-linguistic reality of their English use:

The spread of English is not a homogenizing factor which causes cultural differences to disappear, but the use of English offers a medium to express and explain these differences. There is no desire among members of the world’s community when using English to become more like native speakers in their life style. Native speakers must realize that there are many valid varieties of English and that non-native speakers need not sounds or act like Americans, the British, or any other group of native speakers in order to be effective English users. English is being used as an international language in diplomacy, international trade, and tourism. Native speakers need as much help as non-native when using English to interact internationally. There is no room for linguistic chauvinism. (Smith, 1983)
Linguists such as Jenkins (2003) have recently been proposing that the borders of the three distinct groups are not as clear-cut as has been assumed, and that, in reality, the differences between ESL and EFL are fading. Crystal (2003) gives an example of how difficult it sometimes is to make a distinction between a first language, or native speaker, and second language, or non-native speaker, in his account of the complex socio-linguistic reality of a child born to two non-native EFL speakers who don’t share their native language, but chose to raise their child with English as its first language. Same goes for many people in the Outer Circle who regard themselves as native speakers with native intuition. The countries of Expanding Circle which haven’t been colonized by the British Empire in the history are now more and more taking part in the formation of English language. An increasing number of people in the countries of Expanding circle use English for a wide range of purposes both intra-nationally and internationally, therefore moving towards the status of ESL. This global spread of English usage over the past thirty years was not entirely anticipated.

Modiano (1999) responded to these developments of World Englishes use with a proposal of a model which takes into account the common core shared by all the groups. The proposed label for such core of features of English, which are mutually shared and comprehensible to a majority of ENL, ESL and EFL users, is English as an International Language (EIL). The non-core features are those which distinguish one language variety from another, and are not likely to be understood or used by the speakers from other varieties. This globalized international English serves for international communication, and is very difficult to define, because of its continuously changing functions, uses, and users. It is important to note the difference between the term international English as used by linguists such as Quirk to describe the need to make one of the ‘old varieties’, such as British or American English the worldwide standard. So EIL, as defined by Modiano, is a variety of English that speakers from all around the world use for personal and professional communication. Recently, scholars have decided to adopt an alternative term to differentiate between the situations which are or are not involving NS or speakers of the same native language. ELF - English as a Lingua Franca describes the phenomenon of the use of English in interactions among NNS, speakers with different native language, excluding the NS uses of the Inner circle. The term is preferred to point out that it is the non-native speakers who provide the impulses for its development (Jenkins, 2007). The process of internationalization of English naturally involves sharing of ideologies and cultures brought about by its various speakers, thus making it a multicultural phenomenon.

This phenomenon best describes the situation of English in Europe. Despite the fact that the European Union is promoting linguistic diversity with 24 official languages established for the internal purposes, English language is the most widely taught foreign language. Although there are many voices who stress the importance to learn each other’s languages, English is the safe bet if one wants to ensure being understood in most places. The learners choose to learn the language for the reason to communicate internationally. Apart from the use in the fields of business and commerce, it is now being used in a variety of new contexts, such as “a language of socialization” (Jenkins, 2003, p.38). So Euro-English is the Europe’s lingua franca. Already twenty years ago Berns announced that “Europeans make adaptations and introduce innovation that effectively de-Americanize and de-Anglicize English” (1995, p. 6-7). Therefore, Europeans are already shaping the English language to fit their purposes. Modiano (2009) presents several points to support the uniqueness of the variety used in mainland Europe, however, also comes to point that it is still too early to claim that the European English is an autonomous variety. The scholars suggest this change is yet to come as the Europeans appropriate the language for their own purposes and accept the legitimacy of ELF (Cogo & Jenkins, 2010).

Figure : EFL and ELF comparison (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 18)

The Czech Republic joined the European Union in 2004, and with this change we are exposed to various cultures and languages more than ever before. The need to learn other languages is now even greater, and so in 2013 a new policy has been introduced to safeguard the instruction of two foreign languages already during the primary education (see Research Institute of Education in Prague, 2013). The proportion of pupils in primary education learning English in the Czech Republic in 2014 was 77.3% and 100% in secondary education, which places us above the average use of English in Europe (Eurostat, 2014). The Czech Republic has been traditionally placed in the group of EFL countries as is the whole mainland Europe. But due to the prevailing use of English among non-native speakers, many scholars propose a different approach which would better accommodate their needs. As the field of study of ELF expands, we have now better understanding of how the language is used, and for what purposes. Seidlhofer (2011) therefore differentiates between two distinct approaches towards English in Europe. She proposes to make a distinction between EFL and ELF use with the following explanation. With the EFL approach, the focus is on where the language is originally from, on its native speakers, and their culture and customs. The ELF learners and users aim at to achieve ‘native-likeness’ and accept their position as the distributors of the language with “publishers in English-speaking countries acting as the main ‘distributing agents’” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p.18). This approach is an obvious choice for those users who have a certain attachment towards the English-speaking countries, perhaps through their culture, literature, friends or relatives, or they aim to study or apply for a job and eventually move to a country where English is the language spoken by a majority. ELF, on the other hand, has different objectives. It is meeting the needs of those who wish to communicate throughout various cultures in various settings, involving mainly other non-native speakers whose common language is English. To achieve a communicative goal, all participants need to accommodate their speech and expectations to the circumstances, and set a common ground. For summary of the differences of the two approaches, see the following table illustrating EFL and ELF by Seidlhofer:

The overview of the spread of English language and the emergence of new varieties serves as a base for understanding the complexity of the various settings in which English is used. Given the circumstances, we can no longer assume that there is one correct or appropriate English language. Thus we can conclude that English will continue to serve multiple purposes within the countries of Inner Circle, Outer Circle, and Expanding Circle, and especially across their borders. It is therefore only natural to make the learners aware of other varieties. The growing need for the pedagogical issues to be discussed in relation to ELF and World Englishes will be discussed next.

2.1.3Implications for teaching

The consequences of the process of English language spread as described above are now being widely addressed in the fields of applied linguistics. Since their first appearance, the theories have been drawn upon in the disciplines of linguistic geography as well as TESL and TEFL. In a paper from 1973, Allen expresses his concern for the lack of communication between researchers from these two disciplines. The aim of his paper was to point out the deficits in ESL teacher’s professional preparation. He argues, that the preparation “should produce in him not only a factual awareness of insights to be drawn from linguistic geography, but also such an informed and developed attitude toward regional variation as that awareness can instill” (p. 13-14). In this paper, written some 43 years ago, Allen was mainly concerned with the lack of courses in American English, its history, and its regional variations, because most attention had been payed to the Standard British English. He illustrates this by giving examples of generalizations, which he perceives as inaccuracies, made in language textbooks for foreign learners. One such example from a textbook is the recommended distinct pronunciation of /hɔrs/ and /howrs/ for words hoarse and horse, which Allen comments as follows:
Now it would be flattering to me and my fellow dialect speakers if all other Americans were taught to make this distinction and if all TESL students were similarly to adopt what egocentrism tells me is the correct pronunciation. But I am constrained to recognize that a good many Americans get along without distinguishing horse and hoarse, and in that recognition is the suggestion that there is little value in drilling our foreign students to distinguish them, either. (1973, p. 19)
The principles presented in the textbooks don’t account for the many variations across American regions which ESL learners are likely to encounter. Now, the same concerns were expressed again some 15 years later regarding the inclusion of World Englishes into teaching curricula. Allen’s concerns were about the inappropriate instruction of foreign students of English language who were then living in a native-English speaking country (ESL students), and therefore they needed to be presented with the language which they would come upon and use in communication in that setting. We have already established that most interactions in English in mainland Europe occur among non-native speakers from different socio-linguistic background. The context in which the language is used has changed; Canagarajah & Wurr (2011) characterize it by mobility, migration, and diversity, and thus arguing that passing on general information about the target culture and stereotype models is no longer sufficient.

Consequently, the school system should not ignore this fact and hold on to one standard, but rather embrace the multiplicity. Although there are many dissimilarities among the Englishes used in the countries of its origin and the new Englishes in the countries which acquired the language in later stages, the written language “varies remarkably little” (Svartvik & Leech, 2006, p. 194). Due to this fact, it is chiefly the accent which acts as a shibboleth of a membership to a distinct group. Many scholars have come to conclusion that to improve the learners’ ability to interact in international settings with other non-native speakers, they need to be exposed to the varieties (see, for example, Alptekin, 2002, Matsuda, 2003, Kirkpatrick, 2007).

Up to present day, not much empirical research has been done to show the results of the proposed changes to ELT curricula. One of the reasons this is the case is because there is no unity in how this should be the done. Furthermore, the prevailing biased attitudes and current testing standards such as TOEFL and IELTS are still based on native English standards, thus preventing teachers from a shift of focus. The prevailing orientation in ELT remains toward the English as a Native Language. Among the few described attempts to implement novel tasks into language instruction to expose learners to the diversity of English are the cases presented by Morrison and White (2005), and Galloway and Rose (2014).

Morrison and White presented the methods used in the Japanese Chukyo University’s new Department of World Englishes, which was aimed at developing familiarity and increasing acceptance of World Englishes with an emphasis on Japanese English. The English learners go on compulsory study tours to Singapore, Australia, England, and the USA; the authors stress the importance of exposing Japanese learners to Singapore English as another Asian variety, although their views are not unequivocally shared by other staff members. Not long ago all courses at the Department aimed at developing skills were taught by instructors from Inner Circle countries. The authors agreeably report that there are now many instructors from Outer and Expanding Circles, which is helping with recognition of more varieties. To increase their confidence, students are encouraged to make conversations among each other and record it for later analysis, which teaches them to value the interaction among non-native speakers as supposed to the previous emphasis of the interaction with native speakers. Further, in their analysis, students transcribe segments of their speech and identify the code-switching and other features of NNS-NNS speech. The textbooks used at the Department are also chosen to provide a representation of various accents and varieties. Other methods include a movie-viewing program, listening to regional radio stations and online speech accent archives.

However promising this outline of methods seems, the authors have not yet published the results of the selected methods on the learners’ acceptance of other English varieties and an increase of confidence in their own variety. A research aimed at measuring the contribution of the methods employed at the Department is yet to be conducted.

Galloway and Rose’s research aimed at examining the use of listening journals as a tool for introducing the students to the diversity of English language. They introduced a Global Englishes-oriented classroom practice at a Japanese university involving a weekly listening task and a subsequent evaluation of the recordings. These journals served both as a pedagogical method as well as a research tool. Results were drawn based on the analysis of the data extracted from the journals, as well as on the interviews as secondary data.

In the first part of the analysis, the learners’ choices of listening material were examined. The results showed that the highest number of speakers on the recordings were from the UK, Australia, and Canada, followed by a variety of Asian Englishes from Expanding Circle. The total number of selected recordings of Inner Circle speakers was 367, 186 from Outer Circle, and 459 from Expanding Circle altogether. The results showed students’ interest in listening to the varieties from their geographical area and indicated that they don’t necessarily prefer to listen to NS varieties when given the choice. Among the most frequent reasons the learners gave for their choices were familiarity, including previous contact with the variety or its speaker in various situations, such as classroom settings, and general interest in the selected variety. Students also picked those varieties which were difficult for them to understand in the past or which they are likely to encounter in the future, and indicated that they wanted to become more familiar with those to be able to engage in the situations requiring this knowledge.

In the second part, student’s reactions to the listening were examined. This, as Galloway and Rose admit, had taken turn into an account of negative attitudes towards the NNS varieties, which were contrasted mainly with American English, perceived as the norm-providing variety among the learners as well as among the majority of Japanese. The learners chose to comment on the various accents rather than on the strategies employed in the ELF interactions. The researchers conclude that the task rather supported the prevailing attitudes towards NNS varieties and the notion of the NS’ ownership of English.

In the third part, reflections on the task were discussed in a form of an interview. A changing opinion was detected among the learners regarding the NNS varieties than that described in the previous reactions. Students were questioning their previously held beliefs about the character of “standard” English, and becoming to appreciate the variation among World Englishes. They also expressed greater confidence in using English in international settings as a lingua franca with the features from their own variety.

Overall, the research showed the learners’ interest in the varieties from all three Kachru’s Circles. Galloway and Rose suggest revising the guidelines when implementing the journal method in another setting, to put more emphasis on the ELF interactions and incorporation of various speech genres rather than on separate spoken varieties, which further stimulated the negative prejudices in the learners. The final discussion with the learners proved that listening journals can be a useful method for raising learners’ awareness of the international practices of non-native English speakers, encouraging their confidence in multilingual settings, and decreasing the importance of the NS models. The authors are in agreement with the recommendations made by Jenkins (2012) for the ELT pedagogy in terms of the importance of giving learners the choice of which kind of English to learn and providing them with a variety of tasks to raise their awareness of the complex nature of the English language. As the research has hinted, only when learners are given the opportunity to make broader connections of the language they have been exposed to, and discuss their opinions, they start to express solidarity with the NNS and become aware of their own cultural identity as being part of their interaction in English. Further presentation of the sociolinguistic facts about the spread of English and the need for communicative competence over NS correctness need to be employed to meet the aims suggested by the findings in the field of sociolinguistics.

The two presented cases are among the first to apply the facts about the spread of English around the world and their implications on the teaching of English language. A further application of teaching strategies is dependent on the outcomes of the development of prescriptions for education which are still a subject for a future discussion.

Download 287.99 Kb.

Share with your friends:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11