point and counterpoint
ELF on a mushroom: the overnight
growth in English as a Lingua Franca
Colin Sowden
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Maastricht University on October 28, 2014
In an effort to curtail native-speaker dominance of global English, and in
recognition of the growing role of the language among non-native speakers from
different first-language backgrounds, some academics have been urging the
teaching of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). Although at first this proposal seems
to offer a plausible alternative to the traditional standard version, it raises both
practical and theoretical concerns. Moreover, since neither World English nor
nativized local Englishes have yet gained full legitimacy, it is clear that the native-
speaker model still has an important role to play, though one modified by new
cultural and pedagogical priorities.
The colonial In the aftermath of independence achieved in the years following the
inheritance Second World War, many former British colonies sought to repudiate their
previous subordination by demoting English, the language of their erstwhile
masters, from its inherited position of dominance and replacing it with one
or more native languages. As a political gesture, this move often had wide
appeal, but ‘the ghost of imperialism could not be exorcised overnight’
(Rahman 2009: 15), and the resulting difficulties soon became apparent. In
countries where several major languages were spoken, English had
provided an effective means of communication between different ethnic
and linguistic groups, who did not always take kindly to one native language
being given precedence over another. One example here is provided by
India, where the Official Languages Act of 1967 declared Hindi to be equal
to English for all official purposes. This caused significant resentment
among Tamil speakers in the south of the country, with protests leading to
civil unrest and actual violence, forcing the government in New Delhi to
suspend the implementation of the law in the state of Tamil Nadu. In
the same way, the replacement of English by Malay in the new Malaysian
Confederation led in 1965 to the secession of Singapore, where the majority
Chinese population feared that the policy would lead to their
marginalization within the larger state, where they constituted a minority.
Even where new language policies were designed to ensure equal status
among native languages, it often proved impossible to accommodate all of
these. In Nigeria, for example, while in 1969 Yoruba, Hausa, and Ibo were
all declared to be official languages, more than 380 other languages were not
granted such status, so disadvantaging all their respective speakers. Apart
from practical considerations, the real concern here was that attempting to
E LT Journal Volume 66/1 January 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccr024 89
ª The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication May 16, 2011
accommodate more local languages (in the provision of education and other
services) would tend to limit professional mobility and to undermine that
sense of national unity which the new governments were so keen to
promote. Indeed, speaking of Zambia, which faced a situation comparable
to Nigeria after independence, but which chose to maintain the special
status of English for longer, Nichindila (2009: 330) concludes that ‘ . . .
English has been one of the cardinal unifying factors for Zambian society’,
although as a consequence literacy in local languages noticeably suffered
before the policy was eventually modified.
There were other relevant factors too. Few educational materials in the
chosen native languages were available, especially at tertiary level, and
subsequent attempts to limit schooling in English tended to drive the more
affluent and informed into sending their children to private English-
medium academies or to schools abroad. As Nichindila (ibid.) comments
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Maastricht University on October 28, 2014
again:
. . . very few of the Zambian government ministers send their children to
government schools where the policy of teaching in local languages
applies now. Most of them send their children to private schools . . .
Even when it was relatively straightforward to promote a single native
language as a replacement for English, as with Bangla in largely
monolingual Bangladesh, the consequences of doing so were often a decline
in general English proficiency among the educated section of the
population, as happened in this country following the implementation of
the Bangla Introduction Law of 1983, leading the government to
subsequently modify its position, with English being reintroduced as
a language of instruction at university and as a parallel language of
administration at both local and national levels (Rahman op. cit.: 18).
The development So it has proved difficult for former colonial and other peoples subjected to
and nature of English anglophone hegemony to escape from the linguistic legacy of the past. One
as a Lingua Franca response has been to attempt to neutralize English, to sheer it of its cultural
baggage, to remove it from the hands of its Anglo-Saxon native speakers,
and to emphasize its role as a value-free means of international
communication belonging equally to all who speak it as a first or second
language. It is in this context that the notion of English as a Lingua Franca
(ELF) has developed and been recently fostered. However, there remains
some uncertainty over exactly what this term means in practice. It is usually
seen to refer to the end result of the gradual abandonment, avoidance, or
alteration by non-native speakers of those parts of English that tend to cause
significant misunderstanding in interactions with other non-native
speakers or are redundant in that situation, thus producing a reduced
version of the language which allows more straightforward interchange to
take place. But what is the nature of this abbreviated alternative?
Seidlhofer (2004: 222) is adamant that:
. . . EL F is a natural language and can thus be expected to undergo the
same processes that affect other natural languages, especially in contact
situations.
90 Colin Sowden
This would suggest that EL F can be viewed as an identifiable, discrete entity,
yet this idea is called into question by the pronouncements of other writers
in the field. Jenkins (2007: 41) is clear that it does not refer to a monolithic
construct which will merely replace traditional native-speaker norms with
new but equally inflexible standards. Instead, it would consist of ‘a variety of
local versions of English’, each influenced by the local native language.
Dewey and Cogo (2007: 11) argue that it should be seen:
not as a uniform set of norms or practices but rather a set of linguistic
resources which, while sharing common ground, is typically more
variable than other language varieties.
This apparent contradiction undermines attempts to give a clear status to
EL F, a problem reminiscent of the dilemma which exercised philosophers
of the Middle Ages in Europe: whether types or categories of things actually
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Maastricht University on October 28, 2014
exist in their own right (as the Realists asserted) or whether they are merely
abstractions deriving from multiple concrete instances of things, which
alone have true being (as the Nominalists maintained).
Leaving aside this ontological issue, the purpose of the simplification seems
clear: to exclude culturally restricted items (what Seidlhofer op. cit.: 220
terms ‘unilateral idiomaticity’), particularly Anglo-Saxon ones, so easing the
process of communication and curbing the authority of native speakers.
Another key reason for encouraging the use of E L F, though, is that it is said
to more closely resemble the versions of English actually spoken by various
groups of non-native speakers, who are known to outnumber native
speakers in their use of English by a large margin and whose
communications with each other are said to constitute the majority of global
interchanges in the language. So it could be considered both a more
achievable and relevant target for the majority of learners. To this end, some
core features have been described, pre-eminently on the basis of the VOICE
corpus, allowing certain awkward and apparently insignificant elements of
traditional Standard English (such as the third person ‘s’ ending in the
present tense of verbs) to be ignored (Seidlhofer op. cit.: 119).
Practical and Although at first glance this seems feasible, indeed attractive, there are
theoretical problems fundamental problems, both practical and theoretical, with the whole E L F
project. While some elements of a lingua franca core have been thus
isolated, a complete and definitive description remains elusive. Shim
(2009: 113) comments:
The fallacy in the ‘lingua franca core’ perspective is that . . . [i]t is not
possible to get to a uniform lingua franca core that is shared by fluent
bilinguals from different first-language backgrounds.
Kachru (1992: 66) too is clear that what he terms a ‘monomodal approach’
to non-native English cannot be defended and that attempts to subsume
different local variations within a common version are doomed to failure
because the functional roles assigned to English and the contexts in which
these apply differ from one place to another. Kirkpatrick (2007: 163) makes
the same point when discussing the varieties of English used in South East
Asia: while they are very similar,
E LF on a mushroom 91
. . . it would be impossible to describe A S E A N lingua franca as a single
systematic system that could be codified and then used as a model for the
A S E AN English language classroom.
In fact, as he admits, it is the ‘mutual understanding, cooperation and
tolerance of variation’ of the different national groups that allows them to
communicate so well, indicating that cultural sympathy and interpersonal
skills are just as important in lingua franca exchanges as sharing a broadly
common language.
In addition to this problem of codification, there is the difficulty in any given
situation of distinguishing between authentic non-standard alternatives
and persistent error. By way of guidance, here Kachru (op. cit.: 62) contrasts
mistakes with deviations. While the former
. . . cannot be justified with reference to the socio-cultural context of
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Maastricht University on October 28, 2014
a non-native variety and is not the result of the production processes
used in an institutionalized non-native variety,
the latter is the result of such a process,
which marks the typical variety-specific features; and it is systematic
within the variety and not idiosyncratic.
Kirkpatrick (op. cit.: 163) suggests that where a process of simplification has
taken place as a result of transferring the parameter settings of either
universal grammar or a local language, then a legitimate variation of
Standard English has occurred; in contrast ‘. . . the addition of inflections
in contexts where they are not needed is a potential marker of learner
English’. In both these formulations, though, the distinction remains
notional and rather tentative, and therefore deficient for practical purposes:
without clearer reference points, it is difficult to see how teachers of E L F
could be adequately trained or supplied with appropriate classroom
resources.
Besides this pedagogical difficulty, both teachers and students would face an
attitudinal one: they would be obliged to embrace and foster a variety of
English which up to now they have learnt to treat as inferior and by doing so
risk undermining their academic self-image and limiting their professional
aspirations. Reports suggest that neither group wishes to make this
compromise:
Research shows that E F L teachers seem to recognize the usefulness of
EL F-based skills mentioned in N S – N N S [native-speaker–non-native-
speaker] communication, but are prone to taking up an NS-oriented
perspective when asked specifically about language teaching. (Sifakis
2009: 232)
Norrish (2008: 5) agrees:
An obstacle . . . to the EL F approach . . . is the opinion expressed by many
learners that they wish to learn a NS version of the language . . . [I]n my
own experience, this was strongly the case with teacher trainers in
Shanghai in 1992 who expressed very strong feelings against any other
target than ‘Standard English’.
92 Colin Sowden
Of course attitudes may change where the case for E L F becomes persuasive
and it is officially adopted.
Misconceived ideas At a more fundamental level, though, the E L F project needs to take more
of language learning account of the nature and purpose of second language learning. The
majority of those who learn a language other than their first native tongue
(or tongues, if they are effectively multilingual from childhood) tend only to
reach a moderate level of competence; they rarely achieve full proficiency.
Arguably, therefore, it is less crucial that the model presented for teaching
can be precisely reproduced, since it will not usually be completely
mastered, than that it serves as a clear marker for the classroom and, with
more ambitious students, for the wider world beyond. This is the point
made by Chien (2007: 5) when speaking of non-native speaker teachers in
Taiwan:
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Maastricht University on October 28, 2014
Although the majority may agree that conveying meaning is more
important than perfect conformity with a native-speaker standard, they
are generally inclined to keep the native form as a teaching model.
Kirkpatrick (op. cit.: 191) concedes the same point when he allows that
native-speaker norms serve not for imitation but as a benchmark against
which to monitor output.
Of course, classroom models must be offered intelligently and flexibly: good
teachers soon learn to avoid complex idioms when dealing with beginners,
to not insist on unimportant grammatical inflexions (the third-person
singular verb ending again), and to make allowance for local accent and
manners of speech. As Norrish (op.cit.: 5) says:
. . . teachers will continue to be guided by the wants, wishes and needs of
the learners and the social, professional or pedagogic contexts in which
they may need to use the language.
Mimatsu (2007: 6) makes this point with reference to teachers of English
in Japan, arguing that they naturally adapt the received native-speaker
models by making use of their knowledge of their learners’ mother tongue:
. . . they communicate in a Japanese version of English that naturally
occurs under the influence of Japanese linguistic and socio-cultural
factors.
This kind of adjustment, like those between non-native speakers with
different first languages seeking to communicate, has always taken place
and will continue to do so; seeking to derive artificial norms from these ad
hoc procedures is inappropriate.
Even if a convincing lingua franca core could be agreed and teachers and
students persuaded and enabled to teach and learn it, the outcome might
well be less beneficial than expected. As there would still be demand for
native-speaker models among some sections of the non-native-speaker
population, decisions would have to be taken about curriculum choice in
schools. It is highly likely that where choice existed, the more affluent,
ambitious, and well connected would opt for schools where native-speaker
standards prevailed, and the poorer sections of the community would be
E LF on a mushroom 93
relegated to schools where E L F was the norm. Prodromou (2007: 10) makes
this point forcibly:
EL F scholars would constrain L1 and L2 users within the limits of E L F
varieties. In this way, E L F will serve to strengthen the power of those who
already have the full range of repertoires available in existing models. The
two ‘models’ would compete for the same space and it is not difficult to
see which model will prevail.
A similar division of teachers would probably occur too, those attaining
near-native competence teaching in the former while those less proficient
would teach in the latter. Both these processes would have a divisive effect on
the society and would end up exacerbating rather than diminishing existing
inequalities by limiting the scope of the majority and confirming the
privileges of the policymakers.
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Maastricht University on October 28, 2014
Alternative futures While E L F does not seem to offer a plausible future for English language
development and teaching, other possible scenarios may do so. One such is
the notion of ‘Globish’ (Shim op.cit.), which draws on the standard usages
of English in different parts of the world in order to create a World English
owned by and accessible to all; although heavily dependent on the Anglo-
Saxon native-speaker model, this agglomeration would in theory make
space for and actually give way to other norms as respective peoples (for
example speakers of Indian and Nigerian English) exert increasing
influence on the world stage. This process can already be observed in the
way that American English has tended to supplant British English as the
leading native-speaker model in certain parts of the globe.
It is unlikely, however, that such a World English would significantly depart
from existing Anglo-Saxon norms as long as America remained
economically and culturally dominant among the world’s elites. For this
reason, a more significant development is the one alluded to above: the
current diversification of English around the world, spawning varieties
which have achieved a degree of recognition in their respective geographical
spheres. In this case, the local English exists and is accepted alongside both
the local native language or languages and the traditional native-speaker
model of English, each being used in different contexts and being allotted
different roles. This situation is well described by Duruoha (2009: 202ff)
with reference to Nigeria. He comments that Nigerian English operates as
‘an indigenous lingua franca . . .’ (ibid.: 209) and adds that:
[a]lthough [some people] see the new Englishes as ‘interference varieties’,
they are adequate and have become institutionalized and close to native-
like English. (ibid.: 207)
Of course the problems faced in establishing the legitimacy of such local
varieties, and in institutionalizing their use, are similar to those discussed
above regarding EL F. Even when supported by a shared sociocultural
context, nativized Englishes have not been convincingly codified and may
also elude being so in a way which wins wide acceptance in other than
informal situations. In discussing the setting of norms in international
proficiency tests, Davies, Hamp-Lyons, and Kemp (2003: 575) refer to the
opinion of Lukami, a teacher of English in India, who
94 Colin Sowden
. . . argues that many Indian speakers of English produce an
interlanguage, which is not systematic, either in grammar or discourse
. . . Politically . . . no-one in India accepts the existence of Indian English
as an acceptable written variety and there are no models on which to base
it.
In the opinion of this Indian teacher at least, there is danger in moving away
from native-speaker norms, even where recognized local varieties of English
are concerned. The reference here to writing brings into focus another point
on which the concept of E L F is unhelpful: it only really takes account of the
spoken language; when formal writing is involved, it has little to offer. On
paper, the need for precision, clarity, and rhetorical coherence, in the
absence of scope for interpersonal negotiation and with a potentially
heterogeneous audience, forces both writer and reader to give greater
weight to recognized rules of grammar and syntax. Moreover, since such
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Maastricht University on October 28, 2014
writing often takes place within a specific hierarchical and professional
context, it must also take account of the appropriate lexis and register, which
would be compromised by a less rigorous approach to the use of language,
thus significantly disadvantaging anyone who had command only of E L F.
Conclusion So, given the various constraints outlined above, it seems probable that the
Anglo-Saxon native-speaker model will retain its leading role for some time
to come rather than be replaced by its E L F shadow, although it will have to
compete increasingly with developing nativized varieties in certain parts of
the world. This does not mean, of course, that this model should be the
preserve of the native-speaker alone. In fact, non-native-speaker teachers,
who should be seen as successful multilingual practitioners rather than
second-rate users of English, bring to the classroom vital knowledge of local
languages and cultures, which often renders them more effective than those
from a monolingual background. As the communicative methodology,
which in its heyday helped promote the use of native-speaker expatriates,
gives way to an eclectic approach more sympathetic to local pedagogic styles
and priorities, so the value of local teachers will be recognized and their
status enhanced. It is this shift in perspective and attitude rather than the
pursuit of an uncertain substitute for authentic English which will really help
empower both learners and teachers because it validates their own cultural
experiences without devaluing the content of what they are studying.
Final revised version received January 2011
References Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca:
Chien, S. -C. 2007. ‘E L F: emerging awareness in Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Taiwan’. I AT E F L Voices 199: 5. Press.
Davies, A., L. Hamp-Lyons, and C. Kemp. 2003. Kachru, B. B. (ed.). 1992. The Other Tongue: English
‘Whose norms? International proficiency tests in Across Cultures. (Second edition). Urbana, IL:
English’. World Englishes 22/4: 571–84. University of Illinois Press.
Dewey, M. and A. Cogo. 2007. ‘Adopting an English Kirkpatrick, A. 2007. World Englishes: Implications
as a lingua franca perspective in E LT’. I AT E F L Voices for International Communication and English
199: 11. Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
Duruoha, S. I. 2009. ‘Teaching ‘‘the other English’’ University Press.
for communication in Nigeria’ in M. Krzanowski Krzanowski, M. (ed.). 2009. Current Developments in
(ed.). English for Academic and Specific Purposes in
E LF on a mushroom 95
Developing, Emerging and Least-developed Countries. (ed.). I ATE F L 2008 Exeter Conference Selections.
Reading: Garnet Education. Canterbury: IATEFL.
Mimatsu, T. 2007. ‘English for international Sifakis, N. 2009. ‘Challenges in teaching EL F in the
understanding in Japan’. I AT E F L Voices 199: 6. periphery: the Greek context’. ELT Journal 63/3:
Nichindila, B. 2009. ‘Burying the ghost of English in 230–7.
Zambia’ in M. Krzanowski (ed.).
Norrish, J. 2008. ‘Adopting an English as a lingua The author
franca perspective’. I AT E F L Voices 200: 4–5. Colin Sowden used to be Course Director of BA
Prodromou, L. 2007. ‘E L F models and ‘‘linguistic Modern History and Politics at the University of
capital’’’. I AT E F L Voices 199: 9–10. Wales Institute, Cardiff (UWIC), where previously
Rahman, S. 2009. ‘E LT, E S P and E A P in Bangladesh: he had been in charge of the International
an overview of the status and the need for English’ in Foundation Course. Before joining UWIC, he
M. Krzanowski (ed.). worked as a teacher, translator, and writer in Italy,
Seidlhofer, B. 2004. ‘Research perspectives on Britain, and the United Arab Emirates in the fields of
teaching English as a lingua franca’. Annual Review of general English, E SP, and EA P. His main interests
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Maastricht University on October 28, 2014
Applied Linguistics 24: 209–39. are cross-cultural communication and the politics of
Shim, R. J. 2009. ‘Empowering E F L students empire.
through teaching World Englishes’ in B. Beaven Email: casowden@gmail.com
96 Colin Sowden
