ELF, EIL, WE and SLACharlotte Jones

Introduction• Seidlhofer (2005) “In recent years, the term

‘English as a lingua franca’ (ELF) has emerged as a way of referring to communication in English between speakers with different first languages.”

Spread of English• Numbers:• Graddol (2006) estimates that native speakership will reach more

than two billion in the next few decades. • Crystal (2000) …. Since roughly only one out of every four users of

English in the world is a native speaker of the language (Crystal 2003) , most ELF interactions take place among ‘non-native’ speakers of English.”

• Colonialism• Matsuda (2003) It is a challenge to look beyond the Colonial spread

of English. “The teaching of EIL is inextricably linked to the stories of worldwide spread; its changes in forms, functions, and users; and the politics of language (p722).

• Globalization • Bamgbose (2001)“the maintenance of culturally determined

varieties of world English in the face of pressures to achieve viable communication”

• Do not let opportunity become opportunism for native speakers.

Defining World Englishes: Kachru’s Model• Kachru (1992)

• The inner circle (English as first language): Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK, USA 

• The outer circle (English as second language where the language is the official language or a second-language in a multilingual setting): Bangladesh, Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines

•  The expanding circle (English as foreign language; Nations which recognize the importance of English as an international language though they do not have a history of colonization): China, Egypt, Indonesia, Korea

Precursory Fears

Inner Circle Norms and New Norms• Matsuda (2003, p 721) states that “The inner circle

orientation to ELT may be appropriate for ESL programs that prepare learners to function in the inner circle, but it is inadequate for a course that teachers EIL because of important differences in the way EIL learners use English among themselves relative to the ways in which NSs use English”

• Kachru & Smith (2009) for at least two centuries there have been mutually unintelligible native speakers of the Inner Circle

What’s in a name?• (Jenkins, 2006, p. 138) “SLA researcher’s difficulty with ELF

resides, essentially, I believe, in their inability to distinguish a lingua franca from a foreign language.”

• ELF: Meiercord (2004) “When English is the mother tongue of neither speakers who use the language for communicative purposes, they employ it as a lingua franca”

• Seidlhofer “A lingua franca has no native speakers” (p211)

ELF as an issue in SLA• (Jenkins, 2006, p. 138) “SLA researcher’s difficulty with ELF

resides, essentially, I believe, in their inability to distinguish a lingua franca from a foreign language.”

• Adapted from (Jenkins 2006, 2011; Meierkord, 2004)• The term ‘EIL’ is a precursor to the more modern term ‘ELF’ and is still used occasionally

(Jenkins et. al., 2011)

English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)- Part of ‘Global Englishes’,but internationally used- NNSs are more competent - Difference perspective- Contact/evolution metaphor- Transformative, bilingual- Code/switching = bilingual resources

English as a Foreign Language (EFL)- Part of modern foreign languages- NSs are more competent- Deficit perspective- Transfer / inference meta- Conformative, monolingual- Code-switching = inference errors

(Meierkord, 2004)

Global EnglishesIntranational

ELF and SLA: A bold new enterprise.

• Murray (2012) Explicitly states that there is in fact a “paucity” of empirical studies and findings which concerns the pedagogical implications for teaching English as a lingual franca (p 319).

• Seidlhofer (2004) “the work on ELF pragmatics is very much in its initial phase and the findings available to date result from research on a fairly limited database.”

Phonological Variations• Jenkins (2002) identifies several phonological distinctions

with a “lingua franca core” (LFC)• Consonant inventory: same with the exception of interdental

fricatives /θ/ /ð/ or dark ‘l” (ɫ)• Phonetic difference: word-initial voiceless stop aspiration /k/ /t/ /p/

changed to their voiced counterparts /g/ /d/ /b/• Consonant cluster difference: no omission in word-initial clusters

(proper and strap) but there may be an omission of sounds in word-medial clusters, e.g. friendship may have a reduced –d

• Vowels: Widely the same with the substitution of “E” in some cases, especially with /a;/

• Placement of nuclear stress: e.g. He came by TRAIN vs. He CAME by train

• What does this mean? • For the LFC:/θ/ /ð/ would be considered non-core.

fəˈnɒlədʒi

Lexicogrammar Variations• Seidlhofer (2004) compiles the following from the

VOICE data at the University of Vienna• Dropping the third person present tense –s• Confusing the relative pronoun who and which• Omitting definite and indefinite articles• Failing to use the correct tag questions (e.g. “isn’t it?” or

“no” instead of “shouldn’t they?”• Inserting redundant prepositions• Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality such

as do have make put take• Replacing infinitive-constructions with that clauses as in I

want that• Overdoing explicitness (e.g. black color instead of black)

Syntactic Variations• Meierkord (2004) majority of utterances are

unmarked• Use or non-use of definite or indefinite articles • We went to supermarket. (Pakistan)

• Lack of subject-auxillary inversion in the construction of –wh interogatives• When you will start practicing? (Zamibia)

• “These constructions hardly ever caused a breakdown in the conversation or necessitated a negotation of meaning sequence” (p124)

• “The data is indicative of a transitional form of English”; concludes that it is not a form a world standard spoken English

Syntactical Interactional Modifications

• Meierkord (2004) students used a number of interactional modifications to “render the discourse easier to process”• Simplification: segmented utterances• Higher speakers slowed their speech; syntactically split up sentences

into smaller units that are easier to process (she cites Ellis 1994)

• Regularization: topicalization strategies• E.g. the movement of focused information to the front of the

utterance• “Three years you have to do” (Pakistan, competent)• “My unit, it’s not that special, you see” (Malaysia, competent)

• Murray (2012) “the L2 learners may find indigestible sociopragmatic aspects of the target language culture that do not align with his or her own values or beliefs. In this case. it should be left up to the students as to how they wish to adopt certain behaviors” (p321)

Is it just interlanguage?• According to Jenkins (2006) ELF is sui generis (meaning it is

its own genus) and is an emergent system and that ELF constructions cannot belong to the interlanguage continuum which is said to characterize speakers of Modern Foreign Languages

Implications for ELT

• Murray (2012) empirically based strategies, inductive strategies, deductive strategies

• (p 322) “findings broadly suggest that preparing learners for ELF interactions we would be doing them a greater service by developing their strategic competence on the basis (a) that they will come to each interaction without necessarily sharing a common social grammar and (b) that they should, therefore, be encouraged to employ and means at their disposal to establish mutual intelligibility”

Conclusion• “In a sense incorporating World Englishes is like putting on a new

set of glasses-- the detail and complexity of the world we suddenly see may initially be overwhelming, but in the long run, we would have a better view and understanding of EIL.” (Matsuda, 200__)

• Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209 – 242.