What kind of English do you speak? The construction
and use of ideas about English as an international
language
Abstract
What is 'English as an International Language' (EIL)? What might EIL imply
for internationalisation and assessment in UK Higher Education?
An
assessment brief that required International and UK students to work together
is described. Interview data collected by students for their assessments is
analysed for possible answers to these questions.
Rachel Wicaksono, Senior Lecturer, York St John University, Lord Mayor’s
Walk, York, YO31 7EX.
r.wicaksono@yorksj.ac.uk
This project is supported by funding from the HEA Languages, Linguistics and
Area Studies Action Research Programme.
Introduction
In a report on the continuing growth in the use of English for international
communication, Graddol (2006) suggests that the proportion of interactions in
English that involve a ‘native speaker’ of English, to those that do not, is in
decline. In this study, I consider the nature of English as an international
language (EIL), examine some student-student interaction data for insights
into the construction of ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speaker identities, and
suggest what some of the implications of EIL might be for UK Higher
Education.
English as an international language
In January 2008, the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on a visit to India,
made the generous offer of a ‘new gift’ to the Indian people – the English
language. He suggested that benefits for the recipients would include
increased business and access to global knowledge, as well as improved
progress and respect for other nations and cultures. Disrespect, lack of
technological progress, economic troubles within, not to mention between,
English speaking countries were glossed over. That English has been part of
multilingual India for generations was not explored1 and significantly, for this
study, the ‘gift’ was predicated on the belief that English is something Britain
owns. Giving English, Brown implied, is a way Britain can help, ‘anyone 1
For discussion of the two hundred year history of English in South Asia, see Gargesh
(2006).
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 1
July 3, 2008
however impoverished and however far away’ (Brown 2008). For this speech
to be made in good faith, the speaker needs to believe that: English is a
‘thing’, English belongs to Britain, the recipients do not already have English
in sufficient degree or quality, the gift is offered unconditionally2, and the
recipients will be helped by the gift. Of these five assumptions underpinning
Brown’s speech, I will briefly consider two, the idea of the ‘thingness’ of
language and the ownership of English.
On the first question, linguists have observed that speakers of all languages,
have different vocabularies, depending on the communities they belong
to (age, residence, job, hobby, religion, ethnicity, clubs, etc). What
(expert) listeners understand changes with their community
membership (and their role in the conversation) (Clark 1997, 579 - 81).
Languages do not have a core, a default version, a monolithic lexicon;
instead, there are alternative modes of expression, between which speakers
of the language switch, depending on the context in which they find
themselves. Hall (2005: 252) says,
The assumption of a default, ‘accent-free’, version of each language is
one of our most powerful linguistic beliefs…the judgements involved
are not linguistic at all, but social.
So, how do speakers of English, who may be using varieties that are
geographically disparate, communicate? Canagarajah (2007: 923) suggests
that recent studies of lingua franca English reveal,
…what multilingual communities have known all along: language
learning and language use succeed through performance strategies,
situational resources, and social negotiations in fluid communicative
contexts. Proficiency is therefore practice-based, adaptive and
emergent.
This is not the stripped down, simplified variety of English that proponents of a
‘World Standard Spoken English’ seem to suggest (Crystal 1997, Melchers &
Shaw 2003). Instead, it is a theory of language in which understanding is
created between willing subjects, in real time and in specific contexts.
Describing lingua franca English, Canagarajah says,
The speakers are able to monitor each other’s language proficiency to
determine mutually the appropriate grammar, lexical range and
pragmatic conventions that would ensure intelligibility. (Canagarajah
2007: 925)
2
Sociolinguists and critical discourse analysts have argued that the spread of English was
(and is?) linked to the agendas of both the multinational business community and/or to the
language policy planning of national (UK and US) governments (Kramsch 2005, Phillipson
1992, Brut-Griffler 2002).
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 2
July 3, 2008
Language as a ‘thing’ that can be owned by its ‘native speakers’ becomes an
idea impossible to defend when there is no ‘thing’ to own. Why then, as
Holliday (2006) acknowledges, is belief in the ‘native speaker’ such a
widespread and enduring one? Braine (1999: xv), citing Kramsch (1997:
363), suggests that,
…native speakership is neither a privilege of birth nor of education, but
“acceptance by the group that created the distinction between native
and nonnative speakers”.
To identify as a ‘native speaker’ is to claim membership of a group; it is an act
of claiming an identity that may, or may not, coincide with place of birth,
language of education, ethnicity or class. For English monolinguals this may
seem like an over-complicating of the concept. But for members of
multilingual communities these partially overlapping identities are a matter of
everyday life. An ethnically Javanese child born in East Java may use
Javanese at home (one of the three different levels, depending on the social
distance between interactants and the formality of the situation), Indonesian at
school and Arabic at Friday prayers. At home and with school friends some
English might be mixed in, especially when the conversation concerns English
language music, TV shows or films. The ethnically Chinese child next door
will have a different language mixture, as will the child born in West Java.
The child’s grandparents may use Dutch occasionally. Almost certainly, the
mix of languages the child speaks will be different from that of her parents.
Kramsch suggests (above) that claiming native speaker identity gains us entry
into the native speaker club. Why we might want to join is obvious; we
become ‘owners’ of a powerful thing, a thing we may ‘gift’ to people outside
the group (see Brown) either because we are unselfish, generous people or
because we reinforce our power by giving, and/or because ‘giving’ actually
means ‘selling’. In positioning myself as a native speaker I have benefited
socially, financially and in terms of self esteem (I unselfishly ‘helped’ as a
Voluntary Services Overseas English language teacher in East Java). My
students in Indonesia used their money to access what they (and many
others) considered a high status means of communication; a ‘means’ that they
added to their existing mix of languages. That my students may have
benefited from adding to their linguistic repertoire, and that I benefited
financially from teaching English does not, however, guarantee that speaking
English means being able to communicate with speakers of other varieties of
English.
Graddol, in the report on English for international communication I quoted at
the beginning of this study, makes a similar comment,
Research is also beginning to show how bad some native speakers are
at using English for international communication. It may be that
elements of an [English as a lingua franca] syllabus could usefully be
taught within a mother tongue curriculum. (Graddol 2006: 87)
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 3
July 3, 2008
In this study I am interested in observing how extremely powerful and
enduring categories are created and contested in interaction. Although I treat
‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ as hybrid and fluid categories, I also
acknowledge how their creation both reflects and creates the wider social
order in which the interactants participate.
Data collection
My study uses recorded data collected by third year students on an
undergraduate ‘TESOL and Language Studies’ module and students on a
pre-undergraduate International Foundation Programme. The design of the
assessment for both modules required the students to interview each other (in
international-UK pairs) and then use their interview data in an assessed task.
The UK students wrote two lesson plans for the Foundation students and a
report explaining their choice of approach. The International students wrote a
report on the UK students’ attitudes to English and experience of learning and
teaching languages.
Twenty-four recordings of semi-structured interviews were submitted. Seven
of these interviews were transcribed, using the code in appendix two. In this
presentation I use a short extract from an interview between Kate, from the
UK and Tom, from China.
Data analysis
The interpretation of my data is based on the theory of language and methods
used in conversation analysis. Citing Sacks (1972), Schegloff stresses the
importance for conversation analysts of understanding, not only the
descriptive (in)adequacy of categories such as ‘native speaker’, but also how
their relevance to a specific conversation is constructed (and resisted). He
proposes that the details of an occurrence of talk be used to demonstrate,
‘how the parties are embodying for one another the relevance of the
interaction and are thereby producing the social structure’ (italics in the
original, 1999: 113). Schegloff’s call for analysis of talk-in-interaction is not
just a methodological tip for conscientious researchers, it is also a theoretical
claim; a claim for the central role of conversation in the construction,
maintenance and resistance of our social environment. In the tradition of
conversation analysis, I focussed on the functions of utterances (for example,
words, chunks of language, laughter and gaps in the flow of talk) and how the
sequencing of these utterances made particular identities relevant in the
interviews I analysed.
Findings
In this section, using a short extract3 from one of the interviews, I show how
‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ identities are co-constructed and
3
See appendix 1 for a full transcript.
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 4
July 3, 2008
contested by the interactants. The conversation mainly focuses on the
Foundation student’s (Tom) learning history and his ‘difficulties’ with English.
The third year student (Kate) supplies explanations for these difficulties, which
are contested by the Tom.
In the extract Kate uses the story of Tom’s English language learning to set
the scene for a diagnosis of his ‘needs’. She initiates the topic in line 24, with
the question, ‘Ok, so did you learn English at school?’ In line 43 she initiates
a new topic, ‘your difficulties’. This new topic is connected with the old topic
by the use of the same verb form: past simple, ‘started’ and ‘did’. Having
positioned Tom as a language learner from the beginning of the interview,
Kate uses his ‘non-native speaker’ identity to suggest that he may have (had)
difficulties with English. If he accepts that he has (had) difficulties, she may
be able to suggest to him (and to her examiner) that Tom has ‘needs’,
legitimising the ‘needs analysis’ interview and providing her with a justification
for her choice of assessed lesson plan aims. Tom’s understanding and
acceptance of his ‘non-native speaker’ identity is crucial to Kate, if she is to
conduct a successful interview.
Tom is generally willing and able to co-construct his ‘non-native speaker’
identity with Kate. This is achieved in at least three ways: the introduction of
topics, question and answer sequences, and the collaborative search for
words and explanations. An example of a joint word search can be seen in
lines (lines 52 – 59), where Kate supplies ‘Australia’ and ‘Ireland’. She
positions herself as the person in control of the structure of interaction and the
provider of ‘correct’ knowledge. However, Tom is less willing to accept Kate’s
suggestions when she explains his language difficulties. In line 60, Kate
suggests why Tom had difficulty understanding his Australian and Irish tutors
in China, saying that they had ‘strong accents’. Kate is in the third year of a
linguistics degree, but here offers a non-linguistic explanation for the difficulty
Tom had with listening. Her explanation puts the ‘blame’ for the difficulty on
the pronunciation of the tutors, rather than in Tom’s listening skills, or his
familiarity with Australian/Irish accents, or his attitudes to these accents and
the people he believes them to represent. She makes use of the folk belief
that some accents are inherently stronger than others, and that certain groups
of speakers are accent-free. Kate’s explanation for Tom’s inability to
communicate effectively with his tutors is expressed as a feature of the tutors’
variety of English. Perhaps Kate is aiming to maintain a positive relationship
with Tom by blaming his difficulties on interactants that are not present!
Tom initially accepts Kate’s explanation by repeating her phrase ‘strong
accent’; adding further emphasis, ‘very strong accent’ (line 61). He signals
the continuation of his turn with the connecting word ‘and’ (line 61), beginning
a description of the experience of arriving in the UK for the first time.
Maintaining his turn (the longest in this excerpt) with a second use of ‘and’,
Tom moves away from the nationality-based explanation for his problems with
listening, introducing the new explanatory category of ‘youth’. He elaborates
on the specific qualities of speakers in this category, suggesting that they
speak quickly and with a non-standard accent (‘not average’, line 65), do not
emphasise key words or respect word juncture. In distancing himself from
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 5
July 3, 2008
Kate’s single variable (national accent) and adding a more nuanced set of
variables, Tom modifies Kate’s explanation. He carries on with his turn, but is
interrupted in line 67 by Kate who changes the subject and re-introduces the
sub-topic of grammar. His contestation/modification goes unremarked by
Kate.
The second explanation that Kate puts forward is for Tom’s difficulty with
English grammar. She asks (lines 67 – 68) if the reason for the difficulty is
that Chinese is ‘so different’ from English. Tom initially says, ‘yes, different’
(line 69) and is immediately followed by an emphatic re-statement by Kate,
‘TOTALLY different’ (line 70). Tom hesitates and then provides three
modifications of the explanation they seemed to have just agreed upon,
saying (line 71),
1
2
3
not really
s-some
ha-half-half
Kate overlaps with Tom’s turn, showing her acceptance of his modification by
rephrasing his idea, twice (line 72),
1
2
some things are similar
half and half
Again, as with Tom’s earlier attempt to contest by modifying the ‘strong
accent’ explanation, Kate abandons the topic with exactly the same words,
‘ok, so’ with fall-rise intonation on ‘ok’, (line 73).
In lines 73 – 74, Kate says, ‘so grammar (.) quite difficult and listening quite
difficult and many pronunciations? (.)’. In a study of ‘native-speaker’ teacher
talk, Chaudron (1988) found the following four characteristics: simpler
vocabulary and an avoidance of idiomatic phrases; simpler grammar,
including shorter utterances and an increased use of the present tense;
slower, clearer speech; and increased use of language considered ‘standard’.
Kate links three short phrases with the connector ‘and’; she pauses after the
first clause and keeps her grammar ‘simple’ by repeating the same syntax, ‘x
quite difficult’ twice as well as omitting all verbs. The final phrase, ‘many
pronunciations?’ is ‘foreigner talk’, which acts as a strong claim on the ‘native
speaker’ identity available to her in the interview.
At the end of this excerpt Kate sums up her understanding of Tom’s English
language learning needs (lines 73 – 75) providing four opportunities for Tom
to supply confirmation of her analysis,
1
2
3
4
so grammar (.)
quite difficult and listening quite difficult and many pronunciations? (.)
possibly or not
will you ok with that?
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 6
July 3, 2008
Tom does not take the floor at any of the opportunities Kate provides, until
she asks him directly whether he can confirm her summary. Tom hesitates
and says, ‘I’m not sure’ (line 76). Despite having taken up the powerful
position of ‘native speaker’ in the interaction, Kate finds that she is not in
control of the outcome of this section of talk.
In positioning each other as native speakers and non-native speakers, Tom
and Kate create a framework that allows the interaction to proceed. They act
out the identities that mean Kate gets information from Tom for her assessed
lesson plans. Tom cooperates in the way that perhaps he hopes she will too,
when it comes to his turn to ask questions. At the same time, Tom uses his
experience of learning English in a variety of contexts, with a variety of
English speakers, to modify Kate’s explanations.
Implications for assessment and ‘internationalisation’
In a study of job interview conversations between white British interviewers
and South Asian interviewees, Gumperz concludes that people are generally
not aware of how they communicate, so although misunderstandings often
occur (intra- as well as inter-group), the speakers may not even be aware that
there is a problem. Gumperz’s suggested solution is to raise awareness of
the ways in which conversations are created step by step, as meaning is
jointly negotiated (see also Clark 2001: 2744). His practical suggestions
include recording conversations, and observing and discussing where things
have gone wrong (Gumperz 1979: 274 – 275). Richards, in an introduction to
a collection of chapters applying conversation analysis to real world problems,
makes a similar suggestion,
By thinking in terms of raising awareness, directing attention, developing
sensitivity, challenging assumptions, etc., [conversation analysis] can
[help] professionals to deepen their understanding and develop new
competencies.” (Richards 2007: 5-6)
For both British and ‘international’ students at UK universities (and
elsewhere?) mixed nationality/language assessments can create a need for
interaction and provide an opportunity to practise paying attention and
negotiating meaning. Recording, jointly transcribing, discussing how meaning
is achieved and what identities are claimed could form part of an assessed
task. As Graddol points out, this kind of practice may be most beneficial for
UK monolingual students.
A less optimistic account of the consequences of beliefs in categories like
‘native’ and ‘non native speaker’ is provided by McDermott and Gospodinoff
(1979) who suggest that assuming that people from different groups will
miscommunicate because they are ‘naturally’ different means that,
…it is not necessary to show how people develop vested interests in
being different from one another… without such vested interests being
created from one moment to the next, people usually develop
metacommunicative procedures for altering their communicative codes
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 7
July 3, 2008
in order to make sense of each other. When communicative
differences become irremedial, it is because there are sound political or
economic reasons for their being so. (1979: 277)
This brings us neatly back to Kate’s creation of a native speaker identity for
herself in order to complete her assessed task. And to Gordon Brown and his
‘sound’ (that is, self-serving, though ultimately self-defeating) political and
economic reasons for constructing Britain as the owner of English. If British
universities also have ‘sound’ economic reasons for the creation of a ‘nonnative speaker’ (or similar) category, what are the chances of a re-orientation
that will avoid the self-defeat of conflating one variety of English with English
as an international language? For the sake of further symmetry, the last word
belongs to Tom, the multilingual speaker of English as an international
language, ‘I’m not sure.’
References
Braine, G. (1999). Non-native educators in English language teaching.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Brown, G. (2008). English - The World's language. 2008 speeches. Available
online at: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14289.asp [last accessed 6/6/08]
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities,
and language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91(focus
issue), 923-939.
Clark, H. H. (1997). Dogmas of understanding. Discourse Processes, 23,
567-598.
Clark, H. H. (2001). Conversation. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.)
International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
London: Elsevier.
Gargesh, R. (2006). South Asian Englishes. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C.
L. Nelson (Eds.) The handbook of world Englishes (Blackwell
Handbooks in Linguistics). Oxford: Blackwell.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. British Council. Available online at:
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-research-english-next.pdf [last accessed
6/6/08]
Hall, C. J. (2005). An introduction to language and linguistics: breaking the
language spell. London: Continuum.
Jenkins, J (2007), English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y. & Nelson, C. L. (eds) (2006). The handbook of
World Englishes. Oxford: Blackwell.
Richards, K. (2007). Introduction. In K. Richards and P. Seedhouse (Eds.)
Applying Conversation Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In another context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin
(Eds.) Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1999). Talk and social structure. In A. Jaworski & N.
Coupland) (Eds.) The discourse reader. London: Routledge.
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 8
July 3, 2008
Appendix 1
____________________________________________________________________________
Interview between Kate (UK) and Tom (China), lines 43-76 of 336
_____________________________________________________________________________
43
Kate: =so maybe when you perhaps 6,7 then when you first started
44
learning English?(4.1)did you find it difficult learning
45
English?
46
Tom:
47
Kate: OK, is that the only thing that you find hard?
48
Tom:
49
Kate: Listening, yeah?(.) What do you find hard about listening?
50
Tom:
51
(.)I think is grammar
en(.)I think grammar and listening listening
en because en well en China my my tutor was (.)was a a(.) was
was(.)a
foreign people came
52
Kate: [sh-whi-in-en]
53
Tom:
54
Kate: =Australia or Austral?=
55
Tom:
56
Kate: =Australia?
57
Tom:
58
Kate: Ireland?
59
Tom:
60
Kate: =So they have quite strong accent.
61
Tom:
62
[Austra]-Austral=
=Australia=
Yeah, And another one came from(.) another one came from A-Aland
Yeah=
=Yes, very strong accent and when I ca-came to UK and when I
talk to young people completely couldn’t understand [yes]
63
Kate:
64
Tom:
[en]
because it’s quite fast and it’s not clear and they always
65
speaking they speak is not average is is different accent(.)so
66
it’s difficult to
67
68
Kate: Ok, so(.) really it’s grammar you find difficult i-is the
grammar(.h) difficult for because it’s so different to Chinese?
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 9
July 3, 2008
69
Tom:
Yes, different=
70
Kate: =TOTALLY different
71
Tom:
72
Kate:
en ,not really s-some ha-[half-half]
[some things are similar] half and half
73
ok, so grammar(.) quite
74
and many pronunciations?(.) Possibly or not will you ok with
75
that?=
76
Tom:
difficult and listening quite difficult
=en(.)I’m not sure.
Rachel Wicaksono
Page 10
July 3, 2008
Appendix 2
[ ]
Overlapping talk: denotes when more than one person is speaking.
=
Latching: denotes an utterance that follows another without a gap.
(.)
Micro pause: a pause of less than 0.2 seconds.
(5.6)
Timed pause: The number represents the time of the pause i.e.5.6
seconds.
(33 second pause) Denotes a long timed pause.
?
Gradual rising intonation: not necessarily a question, it is an
indication of rising intonation.
.
Gradual falling intonation: the pitch gradually falls to this point.
,
Fall-rise intonation: on the immediately preceding utterance.
CAPITALS
Rachel Wicaksono
Loud talk: denotes louder talk for an utterance or part of.
Page 11
July 3, 2008