Issue In Second Language Acquisition

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Charlotte Jones

ELF and Global Englishes as an Issue in Second Language Acquisition

University of Central Florida

Introduction

What is a ‘standard’ variety English and can it be defined? English spoken as a mother tongue encapsulates a number of varieties, not limited to but including: Australian, Canadian, Irish, New Zealander, South African, British, and American (Kachru, 1992). Even native dialects can provide somewhat of a hurdle for teachers attempting to teach one ‘correct’ way to communicate. My interest in variation of English norms sprung from my experiences teaching EFL in South Korea. The experience familiarized me with a clear preference for native speaker norms, while simultaneously affording me the opportunity to acquaint myself with problematic aspects of stringent adherence to a standard dialect. In particular, I recall a fellow native English speaking teacher from Ireland who found herself frustrated frequently with students who regularly corrected her Irish standards for spelling and pronunciation. Having been exposed only to the norms of American English, these students had a challenge discerning Irish-English pronunciation and the idea of multiple dialects can indeed prove troublesome for students who are attempting to learn one ‘correct’ way to speak English.

Native dialects, however, are only the tip of the iceberg when confronting varieties of English. The idea of a standard English is further complicated when taking into account the use beyond that of a mother tongue. ‘Global Englishes’ which exist outside the circles of native speakership (Kachru, 1992) in the past few decades have become a completely legitimate concept and, in some cases, very widely-used forms. In fact, of all the world’s speakers, native speakers are now a distinct minority, consisting of only one out of every four is a native speaker (Crystal, 2003). Traditionally, the world of English language education has seen between two different lenses: ESL and EFL. However, the growth of the global English indicates a serious need for new approaches (Graddol, 2006). The discourse of global Englishes challenges many traditional views of what it means to learn EFL. Rapid growth and acceptance of English as a global language, a world language, international language (EIL) or Lingua Franca (ELF) indicates an irresolute future for English language education, professionals, and learners. In turn, the concept of English as a lingua franca is a distinct issue in second language acquisition and implies a need to focus on language differences as well as develop strategies to accommodate variation.

Delineation of Terms

Given the rather recent development of many studies on global Englishes, the meanings correlated with labels assigned to each area can become challenging to distinguish, for both researchers and learners alike. In fact, Jenkins (2006) believes that a great deal difficulty tends to arise from SLA researcher’s inability to distinguish a lingua franca from a foreign language. Jenkins proposes a model which largely distinguishes the defining features of EFL and ELF, despite their near identical acronyms (2006). A foreign language is defined as part of modern foreign languages where native speakers are seen as more competent and non-native speakers are seen as having a language deficit. Foreign languages also tend to occur in populations of the same monolingual background and view code-switching. Jenkins says that English as a lingua franca views language opposes in many of the traditional foreign language views, taking the perspective that non-native speakers are more competent and seeing language variation as different rather than deficit. ELF also views language as evolutionary rather than conformative to norms and code switching is seen as a pragmatic resource as opposed to an error (Jenkins, 2006). A further stipulation of ELF is presented by Meierkord (2004) who defines ELF as the version of English used between two non-native speakers for communicative purposes and should be used exclusively as an L2. It should also be noted that Jenkins et. al. (2011) defines English as an International Language (EIL) as a precursory term for ELF which is still occasionally used.

In the same vein of technical term clarification, a further distinction may need to be required for the closely related terms global English and English as a Lingua Franca. While both view the idea of English far beyond the original idea of being confined to native speaker norms, global Englishes are primarily concerned with ‘bounded’ varieties of English whereas ELF believes that the language created across non-native speakers and a traditional view should be instead viewed as contingent, hybrid, fluid, flexible and intercultural (Jenkins et. al., 2004). It can be said simply that ‘global English’ is a larger umbrella term under which English as a lingua franca exists, with the key difference being that global Englishes are created from those of the same linguistic background, intranationally, and ELF is created by those of different linguistic backgrounds, internationally (Meierkord, 2004).

Background

The spread of the English language can be contributed to several factors, many of which are evidenced through historical events including colonization, imperial rule, and missionary ardor. However, the more recent spread of English as an international language is now primarily associated with economic and political power (Kachru & Smith, 2009). Kachru and Smith (2009) state that the need for trade, finance, and commerce has encouraged many countries to become more proficient in English, as it is overwhelmingly seen as the language of international business. It is widely for these reasons that English has become so widespread.

Development of English as a global or world language caused some discord among those who consider themselves native speakers of English as, essentially, global Englishes blur the line of who is considered a native speaker of English (Rajagopalpan, 2004). Rajagopalan sides with Widdowson’s (1994) contention that while native speakers of English take pride in the fact that their language is now a primary means of international communication, the very fact that it is used internationally means that English is no longer subject to native ownership. Rajagopalan also cites a 1985 argument between famous theorists Braj Kachru and Randolph Quirk on the subject of English ‘ownership’. While Quirk believed that a monochrome standard was necessary to avoid a metaphorical Tower of Babel where no two speakers of English were mutually intelligible, Kachru pushed for a more relevant standard of English to align with the globalization of the world (Rajagopalan, 2004).

By far the most widely-accepted conceptual model for understanding the profiles of sociolinguistic English was proposed by the very same Braj Kachru (1992). Using a model of concentric circles, Kachru divides all speakers of English into 3 groups: (1) the inner circle, (2) the outer circle, and (3) the expanding circle. The inner circle contains individuals who speak English as their mother tongue and includes the ‘native’ nations mentioned in the introduction: Britain, the United States, Canada, Ireland, South Africa and Australia. The outer circle utilizes English in official or institutionalized capacities, often creating entirely new forms of English, and including India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Nigeria, and Singapore. The expanding circle consists of nations which use English as a foreign language such as China, Russia, Nepal, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Kachru continues to say that because English has clearly become an international language, teachers must adapt their perspectives, content, and methodologies to a more modern view of English language teaching (1992). Kachru’s model has served as a basis for comparison to examine the development of global Englishes and English as a lingua franca.

However, due to widespread international use of English, native speaker norms may not be as important in the future as English is being constantly shaped more and more by nonnative users (Seidlhofer, 2005). Rajagopalan (2004) agrees with Kachru that native speakers have lost the standard of English and that world Englishes and global Englishes are a unique linguistic phenomenon which needs to distinguished separate from ELT. Given the rapid growth of world Englishes, Rajagopalan also stipulates the clear view that native speakers are no longer to be "elevated to the status of totem" and insinuates an intense need for change in the English language classroom (Rajagopalan, 2004). Matsuda (2006) also argues that native speaker norms may be important for ESL or inner circle education where the main goal is communication with native speakers. However, in EFL, where the goal is communication with nonnative speakers of English, the monolith of a native speaker should no longer hold as much importance and it is important that ELF students are empowered learn different language varieties, history of English, and their own right to ownership (Matsuda, 2006).

Linguistic Variations in ELF

Given the recent developmental nature of ELF, research in the field is widely considered a bold new enterprise. Work on ELF is still in its initial phase and research currently results from a moderately sized database (Seidlhofer, 2004). Even with only few studies currently available, clear linguistic distinctions of English as a lingua franca have begun to emerge. These linguistic variations are important to note as they may ultimately impede the rate of acquisition due to multiple dialects and affect which language norms should be learned in the first place.

The foremost category of distinction in ELF is that of phonology. Jennifer Jenkins, the foremost researcher of phonological variations in ELF, has identified several distinctions to aid in establishing a "lingua franca core" which reclassifies what have previously been seen as pronunciation errors in EFL into pronunciation norms in ELF (2002). She found and recorded main distinctions of ELF which caused intelligibility between different L1 interlocutors. These distinctions are five in number and include: omission of consonants, differences in consonants, difference in consonant clusters, difference in vowels, and difference in placement of nuclear stress. First, ELF consonants are primarily the same as in EFL with the exception of the interdental fricatives /θ/ /ð/ and the dark "l" (ɫ). In the realm of phonetic consonant difference, ELF has an observed difference in voiceless stop aspiration as in /k/ /t/ and /p/. It was found that in the cases of these phonemes, speakers of ELF change these consonants to their voiced counter parts /g/ /d/ and /b/. A reduction of consonant clusters in the middle of words was also found, e.g. the word friendship may be pronounced friendship, though this reduction was not found in word-initial clusters. Also, vowels were found to be widely the same, with the exception of /E/ some cases, especially in the place of the shortened vowel /a:/. Finally, there was a noted difference in the placement of nuclear or sentence stress. One example of this may be a student saying. He CAME by train vs, He came by TRAIN where the capitalization indicates a stressed word. The lingua franca core (LFC) excludes differences, such as interdental fricatives from the core and help to classify common variations in ELF (Jenkins, 2002).

Syntactic differences in ELF have also been studied. Meierkord (2004) studied 22 hours of interaction between speakers of different L1s who use English as an international language, in this case as a lingua franca. This research revealed that the majority of utterances were unmarked, such as use of definite or indefinite articles, We went to the supermarket. from a interlocutor from Pakistan. A lack of subject-auxillary switch in –wh questions as in When you start practicing? was also noted. The data importantly notes a transitional form of English, not dissimilar to an interlanguage. Perhaps more important than these more important are the pragmatic differences learners employed during their interactions (Meierkord, 2004).

The interactional modifications observed in Meierkord’s research indicate strategies students used with made their interactions easier to process (2004). One example includes simplification of speech by a higher speaker to accommodate a lower speaker. In these instances on the syntactic level, students would segment their sentences into smaller, easily processed units. Another strategy exhibited was the regularization or topicalization strategies where, essentially, competent English speakers moved the topic of the idea to the beginning of a sentence in order to increase clarity. One example was that of a competent student from Malaysia saying, My unit, it’s not that special, you see, where unit was, somewhat abnormally, moved to the beginning of the sentence (Meierkord, 2004).

Another area of linguistic variation only in the infancy of its research is that of lexiogrammar, the subtle relationship between grammar and lexis (Seidlhofer, 2004). Seidlhofer emphasizes that the findings on variations on lexiogrammar, though not yet firm, are differences which language teachers typically correct but in actuality have cause no impediment in communication. A compiling of the Vienna Oxford Corpus of English (VOICE) from the University of Vienna discovered several variations in English as a lingua franca. While these eight findings are far from finite, they may be helpful in the formation of future hypothesis on ELF lexiogrammar. One is the dropping of the third person present tense –s ending as in He speak three languages. Another is the confusion of the relative pronouns who and which as in The man which is from Paris speaks French. Another is the omission or unnecessary addition of definite and indefinite articles. EFL users sometimes also fail to use correct tag questions as well as insert some unnecessary prepositions. They also exhibit use of verbs with semantic generality as in the case of make, put, and take. Another is the replacement of infinitive constructions with clauses containing that, as in the instance I want that. The final "error" listed by Seidlhofer is the hypercorrection of explicitness as in saying black color in lieu of just black. However, it is also noted that while the above mentioned errors did not cause incomplete interaction, certain idiomatic expressions known by one interlocutor but not the other did cause a breach in communication. Some noted examples of these errors are phrasal verbs, idioms, metaphors and other fixed native English expressions (Seidlhofer, 2004).

One may notice that many of the differences in ELF and EFL seem to mirror those of an English L2 learner’s interlanguage. However, Jenkins (2006) points out some important points which excludes ELF from the interlanguage continuum, largely based on perceptional differences rather than the linguistic differences themselves. ELF is considered sui generis, or an original system, emergent, and is different from a modern foreign language. Also, the lack of need for nativelike speech makes the errors in ELF speech variants rather than incorrect forms. This overlooking of ELF as an interlanguage presents a significant challenge fo for the field of SLA (Jenkins, 2006). Overall, it is important to keep in mind that variation is a universal feature across all languages and new variations, given that they are still defined as languages, of are of no exception to this rule (Van Rooy, 2010).

Additional Considerations for SLA

Though much of the research in English as a lingua franca focus on linguistic variation, differences in language acquisition have also been observed (Van Rooy, 2010). Namely, Van Rooy notes social and psycholingustic issues regarding ELF. He argues for the social aspect that while learners are exposed to the vast majority of language variations possible among English language speakers, they are simultaneously given less input. This problematic aspect of exposure to global Englishes postulates that stabilization and conventions of the language are likely to take more time. Also noted is the point that psycholingustically, students who are more cognitively mature when language acquisition of English begins have a higher likelihood of understanding the complex schemas of global Englishes than those of young children. For young students, acquisition may be more optimal if linguistic and cognitive developments are aligned (Van Rooy, 2010). In this case, there may be an argument against exposure to multiple possibilities of English varieties, though the need for such would be largely based on the context of the learning environment and target environment.

Implications and Strategies for ELT

As evidenced by research, global Englishes and English as a lingua franca hold inevitable changes for the field of English language education. This is not limited to the ways in which English is taught in the classroom. Early research into the pragmatics of ELF such as House (2002) observed ELF interactions and noted three primary pedagogical implications of her study. The first issue highlighted was that of open and flexible norms which, in turn, should require teachers to train students in interpretation strategies. The second note emphasized was the importance of performance criteria in the use of English as a lingua franca, including using appropriate strategies, speech acts, topic change, and rate of speech. House noted that these performance characteristics should be emphasized in the instruction of ELF, rather than cultural norms. The third implication was the gathering of personal opinion in effectiveness of strategies from the speakers themselves (House, 2002). The findings of House’s study have obvious implications for the pragmatic development of learners in ELF settings as the issue of pragmatic competence is key for effective communication in ELF interaction.

In a similar vein to House’s research, Murray (2012) agrees that that the many aspects of interaction in English as a lingua franca require extensive development of a learner’s pragmatic competence in order to effectively communicate. He also explicitly states that there is in fact a "paucity" of empirical studies and findings which concerns the field of English as a lingua franca. In the past, emergence of pragmatics in ELT pedagogy has been limited to merely "get business done" and says learners may benefit from strategies that make them uncomfortable, namely, departing from native speaker norms. Murray offers specific strategies for teaching pragmatic competence in an ELF context, including explicit empirically-based strategies, e.g. automatically attuning to the norms of your conversation partner, inductive strategies, e.g. translating a speech act from the native language and explaining the norms associated with the act, and deductive strategies, e.g. thinking about what things influence interaction. Murray ultimately concludes that students will benefit from understanding the broad ideologies that direct their understanding a language, cultural sensitivity, and their ability to use strategic competence when required (2012).

Farrell and Smith (2009) also agree that teachers should consider all potential varieties of English in order to show them that their versions of English are valued and help prepare their students for a more global world. In order to do this, teachers should balance their teaching with their own norms while raising consciousness about the greater world. They offer practical strategies such as translating idiomatic expressions to teach culture and exposing students to different English dialects through British, Indian, New Zealand, and Singaporean news broadcasts (Farrell & Smith, 2009).

ELF: Now and Future

There is a little disagreement that significant changes will occur for the English language. However, despite the clear growth of global Englishes, it is no secret that native speaker norms are overwhelmingly seen as the standard for English as a foreign language instruction today. In a survey of 600 students from 45 countries, even students who aimed for communication with nonnative speakers of English favored the idea of attaining nativelike speech (Timmis, 2002). It seems that while TESOL educators and researchers are widely aware of this need for change, this awareness completely extends neither to learners themselves nor businesses that profit from the norm of native speakership (Bamgbose, 2001). Researchers such as Matsuda (2006) pushed for teacher and student outreach education because they do not value their speakership as NNSs. This may be because individuals tend to prefer culturally predetermined varieties of English and often outweigh other varieties in an attempt to achieve the most viable communication (Bamgbose, 2001). Predetermined varieties may seem more concrete, but as all language is determined by context, predetermination may not be the best indicator of appropriateness.

As another note, it appears that to linguists, the development and variation of different global varieties of a language is nothing new and this naturally occurs as a part of nativization and acculturation (Kachru & Smith, 2009). These same authors stipulate some future constructs for global Englishes and do not find attempts to standardize helpful or hold any hope for "creating" a lingua franca. Kachru and Smith (2009) state that "unitary labels such as ‘global English’ seem to be attempts at standardization and futile gatekeeping" and go on to site the futile efforts of BASIC English, Nuclear English, or world languages such as Esperanto as evidence that this will not work ELF cannot be regulated or, in turn, effectively taught (Kachru & Smith, 2009, p7).

While learners and instructors may not completely agree on the status of native speakership, it seems overwhelmingly clear that English as a lingua franca and global Englishes will continue in growth. Rajagopalan (2004) believes that the native speaker (NS) will, in the future, lose his or her former privileged position as an ESL professional and that any NS "who is not well-versed in WE is most likely to find himself left out in the linguistic cold" (p117).

Conclusion

It seems that ultimately, as the consensus in the field of linguistics and TESOL has become clear, it is now up to the learners to "In a sense incorporating World Englishes is like putting on a new set of glasses-- the detail and complexity of the world we suddenly see may initially be overwhelming, but in the long run, we would have a better view and understanding of EIL." (Matsuda, 200__)