Читать книгу Global TESOL for the 21st Century - Heath Rose - Страница 11
Оглавление1Theorising the Teaching of English in Global Contexts
Pre-reading Activities
Think
Look at Figure 1.1, which depicts the spread of English as an international language. Think about how the different ways that English has spread may have affected the language used in various global contexts. In what ways does English differ among the contexts with which you are familiar?
Discuss
In small groups, discuss the following questions:
(1)Why do some fields of study prefer to use the plural ‘Global Englishes’ as opposed to ‘Global English’ when referring to English as an international language? Do you think pluralisation is necessary?
(2)Most statistics suggest that the bulk of English users today are second-language users who have acquired English via Channel 4 spread, and the second most populous English speakers are bi/multilingual speakers from Channel 3 spread. What implications does this have in terms of learners’ likely future use of the language?
(3)What implications does the spread of English have in terms of how the language should be taught in English language classrooms in global contexts?
Introduction
The rise of English as a global language has been well documented in the linguistic research literature. In just 500 years, the world has seen English grow from a national language spoken by fewer than 3 million people, to a global language with an estimated 2 billion speakers. During the 20th century, the world quickly moved from a situation where first language (L1) speakers constituted the majority of English users to the current reality where second, foreign and additional language (L2) users are in vast majority. The spread of English is a complex, historical phenomenon, that is intertwined with British colonialism and globalisation alongside numerous other political and social forces (see Chapter 3 for an overview of the driving forces). The ways in which English has spread can be viewed include: political, historical and linguistic. Figure 1.1 represents an alternative perspective that captures the sociolinguistic forces of English spread via four main channels.
The first major wave of English dispersion occurred as a result of British colonialism, where the language spread around the world to places as far flung as Australia, Canada, Jamaica, Nigeria, Singapore and India. Subsequent changes to the language greatly depended on how the language was spread, because linguistic change is highly susceptible to exogenous forces (i.e. forces external to the language itself). Exogenous change occurs when speakers of a language come into contact with speakers of different dialects and languages. Change usually occurs in favour of the language that has more social prestige attached to the identities of these speakers. For example, if South-West English, Northern Irish and Scottish speakers came into heavy contact in a new community in the 1700s, the dialects spoken by the Irish and Scottish speakers may have been more likely to change due to the power held by the English during this time. Differences in population size and the context of the language contact gave rise to new Englishes in various parts of the British colonies. In contact situations typified by Channel 1 spread (e.g. in British colonies in New Zealand and Australia), the English language underwent a process of koineisation, which occurs when speakers of different dialects of English come into contact, and a new dialect emerges as a result. In contact situations typified by Channel 2 spread, the English language was subjected to creolisation, which was the result of speakers of languages other than English in sudden intense contact with English. For example, slavery forced different linguistic communities to adopt English as their primary, and often sole, lingua franca in plantation colonies. Both Channel 1 and Channel 2 saw the emergence of new forms of Native Englishes, via different linguistic processes. Channel 3 contact situations also resulted in the creolisation of English as a contact language, however this process typically occurred over a long period of time after going through an initial period of pidginisation. This channel of spread was also contextually typified with English being used alongside other more dominant local languages. For example, in Singapore, English was (and still is) used alongside Chinese, Malay and Tamil. In contexts where the role of English was reinforced as a language of education, law or political, it usually gave rise to nativised varieties of English, such is the case in Singapore. In other contexts, the role of English was diminished during post-colonial times, and thus plays a lesser role, such is the case of Malaysia.
Figure 1.1 The four channels of English Spread (adapted from Galloway & Rose, 2015: 14)
The second major wave of English dispersion is seen as Channel 4 spread. As a result of 20th century globalisation, English emerged as a global prestige language due to the economic and political power of the USA during this period. Thus, wrongly or rightly, English was seen by many educational policymakers as a means to facilitate individual and national upward economic and social mobility. Accordingly, globalisation saw the emergence of educational policies worldwide that emphasised the teaching of English as a foreign language in regions which had no previous colonial ties to English-speaking nations. This Channel 4 spread via the educational systems, for example in China, is the cause of the current global boom we are witnessing in the number of L2 English speakers. Thus, the majority of English speakers today can be said to have come into contact with English as a result of Channel 4 dispersion.
Exploring the global phenomenon – the rise of English as a global language – has occupied much applied linguistic and language education research in the previous few decades. The complexity in the ways in which English is used globally now attracts the attention of researchers from multiple perspectives: economic, political, linguistic, sociolinguistic, demographic, national and individualistic, to name just a few. It has also attracted the attention of educational researchers as it is inextricably linked with issues surrounding international education. As Chowdhury and Phan (2014) note, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) ‘has emerged an important field of choice for international students symbiotically accelerated by the growing dominance of English’ (2014: 1). This chapter introduces some of the core fields of research which underpin the concerns of TESOL researchers and practitioners associated with its global growth. The aim of this chapter is to develop a conceptual foundation for teaching English as an International Language in global contexts.
Key Concepts in Capturing the Spread of English
Research into the spread of English as a global language has resulted in the emergence of a number of interlinked academic fields of research within applied linguistics, which aim to explain the linguistic underpinnings of variation in English. Many of the fields also explore the sociolinguistic implications for the diverse contexts in which the language is now used. Paradigms for examining the spread of English include, but are not limited to:
•World Englishes;
•English as a lingua franca;
•Global Englishes;
•English as an international language.
Even though each of these terms has emerged from research with slightly different areas of focus, they all contain overlapping ideologies. For example, all terms position the English language as globally owned, thereby divulging power from so-called ‘native speakers’ in terms of informing global English language norms. All paradigms also emphasise the implications of the global spread of English for English language teaching practices – the very focus of this book. In order to understand these terms in more detail, each of them is outlined in turn in this chapter. Building on this foundation, we hope to establish our preferred use of ‘English as an International Language’ throughout the remaining chapters in this book.
World Englishes
The theoretical work of Braj J. Kachru and Larry Smith in the 1970s and 1980s is largely credited with kickstarting World Englishes as an independent field of study (see Kachru, 1976). Historically, the field was mainly concerned with exploring linguistic variation in English used around the world, with a particular emphasis on phonological and grammatical variation of English in British post-colonial countries. Figure 1.1 shows that the areas of interest to most World Englishes researchers were the Englishes formed via Channel 2 (Slavery) and Channel 3 (Exploitation colony) spread. World Englishes research also had a sociolinguistic aim: by linguistically codifying varieties of English according to their patterned structures and prevalence of use, World Englishes scholars aimed to legitimise other forms of English beyond those considered as ‘standard’. In naming this emergent field of study ‘World Englishes’ scholars adopted a pluralisation strategy in their neologism, which emphasised the diverse and multiple forms that the English language had taken as a result of its global dispersion.
World Englishes research also had a socio-political agenda at its core, which gave rise to the work of critical applied linguists. These scholars aimed to disrupt the status quo, due to observations of an unjustified power hierarchy of Englishes, which placed standards of British and American English at the top, followed by other regional ‘native’ standards, which were mostly confined to those that had emerged in settler colonies such as Australia and Canada (see Channel 1, Figure 1.1). Other nativised Englishes were seen to be treated as the ‘illegitimate offspring’ of English (Mufwene, 2001: 107), despite many of them being older, having a greater number of speakers, or being underpinned by more stable linguistic structures than other ‘native’ Englishes.
This lack of legitimacy ascribed to nativised Englishes has had tremendous implications for language policy and educational curricula in many former British colonies, which in turn has caused harm to the identities of English language users. Through schooling, many students were told that the language they spoke at home was ‘broken’ or ‘inferior’. Adherence to standard norms of English was seen as a social status divide between educated classes and the general masses in many former colonies. World Englishes research has done much to rectify this by justifying new varieties in their own right.
Over the years, there have been a number of attempts to theorise the spread of English around the world. Strevens’ (1980) World Map of English is an example of an early attempt to categorise varieties of English. This map, however, places American and British English at its top, and is problematic in its regional, rather than linguistic or sociohistorical, focus in organising other global varieties. McArthur’s (1987) Circle of World English organises varieties of English into a wagon-wheel formation, and places regionally focused varieties between each of its spokes. Its positioning of ‘World Standard English’ in the hub of the wheel is a positive movement in that power is taken from traditional standards such as American and British standard English, which are placed on par with other regional standards. While an ideology of equality underpins the model, its declaration of a World Standard and regional standard varieties of English is closer to fantasy than representing the actual messy reality of how English is globally used in the world today.
The most influential model of World Englishes is indisputably Kachru’s Three Circle model, which has been described as the ‘standard framework of World Englishes studies’ (Yano, 2001: 121). This model places varieties of English within three overlapping circles:
(1)The Inner Circle, which depicts nation states where English is used as a prominent native language (e.g. England, Ireland, Australia, USA, New Zealand);
(2)The Outer Circle, which depicts nation states where English is used as a second language alongside other national languages (e.g. Hong Kong, India, Nigeria, Singapore);
(3)The Expanding Circle, which depicts nation states where English did not have a historic colonial presence, but is learned as a foreign language (e.g. Germany, China, Russia, Brazil).
These three circles are representative of previous divisions between language users, such as Strang’s (1970) three categories which led to the eventual labelling of speakers as: English as a native language (ENL) speakers; English as a Second Language (ESL) speakers; and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speakers.
While Kachru’s model of World Englishes has been influential, it is not without its problems. Galloway and Rose (2015) note that ‘the model is severely flawed in a number of aspects’ (2015: 18). Some of these criticisms include the following:
•it does not account for global mobility, where different types of English speakers live in different circles;
•it takes a reductionist approach to the realities of how language is used in each of these circles;
•the models focus too much on the colonial history in some nations, while overlooking the historical influence of English in others;
•it fails to capture the multi-ethnic and multilingual realities of the world;
•it does not clarify where native Englishes that have been formed via creolisation should be placed;
•it positions the Inner Circle as ‘norm-providing’ and thus does not disrupt the status quo as much as it proclaims it does;
•it does not capture the way English is used as a lingua franca within and across these circles.
In Bruthiaux’s (2003) detailed critique of Kachru’s model, he observes that the model ‘is a twentieth-century construct that has outlived its usefulness’ (2003: 161), and concludes that we need to move more towards a usage-based model. In a similar vein, Pennycook (2010) notes that ‘we need to choose carefully between the available models of pluricentric Englishes, avoiding the pitfalls of states-centric pluralities … in order to deal with globalized linguascapes’ (2010: 685). He argues that as a discipline we need to move away from models depicting nation-based circles altogether.
In terms of pedagogical implications (discussed further in Chapter 2) World Englishes research has emphasised the need for students to develop an awareness that speakers of English today adhere to a diverse range of grammatical and phonological norms. Thus, an education that seeks to only teach one standard of English might not prepare students to use the language with the majority of its speakers. World Englishes research has also helped to establish the legitimacy of a number of English varieties, and seeks to empower L2 users of the language as not needing to adhere to so-called ‘native’ English norms.
English as a lingua franca
The theoretical work within the field of English as a lingua franca (ELF) first emerged to meet the shortcomings of World Englishes, as outlined above. The focus of initial ELF research sought to explore how English was used in dynamic and fluid global contexts, where speakers of different first languages (L1s) used English for communication purposes. At its core, ELF research sought to break down traditional state-based depictions of English language use. Early work in ELF research emerged within the European context, as English rapidly gained a foothold as the European Union’s de facto lingua franca for business, political and social communication. Researchers such as Jenkins (2000), Seidlhofer (2001), and Mauranen (2003), explored the ways in which ELF challenged the established norms of English language use.
The early work in ELF was similar to that of World Englishes, in that much of the research of this time focused on understanding the linguistic features and patterns in ELF communication. Some of the research aimed to explore similarities in these features across diverse contexts. This early work into the features of ELF was underpinned by a number of corpus studies, and was the basis of some now refuted claims that a distinctly European variety of English was emerging. Modiano (2003), for example, claimed that a codifiable variety called ‘Euro-English’ would emerge due to ongoing ELF interactions across Europe. In hindsight, many ELF researchers today see this earlier work as somewhat problematic, because codifying patterns and features of English use in these diverse contexts was at odds with the field’s later stance that ELF was not a codifiable (and therefore teachable) variety. As a result, many critics of ELF are quick to overly focus on this work. They argue ELF upholds an ‘anything goes’ ideology – a stance which ELF researchers have vehemently refuted.
In an effort to move away from its World Englishes orientation to early research, a second phase of ELF work emphasised a fluidity of norms in each ELF communication, which were later placed at the core of much of its research focus. These norms are variable and changeable with each ELF encounter, and are underpinned by the parameters of the context, the communicative aims of the discourse, as well as the needs of the interlocutors. Because of its focus on dynamism and variability, much ELF research conducted in the late 2000s and early 2010s explored the way in which speakers used English to communicate. During this time, we saw research emerge on topics such as Business English as a Lingua Franca (e.g. Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010) and English as an Academic Lingua Franca (e.g. Mauranen et al., 2010).
More recent work in ELF has emphasised the importance of English in multilingual contexts. As the multilingual turn in applied linguistics (discussed later in this chapter) has made inroads into numerous fields of study, ELF researchers have become more interested in exploring how English is used alongside other languages in lingua franca encounters. Jenkins (2015b) refers to this current phase of research as ELF 3. We would argue this brings ELF research closer in its focus to the field of Global Englishes.
In terms of pedagogical implications (discussed further in Chapter 2) ELF research has emphasised the need for students to develop the communication strategies to successfully use the language with a range of speakers of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. ELF-aware pedagogy seeks to enable students to adapt their English to various communities of practice, whose norm and expectations might differ according to each context.
Global Englishes
The term Global Englishes was first adopted by researchers who have been described as critical applied linguists (e.g. Suresh Canagarajah & Alastair Pennycook). Rose and Galloway (2019) also link their more recent theorization of Global Englishes with critical applied linguistics. Critical applied linguistic researchers saw the conceptual shortcomings of World Englishes and early ELF research, and sought a new term to unite a shared interest in research that explored the fluidity of language use, globally. Pennycook (2003, 2007) used the term Global Englishes to describe the global spread and use of a diversity of Englishes as part of larger globalisation processes. Other researchers (e.g. Galloway & Rose, 2015) see Global Englishes as an inclusive field of study, where traditional ideologies surrounding language and identity are challenged. Canagarajah (2013) has also used Global Englishes in a similar way to refer to the way in which users reconstitute English for their local purposes. Canagarajah prefers to focus on contact practices rather than static views of ‘nativeness’ and regionality. Global Englishes research tends to not focus on codifying varieties of English at all, thus moving beyond state-based and community-based constructs of language, by challenging the very boundaries between varieties, languages and communities. It does, however, draw and build on such research, thus incorporating, rather than discarding, previous understandings of English language variation and change.
In terms of pedagogical implications (discussed further in Chapter 2) Global Englishes research has emphasised the need to raise awareness of the current sociolinguistic landscape of English language use. Global Englishes research has also helped to challenge widely held perspectives in TESOL that centre on notions that learners aim to use the language with L1 speakers.
English as an international language
English as an international language (EIL) as a field of study has largely focused on the implications of the spread of English rather than the language itself. Accordingly, EIL research has been less characterised by a linguistic interest in variation. As such, it stands a little separate in its focus from World Englishes and ELF research, and a little closer to Global Englishes in its universal scope. EIL scholars are particularly interested in the sociolinguistic, political, economic and educational implications for the global spread of English. Under the EIL banner, researchers have explored the implications of global English use for society, and language education, drawing on both World Englishes and ELF scholarship, as well as related fields of study such as native-speakerism (discussed later in this chapter). While EIL as a field has broad similarities to Global Englishes, it has not grown out of movements in critical applied linguistics, and accordingly could be described as embodying a pragmatic perspective, which has made it attractive for the TESOL profession. However, in relation to the practical implications of both fields for English language teaching, it is safe to state that EIL and Global Englishes scholars are on a broadly similar page. EIL scholars of TESOL such as McKay and Brown (2016) and Matsuda (2012, 2017), for example, purport broadly similar messages and ideologies of Global Englishes scholars of TESOL such as Galloway (2017a).
Teaching English as an International Language
Due to the pragmatic nature of EIL, it is the term that has mostly been adopted into mainstream of TESOL research and TESOL literature, as evident from a string of authored publications (e.g. McKay & Brown, 2016), edited collections (e.g. Alsagoff et al., 2012; Matsuda, 2012, 2017b) and even an entire volume on Teaching EIL in the recent Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching. Rose and Galloway (2019) state that EIL ‘has been used a catch-all term for the use of English in general, as a strategy to eliminate traditional distinctions between English as a Native, Second, Foreign and Additional Language (ENL/ESL/EFL/EAL), as these distinctions are seen as increasingly irrelevant in today’s globally integrated world’ (2019: 8).
As this book is aimed at TESOL professionals and TESOL researchers, we choose to adopt the terms ‘English as an international language’ and ‘Teaching English as an International Language’ to refer to the shared agenda of all of these fields to inform and innovate the English language teaching industry. We see EIL as an easily and widely understood term for this purpose. Nevertheless, throughout this book, we acknowledge that this may not be the preferred term of many of the researchers whose work we draw on, and thus, when directly referring to other authors’ scholarship we try as much as possible to retain their preferred terminology. What is important to understand, however, is that the weight of shared endeavours of all of these interrelated fields outweighs any proclaimed differences. Thus, it is this book’s stance that, when it comes to pedagogical implications in particular, the four fields are more broadly similar in scope than they are different. We have captured our positioning of Teaching EIL in Figure 1.2. It is important to note that Rose and Galloway (2019) adopt a similar Venn diagram strategy to depict their Global Englishes Language Teaching approach (discussed further in Chapter 2). Thus, different terminology are used to communicate broadly similar ideas.
Figure 1.2 The theoretical positioning of Teaching English as an International Language in this book
Challenges to the ‘Native-Speaker’
EIL in this book is positioned as both a sociolinguistic and a political ideology. As such, it aims to disrupt the status quo in TESOL, where the native speaker has long been held a prestige position. It is important to note that the continued prevalence of native speaker hegemony in TESOL has been challenged and problematised for decades (see Cook, 1999; Davies, 2003; Holliday, 2005, 2015; Paikeday, 1985; Rampton, 1990). Galloway and Rose (2015) state that the term of native speaker is incredibly difficult to define, and when one picks at the term, it becomes apparent that neither proficiency, nor timing of acquisition are necessary criteria to be labelled as a native speaker. The most accurate definition of a native speaker is that a native only becomes a native speaker if they are identified as such by other native speakers. The native speaker identity, therefore, is like joining an exclusive club, where there are no membership criteria for joining, but rather other members and gatekeepers decide whether you are ‘club material’. Because of the difficulty in defining what a native speaker is, the term has been described as a linguistic ‘figment’ (Paikeday, 1985); a ‘fallacy’ (Phillipson, 1992); and a ‘myth’ (Davies, 2003). Scholars working in this area have called for greater use of alternative terms to the native speaker such as ‘multicompetent’ users (Cook, 1999, 2016), ‘proficient user’ (Paikeday, 1985), or ‘language expert’ (Rampton, 1990). Selvi (2014), however, argues that using different terms in scholarship does not detract from the power of the ‘native speaker’ label due its continued use in society and in TESOL. Thus, the term ‘native speaker’, if used critically to describe this social construct, has purpose for the profession and for research.
The native-speaker teacher
Challenges to the idea of the native speaker are arguably of more relevance to TESOL than other modern foreign languages. For many taught languages, the position of the native speaker as future target interlocutor for learners can be somewhat justified on the basis that native speakers are the majority speakers – but the same cannot be said for EIL. For example, learners of the Japanese language in Australia may indeed see that their future target interlocuter of Japanese will be Japanese people they will encounter in Japan or their home countries. For this reason, it may be natural for such learners to desire to learn a variety of Japanese that adheres to the native linguistic and pragmatic norms of the language. Desires for learners of Japanese in Australia to have a native Japanese speaking teacher (or a non-native speaking teacher who has spent considerable time living within Japan) may thus be somewhat justified, as these teachers are positioned as gateways for learners to interact with the target culture. The situation for TESOL, however, is very different, as English has become a global language with global ownership, where L2 speakers are in the majority.
For most EIL learners, future interlocutors are more likely to be other second-language users of English. Moreover, future contexts of English use may be domestic or international and in non-Anglophone countries (e.g. for the purposes of business, academic study, or even social interaction). For many learners of English, the majority of their English language interactions outside of the classroom might not involve a ‘native’ speaker of English at all. Thus, preference for native English linguistic and pragmatic norms, and native-English speaking teachers as a gateway to their future target culture, soon unravel and become unjustified. In contrast, teachers who are L2 users themselves, and who have different L1s to their students, may be more authentic role models for students in terms of representing their likely future interlocutors and target English-using cultures. This has led some scholars to call for more emphasis on hiring ‘Multilingual English Teachers’ (Kirkpatrick, 2011, 2012). Galloway and Rose (2015) concur with Kirkpatrick’s call, and state that stakeholders in TESOL need to critically engage with the notion that monolingual English teachers, who have never learned a second language themselves, may not necessarily make the best English teachers. There has been large call in recent years for greater global mobility of NNESTs (non-native English-speaking teachers) via more inclusive hiring practices.
The NNEST movement
Challenges surrounding the treatment of NNESTs in TESOL have given rise to large amount of scholarship and activism, which has been described as a NNEST movement (Braine, 2010). The NNEST movement emerged in TESOL as a means to counter discriminatory practices, and to promote democracy, justice, equity, participation and professionalism (Braine & Selvi, 2018). Selvi (2014) further describes the movement as such:
Theoretically, it builds a more inclusive intellectual space defined by a shift from the traditional monolingual, monocultural, native-speakerist approach to teaching, learning, and teacher education in TESOL. Practically, it brings together and supports a wide spectrum of threads from the research, teaching, and advocacy realms to promote and institutionalize discourses of multilingualism, multiethnicism, and multiculturalism. (2014: 574–575)
Thus, the NNEST movement is inextricably linked to the scholarship of EIL, World Englishes, ELF and Global Englishes. It, too, lobbies for more equality and representativeness in TESOL, which can be realised via a paradigm shift of the very ideologies which underpin the field.
Native-speakerism and centre-periphery
Related to the NNEST movement, is the broader research area of nativespeakerism, which explores the explicit and implicit creation of inequalities based on a perceived characteristic of nativeness. As Holliday notes:
Native-speakerism is a pervasive ideology within ELT, characterized by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology. (Holliday, 2006: 385)
Native-speakerism is underpinned by the concept of ‘Othering’, because the ideology creates dichotomous categories. Speakers are categorised according to their differences rather than the characteristics they share. Native-speakerism is seen to uphold unequal power dynamics in TESOL, and is especially prevalent in teacher hiring practices, where many advertisements still explicitly place a teachers’ nativeness as an essential hiring criterion, and thus a barrier to professional opportunities (Selvi, 2010).
Other scholars in TESOL have explored the othering of NNESTs in terms of centre-periphery theory. In the TESOL industry, various powerful ‘centres of English’ (i.e. native speakers and native speaking countries) have the lion’s share of influence, while others are related to the ‘periphery’. There is an imbalance in power between the centre and periphery, which feeds into all related decisions in language teaching policy and practice. Hilgendorf (2018) states:
Given how widely English is learned and used in so many communities around the globe, a complex set of dynamics and tensions exists between these centers and perceived peripheries. For both native and non-native English-speaking teachers (NESTs and NNESTs), a critical understanding of these dynamics and tensions is imperative, as they have significant ramifications for curricular design and pedagogical practice. (2018: 1)
EIL scholars aim to disrupt the power dynamics between the centre and the periphery by emphasising the important role that the peripheral majority have (and will have) in terms of English language learning and use in the 21st century.
Multilingualism in TESOL
It is important to note that the field of EIL is further influenced by numerous tangentially related topics within the broader fields of applied linguistics and second language acquisition. These topics include, but are in no way limited to: translanguaging; multilingual turn; and plurilingualism. While each of these fields are not exclusive to TESOL, as they impact all language learning and use, much of the work that has been carried out within these has been within an English language learning context. Each of these are briefly touched upon in this section.
Translanguaging, translingual practice and plurilingualism
Developments in translanguaging research have been linked to Global Englishes (see Rose & Galloway, 2019), and thus are also of relevance to teaching EIL. Translanguaging challenges monolingual orientations to language learning and language teaching by viewing languages as part of the interwoven linguistic system of a user, rather than as separate entities. Translanguaging is a term that is growing in importance in applied linguistics, touching on all facets of second language acquisition and linguistic research. Nevertheless, its educational connections remain strong, as illustrated by the following observation by García and Li (2018):
As a critical sociolinguistic theory, translanguaging has had the most application in language education, especially in the education of language-minoritized students and in bilingual education and increasingly in what are considered foreign language programs. It has been seen to have the capacity and potential to transform the way we see, use, and teach language, literacy, and other subjects… [T]ranslanguaging has impacted language education, transforming how we teach students for bilingualism as well as how bilingual students learn. (2018: 1)
It is no surprise that translanguaging research has been applied most broadly to education, as the term itself grew out of bilingual education research and practice in Welsh immersion schools (see Baker, 2001; Williams, 1996), before later being repurposed as a broader theory of second language acquisition. From a practical classroom-based perspective translanguaging would involve the encouragement of students to use their other languages in the classroom to support their learning of the second language. These languages can be informally used by learners, or formally integrated into tasks: for example, students could read a text in their L1 to inform them for a project presented in the L2.
Translanguaging has clear similarities to the term code-switching, which has a longer tradition in second language research. Code-switching refers to the act of switching from one language to the other within speech, usually in the context of bilingual communication. Proponents of translanguaging argue that the two constructs are different: codeswitching adopts an external perspective and reinforces power hierarchies between two named languages, but translanguaging views all languages as part of a user’s entire linguistic repertoire (see Garcia & Li, 2014 for more detail). In terms of a difference in TESOL practices, therefore, code-switching might imply a learner or teachers switches to another language due to perceived deficiencies in the target language, whereas translanguaging is viewed as a positive act, which embraces a learners’ multilingual identity.
Related to translanguaing is the term translingual practice, which is Canagarajah’s own version of translanguaging. Canagarajah (2016) observes:
There is now a growing realization that English cannot be separated from other languages. This is true not only of the contemporary global contact zones where languages intermingle, but of all communication, because languages are always in contact. (2016: 16)
Rose and Galloway (2019) note that ‘Translingual practice showcases linguistic hybridity, and helps to inform our understanding of how speakers of English as a global lingua franca utilise their multilingual, or translingual, repertoires to communicate’ (2019: 9). Thus, the similarities between this term and translanguaging are clear. Both translingual practice and translanguaging similarly challenge the theories that depict languages as separate social, cognitive, psychological or linguistic entities, which underlie many TESOL practices.
The term plurilingualism ‘refers to the unique aspects of individual repertoires and agency, and multilingual(ism) to refer to broader social language context/contact(s) and the coexistence of several languages in a particular situation’ (Marshall & Moore, 2013: 474). In a similar way that translanguaging contrasts with code-switching, advocates use the term plurilingualism to challenge traditional definitions of multilingualism which view language and language proficiencies, as separate. Marshall and Moore (2013) argue, ‘the focus on plurilingual competence allows researchers to dismantle perceptions of arbitrary boundaries within individuals’ linguistic repertoires, and relates to broader issues such as individual agency, knowledge formation, and engagement’ (2013: 474). Plurilingualism research, as it pertains to TESOL, also seeks to create a more multilingual/plurilingual TESOL (Taylor & Snoddon, 2013).
The multilingual turn
Movements and interest in emerging neologisms such as translanguaging and plurilingualism (alongside numerous others) have been described as being part of a larger trend in second language acquisition and language education research, which has been termed the ‘multilingual turn’ (see May, 2014b). The multilingual turn has been used as an umbrella term to show the importance now placed on multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, in language research. Rose and Galloway (2019) place Global Englishes (and therefore EIL as part of their conceptualisation of it) within the multilingual turn.
To some TESOL practitioners and researchers, it may be strange to read that the field of second and foreign language education has been historically underpinned by monolingualism. It would seem that the very nature of second and foreign language education implies that stakeholders within this context are, in themselves, multilingual learners and teachers of English. However, if we consider practices which have underpinned TESOL throughout the 20th century, we soon reveal a monolingual bias. For example:
(1)many standard examinations of English are pegged to monolingual native English standards;
(2)in evaluating the proficiency of a learner of English, a native speaker of English is often regarded as the ultimate goal of attainment;
(3)many educational policies encourage teachers to create ‘English-only’ monolingual environments for their learners;
(4)globally, teacher hiring practices favour native English-speaking teachers, where knowledge of the students’ first language may not be a necessary requirement for employment;
(5)many native English teachers are discouraged from using the students’ first language, even if they are proficient in it;
(6)communicative language teaching methodologies often depict monolingual English speakers as a learner’s target interlocutor;
(7)in task-based language teaching, students in English classrooms are often berated or punished for using their first language during group work, even if the use of this language helps them to complete the task;
(8)research into the English language development of learners (whether it be phonological, grammatical, lexical, or pragmatic linguistic development) often uses a group of monolingual English speakers as a comparison group;
(9)research into the lexical knowledge of younger bilingual users of English (such as EAL learners), often only take account of knowledge in English, ignoring knowledge in other languages.
The monolingual bias further extends to other areas of language learning outside of the classroom, such as the widely prevalent practice of advising immigrant families to speak English at home to better facilitate the English language development of their children (although this advice has lessened in recent decades in many contexts). Even when families adopt a bilingual language policy at home, many families apply a ‘one parent one language’ practice, thus discouraging the mixing of languages for communication within the family, which can be at the detriment of communication between all members of the family.
In a seminal paper on the multilingual turn, Ortega (2013) predicted that the current observable pivot towards multilingualism will impact the fields of SLA (and by association, TESOL), in a similar manner to that of the social turn in the 1990s. The social turn, over a period of two decades, saw a general movement away from cognitive traditions in SLA towards more social and interactional perspectives of SLA. Social perspectives facilitated the exploration of language learning as a social phenomenon, wrapped up in learner identity and sociocultural theories of education (see Atkinson, 2011 for an overview of these alternative theories). These turns have seen the emergence of new theories of language learning such as the ‘transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world’ (Douglas Fir Group, 2016), which has since been used as framework for rethinking language teacher education (Gao, 2019).
Scholars within the multilingual turn have been increasingly vocal with calls for change in TESOL (e.g. Canagarajah, 2014; Leung, 2014; May, 2014a; Norton, 2014), with Meier (2017) referring to it as ‘a critical movement in education’ (2017: 131). Thus, there are clear links between the work being conducted by multilingual researchers, who are exploring the nexus of language education and multilingualism, and the work being conducted by EIL scholars, who are exploring similar implications for TESOL. The multilingual turn encapsulates a growing trend in TESOL to reject a monolingual bias, and to also be inclusive of the social realities and complexities of how languages are used in our globalised world. Thus, many of the topics we explore in this book, whether it emanates from World Englishes, ELF, Global Englishes, or EIL paradigms of research, may touch on similar work in the multilingual turn.
While the ‘E’ in EIL clearly stands for ‘English’, it is important to emphasise that the term itself is not underpinned by a monolingual ideology. EIL is a sociolinguistic and highly politicised paradigm of study, that is highly attuned to the fact that English users in the 21st century are multilingual users. The majority of speakers of English today use the language within their wider linguistic repertoire. This has clear implications for TESOL practice, as subsequent chapters will explore.
What Does the Research Tell Us?
?
In each chapter in this book, we explicitly include a section which showcases important empirical research on the topic of the chapter in order to engage the reader directly with relevant research. This is done to emphasise the fact that the ideas presented are empirically founded and not merely ‘soap box’ ideology. However, as this first chapter is a theoretical one, which is intended to offer a conceptual foundation for subsequent chapters, we mostly draw on important conceptual, rather than empirical, research. In particular we draw attention to what we consider to be key pieces of scholarly work that have helped to inform 21st century TESOL innovation in global contexts. These papers are outlined in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Theoretical papers related to 21st century TESOL
| Researchers | Topic | Focus |
| Meier (2017) | Multilingual Turn | The implications of the multilingual turn for language education, including TESOL. |
| Ortega (2014) | Multilingual Turn | The trends and implications of the past 15 years of research that indicate a major turn in applied linguistics towards multilingualism. |
| Matsuda (2003) | English as an international language | Implications of EIL for the field of TESOL and for English language curricula. |
| Brown (1993) | World Englishes | The incorporation of World Englishes in TESOL programmes. |
| Jenkins (2006) | English as a lingua franca | Perspectives on teaching World Englishes and ELF in English language curricula. |
| Selvi (2014) | NNEST movement | Debunking the myths and misconceptions about non-native English speakers in TESOL. |
| Canagarajah (2007) | Multilingualism and SLA | A theoretical exploration of the implications of lingua franca English and multilingualism for SLA. |
| Lin (2013) or Creese and Blackledge (2010) | Plurilingualism | A current paradigm shift in TESOL methodology towards plurilingualism. |
Ortega (2013) focuses on the broader implications of the multilingual turn for second language acquisition as a whole, but nevertheless, provides an excellent summary for TESOL practitioners of emerging trends in applied linguistics that aim to embrace multilingualism, rather than monolingualism, as a global norm. This has implications for the use of other languages as resources in the classrooms, and challenges some prevailing TESOL ideologies such as the perceived importance of English-only classrooms. Similar perspectives, which are more oriented towards language education and TESOL, can be found in an edited collection on the topic by May (2014a). This book also contains a similar chapter by Ortega (2014).
Meier’s (2017) paper offers a more accessible overview of work within the multilingual turn in terms of its direct implications for language education. It reports on an empirical study of key works within the multilingual turn, including May’s (2014) edited book, in order to synthesise key areas of interest and to reflect on challenges to innovate change in language education. A similar paper can be found in Sambiante (2017), which also addresses the implications for language education by comparing and synthesising key scholar’s work on the topic.
The work of Canagarajah in the 2000s established him as a key scholar of critical applied linguistics. Such scholarship is illustrated in his 2007 paper, which explores the implications of lingua franca English and multilingualism for second language acquisition theory. In this paper, Canagarajah (2007) challenges some of the long-upheld simplifications of the language learning process, and encourages researchers to embrace ideologies that centre around multilingual competence. While very theoretical, many TESOL researchers have found inspiration in Canagarajah’s work. For example, Galloway and Rose’s (2015) six proposals for change in TESOL, which are presented in Chapter 2, are informed in part by the earlier work by Canagarajah around this time.
Selvi’s (2014) article in TESOL Journal is a powerful evaluation of nativespeakerism in TESOL. In this paper, he delineates the non-native speaker teacher movement in TESOL, debunking myths and showing a transformation of TESOL in recent years. Later, Selvi (2018) states that he hopes this paper ‘will serve as an orientation for TESOLers who might be interested in learning more about the NNEST movement’ (2018: 1). It certainly achieves this aim while also highlighting areas of needed attention in the future.
The article by Jenkins (2006) is one of many influential papers which have explored the implications of ELF and World Englishes research for the field of TESOL. Published in TESOL Quarterly, the paper explores the differences between EIL, ELF and World Englishes, before then outlining the implications of this research for challenging yardsticks and standards used in TESOL. Unfortunately, the conceptual and theoretical focus of the paper is not articulated in terms of real concrete proposals for change that teachers can readily integrate into the classroom. Nevertheless, the paper has been widely cited and its influence is undeniable.
Matsuda’s (2003) paper, also in TESOL Quarterly, is more pragmatic in its approach compared to Jenkins’ later article. In the paper, Matsuda uses the context of English language education in Japan as an anchor to concretely outline a number of areas in TESOL in need of reconsideration within the EIL paradigm. These areas of change include: a re-assessment of EIL learner needs; direct teaching of issues surrounding language ownership; shifts in assessment towards communicative effectiveness; increased interaction among EIL users; and greater representation of EIL in teaching materials.
Brown’s (1993) paper is included here to show that calls for innovation in the TESOL curriculum are not by any means new. In this paper, Brown draws on calls from World Englishes scholars for a paradigm shift in TESOL. Brown’s ideas are presented in the form of eight recommendations that promote the incorporation of a World Englishes perspective within TESOL in general, within teacher training courses, and within the broader academic and practitioner community. Twenty-five years since this article, continued calls for innovation are still ongoing (see Galloway, 2017a; Kumaravadivelu, 2012a; Matsuda, 2017a).
Lin’s (2013) paper explores plurilingual pedagogies in content classrooms in Hong Kong, which could be seen as evidence of paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies. Lin draws on case study data from classrooms in Hong Kong to illustrate her points. A similar perspective on translanguaging can be found in Creese and Blackledge (2010). (Although their context is not an English language learning one, the theoretical underpinnings of what they found in the modern language classrooms may be of interest to TESOL practitioners who wish to explore what plurilingualism might look like in bilingual educational contexts.)
Implications for Teachers in Global Contexts
The theoretical fields of study outlined in this chapter (ELF, Global Englishes, translanguaging, the NNEST movement and the multilingual turn) have all expressed clear implications for language teaching as part of their scholarship. All of these fields of study further emphasise the need for a paradigm shift in TESOL to achieve these aims. As Rose and Galloway (2019) observe: ‘Underpinning this paradigm shift is a change in views of ownership of English, the emancipation of non-native speakers from native speaker norms, a repositioning of culture within the English language, a shift in models of language, and a repositioning of the target interlocutor’ (2019: 4).
In this book, we group these shared endeavours under the term teaching EIL, which we see as a TESOL-led movement that has actively lobbied for a change in TESOL practices by challenging the prevailing ideologies of current English language pedagogy. We, like Kumaravadivelu (2012a) before us, call for a meaningful break from traditional English language teaching practices. The following chapter (Chapter 2) outlines explicit frameworks for achieving this break.
Nevertheless, the theoretical grounding of this chapter has raised a number of points for teachers to consider before reading further. Teachers in global contexts may want to consider their answers to the following questions:
•Drawing on World Englishes, what varieties of English are most salient to their learners and their teaching context?
•Drawing on translanguaging and translingual practice, how can other languages be used as a resource in their English language classrooms?
•Considering the growing ELF opportunities for students, how can teachers better prepare their students to be successful in lingua franca contexts?
•In light of the NNEST movement, in what ways can schools ensure equality for all teachers?
•Drawing on the wider field of Global Englishes, how can teachers raise student awareness of the global realities of English language use?
•Taking into account movements within the multilingual turn, how much of current teaching practices are informed by a monolingual bias?
•Reflecting on native-speakerism, in what ways do teachers’ current teaching contexts show a preference towards the ‘native speaker’?
•Taking into account all of the factors surrounding the teaching of EIL, what changes can be made to English language curricula to improve practices?
Overall, teaching EIL requires a shift in perspective of all stakeholders in TESOL, however change cannot occur without the support from teachers. Both Dewey (2012) and Widdowson (2012) note a need for teachers to reconceptualise the notion of language they teach. For the teaching of EIL to become the global norm, we need this to become a grassroots movement, led by teachers for the benefit of their students. The following nine chapters in this book will explore implications of this movement for various facets of TESOL to further explore how teachers can be central to achieving this needed change. It is a hope that this knowledge will better equip teachers (and practitioner-researchers) to meet their students’ needs in 21st century global TESOL contexts.
Post-reading Activities
Reflect
Think about aspects in a teaching/learning environment you are familiar with, and consider the possibilities for innovation in light of the ideas presented in this chapter.
Discuss
(1)This chapter has covered many terms related to the spread of English as a global language (Global Englishes, World Englishes, EIL, ELF) as well as those connected to multilingualism (translanguaging, translingual practice, plurilingualism). Which of the terms resonate most with your own beliefs regarding language norms and language use?
(2)This chapter concludes with a statement that teachers need to reconceptualise the notion of language. If you agree with this, what aspects are most necessary for teachers to reconceptualise?
(3)Both May (2014b) and Ortega (2013) lobby for teachers to reject a monolingual bias. Kirkpatrick argues that multilingual English teachers should be valued over monolingual English teachers. In what way do you agree or disagree that multilingual ideologies are relevant to the profession of English language teaching? In what ways, if any, can multilingualism be valued more in TESOL?
Apply
This chapter suggests that the English language teaching industry needs to change. Using the list of questions in the section ‘Implications for teachers in global contexts’ to guide you, write (or present in a group) a reflection in answer to these questions regarding a teaching context with which you are familiar.
Resources for Further Reading
May, S. (ed.) (2014) The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. Routledge.
This book contains nine chapters written by 12 of the leading scholars in the field of multilingualism. Many of the initial chapters lay a strong theoretical foundation for a pivot in second language acquisition towards multilingualism as the norm in informing both theory and practice. Later chapters explore more contextualised realities of how these new perspectives should underpin policy and practice in language education. Please note, this is not a resource for concrete proposals of change in TESOL, but rather an influential resource which covers key movements in SLA theory which underpins TESOL practices.
Galloway, N. and Rose, H. (2015) Introducing Global Englishes. Routledge.
Whereas the edited book by May (2013) contains contributions by key SLA theorists in the field, Introducing Global Englishes is written by two teacher-researchers and targeted for a more general audience. The book takes a macro perspective of Global Englishes, which they use as an umbrella term to capture the shared ideologies of World Englishes, ELF and EIL. Chapter 1 provides an overview of key topics in much the same way as this book’s chapter has done. It then devotes two additional chapters to EIL issues, a chapter on language variation and change, and two ELF-centric chapters on global language use. Chapter 9 is devoted entirely to the topic of implications for TESOL. This chapter contains proposals for change in TESOL, as well as introducing a framework for TESOL innovation to help teachers move towards a Global Englishes-oriented form of practice.
