Transcript globalisation in elt and the dilemmas facing efl educators

GLOBALISATION IN ELT AND
THE DILEMMAS
FACING EFL EDUCATORS
Ho Thi My Hau
Hue University College of Foreign Languages
OUTLINE
1. The Global Spread of English
1.1. English Around The World
1.2. Reactions to the Global Spread of English
2. The Dilemmas Facing EFL Educators
2.1. Standard variety/varieties for teaching and
learning
2.2. Cultural implications
2.3. Teaching Materials
2.4. Assessment and Testing
3. Implications
1. The Global Spread of English
1.1. English around the World

1/3 of world population speak English (nonnative speakers = 3/4 or 4/5 users of English)
(Crystal, 2008)

The vast majority of communication in English
not involve any native speakers (Graddol, 2006)
Models representing English use around the world
Kachru’s (1985) three concentric circles
The “Expanding Circle”, e.g.
China
Egypt
Indonesia
Israel
Japan
Korea
Nepal
Saudi Arabia
Taiwan
USSR
Zimbabwe
The “Outer Circle” e.g.
Bangladesh
Ghana
India
Jamaica
Kenya
Malaysia
Nigeria
Pakistan
Philippines
Singapore
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Tanzania
Zambia
The “Inner
Circle”
USA
UK
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Modiano’s (1999) centripetal circles
Learners
Proficient in
International
English
Native
and
foreign
languag
e
proficien
cy
People who do
not know English
The centripetal circles of
international English
(Modiano, 1999a, p. 25)
Yano’s (2001) cylindrical model
EFL (Japanese, etc.)
EFL (Danish, Dutch,
Swedish, etc.)
EGL
(acrolect)
ESL
(mesolect-basilect)
American variety
Indian variety
Nigerian variety
Singaporean variety
Yano (2001, p. 124)
“[k]nowing English is like possessing the fabled
Aladdin’s lamp, which permits one to open, as it
were, the linguistic gates to international
business, technology, science, and travel. In
short, English provides linguistic power.”
Kachru (1986, p. 1)
1.2. Reactions to the Global Spread of English

Concerns about linguistic imperialism (Phillipson,
1992; Pennycook, 1994; Canagarajah, 1999a, 1999b)

Reactions against the ownership of English (Cook,
1999; Seidlhofer, 1999; Alptekin, 2002)

Inequality between native and non-native English
speakers

TESOL - a “Trojan horse of globalisation” (Birch &
Lyannage, 2004)?

Suggestion of a Lingua Franca model
A lingua franca is “a mode of communication
which allows people to interact with others
without aligning themselves to ideological
positioning indicative of specific mother-tongue
speech community” (Modiano, 2001a, p. 170)
Table 1: Traditional v ELF pronunciation targets for production
Potential English
Pronunciation features
(PR)
Traditional Br-English-based
pronunciation syllabus (used for
EFL/ESL)
Lingua Franca Core (recommended for
ELF)
Consonant sounds
all 24 sounds of RP
all sounds except \\, \ð\ and [:]
Consonant clusters
all word positions
word initially, word medially
Vowel quantity (i.e. length)
long-short contrast
long-short contrast
Vowel quality*
close to the 20 sounds of RP
L2 (consistent) regional qualities plus \з:\
Weak forms*
essential for ‘naturalness’
unhelpful to intelligibility
Features of connected
speech*
Stress-timed rhythm*
all essential for ‘naturalness’
inconsequential or unhelpful
important
unnecessary/ does not exist
Word stress*
critical
unteachable/ can reduce flexibility
Pitch movement*
important for indicating attitudes
and grammar
critical
unteachable/ incorrectly linked to ‘NS’
attitudes and grammar
critical
Nuclear/ (tonic) stress
Adapted from Jenkins, 2002: 99
(Jenkins, 2005b, p. 4)
Table 2: Potential features of ELF lexicogrammar from Seidlhofer’s VOICE

non-use of third person present tense –s (as in “She look very sad”)

interchangeable use of the relative pronouns who and which (“a book who”, “a person
which”)

omission of the definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in NS English,
and insertion where they do not occur in NS English

use of an all-purpose tag question e.g. isn’t it? or no? instead of shouldn’t they? (as in
“They should arrive soon, isn’t it?”)

increasing of redundancy by adding prepositions (as in “We have to study about…”
and “can we discuss about…?”), or by increasing explicitness in e.g. ‘black colour’ (vs
‘black’) and ‘How long time?’ (vs ‘How long?’)

heavy reliance on certain verbs of high semantic generality, such as do, have, make,
put, take pluralisation of nouns which are considered uncountable in NS English (e.g.
informations, staffs, advices)

use of infinitive constructions with that-clauses, as in I want that…. (e.g. “I want that
we discuss about my dissertation”)
Adapted from Seidlhofer, 2004: 220
(Jenkins, 2005b, p. 5)
1.2. Reactions to the Global Spread of English
(cont.)

Issues relating to ELF

ELF – “a patronizing approach” (Taylor, 2006, p. 51),
“another ‘Centre-led’ definition” devised by native
speakers to lessen their feelings of guilt? (Holliday,
2005, p. 9)

ELF/EIL promoted for all learners of English 
lacking understanding of specific context

Debate by scholars  lacking teachers and learners’
voice
2. The Dilemmas Facing EFL Educators
2.1. Standard variety/varieties for teaching and learning

Native-speaker norms:

utopian and irrelevant (Cook, 1999; Rajagopalan, 1999;
Alptekin, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2003)

Native vs non-native teachers
such [native] teachers may have little or no training other than a
short preservice course, and few have experience of teacher
education. As a result, their knowledge of the language and their
teaching skills can compare badly with those gained in lengthy
university degrees by nonnative teachers.
Jenkins (2006a, p. 172)

a comfortable pedagogical model still preferred by teachers
and learners (Jenkins, 2006a; Llurda, 2004; Seidlhofer, 1999;
Taylor, 2006; Timmis, 2002; Kuo, 2006)
2.1. Standard variety/varieties for teaching and
learning (cont.)

English as a Lingua Franca

lacking pedagogical descriptive model (Kuo,
2006)

affecting international intelligibility (Petzold, 2002;
Seidlhofer, 2005)
2.2. Cultural implications

Native-speaker norms:
Cultural bias, irrelevant in international communication
(Cortazzi & Jin, 1999; McKay, 2003)

English as a Lingua Franca:

neutral, cultural free?

language taught separately from its culture?

How to communicate meaning at deep levels?
(Modiano, 2001; Alptekin, 2002; Llurda, 2004; Tarone, 2005)
2.3. Teaching Materials


based on native-speaker norms

Native-speaking contexts strange to learner’s real
life encounters

EFL teachers may become “purveyors of both
cultural and linguistic imperialism” Birch and
Liyanage (2004, p. 93)
not based on native-speaker norms:
no specific framework yet
2.4. Assessment and testing

Native-speaker norms:
Discrepancy between English used in tests and language
encountered by learners in real life situations (Hill & Parry,
1994; Davidson, 1994; House, 2003; Jenkins, 2006b)

English as a Lingua Franca:

Lacking standards for testing (Seidlhofer, 2003; Taylor,
2006)

“Reverse influence”: discrimination against non-ELF users
(Davies, 2006)
3. Implications









Raising learners and educators’ awareness
Incorporate both local and international contexts in materials
design.
Adapting existing materials
Changes in curriculum made by both experts from inside and
outside community
Reality of practice from local contexts taken into consideration
Incorporate a view of World Englishes in teacher training
courses
Real innovation in testing criteria focusing more on efficiency
than being near native
Facilitate learners’ chance to share ideas about their own
cultures
Parents should be informed of the changes in English use