abstract - 熊本学園大学judy/gyoseki/32necessofengs.doc · web viewthe existence of different...

THE NECESSITY OF ENGLISHES FOR THE FUTURE OF ENGLISH

05/07/23 Judy Yoneoka

AbstractThe present paper argues that today’s global role for English is endangered as

long as the language is equated with the political, economic and cultural power of its major western speakers, the US and Britain. To remain a global language in the future, then, English must “deculturize” away from being the language of country X or country Y, and subsequently “multiculturalize” in order to be able to express a variety of cultural concepts around the world. These goals have already been accomplished to a certain extent through the growing recognition of Indian, Singaporean, Nigerian and other newer Englishes within linguistic circles.

However, the common conceptualization of English as a single language connected with certain cultures persists in education and in general society, and this must change if English is to survive a world power shift. Specifically, English should be taught along with tolerance and intracultural sensitivity, not only in EFL and ESL classrooms, but in ENL ones as well.

本論では、世界の政治経済力や文化力を占めている英国および米国に結びついているかぎり、今日の英語のグローバル役割は将来危険であることを議論する。国際語のままに残るため、英語はまず国 Xまたは国 Yの母国語であることよりも「非文化的」にならざるをえない。また、世界中のさまざまな文化的概念を表現できるように「多文化的」になる必要性もある。この二つの目的は、言語学者のあいだではインド、シンガポール、ナイジェリアなどの新 Englishesの認識によってすでにある程度進んでいる。

しかしながら、英語は単一言語である特定の文化にかかわっているという一般概念は未だに教育や一般社会に続いている。世界のもっとも有力な国々が変わっても、英語が世界語として生き残るため、この実態は変わらざるをえない。特に、英語が外国語や第二言語として教えている教室だ

1/2305/07/23



けではなく、母国語として扱う教室の中でも、寛容や多言語・文化への配慮も含むべきである。

1. Introduction—language and culture2. The future of English – language and power3. The role of Englishes4. Deculturalization or multiculturalization?5. Tolerance and linguacultural sensitivity6. ConclusionsWORD COUNT: 　５３６７

1. Introduction

As the new millennium rushes in, with English unquestionably being the language

of global educational, political and economic leadership around the world, the question is

being asked by more and more scholars around the world -- for how long? The crystal

ball gazers vary in their predictions: Some say 50 years anyway, others 100, still others

cannot imagine any change in the present situation at all.

Why such a discrepancy between the visions of the realists vs. the optimists?

White cites 8 reasons (AILA Aug. 5, 1999) that the proponents of English longevity use to

support their claims:

1) It is the most frequently used language by national leaders around the world.

2) It is used in the most countries around the world. (?)

3) Most educated non-natives speak English fluently.

4) 10% of world leaders are native English speakers. (?)

5) English is the language of air traffic control and computer technology.

2/2305/07/23



6) English is an official or semi-official language in 50 countries, and also an

official language of ASEAN.

7) Around the world, most students study English.

8) English is the language of young pop culture.

While these reasons are undoubtedly valid, they have also been true to varying

degrees of other international languages in the past, in history. In addition, all of these

facts are still based on the crucial relationship between the language and cultural,

economic and educational power. This is evident when we listen to reasons people

around the world view English as important and necessary all around the world today.

"We need English to get a job." "We need it to study higher education." "We need it to

do business with people around the world." "We need it to use computers and

technology." "We need it to understand popular music and movies." "We need it to be

cool."1 Such needs are based on a world in which English, in short, is the rage; a world

led by the media and what has been aptly dubbed the ELT empire.

2. How long will English last?

In the past, other languages have enjoyed a dominant position on the international

scene due to their inherent connection with a certain culture. Naturally, the power

associated with the culture was the major cause of the language's increase in popularity.

Such power may have been economic, political or military (or some combination of the

three); in any case, it was the power of an empire. We may think of several instances --

3/2305/07/23



Latin, during the Roman Empire. Arabic, during the Ottoman Empire. Until recently,

French in Europe and North Africa. Japanese in Asia before and during WWII.

The prestigious position of all of these languages died, naturally, with the collapse

of their respective Empires. Not even the valiant struggles of the Alliance Francaise to

save the purity, respectability and power of its language were able to deter its downfall in

Europe. Paraphrasing the famous quote "a language is a dialect with an army and a

navy" we may well assert that "an international language is a language with an empire,

either economic or political, or both." For English today, the power is in the hands of the

ELT empire.

And unless the lessons of history are carefully studied and not repeated, a fall of

the power of this new Empire will invariably dictate the fall of English as well. From

history, we have seen that there is nothing inherent in any language that makes it fit to be

used internationally. Beauty and purity did not help French. Linguistic sensibility and

simplicity did not help Esperanto. Attachment to power--economic, cultural, educational

and military--is the one necessary and sufficient criterion for an international language but

unfortunately those who are in power -- the gatekeepers -- tend to become blind to this

fact. Those who are not in power know it only too well, and resent it, watching and waiting

patiently for their turn to become gatekeepers. The cycle is endless.

Graddol (1997:58 ) predicts that there will be a plurality of world languages in the

future. English will be spoken by more people than today, but so will Chinese, Arabic,

Spanish, Hindi/Urdu, Malay and Russian. The important question here is, by whom, and

4/2305/07/23



to whom? Which of these languages will be used the most in cross-cultural contexts?

Which of these languages will be the most common second language of native speakers

of other first languages? Barring a change of massive proportions in the world order due

to wars, natural disasters, widespread disease, or alternatively to discovery of some

power-bearing superior technology, it will probably still be English. Sheer numbers of

people, unless they have the power to change the world order and the will to do so, will

not jar English from its position. On the other hand, the possibility of a shift in world order

is a real one, and judging from history, is bound to come eventually.

Thus the question "How long will English last?" becomes an easy one to answer,

in terms of history if not in terms of years. It will last exactly until the next world power

displaces the northwest part of the globe from the position it enjoys today -- that is, unless

that world power is English speaking.

2. A Truly Global Language? English vs. Esperanto

What, however, if a language born of power such as English could disentangle

itself enough from its creator nation(s) to become acceptable to the cultures of the future

gatekeepers, whoever they may be? What if a language were to shed its skin of cultural

and economic success, and make itself humbly available to any culture who would wish to

use it in their own manner? The guiding light of the Esperanto dream, now in its second

hundredth year, has been to become just this -- a language available for international use,

ready to take on any cultural skin it may need.2

5/2305/07/23



Many people do not realize it, but Esperanto has come quite a long way in the

realization of its goal. There are now an estimated 2 million speakers of the language

worldwide (Urban, on web), including some native speakers. There is a full body of

literature in Esperanto. It is evolving with the times, and the number of words in the

dictionaries has risen from a vocabulary of 800 roots in 1887 to one of 9000 official roots

and at least 9000 unofficial ones (size of Zhang Honfan's Esperanto-Chinese Dictionary)

today. (internet Esperanto page) 3 The quiet followers of the language lack only one

thing to propel it into the international arena on a big time basis -- power.

English can learn a lesson from Esperanto. Now, English is the language of the

culture(s) in power, but in order to stay that way, it needs as much as possible to detach

itself from the Euroamerican culture(s) which have propelled it to such heights.

Otherwise, these same culture(s) will surely become an anchor to drag it to the depths in

11 Taken from textbook interviews in Yoneoka & Arimoto, “Englishes of the World”,Tokyo: Sanshusha,2000.22 To talk of cultural skins means of course that we need to assume that culture and language may be disassociated at least to some extent. I believe that the two are closely interconnected, but that “culture” has both surface and deeper manifestatations, roughly equivalent to the oft-used distinction between Culture with a capital C (i.e. art and literature) and culture with a small c, or the organization of family, life styles, customs, relationships, etc. within a society. Capitalized Culture, then, may or may not be associated with a certain group—and may vary when a language is used in different cultural contexts. Lower case culture, on the other hand, deals with universal human attributes that may involve differing values but cannot themselves be disassociated from the human condition.

Thus Pennycook’s (1994, cover) assertion that “English can never be removed from the historical, social, cultural, economic or political contexts in which it is used” is only half correct. It cannot be removed from such contexts, indeed; but the contexts may change in and of themselves. 33 Admittedly this still does not compare with the 8 million words estimated to be available in English (Graddol 1997), but it does show that the language is generative, productive and alive. Adding vocabulary is not a large problem. Also, roots may be inflected in several ways, making a much larger actual word count.

6/2305/07/23



the future. English must become indigenous to all cultures, not because it is cool, not

because it is CocaCola, not because it is a window to business and educational

opportunities, not because it is necessary in the international world; but because it is

multicultural in and of itself. It must be available for world cultures to claim as their own, to

cloak in the robes of their own personal identities.

How can such a feat be possible? In some places, it has already happened.

English in many post-colonial countries, especially those where there is a lack of a clear-

cut competitor for a national language, has been accepted to provide linguistic stability

within national borders as well as beyond them. Prime examples of such countries are

Singapore and India, although there are many others. Both of these countries have taken

on English as their own. It differs from the English used in the ELT Empire not only in

terms of accent, but also in grammar, vocabulary, literature and culture. Naturally

Singaporean and Indian English differ from each other as well, so much that they might

even be considered different languages if they had different names4 . At any rate, they are

two Englishes, each with their own spheres of power, culture and raisons d’etre.

The existence of different culture-based varieties of English means that it may be

preferable to regard “English” not merely as a language, but rather as a multicultural

44Widdowson (Aila 1999, Tokyo) has suggested that Englishes that have taken on cultures of their own be renamed to shed the cloak of culture associated with the term "English." Such names do exist already, such as Taglish and Singlish, but these have been brought to life under derogatory conditions. Viewed as bastards and half-breeds, such terminology is sometimes considered discriminatory. The real solution here is not simply to rename, but to first empower these languages from within, giving them pride and acceptance among their own people and thus willingness to share them with the rest of the world. The question of naming will then resolve itself naturally--either the present name will rise in status, or will be rejected for some higher status-bearing term.

7/2305/07/23



language system. There are precedents for such a system, although they have never

been explicitly recognized as such. French in North Africa still retains much of its power,

sharing it with Arabic (yet another multicultural language system). Spanish has been the

accepted national language for most countries in South America since the time of the

conquistadors. These countries, then, already have an international language for use

within most of their continent. It serves their needs, and it is difficult to imagine these

countries suddenly switching over to English.

In fact, we may now speak of "concentric" languages of power--one powerful intra-

or international or regional language, and another powerful global language--i.e. English. It

is no longer a matter of choice of which foreign language to study, but of what language

serves the needs of which speakers. We may even hear a distinction made in such

places between "international" and "very international" languages. Peruvians and

Bolivians, for example, have no need of English to speak to each other, but only to go

onto an even wider global level. Chinese is a unifying power around the Chinese-

speaking world--an international language. For Chinese speakers, English is not needed

on an international level, but on a global one. Many Europeans, too, tend to distinguish

between an "international" European language (which may be German in some areas,

French in others, Russian or Spanish in still others) and "very international" English.

Such concentric multilingualism should not be discouraged, but encouraged. Just

as a father can have the same amount of love and respect for each of four children as he

would have for just one, so should gatekeepers of the global language respect and

8/2305/07/23



promote the development of other languages. And just as speakers of national languages

in “enlightened” countries around the world are (for the most part) tolerant of their regional

dialects and linguistic minorities, so should English speakers be supportive of

multilingualism. This is the best way, perhaps the only way, to promote a true respect and

love for a truly global language.

3. Englishes and the cultural connection

Support of multilingualism does not apply only to foreign languages, but also to

other Englishes. Once, several years ago, a British professor was asked what kind of

English was best for Japanese students to study. His semi-joking response was "British,

of course", but he added a tongue-in-cheek caveat that one could also study Singaporean

English, Indian English, Australian English, and (even) American.

Today, however, that list of English varieties could be lengthened interminably, to

the point that it does not provide any reasonable answer to the question at all. Still, the

question remains, and continues to be posed and answered in various ways. What

English to study, to teach? Standard English? Basic English? The most popular English

at the time? The one the teacher knows? The one the students need? The one that is

most easily understandable for the rest of the world? The one easiest for the students to

acquire? The one required by the administration, or whoever pays the bills? The one that

matches whatever teaching materials are available? Even, it has been suggested, the

one that matches best the horrendously fossilized spelling system?. (cf. Brown 1989).

9/2305/07/23



Sensible responses, all, but each raises questions of its own. What if the English

variety of the teacher is not the one needed by the students? What if the students do not

know what they need? What if several varieties are needed? What if the most popular

variety (=the prevailing standard) is one that is highly difficult to emulate in terms of

pronunciation and/or grammar? What if it includes culture-based vocabulary that the

students will never need to use in their daily lives? And what constitutes "standard"

anyway?

The question is further complicated when we consider the symbiotic relation

between language and culture. A certain variety of English, or any language for that

matter, is necessarily connected with a certain culture. What culture(s), then, should be

taught along with English? If English is a "world standard language", then is there also a

world standard culture? Obviously not, but without culture language feels incomplete, like

a hollow shell with no meat inside. No single language then can be a true world standard

as long as the world is multicultural. And if a language is passed off as global by being

taught aculturally, then language students stand to be deprived of the enjoyment of

learning about new cultures, undeniably one of the most attractive elements of learning a

foreign language.

What harm is done if English is taught in the context of a dominant or mainstream

culture? A look at the Japanese context provides us with an answer. The Japanese

Ministry of Education has always had guidelines regarding the teaching of culture

associated with language. In recent years, however, these guidelines have subtly shifted

10/2305/07/23



from teaching a specific target culture through language (effectively, through English) to

teaching both native and non-native English cultures (including the Japanese culture) and

cross-cultural education in general (see Yoneoka 1998). This has had a globalizing effect

on textbooks, where only 1/3 of the contents deal with Inner Circle countries (=”native”

English countries with Western cultural backgrounds), whereas the other 2/3 are

concerned with Outer Circle (=ESL) and Expanding Circle (=EFL) countries, including

Japan itself (Hanaoka, 1997).

On the other hand, the teachers who are working with these textbooks are still

overwhelmingly monocultural – the vast majority are Japanese, and over 90% of the JET

program assistant language teachers working with them are from the US, UK, or Canada

(Yoneoka, 1999). In addition, the English used in the texts and the accompanying tapes,

and required on tests, is generally US. Thus monocultural teachers teach about various

cultures through a single variety, and students learn about the “outside world” in terms of,

or "flavored by" US (or occasionally UK) English. Fair-skinned JETS reinforce the

stereotyped image that the whole world eats McDonalds all-beef hamburgers, carries

guns, chews gum and celebrates Christmas (none of which are necessarily true even of

Americans!).

What does this type of education serve students who may find themselves later on

in Hinduist India where cows are sacred and beef anathema? Or in Singapore where

even bringing a pack of gum through customs constitutes a crime? Now, English is used

all over the world, and teaching "English culture" means that a multiplicity of cultures must

11/2305/07/23



be taught along with it. For Japan to achieve a true multicultural English education, then,

there must be wider access for non-Japanese instructors of all ethnicities, not only in

assistant teaching positions but also in full ones.

This example clearly demonstrates how English as a single language is invariably

linked, however subtly, with a single culture. Then, if a single language cannot truly be

global in the context of a multicultural world, there are only two possibilities. Either

monoculturalize the world, or multiculturalize the language.

4. Deculturizing or Multi-culturizing?

Traditionally, the ELT world has gone about the task of making English applicable to

“non-native” cultures in one of two ways—by either deculturalizing the language or

multiculturalizing it. In the former, English is defined in its narrowest sense: a

lexicosyntactic body of decontextualized words and phrases, minus accent, minus culture,

minus orthographic idiosyncracies. Examples of the former are Basic English (Ogden

1930s ) and core English (Nayar 1994).

We are apt to view such conceptualizations with suspicion – can Basic English

indeed be considered a language at all? At best it is lifeless, as any attempt to quantify

the number of lexical entries and syntactic rules immediately precludes linguistic

productivity. Nevertheless, it serves sound, even necessary pedagogical purposes such

as creation of first-year vocabulary lists. Moreover, the barebones language that such

conceptualizations try to capture is close to universal human cognition and may represent

a working skeleton on which a cultural skin may hang.

12/2305/07/23



At the other extreme, we have ELT experts (Longman, Cambridge, Oxford, to name

a few) creating multicultural English dictionaries, claiming their superiorities in sheer

volume of vocabulary entries. As English is now estimated to contain around 8 billion

words (Graddol 1997:51) such dictionary creation is no easy matter, and relies

increasingly on technology such as corpus data. These dictionaries share a common flaw

of ethnocentrism, however; one that is impossible to avoid. For any term, the definition

will be in terms of the English variety of the dictionary producers (for the most part,

British). In addition, there is the problem of cross-reference—the users of such a

multilingual dictionary will be able to look up a term such as “push-bike” and find that it

means “bicycle” or “bike” in British and US English, but how will they realize that the same

vehicle may be called “cycle“ in Indian English or that the same term “bike” means

“motorcycle” in Japanese English?

Both deculturalization and multiculturalization have their linguistic and

pedagogical applications, but neither can escape the centralization of the linguistic core

associated with the present world order. A more egalitarian track is provided by leaders of

the World Englishes movement, who insist that a language that wears a sociocultural

cloak of identity is intrinsically different from the same language wearing a cloak of

another color. Thus Nigerian English is one English; Japanese English is another. Since

speakers of one variety can and do learn to speak another variety without reference to a

single standard, such a conceptualization of English is highly suitable to a pluricentric

approach to ELT such as that suggested by Kachru (AILA 1999).

13/2305/07/23



Even this movement, however, has roots in centralization: Kachru’s (1986)

Concentric Circles, which have been its guiding light, are inherently ethnocentric in their

conceptualization. The guru himself expressed dissatisfaction with the paradigm, as

languages shift and borders between the circles become muddy and unclear, but also due

to its basic centralized position of native Englishes. Variations in which the circles are

drawn side by side (e.g. Graddol 1997:10, fig. 4) do little to help: even here, the native

circle is still FIRST.

Yoneoka (2000a) proposes a system of Englishes based on an abstract (i.e.

deculturalized) English core which both feeds on and supports all varieties of English

clustered around it, much like a mushroom stem or an umbrella handle. Each variety has

its own sociolinguistic identity, but is intertwined and networked with other varieties. In this

paradigm, all varieties, whether native or not, share equality as well as real-world

importance: the rain falls and the sun shines on them all. On the other hand, the core

“English” serves as a sort of CPU to handle incoming and outgoing information flow, but

derives its life, soul and very nature of its existence from the varieties themselves.

Naturally the CPU may be bypassed as well, as varieties which find themselves closer to

each other will find it much more efficient to exchange information directly.

5. Interlinguistic and intercultural sensitivity in the English curriculum

Whatever paradigm is used, the main issue remains one of acceptance and

tolerance of all varieties and the cultures they represent. Especially in times of change,

14/2305/07/23



the flexibility to be able to recognize and understand the cloaks worn by speakers of other

Englishes becomes increasingly important.

Whatever else may be said about the ELT Empire, its track record in interlingual

and intercultural sensitivity has been pitiful. Second language English users cannot

escape the label “learner” (as if native speakers are not learning their language every time

they meet a neologism!). They have “accents” (native speakers don’t?!) that need

“correction”; they can only be considered “good” English users if they produce “proper”

grammar.

ELT Empire efforts to define, direct and dominate the world of English, however

well-meaning, have come under fire because they have not been attuned to language

situations other than those in their own countries. With respect to language policy,

Phillipson (1999:271) points out that “the assumption that experts from countries such as

the UK or the US, deeply monolingual and with a very patchy record of foreign language

learning, can contribute to policy on education and language matters in multilingual

societies is completely counter-intuitive.” In pedagogy, Pakir (1999:112) states that “the

theory and the applications of the theory that emanate from Inner Circle speakers of

English may not be the best basis for teaching the speakers of English in the Outer Circle

and the Expanding Circle in the coming millennium.” These and other criticisms of the

theories and policies of British and North American language experts are not directed

towards the soundness of the work itself. Rather, they question its applicability to

societies that need to pay more attention to the mutual intelligibility and successful

15/2305/07/23



intercultural communication of their peoples than to the acquisition of “native” English as

judged by outsiders.

Thus, native speaker ELT policies (whether they mean to be so or not) are being

regarded as linguistically imperialistic and culturally insensitive, a potentially dangerous

situation for the future of English. History has shown that linguistic domination by force or

policy has painful and disastrous consequences, both with respect to human psychology

and sociolinguistic genocide. Older Koreans still haven’t forgiven their Japanese

conquerors for forcing them to speak Japanese only during the occupation (although

some have no doubt profited from their linguistic expertise). The Hawaiian language and

culture have been all but lost due to nearly a century of English only policies. Now, with

much of the world rapidly transforming into a giant McDonalds (Japan, for example, has

the second highest number of outlets in the world, after the US), the prospect that the

world may continue this trend becomes frightening in terms of what is being lost.

Graddoll’s (1997) startling prediction that of the some 7000-8000 languages spoken today,

only 1000 or so will remain in 50 years demonstrates just a portion of this loss. It is time

to take stock of and reevaluate our world’s multiculturalism, and to actively protect what is

left.

Pakir’s (1999:109ff) model of “English-knowing bilingualism”5 as the norm of the

21st century is a fresh alternative to the monocultural approaches of ELT. Indeed, her

home country Singapore may be taken as a model of such a future, where peoples of

16/2305/07/23



different ethnicities proudly maintain their own cultural identities while communicating with

each other using not ELT English, but the English that is best suited for them.6

Clearly the growing acceptance of multicultural Englishes around the world

implies that English classes themselves will need to become more multicultural: i.e. to pay

more attention to cross-cultural education and communication in general, as well as to

global affairs. In English classes of the future, students should find themselves learning

less about Christmas and Cambridge and more about refugeeism and Ramadan.

Not only cross-cultural sensitivity but also cross-linguistic sensitivity should be part

of the future English course. At present less than 6% of the world population can be

classified as native English speakers, and birth rate statistics of this population indicate

that the proportion will only decrease in the future. A comparison of the number of

bilingual English knowers vs. native English speakers (now 4:1 by some estimates and

clearly growing) shows that communication between bilingual speakers of different

varieties of English is becoming the norm. Thus, all English users should be aware that

Indian and Malay speakers, for example, may say /dat/ or /det/ for what Japanese

speakers tend to pronounce /zat/ and Koreans /zet/, namely, what most monolingual

speakers pronounce /thaet /.

55 I would add “and biculturalism” to “English knowing bilingualism”.6Singaporeans can and do speak Singlish, a variety of English entirely appropriate socially and culturally appropriate. However, the Singapore government (supported by the British Council) has instigated a campaign against Singlish since 1999, calling it “broken, ungrammatical English” and “a handicap we must not wish on Singaporeans” (cf. Yoneoka 2000 for references). The name itself of this “Speak Good English” campaign demonstrates the value judgment handed down by the government on the variety of English of the majority of its people.

17/2305/07/23



Needless to say, such intercultural and interlinguistic sensitivity should be part of the

monolingual English speaker’s curriculum as well as the bilingual one. For native English

speakers, this is not simply a question of “what’s good for the goose is good for the

gander”, but rather a lesson in mutual respect and understanding that cannot be achieved

heuristically in monocultural societies, or even in monocultural neighborhoods in

multicultural cities. Here it must be realized that multicultural neighborhoods have a

natural advantage— if everyday interaction between ethnicities is not based on mutual

sensitivity and respect, people learn the hard way that disaster is bound to result.

Although it is true that subjects such as cross-cultural communication and applied

comparative linguistics are indeed receiving more attention than before in native English

speaking countries, many monolinguals still have a long way to go before they can truly

live together harmoniously in a multicultural society.

6. Conclusions

The multicultural language system known collectively as “English” has earned a

place in the mouths of millions through a number of factors, ranging from hard work and

innovation to brute force and oppression. It is a position of considerable envy for other

languages, and yet one that anyone who has taken the time and trouble to learn English,

or had the luck to be born into it, would not want to see disappear. In many countries it is

an elected language, selected because of its power both in the world and at home. As

people vote for presidents or prime ministers, so they voted for English. Thus the position

18/2305/07/23



is also one of responsibility to these people—to respect their human rights and be

sensitive to their causes.

There are at least two specific causes that may be addressed. One of these is the

right to speak one’s own variety of English. Too often, well-meaning but insensitive native

speakers (of any language) will voluntarily “correct” an accent rather than listen to it.7

This may be perfectly appropriate in a situation where the L2 speaker is a self-declared

“learner” and wishes to be corrected, but it may be out of place when a speaker is trying to

express an opinion or elicit information. In such a situation it is more likely to produce

resentment than gratitude, and it is thus imperative to understand the attitude “my accent

represents who I am, meddle with my pronunciation and you meddle with my identity.”

(Pakir 1999: 110)8

Alternatively, some native speakers may sometimes even try to opt out of a

conversation rather than try to decode a differing accentual system (see Varonis and

Gass, 1982). The prospect of having to repeat “Pardon?” many times may be scary

and/or annoying to some native speakers, but it should be realized that this is a natural

part of conversation between people of different varieties. L2 speakers (of any language)

know this, and understand it in others—monolingual speakers (of any language) tend to

have more difficulties learning this lesson. Running away from intervarietal

77 I have even heard stories of NNS speakers of US English being corrected by British English speakers, and vice versa.8Pakir (1999:110) puts it this way: “The term accent reduction comes from a particular paradigm in which ESL teachers feel responsible for changing the speech habits of learners of English. Why not consider another term that could possibly come from the perspective of those who teach and do research in the ESL world: accent addition?”

19/2305/07/23



communication situations, however, does not solve problems, and may even be

misinterpreted as discrimination.

Championing the cause of respect for the non-native accent could mean, more than

anything, reeducating the native speaker. Ngugi (1993: 114-115) suggests “Couldn’t

decolonizing the mind be a task as much for Europeans as Africans?” Indeed, perhaps

even more so.

The second cause is the right to cultural identity and multilinguism. Advocates of

English Only in the United States argue that the best way to govern a country is

monolingually. Whether this is true or not for the United States, it is certainly not the way

for every country in the world (again Singapore provides an excellent counterexample)

and extending this theory to a global level would result in a tragic loss of other languages.

Indeed, it already has had devastating effects on thousands of minority languages in the

US and elsewhere. Rather than condone such losses, or even stand to one side and

mourn them, it is the responsibility of those in power to actively support plurality of

language, culture and identity.

The language planners of the world, when promoting the English system, must do

so with a spirit of acceptance and a healthy respect for those cultures who buy into it. If

so, English had a good chance of maintaining influence in spite of power shifts, because

of the lack of a better multicultural alternative. If not, the 21st century will go down in

history as the one in which the ELT empire died, and English along with it.

Bibliography

20/2305/07/23



Abbott, G. (1991) "English across cultures: the Kachru catch". English Today 7,4:55-57.

Brown, A. (1989) "Models, standards, targets/goals and norms in pronunciation teaching", World Englishes, 8:2, p. 193-200.

Crystal, D. (1985) "How many millions? The statistics of English today” English Today 1:1.

Crystal, D. (1997) English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dutcher, N. (with the collaboration of G. Richard Tucker (1997-undated).) The Use of First and Second Languages in Education: A Review of International Experience. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series, 1. East Asia and Pacific Region, Country Department III. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English? London: British Council.Kachru, B. (1986) The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of

non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergammon Press.Kachru, B. (1996). World Englishes: Agony and ecstacy. Journal of Aestetic

Education 30, 135-155.Kachru, B. (1997). World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual review

of applied Linguistics. 17: 66-87. Kachru, B. (1992) "Models for Non-Native Englishes" in Kachru, B. The Other

Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd Ed. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, p. 48-74..

Kachru, B. (1994) "Englishization and contact linguistics", World Englishes 3:2, p. 135-154.

Kachru, B. and C. Nelson (1996) "World Englishes" in McKay, S. L. and N. H. Hornberger, Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 71-102.

Kaplan, Robert B. (1987) "English in the language policy of the Pacific Rim", World Englishes 6:2, p. 137-148.

Lowenberg, Peter H. (1992) "Testing English as a World Language: Issues in Assessing Non-Native Proficiency" in Kachru, B. (1992), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd Ed. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, p. 108-121.

21/2305/07/23



Nayar, P.B. (1994) Whose English is It? Tesl-EJ 1:1 available www.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej01/f.1.html

Ngugi(tildes over u and I) wa, T. (1993). Moving the Centre. The Struggle for Cultural Freedoms. London: James Currey, Nairobi: EAEP, Porsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pakir, A. (1999). Connecting with English in the Context of Internationalization, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 1, p. 103-114.

Pennycook, A. (1994) The cultural politics of English as an international language. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Philipson, R.. and Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996) English only worldwide or language ecology? TESOL Quarterly 30/3: 429-52.

Phillipson, R. (1999) Voice in Global English: Unheard Chords in Crystal Loud and Clear, Applied Linguistics 20/2: 265-276.

Smith, Larry E. and Khalilullah Rafiqzad (1979) "English for Cross-Cultural Communication: the Question of Intelligibility", in Tesol Quarterly, 13:3, p. 371-380.

Smith, Larry E. (1992) "Spread of English and Issues of Intelligibility" in Kachru, B. (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd Ed. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Sridhar, Kamil K. (1985) Review of " Readings in English as an International Language", Smith, Larry (ed.) in RELC Journal 16:1 p. 101-106.

Strevens, P. (1992) "English as an International Language", in Kachru, B. (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd Ed. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Taylor, David S. (1991) "Who speaks English to Whom? The Question of Teaching English Pronunciation for Global Communication", System 19:4, pp. 425-435.

Trudgill, Peter and Jean Hannah (1994) International English: A Guide to the Varieties of Standard English, 3rd ed., New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.

Tsuda, Y. (1994) “The diffusion of English: Its impact on culture and communication. Keio Communication Review 16: 49-61.

Urban, M. Esperanto: Frequently Asked Questions, available http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq-5.html, 2000.

Varonis, E. and S. Gass (1982) "The Comprehensibility of Non-Native Speech", Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4:2 pp 114-136.

22/2305/07/23

http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq-5.html

http://www.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej01/f.1.html



Yoneoka, J. (1999) Towards the 21st century: Goals and Obstacles in English Education in Japan, Kumamoto Gakuen Daigaku Sogo Kagaku 5 ー２ .

Yoneoka, J. (1998) Non-Standard English Teachers in ESL Education: In Defense of the "Different" English Accent, Kumamoto Gakuen Daigaku Sogo Kagaku

23/2305/07/23

abstract - 熊本学園大学judy/gyoseki/32necessofengs.doc · web viewthe existence of different...

Documents