Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of English
Individual Research Project (EN04GY)
English Linguistics
Spring 2020
Supervisor: Josep Soler
Linguistic Variation in
Swedish EFL-Textbooks A Content Analytical Study of the
Representation of Englishes in Swedish Upper
Secondary School Materials
Nellie Lindqvist
Linguistic Variation in Swedish
EFL-Textbooks A Content Analytical Study of the Representation of Englishes
in Swedish Upper Secondary School Materials
Nellie Lindqvist
Abstract
Nowadays, becoming proficient in merely one variety of English may not be sufficient,
since this does not guarantee an ability to communicate with the vast majority of English
speakers worldwide (Modiano, 2009; Fang & Ren, 2018). Despite this, studies show that
European ELT still largely focus on certain varieties over others (Modiano, 2009); hence,
it is interesting to study the materials used within this context. The present study is
intended to contribute to research within the field of World Englishes and ELT. The
purpose of the study is to investigate linguistic variation and language ideology in
teaching materials used in the course of English 5 within Swedish upper secondary
schools. For this purpose, a content analytical approach has been applied for data
collection, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Two EFL-textbooks,
Blueprint A 3.0 and Viewpoints 1, have been analyzed and three interviews have been
conducted with EFL teachers working in Swedish upper secondary schools. The data
elicited through the study shows that linguistic variation in English is limited within the
two textbooks, and that when speakers of non-standard varieties appear in the textbooks
they are presented in a controversial manner. Moreover, the interviews conducted with
the teachers yielded insights into teachers’ perspectives on the importance of exposing
students to different varieties of English. The perspectives offered through the interviews
imply that not all teachers consider the knowledge of dialectal and social variation within
the English language to be of importance, despite that it is, in fact, an objective set for
students taking the course of English 5. In general, the findings suggest that the linguistic
representation within Swedish teaching materials and practices still favor certain
Englishes, i.e. British and American English, over others.
Keywords
World Englishes, ELT, EFL, content analysis, qualitative research, quantitative research,
textbook evaluation, interviews.
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................... 1
2. Literature Review .................................................................... 2
2.1 World Englishes ............................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Problematizing Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles Model ............................. 2
2.1.2 A Current Perspective of the Global Spread of English ........................... 3
2.2 The English Language in ELT ............................................................. 3
2.2.1 Perspectives of Linguistic Variation in ELT ........................................... 3
2.2.2 The English Subject in the Swedish Curriculum .................................... 4
2.2.3 ELT, Language Ideology and Bourdieusian Theory ................................ 4
2.3 Problematizing Textbooks ................................................................. 6
2.4 Previous Studies .............................................................................. 7
3. Method and Materials .............................................................. 8
3.1 Theoretical Framework for Data Elicitation and Analysis ........................ 8
3.2 Textbook Analysis ............................................................................ 9
3.2.1 Method for Analysis .......................................................................... 9
3.2.2 Primary Material ............................................................................. 10
3.3 Interviews ..................................................................................... 11
3.3.1 Interview Method ........................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Participants ................................................................................... 11
3.3.3 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................... 12
4. Results ................................................................................ 12
4.1 Textbook Data ................................................................................ 13
4.1.1 Linguistic Variation as Shown in the Text .......................................... 13
4.1.2 Representation of Speakers in the Textbooks ..................................... 15
4.2 Interviews ..................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Regarding Linguistic Diversity in ELT................................................. 17
4.2.2 Perspectives on ELT-textbooks ......................................................... 18
5. Discussion ........................................................................... 19
6. Conclusion ........................................................................... 23
References .............................................................................. 24
Primary Sources ................................................................................... 24
Secondary Sources ............................................................................... 24
Appendix A .............................................................................. 27
Appendix B .............................................................................. 29
Appendix C .............................................................................. 31
Appendix D .............................................................................. 32
1
1. Introduction
The English language is today recognized as a multifaceted concept, whereas earlier it
was primarily considered a mother tongue ‘belonging’ to nations such as the UK
(Modiano, 2009). Nowadays, English is by many considered an international language,
which can be seen in, for instance, the changes in school curriculum; to exemplify, in
Sweden, instruction was formerly focused on British English (BrE) (Skolverket, 1969),
whereas the curriculum today makes no such distinction (Modiano, 2009; Skolverket,
2011). However, despite this change in perspective, much of the instruction in Europe
still centers on BrE and American English (AmE) while other varieties remain unexplored
and unrepresented (Modiano, 2009). Thus, although society’s perspective of the English
language has somewhat changed, there are still domains where some varieties arguably
prevail over others; one example is the educational domain (Heller, 1996; Modiano, 2009;
Fang & Ren, 2018).
Much of the communication that occurs between teachers and students within the
educational domain worldwide draws upon the teaching materials available (Curdt-
Christiansen & Weninger, 2015). Thus, these materials may influence both students’
language skills and their perceptions of language and language use since textbooks are an
important, and authoritative, source for input (Ellis, 2014; Curdt-Christiansen &
Weninger, 2015). Curdt-Christiansen and Weninger (2015) emphasize that materials such
as textbooks are not only sources for language learning, but they also reflect thoughts,
ideas and beliefs about language, culture and politics. Hence, “language teaching and
learning are not ideologically neutral practices” (Curdt-Christiansen & Weninger, 2015,
p. 1), but the content that students meet on a regular basis is influenced by dominant ideas
circulating in society as a whole. Taking this into consideration, examining and improving
teaching materials can affect both the students’ learning abilities and individuals’
perspectives of the English language.
Literature within the field of English language teaching (ELT) has focused greatly on
language and culture in textbooks as well as on how instruction can be designed in order
to introduce the immense variation of English that exists in today’s society (Matsuda,
2002; Modiano, 2009; Ping, 2015; Curdt-Christiansen, 2015; Galloway & Rose, 2018;
Fang & Ren, 2018). However, few studies have focused on linguistic variation in teaching
materials used in Swedish English as a foreign language (EFL) instruction. This despite
the history within the Swedish curriculum with the preference for BrE previously
mentioned, and the fact that if textbooks aim to adhere to the school curriculum this
would, in a Swedish context, entail that dialectal and social variation should be covered
(Modiano, 2009; Skolverket, 1969 & 2011). Furthermore, recent studies still emphasize
the need to develop students’ awareness of English varieties since this may boost
students’ confidence in their own production and result in more positive attitudes towards
regional accents of English (Lee McKay, 2010; Fang & Ren, 2018).
With a particular focus on linguistic variation and how English speakers are portrayed,
the present study aims to shed light upon through what perspective EFL-textbooks,
intended for Swedish upper secondary schools, actually portray the English language. The
study also considers teachers’ views on linguistic variation in EFL instruction and
materials, since this might influence how the materials are used and designed. For this
purpose, the study will address the following questions:
2
1. What kind of linguistic variation appears in EFL-textbooks (i.e. geolectal,
sociolectal etc.)?
2. What kind of speakers/situations appear in connection to the linguistic variation?
3. What kind of meanings can be derived from the way the different characters and
linguistic varieties are presented and connected?
4. What perspectives do EFL-teachers have on linguistic variation in English (i.e. in
EFL teaching and textbooks)?
2. Literature Review
This section presents literature concerning World Englishes and ELT as well as research
focused on ELT/EFL teaching materials.
2.1 World Englishes
Many terms can be used to describe the reality of English today. One such term is World
Englishes, which draws upon the Kachruvian (1985) tradition. The term World Englishes
and research concerning it is discussed below.
2.1.1 Problematizing Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles Model
Much of the research within the field of World Englishes has its basis in Kachru’s Three
Circles Model (Kachru, 1985; Bruthiaux, 2003). This model proposes that the English
language and its speakers can be divided into three circles: the inner, outer and expanding
circle (Kachru, 1985). Nations where English is the national and official language belong
to the inner circle (Kachru, 1985). Outer circle varieties of English are, on the other hand,
spoken in countries that have been subject to colonization and, due to this, English is part
of the speakers’ linguistic repertoire (Kachru, 1985). Moreover, in outer circle countries,
English “has acquired an important status in the language policies” (Kachru, 1985, p.
242). Lastly, in expanding circle countries, English is spoken as a foreign language and
does not necessarily have an important status (Kachru, 1985).
Although Kachru’s Three Circles Model (1985) has served as a basis for much research,
this perspective of World Englishes has been problematized since it was first proposed.
Bruthiaux (2003) argues that the model is an oversimplification of what English entails,
partly because it is largely nation-based and, through that, does not adhere to the
sociolinguistic landscape of today’s society. Bruthiaux (2003, p. 175) emphasizes the
need for a new kind of model of English that gives “a sociolinguistic description of
contexts for the language” rather than work as a means to promote certain varieties over
others. Fundamentally, the distinction of diverse varieties should be based on linguistic
aspects rather than geographical, for instance (Bruthiaux, 2003). Regardless, it is clear
that the English language is so much more than merely one variety; therefore, it might
not be enough to focus on AmE or BrE in, for instance, education, as have long been the
case (Bruthiaux, 2003; Modiano, 2009).
3
2.1.2 A Current Perspective of the Global Spread of English
Weber and Horner (2012) provide an extensive review on the global spread of English in
today’s society, concluding that all languages, or varieties, encompass linguistic
variation. In this, they further argue that non-standard varieties of English are as rule-
governed as standard English and take African American English (AAE) and Jamaican
Creole as examples. To exemplify, Weber and Horner (2012) note that some people
perceive English varieties such as AAE as deficient and/or illogical forms of English in
comparison to standard BrE or AmE. Yet, AAE can in reality be distinguished through
its grammatical features “such as invariant or habitual be and double or multiple negation”
(Weber & Horner, 2012, p. 39). In fact, double negation is also used in other English
varieties such as Jamaican Creole (Weber & Horner, 2012). Furthermore, another English
variety that can be distinguished through its grammar and vocabulary is Singlish (Weber
& Horner, 2012). One prominent feature of Singlish is the use of the discourse particle
“lah”, which, for instance, can show the speaker’s mood (Weber & Horner, 2012, p. 44).
The idea that non-standard varieties of English are as rule-governed as standard varieties
is also strengthened by Seargeant (2012). Seargeant (2012) shows that both Nigerian
Pidgin English and Indian English have distinct features that differ from standard BrE or
AmE. These differences are distinguishable in pronunciation, but representation of these
varieties can also be found in writing, showing grammar patterns, spelling and lexical
items that are not used in standard BrE or AmE (Seargeant, 2012). Thus, variation of
English can be illustrated not only in spoken language but also in writing, which
Seargeant (2012) exemplifies.
Although many terms can be used to name the multifaceted language of English, this
study follows Seargeant’s (2012) understanding of the issue. Seargeant (2012, p. 1)
accentuates that English should not be perceived “as a single, monolithic entity, but as
something that has multiple varieties and forms”. Therefore, Seargeant (2012) argues that
the word ‘Englishes’ better captures the nature of the language in today’s society.
Drawing on the argumentation provided by Seargeant (2012) and the evidence of English
variation provided by Weber and Horner (2012), this study utilizes the plural term
Englishes to refer to the diversity of the English language. It is noteworthy that, following
Bruthiaux (2003), the present study is more concerned with linguistic differences in
varieties represented in the material for analysis and not the representation of nations, and
this is also what is intended with the term in this context.
2.2 The English Language in ELT
2.2.1 Perspectives of Linguistic Variation in ELT
That English is a Lingua Franca, a language spoken and used for diverse purposes
worldwide, is not disputed by many in today’s society. However, in literature concerning
the global spread of English it is still apparent that a perspective of English as belonging
to certain nations still lingers (Siegel, 2006; Modiano, 2009). This is visible in ELT,
where the concept of ‘native English’ still serves as the ideal variety in many classrooms
(Modiano, 2009; Fang & Ren, 2018). Simultaneously, many researchers emphasize the
importance of increasing student awareness of the diversity of English and, thus,
diminishing the idea of the native speaker ideal that persists in educational domains
(Matsuda, 2002; Siegel, 2006; Modiano, 2009; Galloway & Rose, 2018; Fang & Ren,
2018). In fact, since AmE and BrE cannot be said to represent the whole English
language, students may become better communicators if they have an understanding of
4
the diversity of English (Modiano, 2009). Inviting linguistic variation in ELT may,
therefore, help develop students’ comprehension. This idea is strengthened since ELT
should prepare students for authentic interactions in English, which, statistically, are more
likely to occur with people who are not considered ‘native speakers’(NS) of English since
this category of speakers outnumbers NS (Kiczkowiak, 2019).
2.2.2 The English Subject in the Swedish Curriculum
As mentioned earlier, the Swedish curriculum with regards to the English subject has
changed over the years. In 1969, there was an apparent preference for BrE in instruction
in Sweden since this was considered the standard variety, which was thought to be most
suitable for the school domain (Skolverket, 1969; Modiano, 2009). However, this
changed in 1994 and in the curriculum today no explicit preference is stated regarding
what variety instruction should focus on (Modiano, 2009; Skolverket, 2011). Today, the
aim with English instruction is rather to prepare students for international contacts
(Modiano, 2009). Thus, the multifaceted nature of English is arguably recognized in a
broader sense by policymakers in Sweden than before.
Today, reception skills and comprehension encompass part of the core content of the
English subject, and explicit reference is made to exposure to dialectal and social features
of English (Skolverket, 2011). In the core content for English 5, the aim of the subject is
to enable students to develop their reception skills with regards to “spoken language, also
with different social and dialect features …” as well as to procure “strategies for listening
and reading in different ways and for different purposes” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 3). Thus,
instruction should cover diverse varieties of English and help students develop strategies
to enable comprehension. This is further supported by Lundahl (2014), who writes that
the Swedish curriculum states that English instruction should not only cover inner circle
varieties of English, but also outer and expanding circle varieties. Taking this into
consideration, it can be considered troubling that Europeans are more likely to be exposed
to certain varieties of English, due to a believed superiority of said varieties, while other
varieties are completely omitted:
It should be noted … that the vast majority of Europeans are exposed to the American, British
and continental European varieties of the language, and Asian and African varieties of English
are not prevalent in mainland European society. (Modiano, 2009, p. 70)
Thus, although the curriculum has changed its perspective of English over the decades,
there are still indications that instruction per se may not have changed as much. This
further entails that it might be valuable to examine the materials that said teaching is based
upon since these could impact how instruction is planned and executed.
2.2.3 ELT, Language Ideology and Bourdieusian Theory
ELT is an extremely delicate practice since it involves and provokes many different
beliefs of language and language learning. An understanding of said beliefs may,
therefore, be vital for the understanding of why teaching practices and materials are
planned and executed the way they are; thus, developing such an understanding is the
main purpose of this section. The term language ideology itself refers to belief systems
related to languages, which influence how people think about varieties of languages as
well as speakers of said languages (McGroarty, 2010; Weber & Horner, 2012). These
ideas about languages are not only expressed explicitly, but can also manifest themselves
5
implicitly through linguistic practices, i.e. how people talk or how texts are written
(Lanza, 2007). Thus, they can be expressed in both written and spoken text, implicitly or
explicitly. Language ideologies may have a vast impact in society, for instance, in terms
of social inclusion or exclusion as well as understanding of standard language (Weber &
Horner, 2012).
Concerning ELT in particular, one belief that is of interest is the standard language
ideology. This ideology refers to the conviction that languages have standard varieties,
which are being reinforced through so called codification and pedagogical rituals,
including not only language teaching practices but also the writing of grammars,
textbooks and dictionaries (Weber & Horner, 2012). The standard variety is, as such,
considered more valuable than other varieties since it is what people encounter in
education and in, for instance, media (Siegel, 2006; Weber & Horner, 2012). It can further
be argued that since teaching materials commonly incorporate NS of English as models
for the target language, the support for standard varieties can be connected to the native
speaker ideal. Fundamentally, this ideal entails that non-native speakers (NNS) of
English should acquire a native-like proficiency in the target language (Lundahl, 2014).
Thus, when teaching materials favor certain speakers and linguistic varieties, it can be
argued that these are positioned as the ‘norms’ to which NNS and second language
learners are expected to adhere.
The standard language ideology and the native speaker ideal can be further connected to
other ideologies concerning languages. The idea that languages all have ‘standard’
varieties closely ties to the idea that language varieties can be put in hierarchical orders,
as proposed in the hierarchy of languages (Weber & Horner, 2012). According to this
belief, certain varieties are more highly valued, and ‘languages’ are considered more
valuable than ‘dialects’ or ‘sociolects’, etc. (Weber & Horner, 2012). Since the standard
variety is what people most commonly encounter (Siegel, 2006; Weber & Horner, 2012),
as previously stated, this variety can be considered higher in the hierarchy than non-
standard varieties.
As many textbooks portray English not as a means for international communication but
rather as a tool for communicating with NS (Kiczkowiak, 2019), it is not unlikely that
ideological perspectives such as the one-nation-one-language ideology or the mother
tongue ideology are traceable in language textbooks. The first equates language with
territory, emphasizing the connection between language and national identity, whereas
the latter is the belief that speakers have merely one mother tongue (Weber & Horner,
2012). The mother tongue ideology is considered problematic since it encourages the idea
of ‘the native speaker’, which can result in a perception of NNS as lesser, while also
assuming “a norm of monolingualism” (Weber & Horner, 2012, pp. 18-19). The native
speaker ideal can further be distinguished in ideologies such as the ideology of purism,
which supports the idea that some speakers of a language have an accent or dialect
whereas others do not; having an accent is believed to be connected with the lower class
and/or foreign language learners (Weber & Horner, 2012). The standard variety of a
language is also perceived to carry higher value than other varieties (Siegel, 2006). Alike
the standard language ideology, the ideology of purism supports the idea that the standard
variety should be taught in schools, whereas other varieties should not (Siegel, 2006).
Therefore, the ideology may influence teaching materials.
The preference of a standard variety and NS can also be connected to Bourdieusian theory
and the concepts of legitimate speakers, linguistic capital and linguistic
markets. Legitimate speakers of a language are perceived as those who own this
language; it is the legitimate speaker who sets the language norms (Bourdieu, 1977).
6
Bourdieu (1977, p. 650) further connects this to the school domain by stating that school
“imposes the legitimate forms of discourse and the idea that a discourse should be
recognized if and only if it conforms to the legitimate norms”. Bourdieu (1991) defines
linguistic capital as the linguistic resources speakers encompass, which are valued
differently depending on the context of use, that is, within different linguistic markets.
Some varieties of a language can be seen as more legitimate in certain contexts, such as
within the educational domain (Heller, 1996). In educational discourse a more formal
register may be valued higher than an informal register, for instance. However,
simultaneously, some varieties may be more useful in contexts outside of the educational
domain, which is why it might be important to acquire several registers within a language.
Grammars, textbooks, and dictionaries strengthen the idea of who the legitimate speaker
of English is, both through actual language use and through the cultures and people
represented within the materials (Lundahl, 2014). This is not only the case in Sweden, but
worldwide. To exemplify, Lanehart (1998, p. 132, as cited in Siegel, 2006, pp. 162-163)
highlights that the standard variety of English has come to be considered ‘white’ by
marginalized groups in society. This may be because few varieties other than standard
varieties are used within the school domain, and that this domain for a long time was
secluded to the white population. Thus, this entails that the legitimate speaker of the
standard variety of English, to many, equals being white. Once again, this supports that
evaluation of language use within the school domain and, as such, evaluation of teaching
materials, is of utmost importance since it may affect peoples’ perceptions of speakers of
English.
2.3 Problematizing Textbooks
Textbooks constitute primary sources for planning and conducting lessons worldwide
(Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Curdt-Christiansen & Weninger, 2015; Curdt-Christiansen,
2017). They function as a “cornerstone for knowledge transmission, literacy education,
enculturation and socialisation” (Curdt-Christiansen, 2017). For many, the textbook is
considered both a secure and time-efficient tool that works as a solid basis in the everyday
profession (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994). Textbooks also enable students to practice and
develop their language skills without the help of the teacher and may provide a structure
for language learning (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994). Yet, researchers stress that some
aspects of textbook usage can be deemed problematic.
There has been extensive research on textbook design and content, and a majority of
publications have posed criticism towards textbook usage (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994).
One problematic aspect that has been emphasized centers on teachers potentially leaning
on textbooks completely in their teaching, without considering that the convictions of the
textbooks’ authors might have influenced its content (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Curdt-
Christiansen, 2017). Another aspect that has been given attention to and been deemed
problematic is the authenticity of textbook content, which is believed to be of importance
when preparing students for the real world as well as helping students in their language
learning (Siegel, 2014). Furthermore, some argue that textbook materials need to
accommodate the current reality of Englishes, which can only be accomplished by
including a broader variety of speakers, as well as more linguistic diversity than what is
often the case today (Kiczkowiak, 2019). Only by moving beyond representation of
merely BrE and AmE, as well as incorporating successful speakers of English as a Lingua
Franca rather than solely ‘natives’, can textbooks actually work to tackle native
speakerism (Kiczkowiak, 2019).
7
Moreover, concerning linguistic variation in ELT and teaching materials, these practices
can take either a prescriptive or a descriptive stance (Lundahl, 2014). A prescriptive
stance entails that a certain framework of linguistic rules that should be complied with is
set, whereas the second refers to merely describing how language is used and adapted
depending on the interlocutors and situations (Lundahl, 2014). Although it may be
valuable to adopt a prescriptive perspective on ELT in the very first stages of learning,
the instruction should move towards a more descriptive nature where different kinds of
Englishes are emphasized in order to foster understanding and comprehension of the
target language as students become more proficient (Lundahl, 2014). Following
Lundahl’s (2014) reasoning, more advanced materials should, therefore, offer a more
varied perspective on English. Hence, as the present study involves itself in examining
textbooks intended for upper secondary school, it should be possible to expect a wider
representation of Englishes.
Taking the benefits and problematic aspects of textbooks into consideration, the
importance of evaluating textbooks is evident. Textbooks can be said to be mediums
through which ideologies are being distributed and enforced, and may in turn color
learners’ perception of, or attitude towards, different speakers and languages (Curdt-
Christiansen & Weninger, 2015). This demonstrates the importance of teacher awareness
concerning textbook content and design. Curdt-Christiansen and Weninger (2015) further
emphasize that language teachers have a certain responsibility when it comes to exposing
the underlying meaning of texts that they use with students. However, although textbooks
are argued to encompass a hidden curriculum that may create and reinforce stereotypical
representations through the content of the textbook, not many teachers are aware of what
messages the materials they use carry (Kamasak, Ozbilgin & Atay, 2020).
2.4 Previous Studies
Although research on linguistic variation in ELT/EFL-textbooks has been scarce in the
Swedish context, there are examples of studies similar to the present one outside of
Sweden. Heinrich (2005) conducted a study in Japan where he examined how Japanese
is portrayed in Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) teaching materials in order to
distinguish language ideological perspectives within them (Heinrich, 2005). Heinrich
(2005) argued that materials used in JFL-instruction romanticize standard Japanese,
expecting learners to aim towards acquiring this variety. The study’s findings show that
language ideologies serve two purposes in the materials: first, they encourage proficiency
within a specific variety and, second, they “limit and prohibit deviations from the norms
of these varieties, registers and styles” (Heinrich, 2005, pp. 225-226). Heinrich (2005)
concluded that instruction aimed towards native-like proficiency creates unequal power
relations between NS and foreign language learners of Japanese, demanding not only that
JFL speakers learn the language but that they learn and adhere to the cultural norms of
the NS.
In addition, Ping (2015) studied ideologies in English textbooks in China. Ping (2015)
discusses how ideologies embedded in teaching materials can influence children’s
perspectives on culture. The study relies on content and text analysis for the collection
and analysis of data (Ping, 2015). The findings show that the representation of cultures in
the textbooks was unequal, since nations belonging to Kachru’s (1985) inner circle of
English as well as Chinese culture were more prominent than countries where English is
not spoken as a native language (Ping, 2015). Furthermore, Ping (2015) argues that since
8
the cultural representation is limited in the textbooks, the material also “fails to reflect the
cultural diversity of English as an international language” (pp. 176-177).
Similarly, Curdt-Christiansen (2015, p. 129) examined “ideological tensions and
contradictions between educational reforms, policy decisions” and English teaching
materials aimed towards Lower Primary school in Singapore. Curdt-Christiansen (2015)
describes English as an important language in Singapore, functioning as a fundamental
means for communication in diverse domains. The study aims to investigate
representation and text-choice in textbooks (Curdt-Christiansen, 2015). In the study,
Curdt-Christiansen (2015) found that local and global culture were unequally represented
in textbooks, and that Western culture was idealized. Moreover, Curdt-Christiansen
(2015, p. 143) argued that this failure in representation could further lead to “a continued
linguistic and cultural colonization”.
The three studies mentioned above demonstrate the importance and value of evaluating
textbooks, since they show that textbooks function as carriers of ideological values and
ideas about proper language proficiency. However, since none of the studies mentioned
apply to the Swedish context, the present study can be argued to be both relevant and
needed.
3. Method and Materials
This section presents the methodological framework and the primary material of the
study. However, prior to presenting the method, it is necessary to distinguish between
two terms that are central to its analysis: standard and non-standard English. Drawing on
the definition provided by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (2020a), this study
perceives standard English as widely accepted by English speakers worldwide, and “with
respect to spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary [it] is substantially uniform”.
Although there are several ’standard’ varieties of English, the term is primarily used as a
reference to standard BrE or AmE for the purpose of this paper, since these are the most
common varieties encountered in European school settings (Modiano, 2009). On the
contrary, the term non-standard refers to varieties that separate themselves from standard
varieties in terms of grammatical, lexical or pronunciational features (Merriam-Webster,
2020b).
3.1 Theoretical Framework for Data Elicitation and Analysis
This study fundamentally relies upon content analysis (CTA), which is an analytical
approach used to study both written text and, for instance, interviews (Prior, 2014; Drisko
& Machi, 2015). In this study, a triangulation of data sets is made through a combination
of textbook analysis and interviews (Groom & Littlemore, 2011). Since the two
approaches to the subject at hand differ, they complement each other and provide the
study with “a more rounded view” on the matter (Groom & Littlemore, 2011, p. 79). The
two datasets are connected through a common focus, which in this case equals the theme
of linguistic variation. CTA can be focused on diverse units of analysis, and in this study
the units of analysis in both the interviews and textbooks concern the previously
mentioned theme; however, the textbook analysis also considers lexical items and
grammatical constructions.
9
CTA refers to a set of research techniques that allow the researcher to both make use of
quantitative data and make qualitative inferences out of that data (Prior, 2014; Drisko &
Machi, 2015). This particular study will combine basic CTA with interpretive CTA while
analyzing textbooks and interview data. Basic CTA is defined as an approach of a
quantitative nature, which “predominantly address[es] literal communication content”
(Drisko & Machi, 2015, p. 3). One way to utilize this is to record the frequency of a
phenomenon, which will be the main focus in the present textbook analysis. Basic CTA
is primarily concerned with manifest content, i.e. “what is overtly, literally, present in
communication” (Drisko & Machi, 2015, p. 2). Hence, this is what will be used in order
to determine the linguistic variation that can actually be found in the textbooks that are
being studied. Moreover, interpretive CTA refers to another approach within CTA which
allows the researcher to make inferences from the texts that are examined (Drisko &
Machi, 2015). Interpretive CTA is interested in both manifest and latent content, i.e.
“content that is not overtly evident in a communication” (Drisko & Machi, 2015, p. 4).
3.2 Textbook Analysis
In this section, the method and the primary material used for the textbook analysis is
presented in order to ensure transparency and enable transferability of the study
(Bengtsson, 2016; Ali & Yosuf, 2011).
3.2.1 Method for Analysis
To answer the research questions directed at textbook content, basic CTA was employed
by studying both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the textbooks. In order to answer
research question 1, “What kind of linguistic variation appears in EFL textbooks (i.e.
geolectal, sociolectal, etc)?”, CTA was used to distinguish what linguistic variation can
be deciphered both implicitly and explicitly within the textbooks. To that end, the study
draws upon Table 1 (see Appendix A), ensuring consistency in the data elicitation (Ali &
Yosuf, 2011). In this Table, analysis criteria are listed, incorporating distinctive features
of BrE and AmE. To distinguish what linguistic variation is displayed within the
textbooks, all texts will be analyzed with regard to their use of BrE or AmE, or if the
variety used differs from these two varieties. The reason why BrE and AmE constitute
the reference points is because these varieties are most commonly taught in European
schools (Modiano, 2009).
It should be noted that the distinctive features that are prominent in the analysis criteria
draw upon the work of Estling Vanneståhl (2007), Modiano (2008) and Algeo (2010).
The features distinguished in the criteria are intended to show the differences that may
exist between BrE and AmE in spelling and grammar but, as stated by Modiano (2008),
there are exceptions to the different spelling and grammar norms listed. The Table is
primarily meant to exemplify differences in order to enable an analysis. Furthermore,
although some features that can be found in AmE are slowly gaining ground within BrE
writing, they are still more common in AmE than in BrE (Modiano, 2008). Modiano
(2008) further provides an extensive list of lexical differences between BrE and AmE
and, when differences in spelling or grammar cannot distinguish the variety used, this list
will be used as a reference point to establish what variety the text can be said to exemplify.
If needed, dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster online and Dalzell & Victor (2013) will
also be used as reference points in the analysis.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the textbook analysis does not consider audio
recordings, due to the scope of the study and since recordings are not available online for
10
both textbooks; however, reading and listening exercises are analyzed to identify any
explicit references made to other varieties than BrE and AmE. Through this, the focus of
both written and spoken text is arguably elicited, i.e. if the intention of the exercises that
accompany the excerpts/recordings is to direct the students’ attention towards the content
or the style/variety of English.
To answer research question 2, “What kind of speakers/situations appear in connection to
the linguistic variation?”, any differences between speakers of BrE, AmE and other
English varieties will be distinguished. Thus, the characters of the textbooks, and the
situations they appear in, will be noted together with their linguistic information. The
analysis of the characters considers information that emerges both from the written text
and pictures that accompany the texts, such as occupations and other attributes.
Research question 3, “What kind of meanings can be derived from the way the different
characters and linguistic varieties are presented and connected?”, will be answered
through studying the data gathered to answer research question 1 and 2, as well as by
investigating in what ways varieties other than standard varieties of English are presented.
Thus, drawing from the context that non-standard varieties appear in and the vocabulary
used to describe them, the intention is to expose underlying meanings of the
representations provided in the textbooks, since the portrayal of a variety’s speakers may
reflect attitudes towards the variety itself.
3.2.2 Primary Material
The two textbooks analyzed are Blueprint A 3.0 (Lundfall & Nyström, 2017) and
Viewpoints 1 (Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017). Since there are no official statistics
concerning which textbooks are most commonly used in Swedish schools, the primary
material was chosen based on their publishing dates and personal experience of the
textbooks on behalf of the researcher. Personal experience entails having observed other
teachers using these textbooks during practicum periods during the teacher training
program. Both textbooks were recently published at the time of the study and are intended
for the English 5 course in Swedish upper secondary school (Lundfall & Nyström 2017;
Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017). Moreover, in both textbooks, the preface indicates that texts
and exercises included are authentic and intended to develop students’ knowledge in and
comprehension of the English language (Lundfall & Nyström 2017; Gustafsson &
Wivast, 2017).
Blueprint A 3.0, hereafter referred to as Blueprint, consists of seven chapters,
incorporating both fictional and non-fictional written texts, including news articles,
excerpts from movie scripts and books, short stories, comic strips and poems (Lundfall
& Nyström, 2017). All texts and recordings are accompanied by exercises with questions
that may help the students reflect over the texts and listening tasks (Lundfall & Nyström,
2017). Moreover, the last part of the book, called the blue pages, further helps students
develop knowledge of language conventions, writing genres and grammar (Lundfall &
Nyström, 2017).
Viewpoints 1, hereafter referred to as Viewpoints, is divided into five main themes,
comprising 21 chapters in total (Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017). The textbook includes texts
spanning over diverse genres including poems, song lyrics, new articles, novels and
biographies (Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017). Thus, it incorporates both fictional and non-
fictional texts. Each chapter also includes exercises with questions accompanying the
texts and the recordings that the students can listen to together with the teacher
(Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017).
11
3.3 Interviews
The study’s final research question, “What perspectives do ELT teachers have on
linguistic variation in English (i.e. in ELT teaching and textbooks)?”, will be answered
through the use of interviews with teachers of English, currently working within Swedish
upper secondary school. The interviews work to triangulate the data gathered through the
textbook analysis, which in turn strengthens the credibility and dependability of the
findings (Ali & Yosuf, 2011; Bengtsson, 2016).
3.3.1 Interview Method
In total, three interviews were conducted. To locate participants, an inquiry was made
through three Facebook groups aimed towards English teachers working within Swedish
upper secondary school, as well as through private channels such as emails to contacts
working in upper secondary schools in Stockholm. The Facebook inquiry did not yield
any answers; however, three participants were found through private channels and, as
such, these people became the interviewees of the study.
The interviews were semi-structured (Groom & Littlemore, 2011), utilizing a set of
questions (see Appendix B) as basis for the interviews; however, additional questions and
requests for elaborations were made where the interviewer saw fit during the interviews.
All questions were carefully considered as to avoid bias or affecting the participants’
answers (Groom & Littlemore, 2011). Before the interviews were conducted, a pilot
interview was held. This pilot was conducted to identify possible problematic areas of the
questions that could be in need of revision such as, for instance, if the questions were
misinterpreted by the interviewee. The pilot interview also made it easier to identify any
tendentious questions, which lessened the risk of directing the interviewees towards
answering in a particular way (Codó, 2008). The pilot interview showed that some
questions were vaguely phrased, which resulted in revision of said questions in order to
direct the participants towards the subject of interest.
The interview comprised three parts: Background Questions, Questions Regarding
Linguistic Variation in Teaching, and Questions Regarding Textbooks. All interviews
were audio recorded, and all participants were asked to give their verbal consent to this
at the time of the interviews. Since the purpose of the present study is not to analyze how
the participants speak but rather what they say, the transcription of the interviews does
not make note of dialectal differences, intonation or body language. However, by
recording the interviews, giving a correct account of what the participants said became
easier (Groom & Littlemore, 2011).
3.3.2 Participants
Three individuals partook in the interviews of the study. Table 2 introduces each
participant briefly drawing on their accounts concerning their experiences as EFL-
teachers. In order to ensure anonymity, any names or references to specific places have
been removed. The teachers will be referred to as Alice, Lily and Signe.
12
Table 2. Description of Participants.
Teacher Years in the
profession
Experience with
textbooks
Teacher training with focus
on linguistic variation in ELT
Alice • 22 years in the
profession
• 8 out of 22 years
in Sweden.
• Extensive experience
outside of Sweden.
• Limited use of
textbooks in Sweden.
• No.
Lily • 9 years in the
profession.
• Limited use of
textbooks.
• ELT-Textbooks
used: Magic, What’s
up, Good stuff,
Blueprint, Core.
• Other Textbooks:
Passport to (focused
on specific
countries).
• Yes.
Signe • 29 years in the
profession.
• 26 out of 29 years
in Sweden.
• Extensive experience
with textbooks.
• Uses them to
complement other
materials.
• Yes.
3.3.3 Ethical Considerations
Since this study deals with human participants, there are ethical aspects to consider when
planning and conducting data collection. Informed consent is an important aspect in
research ethics (Dörnyei, 2007); therefore, all participants were informed of the study’s
aim through an information sheet (see Appendix C) and asked to fill out a consent form
(see Appendix D) before participating. This provided them with an assurance that their
answers would only be used for the purpose of the research. Furthermore, it is also
important to assure participants that participation is completely voluntary (Dörnyei,
2007). To that end, the information sheet stated that participants could withdraw from the
study at any given time. All participants were further informed that, if they so wished,
they would be able to take part of the final product of the study. Through this, they are
given the chance to correct things they believe are wrongfully presented in the
transcriptions of the interviews (Groom & Littlemore, 2011). Finally, another ethical
consideration concerns the participants’ personal data (Dörnyei, 2007). The information
participants provide as well as their personal information needs to be handled
confidentially by the researcher (Dörnyei, 2007), which is why confidentiality and
anonymity was emphasized in the information sheet. The promise of anonymity is also
the reason why all references to specific places and names made in the interviews are
removed from the transcriptions used in the study.
4. Results
The findings of the study are presented in two separate sections: first, the textbook data
and second, the interview data.
13
4.1 Textbook Data
4.1.1 Linguistic Variation as Shown in the Text
The textbook analysis showed limited linguistic variation. In Blueprint, a total of 42 texts
with accompanying exercises were analyzed in order to locate any examples of English
varieties that follow different rules in grammar or spelling than standard BrE or AmE, as
well as words that do not typically appear in BrE or AmE. In Viewpoints, 22 texts and
accompanying exercises were analyzed. The texts and exercises were also studied in order
to identify any explicit references to other, non-standard varieties of English. As shown
in Table 3, only 13 in-text examples could be found of non-standard varieties in Blueprint,
whereas 18 in-text examples were identified in Viewpoints. It should be noted that if
several examples of the same variety occurred in a text, these have been grouped in the
Table and are, thus, counted as one example.
Table 3. Description of texts analyzed with regards to explicit and implicit references to linguistic
variation.
Textbook:
Analyzed
texts
(in total):
Examples of
non-standard
varieties in text
(UK/ US):
Examples of
non-
standard
varieties
in text (non-
British/non-
American):
Explicit
references to
non-standard
varieties of
English:
Other languages
mentioned/
exemplified
in texts:
Blueprint A
3.0
42
10 (vocabulary,
slang)
2 (grammar)
1
2
2 (Swedish and
Arabic).
Viewpoints 1
22
15 (vocabulary,
slang)
1 (grammar)
2
1
3 (Swedish, Urdu
and Yorùbá).
The in-text examples could be deciphered through non-standard grammar conventions,
and vocabulary. For instance, in Blueprint, two examples of non-standard grammar were
identified where the use of double negation is used and where the speaker uses the subject
pronoun “they” instead of the possessive pronoun “their”:
I didn’t get no answers. (McKenna, 1998, as cited in Blueprint, 2017, p. 225)
Only three things them ladies talk about: they kids, they clothes, and they friends. (Stockett,
2009, as cited in Blueprint, 2017, p. 211)
In Viewpoints, there were also instances in one text where double negation, which is
typical for AAE, was used. Viewpoints also includes an example where the modal
auxiliary verb “would” is omitted from a sentence uttered by a character who also made
use of vocabulary typical for Nigerian English, resulting in it breaking the standard word
order in English of subject, verb and object.
I [would] never bring a child there. (Allen, 2012, as cited in Viewpoints, 2017, p. 127)
14
Regarding the lexical items, both textbooks show examples of non-standard vocabulary
in the form of slang, that could be used in any English variety, but that originates from
the UK or the US (Dalzell & Victor, 2013). Moreover, in Viewpoints there is one text
where three examples of Nigerian English vocabulary could be found and in
Blueprint, examples of Scottish and Irish slang were identified. In Viewpoints, the
examples shown were of Nigerian English. The utterances “wahala” (Nigerian English
for problem), “oga” (Nigerian English for boss) and “you dey craze” (Nigerian English
for You are crazy), are used in the text and explicitly defined in the margins (Viewpoints,
2017, pp. 124-127). In Blueprint, the word “Gick” occurs, which is Irish slang for
“excrement” (Dalzell & Victor, 2013, p. 985). The word “Ilk” also occurred which,
according to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (2020c), is a word used as a noun or a
pronoun to describe people of the same kind, primarily used in Scotland. However, it
should be noted that the non-standard variety words are not described as Irish or Scottish
words in Blueprint.
Moreover, both textbooks showed evidence of direct references made to varieties of
English other than BrE and AmE, as is shown in Table 3. In Blueprint, these references
were made in questions accompanying the text. The first explicit reference was made to
Geordie dialect, a British accent, in connection to a listening exercise, and the second
explicit reference was made to Ebonics, or AAE, in connection to an excerpt of the book
The Help. In Viewpoints, only one explicit reference was identified, and this reference to
Nigerian English was made in the margins of an excerpt from the book Ibarajo Road.
Furthermore, both textbooks made references to other languages such as Swedish, Arabic,
Urdu and Yorùbá.
In addition, neither the Irish nor the Scottish slang words were discussed explicitly in
Blueprint; however, both the example of AAE and Geordie dialect were mentioned in
questions accompanying the text/listening exercise. When the Geordie dialect is
mentioned, the question posed is focused on where in England this specific dialect is
spoken, whereas when the example of AAE is highlighted, it is explicitly referred to as
differing from Standard English:
Aibileen, the narrator of The Help, is not telling the story in Standard English, but in Ebonics,
or African American English. Look closely at the text and describe some typical features of
Ebonics. (Blueprint, 2017, p. 216)
As far as the explicit reference made to Nigerian English in Viewpoints goes, no further
discussion is made regarding the variety in the exercises accompanying the text.
One major difference between the two textbooks is that Blueprint actually includes a text
specifically written about English in the world whereas Viewpoints does not. In the text,
it is explained that there are about 350-400 million NS of English in the world.
Additionally, the text highlights that English is either an official language or used as a
primary language in 57 countries in Africa and Asia, and that it is used as a common
language by “many non-English speakers all over the world” (Blueprint, 2017, p. 105).
The text also emphasizes that English is the native mother tongue in certain countries:
English is the native mother tongue of only Britain, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand and a handful of Caribbean countries. (Blueprint, 2017, p. 105)
Although the text emphasizes that English is a broader concept than only a native
language to a few selected speakers in the world, it does not give examples of nor mention
that these Englishes may differ in grammatical structure, spelling or lexical items.
15
4.1.2 Representation of Speakers in the Textbooks
In this section, the findings concerning both the speakers and the meanings that can be
derived from their representation are presented. Although there were few references to
non-standard varieties in either of the two books, both textbooks include speakers of non-
standard varieties and characters from other English-speaking countries than the US and
the UK (see Table 4).
Table 4. Description of characters in textbooks.
Textbook:
Character
s
(in total):
Speakers
of
standard
varieties:
Speakers of
non-
standard
varieties
(British/
American):
Speakers
of
non-
standard
varieties
(non-
British/non-
American):
Characters
from other
countries
than
the US/UK:
Characters
with
unspecified
origin.
Blueprint A
3.0
68
36
9
0
6
20
Viewpoints
1
57
39
9
1
13
27
In total, Blueprint incorporates 68 characters, whereas Viewpoints incorporates 57. It
should be noted that, instances where a group of people are described as doing or saying
something without any explicit mentions of how many characters actually comprise the
group have been counted as 1 character. Moreover, not all texts that were included in the
analysis incorporate characters, since some texts were non-fictional, and all characters do
not actively ‘speak’ in the excerpts. Out of the 68 characters included in Blueprint, 36
characters do speak standard varieties of English throughout the excerpt and 9 speak non-
standard varieties in the written text. In Table 4, non-standard speakers have further been
divided into two groups: speakers of non-standard varieties that originate in countries
other than the US/UK and speakers of non-standard varieties that originate in the US or
the UK. Thus, 9 characters who speak British or American slang, or use the grammatical
structure of, for instance, AAE could be found in Blueprint. Furthermore, out of the 68
characters, 6 characters come from other countries than the US/UK and 20 characters
have an unspecified origin. In Viewpoints, 39 out of 57 characters speak standard varieties
of English throughout the excerpts, whereas 10 speak non-standard varieties. Out of the
10 speakers who use a non-standard variety, only 1 spoke a non-standard variety that
could be traced outside of the US or the UK, namely Nigerian English. A total of 13
characters in Viewpoints originate from countries other than the US or the UK and 27
characters have an unspecified origin.
Interestingly enough, when analyzing the non-standard speakers in Blueprint a bit more
closely, it can be seen that the instances where the text diverges from standard variety
conventions in grammar both adhere to the grammatical structures deemed typical for
AAE. Additionally, both speakers of these instances are black. However, in the instances
16
where slang-words could be found, 6 of the characters using them are visually implied to
be white, since the pictures that accompany these texts portray white people.
Regarding the characters’ identities, much focus is given to their occupations and other
attributes, although it should be underlined that all characters do not work. When
identifying the occupations/attributes of standard-variety speakers and non-standard
variety speakers, as well as people from other countries than the US and the UK, some
differences emerge (see Table 5).
Table 5. Characters and occupations/attributes.
Textbook:
Occupation/attribute
of standard variety
speakers:
Occupation/attribute
of non-standard
variety speakers:
Occupation/attribute of
characters from other
countries:
Blueprint A 3.0
Barrister, counsel,
criminal, exchange
student, professional
fighter, footballer,
founder of #BLM
movement, human
rights activist, judge,
mall worker, model,
psychiatrist, religious
enthusiast, student,
summer camp attendee.
Footballer, mall
worker, marketing
guru, teacher, maid,
white supremacist
leader.
Advertising agents for the
Devil, shoplifters.
Viewpoints 1
Detective, editor,
human rights defender,
journalist, politician,
principal, school
psychologist, school
guidance counsellor,
student, teacher.
Criminal, driver for
criminal, journalist,
student.
Child mercenary, human
rights defender, human
trafficker, journalist, refuge
worker.
Evidently, standard-variety speakers have a broader spectrum of occupations and
attributes than non-standard variety speakers and characters from other countries in both
textbooks. However, the number of occupations listed for standard versus non-standard
variety speakers is arguably affected by the fact that there are less non-standard speakers
than standard speakers in total in both textbooks.
Moreover, although there are instances where characters from the UK/US have attributes
that may be considered “problematic” as, for instance, the example of a criminal in
Blueprint, these are not solely portraying these characters from a negative perspective.
For instance, the listening exercise about a criminal in Blueprint is actually a success
story, about the criminal who turned his life around after going to prison, drawing from
the questions accompanying the story. Additionally, the story about the American white
supremacist leader in Blueprint, who uses American slang, is also a story of change,
where the individual in question changes his perspective from one of hatred to one of
understanding. Interestingly enough, when characters are described as originating from
other countries than the UK/US, they do not appear to change their ways: the advertising
agents from Canada listen to the Devil as he explains his plan for making Hell more
attractive to humans, and the shoplifters from Dublin do not seem to stop their activities.
As far as Viewpoints ventures, neither the child mercenary from Colombia nor the human
17
trafficker from a made-up country change their ways in the stories they appear in; the
child mercenary kills his friend’s uncle and the human trafficker is killed while trying to
prevent the other characters from helping his victims.
Lastly, in both textbooks, all texts that are not written by the textbook’s authors
themselves are accompanied with direct references to the specific author who wrote the
excerpt. Since the authors that are represented in the textbook can also be argued to have
the function of representing English speakers, these were also included in the analysis.
Thus, Table 6 provides information about the origin of all authors whose works are
represented in the textbook; however, the authors of the actual textbooks are not
represented in the Table below.
Table 6. Nationality of authors represented in textbooks.
Textbook:
Authors
from the
UK
Authors
from the US
Authors with other
nationality
Authors with
unknown
nationality
Blueprint A 3.0
4
13
5 (Australia, Malawi, Ireland,
Kenya/Somalia)
2 (British-American)
1
Viewpoints 1
19
3
1 (Iraq)
3
4.2 Interviews
4.2.1 Regarding Linguistic Diversity in ELT
In the interviews, all three teachers were asked whether or not they believe there is a
preferred variety of English in teaching today, despite no distinction being made in the
curriculum anymore, and the answers differed immensely. Alice reports that she does not
perceive any variety to be better thought of than another; however, both Lily and Signe
claim that there still are certain preferences. Lily says that she believes most teachers
mainly care about if students commit to one variety or several, i.e. a student should
commit to one variety’s spelling conventions, for instance. However, Lily maintains that
she believes pronunciation to be of less importance nowadays. Signe, on the other hand,
reports that she believes that there has been and still is some preference for BrE in Sweden
up until this day, but that this is changing slowly. For instance, Signe argues that more
and more attention is given to Englishes around the world, and that non-western cultures
and countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan are being mentioned more often.
One interesting finding that emerges through the interviews revolves around the teachers’
perception of their students’ awareness of World Englishes. Lily highlights that students
are mostly inclined to use AmE themselves, which she believes is a result of exposure
through television, magazines, tweets and social media. Moreover, Lily also states that
she experiences that students have difficulties to identify varieties other than AmE:
American the most. British in the second place. And everything else is a bit of a blur to them.
Sometimes they hear Australian English and they think it’s British… So, everything is blurry
below American.
18
Signe also accounts for her students, stating that not only do they seem to be aware of
certain varieties mainly, but they also consider some particular varieties to be “real
English” whereas others are not:
We are talking about English from … non-western cultures and countries, you know, like
Nigeria, Pakistan, and I still find that that issue comes up in my classroom - that the students
question ‘Why are we learning these dialects? They’re not the real English’.
Alice’s narrative concurs with the previous statements, saying that students are mostly
exposed to different varieties of English outside the school domain, and that within the
school domain, focus is mainly on BrE and AmE.
The teachers were further asked about whether or not they find it difficult to include
different varieties of English in their instruction, as well as what possible benefits or
downsides they could see with including a wider range of Englishes in instruction. The
answers provided differ immensely here too. Alice states that she does not think about
including varieties to any greater extent in her teaching, since students are exposed to and
learn about other varieties through movies, for instance. However, she states that she
believes learning about varieties is important.
Lily, on the other hand, claims that although she actively tries to include a variation, it is
difficult since a majority of the materials found online and materials such as textbooks
are focused on BrE or AmE. Moreover, Lily states that since she is encouraged to work
across subjects, it becomes even more difficult to find material that is both easily
combined with other subjects as well as offers a broad variation of Englishes. She
emphasizes that it would be much easier to incorporate different varieties if materials
included diverse Englishes while the focus is not primarily on specific countries, but
rather on themes such as society, politics, history or LGBTQ questions, etc. Lily further
states that:
The benefit [of exposing students to different varieties] is that it increases their understanding
which is the whole point of our course; to understand English is to understand that there are
different kinds of English, and American is not the only one. So it is increasing not only their
understanding of the world but also increasing their actual literal understanding of when an
Australian starts speaking to them. And instead of reacting like ‘Oh, uh, what’s this English?
it’s more ‘Oh! Australian!’.
Simultaneously, Lily stresses that nowadays, it may not be that important to actually be
able to identify where a speaker is from, but rather to be able to understand the variety
and have a positive reaction towards it.
Lastly, Signe follows the same track as Lily and Alice, in that she believes that it is
important that students learn about the different varieties of English that they may
encounter out in the world since this enables comprehension. However, Signe claims that
a certain responsibility lies with the teacher, which has to do with stressing
appropriateness in language choice, i.e. if the students learn about slang, for instance, they
also need to be instructed when to not use that kind of language. At the same time, Signe
argues that finding material that incorporates linguistic variation is not a problem, due to
the abundance of material available through the internet consisting of poetry, movies,
song lyrics and other texts.
4.2.2 Perspectives on ELT-textbooks
When the teachers were asked about their perception of linguistic variation in textbooks,
the answers given pointed mainly towards that textbooks show limited representation.
19
Lily stated that in her experience, textbooks rarely cater for the linguistic diversity of
English. Although Lily withholds that some books are more linguistically varied, most
textbooks she encountered focus primarily on BrE and AmE. Because of this lack of
diversity, Lily says that she has turned to books not primarily focused on teaching the
English language, but rather focused on teaching students about different countries.
Through these books, Lily claims to have found a way to better introduce World Englishes
to her students than if she would have used a typical textbook, since she can choose certain
parts from different books and combine them in order to teach students about English
varieties.
Furthermore, Signe emphasizes that textbook content is highly dependent on the authors
and the time-period the books are written in. Signe also argues that:
If it’s a Swedish company that published it, there’s almost always British writers or, you know,
when you look at their credentials they have been educated in the British system. I have yet to
see many books that have Canadian writers, or writers from North America or Australia. Most
of them are like, a combination of British and Swedish writers, and … that’s a problem …
Because they’re not wrong, it’s not wrong, but it’s just closing the spectrum a little bit when
you offer that … there needs to be more diversity in writers or teachers wanting to write
textbooks.
When Signe is asked about ideas for improving textbook design with regards to linguistic
diversity, she further adds that focus should not be on countries such as the UK, but that
texts and fiction from other parts of the world such as Nigeria also should be taken into
account. Through this, Signe states that textbooks would better illustrate the width of the
English language.
One interesting finding that separates itself from the rest is that Alice states that she has
not thought of the linguistic variation that is included in textbooks. Alice reports that she
is uncertain as to whether or not it is an active choice on the part of the author to include
certain texts, while simultaneously excluding others. Moreover, Alice further elaborates:
Well, I think that textbooks, maybe they are doing that with purpose, I don’t know, having a
variety of dialects and they pick up different texts, so, maybe textbooks are much better to use
rather than me creating a new task, a new assignment for the students, because I don’t think
about that matter. I don’t think about the words or the dialect that I should use in my
assignments. So, maybe it is better with the textbooks of course. Because they are more carefully
fixed and designed.
Although Alice creates most of her material herself, the excerpt shows that she relies on
the material in the textbooks to be carefully considered in order to show diversity.
5. Discussion
In this section, the study’s results are discussed in light of the four research questions first
posed in this study, as well as previous literature within the field of World Englishes and
ELT/EFL. Overall, the findings of the study suggest not only that ideas of native
speakerism and, simultaneously, legitimate speakers of English are present but also
linguistic ideologies. It should be noted that, since the third research question “what kind
of meanings can be derived from the way the different characters and linguistic varieties
are presented and connected?” is closely intertwined with both research question 1 and 2,
the third question will be answered in connection with these two.
20
The first research question addressed in the study was “what kind of linguistic variation
appears in EFL textbooks (i.e. geolectal, sociolectal etc.)?”. As previously shown, the
linguistic variation represented in the textbooks is rather limited; yet, it is there. Although
the majority of the texts exemplify either standard BrE or AmE, there are examples of
both non-standard BrE and AmE, as well as non-standard varieties originating from parts
of the world other than the UK or the US. Examples that emerge from the analysis are for
instance Nigerian English and Irish, as well as AAE, Scottish and diverse lexical items in
the form of ‘slang’ descending from either the UK or the US. However, the fact still
remains: the main part of the linguistic representation in the two textbooks is either British
or American, regardless of whether one considers standard- or non-standard varieties of
the two. This finding is further supported by the results from the interviews, where all
three teachers who were interviewed reported that, drawing from their own experience,
textbooks rarely incorporate other varieties than BrE or AmE. Hence, the results from
both the textbook analysis and the interviews are still in accordance with what Modiano
(2009) highlights: Europeans are yet to be exposed to varieties other than BrE and AmE.
However, concerning the linguistic representation identified in the textbooks, the
portrayal of these suggests that the perception of BrE or AmE as ‘real English’ still
lingers, which Signe also emphasizes in the interviews. This indication is made when
Blueprint introduces a text concerning English in the world while reinforcing the divide
between NS and NNS nations. This suggests that not only is the ideological perspective
that equates nations with languages at play, but also the notion of that a ‘standard’ exists,
from which all other varieties deviate. Thus, the ideologies of one-nation-one-language
and the standard language ideology can be identified in this text (Weber & Horner, 2012).
As such, the findings of the present study can be argued to align with the findings from
previous studies (Heinrich, 2005; Ping, 2015; Curdt-Christiansen, 2015). The
representation of standard varieties clearly outweighs the representation of non-standards,
and, as a result, standard varieties seem to carry higher value.
In addition, different varieties exemplified in the textbooks seem to be implicitly
structured in a hierarchical order, showing traces of the hierarchy of languages ideology
(Weber & Horner, 2012). Since there is an overrepresentation of standard varieties of
AmE and BrE, these appear to be the most desirable ‘norms’ to follow; thus, the findings
support earlier research in that the native speaker ideal seems to persist in contemporary
teaching materials as well as that the textbooks’ primary focus seems to be preparing
students for encounters with NS (Kiczkowiak, 2019). However, there are also indications
of non-standard varieties being valued differently. As shown in the results, one explicit
reference is made to the Geordie dialect, in which the question directs the learner’s
attention to where in the UK this specific dialect is spoken. The next time an explicit
reference is made to a non-standard variety in the same textbook, it revolves around AAE,
and the question directs the student’s attention to in what manner this variety differs from
‘standard English’. This difference in what the two questions direct attention to may be
argued to indicate that AAE is, in fact, less similar to standard English than the Geordie
dialect. Furthermore, although there are examples of Irish and Scottish vocabulary in the
running text in parts of the textbook, these are not explicitly discussed. This may suggest
that the use of such vocabulary is not as conspicuous as the use of a grammatical structure
that clearly deviates from standard AmE such as AAE, which people tend to perceive as
a deficient form of English (Weber & Horner, 2012).
Needless to say, there are several problematic aspects concerning the linguistic
representation within the textbooks, and the representation of speakers is no exception.
When analyzing the characters and authors portrayed in the textbooks in order to answer
21
the second research question of the study concerning “what kind of speakers/situations
appear in connection to the linguistic variation?”, several interesting aspects appear. For
instance, out of a total of 125 characters analyzed, merely 19 speakers of non-standard
varieties could be found in Blueprint and Viewpoints together. As shown in the results,
out of all characters in both books, only one character who spoke a non-standard variety
that does not originate from the US or the UK could be identified, namely a character
speaking Nigerian English. All other characters who were speaking a non-standard
variety spoke a non-standard variety descending from the US or the UK. This does not
only imply that the interviewees’ reports from their own experiences with textbooks are
accurate with regards to the linguistic variation shown in textbooks they have used, but
also suggests that although there is variation in English, this variation is still primarily
considered to exist within the US and the UK, with extremely few exceptions. This
representation of speakers arguably reinforces the perspective of Englishes first proposed
by Kachru (1985), since it neglects the fact that the span of Englishes stretches far beyond
the nations of the inner circle, as shown by Weber and Horner (2012) and Seargeant
(2012).
Furthermore, the speakers of standard and non-standard varieties of English are portrayed
differently. Despite the fact that non-standard variety speakers outnumber standard
variety speakers of English today (Kiczkowiak, 2019), the textbooks clearly depict
standard variety speakers as more in numbers. Due to this, standard variety speakers are
also shown to hold a wider range of occupations than non-standard variety speakers in
both textbooks. Many of the occupations held by standard variety speakers do not only
result in a higher salary, but also put higher expectations on their holders in terms of
education, for instance. Thus, standard variety speakers appear not only to outnumber
their counterparts, but they also appear to be more diligent. This can be read as the type
of person others should aim to emulate and may, therefore, influence the perspective
readers of these textbooks have of English speakers around the world. This may result in
that the reader attains a predetermined view of certain people based on their
socioeconomic status and language choice, as in the case with standard varieties of
English being associated with ‘white people’ (Lanehart, 1998, p. 132, as cited in Siegel,
2006, pp. 162-163). It also indicates that traces of the ideology of purism are present
(Weber & Horner, 2012).
Additionally, although there is one example of a criminal amongst the standard variety
speakers, the example shows a different kind of storyline than what can be seen with the
criminal among the non-standard variety speakers. It exemplifies a success story where
the character changes his life after going to prison; it is really a rags-to-riches story.
However, drawing on the portrayal of non-standard variety speakers of English, and
characters from other countries than the US/UK, these speakers are easily considered
more problematic. Among these characters, the reader encounters criminals, child
mercenaries, advertising agents working for the Devil, and a white supremacist leader.
By showing one type of speaker from a primarily positive perspective whereas the other
type of speaker is portrayed in a more controversial manner, it can be interpreted that the
intention might be to persuade the reader that mimicking the first mentioned speaker is a
more worthwhile pursuit than mimicking the other. Simultaneously, it renders an unfair
picture of non-standard variety speakers of English to the readers of the textbooks. As
stated earlier, the idea of who constitutes the legitimate speaker of a language is reinforced
through the culture and the people presented in the materials, as well as the language
characters use in the materials (Lundahl, 2014). Hence, since non-standard speakers not
only speak less favored varieties of English but are also portrayed as ‘worse people’ than
22
standard variety speakers, non-standard variety speakers are depicted in a less favorable
manner and their way of speaking is made into an indication of this (Bourdieu, 1991).
The position of British and American speakers is further strengthened, since they
constitute the majority of the authors of the texts included in both textbooks. In Blueprint,
5 out of 25 authors beyond the writers of the actual textbook are non-British/non-
American, whereas in Viewpoint, only 1 out of 26 authors is non-British/non-American.
This may be an indication of which English varieties the authors or producers of the actual
textbooks deem more appropriate for the purpose of ELT. I.e. it can be seen as
communicating an idea of British and American speakers of English as more legitimate
speakers of English (Bourdieu, 1991). In light of Signe’s accounts, who argued that
textbooks produced by Swedish companies almost exclusively include British writers, the
findings from both from the textbook analysis and the interviews suggest that a preference
of certain English varieties still remains. Thus, in Bourdieusian (1991) terms, the market
of ELT in Sweden can still be considered to assign higher value to standard varieties of
English and, as a result, the works of authors who possess this linguistic capital are more
highly valued too.
Lastly, the study’s fourth research question was “what perspectives do EFL teachers have
on linguistic variation in English (i.e. in EFL teaching and textbooks)?” and as shown in
the discussion of the other research questions, the perspectives provided by the
interviewees largely correspond with the findings from the textbook analysis; however,
further insights emerged through the interviews. First, it can be argued that the findings
of this study are not problematic since teachers do have a certain responsibility with
regards to what material they choose to use in the classroom (Curdt-Christiansen &
Weninger, 2015). Teachers should supposedly honor the core content of the course they
are teaching; hence, they should consider the different objectives set for their students
when they plan and execute their teaching. However, the present study’s findings support
what Kamazak, Ozbilgin and Atay (2020) problematize: all teachers are not necessarily
as critical of textbooks as they arguably should be, since textbooks are supposedly “more
carefully fixed and designed” (Alice). Textbook content is, by many, not questioned as it
carries an authoritative status (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Curdt-Christiansen &
Weninger, 2015; Curdt-Christiansen, 2017); this supposition clearly does not only apply
to the students that the textbooks are used with but also the teachers that lean on them as
this study shows, in accordance to previous studies (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Curdt-
Christiansen, 2017).
Moreover, whether or not a teacher deems it necessary to discuss other varieties than BrE
or AmE, arguably depends on the teacher’s own education. Out of this study’s three
interviewees, only one claimed not to have had any discussion regarding linguistic
variation in English during her teacher training, and the same teacher primarily talked
about BrE and AmE throughout the interview. Thus, whether teachers can be expected to
carry the weight of including different English varieties in their teaching sole-handedly
is a complex question. It could perhaps be argued that textbooks should instead be more
diversified, which would mean that the materials would better suit the course
requirements for English 5 (Skolverket, 2011), while simultaneously supporting teachers
better in their everyday profession, as emphasized by Lily in the interviews.
23
6. Conclusion
The present study’s primary aim was to elucidate through what perspective Swedish EFL
textbooks portray the English language. The findings indicate that certain linguistic
preferences are still prominent in ELT practices and materials in Sweden. This is
interesting since literature within the field of both World Englishes and ELT have long
called for an increase in representation of Englishes within educational settings.
Concerning textbooks, the ones investigated here demonstrate that BrE and AmE, as far
as Englishes go, still carry a high value in the context of EFL. Additionally, the results
show indications of native speaker idealism both in terms of the textbooks’ representation
of linguistic variation and English speakers. Non-standard variety speakers are presented
as fewer in numbers than standard variety speakers with regards to both characters in the
excerpts and authors of the included texts. Furthermore, when non-standard speakers do
appear in the texts, they tend to be portrayed in less favorable light than standard variety
speakers. These findings are further supported by the accounts of the teachers who
provided the study with yet another perspective of linguistic variation in teaching
practices and materials in Sweden. According to the teachers, textbooks rarely
incorporate a variation of Englishes and, in their experience, BrE and AmE seem to be
preferred both in textbooks, and in society.
However, since this study’s interviewees reported limited usage of textbooks overall in
their teaching, and since one of the teachers primarily focused her answers around BrE
and AmE, future research could develop this perspective further. Studying teachers’
perceptions of linguistic variation more in depth, and if/in what manner they include
World Englishes in their everyday teaching, could yield significant insights. Since this
study aims to provide an insight to textbook design and content rather than to make
generalizations, another potential angle for future research could be to develop the present
study’s aim and methodology into a larger, more detailed analysis of ELT/EFL-textbooks
which could elicit more generally applicable data. By drawing on a larger sample of
textbooks while simultaneously developing a more extensive analysis criterion where
distinctive features of several Englishes are listed, it could be investigated if the findings
of this study can be considered representative of textbooks used in Swedish schools in
general. Through such a study, it could be further problematized what perspective of
English these teaching materials actually provide students with countrywide.
24
References
Primary Sources
Gustafsson, L. & Wivast, U. (2017). Viewpoints 1 (2nd ed.). Malmö: Gleerups.
Lundfall, C. & Nyström, R. (2017). Blueprint 3.0 A (3rd ed.). Stockholm: Liber.
Secondary Sources
Algeo, J. (2010). British or American English? A handbook of word and grammar patterns. [E-
book Edition]. Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607240
Ali, A. M., & Yusof, H. (2011). Quality in qualitative studies: The case of validity, reliability and
generalization. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 5(1/2), 25–64. Doi:
10.122164/isea.v5i1.59
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis.
NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14. Doi: 10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
Bourdieu, P. (1977). ‘The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges’. Social Science Information,
16(6), 645–668. Doi: 10.1177/053901847701600601
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. In: Thompson, J.B. (Ed.). Language and
symbolic power. (pp. 502-513). Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell.
Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: issues in modelling English worldwide. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159-178. Doi: 10.1111/1473-4192.00042
Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. (2015). Ideological Tensions and Contradictions in Lower Primary
English teaching materials in Singapore. In: Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. Weninger, C.
Language, ideology and education – the politics of textbooks in language education. (pp. 129-
144). London: Routledge.
Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. (2017). Language socialization through textbooks. In: Duff, P.A. &
May, S. (Eds.) Language Socialization. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. (pp. 1-
16). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. & Weninger, C. (2015). Ideology and the politics of language
textbooks. In: Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. Weninger, C. Language, ideology and education –
the politics of textbooks in language education. (pp. 1-8). London: Routledge.
Codó, E. (2008). Interviews and questionnaires. In: Wei, L. & Moyer, M. G. (eds.) The Blackwell
guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism. (pp. 158-176). Malden:
Blackwell publishing Ltd.
Dalzell, T. & Victor, T. (Eds.). (2013). The new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional
English. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezp.sub.su.se.
Drisko, J. & Machi, T. (2015). Content analysis. [E-book Edition] Oxford Scholarship Online.
Doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2014). Principles of instructed second language learning. In: Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton,
D., & Snow, M. (eds.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 4th ed. (pp. 31-45).
Boston: National Geographic Learning.
Estling Vanneståhl, M. (2007). A university grammar of English with a Swedish perspective.
Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.
25
Fang, F., & Ren, W. (2018). Developing students’ awareness of global Englishes. ELT Journal,
72(4), 384–394. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccy012
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2018). Incorporating global Englishes into the ELT classroom. ELT
Journal, 72(1), 3–14. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccx010
Groom, N., & Littlemore, J. (2011). Doing applied linguistics – A guide for students. London:
Routledge.
Heller, M. (1996). Legitimate language in a multilingual school. Linguistics and Education, 8,
139–157. Doi: 10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90011-X
Heinrich, P. (2005). Language ideology in JFL textbooks. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language, 2005(175-176), 213-232. Doi: 10.1515/ijsl.2005.2005.175-176.213
Hutchinson, T. & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-
328. Retrieved from Stockholm University Library.
Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in
the outer circle. In: Quirk, R. & Widdowson, H.G. English in the world: Teaching and
learning the language and literatures. (pp. 11-30). London: Cambridge University Press.
Kamasak, R., Ozbilgin, M. & Atay, D. (2020). The cultural impact of hidden curriculum on
language learners: A review and some implications for curriculum design. In: Slapac, A. &
Coppersmith, S. Beyond language learning instruction, (pp. 104-125). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global, Information Science Reference. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338312533_The_Cultural_Impact_of_Hidden_Cu
rriculum_on_Language_Learners_A_Review_and_Some_Implications_for_Curriculum_De
sign
Kiczkowiak, M. (2019). Seven principles for writing materials for English as a lingua franca. ELT
Journal, 74(1), 1-9. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccz042
Lanza, E. (2007). Multilingualism and the family. In: Auer, P. & Wei, L. (eds.), Handbook of
multilingualism and multilingual communication. (pp. 45-67). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Lee McKay, S. (2010). English as an international language. In: Hornberger, N. & Lee McKay,
S. Sociolinguistics and language education. (pp. 89-115). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Lundahl, B. (2014). Engelsk språkdidaktik: texter, kommunikation, språkutveckling. Lund:
Studentlitteratur AB.
Matsuda, A. (2002). “International understanding” through teaching world Englishes. World
Englishes. 21(3), 436-440. Doi: 10.1111/1467-971X.00262
McGroarty, M. (2010). Language and ideologies. In: Hornberger, N. & Lee McKay, S.
Sociolinguistics and Language Education. (pp. 3-39). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Merriam-Webster. (2020a). Standard English. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved April 15,
2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Standard%20English.
Merriam-Webster. (2020b). Nonstandard. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved April 15, 2020,
from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonstandard.
Merriam-Webster. (2020c). Ilk. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ilk#note-1.
Modiano, M. (2008). A mid-Atlantic handbook: American and British English. [E-book Edition].
Lund: Studentlitteratur AB. URL: https://biblioteket.stockholm.se/titel/597564
Modiano, M. (2009). EIL, native-speakerism and the failure of European ELT. In: Sharifian, F.
English as an International Language – Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues. (pp. 58-77).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
26
Ping, Q. (2015). Ideologies in primary English textbooks in China. In: Curdt-Christiansen, X.L.
Weninger, C. Language, ideology and education – the politics of textbooks in language
education. (pp. 163-180). London: Routledge.
Prior, L. (2014). Content Analysis. In: Leavy, P. (ed.). The Oxford handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 359- 379). New York: Oxford University Press.
Seargeant, P. (2012). Exploring world Englishes: language in a global context. London:
Routledge.
Skolverket. (1969). Läroplan för Grundskolan.
file:///Users/jobb/Downloads/gupea_2077_30902_1.pdf. Accessed 2020-03-05.
Skolverket. (2011). English. Lgr11.
https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/1535372297288/Englis
h-swedish-school.pdf. Accessed 2020-03-05.
Siegel, J. (2006). Language ideologies and the education of speakers of marginalized language
varieties: Adopting a critical awareness approach. Linguistics and Education, 17, 157-174.
Doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.08.002
Siegel, A. (2014). What should we talk about? The authenticity of textbook topics. ELT Journal,
68(4), 363-375. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccu112
Weber, J.J., & Horner, K. (2012). Introducing multilingualism: a social approach. London:
Routledge.
27
Appendix A
Table 1. Distinctive features in British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) (Modiano, 2008,
pp. 107–128; Estling Vanneståhl, 2007; Algeo, 2010).
Distinctive
Features:
British English (BrE) American English (AmE)
Spelling -ae/-oe
encyclopaedia, aesthetic, diarrhoea
-ou
honour, colour, flavour, humour,
labour, neighbour
-ise/-ize
apologise or alopogize, organise or
organize, recognise or recognize
-yse
analyse, paralyse
- l (before -ment and -ful)
enrolment, fulfilment; skilful, wilful
-ll (verbs ending with vowel + L)
travelled, travelling, traveller
-ence
defence, licence, offence, pretence
-re
centre, metre, fibre, theatre, litre
- retaining final vowel e (words
ending with -able)
likeable, loveable
-e
encyclopedia, esthetic, diarrhea
-o
honor, color, flavor, humor, labor,
neighbor
-ize
apologize, organize, recognize
-yze
analyze, paralyze
- ll (before -ment and -ful)
enrollment, fulfillment; skillful, willful
-l (verbs ending with vowel + L)
traveled, traveling, traveler
-ense
defense, license, offense, pretense
-er
center, meter, fiber, theater, liter
- dropping final vowel e (words
ending with -able)
likable, lovable
Grammar -Verbs
burn, burnt
dwell, dwelt
dream, dreamt
get, got
kneel, knelt
lean, leant
leap, leapt
learn, learnt
saw, sawed, sawn
sew, sewn
smell, smelt
-Verbs
burn, burned
dwell, dwelled
dream, dreamed
get, gotten
kneel, kneeled
lean, leaned
leap, leaped
learn, learned
saw, sawed, sawed
sew, sewed
smell, smelled
28
spell, spelt
spit, spat
spoil, spoilt
-plural verb form for collective
nouns (family, government, etc.)
are
-contractions
I’ve not (I have not)
-expressing future
shall
-use of definite article
I need to go to hospital
I am going to study at university
spell, spelled
spit, spit
spoil, spoiled
-singular verb form for collective
nouns (family, government, etc.)
is
-contractions
I haven’t (I have not)
-expressing future
will
-use of definite article
I need to go to the hospital
I am going to study at the university
29
Appendix B
Interview Questions
Background:
• How long have you worked in the profession?
• How much experience do you have from working with textbooks? (Which
textbooks do you use/have you used?)
• Do you use textbooks today?
o Why/Why not?
• In your teacher training, did you ever discuss different varieties of English with
regards to instruction?
Regarding Linguistic Diversity in Teaching:
• Earlier, Swedish steering documents clearly stated that a specific variety was to
be taught in schools. This is not the case today; however, in your own opinion, do
you believe that there is a preferred variety of English when it comes to instruction
today?
o Specific dialects/registers?
• From your years as a teacher, do you experience that students are acquainted with
different varieties of English?
o Which varieties?
• In your instruction today, do you think it is difficult to find ways to include
different dialects/sociolects in your teaching?
• How do you think teachers can work to help students develop their knowledge of
different varieties? What do you believe are the best ways to expose students to
different varieties?
• What do you think are the possible benefits/downsides of exposing students to
different varieties of English?
Regarding Textbooks:
• From your experience as a teacher, do you believe that textbooks cater for the
diversity that the English language entails or are some varieties more common?
Why do you think it is that way?
• Do you experience textbooks to be of use to you when speaking to the students
about different varieties of English or do you lean on other materials for this
purpose?
o Can you think of any ways through which textbook design could be altered
for the better? Any specific areas?
Additionally (If they are not using textbooks regularly and believe that representation is
low):
30
• Do you think that textbooks would be of better use to you personally in your
everyday profession if they encompassed more diversity in linguistic
representation in texts/recordings?
• Finally, is there anything else you would like to add?
31
Appendix C
Language Ideologies in Textbooks:
A Study of Linguistic Variation in Swedish EFL Textbooks in Upper Secondary School
Nellie Lindqvist
Magister Student (Teacher Candidate)
Department of English, Stockholm University
Phone: 0700 44 86 61
Email: [email protected]
Supervisor: Josep Soler (Associate Prof.)
Research conducted as part of the English Mag degree project
The purpose of the study is to find out in what manner the English language is portrayed
in EFL textbooks intended for Swedish upper secondary schools. The study will analyze
textbooks, with regards to frequency of diverse language varieties. Furthermore, through
interviews, the study will take into account teachers’ perspectives of the usability of
textbooks when introducing students to different varieties of English.
Participation is completely voluntary and as a participant you can withdraw from the
study whenever you want; note that by participating in the study you give your consent
to your answers being used in the research.
The results of the study will be handled confidentially and according to the General Data
Protection Regulation. Answers in the interviews will be anonymized and the answers
will not be possible to trace back to specific participants. Answers given in the interviews
will further be used for the purpose of the research only. Before participating, you will be
asked to fill out a consent form.
32
Appendix D
Language Ideologies in Textbooks:
A Study of Linguistic Variation in Swedish EFL Textbooks in Upper Secondary School
Nellie Lindqvist
Magister Student (Teacher Candidate)
Department of English, Stockholm University
Phone: 0700 44 86 61
Email: [email protected]
Supervisor: Josep Soler (Associate Prof.)
Research conducted as part of the English Mag degree project
Consent Form
I have read the information sheet, and any questions that I have asked have been answered
to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in the research, on the understanding that I can
withdraw from the research at any time and without consequence.
I have been given a copy of this form.
Name of participant:____________________________________
Place and Date: _______________________________
Signature: _______________________________
Name of Investigator: Nellie Lindqvist
Place and Date: _______________________________
Investigator’s Signature: _______________________________
33
Stockholms universitet
106 91 Stockholm
Telefon: 08–16 20 00
www.su.se