National Research Center for Foreign Language Education, BFSU A pedagogical framework for teaching English as an international language(EIL) WEN Qiufang National Research Center for Foreign Language Education, BFSU

EIL, ELF and EFL EIL: English as an international language ELF: English as a lingua franca EIL=ELF EFL: English as a foreign language ELF≠ EFL

ELF and EFL Teaching objective Teaching focus EFL Native-like speakers Imitation, adoption ELF Effective communicators Adaptation, Accommodation

The focus of my talk A framework for teaching English as a lingua franca or an international language From the teacher’s perspective

Topics to be addressed Motivation Two proposed solutions and their problems A pedagogical framework Advantages of the proposed framework

1. Motivation Who owns English? Non-native speakers outnumber English native speakers The total number of native speakers ? The total number of non-native speakers?

380 million 300 million 1 billion Kachru’ three circles of English

Graddol (1997) The center of authority regarding the language would shift from native speakers to nonnative speakers.

“English as a world language does not ‘belong’ to mother tongue speakers of English alone, but to all those who can make effective use of it.” (Lee, 1981: 1)

Conceptual and practical Quite a number of scholars have made a strong argument against taking the native-speaker’s English as a norm for non-native speakers. In their view, we should teach English as a lingua franca rather than as a foreign language. We shoud promote ELF-oriented pedagogy.

Conceptual and practical Many people think this kind of revolutionary idea cannot be refuted easily. Practical What to be taught in classroom? How to evaluate our students’ performance?

Topics to be addressed Motivation Two proposed solutions and their problems A pedagogical framework Its advantages

Proposal 1 L2 user model（Cook，1999）

Vivian Cook (1999) The language used by successful L2 users can be a model for L2 learners. Treat L2 users in their own right but not imitation of native speakers, deficient native speakers, failed natives. Comparing the characteristics of native speakers and of L2 users is like comparing tomatoes and apples, useful only at a gross level.

Tough questions Howe to differentiate successful L2 users from unsuccessful ones? What are the criteria? How can we describe and define “successful”? Success in using English can be found in various fields, such as business, diplomacy, journalism, and education. Apart from the difficulty of identifying a viable non-native model, there is a strong doubt about the existence of essential differences between the English system used by successful L2 users and that used by native speakers (Gao 2008; Wen and Yu 2003; Yu 2006).

Divided views about the use of English in China China English as an independent variety Supporters, e.g. Jiang & Du, 2003；Li，1993） Opponents, e.g. Gao，2008；Yu，2006；Wen & Yu，2003） No empirical evidence

Empirical studies: Examples A small-scale study of nativized features in China’s English newspapers (Wen & Yu, 2001) The use of evaluative adjectives in China’s English newspapers (Yu, 2006) The use of creation-and-transformation verbs in China’s English newspapers (Gao, 2007)

Empirical studies: Examples Instead of identifying individual successful users for description, study the collective product, i.e. English used in the official media such as The 21st Century, China Daily, TV script To what extent English has been nativized in Mainland China?

Develop，grow，make, change, produce, transform, create, build Research questions What are the linguistic features (semantic, lexical and grammatical features) of the top eight creation-and-transformation verbs (TECVs) in China’s English newspapers? To what extent are the nativized features of TECVs intelligible and acceptable to native and non-native speakers of English?

Data-collection An established corpus of China’s English newspapers (CCEN), composed of 1860 articles from three English newspapers (China Daily, Shanghai Star and Beijing Review Published in 2002, with 1,058,961 tokens and 20,338 types. Only comprises articles about domestic events from first-hand sources.

Questionnaire Intelligibility and acceptability Five-point scale on intelligibility Ask them to write down what they have understood Five-point scale on acceptability

Major findings The distribution of senses of some of the TECVs varied in CCEN and NBNC. Semantic broadening and subtle semantic variations are found In regards to semantic prosody, positive senses of the TECVs more frequently used in CCEN

Major findings Some collocations more frequent and a few unique Grammatical features: intransitive use of TECVs more frequently, Verb + Noun + Preposition more frequently

Major findings Most of nativized English in China’s context can be understood and accepted by both native and non-native speakers of English. Native and non-native English speakers’ interpretations of the verb collocations varied.

Major findings Native speakers tend to show higher degree of acceptability than non-native speakers. The nativized features tend to be more intelligible to female respondents than to male respondents.

General conclusions More quantitative differences than qualitative ones Almost all the qualitative differences being lexical rather than grammatical

Proposal 2 ….the result of the description of how English is being used in the international context could be potentially used as a model for L2 learners（Seidlhoufer,2001) the assumption underlying this proposal has been challenged by several scholars (Alptekin 2010; Canagarajah 2007; Ferguson 2009).

Misconceptions Function ≠ Product “LFE is intersubjectively constructed in each specific context of interaction. The form of this English is negotiated by each set of speakers for their purposes.” (Canagarajah, 2007: 925) “ ELF is an international medium of communication. It has no native speakers and no proper culture of its own to speak of .” (Alptekin, 2010: 101)

Misconceptions Impossible and unnecessary to codify an ELF but possible and necessary to research the use of ELF

Misconceptions What to be learned ≠what to be achieved

Conceptual issues There is a danger that the overemphasis on the nativized variety will move non-native variety further and further apart until a stage is reached where English can no longer be served as lingua franca

Many layers of English At the center On the periphery The common core shared by all speakers of English On the periphery the nativized features from a variety of cultures which shadow on the first layer

Topics to be addressed Motivation Two proposed solutions and their problems A pedagogical framework Its advantages

3. A pedagogical framework

Three types of linguistic variety taught in relation to the learner’s proficiency

Common core and peripheral features of English Native variety Common core Non-native varieties including the interlocutor’s own variety Peripheral features

Requirements on L2 learners’ Output Linguistically On the phonological level: allow to have a foreign accent while emphasizing mutual intelligibility On the morphological level: more tolerant of morphological errors but do not encourage On the syntactic level: correct sentence structures (SVO)

Requirements on L2 learners’ Output On the lexical level: more tolerant of mixed use of British and American words: expect to learn nativized lexical words and phrases

3. A pedagogical framework

Cultural component Introduce the world to China Introduce China to the world

Wen, 2004: 175

Intercultural competence Speaking ability Flexibility Clarifying/Negotiating Willing to comprise Tolerance Empathy Egalitarian attitude Listening ability Sensitivity Multi-perspective Knowledge of dif. cultures

A model of cross-cultural communicative competence (Wen, 1999) In a book entitled “Spoken English Testing and teaching” in Chinese Present a paper entitled “Globalization and intercultural competence” at a conference “English and globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China by the Chinese University of HK in 2002 Paper published in English in 2004

3. A pedagogical framework

Pragmatic Universal rules Target language rules Rules of other non-natives

Pragmatic What kind of English will be used here? What kind of pragmatic rules will be used?

Setting for ELF

Pragmatic Open, dynamic, on-line generated

Pragmatic objective Abilities to generate appropriate communicative rules and strategies

Topics to be addressed Motivation Two proposed solutions and their problems A pedagogical framework Advantages of the proposed framework

Advantages Balancing globalization and localization Unlike the traditional view that the native variety is the only norm unlike the radical view that the model is that created by successful non-native speakers or the codified ELF Making a clear distinction between what is to be taught and what is to be achieved Specifying the three components of teaching: linguistic, cultural and pragmatic All the objectives having the same focus, the successful accomplishment of communication in English

Thank you！