This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne]
On: 26 August 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 915550314]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Language, Culture and Curriculum
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297818
Which English? Whose English? An investigation of 'non-native' teachers'
beliefs about target varieties
Tony Johnstone Younga; Steve Walsha
a
School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon
Tyne, UK
First published on: 14 May 2010
To cite this Article Young, Tony Johnstone and Walsh, Steve(2010) 'Which English? Whose English? An investigation of
'non-native' teachers' beliefs about target varieties', Language, Culture and Curriculum, 23: 2, 123 — 137, First published
on: 14 May 2010 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/07908311003797627
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07908311003797627
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Language, Culture and Curriculum
Vol. 23, No. 2, July 2010, 123– 137
Which English? Whose English? An investigation of ‘non-native’
teachers’ beliefs about target varieties
Tony Johnstone Young∗ and Steve Walsh
School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University,
Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
(Received 9 March 2009; final version received 19 March 2010)
This study explored the beliefs of ‘non-native English speaking’ teachers about the
usefulness and appropriacy of varieties such as English as an International Language
(EIL) and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), compared with native speaker varieties.
The study therefore addresses the current theoretical debate concerning ‘appropriate’
target models of English in different contexts worldwide. Participants were asked
to reflect on their experiences both as learners and as teachers of English and to
consider which variety or varieties of English they had learned, and which variety,
if any, they chose or were ‘told’ (by education authorities or curricula) to teach.
In addition, participants were asked for their views on the attractiveness and
usefulness of the different varieties, as well as their views on the nature of EIL/ELF.
Finally, we asked teachers to consider which model(s) were likely to predominate in
their teaching contexts in the future. Results indicated that teachers may work without
any clear idea of ‘which English’ was the target. Teachers also reported a pragmatic
perspective on varieties of English, with a need to believe in a ‘standard’ form of the
language, even though this does not correspond to the reality of Englishes which are
in use worldwide.
Keywords: teachers’ beliefs; language varieties; EIL; ELF; teaching and learning
1. Introduction
The notions of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) or English as an International Language
(EIL) have been with us for some time now and have been actively promoted in some
quarters, as will be seen in the following section. This focus of attention and research
can be explained, at least in part, by the need felt by many researchers and practitioners
to move away from the ‘native speaker’ (NS) and ‘non-native speaker’ (NNS) debate
and consider the ways in which English is used in everyday communication around the
world. These are noble and worthy ambitions, which certainly need to be addressed. The
variety of English which is taught lies at the very heart of the ‘what’ of English language
teaching, whether it is in an English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign
language (EFL) context. Choice of variety, whether it is conscious or not, has implications
for policy-makers, for language planning and curricula, for teacher education, for materials
∗
Corresponding author. Email: tony.young@ncl.ac.uk
ISSN 0790-8318 print/ISSN 1747-7573 online
# 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/07908311003797627
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
124
T.J. Young and S. Walsh
writers and for language assessment. The extent to which a certain variety is more or less
dominant in a particular context also has major implications for teaching and learning.
It is, then, rather surprising to note that much of the research which has been conducted
to date largely ignores what practitioners say, think or believe about varieties of English or
about ELF and EIL. For example, is ELF something that we should be teaching as a kind of
‘global variety’? Do learners and teachers need to be more conscious of the variety they
teach and the impact that might have on future users of English? Should teaching methodologies and materials take this into account? In what ways might classroom practices be
influenced by the selection of alternative ‘appropriate’ varieties of English?
Our aim in this study is to address this research gap by talking to experienced practitioners about the ‘what’ of their teaching – the variety they teach or would like to
teach and about how that relates to the variety they learnt. It is hoped that this ‘bottomup’ perspective might cast some light on the debate concerning ‘Which English?’ and
allow researchers and practitioners, especially non-native English speaker (NNES) teachers, to play a fuller part in the debate.
The paper is in five sections. In Sections 1 and 2, we review the literature on ‘models’ of
English for language learners and evaluate the current state of play concerning appropriate
varieties. We then consider how an understanding of teachers’ beliefs might impact on their
orientation towards a particular variety and influence their choice of one variety over
another. In Section 3, we outline the methodology we used, drawing on focus group and
individual interview data: we give details of the participants, explain our procedures and
discuss data collection and analysis in this study. In Section 4, we present our findings in
relation to the five main questions we asked:
.
.
.
.
.
Which variety, or varieties, of English had the teachers themselves learned?
Which variety or varieties of English do the teachers teach?
Which English would they like to teach?
What teachers understood about the nature of EIL/ELF? How attractive and useful do
they find EIL/ELF?
Which variety or varieties will be predominant in the contexts in which they work?
Finally, in Section 5, we present a discussion and our conclusions.
2.
Models for language learners
Until the early 1990s, there was little doubt which model of usage for language learners
predominated. In Europe, for example, general learner aims were typically characterised
in this way:
Until he [sic] has reached full native-like command of the foreign language, the learner [may]
be regarded as always on the way toward this full command. (van Ek, 1986, p. 95, emphasis
added)
More recently, the efficacy of a native speaker model has been increasingly put to question. For example, problems have been identified with the conceptualisation of the NS, an
idealised figure conforming only very loosely, if at all, to the actual usage of the majority of
first language (L1) speakers (Alptekin, 2002; Kramsch, 1993; Leung, Harris, & Rampton,
1997). The particular unsuitability of the English native speaker (ENS) model is also
reinforced by the fact that an increasingly small minority of users of the language are L1
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
Language, Culture and Curriculum
125
English users. Although exact figures are difficult to discern (Crystal, 2003), Graddol
(2006) estimates that there are currently around 350 million L1 speakers of English
(ENS), as opposed to over a billion NNES. He predicts that the number of NNES will
double by 2020, whereas the number of speakers of ENS will remain relatively stable.
The growth, spread and dominance of the English language across a range of domains
has implications for everyone concerned with English language education. While other
languages have more L1 speakers (Hindi, Chinese), or serve as ‘international languages’
(e.g. Spanish, French) or as a lingua franca (e.g. Swahili, Malay), no other language
approaches the dominance of English as a worldwide, international, intercultural, linguistic
phenomenon (Graddol, 2006). Currently, the majority of communication in English by
NNES learners is with other NNES, and this proportion will increase, so the norms and
usages of the ENS minority should not necessarily be the focus for what they learn. As
the English language can and will be changed by all its users, it is NNESs who will
have the main responsibility for the ways in which the language is used, maintained,
taught and learned (Gnutzmann, 2000; Jenkins, 2007a, 2007b; Seidlhofer, 2004).
The term EIL highlights its international use rather than suggesting that there is a single,
unitary international variety. The term is generally preferred by those wishing to disassociate from the alleged triumphalism of Crystal’s (1997, 2003) ‘Global English’, and it still has
wider currency than ‘World English(es)’ (Bolton, 2004; McArthur, 2001, 2002) and ELF
(Jenkins, 2000), although Jenkins (2007a) argues that this term is preferable as it can
serve as an aim for both ENS and NNES. This paper will use EIL/ELF to reflect the
former’s greater currency and the latter’s applicability to both ENS and NNES.
Seidlhofer (2004), Gnutzmann (2000), Jenkins (2007a) and other critical linguists have
outlined a case for the EIL/ELF model for teachers and learners. However, Jenkins (2007a)
concedes that to date the ENS models remain the norm in English language education
worldwide. This she blames on ‘gatekeepers’ (2007a, p. 239) such as government institutions, examination boards, universities, publishers, The British Council and other
British and American cultural – political institutions such as ‘English Only’ (the pressure
group campaigning for official status for the language in the USA) whom, she argues,
control English language policy decisions. She contends that the dominance of forces advocating the ENS model impacts on the attitudes and beliefs of ‘non-gatekeepers’ (including
NNES teachers) around the world. Jenkins (2007a) further argues that the activities of these
various gatekeepers conspire to,
promote a particular view of ‘good’ English and ‘good’ English speakers, and to have a malign
influence on teachers’ (both NNS and NS) . . . attitudes towards the English language, which in
turn lead to ‘linguistic insecurity’ among NNES teachers. (p. 246)
Despite claims that the ENS model is unsustainable, very little research has investigated
the extent to which alternate models are superseding, or will supersede, it. Seidlhofer (2003)
surveys the field and lays out a research agenda to explore this question. She notes that
research is needed on attitudes towards the global role and spread of English(es), and
into the exact nature of EIL and ELF. She also identifies pedagogy as a key area for
future research. Specifically in this regard, she identifies as a central question how EIL/
ELF (as opposed to ESL and EFL) might actually be taught.
All of these areas were addressed in the research questions for the study reported here.
Our research questions were also guided by the literature on teachers’ beliefs which, we
suggest, have a considerable impact on the ways in which varieties are selected for teaching
purposes.
126
3.
T.J. Young and S. Walsh
Teachers’ beliefs
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
For some years now, a growing body of research literature has suggested that teachers’ beliefs
directly affect both their perceptions and judgements of teaching and learning interactions in
the classroom, and the different behaviours which ensue (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Clark &
Yinger, 1987). Shavelson and Stern (1981) discuss the notion of teachers’ beliefs, reporting
on a number of studies which hypothesised that beliefs played a role in teachers’ decisions,
judgements and behaviours. Specifically, Pajares (1992) points out that teachers’ beliefs
heavily influence the ways in which they plan their lessons, the decisions they make in the
teaching process and their behaviour in the classroom. Donaghue (2003) states that teachers’
beliefs influence their acceptance and uptake of new approaches, techniques and activities.
Within second language education, teaching is viewed as a complex cognitive activity,
as noted by Borg (2003, p. 81):
. . . teachers are active, thinking decision-makers who make instructional choices by drawing on
complex practically-oriented, personalized, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge,
thoughts, and beliefs.
The importance of teachers’ beliefs has been well documented in second language
acquisition research (Borg, 1998, 1999a, 1999b; Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver, & Thwaite,
2001; Richards, 1996; Woods, 1996). In addition, research has been conducted on the
effects of teachers’ beliefs on pedagogical practice (Borg, 1998, 2003; Golombek, 1998;
Farrell, 2008; Ng & Farrell, 2003) and the instructional decisions teachers make in class
(Tillema, 2000). According to Williams and Burden (1997), teachers’ beliefs about
language learning ‘affect everything that they do in the classroom’ (pp. 56– 57), guiding
and prompting classroom actions much more strongly than the use of a particular methodology or course book. Woods (1996) points out the relationship between teachers’ belief
systems and their decision-making, whereas both Yim (1993) and Ng and Farrell (2003)
found evidence that what teachers say and do in their classrooms are governed by their
beliefs.
Breen et al. (2001, pp. 471 – 472) outlined four main reasons why studying teachers’
beliefs is necessary:
.
.
.
.
Identifying the guiding principles that teachers articulate in relation to their classroom
work can complement observational studies by enabling research to go beyond
description towards an understanding and explanation of teacher actions.
Teachers’ beliefs provide a source of experientially based professional ‘know how’
that may serve as a focus both for initial teacher education and to promote reflective
practices in ongoing teacher development.
Any educational innovation has to be accommodated within teacher’s own frameworks of teaching principles. Increased awareness of such frameworks in specific
contexts can inform curriculum policy and planning in relation to any innovation.
Conversely, beliefs may result in the emergence of new teaching principles which
produce grounded alternatives to the ‘accepted wisdom’ passed on by methodologists
who may be far removed from actual classrooms (Kumaravadivelu, 1994; Pennycook, 1994; Phillipson, 1992).
Two recent studies have investigated teachers’ beliefs about ‘NS’ and alternate models
for English language learners. Young (2007) investigated the beliefs and practices of French
(NNES), British (ENS) and American (ENS) teachers regarding models for learners of
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
Language, Culture and Curriculum
127
English as a small part of a broader investigation of the impact of intercultural communication on their work. In diary studies and focus groups in each of the three locations he
found indications that a majority of each group of teachers felt that their own model of
usage (framed in terms of phonology and lexis) was most preferred by the learners they
were working with. Interestingly, some focus group data indicated that both the British
and French participants felt that their own classroom usage conformed to some kind of
‘international’ model, although the exact nature of this model was not explored. Across
the three locations, teachers’ views of the nature of an ‘international English’ model
seemed to amount to one of two things: either a collection of different kinds of English
(of which the ‘French English’ of the French teachers, and the ‘British English’ (BrE) of
the UK teachers were, in the view of participants, examples), or a core grammar and vocabulary which could be shared by all English language users. Regarding the former case, the
main distinction between ‘Englishes’, in the view of most of the teacher participants, was in
phonological and lexical variation.
Jenkins’s (2007a) study of the attitudes and beliefs of NNES and ENS found less
support for the efficacy of EIL/ELF. Her study consisted of two recorded ‘MA sessions’
at London University where participants (all teachers) were invited to discuss Lingua
Franca Core phonology (as detailed in Jenkins, 1998) and, in the second stage of the
study, their general attitudes towards ELF. In both sessions, participants were mixed
groups of ENS and NNES. She summarises the objections she found as a dislike of the
idea of a ‘fragmentation’ of English, which, it was felt, would lead to a lowering of standards and the loss of a ‘standard’ variety as common point of reference; also ‘unnatural’
sounding learners and a lack of intelligibility between NNES. Participants did produce
some arguments in favour of ELF, including an acceptance that there is no such thing as
perfect English and that NNES speakers’ accents are an important part of their identity.
However, even though participants had been exposed to a model of ‘Lingua Franca
Core’ phonology, there was nevertheless a general feeling that ENS phonology was preferred both by the teacher participants and by the learners they worked with.
The study reported here aims to build on the work of Young (2007) and Jenkins (2007a).
We aim to broaden the focus of Young’s investigation, as his findings related to teachers’
beliefs and practices about target varieties were a relatively small part of his overall
study. Teachers’ conceptualisation of, and attitudes towards, a ‘core’ of English, or EIL/
ELF, were beyond the scope of his investigation, for example. He also does not investigate
teachers’ own learned varieties of English, or what are the varieties identified as a target in
the curricula they operationalise. We aimed to avoid any possible direct ENS input on our
data – our participants (detailed below) solely comprised NNES. Jenkins’ data are drawn
from mixed groups of ENS and NNES. Jenkins’ data mainly concerned attitudes towards
Lingua Franca Core phonology, although in her second session she did extend discussion
more onto attitudes towards ELF in general. We are also interested in teacher attitudes, but
have broadened the range of investigation to incorporate views on teachers’ own varieties
and their own professional experiences – what they taught and what they expected to teach
in the future.
4. Methodology
4.1. Participants
Twenty-six teachers from countries in Europe, Africa, and West, Southeast and East Asia
volunteered to take part in the focus groups. All were studying at the same university in
the UK for a Masters, MPhil or PhD degree in TESOL, Education, Applied Linguistics
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
128
T.J. Young and S. Walsh
or Cross Cultural Communication. All held at least the minimum qualification to teach
English language in their state education system, and all taught English in their home
countries. Post-qualification classroom experience among the participants ranged from 2
to 15 years. Ages ranged from 23 to 40 years old. All had attained a level of English at
least equivalent to an International English Language Testing System level of 6.5. Assignment to groups was for practical purposes only, to produce groups of manageable size and
to accommodate the schedules of participants. Table 1 gives full particulars of groups and
participants.
Two volunteers from each group were individually interviewed shortly after their participation in the focus groups. Interviewees were focus group participants who felt they
would like to say more about the research questions and who were available when
needed. Each individual interview lasted between 45 min and an hour. The particulars of
individual interview participants are also given in Table 1.
4.2.
Procedure
The project was conducted in three stages: participant preparation, focus groups, then individual interviews with a sample of the focus group. The researchers first asked (by email)
Table 1. Participants.
Nationality
Gender
Age
Years’ experience
Group 1
1
2a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12a
Taiwanese
Taiwanese
Taiwanese
PRC
PRC
South Korean
South Korean
Saudi Arabian
Saudi Arabian
Syrian
Thai
Turkish
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
M
25
26
25
33
27
30
31
26
26
28
23
26
2
3
2
8
4
6
6
2
2
4
2
3
Group 2
13a
14a
15
16
17
18
Saudi Arabian
Greek Cypriot
PRC
PRC
South Korean
Turkish
F
F
F
F
F
F
29
24
24
32
30
26
8
2
2
7
7
3
Group 3
19
20
21a
22a
23
24
25
26
Syrian
Vietnamese
Ukrainian
Japanese
Japanese
Iraqi
Nigerian
Libyan
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
25
31
25
32
29
33
40
39
2
5
2
9
4
11
15
15
Note: aParticipants who were also selected for individual interviews.
Language, Culture and Curriculum
129
for experienced NNES English language teacher volunteers to participate in a research
project investigating teachers’ beliefs about appropriate models of English for learners.
The email list that the volunteers were drawn from was that of the students doing relevant
postgraduate taught or postgraduate research degrees at their place of study. We specified
that participation would involve some pre-preparation, then participation in a focus
group and possible participation in individual interviews. Volunteers were asked ahead
of participation in the study to consider these questions:
Which ‘type’ of English:
.
.
.
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
.
you
you
you
you
yourself learned?
might teach in future (in your own country, perhaps)?
think it is best for people in your country to learn?
think that learners where you will teach will want to learn?
They were also asked to read a series of documents. These were contributions to The
Times Higher Education Supplement, discussing the relative merits of various types of
English. The first of these contributions was an article by Jenkins (2007b) advocating
and exploring the nature of ELF; the others were responses to this, either supportive of
or attacking her position, and EIL/ELF or ENS models in general. We specified in our
call for participants that we were interested in teachers’ views and experiences regarding
things like ‘EIL’, ‘ELF’, ‘NS’ varieties like ‘American English’ (AmE) and ‘BrE’ and
any other types of English they knew of, or had been exposed to.
For this study, focus group interviews were felt to be a suitable methodology to address
our specific research questions. Focus groups are a form of group interviewing but are distinguished by the fact that the researcher relies not on questions and answers between the
participants and the researcher, but rather on group interactions and their ensuing ideas and
insights. According to Gibbs (1997), focus groups allow researchers to access the attitudes,
feelings, beliefs, experiences and reactions of participants in ways that observations or
surveys could not.
The discussions we organised with teachers aimed to access their perspectives and their
shared understandings of their everyday professional experiences (Gibbs, 1997). Ground
rules were established that created an emotionally safe environment for discussion in
which all voices could be heard. A neutral moderator operated in each focus group, avoiding giving personal opinions that might influence participants’ comments. The moderator
ensured that all participants had an opportunity to contribute to discussion of all questions.
When everyone had had a chance to respond to a question, the discussion was moved to the
next. The sharing of ideas and discussion between participants was encouraged, and
occasionally, the moderator would ask subsidiary questions, for clarification or for
further details. The first focus group lasted for a little under two hours, the second and
third for 90 min. Each focus group was audio recorded, and the recordings were then
content analysed by the two authors of this paper.
The purpose of the follow-up individual interviews was to try to ensure that the views
expressed in groups were not unduly influenced by group pressures. Beliefs and experiences related to the five main research questions were explored in depth with individual participants. Findings from the individual interviews confirmed the general pattern of views
expressed in groups, indicating that these views were very probably genuinely held, and
they also added depth and texture to some of the opinions expressed. Focus groups and
individual interviews are therefore reported together below (in Section 5).
130
5.
T.J. Young and S. Walsh
Research findings
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
Responses to each research question (in focus groups and in individual interviews) are presented below. For each question, a table summarises the broad general responses of each
participant. Responses in each case are also discussed and presented in more detail.
5.1. Which English did you learn?
All participants in all groups and individual interviews stated that they were not aware of the
English variety they had learnt in their own country. Asked by the moderator to speculate on
which variety they think they might have been taught, almost all participants (96%) in
groups from all locations concurred that as lower level learners they had probably been
taught the ‘local variety’ (of their teachers), which was modelled as closely as possible
on ENS norms. Group 3 participants agreed that this could be characterised as ‘English
as a Foreign Language’. At more advanced levels, most teacher participants in all groups
agreed that as learners they were more aware of the differences between varieties, and
that the ‘default’ variety adopted was probably ENS, generally either ‘BrE’ or ‘AmE’
depending on materials used locally and on their teachers’ own backgrounds. Again,
however, no participant was certain that this had happened, and in no instance had any participant been informed that a particular variety was their ‘target’. Four of the individual
interviewees expressed surprise that even when undergoing teacher training, they had not
been specifically introduced to different varieties (Table 2).
There seemed to be a general trend revealed by the focus group and individual interview
data which suggested that the participants’ teachers in the different contexts they had
learned English in had targeted a ‘local variety’ at lower levels and that the target had gradually moved closer to either BrE or AmE as the learners became more advanced. For
example, we were told by the Taiwanese participants in Group 1 that the English learnt
at lower levels in high schools was ‘Taiwanese English in terms of pronunciation and
grammar’, but that American and British materials were adopted at college. A Chinese participant in Group 1 suggested that the range of varieties to which learners were exposed
increased as they became more advanced in the PRC: ‘at University we learnt lots of varieties, in secondary school BrE’. In some contexts, the variety of English that learners were
exposed to was largely dependent on local conditions and expectations. In South Korea, for
example, our Group 2 participant reported that ‘exams dictated which English is taught’,
and that as students were exposed mainly to American culture, the norms used as
models in examination materials (she specified most especially ‘the voices in listening
materials’) were AmE. Both Japanese participants in Group 3 expressed very similar views.
Some teachers in both groups commented on the inappropriacy of the models they had
been exposed to as students. For example, according to one respondent, her (Greek Cypriot)
NNES teacher simply ‘couldn’t model’, arguing that she (the teacher) was as a result ‘unintelligible to ENS’. A similar picture emerged from the female Saudi participant who
Table 2. Answers to the question, ‘Which English did you learn?’ (n ¼ 26).
EIL/ELF
AmE
BrE
Local variety
n
%
0
15
11
25
0
58
42
96
Language, Culture and Curriculum
131
claimed that her own teacher was not a good model, ‘but insisted on standard models’
and said how ‘shocked’ she (the participant) was at how little people here (in the UK) understand her.
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
5.2.
Which English are you teaching?
Most respondents (about 81%) felt, on reflection, that they were teaching something at least
approximating AmE (Table 3). However, most respondents in all groups also said they were
unclear – many comments in groups, and confirmed in all six individual interviews, were
made about the need to teach a ‘standard’ or ‘formal’ variety, which happened to conform
most closely to an ENS variety, usually, but not always AmE. In some cases, this position
was made abundantly clear: ‘standard English is BrE. Its linguistic basis is standard. AmE is
a variety’ (Turkey male). This general position vis-à-vis a ‘standard’ variety was also
adopted by other participants:
Students want FORMAL English which allows them to communicate with both ENS and
NNES. Formal means the language I have been taught (standard English) and this includes pronunciation, grammar and usage. (Cyprus)
In other instances, more tangentially, reference was made to target English which was
suited to ‘business’, ‘formality’ and ‘politeness’ (multiple comments in each group, and by
the three participants in individual interviews), in terms of pragmatics. In terms of lexis and
phonology, participants were more diverse in their definitions of ‘standard’, but in all cases
this corresponded either to a BrE or an AmE model – in no instance was anything resembling ELF, ‘ELF Core phonology’ or EIL advocated as a lexical or phonological ‘target’ in
response to this question.
Asian participants all agreed that the dominant English which was currently taught was
AmE (‘we are trained to teach AmE if students meet a lot of Americans’ (PRC); ‘many teachers were trained in the USA’ (Taiwan); and ‘Only AmE really counts in Thailand’). The
explanation given for the perceived current dominance of AmE over BrE in these contexts
was that there are more materials available and their students are exposed to AmE through
cinema and music (‘no-one on my country knows any British music, except maybe the
Beatles’ – South Korea, Group 2). Most teachers in both groups concurred that teachers
did not have the possibility of choosing which English they teach (‘Teachers do not have
the power to CHOOSE materials’ – Taiwanese female, Group 1), and the vast majority
in all groups felt that teaching materials dictated the type of English they taught: ‘students
are exposed to all kinds of ENS speech through tapes’ (Saudi Arabia). Three respondents
went so far as to say that publishers had a large stake in which English was taught, ‘OUP
[Oxford University Press, based in Oxford, UK] are more dominant in Turkey, therefore
BrE is taught more widely’ (Turkish male, Group 1), whereas the Taiwanese and Japanese
Table 3. Answers to the question, ‘Which English are you teaching?’ (n ¼ 26).
EIL/ELF
AmE
BrE
Local variety
n
%
0
21
4
1
0
81
15
4
132
T.J. Young and S. Walsh
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
participants felt that American publishers dominated their local market. No teachers were
aware of their governments’ policies on models presented in published teaching materials,
although both the PRC and the Taiwanese participants did note an increasing emphasis in
government policy on ‘communication’ and ‘speaking’, a trend also commented on by the
Saudi and Japanese participants in individual interviews.
5.3. Which English would they like to teach?
All of the teacher participants in all groups expressed an overwhelming need for a ‘standard’ in response to this question. It was also a view strongly expressed by five of the
six individual interviewees. The groups were asked if this was because of any attitude of
theirs towards any particular variety, but no teacher in any group or individual interview
agreed that this was the case. Instead, the participants gave very pragmatic reasons for
this position. A strong justification, most felt, was perceived learner needs and expectations
which teachers would need to address. Specific examples given included instances (e.g. in
Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Nigeria, Libya or South Korea) of learners who would have a lot of
future contact with an ENS variety, for example, through participation in higher education
in the USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand or Australia, or through future employment. Participants also felt that learner attitudes towards varieties were important. For example,
the Turkish female in Group 2 believed that the learners she worked with perceived
AmE as ‘modern and practical’, a view shared by teachers from Taiwan, Syria, Cyprus
and Thailand. Some changes in attitude had also been noted recently. For example,
young men in Saudi Arabia and Iraq were becoming, it was reported by the Saudi
female participant in Group 2 and by the Iraqi participant in Group 3, more anti-American,
but interestingly this has not yet led to a discernible lessening of learner ‘demand’ for AmE.
The Saudi male respondent was critical of ENS modelling but argued that this is not a
problem in an ‘academic environment’, a point agreed with by others in the focus group
(Table 4).
Some implicit beliefs about varieties were reported by teachers in both focus groups and
individual interviews. Some respondents (from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and the PRC)
felt that BrE had high prestige and status in certain domains: in Turkey, this was felt principally ‘among academics’, whereas in other countries, it was a perception shared by the
general population who were aware of different varieties (‘a small minority’ – Saudi
Arabian male). Some participants were even more explicit in their positive attitude
towards ENS varieties. A Korean participant reported, for example, that ‘most Koreans
dream to be an NS’, a view endorsed by the Thai participant. Others in all the groups
expressed no view which revealed personal preference based on attitude, but focussed
instead on preference based on the perceived practicality and utility of the variety. A
South Korean participant said, ‘we focus on meaning, not on pronunciation or type of
English’, and this was a view which both groups accepted was an accurate description of
Table 4.
Answers to the question, ‘Which English would you like to teach?’ (n ¼ 26).
EIL/ELF
AmE
BrE
Local variety
n
%
1
22
4
3
4
84
15
12
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
Language, Culture and Curriculum
133
their own approaches. Both the Turkish and the PRC teacher participants said that ‘mutuality’ or ‘mutual understanding’ is what counts, stressing the need for comprehensibility and
clarity beyond any specific preference. Again, this was a view unanimously endorsed by
participants in both groups.
All participants reported that clarity and comprehensibility were especially important to
lower level learners, a large majority in all cases. When pressed on whether any particular
variety was likely to be more, or less, clear to them and to the learners they worked with,
most felt that ENS models were more appropriate. This was justified by a belief, expressed
or endorsed by most, that an ENS variety, especially AmE, was ‘the most widely understood by the majority of people’ (Turkey). Consequently, such a variety had the most currency and utility. One dissenting voice in this regard was the Japanese female’s. She argued
(in both Group 3 and in an individual interview) that ELF at least had the potential to be
understood by more people than ENS varieties. She also expressed a view that ‘standard’
English, especially if based on ENS models, was problematic; ‘It is better to be real than
standard’.
5.4.
What is EIL/ELF and how useful and attractive is it?
A large majority of participants in all groups and individual interviews found the idea of
‘EIL’ or ‘ELF’ conceptually attractive. They noted that the English spoken in the UK,
USA or other ‘ENS’ environments is not a unitary entity, and that ELF at least was, or
at least purported to be. However, even among this majority, only one participant said
she would teach EIL or ELF. Most participants agreed that this was because most learners
did not know what it was. The minority who did not find EIL or ELF attractive in all of the
groups agreed that they were unclear as to the nature of EIL or ELF. Among these participants, definitions were mostly negative: ‘broken’, ‘simplified’, ‘not standard’ were typical:
one (Saudi male) participant felt that, ‘It is ok for ordering drinks on holiday maybe, but not
for doing business’. Where a more positive view was expressed, this was not explicitly
about the role of EIL/ELF in resisting ENS countries’ socio-political hegemony, but was
generally linked more clearly to a perceived increasing valorisation of local varieties,
most especially by participants from European countries (Greek English, Turkish
English). A view was expressed that ‘EIL’ may be a way of allowing these varieties to
‘speak to each other’ (Cyprus). The Nigerian participant in Group 3 reported that ‘local’
varieties of English in her country were actually stigmatised and ‘looked down on’, but
stressed that ENS varieties had prestige, rather than EIL/ELF. Of all the participants,
only the Japanese female (Group 3) felt that she would be able to teach EIL/ELF as it
stood, although she also felt that she would have to ‘persuade’ learners of its usefulness
(Table 5).
On the whole, views were at best ambivalent. Although participants agreed that the preparatory reading had given them a good, general understanding of what EIL and ELF actually
were conceptually, almost all remained unclear about their specific content, lexis and pronunciation for classroom modelling, despite being introduced through the reading to Jenkins’
Table 5. Positive answers to questions about beliefs about EIL/ELF (n ¼ 26).
Interesting as a concept?
Useful for classroom modelling?
n
%
19
1
73
4
134
T.J. Young and S. Walsh
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
(2000, 2007a, 2007b) model of ELF. A South Korean participant noted that ELF had a core
vocabulary and pronunciation, but asked ‘whose vocabulary, whose pronunciation?’. Other
comments included ‘it needs more work’ (Turkish female), ‘learners need a REAL target,
not a made-up one’ (Taiwanese female). All participants expressed an interest in the idea
as a concept, with the Japanese female participant being especially interested in EIL/ELF,
at a conceptual level and in ‘the real world’. However, to a greater or lesser degree, the
vast majority of participants in groups, and individually, expressed a belief that they would
find the operationalisation of this concept in their own teaching to be problematic.
5.5. Which variety do they expect to teach in future?
All participants expressed a view that they would be teaching AmE. All felt that the influence of AmE was growing in their local contexts, and many specific examples were provided. In Taiwan and Japan, the recruitment of AmE speaking ‘experts’ to teach English
in colleges and universities was a growing, and (according to the Taiwanese participants
in group 1) apparently unresented, phenomenon. All the East and Southeast Asian participants agreed that AmE publishers and language teaching organisations seemed to be more
influential as they broke into new markets. They felt that this growing dominance was in
line with learners’ perceived needs and preferences, although it was agreed these were
not always expressed by the learners themselves and had never been empirically tested
in any of their working contexts, to their knowledge. The growth of AmE was either supported by government policy (Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand), or at least acknowledged by
governments (PRC, Vietnam, Japan). Asked why they were studying in a UK university if
AmE was ‘the wave of the future’, a South Korean participant replied that the local variety
did not matter, either to them or to their government, ‘just as long as it is NS’ (Table 6).
The male Turkish participant noted that he might teach BrE if he were working in ‘a
prestige environment, like a university’, but felt that in most other educational contexts
he was more likely to teach AmE. The Cypriot, Ukrainian and the Saudi participants felt
that they would not be expected to teach a particular variety. All agreed that ENS was
not a ‘target’ for learners, but that some of the younger people they taught wanted to
sound American ‘to be cool’ (Saudi female). The issue was more about these learners integrating into their peer group than about EIL or AmE, she felt. This point was expanded on
by the Group 2 participants. All the other Group 2 participants agreed that in their local
context (in this instance the PRC, South Korea, Greek Cyprus and Turkey), where
younger learners (in their discussion this referred to teenagers and young adults) seemed
to show a preference, it was for AmE. Participants agreed that the presumed motivation
for this preference was peer group integration based on the perceived ‘coolness’ of
AmE. The situation in their countries was, participants in both groups concurred,
dynamic, changing and influenced by politics. The Saudi male felt that ‘a third of my
Table 6. Answers to the question, ‘Which variety will you teach in
future?’ (n ¼ 26).
EIL/ELF
AmE
BrE
Local variety
n
%
4
26
5
0
15
100
18
0
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
Language, Culture and Curriculum
135
nation speaks EIL’ – referring to the people from India and Pakistan who are visiting
workers in Saudi Arabia – ‘maybe this will be more attractive to the young, what with
Iraq and other politics’. All teachers in all groups and individual interviews stressed that
they expected to teach more ‘communicative’ English in future. Which variety (or
accent) mattered less to them than having a standard which they could teach to. Most of
those who expressed a view said that it was important to make higher level learners (a
small minority in all cases) aware of different varieties. For most learners, the issue was
at best peripheral. Their future teaching would not, they felt, be strongly influenced by questions of modelling, but where it was – that for pragmatic and practical purposes this would
mean that examples for learners would be drawn from an AmE sociolinguistic and sociocultural milieu. The only support for EIL/ELF modelling in future came from the Turkish
male and female, and the Cypriot participants. They felt that in the long term, with European Union support, an type of ‘Euro English’ (Cyprus) might become an/the official
language of the institution.
6.
Discussion and conclusions
This study investigated the interface between theoretical academic notions about which
variety ‘should be taught’, and the response of educational practitioners in terms of their
beliefs about, attitudes towards and knowledge of the applicability of different varieties
of English. An interesting insight into the realities of teachers’ professional lives and
their orientations towards the language they work with emerged. There was also, in most
instances, a striking unanimity of beliefs and experiences which transcended national
borders. Specifically, none of the 26 participants had been aware as learners of which
variety they themselves were learning. In retrospect, they felt that a ‘local’ English had
been modelled at their schools, aimed as closely as possible at ENS norms. At college,
they had all had more access to ‘authentic’ ENS models, either BrE or (more usually, in
the majority of cases) AmE. A large majority initially said they were unsure which
variety they were currently teaching; when pressed the majority agreed that they were
teaching a ‘standard’ based as closely as possible on ENS, AmE in the majority of cases.
There was a uniform and unanimous agreement that they taught some kind of ‘standard’,
and that, given a choice, they would want to teach a ‘standard’ which would conform at
some level to ENS norms. This was despite the fact that a majority – 19 out of 26 –
found EIL/ELF conceptually attractive. This seemed to be most clearly related to the fact
that no participant was clear about the exact nature of EIL, ELF or any other ‘NNES’
variety. AmE was seen by all our Asian participants as having an increasing importance
in their local context. The six non-Asian participants all, to a greater or lesser extent, concurred with an idea of a ‘standard’ AmE as being of increasing influence.
Thus, the main findings do not support the concept of EIL/ELF which is currently being
advocated in some quarters. Rather, most teacher participants adopted what they felt to be a
very practical and pragmatic perspective on varieties of English, suggesting a need to
believe in a ‘standard’ form of the language. This perspective was upheld even when participants acknowledged that it does not really correspond to the reality of Englishes which
are in use worldwide.
Interestingly, no teacher participant showed any resentment whatsoever of their ‘NNES
status’ and did not appear to experience a threat to their professional identities given that
they might be categorised as ‘outsiders’ teaching other peoples’ language. Instead, their
concerns related much more to local circumstances and the practicalities of their local
context, including, for example, the extent to which publishers determine local varieties
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
136
T.J. Young and S. Walsh
for teaching purposes. Beyond publishers, however, no specific ENS ‘gatekeepers’ were
cited as influences on target models in any location. Any comments on learner needs
emphasised the fact that needs are not negotiated; instead, teachers are concerned to
focus more on clarity and utility: the extent to which learners are able to use the language
for very practical purposes, such as employment, or surviving in a foreign higher education
(HE) context.
In terms of the debate relating to EIL/ELF, for teachers in this study, this seems to be
something of a side issue. Most were unsure of what variety they themselves had learnt
and were relatively unconcerned about target models in either practical or socio-political
terms. Any comments made about future ‘models’ of English highlighted the importance
of AmE over other varieties. It was felt that the former was more accessible, had more
‘youth’ appeal and greater currency than, for example, BrE. However, a European perspective (admittedly from a very small sample) did perhaps suggest that there might be some
kind of ‘European English variety’ which would arise in the future. What remains clear
from this small-scale study is that most participants are more concerned with ways of selecting, adapting and exploiting a variety which is appropriate to their local context than with
issues around the usefulness or appropriacy of EIL/ELF. The implication for future research
is clear: understandings of ‘which English’ and ‘whose English’ should be related closely to
developing an understanding of local contexts in the first instance. Global realisations of
EIL/ELF will only emerge from fine-grained, ‘up-close’ understandings of local contexts
achieved by and for key participants: the teachers and learners who constitute that context.
References
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1),
57–64.
Bolton, K. (2004). World Englishes. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied
linguistics (pp. 367–396). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(1), 9–38.
Borg, S. (1999a). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53(3), 157–167.
Borg, S. (1999b). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A qualitative
study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 95–126.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109.
Breen, M.P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language
teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470–501.
Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
Clark, C., & Yinger, R. (1987). Exploring teacher thinking. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teacher planning
(pp. 57–71). London: Cassell.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopaedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donaghue, H. (2003). An instrument to elicit teachers’ beliefs and assumptions. ELT Journal, 57(4),
344–351.
Farrell, T.S. (2008). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London: Continuum.
Gibbs, A. (1997). Focus groups. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/
SRU19.html
Gnutzmann, C. (2000). Lingua franca. In M. Byram (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopaedia of language
teaching and learning (pp. 356–359). London: Routledge.
Golombek, P.R. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(3), 447–464.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next? London: British Council.
Downloaded By: [University of Newcastle upon Tyne] At: 09:01 26 August 2010
Language, Culture and Curriculum
137
Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language?
ELT Journal, 52(2), 119–126.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2007a). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Applied Linguistics Series.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2007b, September 7). Lashed by the mother tongue. Times Higher Education Supplement.
Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=
26&storycode=310394
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). Maximising learning potential in the communicative classroom. English
Language Teaching Journal, 47(1), 12–21.
Leung, C., Harris, R., & Rampton, B. (1997). The idealized native speaker, reified ethnicities and
classroom realities. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 543–560.
McArthur, T. (2001). World English and world Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties and standards.
Language Teaching, 34(1), 1–20.
McArthur, T. (2002). The Oxford guide to world English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ng, J., & Farrell, T.S.C. (2003). Do teachers’ beliefs of grammar teaching match their classroom
practices? TESL-EJ, 9(2), 234–256.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London:
Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. (1996). Teachers’ maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 30(2), 281–296.
Seidlhofer, B. (2003). A concept of international English and related issues: From ‘real English’ to
‘realistic English’. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–239.
Shavelson, R.J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical judgements, decisions, and
behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498.
Tillema, H. (2000). Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers: Immersion in
practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5 –6), 575–591.
van Ek, J.A. (1986). Objectives for foreign language learning: Volume 1, scope. Strasbourg, France:
Council of Europe.
Williams, M., & Burden, R.L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yim, L.W. (1993). Relating teachers’ perceptions of the place of grammar to their teaching practices.
Unpublished Master’s thesis, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Young, T.J. (2007). Intercultural communicative competence and the teaching and learning of
English as a foreign language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of London, UK.