Filetype PDF | Posted on 23 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
REFLECTION ON PRAXIS
World Englishes and English Language Teaching: A
pragmatic and humanistic approach
Lenguas inglesas del mundo y la enseñanza del inglés: un
enfoque pragmático y humanístico
Subrata Kumar Bhowmik1
Citation / Para citar este artículo: Bhowmik, S. K. (2015). World Englishes and English Language Teaching: A Pragmatic and Humanistic Approach.
Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J., 17(1), pp.142-157.
Received: 12-Aug-2014 / Accepted: 27-Apr-2015
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.1.a10
Abstract
Seidlhofer (2005) describes the current status of English as an “unstable equilibrium.” In many ways this analogy
regarding the current state of affairs with English language teaching (ELT) is appropriate. Taking a World Englishes
(WE) perspective, this paper presents various mismatches between teaching goals and objectives vis-à-vis the teaching
and learning outcomes in ELT. The paper then makes the argument that in order for more successful English language
teaching and learning to take place, a pragmatic and humanistic approach needs to be adopted. An outline of such an
approach is discussed.
Keywords: ELT, a humanistic approach to ELT, a pragmatic approach to ELT, World Englishes
Resumen
Seidlhofer (2005) describe el estado actual de inglés como un “equilibrio inestable”. En muchos sentidos, esta
analogía con respecto a la situación actual con la enseñanza del idioma Inglés (ELT) es apropiado. Tomando una
perspectiva de las lenguas inglesas del mundo (World Englishes), este trabajo presenta varios desajustes entre las
metas y los objetivos en relación con los resultados de enseñanza y aprendizaje en la enseñanza ELT. En el documento
se presenta, entonces, el argumento de que para que la enseñanza y el aprendizaje del idioma Inglés tengan lugar con
más éxito, un enfoque pragmático y humanista debe ser adoptado. Se discute un esquema de este tipo de enfoque.
Palabras clave: ELT, enfoque humanístico a ELT, enfoque pargmático a ETL, lenguas inglesas del mundo
1 University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. sbhowmik@ucalgary.ca
Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.
142 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
World Englishes and English Language Teaching
Introduction ELT in the twenty-first century encounters a
myriad of problems. A closer look at them suggests
English language teaching has witnessed a that the root of many of these problems lies in the
major boom around the globe in recent times. unprecedented global spread of English in the last
The continuous spread of English has given rise few decades that has given rise to different varieties
to different varieties of English language, making it of English language. A brief explanation in this regard
almost impossible to trace the norms for Standard is in order. Different varieties of English mean that
English (SE) (e.g., Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Kachru, 1982; ELT can no longer afford to choose between only
Lowenberg, 2000, pp. 69-73). As the proliferation of British or American English as the primary target
English education continues at our time, the variety variety for instruction. As the spread of English
of English to be considered as SE, the norms to be continues, nonnative-nonnative interactions have
followed in English language pedagogy (Kachru, become more common than native-native and
1982, p. 49), and the materials to be used for native-nonnative interactions (Lowenberg, 2000, p.
English language teaching (ELT) curriculum are but 67). For instance, according to an estimate provided
only a few issues that constitute some of the most by Crystal (1997, cited in Graddol, 1997), in 1995
intriguing concerns in the field. Research shows that there were approximately 377 million people using
the global spread of English has significant bearing English as their L1, while at the same time there
on ELT. Much of this bearing has manifested itself were about 235 million people using English as their
in the lack of a uniform target variety of English for second language. Crystal (1997, cited in Graddol,
instruction and the prevailing problems in setting 1999) notes that in 50 years (i.e., from 1995) this
suitable teaching goals and objectives commensurate balance would shift significantly as the number
to teaching and learning outcomes. In this paper, of people using English as a second or foreign
I take an exploratory approach to investigate these language would almost double. In fact, it is argued
conundrums relating to ELT. Specifically, I look that at present, nonnative speakers of English have
at problems that ELT faces in setting a uniform already outnumbered their native counterparts and
target variety for instruction; curriculum design that native speakers comprise only “a fifth or less”
and materials development; testing; and teacher of world’s total English users. (e.g., Lowenberg,
training—areas that are absolutely crucial for any 2000, p. 67).
language pedagogy.
In spite of this ever-widening spectrum of the
Prevalence of more than one standard variety English speaking population, ELT is still mostly
of any given language may not be entirely unusual. controlled (i.e., determining the norms for teaching,
This trend may hold true for various languages designing syllabus, producing materials, and so
2
in the world such as Arabic, Chinese, French, on) by “native-speaking,” inner-circle countries.
Greek, and so on. Difficulties in setting a uniform Seidlhofer (2004) refers to this situation as an
standard variety while teaching these languages as “unstable equilibrium” (p. 209). That is, while
a second or foreign language may parallel those 2 It is worth noting that Kachru’s concentric model distinctions
in English. However, what separates the context between inner-, outer-, and expanding-circle are not absolute.
of the teaching of English from other languages is There has been a great deal of criticism about this model. For
English’s status as the most high stake, most used, example, Tripathi (1998) observes that this model assumes that
there is uniformity of English language within each group of
and most widespread language the world has ever countries. But in reality, this notion is far from true. He further
known (Kachru & Nelson, 1996, p. 71). Besides, argues that great linguistic diversity exists within inner-circle (such
as USA, Canada) as well as outer-circle (such as India, Pakistan)
the continuous spread of English worldwide has countries. Furthermore, Tripathi (1998) maintains that the
put it in a unique situation. For example, because concentric model cannot sufficiently explain the evolving nature
of the linguistic changes within each circle. Although circles in
of its spread over time, English has become more their “connotational sense” could be expanded due to various
hybridized and diverse, a phenomenon captured external or internal forces, “…this happens regardless of the
by the term World Englishes. In such a milieu, it is spatial order inner or outer” (p. 56). Australia and New Zealand,
for instance, were included in inner-circle English in the past;
natural that English language teaching at present is similarly, there could be more inner-circle English countries in
more challenging than ever before. future. This happens due to the natural course of various (socio)
linguistic phenomena.
Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.
Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
143
nonnative speakers have outnumbered their native I make it a point that a pragmatic and humanistic
counterparts, native speakers of English still enjoy approach to ELT is necessary for a globalized world
the privileges of being “native.” Native speakers, that is diverse and fast-changing.
for instance, are entitled to getting “special status”
(Graddol, 1999, p. 67) as well as various material
and psychological benefits while using English in English in the twenty-first century—
everyday life. After all, it is the inner-circle speakers what are the standards?
who set the standard norms for English, get jobs
that are meant only for “native speakers,” get The global spread of English in the last few
a raise or promotion at work just because they decades has caused an unprecedented growth of
identify themselves as native speakers of English the language. What this means is that English has
(e.g., Kirkpatrick, 2007). At pedagogical levels, the grown into a great many varieties. An important
impacts of this phenomenon are quite pervasive fact about the rise of different varieties of English
too—inner-circle-oriented curriculum design is that they are not only limited to the outer- and
and materials development that show little or no expanding-circle countries, rather varieties of
sensitivity to local contexts, developing tests that English are equally prevalent in inner-circle countries
are incompatible with local teaching and learning (Widdowson, 1994, p. 378). With so many existing
goals and objectives, preference for native English varieties, maintaining standard norms for English to
speakers for English teaching positions, undue be used as a single reference point has always been
stress on learners for appropriating a particular a challenge for its users. The issue is particularly
variety of inner-circle English often disregarding critical for practitioners of ELT since they need to
more popular localized varieties are some examples set fixed standards for their teaching purposes. In
in this connection (Canagarajah, 1999; Kirkpatrick, the section below, I examine issues relating to SE
2007; Phillipson, 1992). As one can see, ELT these that often intrigue ELT practitioners. The ownership
days is characterized by numerous tensions on the of English, a related concept, also figures in the
part of both teachers and students. What is important discussion. After all, standards are typically set by
to note here is that these factors not only impact the “owners” of the language.
teachers and learners but also the actual English
language teaching practices (e.g., approaches and Widdowson (1994) problematizes the concept
methods). At times, these impacts are so far reaching of standards and ownership of English. He suggests
that they lead to failures and/or disruptions of English that language maintenance is a task that is not
language teaching and learning goals (Canagarajah, necessarily endowed upon a particular subset of
1999). Therefore, it is important to engage in people who are by default native speakers of the
deliberations on how WE issues permeate ELT. language. In fact, Widdowson argues that the
responsibility of maintaining the standard rests
In the following sections, I organize my upon all of those who speak/use the language.
discussions as follows: I first draw on issues relating That is, he implicitly concedes that the ownership
to standards of English and how they have made it of the language belongs to all. But in reality the
difficult for ELT practitioners to set a uniform target fact remains that inner-circle countries determine
variety for ELT. As mentioned above, because there the standards of English. ELT courses modeled
are so many varieties of English, encompassing after inner-circle norms do not address local needs
inner-, outer-, and expanding-circle countries, there and preferences. Matsuda (2003), for example,
is always a conflict as to which variety should be used maintains that when the English language that is
as a standard norm. Further, various ownership- taught in EFL/ESL follows inner-circle English, it
related ideologies (i.e., ownership of English) may result in the neglect of local learners’ linguistic
make things more complicated in this regard. In needs, ignoring their education about the history
the subsequent sections, I discuss the difficulties and politics surrounding the English language, and
that ELT faces in curriculum design and materials the failure to empower learners with ownership of
development, testing, and teacher training. Finally, English (p. 721).
Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.
144 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
World Englishes and English Language Teaching
What is more, the measures used to evaluate the most native speakers. One of the most commonly
standards vary across time and space. For instance, made arguments by native speakers is that a lack of
in Britain many people relate spelling errors to standards allows a proliferation of what they label as
a non-standard variety of English. For others, it deficit English. One may notice that this argument
might be the lexical, grammatical, or phonological involves more material than practical considerations;
system. Widdowson (1994) distinguishes between it involves material stakes such as the control and
two major functions of language: communal ownership of English on the part of native speakers.
and communicative. While communal functions An example to this end would help clarify this point:
relate more to the conventions (such as spelling It is predominantly the native speakers who control,
and accent) of a given language, communicative design, and produce the majority of ELT materials
functions have more to do with communication worldwide and provide themselves with a huge share
among its users. According to Widdowson, it is at of the ELT market (Kirkpatrick, 2007). Therefore,
the level of communal function that the concept of a complete control and ownership of English are
“standard” becomes an issue as it allows its users to of significant material interests to them. However,
exclude those who do not follow the conventions— considering the volume of the global spread of
the “standards” of English. It also allows the English in the twenty-first century, restricting the
followers of the standard variety of English to wield language to native speakers is as impractical as it is
power and prestige (Lowenberg, 2000) over those inappropriate.
who do not belong to the “community” (see also
Kachru, 1982, pp. 49-52 for an account of how Indeed, pluricentricity is the theme of much of
the concept of “models” [roughly synonymous to the work related to the spread of English in recent
“standards”] can be disadvantageous). In contrast, times. While Kachru’s (1982, 1985) concentric
at the communicative level, the fact remains that model sets the tone for conceptualization of what
as long as communication is accomplished, the is now popularly known as World Englishes (WE),
English language remains fully functional. This is the trend has moved on and continued to promote
not to say, however, that the communal function of the importance of viewing English as a language
English should be considered unimportant. of the world, owned by the peoples around the
globe. Over the years, English has been “the most
As one can see, the ownership of English and the widely taught, read and spoken language the world
“standards” of the language are inseparably related. has ever known” (Kachru & Nelson, 1996, p. 71).
The concept of SE is relative to how the native While researchers recognize different varieties of
speakers define the term to maintain its communal English based on various linguistic levels such as
functions. As discussed above, no matter how vocabulary and grammar, and accent (Strevens,
important standards are for maintaining communal 1983; cited in Kachru & Nelson, 1996), what binds
integrity, they may not simply serve any purpose in it together is its common communicative goal.
accomplishing communicative functions. In the Indeed, helping learners develop communicative
current scenarios in which English language teaching skills in English has been one of the primary
and learning take place, it is the communicative teaching goals in ELT curricula. However, with so
function that matters the most to both learners and many different indigenous varieties of English (e.g.,
teachers (e.g., Alptekin, 2002; Rajagopalan, 2004). Indian English, Nigerian English, Singaporean
Since the main purpose of most English language English, etc.) coupled with conflicting learning
education is to make learners communicatively needs for passing standardized English tests and
competent, addressing the communal function of communicating with different subsets of people,
English, making students learn about the nuanced setting appropriate teaching goals in ELT and
conventions or standards of the language may be teaching communicative skills is not an easy
a misfit in the long list of ELT goals and objectives. task. A corollary of this has been a tremendous
impetus for the codification of the characteristics
This approach to English language teaching/ of different varieties of English, which has resulted
learning is in contradiction with the interests of in new research agenda in WE.
Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.
Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
145
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
