English as a Lingua Franca
by Ginna Allison — October, 2009
It has often been said that language is inextricably linked with culture. But what can one say about a single language — in this case, English — spoken natively or secondarily by people from scores of different cultures? In such a situation, there is no one culture that embodies the expression of the language. With so many cultures speaking English as a lingua franca, the idea of culture as an integral part of language becomes convoluted.
For example, the norms and discourse rules of the British are different than those of Americans, Irish different than Australian, and so on from the core of the “inner circle” to its “outer circles.” (See Kachru’s model, below.) While there may be a great deal of cultural overlap, each group of native English speakers is also unlike one another. These differences are reflected in how English is used on every level, from grammatical to pragmatic.
The initial intent of this research paper was to discover what happens to the cultural context of English when it becomes a lingua franca in one of various settings. That is, does it develop a global cultural identity of its own? Does it borrow from and combine aspects of the cultures from which it springs? Or does it lose singular cultural meaning, instead expressing the culture of the native speaker? Or is it context-specific, representing the social climate in which it is spoken: academic, business or social?
Answers never fully revealed themselves in any of the sources explored. So, with the professor’s approval, this paper has morphed into a roadmap of the journey in search of the elusive Holy Grail.
English Near and Far
“The English tung is of small reach, stretching no further than this island of ours, nay not there over all.” —Roger Mulcaster, 1582 (as cited by Fishman, Cooper, & Conrad, 1975)
English has “the distinction of having spread further and been indigenized more frequently than any other lingua franca…” (Fishman, 1983)
As of 2003, English was spoken as a first or official second language in approximately 75 territories (Jenkins, 2003). There are many reasons for the broadening use of English throughout the world. It is a language of power — perhaps, at the moment, the language of power. That is, it is the primary tongue of people who control vast resources and maintain a strong grip on the global economy. It is used internationally in government, law, education and business. It has not always been this way, nor will it necessary remain so. But into the foreseeable future, English is the world’s lingua franca. One scholar (Fishman, 1983) postulates that a reason for its spread is functional:
“English is less loved but more used [than French. It is ]“richer, more precise, more logical, more sophisticated, and more competence related… The real ‘powerhouse’ is still English.”
While that perspective is interesting to consider, it is likely that political reasons related to power remain at the forefront of the global use of English.
English Only, or English Not at All?
The “English-Only” movement in the US (and at least one other English-native country) advocated for the adoption of English as the singular official language. Needless to say, in the US many citizens were deeply offended by the proposal as an expression of arrogance and exclusivity. The controversy about Ebonics (now called African American Vernacular English, or AAVE) had similar roots. Robin Tolmach Lakoff (2000), exploring the Ebonics controversy, wrote, “The majority community is struggling to maintain its right to control language… Since the powerful have always had the right to make their form of language — the standard — the only publicly valid form, the converse must also hold true: if you can maintain your form of language as the only one that is valid, right, logical, and good, then you will legitimately continue to hold power.”
That succinctly explains why some people assert their right to retain their own language and culture while learning English. Furthermore, because of the association of English with colonization and abuse of power, it is no surprise that some people have little motivation to learn it, even when it is a required as a lingua franca in their country.
Beyond these associations, recent history plays a part. In some countries, speakers of English are disparaged: sometimes because of what we have done in their countries (like invade Iraq). The result may be generalized negative stereotyping. “[T]he spread of English as a lingua franca is not always viewed with unmitigated pleasure” (Fishman, 1983) may be an understatement.
The “average” American has been immersed in a culture that favors monolingualism (beyond a few years of high school language study). Culturally we tend to be insular and independent. Countries with broader global interests are baffled by our cultural blindness to what happens in the world beyond our boundaries. While we were glued to TVs watching the OJ Simpson trial, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were being slaughtered in Rwanda. Our limited comprehension of world events and other cultures put us at a disadvantage. In turn, that affects how potential English-learners view the prospect of learning our language, and getting to know us.
“In an increasingly interacting world, the acceptance of English may be increasingly related to the acceptance of others by native speakers of English. Unfortunately, we know far more about how to help the world learn English (little though that may be) than we do about how to help native speakers of English learn about the world.” (Fishman, 1983) That hopeful statement suggests that many Americans would do well to learn to expand our worldviews beyond our national borders. That could go a long way toward teaching us to be accepting of cultural traits different than our own, and to expanding our dialogues inclusively with people from other lands.
There are other reasons that the idea of learning of English is resisted by some. “English is seen as a language of opportunity and yet it also creates significant inequalities.” (Hall & Eggington, 2000) And of course, many scholars point to English as being a “killer of endangered languages,” (Graddoll, 1996, as cited by Tollefson, 2000) — not unlike the manner in which powerful, rich Walmart subsumes small, local businesses.
One Language, or Many?
When so many people, from Japan to Tanzania, speak English as a lingua franca, is it still a single language? Often linguistic aspects of the language evolve depending on where and in what context the language is spoken. Are these variant forms on the verge of departing the realm of lingua franca and transforming into another language, as an interlanguage might edge toward pidgin and then creole? With so many forms of English, how can one distinguish between a dialect and a separate language? Lakoff’s (2000) answer is straightforward: If a language meets “the criterion of mutual intelligibility,” then it is still a language. Thus, the nearly countless varieties of English remain one language, but each with unique characteristics.
The fiction is the notion of ‘a language’… In the case of the language called English, the sheer numbers of those whose individual performances (and competences) are encompassed within the fiction, their worldwide geographical distribution, the great range of social needs and purposes they serve, and the resulting myriad of [sic] identifiably different versions of English all combine to produce a paradox; as English becomes ever more widely used, so it becomes ever more difficult to characterize in ways that support the fiction of a simple, single language.” (Strevens, 1975)
Strevens argues that the term “localized forms of English” (LFEs) is more apt than “language.” An LFE is identifiably English, with common linguistic features, but it exists within the context of a specific community of English speakers. He points to two variables within LFEs: Their context (e.g. education, industry, government) and their distinguishing features (e.g. accents and discourse rules).
Eyamba G. Bokamba (1975) writes about forms of Africanized English. While there is no formal language called “African English,” it is unmistakable when one encounters it. There are internally consistent variations in phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics. These differences are irrespective of the African speaker’s education. One source of the difference is fossilized L1 interference, not just individually but among many speakers. Bokamba heard the following sentence from a speaker, typical of what he considers “African English.” It had obviously been translated verbatim from its African counterpart: “Politics is forced out tears by intense anger. One can not remember any time both in dream and normal life that poorself stood among honourable ones…”
That is not standard English, of course, but it is English. Such speaking patterns are widely encountered in countries that have adopted English as a lingua franca. They transcend individual usage and become a characteristic of the particular breed of English used in that part of the world. Distinct from this quotation, African English may often be more grammatically traditional than standardized American usage. Just as a language evolves over time, so do lingua francas.
Beyond the mechanics of the language, there are cultural colorations brought to English by its speakers. When educators teach English as a second language, they know also teach pragmatics: how to use the language appropriately in a particular social context. The fine points of pragmatics and discourse may vary depending on the origin of the speaker, his/her socioeconomic background, and other factors, but broad norms hold true across these boundaries.
But when English becomes a lingua franca, spoken in a variety of settings around the world, what happens to cultural pragmatics?
In fact, there are as many cultures associated with English as there are communities that speak it. Thus, it is oxymoronic to consider the possibility of a common set of cultural norms for a lingua franca. What distinguishes one version from another ranges from phonology to discourse. By definition a lingua franca is comprised of dozens of (or more) cultures, each of which brings its own social rules and communication mores. If one considers the wide variety of forms of English — Mexican (Spanglish), Nigerian, Caribbean, Japanese, Puerto Rican (Pringlish), Chinese, Indian and many others — it becomes apparent that a unified culture for a lingua franca is an impossibility. But with pragmatics being so important, how do people manage to communicate across these differences without offending one another? Can there be a unified usage of English as a lingua franca? What role does culture play in that?
There are as many forms of English as there are nations that adopt it, and there is no way (nor necessarily imperative) to unify them. The cultures of English lingua franca nations will interweave their form of the language with their own expressions of culture and pragmatics. It seems impossible for there to be a single standard. The truth may be that one can’t avoid the possibility of offending one another. Miscommunication is rampant. There will be mistakes. All one can hope is that, with open minds, people will learn from one another.
A delightfully ironic quotation from Cheng Shoong Tat (The Sunday Times, 3 February 1991, as cited by Alistair Pennycook, 1994) reinforces the unlikelihood of a universal pragmatic system: “Presumably, the output of such a melting pot will be ethnically neutral, speaking only the common language of English, celebrating the international festival of Christmas, watching the Cosby Show and embracing ‘global pop culture.’”
The Status of Variations on the Lingua Franca
It is important to note that not all manifestations of English are equal in the eyes of the world. “Newly nativized varieties often have relatively low status…” (Tollefson, 2000) Kachru’s “inner circle” languages (left) show the sources of native English and how they radiate around the world from that core.
Robert Phillipson’s model (right) initially seems to be similar, but there is a fundamental difference to his theory. He highlights political more than demographic aspects of English as a lingua franca. English, he says, is helpful to some and harmful to others. “Dominant core countries exercise major control over the economic and political fate of dominated periphery countries.” (Tollefson, 2000).
For Teachers To Ponder
Teacher training often focuses on skills such as learning styles, motivating students, affective filters and methodologies, and these are all important. But Tollefson (2000) poses a question: “How might English language teachers place their work within a broader sociopolitical framework?”
It has been a topic of discussion in SLA class that teaching pragmatics is as important as teaching grammar and other aspects of linguistics. When one knows that students will be using English primarily in a specific country such as the US, that certainly holds true. But the larger picture — English as an international language — illuminates a different perspective: not one that negates the importance of teaching pragmatics, but extends the notion.
In a discussion of international regulations related to teaching minority and majority languages, Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) warns, “If you are an ESL teacher and/or if you teach minority children through the medium of a dominant language, at the cost of their mother tongue, you are participating in linguistic genocide… Even if you feel shocked and angry at this accusation, it is your duty to know, and to find out about alternatives.” While this refers more to the rules handed down by the teaching institution than the approaches of the teachers themselves, it is an important consideration: how would one feel about teaching in a school in which children were immersed in the target language, without being able to learn in their mother tongue?
Pennycook (2000) describes the traditional language classroom as a “closed box” with impermeable borders: rules inside and society outside. “I would like to consider an alternative view — that classrooms, both in themselves and in their relationships to the world beyond their walls, are complex social and cultural spaces.” It is important to recognize and incorporate the sociopolitical and cultural aspects that live quietly inside the students. Pennycook continues, “Students do not leave their social relations, their rural upbringings, or their relationships to their parents at the classroom door.” This is one reason the SIT coursework has emphasized the importance of recognizing each student’s experience and developing a curriculum that is relevant to their own personal lives, past and future.
Pennycook continues by pointing out that ESL teachers need to be conscious of the political climate in which they teach. “This global spread of English is bound up with many cultural, economic, and political forces…” It is easy, when concentrating on general teaching methodology and theory, to forget the place of one’s classroom in a much larger political context. It is critical to keep at the forefront of one’s mind that the teacher’s role is bigger than helping students to learn English.
One recent approach to language pedagogy is relevant to this discussion: that of cross-cultural pragmatics. Diana Boxer (2002) introduces the concept of learning pragmatics as a two-way street: each student makes discoveries about social rules of English, and in turn the teacher and other students learn about the cultural norms of the other. When understanding a person’s culture is a “one-way street” — the language student learns about native English norms — stereotypes develop and opportunities for mutual understanding are lost. With English as a lingua franca, used in so many countries and situations, it is impossible to argue that one set of norms that apply. If the student knows exactly what country s/he is going to, then one can address pragmatics for that setting. An alternate solution, for those who may have multiple English-speaking destinations, is to encourage two- (or more-) way exchanges in the classroom about norms, each student learning from the other. As has been studied historically, a good place to begin is with the area of politeness. The teacher can help foster two-way understanding of the differences. It’s crucial, Boxer says, to open “doors, not only for those who are in less powerful status, but for all of us.”
References
Bokamba, Eyamba G. (1983). The Africanization of English. In Braj B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (pp.17, 20). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Boxer, Diana. “Discourse Issues in Cross-Cultural Pragmatics.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics Volume 22, 2002: 150–167. Print.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1983). Sociology of English as an Additional Language. In Braj B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (pp.17, 20). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Fishman, Joshua A., Cooper, Robert L. & Conrad, Andrew W. (Eds.). (1983). The Spread of English: The Sociology of English as an Additional Language (pp. 330, 335). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Hall, Joan Kelly & Eggington, William G. (2000). Language Politics, Language Practices, and English Teaching. In Joan Kelly Hall & William G. Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (p. 5). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Jenkins, Jennifer. (2000) World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. (2000). The Language War. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Pennycook, A. (2000). The Social Politics and the Cultural Politics of Language Classrooms. In Joan Kelly Hall & William G. Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (pp. 89–92, 97). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Phillipson, Robert. (1997). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic Human Rights and Teachers of English. In Joan Kelly Hall & William G. Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (p. 25). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Strevens, Peter. (1983). The Localized Forms of English. In Braj B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (p. 24–25). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Tollesfon, J.W. (2000). Policy and Ideology in the Spread of English. In Joan Kelly Hall & William G. Eggington (Eds.), The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching (pp. 7, 9, 13, 19). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.