Gregory Hadley
This paper will consider some of the aspects related to the teaching of English as an International Language. What are some of the wider sociopolitical forces that shape our decisions as language teachers? As educators ethically reflect upon their role, how will their decisions support or subvert the aims of those who have a stake in the continued supremacy of the English language?
Just over ten years ago, Phillipson (1992)
stated that, in terms of language teaching, “…the connections between the
English language and political, economic, and military power are seldom
pursued” (8). This state of affairs
changed dramatically following the Anglo-American-Australian invasion of
…the lucrative market for EFL being opened up by our
generals will be a windfall for teachers from
EFL teachers, according to Edge (2003), have become an academic army that pacifies intellectual resistance and occupies the linguistic dominions of an Anglophonic empire:
…it is now possible to see us, EFL teachers, as a second wave of
imperial troopers. Before
the armoured divisions have
withdrawn from the city limits, while the soldiers are still patrolling the
streets, English teachers will be facilitating
the policies that the tanks were sent to impose. And wherever, and to whomsoever, I teach EFL,
I am part of that overarching system (10).
With America in the nexus of this overarching
system, explicit rewards and implicit threats are meted out to those living in
what Kachru (1985) calls “expanding circle countries” (13). Greater access to political, economic and
sociocultural opportunities is bestowed upon those on the linguistic periphery who
have mastered the English language and conformed to Anglo-American norms. Economic marginalization, cultural isolation
and, as in the recent cases of
What are English language teachers to do under the shadow of this Anglo-American hegemony? By teaching English to our learners, are we contributing to the improvement of our respective nations and communities, or are we unwittingly cooperating in neocolonial reconstruction? This paper reviews several current themes that may stimulate further debate on this issue, by examining the ostensibly Anglo-American influence of economics, cultural politics and religion in TESOL[1]. Considerations for the language classroom will be offered at the close of this paper.
At the onset, it must be admitted that linking the current dynamics of TESOL to the American or Anglo-American hegemony is admittedly tenuous. What this paper will seek to highlight may strike some as being occasionally true for American TESOL, true at other times only for American TESOL teachers of a certain ideological persuasion, and perhaps equally true for many Anglophone teachers in specific situations. Some might add that what has been portrayed as “American” could also be found in the cultures of other countries.
These charges are compelling, yet it might be
helpful to recognize that this paper will not suggest that
Given that the
TESOL is big business. McCallen’s 1989 economic study of TESOL (in Phillipson,
1992) describes it as a “world commodity” worth billions of dollars. A major service industry, imports and exports
related to TESOL contribute significantly to local and international economic
development (Dyke, 2003). As a robust
growth industry, people living in Kachru’s (1985:13) “outer circle” countries, (e.g.
“The region has realised that now is the
time to seek rewards by the ‘commodification’ of the language. What matters is that
Thousands of private language institutes
worldwide recruit native English Language teachers, promising good salaries and
an exotic overseas adventure. Such positions
do exist, and the remuneration for native-speaker teachers of English can be
better or at least equal to entry-level salaries in the respective expanding
circle countries, but
Every day, hundreds of thousands, if not
millions, of students flock to schools or attend classes at universities with
the hope of getting well-paid jobs. It
is not coincidental that Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco (1995 in Kim, 2003)
use the term investment rather than motivation to describe the
complex reasons why many learners study English. The associations of English with prosperity
are widespread. Writing about the
situation in the
…those that adopt English and use it
alongside their own culture, and combine it with, for example, communications
technology, can possibly escape from the poverty-trap and catch up with
developed countries rapidly (67).
Setting aside the unfortunate implication that those who do not adopt English run the risk of becoming backwards and underdeveloped, attitudes such as these are common among those who support the hegemony of English. Edge (2003:706) responds:
This, fundamentally, is what hegemony
means: a relationship based not upon
explicit coercion, but on established power and the consent of the majority to
go along with the arrangements that flow from that power because of the rewards
that we receive.
Phillipson (quoted in Fox 2003) contends
that the notion of English study bringing economic success is a myth that has
been maintained by the elite of the outer and expanding circle countries. In actuality, English becomes for many “a
barrier to restrict entry into the cathedrals of the powerful” (Fox, 2003, “TEFL
as Imperialism”). Hazita Azman (in Fox,
2003) found this to be true for the
Malaysian teaching context, where the government has attempted to link English
language education to IT skills as a means to further scientific and economic
development. Azman (in Fox, 2003)
reported that the initiative is failing because rural Malay students typically
see “very little need for English in the social world”, and fewer than 5% had
access to a computer or possessed even basic computer literacy skills. In relation to the urban-rural divide in
…a racial elite in
However, where some see the potential for
economic repression in TESOL, others see opportunity. Tully (1997:163) calls for Indians to promote
the spread of English throughout the rural areas in order to divest the elite
of their hold on the language. Bisong (1995)
finds Phillipson’s (1992) argument too simplistic, and feels that the spread of
English in
Is it possible to sidestep the entire discussion up to this point by simply “teaching English”? There are those who feel that a neutral approach to teaching English is possible. Stating that there is “no cultural value tied to the learning of English,” Wardaugh (1987:15) claims that English is “…tied to no particular social, political, economic or religious system, or to a specific racial or cultural group.” Similar views are expressed by Seaton, (1997:381) who opines that English has become a neutral means for global communication in “transnational companies, internet communication, scientific research, youth culture, international goods and services and news and entertainment media.” These also represent examples of discourse communities that are growing worldwide, which rely on English as a lingua franca in order to maintain communication with each other.
At the other end of the spectrum is Dua (1994), who rejects a neutral portrayal of English. He writes that it “must be realized that language is basically involved with class, power and knowledge” (133). Pretending that English is apolitical, according to Phillipson (1992), is, among other things, “an uncritical endorsement of capitalism…transnationalization, [and] the Americanization and homogenization of world culture” (274). The current spread of English, he maintains, is oppressive because it imposes Western “mental structures” on the minds of the learners (Phillipson, 1992:166). This is seen most visibly in the vast amounts of TESOL materials exported from center countries to the outer circle, which often require learners to conform to Anglo-American styles of communication. With regard to this issue, McKay (2002:120-121) criticizes the international spread of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), claiming that the western underpinnings of the approach, which focus on democracy, individuality, creativity and social expression, often marginalize local language teachers, and fail to meet the needs of students, who often prefer a teacher-centered pedagogic approach.
Rajagopalan (1999), on the other hand, rejects the whole concept of linguistic imperialism, calling it “grossly and sensationally blown out of proportion” (201). Without discounting the problems of minority languages being endangered by the spread of English, he states rather matter-of-factly that language in this multilingual world have less to do with cooperation and more to do with competition:
it is in the very nature of human
languages, all of them, to be driven by power inequalities. This means that EFL teachers have no special
reason to feel guilty about being complicit in a gigantic neo-colonialist
enterprise in the guise of emancipatory pedagogy” (Rajagopalan, 1999:205).
The hyperbole used to describe the hegemonic spread of English, Rajagopalan (1999) explains, is built upon the assumption that the English language invades “(a) …a monolingual setting, [where] communication is always perfect, and (b) communicative harmony is invariably threatened every time there is the intrusion of an alien tongue” (202). English, at least for Rajagopalan, is just another language. In the current climate of increased international exchange, he feels that the threat of one more language is negligible.
Such an opinion makes sense to one growing up
in multilingual cultures like
Pennycook (1999) finds all three of the
viewpoints presented in this section to be too simplistic. He emphasizes that TESOL should be understood
“not merely as a language of imperialism, but also as one of the key languages
of resistance” (1994:262). Crookes (2003)
has certainly found this to be the case.
In his survey of English language education in
Currently the bulk of the literature on cultural politics and TESOL suggests that English language education is a politically charged practice. However, the restive discourse in TESOL’s academic community is also leading to the formation of various “third places.” One of these third places is in the ongoing native/non-native educator dialogue. Another is the study of English as an International Language.
Until the late 1980s, the issue of discrimination between native English speaking teachers (NESTS) and non-native English teachers (non-NESTs) was generally ignored. Most seem to have blindly accepted the myth that native English speakers were best suited as language teachers, and that while the non-native teachers of English had their place, it was only in a support role to the “real” task of Communicative Language Teaching. Such views are now condemned as a form of linguistic apartheid. The number of bilingual English speakers is constantly growing, and there are now increasing numbers of well trained, fluent non-native teachers of English in the expanding circle than in any other moment in world history. Medgyes (1996:41-42) explains that it is very difficult to define who is and who is not a “native speaker” in today’s international society. He concludes that both NESTs and non-NESTs are needed, because they ideally bring different experiences and different types of expertise to the classroom. Tajino and Tajino (2000:9-10) show that this ideal can be realized, once a community spirit is developed within the class and between teachers. Instead of a dichotomy between native and non-native speakers, Rampton (1996:19) proposes the concept of expert speakers. Focusing on expertise rather than upon one’s inherited language seems to be a helpful paradigm shift. While hiring practices in many institutions lag far behind this view, and discrimination often persists against experts or NESTs who do not “look” or “sound” like Anglo-Americans, (Thomas, 1999:6), it is believed that with time, more and more schools will employ language teachers who represent the linguistic reality of today’s world.
As a third place, the study of English as an International Language (EIL) is still a hotbed of debate and controversy within the field of TESOL. Sifakis (2004) explains this is because EIL as an area of study touches upon numerous domains, such as national identity, linguistic human rights, ethno linguistics and educational sociology. This also contributes to the difficulty that scholars have had in defining the scope and nature of EIL. Yoneoka (2003) explains:
“EIL, like any standard, is an idealization
of a language that is not actually spoken by any single person. But unlike other standards, is not claimed,
created, controlled or dominated by any particular person or group. Thus no one has either the authority to
prescribe what it should be, or the omnipotence to describe what it might be
under every possible circumstance.”
Nevertheless, there are some general principles emerging that most scholars agree will complement the teaching of English as an International Language. One of these is that EIL should be taught within the context of the local educational culture, and that EIL should avoid Western teaching materials and approaches. People are encouraged to think globally but teach locally. McKay (2003:140) insists that by contextualizing English to the local needs and interests of the learners, they can truly claim ownership of the language as their own tool of expression.
Another feature is that EIL is often
understood as belonging equally to all speakers of English. The “native speaker” standard is
rejected. Such an idea is receiving
greater attention throughout the Asia Pacific region. In a recent interview, Takao Suzuki, an internationally
respected Professor Emeritus from
We shouldn’t have to apologize for using “Japanese
English.” The notion that English
belongs to the Americans or the Britons is narrow-minded. English is now the language of the world (“Giving English Firmer Focus”,
1999:2).
Kubota (2001, in
EIL is also viewed as being actualized when expert speakers of different countries use their form of English not only for transactional communication, but also for creating friendly relationships with each other, something known as comity (Aston, 1988 in McKay, 2002: 75). The pragmatic rules of communication used by speakers of inner circle countries are no longer the standard. English speakers of the outer and expanding circle are encouraged to communicate in a way that feels natural to them. Aikawa (2003), for example, found in his study that by encouraging an Asian style of communication in English, Japanese and Taiwanese speakers of English experienced greater comfort and a more satisfying level of communication.
It can be seen that the supporters of EIL are involved in a serious political undertaking. EIL is construed as an attempt to denationalize English and divest the American hegemony from its claim on the English language (Kachru, 1992:1-17). The EIL Movement, led often by fluent non-native speakers of English from outer and expanding circle countries, recognize that access to the higher levels of power within the American hegemony is limited. Therefore, many seem to be attempting to create an alternative linguistic power base that is free from American influence. EIL is also an expression of a basic need that English speakers have everywhere: the heartfelt desire to be free from what is seen as the oppressive and unattainable standard of the Anglo-American “native speaker”, and to begin to speak English in a manner which complements their cultural preferences.
These efforts to encourage the acceptance of a denationalized English are admirable, and it is felt that the EIL movement should be supported by all language teachers. However, sometimes there is a clash between what our emotions tell us as language teachers, and what must be acknowledged logically. A number of difficulties are perceived to exist within current models of EIL. These are the difficulties within the terminology of “international”, pedagogic ambiguity, and the problems of standards.
In Western history, Hellenization, and then
Romanization were terms used by the Greeks and Romans to describe (what they
would interpret as) an increased level of civilization. A common language (Greek, then Latin) was
central to the goal of dominating vast numbers of people from different
cultures and language groups. Because
the English language is currently a fundamental aspect of internationalization,
and given
Although proponents of EIL state that English must be distanced from the American Empire for it to become truly international, it is impractical to simply ignore the fact that an American-led hegemony benefits greatly from an enthusiastic promotion of EIL. More speakers of English would create a larger market for American products, services and entertainment. Pennycook (1995:54) is concerned that “International” English might speed up an oppressive and relentless flow of people, goods and western ideas, which would eventually result in the creation of larger versions of the current national socioeconomic rifts, and further the marginalization of minority cultures, languages, religions and ethnic groups.
In his survey of the literature that reappraised the appropriacy of CLT, Hadley (1998:62) summarized the criticisms of CLT as being difficult to define, encouraging unbridled eclecticism, and leading to interlingual fossilization. It is interesting to note that while proponents of EIL claim that Western pedagogic methods such as CLT or Task-Based Learning (TBL) are incompatible with educational cultures across the world, in actuality, EIL suffers from the same weaknesses found in Communicative Language Teaching.
Because of its very scope, the nature of EIL has been very difficult to define. Numerous definitions and formulations for EIL exist. Coupled with the idea of “thinking globally and teaching locally,” these notions lend to the condition where English language education becomes so contextualized to each local situation that the international element may be lost. So long as it is free from perceived Anglo-American influence, pedagogic practices may be deemed “international.” However, it may be difficult for classroom practitioners to think globally while teaching locally. The local context, as it has always been for language teachers, is immediate and concrete. Global issues and international understanding are more distant and less easy to concretize in the classroom. While the goal of oral communication is for fostering comity between learners of different language groups instead of native speakers, for monolingual classes such as Japan, it differs little whether students practice while envisaging a communicative episode with an archetypal native speaker or a second language speaker of English abroad – neither are in the classroom at the time they are learning. Encouraging learners to speak so as to get their idea across to others is seen as one realization of International English. However, “communication for the purposes of comity” seems to implicitly emulate the concept of “basic communicative competence” which was advocated in CLT. McKay (2002:121) suggests a return to traditional, teacher-centered grammar-based language teaching methods would lessen the negative effects of CLT or TBL, empower teachers, and provide students with classes that fit the expectations of local educational cultures, which often focus on reading and writing skills.
However, traditional grammar-based teaching is as political an exercise as the potentially democratic teaching methods found in CLT or TBL. The teaching of grammar can be a very authoritarian model. The teacher is the sole expert who controls the flow of information to the learners. The teacher chooses grammatical examples of the language, which modern linguistics has shown to be, at best, only true for some of the time. Grammar tests often demonstrate less about how much the students have acquired English, and more about to what extent they have conformed to the teacher.
Fossilization is another problem, because it may lead to the further disempowerment of some learners. Many of the proponents of EIL very skillfully use Anglo-American models of English communication, with a significant number achieving a near-native speaker standard in the language. However, by not holding their learners up to a similar level, they implicitly encourage learners to acquire a level of English that, while good enough for basic communication, may be below the level of what some could have been able to achieve.
Language learners in the expanding circle are caught between two untenable positions: In the Anglo-American Hegemony, learners are encouraged to strive to become like Americans or the elite speakers of their own society, but with little economic or social rewards for their efforts. However, if the learners follow the suggestions of some of today’s EIL proponents, they are literally “kept in their place” by being taught a form of English which is clearly less proficient than the elite members of their society. In this state of fossilization, learners are returned to state of dependence and conformity. The flow of information from the American Hegemony would still be controlled by the elite, with only the acceptable information to be filtered down to the rest of society. In the meantime, those who seek comity on their own run the risk of increased misunderstanding, thus creating the need for experts to come in to assist in the process of clear communication.
It seems clear that EIL pedagogy would benefit from a generally accepted global standard. This, however, is the most serious problem that EIL currently faces. If English has become the property of the world, and educated Anglo-American English is to be rejected as the global standard, what is to prevent the English language from developing into mutually unintelligible dialects? Some, such as Larry Smith (2003), state that worries about a common communicative standard in EIL are unwarranted; over the past 200 years, native English speakers from different regions of the world have often found the other unintelligible. According to this view, English as an International Language will always be used on different levels by people of varying ability, from basilects (people who speak a highly localized version of English that is pidginized with another regional language), to mesolects (people who have studied English more or less formally, but who have limited proficiency in using the language), to acrolects (expert speakers of English often of near-native language ability). Smith (2003) argues that EIL will be spoken in various forms, as it always has been. Some versions of English will be spoken in order to be understood by a wide group of listeners, and some local versions will be intended to limit understanding to a select group of insiders. Honna (2003) adds that no language touches others without being affected in some way. In a natural process known as diffusion, English will change and grow as it spreads across the world and is used by more and more people from different language groups. Widdowson (2003:55) sees the types of Englishes used by basilects and mesolects as “virtual languages”: different species of English that are incompatible with other species of English in other parts of the world. He believes with McKay (2002:76) that a global standard for English will be created naturally by those participating in the International Community. However, most of those who participate in the international community are often acrolects or high-level mesolects who represent the elite classes of their societies. Either many have had the opportunity to master English by studying in top national universities under the tutelage of well-trained teachers from center countries or, as is often the case, they have studied abroad in one of the center countries. The standard that these speakers often follow resembles that of high prestige Anglo-American varieties. It is the same standard, which is, broadcast daily via satellite to every corner of the world, published in a majority of the world’s books, and heard in movies and on CDs. This reality has been noted by the masses living in the outer and expanding circle countries. Honna (2003) admits that, despite the message of linguistic liberation implicit in the present understandings of EIL, most parents and students still aim for the Anglo-American standard, because for them, it represents a linguistic “American Dream,” that is, success and increased opportunities via mastery of the English language. This also suggests why some students and parents question whether one can or should divorce Anglo-American standards from the English language. Metaphorically speaking, to some, EIL may seem like taking the flavor out of a meal while attempting to preserve its nutritional value, or perhaps of injecting an imported fruit with the flavor of a local vegetable. It may take some time for more students and teachers to adjust their linguistic palate in order to “swallow” the proposition of a native-speaker free standard for EIL.
Neither the supporters of the American
Hegemony nor many of the proponents of EIL presently seem to offer much hope
for language learners. English as an
International Language does exist, but no one has yet been able to either
control it or define what it is in the process of becoming. Using American models as a counterbalance
only serves to bind EIL as a “non-American” form of English. World Englishes, such as those found in
Nevertheless, while the present state of EIL is still nebulous, language teachers should still anticipate an evolution in the way that English will be taught in the 21st century. In this vein, Sifakis (Forthcoming) and McKay ( 140) are among those who are beginning to suggest ways and means to approach the subject. EIL as a pedagogic discipline is coming. Hill (2003) proclaims that when it does arrive, changes in attitudes towards accuracy over fluency, an increase in the creation of materials contextualized for the local culture, greater adaptation to the local culture, respect of non-NESTs, and an increased awareness of the political nature of English will be minimum requirements for language teachers of the future.
It is seen that even within the third places of TESOL, whether it relates to attitudes related to native speakers or English as an International Language, issues are inextricably linked with notions of power, especially of who has it and who wants it. We will now shift our attention from temporal power to that of spiritual power.
Recently in the periodical Christianity Today, an article by Agnieszka Tennant (2002) called on Christian teachers of English to improve their skills and credentials as language teachers in order to win the trust and respect of students. By doing so, they could pave the way for greater opportunities to share their faith in Christ. This paper caused a stir among some in TESOL, and it has stimulated growing interest about what Pennycook and Coutand-Marin (2003) call the Teaching of English as a Missionary Language (TEML). Pennycook and Coutand-Marin (2003:337) note how shifts in American politics have also had religious implications in the world and the field of TESOL:
The recent shift in global relations, with the rampant ascendancy of an aggressively conservative, capitalist and Christian United States (supported particularly by Anglophone allies against Islamic states), alongside the ever-increasing global clamour for English and its changing role in the world, has led to a set of new and troubling relations between English language teaching and Christian missionary activity.
They offer in their paper a helpful framework for understanding the current battle lines that are being drawn for the growing debate. There are at least five positions in this issue: Christian Evangelical, Christian Service, liberal agnostic, secular humanist and the critical pedagogic position.
The Christian evangelical position aggressively utilizes the resources and opportunities available to TESOL teachers in order to enter schools or countries that normally forbid Christian missionary activity. For example, Yeoman (2002) writes of a stealth crusade that is designed to undermine Islam by sending Christian missionaries to infiltrate Muslim communities. In the organization website for Christian Outreach International (Pennycook and Coutand-Marin, 2003), ELT is described as “a gold mine rich with mission opportunity.” Pennycook and Coutand-Martin (2003) also mention several online testimonies of missionary English teachers who report of sharing the Christian Gospel message under the noses of officials in communist countries, because the officials often lacked sufficient proficiency in English to understand what the missionaries were teaching in their classes.
Practices such as these are both bewildering and repellant to Edge, who believes that advocates of this approach “have a moral duty to make that instrumental goal…absolutely explicit at all stages of their work (2003:707).
Teachers following the Christian Service approach are open about their faith and mission. By aiming for excellence in their craft and profession, and helping to empower the poor and downtrodden by giving them more opportunities through English, these Christian English Teachers (CETs) hope to do good to others, build trust and rapport, and hope for the opportunity to share the message of the Gospel. “English teaching can be more than a secular job that serves as a means to other ends—English teaching itself becomes a form of Christian mission” (Snow, 2001:176). Pennycook and Coutand-Marin (2003:342) question the sincerity of this approach: “at its core, furthermore, there is something disingenuous about the Christian Service argument, for while it highlights social salvation through ELT, the underlying hope is still that spiritual salvation can be achieved through Christianity.”
Liberal agnostics feel that any belief system is relative and unquantifiable. One person’s sin may become another’s virtue. One may have the best of intentions, but the imposition of one’s specific beliefs could bring about the opposite intended effect. It is best to focus upon widely held ethical assumptions (equality, freedom, etc.), even though these too may be problematic, depending upon the situation. Religion, therefore, has no place in the language classroom. This view seems to have been espoused by Widdowson (2001:14) during his address at the Tokyo AILA Conference:
…belief is, of course, fraught with
problematic implications…We come inevitably to intractable moral issues. How can you tell benevolent intervention from
malevolent interference; and even if your intervention is well-intentioned, how
do you know what negative consequences might follow?
Secular humanists believe that teachers should not introduce religious issues on their own volition, but only if more information on the subject is requested by the students. This is essentially Edge’s (2003) position. He is not against the sharing of religious beliefs per se. What he seems to be concerned with is the potential of Christian teachers to abuse their authority and manipulate students into a dialog of which they previously had little interest. Earl Stevick (1996), a devout Christian and respected linguist, agrees with Edge that deceit and manipulation should have no part in the mission of a Christian English Teacher, but he takes exception to Edge’s view that religion and TESOL should be separate. Stevick (who is American) feels that the TESOL classroom should be likened to a free market where all ideas can be presented to learners. Since many language teachers already introduce topics such as environmentalism, human rights, or gender studies with impunity, why should Christians be required to keep silent about their faith? There is “nothing sinister,” Stevick states, about presenting Christianity to students in a way that is “attractive and available” (1996:6). Pennycook and Coutand-Marin (2003) remain unconvinced, questioning whether the unequal power positions between students and teachers will truly allow for a free market of ideas to be shared. They take the critical pedagogic approach. Building upon Corson (1997, in Pennycook and Coutand-Marin. 2003), the critical pedagogic approach focuses on humanist ethics of mutual respect, equal treatment and seeking the benefit of learners over the needs of the teacher. However, there seems to be an assumption that students will have a compatible system of ethics, be able to receive the same level of treatment, and that all can benefit from the teachers’ lessons. While the theological base is very different, in many ways, the visible practices of the critical pedagogic approach appear similar to the Christian Service model. Both strive for excellence, transparency and the benefit of learners. The critical pedagogic approach is no more “disingenuous” than the Christian service position: at its core it still hopes that enlightenment can be found through a liberal academic dialectic. The risks of inequities of power are not mitigated merely by taking a non-theistic critical pedagogic approach. Depending upon the quality of the teacher, either the Christian service position or the critical pedagogic approach is capable of encouraging freedom and analytical thought in a spirit of mutual trust and respect.
While this section has focused mainly on
Christian themes within TESOL, similar debate is going on in other religious
communities. For example, in many Muslim
communities, because English is associated with Western, Christian and
anti-Islamic principles (Ozog 1989:314), there are calls among some Muslim
English Language Teachers to “make English language teaching truly Islamic”
(Shafi 1983:37). Kachru (2003)
surprised his Japanese audience recently when he quoted the Malaysian Minister
of Education as recently stating that the goal behind
To conclude this section, Edge is correct in noting, “the mixture of the imperial and the religious is fearsome” (2003:701). Discussions of religion and TESOL again touch upon issues of power, freedom, and cultural sovereignty. The debate on this subject is expected to last for some time, but the resultant discourse should help many to form their own informed opinions as to where they will stand on this issue.
Let us now return to the question posed at the beginning of this paper: By teaching TESOL, are we contributing to the improvement of our respective nations and communities, or are we unwittingly cooperating in neocolonial reconstruction? The answer, of course, is that it depends upon the teacher and the students.
Whether language teachers serve the interests of the Anglo-American hegemony or focus on the local needs of their learners hinges on the pedagogic beliefs and practices implicit in their lessons. It is felt that language teachers should regularly reflect on what they are actually teaching in their classes, how they teach the language, and why they are teaching English in the first place. Careful attention needs to be paid to the textbooks chosen, and what type of English (American, British, nativized varieties, or a combination of the three) is being quietly upheld as the ideal for students to model.
Language teachers would benefit from clearly identifying what they believe about the spread of English, and design their lessons accordingly. Regardless of whether they believe in teaching EIL, support an Anglo-American model, or are committed to teaching English as an Islamic language, they should prepare their lessons in way that these goals are met. Language teachers should be true to themselves, their identity and their life goals.
However, such purpose-driven language teachers should be careful to work in a manner that is respectful to the differing views of others. While language teachers should also be explicit about their religious orientation and political ideology, they should also dedicate serious seasons of reflection as to how those beliefs may influence their pedagogic practices.
At a minimum, it is felt that learners should be exposed to a variety of views, types of teachers (bilingual experts from the expanding circle countries as well as well-trained teachers from the inner and outer circle), and materials that take local as well as Anglophone interests in mind. In light of the developments taking place in the world and the field of TESOL, where appropriate, students should also be given more information about the matters discussed in this paper. For example, language lessons centering on English and actual economic opportunities in their country, possible Anglo-American beliefs in teaching materials, or the political implications of English as an International Language, could help stimulate critical thought about some of the larger issues involved with English language study. Students should be better informed so they can choose for themselves if they want to support or subvert the hegemonic implications of conforming to Anglo-American norms. They should also be made aware of the potential punishments and rewards that may result from their decisions. As it appears that EIL is often used by distinct discourse communities interacting on a domain of common interest, students might benefit from a needs analysis which would identify the type of international discourse community they would be most interested in, followed by the development of teaching materials which would assist them with participating in their chosen discourse community.
It is recognized that this paper may
raise more questions than it attempts to answer. For example, is imperialism avoidable? Are nation-states, with their respective
sociolingual classes of elite and oppressed, simply smaller versions of what is
happening on an international scale? If
the continued spread of English is to be construed as an unwelcome development,
what can be done to replace it without major disruption on a global scale? Given that the dynamics of empire building is
as ancient as the history of civilization, and if
These and more questions await our critical examination. This paper has only sought to begin the process by reflecting on the possible influence of the Anglo-American worldview interacting with the powerful domains of economics, cultural politics and religion as it relates to TESOL.
Instead of myopically teaching English, with a view only on what to teach for the next class, all language teachers are encouraged to consider the ramifications of their English language lessons for their community, their nation and their world. In doing so, it is hoped that more language teachers will form their own views about the issues discussed in this paper, and in doing so, be able to make informed pedagogic decisions for their classes.
Abbott,
Aikawa,
Masao. (2003). “What about English as an Asian language in the EFL/EIL
context? Seeking for the agreeable
communication between the Taiwanese and the Japanese”. Fourteenth National Conference of the
Japanese Association for Asian Englishes.
December 6.
Aston,
G. (1988). Learning Comity.
Bisong,
Joseph. (1995). “Language Choice and
Cultural Imperialism: A Nigerian
Perspective.” ELT Journal 49.2:
122-132.
Braine,
George. Ed. (1999). Non-Native Educators
in English Language Teaching.
Christian Outreach International (2002, May 8). http://www.coiusa.com/esl/eng-index.htm
Corson, D. (1997). “Critical
Realism: An Emancipatory Philosophy for
Applied Linguistics?” Applied Linguistics 18.2:166-188.
Crookes,
Anthony. (2003). “ELT as a radical
political tool”. JALT International
Teaching Conference. November
22.
Crystal,
David. (2000). English as a Global
Language.
Dua,
Hans. (1994). The Hegemony of
English.
Dyke, Chris. (2003).
“Foreign Imports: Demand for English
Classes is Booming.” Guardian
Unlimited 28 Oct.-
Edge,
Julian. (2003). “Imperial Troopers and Servants of the Lord: A Vision of TESOL for the Twenty-First
Century.” TESOL Quarterly 37.4:
701-709.
Edge,
Julian. (2003). “TEFL &
International Politics: A Personal
Narrative.” IATEFL Issues 175: 10-11.
Fox, Timothy. (2003).
“TEFL as Imperialism or Empowerment? A
Report on Trends in Language Education as Seen at the Fifth English in
“Giving English a Firmer Focus.” Mainichi Shinbun
Graddol,
David. (2003). Ed. Applied Linguistics in the 21st
Century. AILA Review 14, 2001.
Hadley,
Gregory. (1998). “Returning
Higa, M.
(1979), Sociolinguistic aspects of word-borrowing. In Sociolinguistic Studies in Language Contact,
Honna,
Nobuyuki. (2003). “English is an Asian language: Some thoughts for action proposals”. Fourteenth National Conference of the
Japanese Association for Asian Englishes.
Jeffrey,
David. (2002). “Perspectives on the Social and Cultural Impact of English as an
International Language.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics. 33.1:
53-70.
Kachru,
Braj. (2003). “World Englishes in the
classroom: The Japanese context”. Workshop on World Englishes in the Classroom. December 7.
Kachru,
Braj. (2003). “British Export.” Guardian Unlimited
Kachru,
Braj. (1994). “Englishization and Contact Linguistics.” World
Englishes 13.2: 135-154.
Kachru,
Braj. (1992). Ed. The Other Tongue.
Kachru,
Braj. (1985). “Standards, codification
and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle.” English in the world: Teaching and
learning the language and literature. R.
Quirk and H.G. Widdowson, Eds.
Kim, Lee Su. (2003).
“Exploring the Relationship between Language, Culture and Identity.” GEMA Journal 3.2.
http://www.fpbahasa.ukm.my/journal/20030308.htm.
Kubota,
R. (2001). Teaching world Englishes to native speakers of English in the
McCallan,
B. (1989). English: A World Commodity. The International Market for Teaching English
as a Foreign Language.
McKay,
Sandra. (2003). “Teaching English as an
International Language: the Chilean
Context.” ELT Journal 57.2:
139-146.
McKay,
Sandra. (2002). Teaching English as
an International Language.
Medgryes,
Peter. (1996). “Native or Non-Native:
Who’s Worth More?” Power, Pedagogy & Practice. Eds. Tricia
Hedge and Norman Whitney.
Morgan, Dan. (2003).
“A Debate over
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38891-2003Aug9?language=printer.
Ozog, A.
C. K. (1989). “English for Islamic
purposes — a plea for cross-cultural consideration.” In V. Bickley (Ed.), Language Teaching and Learning Styles within
and Across Cultures (pp. 398-403).
Pennycook,
Alastair and Sophie Coutand-Marin. (2003) “Teaching English as a Missionary
Language.” Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education.24.3:337-354.
Pennycook, Alastair.
(1999). “Development, Culture and Language: Ethical Concerns in a Postcolonial
World. Fourth International
Conference on Language and Development 13-15 http://www.languages.ait.ac.th/hanoi_proceedings/pennycook.htm.
Pennycook,
Alastair. (1995). “English in the
World/The World in English.” Power
and Inequality in Language Education. Ed. James Tollefson.
Pennycook,
Alastair. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.
Phillipson,
Robert. (1996). “ELT: The Native Speaker’s Burden.” Power,
Pedagogy & Practice. Eds. Tricia Hedge and Norman Whitney.
Phillipson,
Robert. (1992). Linguistic
Imperialism.
Rajagopalan,
Kanavillil. (1999). “Of EFL Teachers, Conscience, and Cowardice.” ELT
Journal 53.3 : 200-206.
Rampton,
M.B.H. (1996). “Displacing the ‘Native
Speaker’: Expertise, Affiliation and Inheritance” Power, Pedagogy &
Practice. Eds. Tricia Hedge and Norman Whitney.
Richards,
Jack. (2003). “30 Years of
TEFL/TESL: A Personal Reflection.”. http://www.professorjackrichards.com/pdfs/30-years-of-TEFL.pdf.
1-30.
Seaton,
Ian. (1997). “Linguistic
Non-Imperialism.” ELT Journal 51.4 : 381-382.
Shafi, M.
(1983). “Teaching English as a Foreign Language: The Islamic Approach.” Muslim
Education Quarterly 1.1:34-41.
Shi, Jie
and Takeshi Fujii. (2003). “Unveiling the Chineseness in college English
textbooks in
Sifakis,
N. (2004). “Teaching EIL: International or intercultural English? What teachers
should know.” System. 32. 237-250.
Smith,
Larry. (2003). “English across
cultures: The problem of
intelligibility”. Workshop on World
Englishes in the Classroom. December
7.
Snow,
Donald. (2001).English Teaching as
Christian Mission.
Stevick, Earl.
(1996). “Letter.” TESOL Matters
6.6 : 6.
Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995).
Transformations: Immigration, family life, and achievement motivation among
Latino adolescents.
Tajino,
Akira and Yasuko Tajino. (2000). “Native
and Non-Native: What Can They Offer?”
ELT Journal 54.1 : 3-11.
Templer,
Bill. (2003). “Teaching the Language of
the Conqueror.” Z Magazine Online
16.6 (2003): 4 Nov.
http://www.zmag.org/ZmagSite/Jun2003/templer0603.html.
Templer,
Bill. (2003). “ELT and the
‘Reconstruction’ of
Templer, Bill.
(2003). “Building TESOL Bridges Between Arabs and Jews in Arab Academe.”
TESOL Matters 11.2 : 8 Nov. http://www.tesol.org/pubs/articles/2001/tm0103-06.html.
Tennant,
Agnieszka. (2002). “The Ultimate Language Lesson.” Christianity Today
46.2:32-36.
Thomas,
Jacinta. (1999). “Voices from the
Periphery: Non-Native Teachers and the
Issue of Credibility.” Non-Native
Educators in English Language Teaching. Ed. George Braine.
Tully,
Mark. (1997). “English: An Advantage to
Wardaugh,
Ronald. (1987). Languages in
Competition: Dominance, Diversity and
Decline.
Widdowson,
Henry. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching.
Widdowson,
Henry. (2001) “Coming to Terms with Reality:
Applied Linguistics in Perspective.”
Applied Linguistics in the 21st Century. AILA Review
Ed. David Graddol. 14, 2-17.
Yeoman,
Barry. (2002). “The Stealth Crusade.” May/June15 Nov. 2003. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/05/stealth.html.
Yoneoka,
Judy. (2003). “A survey of artificially
simplified Englishes: Implications for
English as an international language”. Fourteenth National Conference of the
Japanese Association for Asian Englishes.
December 6.
[1]
Because of the negative connotations associated with the word “foreign”, the
acronym TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) was avoided in favor of
TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). In most cases during this report, TESOL will
refer to pedagogic practices, not the professional organization, (also known as
TESOL) which is based in the