English as the International Language of the Twenty-First Century - Essay Example

1 Introduction Many recent debates in publications and at the conferences are questioning the global presence of English. English has become the international language of the twenty-first century. It has been both the cause and effect of globalization and of internationalization. It is predicted to remain the international language for big business, the language of e-commerce and the language of knowledge-based economies for many decades (Mydans, 2001). Jenkins et al. 2011 provides a brief explanation of globalization phenomenon: Globalization is the process by which the world has become/is becoming more interconnected, where relations across local, regional and global contexts become more enmeshed, where flows of language, culture and people are intensified and accelerated. The primary means by which these flows and networks are established and maintained is through the use of a common contact language. English, the most widely diffused contact language, is the primary linguistic channel through which these flows take place… English is thus a globalized phenomenon that is continuously being LOCALIZED during its countless interactions. The fact that globalization is a very fast process prescribes that children need to be proficient in the English language to be competent in their international dealings (Doman, 2005). Due to the wide proliferation of learning English language, various cultures have adopted the language and integrated their own cultural flavor in it. World Englishes are forms of the English language that non-native English speakers use with native English being American and /or British English. Members of a certain culture use English to suit their own communication styles. Considering the variety of cultures in the world, there are now more non-native English-speakers than native speakers (Jenkins, 2006; Canagarajah, 2007). This includes Saudi Arabian nationals. 1.2 Aims and Objectives 1.3 The Field of World Englishes 'New Englishes' or 'World Englishes' is usually used to refer to the new varieties of English. Mesthrie and Bhatt (2008) state that "it has become customary to use the plural form 'Englishes' to stress the diversity to be found in the language today, and to stress that English no longer has one single base of authority, prestige and normativity." The authors clarify that World Englishes "represents all varieties except the L1 varieties of places like the UK and USA" (Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008). Accrdoging to Hoffmann and Siebers (2009), "what is often referred to as "the" English language is in fact a heterogeneous and linguistically fascinating group of first (L1), second (L2) and foreign language varieties. A more appropriate cover term is thus World Englishes, which highlights the diversity and world-wide distribution of these varieties" (Hoffmann and Siebers (2009). Salikoko S. Mufwene refers to the notion of ecology, which is the concept borrowed from biology to provide a clear insight into the formation of New Englishes. Focussing on the indigenization of English in North America, Mufwene claims that American English emerged as a variety distinct from British English dialects due to an interaction of several ecological factors (fauna, flora, and socio-economic structures as well as the speaking habits and communicative needs of some of its speakers). Hoffmann and Siebers (2009). Therefore; the specific vernacular of English that arose in Northern America is a result of the universal ecological mechanisms of language contact. Mesthrie and Bhatt emphasise that sociolinguists need to acknowledge that community attitudes and expectations are important. Kachru himself acknowledged that there are many ambiguities, where language attitudes are concerned: The non-native speakers themselves have not been able to accept what may be termed the 'ecological validity' of their nativised or local Englishes. One would have expected such acceptance, given the acculturation and linguistic nativisation of the new varieties. On the other hand, the non-native models of English (such as RP or General American), are not accepted without reservations. There is thus a case of linguistic schizophrenia. . . Kachru and Sahgal present a clear example of the change of attitudes in accordance with new circumstances. Kachru asserted that based on a survey held in the 1970s, a large number of Indian graduate students preferred to have the British model of English as a medium of instruction. A couple of years later in the1990s Sahgal implies a growing favour for 'ordinary Indian English'. Mesthrie and Bhatt declare that "conditions are now favourable for the emergence of a standard Indian English with overtly prestigious norms of its own, as exemplified in its national and international television networks, the English of Indian film stars, cricketers and other prestigious role models, etc." (Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008). Patricia Friedrich tries to investigate a new sub-discipline of Peace Studies, which is Peace Sociolinguistics and its connection to World Englishes. She emphasizes the fact that language plays an essential role in achieving and sustaining social justice and peace. As a result, she asks World Englishes scholars to support positive peace "by, e.g., engaging in linguistic classroom education that creates an awareness of the existence and functional range of the different Englishes around the world and by actively participating in the scholarly study of Peace Sociolinguistics." (Hoffmann and Siebers, 2009). Alsagoff highlights the idea that in recent days English is spreading in multilingual and multicultural contexts, therefore real English is not just "Inner Circle English". "There need to be more writings that prompt critical reflection on the way English, in its worldwide spread, is taught to and learnt by multilingual speakers and learners across the globe." (Marlina, 2013) Mufwene insists that part of language is being inherited and the other part is being made by the speakers, "and that monolingual native speakers have no more authority than their (fluent) multilingual counterparts, especially in the modern world." (Mesthrie and Bhatt 2008) . Jenkins et al. 2011 argue that: The current transformations that English is undergoing, and which in ELF contexts are accelerated, are part of wider global trends. The increased cultural flows of our digitalized world have given rise to an intensification of innovative language practices, and these are especially prominent in ELF interactional settings. Kumaravadivelu and McKay "urge English language educators to break the dependency on Western knowledge production, centre-based methods, centre-based cultural competence, and the Centre-based textbook industry." (Marlina, 2013) Not too far from previous researchers, Nelson and Kern with a special focus on technology and globalisation stress “the need to conceptualize language as a dynamic semiotic resource that individuals combine with other semiotic resources to act in the world." (Nelson and Kern). The way language is taught should supply students "knowledge and the ability to use language as well non-linguistic elements in a digitalised world e.g., videos, sounds, images, etc to interpret, communicate, and negotiate meaning." (Marlina, 2013) Mesthrie and Bhatt raise an important issue regarding the gap between formal educational standard and informal speech: We caution that there is always a gap between formal educational standard and informal speech. Even if there were an earnest and dedicated directive to inculcate, say, Indian English in the classroom, with all its salient grammatical features, there is no guarantee that that is what the pupils will necessarily acquire. We should always expect an approximation of the target variety, rather than full replication. And students may signal their individuality and changing identities by further innovations. The sociolinguistic universe is not a static one, even in the outer circle. Kimberley Brown asserts that "the internationalisation of English language teaching is long overdue." She suggests that the "World English perspective" be incorporated as part of teacher training: "it is imperative that students work with actual data from around the world; otherwise the whole concept of a world Englishes perspective remains abstract and potentially divorced from young teachers' lives." (Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008). Two educational programmes were examined in literature: one in Korea and one in California to illustrate the possibilities and difficulties accompanied with using WE materials to inform the students about the varieties of English, rather than the choice of the very medium of worldwide communication." They argued that the standard for World Englishes should not come from just one hegemonic variety of English (for EFL countries) nor solely from the local variety (for ESL) countries" (Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008) Mesthrie and Bhatt emphasise that "Varieties that are frequently silenced in the educational system can contain a wealth of local linguistic resources in vocabulary, grammar, discourse conventions and accent. Whilst sociolinguist recognise that the empowerment of pupils includes the inculcation of the standard, they insist that it should not lead to the devaluation of the local norms" (Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008). 1.4 The expanding circle Mesthrie and Bhatt argue that EFLs are more "diffuse and do not yet lend themselves to systematic comparisons with each other. In Kachru's term, they are 'norm dependant'. For EFLs there has been no one defining encounter with British or American rule. English is restricted to being a subject studied in the classroom and an important means of international communication, and interaction with tourists" (Mesthrie and Bhatt, 2008). The authors conclude that EFL countries still undergo common "changes and challenges" as a result of globalization and the increasing use of English as its vehicle. 1.5 New Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca Margie Berns et al. presented a workshop examining Kachruvian terminology and came to conclude that there is a "shared ground" between World Englishes and Lingua Franca. They also ask for creations of special units for holding the research and making the changes in thetical models related to the diversity of Englishes. Seidlhover argues that although ELF was the most "extensive contemporary" use of English all over the world, "little description of this linguistic reality was currently available, which both precluded us from conceiving of speakers of lingua franca English as language users in their own right and meant that native English norms continued to be considered the only valid target for learners." (Jenkins et al. 2011). On the other hand, some researchers view English as a Lingua Franca and English as a Foreign Language as two completely different "phenomena". The difference between them have been summarised by Jenkins et al. 2011 as follows: ELF is part of the Global Englishes paradigm, according to which most speakers of English are non-native speakers (henceforth NNSEs), and all English varieties, native or non-native, are accepted in their own right rather than evaluated against a NSE benchmark. By contrast, EFL is part of the Modern (Foreign) Languages paradigm, according to which most interaction involving non-native speakers is with native speakers of the language, and non-native speakers' goal is to approximate the native variety as closely as possible. Following from the previous point, an ELF perspective sees non-native Englishes as different rather than deficient. Or, to put it another way, differences from ENL are not assumed to be signs of incompetence, as they are when viewed from an EFL perspective, but are explored as emerging or potential features of ELF. Whereas EFL is underpinned by theories of L! INTERFERENCE and FOSSILIZATION, ELF is underpinned by theories of language contact and evolution. As a result, while in EFL code-switching is regarded as evidence of a gap in a NNSE's English knowledge, in ELF it is seen as a crucial bilingual pragmatic resource. Jenkins et al. 2011 question the possible pedagogic impact of ELF and the practicability of "external NORMS", and the sustained favouring of one of "The only two" "prestige models", American or British English. On the other hand, the authors stress that the goal of ELF researchers has never been to suggest another model of English. In fact, ELF research present insights into the diverse nature of English as it is used in "contact situations". Therefore, a basic primary aim of ELF research is to increase the awareness of the correlation involving "language models" and the "variable nature of language" in communication. Subsequently, Jenkins et al. 2011 confirm that the aim behind ELF research is not about shaping what should or should not be taught in the language classroom. However, ELF researchers believe their task is to provide teachers with the results of the investigation to help them understand the imporatntce of ELF for their work: Canagarajah describes a less hierarchical, more levelled approach to language education, in which teaching models, materials and methods are developed at a local level. Although addressing the impact of World Englishes on pedagogy... Canagarajah's recommendation that a more PLURICENTRIC approach should be adopted is directly relevant to the pedagogic implications of ELF research.The same is true of Pennycook's PLURILITHIC Englishes. And Kirkpatrick presents similar arguments in favour of adopting a pluralistic approach. Of most significance vis-a-vis ELF is his discussion not only of the need for learners and teachers to be exposed to a range of Englishes, but also the need to focus less on language norms and more on the communicative practices and strategies of effective speakers. 1.6 Reasons behind the domination of English Due to the fast spread of English, Kachru (1992) procides some of the reasons behind its domination "the excellence of its literary traditions; and the dominance of the language in trade, commerce, banking, tourism, technology, and scientific research" (Kachru, 1992) He also highlights other reasons behind the growing number for the study of English such as the social approach toward the language and the power it has and its influence on the speakers. Mesthrie and Bhatt 2008 points to the spread of English as a consequence of the internationalisation of society and the globalisation of exchanges: Seen globally, these consequences are social as well as economic. Some of them are linguistic. Very few languages share the market of international linguistic exchanges. To get a fair share of that market it is necessary for a language to fulfil a number of conditions, that is, an important demographic weight, strong economic support, a previously established international spread, and a high level of modernization. Only English fulfils all these conditions; Russian has lost several of them; Spanish and Chinese may acquire more potential in the future. But most languages are more or less excluded from the linguistic market. Lisa Lim in her article: "Not just an outer Circle, Asian English: Singapore English and the significance of ecology" stresses that: "labelling New Englishes as e.g. "Outer Circle" tends to obscure the complex and dynamic ecological processes that have played a major role in the evolution of such varieties" (Hoffmann and Siebers, 2009). Jenkins et al. 2011 declare that nowadays many teacher training manuals integrate parts that deal with the wide spread of English in the world. Harmer's opening chapter includes a section on developments in World Englishes and a passing mention of the newly-observed phenomenon that is sometimes called ELF. Yet, while texts of this kind are an important first step in raising awareness of ELF among novice teachers, much more detailed discussions are needed if there is to be proper engagement with ELF in practice. So far there has been little detailed discussion of how different varieties of English, or how the dynamic variability of ELF, might impact on language teaching MODELS or MEHODOLOGY. In Harmer, for instance, the conclusions arrived at are somewhat conservative: after a brief discussion of English varieties, Harmer observes that learners' and teachers' options largely amount to a choice between British English or American English. In other words, practically no consideration is given to empirical work on nativized Englishes or the expanding body of ELF research. 1.7 Levels of variations in varieties; A comparative analysis of different kinds of English language varieties helps expand the main characteristics of features and categories of linguistic. “At the same time they also explore the frequency distribution of these phenomena and investigate the similarities between L1 and L2 varieties" (Hoffmann and Siebers, 2009). Different corpora such as the Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects and others from the ICE project and the Corpus of Spoken American English prove that the degree of contact in the formation of New Englishes draw a parallel with the relative degree of morpho-syntactic complexity exhibited by these varieties (Hoffmann and Siebers 2009). One of the studies done that explores the morphological and syntactic variation across different varieties of English was the research by Marianne Hundt, who investigated the progressive passive in L1 varieties; British, Australian and New Zealand English along with L2 varieties; Indian, Philippine, Hong Kong and Singapore English. The outcome of her study reveals that both varieties share global features as well as sharing "localized or low frequency" variances such as the omission of the auxiliary which were categorized to Outer Circle ones. Another investigation in the field of semantics was done by Bertus Van Rooy who completed a comparative corpus study to discover "the semantics of a highly abstract syntactic construction". Collecting different data from the British, East Africa and Hong Kong ICE corpora, the researcher concluded that the perfect in English should not be analysed as having a single core meaning but that the perfect in English has a temporal and aspectual features (Hoffmann and Siebers, 2009). On the level of word-formation, Thomas Biermeier tries to look for an answer to the question, whether word-formation processes in different New Englishes exhibit the same properties as in L1 varieties. After collecting qualitative and quantitative studies of "compounding, derivation and conversion in several ICE corpora" from; GB, Singapore, the Philippines, India, Tanzania, Kenya, New Zealand, and Jamaica, he comes to conclude that "the role and use of English in a given variety have clear effects on the availability and variety of morphological processes" (Hoffmann and Siebers, 2009) Read More