Читать книгу Understanding English as a Lingua Franca - Barbara Seidlhofer - Страница 7

A cautionary note about terminology is called for here. There is always the problem that in discussing any phenomenon one needs to use terms, at least to start with, that are in common currency and will be recognized. This however does not necessarily imply an acceptance of the concepts the labels express, nor does it indicate a lack of awareness of their complexity and their shortcomings. And of course, any categorization, and the terms that result from it, has to be based on a process of abstracting from the details of ‘reality’, of homing in on those qualities and distinctions that seem relevant for the matter under consideration while ignoring others.

Thus in the above pages, I make use of the well known terminological distinction that Kachru makes between English speakers in the ‘Inner’, ‘Outer’, and ‘Expanding Circles’. I do so because the study of World Englishes has been a vigorous field of research for a long time and it can therefore be expected that most readers will be familiar with the Kachruvian circles model. What is often called the ‘World Englishes paradigm’ thus offers a framework of thinking about the role, and especially the history, of English in the world that many can relate to, a convenient way of referring to a very rough distinction between English used as a native language (ENL), English used as a additional/second language in post-colonial settings, where English has a special and often official role (ESL),5 and English being learnt and used elsewhere as a foreign language (EFL). As we shall see later, however, the three circles model, which Kachru himself only put forward as a tentative suggestion, is conceptually problematic and open to criticism. Despite this, however, no alternative models and terms that have been put forward have gained widespread acceptance and currency in the literature. So far, the Kachruvian terms have remained well established, even in the writings of those that have voiced incisive criticism of them.6 Indeed, it seems more constructive to discuss the shortcomings of existing and familiar terminology than simply to invent new labels and so leave untouched the issues thrown up by the existing terminology. It should be noted therefore that my use of these terms at the moment is only a starting point and a provisional convenience so that readers can connect with something familiar: hence the use of quotation marks up to this point to indicate these are taken to be useful labels rather than valid concepts. Having briefly explained my reasons for using these terms despite their shortcomings, I shall dispense with quotation marks from now on for better readability. The problems connected with these terms will, of course, be discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters.

Other terms I have used that call for comment are ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’. Here too I added quotation marks to indicate that these terms are also provisional and conceptually problematic. The problems, as with Kachru’s circles, are of course not only to do with the definitional, semantic meaning, with what the terms actually denote, but with the connotations that they have come to carry, and with the considerable ideological baggage they have accumulated over a long time. The term ‘native speaker’ is notoriously elusive of definition and, rather like the term ‘Inner Circle’ connotes evaluative associations that it is difficult to avoid. This is perhaps even more the case with the term ‘non-native’: a definition by negation that is often felt to suggest some sort of deficit. But these connotations have little to do with what the terms themselves mean. Obviously enough, a negation only indicates a deficit if what it negates is regarded as desirable or necessary. Surely very few people will regard the negative prefix in words such as non-violent, non-sectarian, non-predatory, non-toxic, etc. as indicating a deficit. Domestic, or combustible, or existent denote neither ‘positive’ nor ‘negative’ qualities, and the same is true of their opposites, non-domestic, non-combustible, nonexistent. How these adjectives are seen will depend entirely on the specific context. And I would argue that the same holds, in principle, for native and non-native premodifying the noun speaker: whether these adjectives indicate an advantage or a disadvantage will also depend on the context. One of the main objectives of this book is to explore just how the contexts and purposes of the use of English, and the numbers and kinds of its speakers, have changed so dramatically over recent decades that the connotations of the terms native speaker and non-native speaker are bound to change too. As we shall see, when we consider the important roles English has come to play in people’s lives all over the world outside ‘native speaker’ communities, being a ‘native speaker’ ceases to be an asset.

There is much published criticism of the terms ‘native’ and ‘non-native’, which I do not need to repeat here. The issues involved are discussed from the perspective of English as a lingua franca, and alternative labels offered, in Jenkins 2000: 6ff. While I fully endorse Jenkins’ reasoning, I do not generally adopt alternative labels at this point, one reason being that this would result in a confusing mixture of terminology, particularly because I often quote from secondary literature that uses the traditional labels. The main reason though is that I have come to the conclusion that it is not even necessary to use quotation marks when I employ the terms myself. This is because I take them to mean very simply what they actually denote (rather than what they have come to connote for many): a native-speaker of English is somebody whose L1 is English, and a non-native speaker of English is somebody who has an L1, or L1s, other than English. One thing we know about the non-native speakers (but not about native speakers) is that they are at least bilingual.