(Andy Kirkpatrick, Roland Sussex (Auth.), Andy Kir PDF

English as an International Language in Asia:
Implications for Language Education

MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION
VOLUME 1
Series Editors:
Andy Kirkpatrick
Director, Research Centre into Language Education and Acquisition
in Multilingual Societies
Hong Kong Institute of Education
Bob Adamson
Head, Department of Curriculum and Instruction
David C.S. Lee

Department of English
Editorial Board:
Jan Blommaert, University of Tilburg, The Netherlands

Feng Anwei, University of Wales at Bangor, UK
Ofelia Garcia, The Graduate Centre, City University of New York, USA
Saran Kaur Gill, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Gu Yueguo, The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Hartmut Haberland, University of Roskilde, Denmark
Li Chor Shing David, The Hong Kong Institute of Education
Li Wei, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK
Low Ee-Ling, National Institute of Education, Singapore
Tony Liddicoat, University of South Australia
Ricardo Nolasco, University of the Phillipines at Diliman, Manila, The Philippines
Merrill Swain, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, University of Toronto,
Canada
Virginia Yip Choy Yin, Chinese University of Hong Kong
For further volumes:

http://www.springer.com/series/8836
Andy Kirkpatrick • Roland Sussex
Editors
English as an International
Language in Asia:
Implications for Language
Education
Editors
Andy Kirkpatrick Roland Sussex
School of Languages and Linguistics School of Languages and Comparative
Griffith University Cultural Studies, and Centre for
Nathan, Qld, Australia Educational Innovation and Technology
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Qld, Australia
ISSN 2213-3208 ISSN 2213-3216 (electronic)

ISBN 978-94-007-4577-3 ISBN 978-94-007-4578-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4578-0
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2012946201
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions
for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to
prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

Foreword
The First Macao International Forum
This volume presents the papers from the First Macao International Forum, an
initiative of the Macao Polytechnic Institute.
The Macao International Forum arose out of a proposal put by one of the editors
(RS) to Prof. Lei Heong-Iok, President of the Macao Polytechnic Institute, and
Prof. Mao Sihui, Director of the Bell School of English and Chair of the Bell School
of Languages at the Macao Polytechnic Institute. The goal was to find a format
where a select group of international scholars could meet to tackle topics of strategic
interest to Asia in an intensive round-table forum over a period of about 3 days.
Conferences allow this privilege only in special interest sections and theme sessions,
and it is not often that scholars of like mind can concentrate consecutively on a common
theme for an extended period. This was the idea behind the Macao International
Forum. The concept and the format were enthusiastically welcomed by Prof. Lei,
who kindly made available both the necessary funding and the facilities and services
of the Macao Polytechnic Institute. Professor Mao Sihui was appointed Executive
Chairman of the MIF Organising Committee, which was responsible for the key
planning, coordination and background work to make the MIF possible.
“English as an International Language in Asia” was chosen as the first theme,
partly because of the long association of the MPI with the Bell School and English
language teaching and learning. But it is also timely in many other ways. The English
of Empire and the post-war years of the twentieth century is being overtaken by three
new directions: English as an International Language (EIL), especially involving
local Englishes like Chinglish for Chinese English; World Englishes; and also by
a burgeoning variety of English in interpersonal contacts of tremendous variety,
dynamism and richness, especially involving people who are not native speakers of
English at all, and which is commonly but not universally known as English as
a Lingua Franca (“ELF”). These tendencies are particularly pronounced in Asia.
EIL and World Englishes, and to a lesser extent ELF, in Asia are the focus of the
papers in this volume.
v
vi Foreword
In order to plan and realize the first MIF, two key appointments were made:
Prof. Andy Kirkpatrick, Hong Kong Institute of Education (and now of Griffith
University, Australia) as Chair; and Emeritus Professor Roland Sussex, The University
of Queensland, Australia as Secretary. The international team of 12 experts was
designed to provide both geographical, thematic, theoretical and empirical coverage
of key areas of English in the Asian context:
Professor Kingsley Bolton, City University of Hong Kong
Professor Dương Thị Hoàng Oanh, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam
Professor Saran Kaur Gill, Universiti Kebangsaan, Malaysia
Professor Fuad Abdul Hamied, Indonesia University of Education at Bandung,
Indonesia
Professor Nobuyuki Hino, Osaka University, Japan
Professor Andy Kirkpatrick (Chair), The Hong Kong Institute of Education (now
Griffith University, Australia)
Professor Andrew Moody, University of Macau
Professor Joybrato Mukherjee, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
Professor Alastair Pennycook, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Professor Zoya Proshina, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russian Federation
Professor Roland Sussex (Secretary), The University of Queensland, Australia
Professor Wen Qiufang, National Research Center for Foreign Language Education,
Beijing Foreign Studies University, People’s Republic of China
The First Macao International Forum was held at the Macao Polytechnic Institute
from December 3–5, 2010.
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
Andy Kirkpatrick and Roland Sussex
2 World Englishes and Asian Englishes: A Survey of the Field............. 13
Kingsley Bolton
Part I Education
3 English as an International Language in Asia:

Implications for Language Education ................................................... 29
Andy Kirkpatrick
4 The Complexities of Re-reversal of Language-in-Education
Policy in Malaysia ................................................................................... 45
Saran Kaur Gill
5 English in Multicultural and Multilingual
Indonesian Education ............................................................................. 63
Fuad Abdul Hamied
6 Teaching English as an International Language
in Mainland China .................................................................................. 79
Wen Qiufang
Part II Communication and Lingua Francas
7 English as a Medium for Russians to Communicate in Asia .............. 97

Zoya G. Proshina
8 Global vs. Glocal English: Attitudes and Conceptions
among Educators, Administrators and Teachers
in Eight Asian Countries ........................................................................ 107
Dương Thị Hoàng Oanh
vii
viii Contents
9 Lingua Francas as Language Ideologies ............................................... 137

Alastair Pennycook
Part III Languages and Cultures in Contact
10 Negotiating Indigenous Values with Anglo-American

Cultures in ELT in Japan: A Case of EIL Philosophy
in the Expanding Circle .......................................................................... 157
Nobuyuki Hino
11 Switching in International English ........................................................ 175
Roland Sussex
Part IV Norms
12 English in South Asia – Ambinormative Orientations and the Role

of Corpora: The State of the Debate in Sri Lanka ............................... 191
Joybrato Mukherjee
13 Authenticity of English in Asian Popular Music .................................. 209
Andrew Moody
14 A Postscript and a Prolegomenon.......................................................... 223
Roland Sussex and Andy Kirkpatrick
About the Contributors .................................................................................. 233
Index ................................................................................................................. 237

Chapter 1
Introduction
Andy Kirkpatrick and Roland Sussex
The conventional view of English – its epistemology (Pennycook 2010a, and Chap. 9,
this volume) – is based on nineteenth century concepts of the nation state. This
“entity-English” or “citadel-English” model is still relevant, particularly with the
formal written language in public documents: in academic English, official papers,
laws and regulations. Asian English-language academic journals, of which there are
increasing numbers, publish in an English which is close to, though often not identi-
cal with, norms of L1 English in Anglophone countries. The major variation in
academic writing remains disciplinary. It will be interesting to see if the new Asian-
based journals, and those journals publishing an increasing number of scholars
for whom English is an additional language, start to accept variation based on the
author’s variety of English, and rhetorical variation based on specific cultural styles,
or whether the English of academic publications remains close to “entity-English”
norms.
In contrast, there is great variation in spoken Englishes, where the “new”
Englishes have been shaped by the cultural needs of their speakers. Asian Englishes
form part of these new Englishes and are commonly described in reference to their
countries of origin. Brunei English, Malaysian English, Philippino English and
Singaporean English are well-known examples. Within each of these varieties,
“sub-varieties” exist, and these are usually classified against a continuum ranging
from formal and educated to informal and colloquial. The varieties at the informal
and colloquial end of the continuum are commonly referred to using informal
A. Kirkpatrick (*)
School of Languages and Linguistics, Griffith University,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia
e-mail: a.kirkpatrick@griffith.edu.au
R. Sussex
School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies,
Centre for Educational Innovation and Technology, The University of Queensland,
e-mail: r.sussex@uq.edu.au
A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex (eds.), English as an International Language in Asia: 1

Implications for Language Education, Multilingual Education 1,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4578-0_1, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
2 A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex
or clipped versions of their full names – thus Singlish in Singapore and Taglish in
the Philippines (where the Tag is a clipping of Tagalog, the language spoken
around metro Manila and the basis upon which the national language, Filipino,
has been built).
In the multilingual settings of Asia, code-mixing between English and local
languages becomes a natural and creative strategy and identity marker for multi-
lingual users of English. These multilingual users of English also routinely use
English as a lingua franca (ELF) when they communicate with fellow multilinguals
across the region. Indeed, English enjoys the status of being the sole official working
language of the grouping known as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN). That is to say, English is the sole working language used at ASEAN
meetings and in official ASEAN publications.
All this – as do the chapters which follow – illustrates just how rich and complex
the roles of English are in Asia. There are Asian varieties of English which have
their own sub-varieties. There is the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF) where
an emergent and dynamic variety of English, a “lingua franca English” (LFE)
(Canagarajah 2007) is used. A potentially useful distinction can be made here
between English as a lingua franca (ELF), which refers to the role English is playing
in the Asian region and elsewhere, and Lingua Franca English (LFE), which refers
to the emergent varieties of English. It is important to stress at the outset that this
LFE is not a single, stable variety, but a constantly negotiated and dynamic code.
We pick this theme up again in “A postscript and a prolegemonon”.
Despite this rich diversity, however, “entity-English” still dominates in Asian
education. With some exceptions (e.g. Chap. 7 by Proshina, this volume), Asian
Englishes are not an accepted part of syllabuses or curricula, and entity-English
retains the prestige of the target model and drives pedagogy and assessment.
Textbooks reflect this L1 English focus. L1 models of English, then, are still very
much in play, even though all Asian users of English are multilinguals who rou-
tinely use English as a lingua franca with fellow multilinguals. But it is not simply
a matter of the imperial edifice versus the multiple centric Englishes in various
countries; there is also the question of code, a means for the negotiation of local
meaning. The question is then: how do these various models and codes fit together
or relate to each other? And how do they fit together or relate to other languages?
It is not a question of which model is right or wrong.
English is exploding in Asia – in a positive sense, but also in some ways a daunt-
ing sense. It is increasingly present, and indeed imposing, in public view and public
use. The formula “English + Language x” applies to public signs, public documents,
conversations, street encounters and bargaining, advertising, education, interna-
tional communication and commerce, the media and entertainment. Overt public
bilingualism in these uses is becoming the default. English is the partner of choice
for any glocal (Chap. 8 by Oanh, this volume) language. Most importantly, English
is increasingly being introduced as the first “foreign” language taught in Asian
schools. Thus most children now learn only their respective national language and
English. Other local languages are being forced out of the school curriculum and as
languages of education (Chap. 3 by Kirkpatrick, this volume).
1 Introduction 3
Asia will be a key influence in the future evolution of World Englishes. It is in

Asia that the two largest blocks of English speakers will be: in China; and India,
where the tradition of English learning and use is being expanded and consolidated
into a policy for international advancement. There is no country in Asia where
English is not the first language after the national language. And Asian countries are
making determined and focused efforts to establish cadres of competent users of
English in education, commerce and culture.
The papers in this volume consider these issues and span a large and diverse
space. We have grouped them into four broad categories – Education; Communication
& Lingua Francas; Languages & Cultures in Contact; and Norms. But the content
of the papers often both overlaps with individual categories, and also ranges more
widely than these categories. We pick up these crossovers in our brief summaries of
the individual chapters below.
Bolton (“World Englishes and Asian Englishes: A survey of the field”) pro-
vides an overview of the current questions relating to English in international and
Asian space, with special reference to English language education in Asia. He
plots the decline of distinctions like native/non-native speaker of English, and the
progressive blurring of the native/second/foreign language perspective. During
this time we have seen the rise, and then re-absorption, of Kachru’s (1985) three
circles; the rise of empirical studies of English in variation, prompted partly by
corpus techniques and partly by different perspectives on the sociology of English;
the progressive erosion of citadel English, or bi-citadel English (UK and US), to
be replaced first by pluralistic models, then mixed-language models, and then
creativity-based models linked to the growing vitality and viability of English in
different geographical locations. The status, and even the nature, of English have
been politically sensitized (Phillipson 2009), policy-incorporated by the language
planning movement, and subjected to scrutiny from critical theory and modern
exponents of the Frankfurt School; and it has emerged, with several possible
guises (perhaps even concurrent) as a lingua franca. Truly, English has been the
laboratory for language reconceptualization.
Part of this dynamic perturbation has had to do with structures, citadels and
orthodoxies. Is World English, as a pluralistic phenomenon, able to take an inclu-
sive approach to the Kachruvian circles, avoiding charges of Euro-centrism (Saraceni
2010) and monolithicity (Bruthiaux 2003)? The key questions are what “English”
brings with it as it sets up its communication bona fides in different places, and how
these developing local elements relate to established and evolving elements else-
where. This concerns both the forms of language (sounds, grammar, vocabulary,
pragmatics), and its social and institutional engagement, in some instances continu-
ing from colonial pasts. Our understanding here is seriously hampered by a dearth
of reliable and comparable statistics: there are reports of 33% of the Indian popula-
tion being about to manage at least some conversation in English, and of the total
numbers of English learners in China to be around 300 million. But what “conversa-
tion” and “learner” are is not documented reliably enough. What can be predicted is
that the growing Asian middle class will demand English for itself and its children.
How that will play out in poorer countries remains to be seen.
As English takes root in different locales it undergoes different degrees of lexical

and structural nativization. Such changes, sometimes artificially filtered for com-
mercial purposes, is very evident in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), where
call centres of major corporations are increasingly located off-shore in countries
with lower salary levels. These mechanisms, together with tourism, international
trade and commerce, and international education and media exposure, bring many
Englishes to the attention of many people. In this framework, combined with
local national pressures, education is increasingly concentrating on “national
language + English”, in strong contrast to the inclusive policies of the EU.
1.1 Education
Education is represented by four papers by Kirkpatrick, Gill, Hamied and Wen.

The effects of the increasingly important role played by English in Southeast
Asia upon the other languages of the region forms the focus of Kirkpatrick’s chapter
(“English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for language educa-
tion”). He argues that the privileging of English in the school curricula has led to an
alarming decrease in the number of local languages being learned in Asian schools.
Since removing a language as a language of education is a sure-fire way to endanger
that language, many local languages are becoming endangered, especially in light
of the overwhelming regional trend of people to learn their respective national lan-
guage and English. Thus, in Indonesia, for example, the successful promotion of
Bahasa Indonesia as the national language and national lingua franca, coupled with
the nationwide teaching of English (Chap. 5 by Hamied, this volume), is one reason
why many local languages are struggling to survive. Kirkpatrick accepts that it
is inevitable that politicians and policy makers will promote English as a language
of education (but see Chap. 4 by Gill, this volume), and so proposes a new way of
teaching English for the region which entails, among other things, the delaying of English
until children have developed fluency and literacy in local languages. Kirkpatrick
argues that developing literacy in local languages will increase children’s self-esteem
and self-confidence and also provide an excellent bridge for developing literacy
in English. He also proposes a “lingua franca” approach to the teaching of English,
which takes into account the roles English is playing as a lingua franca for Asian
multilinguals.
Gill’s focus (“The complexities of re-reversal of language-in-education policies
in Malaysia”) addresses the Malay/English scenario in Malaysia, and the factors
which affect the changing dynamics between the two. Faced with declining
standards in both English and the Science and Mathematics curriculum in the
schools, Malaysia decided in 2002 to reverse the Malay-language teaching of
Science and Mathematics in national primary and secondary schools, and to require
these subjects to be taught in English. But in 2009, dissatisfaction with the effects
1 Introduction 5
of the policy, and complications in its implementation, led the Ministry of Education
to re-reverse the policy and reinstate the teaching of Science and Mathematics in
Bahasa Malaysia. This change will take place in 2012. These shifts in language-in-
education policy reflect two potent and partly opposed effects of nationalism. On
the one hand is the pressure to consolidate and enrich the national language by hav-
ing it underpin the curriculum as the medium of instruction. But on the other there
is a pragmatic national need to educate a workforce which is competent both in key
domains like Science and Mathematics, and in English as the key international lan-
guage. This latter need is very much exacerbated by the very obvious success of
Singapore, geographically adjacent and highly competitive in the region.
Although the original move to English was strongly driven top-down by the then
Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamed, both the reversal and the re-reversal were
accompanied by extensive public consultation with stakeholders, policy makers,
teachers and parents. In addition, surveys after the 2002 reversal showed that stu-
dent populations in rural Malaysia, which are predominantly ethnic Malay, were
disadvantaged more than the more multicultural urban students by the switch to
English. Policy makers and politicians in Malaysia currently find themselves
wedged. Given the political sensitivities of these issues, students of language-in-
education policy are in for an engrossing time.
Hamied, in contrast, is concerned not with shifts in language-in-education policy,
but with relativities of languages in the complex multilingual map of Indonesia, and
with the question of where English sits in relation to educational policy and practice
(“English in multicultural and multilingual Indonesian education”). Indonesia has
over 700 languages, of which more than 150 exceed 10,000 speakers. Javanese,
with 40% of the population, and Sundanese with 15%, are not even the national
language, which is Bahasa Indonesia. Within this mosaic, with English as the over-
whelmingly dominant international language, there are evident pressures on both
nationism (the ability to function as an autonomous national unit) and nationalism
(feelings of loyalty to the larger whole) (Fasold 1984). These questions, and the
dynamics between them, have been debated at a series of national language con-
gresses since 1938, and more recently every 5 years (1998, 2003, 2008). The overall
direction is one of proactive plurality and multiple linguistic empowerment. Local
languages are to be cultivated for identity and culture, and in the case of larger local
languages like Javanese and Sundanese, are used for the first years of primary edu-
cation. Many of these issues have not been legislated, and are left to local authori-
ties. At what level should instruction in Bahasa Indonesia take over from the local
language? There is provision for English to be taught not only as a subject but
as a medium of instruction from Grade 4: what is the relation to bilingualism in
the local language and Bahasa? In this context language testing remains a key
concern, particularly in a country where test results play a crucial role in selection
for educational advancement.
As the world’s fourth largest country by population, however (after China, India
and the USA), Indonesia has enormous problems of scale and supply. English is
compulsory in Junior and Secondary schools, where over 60,000 schools teach
English to over 18 million students. And yet schools average only two English
teachers each, and 30% of those have no academic qualifications. There is, Hamied
suggests, a problem of establishing standards before one can look to international-
ization. There is a program to establish “international standard” schools, but the
results are so far not encouraging.
However, the level of multilingualism and polyglossia in Indonesia is a poten-
tially positive indicator for the future. There is – as Chap. 8 by Oanh (this volume)
also notes – an additional danger that emphasis on English, which in Indonesia is
one of the six subjects listed for the national examination, could lead to a de-empha-
sis on Bahasa as the national language.
Wen (“Teaching English as an International Language in mainland China”)
brings us back to policy implementation: if we are indeed committed to glocal
English in the framework of world English(es), just what do we do in terms of
planning and curriculum to ensure maximally positive outcomes? Any consideration
of education in China is inevitably dominated by considerations of scale. There are
163 million students in China, almost all of them studying English, which is also a
required subject, with Chinese language and Mathematics, in the exit examinations
at the end of secondary schooling. There is a paralyzing shortage of qualified
teachers of English. The whole system, curriculum and organization are highly
structured and hierarchical. And yet “English as an International Language” finds
almost no place in policy documents and discussion. Although some progress has
been made in L2 instruction to include first the L2 culture, and later Chinese culture,
the models of English have remained stubbornly English-native, largely for want of
a viable alternative.
So starting from Cook’s (1999) proposal that L2 learners provide a viable model
for English instruction in China, research projects have been able to show quantita-
tive differences between native and Chinese-L2 English, especially lexical and
collocational. But if EIL (English as an International Language) is effective as a
negotiated construct for communicative purposes (Canagarajah 2007), can it be
codified for educational purposes?
Wen has a concrete proposal for this dilemma. It comes in three layers, distin-
guished by the level of English language instruction. Beginners learn native lan-
guage and culture, and universal principles of pragmatics. Intermediate learners
learn non-native varieties of language and culture, and target-language pragmatics.
Advanced learners have nativized (Chinese-influenced) English, L1 Chinese cul-
tural material, and pragmatics for other non-natives. This proposal is original and
important in at least three key ways. First, it is concrete and implementable.
Training teachers to do all this will not be simple, but it is perfectly feasible to
envisage professional development and training programs to do it. Second, it
relates closely to issues in core international English, and in intercultural com-
munication. And third, the model is scalable and transferable to other countries
and cultures.
1 Introduction 7
1.2 Communication, International English

and Lingua Franca English
The chapters by Proshina, Oanh and Pennycook deal with these topics. The educa-
tion perspective on English in international space is unavoidably caught in the bifur-
cation of English as system-entity-edifice on the one hand, and English as
means-for-communication on the other. The reality is that, especially between
speakers who are not native speakers of English, the kinds of language used to
achieve communication are varied, flexible, and subject to local variation and nego-
tiation to suit the needs of communicating. This is particularly evident when English
is called into play to communicate across non-native spaces.
Proshina (“English as a medium for Russians to communicate in Asia”) presents
such a case of the expanded uses and norms of English in Russia, with special refer-
ence to communicating with Russia’s Asian contacts to the east and south-east. In
the past, in the Soviet Union and post-Communist Russia, the traditions of commu-
nicating with Asian countries had relied on interpreting and translation between
Russian and the target language. Nowadays English has replaced this language-to-
language channel by functioning as an intermediary and lingua franca. English lan-
guage pedagogy, which in the past had concentrated on communicating Russian
culture to English speakers, and Anglophone culture to Russians, now needs to be
recast in terms of multiple Asian cultures, languages and norms, including issues of
the differential representation of Asian proper names in Russian and English: the
“ch” in the name of the Japanese company Hitachi, for instance, is represented in
Russian by a palatalized [t,], but in English by [t∫]. New curricula for English as a
language of Asian communication have been developed in Russia, and are being
taught particularly in the eastern, Asia-connected parts of Russian.
Oanh deals not with curriculum but with attitudes, specifically the attitudes of 63
educators, administrators and teachers from several Asian countries, to explore their
view of the global / glocal English dichotomy (“Global vs. glocal English in dynamic
Asia”). Glocal Englishes in Asia are already established and growing. But what is
their relative status in different countries? What factors affect their being compre-
hensible and at least locally standardized? Is there a need for glocal English testing
to suit Asian needs? And what steps can and should be taken to consolidate glocal
Englishes and provide them with an effective base? Oanh’s subjects show clear dif-
ferences in their attitudes towards the endo- and exo-empowerment perspectives.
Endo-empowerment confirms the patterns of English within each country, a pattern
already evident, say, in the English of Sri Lanka as described by Mukherjee (Chap.
12, this volume). On the other hand, endo-empowerment, while facilitating com-
munication in the homeland, can also disempower speakers when they take their
English outside the homeland: endo-empowerment can imply exo-disempower-
ment. Put another way, what options and prospects are there for a working collabo-
ration between glocal English and English as a lingua franca?
There are, of course, major differences in the frequency, range and depth of
use of English, from Singapore at the high-use end to South Korea and Japan at
the other. In Singapore some of the subjects favoured English as a co-national
language; in South Korea and Japan, on the other hand, the view was rather that
English is especially for communication with foreigners, with little room for the
kind of glocalization advocated and practised by Hino (Chap. 10, this volume).
All but the Singaporeans saw a danger in the increasing use of English, especially
to the viability of the national language. And even in Singapore there is the
evident tension between the solidaristic and culture-defining use of Singlish, as
opposed to international normative English, both of which are used diglossically
by many Singaporeans. But the testing routines are dominated by IELTS and
TOEFL, international tests which are now increasingly accepted as part of general
purpose assessments of academic competence in many Asian countries. Is this
dominant status of the “big” Englishes consistent with the development locally
acceptable English variants? And are the models of IELTS and TOEFL, and the
pedagogies and curricula associated with them, truly international, or truly examples
of a lingua franca?
Pennycook takes this line of argument further. Over the last few years he has
been developing a substantial case against English as system-entity-edifice, and in
favour of the negotiated model of “language as local practice” (Pennycook 2010b).
In “Lingua francas as language ideologies”, he addresses the epistemology ques-
tion: the way we conceive of language, our model of language, has a fundamental
effect on how we interpret “language”. Rather than the conventional “grand narra-
tive” view of national and international languages, especially English, he sees lan-
guage varieties as constructed by and in local practice. Language in this sense is
emergent, rather than a system-entity-edifice. He first addresses Chinese and the
edifice view of Mandarin Chinese and Putonghua. The “orthodox” view of Chinese
has Mandarin as a national language, studied by all in school and spoken as
Putonghua by increasing numbers, and unified by a virtually homogeneous writing
system. The dialects, many of which are not mutually intelligible in speech
(unlike writing), exist as parallel systems which in some cases, like Cantonese or
Shanghainese, have large numbers of speakers and very substantial vitality. Chinese
has the largest number of L1 speakers of any language. But in what sense is Chinese
a “first language” for 700 or more million of China’s 1.3 billion population? What
conception of language underpins this understanding of “language”, including the
distinction between first and second language speakers? In his view, it makes more
sense to think of Putonghua as a lingua franca, spoken by perhaps 53% of the popu-
lation and learnt at school. And Putonghua itself is subject to substantial local dia-
lectal variation.
He develops this line of argument through an examination of English. While World
Englishes envisage local varieties, ELF is more oriented towards trans-national
commonalities. But it is still true that these models pay insufficient attention to
local varieties, like Lebanese or Aboriginal English in Australia. And are we dealing
with ELF as an existing language adapted for international communication, or as an
emergent language of communication in the process or formation in usage?
1 Introduction 9
Pennycook’s conclusion is that the standard claims for English as the most spoken
lingua franca, and Chinese and the most spoken mother tongue, are very suspect.
The “language” concept is an ideological construct, respectively internationalist
and nationalist in focus.
1.3 Languages and Cultures in Contact
The two chapters by Hino and Sussex consider how contact influences linguistic
systems. For a number of years Hino has been well known for his strong advocacy
of the development of Japanese-cultural versions and perspectives on English for
Japanese use. His position (“Negotiating indigenous values with Anglo-American
cultures in ELT in Japan: A case of EIL philosophy in the Expanding Circle”) is
that exonormative approaches – in language forms, pragmatics, culture, and even
pedagogy – are neither appropriate nor optimal for English language learning in
Japan. For all its merits, current communicative language pedagogies do not sit
naturally with Japanese educational traditions, especially the emphasis on the
written language, and on learning second languages by word-for-word translation
(yakudoku), both of which have long and elaborated histories. Attempts to shift
Japanese pedagogical practice, by western experts from Palmer and Fries and
beyond, have tended to add oral components rather than radically change traditional
practice: the Japanese and the imported components have continued to exist in
parallel. Similarly, approaches to culture teaching have swung between English
native and Japanized versions, the latter especially during periods of Japanese
nationalism and militarism, with a more recent integrated approach emerging in the
1980s as Japan regained a sense of cultural self-confidence, to the point where some
ELT materials are now genuinely international in cultural scope. It has, however,
taken much longer for Japanese values to achieve acceptance in the language area,
even though models for a Japanized English go back at least to Saito (1928).
Significant stimulus came from Smith’s (1978) conception of EIL, which moved
away from Kachru’s (1985) Outer/Expanding Circles as “norm-developing/norm-
dependent” respectively to the position where “any educated speaker is acceptable”
(Smith 1983, p. 18).
Hino has applied these notions in his pedagogical practice and modelling.
He welcomes syllable-timed phonology, with little elision and linking, together
with lexical cues like older/younger when identifying siblings, a regular feature of
Japanese practice which is more marginal among people from the Anglo-American
cultural sphere. And Hino encourages the use of Japanese argument patterns and
rhetoric in essay construction. These models work inductively, forming norms as
they progress, and are not hobbled from the start by a lack of codification (Bamgbose
1998). Japanese English thereby becomes a pedagogical target, not an immutable
pre-existing edifice.
Sussex takes the complementary position to Pennycook’s on the issue of entities
and edifices (“Switching in international English”). For him the question of
intercultural pragmatic interference is seen from the point of view of contacting and
intersecting systems, not as emergent negotiated streams of communication.
Switching is endemic in Asian Englishes, both into and out of English, and involves
approximately balanced bilingual skills on the part of the interlocutors, with
advanced use of accommodation where communication difficulties arise. Switching
occurs on all linguistic levels: phonological (Jenkins 2000), morphological, syntac-
tic and lexical and collocational (Kirkpatrick 2010a, b), this latter being particularly
common. Sussex’s paper concentrates on yet another type of switching: pragmatic,
and its interactions with deeply-based cultural values and practices. He focuses on
three phenomena which pose problems for the effective use of EIL/EFL in terms of
bilingualism, biculturalism, diglossia and bipragmatism:
(a) Arabic “inshallah”, or “if God wills”, used as standard in Arabic for expressions
involving future or hypothetical expressions, as a recognition of the power of
the Deity over human plans and their fulfillment. But as “inshallah” is adopted
in English by Muslims, the question arises over its proper use by non-Muslims
when talking to Muslims, or in Muslim countries, and the kinds of cultural
accommodation which are either expected, or acceptable, across cultural and
religious differences, especially when neither speaker of EIL or ELF is a native
speaker or culture-native in Anglo-American patterns.
(b) The notion of covert switching in statements about facts and hedging, as
investigated by Wierzbicka (2006). She is able to demonstrate, through a
statistical analysis of transcribed spoken English, that native English speakers
use both factual hedges (e.g. seem) and verbs expressing belief, rather than
assertions of fact (think), far more than L2 speakers of English from German,
Dutch and Swedish backgrounds.
(c) diminutive forms like Aussie “Australian person, Australian”, of which there are
over 5,000 in use in spoken Australian English. These diminutives have a strongly
solidaristic, in-group function in socio-pragmatic terms, but pose significant
difficulties for visitors to Australia in both comprehension and usage.
1.4 Norms
In various ways the theme of “norms” pervades the whole volume. The papers by
Mukherjee and Moody address special aspects of models and their relation to other
models and to practice.
Mukherjee’s focus is on English in Sri Lanka (“English in South Asia –
ambinormative orientations and the role of corpora: The state of the debate in
Sri Lanka”). Sri Lanka, with a numerically dominant Sinhala-speaking population
and a significant Tamil minority, is evolving its own approach to English which is
in several respects distinct from other trajectories of English on the sub-continent.
While belonging historically to the Outer Circle, Sri Lanka is developing indigenous
linguistic features, as can be seen in the publication of the first dictionary of
Sinhalese English (Meyler 2007). Mukherjee is able to confirm this tendency with
results drawn from recently-completed textual data-bases of Sri Lankan English
1 Introduction 11
(Mukherjee et al. 2010). Some of these features match Indian English, some British,
and some both. This growing endo-normative tendency in the historical British-
normative context in Sri Lanka, however, is being complicated by policy decisions
of the Sri Lankan government to draw on not only expertise from Indian English-
language educators, but also pedagogical materials, which are being brought to
Sri Lanka to guide developing revisions of English language pedagogy. Indian
English is by far the largest model of English in the region of the sub-Continent.
The recent Sri Lankan experience shows how it is starting to form a new layer of
norm-definition and implementation.
In contrast, Moody deals not with national language policy movements, but with
popular music and the notion of performers’ and language authenticity (“Authenticity
of English in Asian popular music”). The concept of authenticity offers a revealing
alternative perspective on language in use, since it involves the level of credence and
acceptance accorded by the receivers of language – in this case the consumers, in
both a commercial and a musical sense. These language users are not judging the
message by its adherence to norms, but by its ability to address and achieve
aesthetic and communicative goals. Authenticity in this sense is complex and multi-
faceted. It operates at once in the context of the given piece, cover or performance;
and in a comparative sense against other contemporary and competing performances
in similar genres and of similar styles: they are trying either to join the meme
(Dawkins 1988), or to appropriate it. Performances judged to be authentic stand a
stronger chance of acceptance, renown and commercial success: or perhaps this is
better the other way round: acceptance is a marker of authenticity. They not only
draw from contemporary “norms” of authenticity, however fuzzy and indeterminate
those might be; they also contribute to the creating, elaboration and perpetuation of
those norms. We need only think of the Beatles to see how this worked out in the
Brit pop movement.
Judgements about the authenticity of the language of popular music are only
a part of the larger issue of authenticity of language, and English in particular.
But they provide a provocative and powerful window into issues of the identity of
language codes, and the way hearers orient to them.
In concluding this introduction, we stress that the success of a forum like the
First Macao International Forum can be measured in two main ways: in the first
place, the extent to which it pulls together current wisdom and trends, and makes
sense of them; and in the second place, the kinds of questions which it defines as key
checkpoints on the road ahead. We address both of these issues in “A postscript and
a prolegomenon”.
References
Bamgbose, A. 1998. Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes
17(1): 1–14.
Bruthiaux, P. 2003. Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2): 159–177.
Canagarajah, S. 2007. The ecology of global English. International Journal of Multicultural

Research 1(2): 89–100.
Cook, V. 1999. Going beyond the native speakers in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2):
185–209.
Dawkins, R. 1988. The blind watchmaker. London: Penguin.
Fasold, R. 1984. The sociolinguistics of society. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kachru, B.B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in
the Outer Circle. In English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures,
ed. R. Quirk and H.G. Widdowson, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2010a. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.). 2010b. The Routledge handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge.
Meyler, M. 2007. A dictionary of Sri Lankan English. Colombo: Meyler.
Mukherjee, J., M. Schilk, and T. Bernaisch. 2010. Compiling the Sri Lankan component of ICE:
Principles, problems, prospects. ICAME Journal 34: 64–77.
Pennycook, A. 2010a. The future of Englishes: One, many, none? In The Routledge handbook of
world Englishes, ed. A. Kirkpatrick, 673–688. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. 2010b. Language as local practice. New York and London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. 2009. Linguistic imperialism continued. New York and London: Routledge.
Saito, H. 1928. Saito’s Japanese-English dictionary. Tokyo: Nichieisha. (Repr. in 2002. Tokyo:
Nichigai Associates).
Saraceni, M. 2010. The relocation of English: Shifting paradigms in a global era. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, L.E. 1978. Some distinctive features of EIL vs. ESOL in english language education.
The Culture Learning Institute report June, 5–7 & 10–11. Also in ed. L.E. Smith, 13–20. (1983).
Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1983. Readings in English as an international language. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Wierzbicka, A. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Chapter 2
World Englishes and Asian Englishes:
A survey of the field
Kingsley Bolton
2.1 Introduction
This chapter sets out to provide a survey of key issues relating to the study of
English as an international language in the Asian context with particular reference
to world Englishes (“WE”), and English in the Asian region. This includes a
discussion of various perspectives on English worldwide, an examination of current
debates on world Englishes, a discussion of the dynamics of Asian Englishes, and a
consideration of questions relating to language education in the region.
2.2 From International English to World Englishes
Over the last three decades or so, the term “world Englishes” (WE) has been widely
used to refer to localised forms of English found throughout the world, particularly
in the Caribbean, parts of Africa, and many societies in Asia. Prior to the 1980s,
discussions of English worldwide typically employed a normative lexicon that
rested on the distinction between “native speaker” and “non-native speaker”, resulting
in such categories of description as English as a Native Language (ENL), English
as a Second Language (ESL), English as a Foreign Language (EFL), and English
as an International Language (EIL).
In fact, current debates about the status, functions, and features of varieties of
English around the world date back to the mid-1960s, and, most famously,
to the work of Halliday, McIntosh and Strevens, who at that time were given to
assert that:
K. Bolton (*)
Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong,
People’s Republic of China
e-mail: kingsley.bolton@cityu.edu.hk

14 K. Bolton
English is no longer the possession of the British, or even the British and the Americans,
but an international language which increasing numbers of people adopt for at least
some of their purposes. […] In West Africa, in the West Indies, and in Pakistan and India
[…] it is no longer accepted by the majority that the English of England, with RP as its
accent, are the only possible models of English to be set before the young […] this one
language, English, exists in an increasingly large number of different varieties. (Halliday
et al. 1964, p. 293)
Some 12 years later, Larry Smith described English as “an international auxiliary
language”, and then arguing that it was “time to stop calling it a foreign language or
second language”, suggesting instead the term “EIAL” (English as an International
Auxiliary Language) which, he asserted, “more accurately reflects the present state
of English language usage around the globe” (Smith 1976, p. 39). Since then, from
the early 1980s onwards, the work of Braj Kachru, Larry Smith and many other
scholars has contributed to a major paradigm shift in English studies. Over this
period, there has been a growing recognition of “Englishes” in the plural, as in
“varieties of English”, “international Englishes”, “new Englishes”, “English lan-
guages” and “world Englishes”. Of all these designations, arguably the most popu-
lar term currently in the literature is that of “world Englishes” (WE), and the last
three decades have seen the rise of this area as a site for scholarly research and pub-
lication, with three major academic journals—English Today, English World-Wide,
and World Englishes—specialising in such studies, as well as numerous book-length
studies dealing with research in this area. Interest in the diverse forms and functions
of so-called “new Englishes” throughout the world has been paralleled by a related
interest in new literatures in English, particularly from writers originally from
former British colonies, such as V. S. Naipaul (from Trinidad), Michael Ondaatje
(Sri Lanka), Timothy Mo (Hong Kong), Ben Okri and Wole Soyinka (Nigeria),
Arundhati Roy (India), Salman Rushdie (India), and Derek Walcott (Saint Lucia).
The term “world Englishes” may be understood as having both a narrower and a
wider application. The narrow application of the term refers to schools of thought
closely associated with the approach to the study of English worldwide pioneered
by Professor Braj B. Kachru and a group of closely-related scholars. The wider
application of the concept subsumes many different approaches to the study of
English worldwide (including varieties-based studies) ranging from the Celtic
Englishes of Britain, through diverse varieties in the USA, Australia, New Zealand,
and Africa to English in Europe and Asia, as well as the study of discourse and
genre in those contexts where English is regarded as a second or foreign language.
Elsewhere, I have pointed out that research on world Englishes in the widest sense
includes at least a dozen distinct approaches including those of English studies,
corpus linguistics, the sociology of language, features-based and dialectological
studies, pidgin and creole research, “Kachruvian” linguistics, lexicographical
approaches, popular accounts, critical linguistics, and futurological approaches
(Bolton 2004, 2006). To this list, we might now add current work on English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF), a recently-emergent approach to English as an international
language, which is now proving particularly popular in Europe (Bolton 2011).
These approaches are illustrated in Table 2.1 below.
2 World Englishes and Asian Englishes: A survey of the field 15
Table 2.1 Approaches to world Englishes

Approach Focus Timeline
English studies The analysis of varieties of English from a synchronic 1960s–present
and historical perspective, against a tradition of
English Studies (Anglistik), dating from the late
nineteenth century, e.g. the work of Otto Jespersen,
Daniel Jones, and Henry Sweet.
English corpus The accurate and detailed linguistic descriptions of 1990–present
linguistics world Englishes from a features perspective.
The sociology Research on English in relation to such issues as language 1960s–present
of language maintenance/shift, and ethnolinguistic identity.
“Features-based” The description of English through dialectological and 1980s–present
approaches variationist methodologies. Situated against the long
tradition of British and European dialectology.
Kachruvian The promotion of a pluricentric approach to world 1980s–present
studies Englishes, highlighting both the “sociolinguistic
realities” and “bilingual creativity” of Outer Circle
(and Expanding Circle) societies.
Pidgin and creole The description and analysis of “mixed” languages and 1930s–present
studies the dynamics of linguistic hybridisation (beginning
with the early work of Hugo Schuchardt
1842–1927).
Applied linguistics The exploration of the implications of world Englishes 1960s–present
for language learning and teaching.
Lexicography The codification of vocabularies of English worldwide, 1980s–present
linked to particular post-colonial societies and
issues of linguistic autonomy.
Popularisers The publication of books on English worldwide aimed 1980s–1990s
at a mass reading public.
Critical linguistics The expression of resistance to the linguistic imperialism 1990s–present
and cultural hegemony of English, in tandem with
resistance to Anglo-American political power.
Linguistic The discussion of future scenarios for the spread of 1997–present
futurology English and English language teaching worldwide.
English as a An approach to international English focusing on those Late 1990s–
Lingua Franca contexts, e.g. universities and international present
businesses, where English is used as a common
language by speakers of many different nationalities.
As early as the 1960s, the English studies approach was associated with such
scholars as Randolph Quirk and others active at the Survey of English Usage
at University College London, including David Crystal and Sidney Greenbaum.
The work of such UK-based scholars was complemented by the research and
publications of a number of German scholars including Manfred Görlach and
Edgar Schneider, as well as that of work in corpus linguistics, which again is closely
associated with an English studies approach, as in the work of Greenbaum (1996),
Nelson et al. (2002), and others.
16 K. Bolton
Sociolinguistic approaches to world Englishes have included (i) “the sociology

of language” (Fishman et al. 1996); (ii) the “linguistic features” (and dialectological)
approach (Trudgill and Hannah 1982, etc.); (iii) pidgin and creole studies; and
(iv) “socially-realistic” studies of world Englishes (B. B. Kachru 1992). The use of
the term “world Englishes” to refer to a distinct approach to this subject is most
closely associated with the work of Braj Kachru. Indeed, the origin of the term
“world Englishes” can be located in the two conferences on English as a world lan-
guage that took place in 1978, one in April at the East-West Center in Hawaii, and
the second in June-July at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Braj
Kachru and Larry Smith played a major role in both conferences. Throughout the
1980s, other conferences were organised through the auspices of such organisations
as IATEFL, TESOL, the Georgetown University Round Table, and the East-West
Center, so that by the mid-1980s “world Englishes” had emerged as a distinct area
of study. A key theoretical and methodological tenet of the Kachruvian perspective
was that the earlier three-fold distinction between ENL, ESL, and EFL was ideo-
logically loaded and intellectually flawed, and instead adopted an approach that
categorised varieties of English in terms of a three-fold distinction between the
Inner Circle (UK, US, Australia, etc.), Outer Circle (Nigeria, India, Philippines,
etc.), and Expanding Circle (Brazil, Germany, China, etc.).
By the mid-1980s, a number of popular works intended for a general reading
audience began to appear, including publications by Crystal (1997, 2004). Critical
approaches were particularly stimulated by Phillipson’s landmark Linguistic impe-
rialism (1992), which encouraged a strong interest in the politics of English, and has
also informed the work of a generation of other critical scholars. The futurology
perspective is best represented in research reports from Graddol (1997, 2006).
Recent summaries of approaches to world Englishes include Bolton (2004, 2006),
Y. Kachru and Nelson (2006), and Y. Kachru and Smith (2008). From the late 1990s,
linguists began to look at the increasing use of English within the Expanding Circle
context of Europe, where English was quickly spreading as the common language
of international university education and international business. It is in this context
that English as an international language begins to be redefined as English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF). Foundational work in this area includes Seidlhofer (2001),
Jenkins (2007), and Mauranen and Ranta (2009).
2.3 Current Debates on World Englishes
Since the 1980s, a pluricentric and pluralistic approach to the Englishes or English
languages of the world has become so well-established that this now constitutes
something of an orthodoxy in contemporary English language studies and socio-
linguistics. So much so, perhaps, that various linguists have begun to question or
at least problematise various aspects of the world Englishes approach to English
language studies and applied linguistics.
One continuing source of debate in this area comes from scholars committed
to the analysis of “linguistic imperialism”, an area of discussion of key concern
to many concerned with the continuing spread of English, and its potential as a
“killer language” threatening cultural and linguistic diversity. The founding
document in this arena, Robert Phillipson’s (1992) Linguistic imperialism, was a
landmark publication, which subsequently politicised the debate on world
Englishes and related issues. At the centre of Phillipson’s theoretical approach to
“linguistic imperialism” are a series of arguments about the political relations
between the “core English-speaking countries” (Britain, the USA, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand) and the “periphery-English countries” where English
either has the status of a second language (e.g. Nigeria, India, Singapore), or is a
foreign and “international link language” (e.g. Scandinavia, Japan) (1992, p. 17).
The nature of this relationship, Phillipson argues, is one of structural and systemic
inequality, in which the political and economic hegemony of western Anglophone
powers is established or maintained over scores of developing nations, particu-
larly those formerly colonies of European powers, contributing to a form of
“English linguistic imperialism”, where “the dominance of English is asserted
and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural
and cultural inequalities between English and other languages” (1992, p. 47,
original emphasis).
Phillipson’s voice in the early 1990s was original and persuasive and has sub-
sequently influenced the work of many others, including, to some extent, such
applied linguists as Canagarajah (1999), Pennycook (1994, 2001), and many others.
While Phillipson’s perspective was uncritical of the world Englishes approach at
first, his attitude seems to have changed somewhat in recent years. By 2009,
Phillipson was maintaining that “global English” was a “capitalist neoimperial
language that serves the interests of the corporate world and the governments that it
influences”, and was asserting that, in this context, “[t]here are serious theoretical
and empirical weaknesses in the way world Englishes are classified and analyzed”
(Phillipson 2009, p. 132, pp. 164–5). In the same year, in an interview, Phillipson
further commented that “[m]ost work on World Englishes in the Kachruvian sense
is purely descriptive, and an over-simplification of the complexity of the sociolin-
guistics of English in multilingual settings” (Phillipson 2010). Comments in similar
vein have also been voiced by Pennycook (2001), charging that the world Englishes
paradigm has been politically naïve in its application (see also Bolton 2005).
Other criticisms of the WE approach have been penned by such linguists as
Bruthiaux (2003) and Saraceni (2010). The criticisms of both these authors have
largely focused on the “circles of English” model of the Kachruvian approach, with
Bruthiaux describing this as “largely monolithic and standardized”, and also ques-
tioning the validity of the Expanding Circle concept, as “it is not always clear
whether the concept is meant to cover countries, country-based varieties, speakers,
or non- (or barely-) speaking learners” (Bruthiaux 2003, p. 167). In Saraceni’s
recent 2010 book on Relocating English, a similar set of criticisms is voiced, with
the author arguing that the world Englishes approach inadvertently replicates “a
theoretically flawed and ideologically Eurocentric conceptualisation of language”
18 K. Bolton
not least through the use of the term “Inner Circle” to refer to societies such as the
UK, US, etc. where English has historically been the dominant language (Saraceni
2010, p. 81). Ultimately, Saraceni argues that:
This entity that we call English, like all other forms of language, has no ancestral home.
[…] The relocation of English is realised not so much by authorising a plurality of new
Englishes, but by treating English as a language that can carry and share the weight of a
plurality of experiences, worldviews and inner thoughts with a multitude of groups and
individuals who are willing to take part in the sharing. (Saraceni 2010, p. 143)
In my own view, in defence of the WE paradigm, I would argue that both

Bruthiaux’s and Saraceni’s perspectives can be accommodated by world Englishes,
through its typically inclusive approach to English worldwide. Indeed, as I have
argued elsewhere, it is the inclusivity and pluralism of the world Englishes perspec-
tive that many of us in this field find most attractive. A typical straw man in discus-
sions in this area is that of a WE approach wedded inextricably to the “three circles”
or to a narrow “features-based” approach to geographical varieties, but a fairly sim-
ple examination of scholarship in this field demonstrates that this is far from the case
(Bolton and Davis 2006). In fact, an examination of the content of the World Englishes
journal in the 20 years from 1985 to 2005 shows that only a minority of articles focus
predominantly on linguistic features (9.4%) or areal studies (11.4%), with most space
in the journal given over to a wide variety of topics ranging from discourse analysis
to the sociology of language, from applied linguistics to contact linguistics, from
critical linguistics to bilingual creativity, and much else. Here, I would argue that the
WE approach if anything is dynamic, and is willing to change and develop in pace
with the changing sociolinguistic realities of the field, and to accommodate and
benefit from new perspectives in scholarship. Indeed I would see this as a crucial
element of the ethos of world Englishes, as I have discussed elsewhere (Bolton 2005).
In the next section, I proceed to address the relevance of the world Englishes approach
to the Asian region, and issues related to Asian Englishes.
2.4 English Across Asia
The contemporary importance of English throughout the Asian region, coupled

with the emergence and recognition of distinct varieties of Asian Englishes, has
played an important part in the global story of English in recent years. The numbers
of people having at least some knowledge of the language have grown remarkably
over the last 40 years in the Asian region, which for our purposes here may be
defined as including the countries of South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia.
It is in these regions that we find not only the greatest concentration of “Outer Circle”
English-using societies, but also a number of the most populous English-learning
and English-knowing nations in the world.
A basic distinction in the world Englishes approach is the dichotomy between
“Outer Circle” English-using societies where English is a second language with
important intranational uses, and “Expanding Circle” countries, where the language
has traditionally had the status of a foreign or international language. The major
Outer Circle Asian societies thus include such South Asian nations as Bangladesh,
Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka; Southeast Asian societies such as
Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore; as well as Hong Kong in East
Asia. Historically, all the Outer Circle Asian societies are former colonies of
Anglophone colonial powers. These are typically former British colonies, as in the
case of Brunei, Hong Kong, greater India, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Singapore, most
of whom achieved independence between 1947 and 1963, although it was not until
1997 that China regained sovereignty over Hong Kong. The one US colony in Asia
was the Philippines, which was under Spanish colonial rule from c. 1565 until 1898,
followed by American control until 1946.
In most of the Outer Circle societies, English has been retained for important
internal purposes after independence, and in most Outer Circle countries there is a
de jure recognition of English in domains such as government, law, and education.
English is typically widely used throughout the mass media, as in Hong Kong,
India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore, which all have a lively daily press,
and, to varying extents, a local English literary tradition in fiction, poetry, and other
genres of creative writing. In addition to print media, such societies often have
English-language radio and television channels on offer, as in Hong Kong, Singapore
and the Philippines. Such societies are also characterised by the functional differen-
tiation of indigenous languages and English, coupled with a high frequency of code-
switching and code-mixing in informal and intimate domains. The map in Fig. 2.1
illustrates the distinction between Outer Circle and Expanding Circle societies.
The statistics of English worldwide is an inexact science (Chap. 9 by Pennycook,
this volume), and this is also true of Asia, where the rapid spread of English through
education systems has been quite remarkable in recent years. In some societies, e.g.
Hong Kong and Singapore, census and survey figures may be available, but in many
other parts of the region estimates of English speakers may vary greatly, as is the
case for India, where estimates of the English-knowing population have diverged
enormously in recent years. As Crystal has noted, in the 1980s, estimates of the
percentage of English speakers hovered around 3%, but today, according to at least
one national survey, around 33% of people claim to be able to hold a basic conversa-
tion in the language, which would indicate a total number of English speakers at
around 350 million. India thus has the largest English-speaking population in the
world (Crystal 2004). Other linguists would calculate a somewhat smaller propor-
tion of English speakers in the country, suggesting an estimate of some 15%,
although again, this could only be regarded as a rough “guesstimate”, given the
difficulties in collecting accurate data (Graddol, personal communication). However,
even if we take the lower estimate, this would still result in a figure of 175 million
English speakers in India.
Another emergent English-knowing – or English-learning – society in Asia is
China. In 1957, at a time when Russian was the major foreign language in schools,
there were fewer than 1,000 secondary-school English teachers, but by 2000 this
figure had risen to 500,000 (Adamson 2004). By 2003, the overall estimate for
20 K. Bolton
Fig. 2.1 Outer circle and Expanding circle societies in South, Southeast, and East Asia
English teachers at all levels was around one million, while the total of those
learning/knowing English was thought to be around 250 million (McArthur 2003).
The current story of English in China is one of astonishing proportions, demograph-
ically, statistically and sociolinguistically (Bolton 2003). Based on survey informa-
tion and related estimates, other societies with relatively sizable English-speaking
populations include Singapore (with around 50% of the population claiming to
know English), the Philippines (48%), Hong Kong (45%), Brunei (39%), and
Malaysia (32%). However, yet again it has to be emphasised these are broad and
somewhat inexact estimates only (Bolton 2008).
Whatever the shortcomings of such statistics, however, these numbers do high-
light the astonishing spread of English over recent decades, particularly in the
latter half of the twentieth century, following the independence of British and US
colonies in the region. Today, it has been calculated that more than 800 million
people in South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia may have some knowledge of
the English language (Bolton 2008). As in many other parts of the world, the spread
of English across Asia has been shaped by a number of related economic and
social factors, including demographics, economic change, and educational trends
(Graddol 2006).
At the level of population, many Asian societies have very large populations,
including China with 1.3 billion people, India with 1 billion, Indonesia with 238 million,
Pakistan 159 million, and Bangladesh 141 million. Population growth is set to rise
in the near future, with India expected to reach 1.6 billion by 2050, compared with
1.4 billion for China and 308 million for Indonesia (Al Tamimi 2006). When it
comes to economic change and development, both China and India have been major
success stories over the last decade or so, with both societies now achieving high
rates of economic growth, in the region of 8–10% per year. However, while some
Asian societies, including Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and South Korea, have
achieved remarkable economic success, other societies in the region remain desper-
ately poor, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, and Pakistan. Despite this, in
the richer societies of the region there has been massive social change in recent
decades, with the spread of English in Asia linked to the emergence and growth of
sizable middle classes throughout a number of Asian countries. In India it is esti-
mated that income levels will rise by 300% over the next 20 years, lifting 291 million
Indians out of poverty, “to create a 583 million-strong middle-class population by
2025” (Asia Times, June 1, 2007). Similarly, in China, a recent study from the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences estimated the middle class to comprise 19%
of the population in 2003, which accounts for some 247 million people. It is
estimated that “300 million, or 40% of the Chinese population [would] be in the
middle class by 2020” (PBS, January 11, 2006).
It is almost certain that this new Asian middle class will wish its children to
speak English. Within Asian school systems, children are now beginning to learn
English from the lowest forms of primary school onwards. In 2001, English was
made compulsory in all Chinese primary schools, and a number of Indian states
have established similar systems. In Asia, as in other parts of the world, the trend is
that children are learning English at an ever earlier age. According to Graddol, the
result of this will be that in Asian schools English will no longer be a “foreign lan-
guage”, but instead will become a “near universal basic skill” (2006, p. 72). However,
while such a scenario may hold good for the richer Asian societies, it remains to be
seen whether English can be a boon to the poorer countries of the region. There may
be links between economic prosperity, the growth of the Asian middle classes and
the spread of English, but the extent to which the Asian disadvantaged and poor
might gain access to English, or benefit from English education, at present remains
unclear, to say the least.
2.5 Asian Englishes
One of the major contributions of scholarship in world Englishes over the last
30 years has been to highlight the existence and vitality of localised forms of English
throughout the Asian region. Today it has become almost commonplace to refer to
Indian English, Malaysian English, Philippine English, Singapore English, and
Hong Kong English, as distinct varieties of the language. At a linguistic level, the
study of individual varieties of English typically involves a description of distinctive
features at the levels of phonology, vocabulary, and grammar, and much work in this
22 K. Bolton
field has been concerned with establishing a solid descriptive framework for this
task. A related, and complementary, task has been to study and describe the “socio-
linguistic realities” underpinning distinct varieties, in terms of their sociolinguistic
histories, as well as a description of the status and functions of English within Outer
Circle Asian communities, not least in relation to local hierarchies of language.
The most detailed studies of Asian Englishes have focused on such postcolonial
societies as India, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines, thus contributing over the
past three decades to a sizable body of description, although very recent work has
also included Hong Kong and varieties of Chinese English. At a linguistic level, much
of the descriptive work here has been concerned to identify and to highlight the
distinctive features of individual varieties in terms of phonology (accent), lexis
(vocabulary) and grammar (morphology and syntax). This has recently been aided
by the availability of comparable Asian English corpora through the International
Corpus of English project (Greenbaum & Nelson, 1996). The outcome of this research
has been the increasingly-detailed description of the accents, word stock and grammars
of individual Asian Englishes, in terms of both substrate as well as developmental
features (Kortmann and Schneider 2004; Burridge and Kortmann 2008, etc.).
In addition to linguistic features which are held to be distinctive for (if not unique
to) particular Outer Circle societies, most visibly at the level of vocabulary, there are
also patterns of “structural nativisation” that are found across a number of Outer
Circle Asian societies. At the level of phonology, these include the lack of distinc-
tion between long and short vowels, the realisation of diphthongs as monophthongs,
a reduction of vowel contrasts, consonant-cluster reduction, and the use of syllable-
timed stress and intonation (Schneider 2007). At the level of grammar, features that
appear in a number of Asian varieties include the lack of plural marking; omission
of third-person singular -s; use of invariant question tags (isn’t it); the weakening of
the count/mass distinction with nouns (as in equipments, furnitures, etc.); and
inverted word order in indirect questions. Linguistically-oriented research on Asian
Englishes thus has an excellent potential to extend our understanding of a range of
linguistic processes associated with language contact, multilingualism and second-
language acquisition.
In addition, the potential for continuing research on English across Asia is con-
siderable, given the multiple sociolinguistic roles for the language across the region.
In addition to studies of English in individual Outer Circle Asian societies, such as
those mentioned above, there are interesting issues concerning the status, functions
and features of English across a swathe of lesser-researched (Expanding Circle)
societies, including Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam,
etc. There are also pan-Asian issues relating to the use English in such domains as
education, the media, literature and popular culture that cut across the region. It was
largely in response to the need for detailed research on such issues that I founded the
book series Asian Englishes Today, which thus far has published five books on
English in particular Asian societies (Bolton 2002 on Hong Kong; Stanlaw 2004 on
Japan; Adamson 2004 on China; Bolton and Bautista 2008 on the Philippines; and
Lim et al. 2010 on Singapore), two volumes dealing with Asian Englishes from a
wider sociolinguistic perspective (B. Kachru 2004, Y. Kachru and Nelson 2006), as
well as a recent volume on English as an Asian lingua franca (Kirkpatrick 2010).
Such publications, it should be emphasised, are not simply, nor largely, concerned
with the description of linguistic features as such, but cover a wide range of topics,
including educational practices, current debates, language policies, creative litera-
ture and much else. Given the growing importance of English in Asia, and the
significance of a host of issues relating to language policies, language education,
linguistic contact, and much else, it seems certain that such questions will continue
to provide a rich field for research and publications for many years to come.
2.6 English and Language Education Across Asia
Notwithstanding the remarkable spread of English across Asia, and the related
development of localised varieties of Asian Englishes in recent years, it would be
misleading to regard this as an unqualified success story. Unfortunately, the perceived
currency of English as a language of modernisation and economic advancement has
been so attractive to governments and educational authorities that the language has
often been promoted in an unthinking and potentially harmful fashion.
Recent examples of this, in Outer Circle societies, can be found in both Malaysia
and the Philippines, where in the early 2000s, for different reasons, both govern-
ments decided to push for an increased emphasis on English in the national school
curricula. In the case of Malaysia, this led in 2002 to the decision of the Mahathir
government to argue that English should be the sole medium of instruction for
mathematics and science instruction in secondary schools. This decision was dra-
matically reversed under a new government in 2009, on the grounds that the new
system was greatly disadvantaging children from lower socio-economic and rural
backgrounds (Kirkpatrick 2010, p. 27; Chap. 4 by Gill, this volume). In the case of
the Philippines, the burgeoning success story of the call centre industry and BPO
(“business process outsourcing”) enterprises encouraged the previous government
under President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to call for the promotion of English-
medium education to the potential detriment of bilingual education. Under the new
government of Benigno Acquino, this policy is now being re-evaluated, and the
government is currently experimenting with a new system of multilingual educa-
tion, which has been designed to recognise the importance of the many regional
vernaculars and the national language, Filipino. In India, similarly, there are
immense problems relating to the use of English as an official language of education
at many levels of education, in this enormously diverse and populous nation (Graddol
2010). In Hong Kong, by contrast, since 1997, the official policy of the government
has been to place increased emphasis on Chinese-medium education. This policy
has met with a good deal of opposition from parents and schools, and, it is often
claimed, is now leading to palpable problems at the tertiary level, where thousands
of students are now arriving in the territory’s largely English-medium universities
with an inadequate command of the necessary skills in the language. Related prob-
lems also exist in a number of Expanding Circle societies in the region, and both
China and South Korea are currently experiencing an English “craze” that, in both
24 K. Bolton
societies, has tended to occlude or undermine other educational and curricular

concerns. Indeed, across the whole region, there is concern that the over-emphasis
on English in the school curriculum will inevitably lead to an undervaluing of local
and regional languages.
As Kirkpatrick (2010) has pointed out, this concern is particularly relevant to the
ten societies who are now members of the ASEAN economic and political associa-
tion, which includes Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Despite the fact that these countries
are culturally and linguistically diverse, and home to some one thousand languages,
the language policies of virtually all these societies have become skewed towards
the promotion of national languages domestically plus English. The ASEAN Charter
which was ratified in 2009 declared that “the working language of ASEAN shall be
English”, by definition according no similar status to any other of the languages of
the region. This decision, it may be noted, is in distinct contrast to the language
policy of the European Union, which recognises twenty-three official working lan-
guages (Kirkpatrick 2010, p. 7). The challenge for language educators, as Kirkpatrick
explains, is to balance the perceived need and demand for English in such Asian
societies against the needs of education systems in multilingual societies, where the
sociolinguistic realities contribute to highly complex contexts of education, where
an unreflective push for English may be an important factor in undermining more
considered approaches to providing genuine bilingual, or multilingual, education.
2.7 Conclusion
This chapter has attempted to survey a range of issues relating to English across
Asia and as well as approaches to Asian Englishes as localised varieties of English.
Although the current emphasis on the importance of English in Asian education
systems may be explained by reference to a number of historical, economic and
educational factors linked to Asian modernity and the upward aspirations of the
growing Asian middle class, it is salutary to consider that educationally and linguis-
tically the promotion of English comes at a certain cost. The challenge for language
education in the region is to consider critically how English is best taught and best
used for pedagogical purposes, within complex multilingual education systems, an
issue requiring sensitivity to local issues and the specific sociolinguistic contexts of
diverse societies in the Asian region.
References
Adamson, B. 2004. China’s English: A history of English in Chinese education. Hong Kong:
Al Tamimi, J. 2006. Too many old, too many young. Daniel Pearl Foundation, December 3, 2006.
http://www.danielpearl.org /news_ and _ press/articles/too_many.html. Accessed June 2011.
Asia Times. 2007. India’s middle class takes wing. Article by Indrajit Basu. June 1, 2007.
Online at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IF01Df04.html. Accessed June 2011.
Bolton, K. (ed.). 2002. Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Bolton, K. 2003. Chinese Englishes: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bolton, K. 2004. World Englishes. In The handbook of applied linguistics, ed. A. Davies and C. Elder,
367–420. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bolton, K. 2006. World Englishes today. In The handbook of world Englishes, ed. B.B. Kachru,
Y. Kachru, and C.L. Nelson, 240–269. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bolton, K. 2005. Where WE stands: Approaches, issues and debate in world Englishes. World
Englishes 24(1): 69–83.
Bolton, K. 2008. English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today
24(2): 3–12.
Bolton, K., and M.L.S. Bautista. 2008. Philippine English: Linguistic and literary perspectives.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Bolton, K., and D. Davis. 2006. A content analysis of World Englishes. World Englishes 25(1):
5–6.
Bolton, K. 2011. World Englishes, Asian Englishes, and English as a Lingua Franca. Invited
opening keynote at “The fourth international conference of English as a Lingua Franca”.
Hong Kong Institute of Education, 26 May 2011.
Burridge, K., and B. Kortmann. 2008. Varieties of English, vol. 3. Berlin, New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Canagarajah, A.S. 1999. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Crystal, D. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. 2004. Subcontinent raises its voice. Guardian Weekly, November 19, 2004. Available
online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/nov/19/tefl. Accessed June 2011.
Fishman, J.A., A.W. Conrad, and A. Rubal-Lopez (eds.). 1996. Post-imperial English. Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Graddol, D. 1997. The future of English? London: The British Council.
Graddol, D. 2006. English next. London: The British Council.
Graddol, D. 2010. English next India: The future of English in India. London: The British
Council.
Greenbaum, S. (ed.). 1996. Comparing English worldwide. Oxford: Clarendon.
Greenbaum, S., and G. Nelson. 1996. The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World
Englishes 15(1): 3–5.
Halliday, M.A.K., A. MacIntosh, and P. Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language
teaching. London: Longmans.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kachru, B.B. 1992. World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching 25:
1–14.
Kachru, B.B. 2004. Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Kachru, Y., and C. Nelson. 2006. World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Kachru, Y., and L.E. Smith. 2008. Cultures, contexts and World Englishes. Abingdon, New York:
Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. Asian Englishes today: English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual
model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
26 K. Bolton
Kortmann, B., and Schneider, E.W. 2004. A handbook of varieties of English, vols 1 and 2. Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lim, L., Anne P., and Wee, L. (eds.). 2010. English in Singapore: World language and lingua
franca. (Asian Englishes Today). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Mauranen, A., and E. Ranta. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
McArthur, T. 2003. English as an Asian language. English Today 19(2): 19–22.
Nelson, G., S. Wallis, and B. Aarts. 2002. Exploring natural language: Working with the British
component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
PBS. 2006. China: New middle class January 11, 2006. Online at http://www.pbs.org/ nbr/site/.
Accessed June 2011.
Pennycook, A. 1994. The cultural politics of English as an international language. London:
Longman.
Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical applied linguistics. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. 2010. Interview. http://nnesintesol.blogspot.com/2009/07/robert-phillipson. html.
Accessed June 2011.
Phillipson, R. 2009. Linguistic imperialism continued. New York and London: Routledge.
Saraceni, M. 2010. The relocation of English: Shifting paradigms in a global era. Houndmills:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Schneider, E.W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua
franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 22(2): 133–158.
Smith, L.E. 1976. English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal 7: 38–42.
Stanlaw, J. 2004. Japanese English: Language and culture contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Trudgill, P., and J. Hannah. 1982. International English: A guide to varieties of Standard English.
London: Arnold.
Part I
Education
Chapter 3
English as an International Language in Asia:
Implications for language education
Andy Kirkpatrick
3.1 Introduction
In February 2009, the ten countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) signed the ASEAN Charter. Before the signing of the Charter, English
had been the de facto official working language of the group (Krasnick 1995).
The position of English as the official working language became formalised,
however, with the signing of the Charter, Article 34 of which reads: “The working
language of ASEAN shall be English”.
In this chapter I want to explore the implications of the privileged position of
English throughout ASEAN with regard to two interrelated issues. The first issue
concerns the implications of the increasing roles of English within ASEAN for the
teaching of English. The second issue concerns the implications of the increased
teaching and learning of English for the teaching, learning and maintenance of
local languages, many of which are classified as endangered. Reliable numbers
of endangered languages are, however, notoriously difficult to obtain. For example,
figures for endangered languages in Southeast Asia vary from 145 to 171. While
these fi gures vary, they do show that there is no doubt that many languages
are endangered (Bradley 2011, p. 68). A major reason for this is the regional focus
on teaching the respective national language and English at the expense of local
languages.
I shall also suggest that the current moves to introduce English earlier and
earlier into the primary curriculum, while perfectly understandable from policy and
parental points of view, are likely to be inimical, not only to the maintenance of local
languages, but also, paradoxically, to the development of English proficiency itself.
As I shall show, the current policies, while well-meaning, lead to high primary
A. Kirkpatrick (*)
School of Languages and Linguistics, Griffith University,

30 A. Kirkpatrick
school drop-out rates and very low levels of English language proficiency. I shall
argue that, rather than introducing English at an early stage into the primary curriculum,
a primary school’s languages of education should be local and national language(s).
English should be delayed until children have literacy and fluency in local languages.
I shall propose that, by introducing English later into the curriculum and by adopting
what I shall call a “lingua franca approach” to English language teaching, children
may not only graduate from secondary school bilingual in a local and the national
language, but they also leave with functional English proficiency. Focusing on
local languages in the early years of primary and delaying English, while adopting
a “lingua franca approach” to teaching the language, has the potential of providing
a win-win solution for all.
After a few general comments on ASEAN as a whole, I then discuss Indonesia
as a case study, before describing the situation regarding the teaching of English and
other languages in a selection of ASEAN states (cf. Kirkpatrick 2012a). I shall then
propose the “lingua franca approach” to the teaching of English (cf. Kirkpatrick
2012b).
3.2 ASEAN: A Brief Background
ASEAN was first established with the signing of the Bangkok Declaration of
1967. There were only five founding states, namely: Indonesia, Malaysia, The
Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. ASEAN was founded at a time of political
uncertainly at the height, for example, of the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the
Vietnam War.
The Bangkok Declaration itself covers but two pages of text and makes no
mention of languages or cultures in any of the itemised seven aims and purposes.
Over the next 30 years or so, five more nations joined ASEAN. In order of their
joining, these were Brunei (1984), Vietnam (1995), Laos and Burma (1997) and
Cambodia (1999). Unlike the Bangkok Declaration, the 2009 ASEAN Charter does
make mention of languages and cultures. As we have seen, Article 34 enshrines
English as the sole working language. Article 1 of the Charter lists 15 “purposes”.
The fourteenth reads, “To promote an ASEAN identity through the fostering of
greater awareness of the diverse culture and heritage of the region”. Article 2 lists
14 principles of which “respect for the different languages of the peoples of ASEAN”
is one. There is, however, no official plan or policy which illustrates how this might
be done. The attempt to forge a common ASEAN identity, while at the same time
respecting different languages and cultures, provides ASEAN with a complex and
possibly contradictory task. As will be argued below, the privileging of English and the
respective national languages of ASEAN is already leading to the exclusion of local
languages from education. It may be that English will need to be the conduit through
which ASEAN peoples learn about each others’ cultures, and I return to this below.
It is hard to give precise figures for the numbers of languages and cultures which
can be found within the boundaries of ASEAN. It is characterised by linguistic and
3 English as an International Language in Asia: Implications for language education 31
cultural diversity, with more than 1,000 languages spoken across the region.
Indonesia is the most linguistically and culturally diverse of the ten countries, and
I next turn to consider the situation with regard the teaching of English and other
languages there.
3.3 Indonesia
With a population of around 230 million Indonesia is ASEAN’s most populous

country and the largest Muslim nation in the world. There are more than 700 lan-
guages spoken (726 according to latest Ethnologue figures by more than 400 ethnic
groups). Although Javanese is the language with the most native speakers (some 75
million), this was not chosen as the national language for reasons which include that
it would further privilege an already powerful group, and because Javanese marks
hierarchy in linguistically complex ways. Indonesians wanted a more “democratic”
language as their national language. Other languages with many speakers such as
Sundanese (34 million) were also ignored. In the end, Malay was chosen, a language
which, at the time of its official adoption as the national language in the Constitution
of 1945, had native speakers who comprised less than 5% of the population.
The success of Malay (or Bahasa Indonesia [BI] as it was renamed) has
been remarkable. Not only has the number of speakers of BI as a first language
increased to more than 30% (Montolalu and Suryadinata 2007), but the numbers of
Indonesians who have some knowledge of BI has now reached more than 200
million (Hamied 2011).
The effect that this has had on some of the other languages of Indonesia is
provided in Table 3.1 (adapted from Montolalu and Surydinata 2007, p. 48).
These figures all show a slight percentage decline in the numbers of speakers of
the vernacular languages listed here. Perhaps the most telling statistic is the drop in
the percentage of speakers of “other” languages from 17.11% to 4.57% in the decade
between 1990 and 2000, alongside the rise of speakers of BI from 17.11% to 34%
over the same period.
Article 32 of the Indonesia Constitution aims “to advance the national culture of
Indonesia to cultivate and develop cultural values” and “to respect and cultivate
regional languages as cultural treasures”. This attempt “to advance the national
culture”, while cultivating local languages and “cultural treasures”, echoes the
ASEAN Charter’s aim of creating an ASEAN identity while respecting diverse
cultures. The role of English in ASEAN is somewhat analogous to the role of BI in
Indonesia, as Article 33 of the Indonesia Constitution mandates BI as the language
of instruction, although “foreign” languages can be used to support students with
abilities in the language. It is also potentially contradictory, as the prescription of BI
as the language of instruction will make it hard to cultivate other languages as
“cultural treasures”.
Even though Indonesia is the only ASEAN country which does not make English
a compulsory part of the primary curriculum, parental demand for English in effect
32 A. Kirkpatrick
Table 3.1 Vernacular language speakers in 1980, 1990, 2000

Language 1980 (%) 1990 (%) 2000 (%)
Javanese 40.44 38.08 34.70
Sundanese 15.06 15.26 13.86
Madurese 4.71 4.29 .78
Batak 2.12 1.97 1.91
Minangkabau 2.42 2.23 2.06
Balinese 1.69 1.64 1.42
Buginese 2.26 2.04 1.91
Indonesian (BI) 11.93 17.11 34.00
Others 17.48 17.11 4.57
means that almost all primary schools teach English as a subject. And although
English has been considered the first foreign language since the 1950s, generally
speaking, Indonesian students’ proficiency in English remains low. A recent study
which used the TOEIC test to measure the proficiency levels of Indonesian senior
high school students showed that more than 55% tested as novices, 37% tested as
elementary, and only 5% tested as having even intermediate proficiency in English
(Hamied 2011).
Dardjowidjojo (2000) offers many reasons for this – many of which can be heard
across the other countries of ASEAN – such as a lack of suitably proficient and
trained teachers, a lack of appropriate and relevant materials, and de-motivated stu-
dents, especially in rural areas. Partly in response to this low achievement in English,
the government has recently introduced the system of “International Standard
Schools” (SBI or sekolah bertaraf internasional, to give them their BI name and
acronym) (Hadisantosa 2010) (see also Hamied, this volume).
The International Standard Schools were established in 2007. The official guide-
lines for these schools define them as being schools which fulfil all the national
standards for education, which are:
[…] further enriched by taking into consideration the education standards of one member
nation of the organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and/or
another advanced nation which has particular strengths in education such that it achieves
competitive advantage in the international forum.
These schools do not have to use BI as the medium of instruction. Instead,

English is stressed:
1. English is to be used as the medium of instruction for science, mathematics and core
vocational subjects from year 4 of primary school and throughout junior secondary
school and vocational secondary school.
2. Teachers must possess the competence required to teach their subjects though English.
3. Head teachers must possess active mastery of English.
(Hadisantosa 2010, p 29)
This is an extraordinary document. The definition of “international standard”

seems unworkable in that it would appear to include any country which had
ever achieved “competitive advantage in the international forum”, whatever this
might mean.
The rule that English is to be used as the medium of instruction in maths, science
and core vocational subjects from primary 4 is not rigorously applied, with some
primary schools teaching through English from as early as primary 1 (Hadisantosa
2010). Practice also varies considerably at junior and senior secondary level, “with
some lessons being taught exclusively in English and others in which English is
used merely to open and close lessons while the content is delivered using Bahasa
Indonesia” (Coleman 2011, p. 11).
The eventual aim is for each urban and rural district to have at least one primary,
one junior secondary, one senior secondary, and one vocational secondary
International Standard Schools (ISS) school by 2014. This would mean a total of
2,000 ISS being established by 2014.
Both Hadisantosa (2010) and Coleman (2011) are sceptical about the quality and
role of these schools. As they receive substantial funding from the central and local
governments and are allowed to charge fees, they are wealthy and attract students
from families who can afford to pay. Coleman quotes ISS principals who clearly indi-
cate that the children in their schools are those of the privileged elite. He also quotes
a headmaster “only half jokingly” saying “Our motto is berTARAF internasional dan
berTARIF internasional (international STANDARD and international FEES)” (2011,
p. 9). The ISS schools help the rich get richer and provide no help to the poor.
Hadisantosa is critical of the use of English as a medium of instruction, espe-
cially as many of the maths and science teachers are not trained to teach these
subjects through English. She also points out the crucial point that, once English
comes into the primary curriculum, something has to be removed, and this is often
a local language:
When BI was the only medium of instruction, schools were required to teach the local
language as the local content of the curriculum. But with the emerging and mushrooming
demand for English, schools then drop the local language in order to give more time to the
English teaching. As a result, in the long run, children and the younger generation can no
longer speak the local language. This is culturally and linguistically pitiful.
(Hadisantosa 2010, p. 31)
I have spent some time describing the new ISS, as they reflect what is happening
in many parts of ASEAN. Throughout the region there is the assumption that English
is essential. This is, of course, a major reason why English has been uncritically
adopted as ASEAN’s sole working language. English is assumed to be vital across
a number of fields, including for individual economic and social advancement and
for society’s modernisation and internationalisation. In short, it is assumed that
English is good for the individual and good for the society. And, in the case of
ASEAN, it is good for ASEAN. While it is perfectly possible that in certain con-
texts the acquisition of English can lead to individual advancement and societal
development, there are also many cases where this is not the case. I reported above
that, despite many years of English in schools, many Indonesian students graduate
from senior high schools with very poor proficiency levels in English. Similar results
are reported in many other settings. For example, Searjeant and Erling review
evidence that shows that the majority of Bangladeshi students make little progress
in English through primary and secondary schools in Bangladesh (2011, p. 7).
Ironically, in the same way that the ISS were set up in response to poor English
34 A. Kirkpatrick
achievement in schools, so the project they review, the English in Action (EIA)
project), was also developed in response to this, though by the British Government
and others rather than by the national government, as is the case in Indonesia.
Searjeant and Erling caution against the uncritical assumption of the panacea of
English. They advise that it is necessary
[…] to examine in depth what it means for English to be a language for international
development, and, based on this, consider what concept of English, what variety of English,
and what type of ELT would in practice be productive for such a project. (Searjeant and
Erling 2011, p. 16)
To this I would add there is the equivalent need to consider the need for English
at the level of the individual student. When should the student be introduced to
English, what concept of English, and what variety of English should it be, and in
what contexts is the student likely to use English, and for what purposes? These are
just some of the questions that need to be addressed.
3.4 When Should the Student Be Introduced to English?
Indonesia is unique among the countries of ASEAN in not making English a com-
pulsory subject at primary school, although, as has been shown above, this does not
mean that English is not taught in primary schools. The general ASEAN trend is for
English to be introduced earlier and earlier into the primary curriculum. In Singapore,
English is the medium of instruction for all subjects. Many countries (Brunei,
The Philippines and Malaysia) introduce English at Primary 1. In Brunei and The
Philippines (and until last year, in Malaysia) it is used as the medium of instruction
from Primary 1 to teach maths and science. We have noted above that the Indonesian
ISS also use English as the medium of instruction for maths and science. It is per-
haps worth considering for a moment why governments would consider using
English as a medium of instruction for cognitively demanding subjects such as
maths and science from primary 1, when the great majority of children do not have
anything approaching adequate proficiency in the language to be able to cope with
these subjects in English (not to mention the demand on maths and science teachers
who are required to teach these subjects through English).
This early introduction of English and its use as a medium of instruction probably
stem from the belief in three so-called tenets of language learning. These are:
(i) to learn a second language you must start as early as possible;
(ii) the best way to learn a second language is to use it as a medium of instruction;
(iii) the home language gets in the way of learning a second language.
Benson has described these tenets as “myths” (2008, pp. 2 ff.), and I have elsewhere
(Kirkpatrick 2010; 2008) also critiqued these in some depth. Here, therefore, I shall
only review them briefly. All things being equal, it is probably true to say that young
learners are well-equipped to learn a second language. Research in “natural language
environments” supports the notion of “the earlier the better” (Cenoz 2009, p. 189).
Natural language environments are those in which there is a great deal of natural
exposure to the target language. This, however, as Cenoz points out, is quite different
from a school setting in which “exposure to the language is limited to the school
context and usually to a very limited number of hours per week” (2009, p. 191).
We must also remember that in many ASEAN settings, children are multilingual
and have been learning languages from birth in natural language environments.
To take a typical example from the Philippines, a child will have the local language
as the mother tongue and a regional lingua franca as the second language. Unless
the child lives in or around Manila, the regional lingua franca will not be Tagalog/
Filipino, but another lingua franca such as Cebuano or Illocano. The Philippines
Bilingual Education Policy requires that English and Maths be taught in English
from Primary 1, and that other subjects be taught in the national language, Filipino,
which is, in effect, Tagalog with extras (Gonzalez 1996). When that child goes to
school s/he not only therefore has to learn English and Maths through English, but
will also have to learn the other subjects through Filipino. In other words, the
languages used as media of instruction in school may well be the child’s third and
fourth languages. So we have to be careful when we say “to learn a second language
you must start as early as possible”. In many ASEAN settings, English may well be
the third or fourth language, and I argue that it is far better for the child to acquire
proficiency and literacy in the local languages before being asked to learn English.
I also argue that it is much better if that child is able to learn content subjects through
the local languages, as this will help the acquisition of literacy and fluency in those
languages. Using local languages as the languages of education also gives those
languages prestige and helps to maintain them. As Coleman points out, “A very
effective way of killing a language is to deny it any place in the education system”
(2010, p. 17).
The results of studies which indicated that the use of the mother tongue in
the early years of primary school saw students perform better across the board
(e.g., Walker and Dekker 2008; Quijano and Eustaquio 2009) has led the Philippines
government to relax the strict bilingual education policy and to allow the use of
the mother-tongue as a medium of instruction in the early years of primary school.
In 2009 it issued the order Institutionalizing Mother Tongue-based Multilingual
Education (http://mothertongue-based.blogspot.com). This is an encouraging sign,
but it is too early to report on the extent to which the mother tongue is being used
as a language of education. A second encouraging sign for supporters of mother-
tongue teaching has been the recent decision of the Malaysian government to
abandon the use of English as a medium of instruction for maths and science from
primary 1, to be replaced by Malay (Gill, this volume). The Malaysian government
had introduced the use of English as the medium of instruction for maths and sci-
ence in 2002 but eventually decided to revert to the use of Malay for a number or
reasons, including the lack of subject teachers proficient in English and the poor
results being obtained by children from rural and poorer backgrounds. The deci-
sion was fiercely contested by urban middle-class parents, but the government has
stuck to its guns.
36 A. Kirkpatrick
The decisions of the Philippines and Malaysian governments suggest that the
advice of educational linguists is finally being heard, at least in some quarters. As
long ago as 1981, Cummins showed that young children immigrating to English
speaking countries need at least 5 years of instruction in English before being able
to handle cognitively demanding subjects through the medium of English. The
Filipino scholar, Bernardo, has consistently argued against the use of English as a
medium of instruction for maths and science, while at the same time arguing strongly
for the use of the mother tongue (2000).
Kosonen and Young have described the use of a language which the child does
not understand as a medium of instruction as “submersion education” (2009, p. 13).
Talking about language education policy in India, Jhingran (2009, p. 263) cautions
against using a language a child doesn’t fully understand as a medium of instruc-
tion, as this “can stunt their cognitive development and seriously affect their self-
esteem and self-confidence for life”. He also quotes (2009, p. 276) Viceroy Curzon’s
well-informed advice given as long ago as 1904 that:
As a general rule the child should not be allowed to learn English as a language (as a sub-
ject) until he has made some progress in the primary stages of instruction and has received
a thorough grounding in his mother tongue. It is equally important that when the teaching
of English has begun, it should not be prematurely employed as the medium of instruction
in other subjects.
In Singapore, the adoption of English as the medium of instruction has led to

adverse effects of the learning of Chinese and other languages. The Singapore gov-
ernment’s bilingual policy requires all students to learn English plus their so-called
mother tongue. So-called, because the mother tongues the children are required to
learn are prescribed by the government. This means that if a child is ethnically
Indian the mother tongue is Tamil, and if the child is ethnically Chinese the mother
tongue is Mandarin, no matter whether this is the case or not. The mother tongues
are taught as subjects in the school curriculum. This, particularly with Chinese, has
led to children having difficulty learning the language thoroughly (Goh 2009).
Becoming literate in Chinese requires significant curriculum time – not to say much
painstaking homework with supportive parents. The lack of proficiency – especially
in terms of literacy – has also led to calls for a different approach to the teaching of
Chinese. In a speech in November 2009, the then Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew,
admitted that trying to teach Chinese to the Singaporean ethnic Chinese as though
they were Chinese children has been a mistake.
We started the wrong way. We insisted on ting xie (listening), mo xie (dictation) - madness!
We had teachers who were teaching in completely Chinese schools. And they did not want
to use any English to teach English-speaking children Chinese and that turned them off
completely. (Temasek Review, 18 November, 2009)
What is particularly telling about Lee Kuan Yew’s remarks is the acknowledge-
ment that the children were English-speaking. In 2004, the number of Singaporean
children who indicated that English was their home language reached the majority
for the first time (Tan 2007). Pang reports that, since the 2000 census, there has been
an increase in the use of English as a home language among all ethnic groups, and
that “English is emerging as the language of the young” (2009, p. 94). Thus, the
teaching of English has been extremely successful, but it is at the expense of other
languages (Tupas 2011). Chinese is now to be taught as a second or “international”
language, not as a first language, and the use of a bilingual pedagogy – in particular
the use of English to help teach Chinese – is now approved. I return to the issue of
a bilingual pedagogy in the discussion of the “lingua franca approach” to English
teaching below.
To date, I have argued that the early introduction of English into regional primary
school curricula and its use as a medium of instruction in primary schools has been
unsuccessful. I have suggested that primary schools should use local languages as
languages of education. Further evidence for the importance of local languages as
languages of education comes from the UNESCO Report (2007) Education for All.
In identifying low retention rates up to primary 5 in several ASEAN countries,
including Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, The Philippines and Vietnam, the report
calls for more mother tongue and bilingual education – in local languages. “Most
members of ethnolinguistic minorities in Southeast Asia have to start their educa-
tion in a language they neither understand nor speak” (Kosonen 2009, p. 39). The
unavailability of the child’s home language as a language of education is a major
cause for the high level of primary school drop-out rates. The high level of drop-out
rates should not be underestimated. Heder (2007, p. 304) reports that, for Cambodia,
only 20% of the primary cohort will make it to secondary school and only 10% will
actually graduate from secondary school. The percentage of children who complete
secondary school in Pakistan is 19% (Coleman 2010, p. 9). Coleman concludes
“that English language teaching is frequently unsuccessful, that it does not help
children in their educational careers, and it may actually be counterproductive”
(2010, p. 3). While there are other reasons for drop-out rates – the need for children
to work and earn an income for the family, for example – the lack of local languages
as languages of education is a major cause.
While it is clear that children need to have the opportunity to use local languages
as languages of education, it is also clear that governments, policy makers and,
perhaps most importantly, parents demand that children have access to English in
the belief that that will provide their passport to socio-economic success, and that
having an English-speaking population will help propel countries towards moderni-
sation and internationalisation. These demands for English cannot simply be
ignored, but there are ways in which they can be more efficiently and successfully
met. In the next section of this chapter I propose the “lingua franca approach” to the
teaching of English, in which I suggest that it is possible to combine local languages
and the learning of English in complementary ways.
3.5 A Lingua Franca Approach
As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, English is the only official working
language of ASEAN. As the working language of ASEAN, English functions as
a lingua franca. That is to say it is used as the common or shared language of
speakers of many different first languages. In the context of ASEAN, almost all
38 A. Kirkpatrick
users of English are Asian multilinguals who are using English to communicate
with fellow Asian multilinguals. This use of English as a lingua franca has
significant implications for the ASEAN language teaching classroom, which have,
as yet, not been fully realized by language education policy makers and profes-
sionals in the region. These are significant implications. As I shall try and argue
below, the adoption of a “lingua franca approach” to the teaching of English in
ASEAN has the potential to redefine the way English is taught throughout the
region. I shall start with the implications of the lingua franca approach for the
English language curriculum.
The content of the curriculum must reflect the needs of the users. As the majority
of users will need English to communicate with fellow multilinguals within ASEAN,
the curriculum should include history, especially with regard to the founding and
development of ASEAN and the association’s aims. Information about the cultures
of the people with whom the learners will be communicating will also be essential.
In other words, instead of learning about the cultures traditionally associated with
English – British or American, for example – the lingua franca curriculum will
cover the cultures of ASEAN itself. For example, an Indonesian who is learning
English to communicate with Thais and Filipinos in ASEAN settings needs an ELT
curriculum which will explain and describe cultural values that are important to
Thais and Filipinos. Indonesians also need to know how to explain and express the
cultural values that they themselves hold dear. Knowledge about the major religions
of the region can also be included to enhance understanding. In other words, then,
the ASEAN ELT curriculum includes a core cross-cultural component, but the cul-
tures to be learned are Asian, not Anglo-American. The overall aim is, of course,
more than just providing access to information. It is to develop intercultural compe-
tence among the learners (Byram et al. 2001). This will include developing critical
cultural awareness among the learners. Critical cultural awareness has been defined
as “an ability to evaluate critically, and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives,
practices and products in one’s own cultures and countries” (Byram 1997, p. 53). In
the European context, it would be considered politically impossible to adopt English
as the lingua franca for this purpose, where intercultural competence goes hand in
hand with plurilingual competence (Byram 2009). However, it may be that the use
of English as a lingua franca in ASEAN can, by developing intercultural compe-
tence, help promote an ASEAN identity.
Excerpts from the Asian Corpus of English (ACE)1 illustrate the type of cul-
tural content that is being discussed in ASEAN lingua franca English. The wide
range of topics which are covered and which bear on local and regional cultural
content include Islamic Finance, how the concepts of Yin and Yang influence
fashion, hot chillis as a metaphor for jealousy, the advantages of different types of
1
The Asian Corpus of English (ACE) is a corpus of naturally occurring English as spoken as a
lingua franca across East and Southeast Asia. Several teams across East and Southeast Asia are
involved in the collection of the data, under the leadership of the author.
rice, what coffee means to the Vietnamese, differences between the private and
public sectors in Muslim and non-Muslim countries, communicating in Japan
and Taiwan, and the difficulty of identifying one’s mother tongue when one is
raised as a multilingual in a multilingual society. By the same token, discussion
about “Anglo” or Western cultures is rare. The content of Asian/ASEAN lingua
franca discourse also has implications for the English language teacher, and I
discuss these below.
The lingua franca curriculum would benefit from the inclusion of selections from
Asian literatures in English. A nice example comes from a Filipino secondary school
which gives a theme to each of the 4 years of schooling (Thompson 2003, p. 51). In
year 1, the children read texts in English which contain the theme “I am a Filipino”.
In year 2, the theme is “I am an Asian”. In year 3, it is “I am an English speaker”,
and in Year 4, “I am a citizen of the world”. The curriculum therefore provides the
students with excerpts from Filipino, Asian, “English”, and “world” literatures, and
encourages learners to adopt multiple identities as Filipinos, Asians, English speak-
ers and world citizens.
The linguistic goals of English language teaching can also be radically redefined
in a lingua franca curriculum. In place of the traditional second language acquisition
target of native-like competence and adherence to so-called native speaker norms,
the goal of the lingua franca curriculum is for students to be able to use English suc-
cessfully in regional (and international) settings. Learners no longer need to sound
like native speakers when speaking English. Indeed, it might sound rather odd if one
of the delegates at an ASEAN committee meeting sounded more British than
Malaysian or Thai, for example. Rather, they need to be able to communicate suc-
cessfully in multilingual settings. In order to guide the teaching of pronunciation for
teachers following a lingua franca approach, Jenkins (2007) has suggested a lingua
franca core (LFC). The LFC comprises phonological features which are essential
for international intelligibility. Jenkins suggests that these should be the focus of the
classroom, while students do not need to be able to produce other features of “native-
speaker” English, although they might need to be familiar with them. Examples of
essential features include the distinction between long and short vowels as in ‘bit’
and ‘beat’, and the consonant sounds, except for /q/ and /ð/. Thus, the consonant
sounds /q/ and /ð/ are not considered essential for international intelligibility.
A second feature which is not considered essential is the adoption of stress-based
rhythm. The syllable-based rhythm, common among many Asian multilingual
speakers of English, may indeed aid international communication, and so should be
actively encouraged (Kirkpatrick et al. 2008).
Speakers of English as a lingua franca also need to become familiar with the
speech styles of their fellow Asian multilinguals. Thus, listening passages which
include ASEAN users of English as a lingua franca need to be included among the
teaching materials. For example, tapes of Vietnamese communicating with
Malaysians in English are relevant and useful to Asian lingua franca users. Walker
(2010) provides a thorough overview of teaching pronunciation using this lingua
franca approach, and Deterding (2010) discusses the use of the lingua franca
approach in the more specific context of Chinese learners of English.
40 A. Kirkpatrick
The Asian Corpus of English is also showing that the use of certain non-standard
grammatical forms does not hinder communication in spoken English. There is not
space here to provide details, but specific examples can be found in Kirkpatrick
(2010). The non-problematic use of non-standard grammatical forms has also
been found in the Vienna Oxford Corpus of International English (VOICE), which
is a corpus of English used as a lingua franca in primarily European contexts.
The VOICE corpus can be freely accessed at its website, where a list of relevant
publications is also available. The leader of the VOICE team is Barbara Seidlhofer,
and her Understanding English as a lingua franca (Seidlhofer 2011) presents
the case for English as a lingua franca and the lingua franca approach in a highly
accessible way.
To sum up the potential implications of the lingua franca approach for the English
language teaching curriculum in ASEAN contexts, the following main points can be
reiterated:
(i) the goal of the approach is not for learners to acquire native speaker
proficiency and to sound like native speakers, but to enable them to use
English successfully in lingua franca contexts; they will naturally sound like
multilinguals;
(ii) the content of the curriculum needs to include topics of regional and local
cultures that are relevant for lingua franca users in these contexts; it is a cross-
cultural course based on ASEAN / Asian cultures and literatures where inter-
cultural competence is developed;
(iii) the curriculum must be therefore be designed to allow students to be able to
engage critically in discussions about their own cultures and cultural values
and interests in English;
(iv) the curriculum needs to include listening materials that familiarise students
with the speech styles and pronunciation of their fellow Asian multilingual
users of English as a lingua franca.
I now turn to considering the implications of the lingua franca approach for the
language teachers.
As the goal of the lingua franca approach is not to produce native speaker clones,
but to produce people who are able to use English successfully in multilingual
settings, this means that local multilinguals who are highly proficient in English
and are suitably trained make appropriate teachers. Such teachers not only represent
role models for their students but also linguistic models.
The teachers also need to be knowledgeable about regional cultures and litera-
tures, and this provides local teachers with a further advantage over native speakers,
as they can also provide comparative cultural information and input. They need to
be models of intercultural competence. As, in many cases, the teachers will speak
the same language(s) as their learners, they should be encouraged to use the linguistic
resources available to them. That is to say they can adopt a multilingual pedagogy
for the teaching of English whereby the systematic use of the learners’ languages to
help them learn English can be supported. There is no need to insist on a strict
“English-only” pedagogy (Swain et al. 2011).
3.6 Conclusion
In this chapter I have argued that, while it is evident that ASEAN has placed
special emphasis on English, making it the sole working language of the ASEAN
community, and that English is indeed an extremely important language for many in
the ASEAN region, the way it is currently taught is not only unsuccessful, but also
inimical to the welfare and maintenance of other languages. I have also argued that
the early introduction of English into the primary curriculum – as is the case across
the region – far from helping children learn English successfully, may actually
militate against this in many cases. The early introduction of English can also be
harmful to the successful education of children, as it often replaces a local language
in the curriculum. This is particularly damaging, as children are able to learn far
more successfully when they are allowed to use a local language as a language of
education. I have therefore argued that local languages (the national language and
a local lingua franca and, where feasible, the child’s mother tongue), be used as
languages of education, with the mother tongue or local lingua franca being used
as the language of education in the early years of primary school. Where practical,
children need to first become bilingual in the national language and a local language.
This will provide them with self-confidence in their own identity when they come
to learn English.
I have acknowledged that English is an important language for personal and
regional development and that it would be impossible for politicians and policy
makers to deny people access to it. I have therefore proposed a new lingua franca
approach to the teaching of English. In the main, this means delaying the teaching
of English until at least late in the primary curriculum, if not until the beginning of
secondary school. As the lingua franca approach sees the goal of language learning
as the ability to use it successfully in multilingual and regional contexts, this means
that the acquisition of native speaker proficiency is replaced by a need for functional
proficiency. Only those native speaker phonological and grammatical features which
are considered essential for international intelligibility should make up the linguistic
“lingua franca core” of the curriculum. Certain “non-standard” features common in
the English of regional multilinguals, such as the use of syllable-based rhythm, for
example, do not have to be excised or corrected, but can be retained.
Successful communication is not only about using linguistic features, of course.
In order to communicate successfully in regional contexts learners also need to
know about the cultures and literatures of the region. The lingua franca curriculum
must therefore comprise a course in local and regional cross-cultures and literatures
which will help students develop intercultural competence. Such a course may also
help learners acquire an ASEAN identity.
All this means that local well-trained multilinguals with a good comparative
knowledge of regional cultures and literatures represent appropriate English lan-
guage teachers for ASEAN learners of English. Clearly, we cannot expect the
English language teacher to be a complete compendium of cultural knowledge, but
the teacher must have an open-mind and be able to communicate the importance of
being open-minded to the students. In general terms, the multilingual replaces the
42 A. Kirkpatrick
native speaker as the ideal English teacher for the region. This is because English
has indeed become an international language in Asia. In ASEAN, it is primarily
used as a lingua franca among Asian multilinguals, and it is only natural, therefore,
that Asian multilinguals provide the teaching force.
The adoption of the lingua franca approach to teaching provides the additional
benefit of allowing the primary school to focus on local languages. Subjects such
as maths and science should be taught through local languages. This means that
retention rates in primary schools are likely to increase, which in itself will help
promote the development and enrichment of literacy. At the same time, the delay
of teaching English until secondary school means that it is far more likely that
highly qualified multilingual teachers can be found, and this, together with a lingua
franca approach, means that English learning may also be more successful. The
combination, therefore, of the focus on local languages at the primary school and
the lingua franca approach to the teaching of English at secondary school means
that an increased number of students may graduate from ASEAN secondary schools
who are at least bilingual in local languages and proficient in English. They may
also have developed intercultural competence and something approaching an
ASEAN identity.
References
Benson, C. 2008. Summary overview. Mother tongue-based education in multi-lingual contexts.

In Improving the quality of mother tongue-based literacy and learning. Case studies from Asia,
Africa and South America, ed. C. Haddad, 2–11. Bangkok: UNESCO.
Bernardo, A.B.I. 2000. The multifarious effects of language on mathematical learning and
performance among bilingual: A cognitive science perspective. In Parangalcang Brother
Andrew: A festschrift for Andrew Gonzalez on his sixtieth birthday, ed. Ma Lourdes Bautista,
T.A. Llamzon, and B.P. Sibayan, 303–316. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.
Bradley, D. 2011. A survey of language endangerment. In The handbook of endangered languages,
ed. P. Austin and J. Sallabank, 66–77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byram, M. 1997. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. 2009. Developing a concept of intercultural citizenship. Intercultural Communication
Research 1: 16–29.
Byram, M., A. Nichols, and D. Stevens. 2001. Developing intercultural competence in practice.
Clevedon: Multlingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. 2009. Towards multilingual education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Coleman, H. 2010. Teaching and learning in Pakistan: The role of language in education.
Islamabad: The British Council.
Coleman, H. 2011. Developing countries and the English language. In Dreams and realities:
Developing countries and the English language, ed. H. Coleman, 1–14. London: The British
Council.
Dardjowidjojo, Soenjono. 2000. English teaching in Indonesia. The English Australia Journal
18(1): 2–30.
Deterding, D. 2010. ELF-based pronunciation teaching in China. Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics 33(6): 3–14.
Ethnologue. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=id. Accessed 2 June 2011.
Goh, Yeng Seng. 2009. Bilingual education policy in Singapore: Challenges and opportunities.
In Language teaching in a multilingual world, ed. C. Ward, 171–190. Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre (RELC) Anthology Series 50.
Gonzalez, Andrew B. 1996. Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines: Towards a multidi-
mensional model of education in language planning. In Readings in Philippine Sociolinguistics,
ed. Ma Lourdes Bautista, 327–340. Manila: De la Salle University Press.
Hadisantosa, N. 2010. Insights from Indonesia. In Learning through English: Policies, challenges
and prospects, ed. R. Johnstone, 24–46. London: British Council.
Hamied, Fuad Abdul. 2011. English as a lingua franca: An Indonesian perspective. Keynote
address at the 4th international conference on English as a lingua franca, Hong Kong Institute
of Education, 26–28 May.
Heder, S. 2007. Cambodia. In Language and national identity in Asia, ed. A. Simpson, 288–311.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jhingran, D. 2009. Hundreds of home languages in the country and many in most classrooms:
Coping with diversity in primary education in India. In Social justice through multilingual
education, ed. T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, A.J. Mohanty, and M. Pinada, 263–282.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2008. Learning English and other languages in multilingual settings: Principles of
multilingual performance and proficiency. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31(3):
1–11.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong:
Kirkpatrick, A. 2012a. English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(4): 331–334.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2012b. English as an Asian lingua franca: A lingua franca approach. Journal of
English as a Lingua franca 1 (1): 121–140.
Kirkpatrick, A., D. Deterding, and J. Wong. 2008. The intelligibility of Hong Kong English. World
Englishes 27(3/4): 148–175.
Kosonen, K. 2009. Language-in education policies in Southeast Asia: An overview. In Mother
tongue as bridge language of instruction: Policies and experiences in Southeast Asia, ed. K.
Kosonen and C. Young, 22–41. Bangkok: The Southeast Asia Ministers of Education
Organization.
Kosonen, K., and C. Young (eds.). 2009. Mother tongue as bridge language of instruction: Policies
and experiences in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: The Southeast Asia Ministers of Education
Organization.
Krasnick, H. 1995. The role of linguaculture and intercultural communication in ASEAN in the
year 2020: Prospects and predictions. In Language and culture in multilingual societies, ed.
M. Tickoo, 81–93. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Montolalu, L.R., and L. Suryadinata. 2007. National language and nation-building: The case of
Bahasa Indonesia. In Language nation and development, ed. Lee Hock Guan and L. Suryadinata,
39–50. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Pang, E.S. 2009. Language and language-in-education policies and their implementation in
Singapore. In Mother tongue as bridge language of instruction: Policies and experiences in
Southeast Asia, ed. K. Kosonen and C. Young, 93–101. Bangkok: The Southeast Asia Ministers
of Education Organization.
Quijano, Y.S., and O.H. Eustaquio. 2009. Language-in-education policies and their implementa-
tion in Philippine public schools. In Mother tongue as bridge language of instruction: Policies
and experiences in Southeast Asia, ed. K. Kosonen and C. Young, 84–92. Bangkok: The
Southeast Asia Ministers of Education Organization.
Searjeant, P., and E.J. Erling. 2011. The discourse of ‘English as a language for international
development’: Policy assumptions and practical challenges. In Dreams and realities:
Developing countries and the English language, ed. H. Coleman, (Paper 12, pp. 21). London:
The British Council.
44 A. Kirkpatrick
Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M, Kirkpatrick, A., and Cummins, J. 2011. How to have a guilt-free life using Cantonese
in the English class. Hong Kong: Research Centre into Language Education and Acquisition in
Multilingual Societies, Institute of Education. (downloadable from http://www.ied.edu.hk/
rcleams/view.php?secid=1399).
Tan, E.B. 2007. Language policy and discourse in Singapore. In Language nation and develop-
ment, ed. Lee Hock Guan and L. Suryadinata, 74–117. Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies.
Thompson, R.T. 2003. Filipino English and Taglish: Language switching from multiple perspectives.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tupas, R. 2011. English knowing bilingualism in Singapore: Economic pragmatics, ethnic relations
and class. In English language education across greater China, ed. Anwei Feng, 46–69. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
UNESCO. 2007. Education for all by 2015. Will we make it? Oxford: Oxford University Press
(http://unescdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001547/15473e.pdf).
VOICE (Vienna Oxford Corpus of International English). (http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/).
Walker, R. 2010. Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Walker, S., and D. Dekker. 2008. The Lubuagan mother tongue education experiment (FLC).
A report of comparative test results. Manila: Summer Institute of Linguistics International.
Chapter 4
The Complexities of Re-reversal
of Language-in-Education Policy in Malaysia
Saran Kaur Gill
4.1 Introduction
The language-in-education policy journey in Malaysia has been a tumultuous one

of reversal and re-reversal; intially a reversal from Bahasa Malaysia to English for
Science and Mathematics in 2002, and a re-reversal from English back to Bahasa
Malaysia in national schools in 2009, after a period of 6 years. The reasons for the
initial reversal have been documented in Gill (2004). This paper will focus on the latter
re-reversal from English back to Bahasa Malaysia which was announced recently
in 2009 and is to be implemented in 2012. Decisions on language-in-education
policy are impacted in varying degrees by various stakeholders – the politicians
of the ruling party, linguists and parents. This paper will examine the underlying
reasons for the change that led to a repositioning of Bahasa Malaysia as the lan-
guage of education for Science and Mathematics. These include some “empirical
studies” cited by the government which highlighted that the use of English as MOI
(“Medium of Instruction”) disadvantaged certain groups of students, the various
levels of English competency of the teachers and the students, the lack of time for
proper training and implementation of the program, and the failure of ETeMS
(English for Teaching Mathematics and Science) to improve English language
proficiency among students. As these findings are discussed, the complexities of
underlying agendas that underpin decision making on language-in-education policy
are raised.
S.K. Gill (*)

Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
e-mail: saran@ukm.my

46 S.K. Gill
4.2 Background
Decision-making on language-in-education policies in a multi-ethnic nation, made

up by a dominant ethnic community and many other smaller ethnic communities,
will be affected by complex eco-systems, impacted by cultural politics, ethnocentric
linguistic identities, economy-related concerns, and the increasingly prominent
Science and Technology ideology. In the Malaysian context, all of these factors
impacted on the recent reversals of language-in-education policies and elicited
divergent passionate responses, some supporting and some dissenting. These are
responses that need to be understood and handled with sensitivity.
The languages that play a dominant role in the longstanding dichotomy of deci-
sions made in the language-in-education policy in Malaysia have largely been
Bahasa Malaysia, the mother language of the dominant community, which is also
the national language and language of education and administration of the nation;
and English, the international language and increasingly dominant language of the
field of Science and Technology. There have also been struggles with regard to the
sustenance and maintenance of minority languages, but this will not be dealt with in
this paper. The focus of this paper will be the dichotomy that exists in relation to
Bahasa Malaysia and English over the years.
This began in the post-Independence period. With the new-found political inde-
pendence from Britain, and the resultant throes of nationalism, there was a very strong
need for the nation to disassociate from the English language, which was the language
of the colonial powers. The main ethnic group needed to position themselves as the
dominant ethnic community through assertion of identity. Their language was used as
the tool to create a strong sense of national identity. Thus Bahasa Malaysia was legis-
lated as the national language. To ensure that Bahasa Malaysia was given space to
position itself as the main language of the country, English had to be relegated from
the medium of instruction in the education system to become a second language – a
language that was compulsory to take but not to pass. This is explicated clearly by
Pennycook, who observes that, “[…] the struggle for the ascendancy of Malay politics,
language and culture had to be directed against the language that operated to convey
social and economic power” (Pennycook 1994, p. 195).
After 30 years of developing Bahasa Malaysia to equip it with the necessary termi-
nology to function as a fully fledged language of education, especially for science and
technology, there was a drastic reversal in the language-in-education policy – this was a
reversal from Bahasa Malaysia back to English for the domain of Science and Technology,
which was announced in 2002 to be implemented in 2003. This was largely driven by
the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamed. The reasons for this change
have been examined in Gill (2004), and only one of the main reasons will be captured
here. This is from a response by Mahathir Mohamed, from an interview carried out as
part of a research project (Gill et al. 2003–2005), where he asserts,
Education is for the purpose of acquiring knowledge. The most important thing is the acqui-
sition of knowledge. […] so if you want knowledge you have to acquire the language in
which the knowledge is available. […] if we have the knowledge available in the national
language, by all means, do […] but the fact is that in science the research that is being done
4 The Complexities of Re-reversal of Language-in-Education Policy in Malaysia 47
is moving at a very fast pace. Every day literally thousands of papers on new research are
being published and practically all of them are in English. To translate English into Bahasa
Melayu, would require a person with 3 skills. Skill in the 2 languages and skill in the subject
that is to be translated, and we don’t have very many people who are qualified to do that
or who wish to do that. That is why it is easier if you learn English and the students can
have direct access to all the knowledge that is available in English. (personal communication,
16 June, 2005)
As expected, this was a decision that elicited varying responses amongst members
of society driven by contrasting ideology. There were those who believed in the idea
of knowledge-driven nationalism and supported the decision, and those who held on
strongly to linguistic nationalism and who therefore opposed it vehemently. Within
classrooms and staffrooms, in homes and offices, parents, teachers, students and edu-
cationists expressed a range of views, while letters to the editors in vernacular and
English and Malay newspapers appeared almost every day expressing opinions on this
issue. Even the late Tan Sri Abdul Rafie Mahat, who was then the Director-General of
Education in charge of implementing the change in policy, faced much opposition
amidst the hasty implementation of the policy, describing the task as “7 months of
hard work” (Leanne Goh & Karen Chapman, Sunday Star, December 14, 2008).
4.3 The Re-reversal of Language-in-Education Policy

for the Domain of Science and Technology
(from English back to Bahasa Malaysia)
In response to the opposition to the policy of using English as MOI for Science and
Mathematics (PPSMI), the Ministry of Education organized round-table discussions
(there were five in all) to discuss whether the PPSMI should be retained. Select parties
were invited to these discussions, which were closed-door affairs. The invited
parties included representatives from the National Union of the Teaching Profession
(NUTP), educationists from the main political groups, Parent Teacher Associations
(PTAs), members of academia, and key members of language-based organizations,
representatives of the Australian Qualifications and Standards Assessment Body,
etc., with the last one chaired by the Deputy Minister for Education, Dr Wee Ka
Siong. After several of these discussions, the Cabinet decided in 2009 that all
national primary and secondary schools would teach Science and Mathematics in
Bahasa Malaysia, beginning in 2012.
In The Star newspaper, July 8, 2009, it was reported that:
The Cabinet decided that Mathematics and Science would be taught in Bahasa Malaysia
and vernacular languages in stages from 2012 onwards. This policy was to be implemented
in stages from Primary 1, 4, Secondary 1 & 4 in 2012. Changes would not involve Form 6
& Matriculation (equivalent to pre-university courses) students. All exams for Science &
Mathematics would remain bilingual until 2014 so as not to jeopardize the performance of
students under the current policy – Teaching Science & Math in English (ETeMS).
The vernacular languages here refer to the Chinese and Tamil languages used as
the medium of instruction for Chinese and Tamil schools.
48 S.K. Gill
Muhyiddin Yassin, the Deputy Prime Minister and also the Minister of Education,
said the Government was aware of its decision to reverse the medium of instruction
for Mathematics and Science from English to Bahasa Melayu in national schools
and to Chinese and Tamil in vernacular schools from 2012 would not go down well
with everyone:
“The reversal in policy is not a knee-jerk decision as it was based on empirical studies and
other specialist reviews,” he said. But he said there would be a “soft landing” – the ministry
would stagger the changes and only begin in 2012 to enable the necessary preparations to
be made. (Sunday Star, July 12, 2009)
The implications of the “soft landing” are illustrated in the table:
Source: PAGE Blackboard, PAGE Malaysia, December 6, 2009. ( PAGE MALAYSIA 2009)
The S Classes are primary classes from Primary 1 to Primary 6, whilst the F classes
are secondary classes from Secondary 1 to Secondary 6.
“We will do whatever we can to make it as soft as possible for these students, which I think
is of concern to the parents. It was quite sudden when the PPSMI was introduced previ-
ously,” he said. Muhyiddin also stressed that the reason for the reversal in policy was due to
objective considerations and not political ones. (Sunday Star, 12 July, 2009).
This means that students who started studying Science and Mathematics in
English will need in 2012 to have a buffer period of about 3 years where they would
continue with the teaching of the subjects in both “English and Bahasa Malaysia”
before switching completely over to Bahasa Malaysia.
4.4 Unravelling the Responses: Voices of the Government,

Researchers and Parents
It will therefore be pertinent to examine the reasons for the change, beginning with
the government which makes the final decision, justifying it as being driven by the
needs of the people who make up the electorate.
The government assessed the needs of the people based on the findings of
“empirical and specialist” studies carried out on the teaching of Science and
Mathematics in English. In The Star, 9 July, 2009, Muhyiddin stressed that,
The government made this decision after studying in details the result of studies and close
monitoring of the PPSMI by the Education Ministry and independent bodies since 2003.
At the national level, the studies were conducted by researchers from local public
and universities and academic organizations. There was a team of 50 lecturers from
7 public universities (UPM, UiTM, UPSI, USM, UUM, UMS and UTM) which
collaborated with Pembina (Permuafakatan Badan Ilmiah Nasional, Affiliation of
National Academic Organizations), to conduct a nation-wide study of students in
the fourth year of secondary education in 70 secondary schools, and students in the
fifth year of primary school in 90 primary schools. The research was titled “Teacher
Competency Level in the Teaching of Science and Mathematics in English and its
Implications on Student Development”.
The study concluded that PPSMI had been deleterious to students, especially the
Malay students in rural areas. In a few states, for instance, Perlis, Kelantan, Sabah
and Sarawak, students who failed Mathematics and Science, getting D and E results,
exceeded 50%. The study indicated that the SPM 2007 results showed a deterioration
in the performance of Malay students in residential schools and Mara Junior Science
Colleges, especially in Chemistry and Mathematics.
The research claimed that the causes of this stemmed from the inability of teachers
and students to interact in English competently (Jimadie Shah Othman 2009).
Another research project that was made public and immediately received much
attention was a study led by Isahak Haron et. al. (2008) of the Universiti Pendidikan
Sultan Idris (UPSI, The Sultan Idris University of Education). Broadly, the findings
revealed a rather dismal scenario as a result of the implementation of the PPSMI
policy. Two of the main findings will be mentioned here. The first was that “70% of
the students from the primary schools ‘do not / barely comprehend’ their teachers’
teaching of Mathematics, and 80% ‘find it difficult /fairly difficult’ to learn
Mathematics and Science in English”. And secondly, on the use of the English lan-
guage as the medium of instruction, more than 80% of the students reported that the
teacher code-switched from English to Bahasa Malaysia and vice versa as a strategy
to promote teaching and learning. It thus called for a review of the policy and for the
use of Bahasa Malaysia to be reinstated for the two subjects.
These, then, were some of the research findings and empirical studies that
Muhyiddin cited as reasons for reverting to the teaching of Science and Mathematics
in English. He said studies showed that PPSMI was never implemented as originally
hoped. Instead teachers were using both Bahasa Malaysia and English to teach
50 S.K. Gill
Science and Mathematics, and there was a reluctance on the part of teachers to use
English to teach the subjects. In addition, the gap between urban and rural schools’
performance in the two subjects had grown wider after PPSMI was implemented.
Lastly, the government felt that PPSMI had not helped in developing English
proficiency. This paper will focus on how the teachers have been impacted by the
language policy change, and the gap between rural and urban schools in the context
of using English as medium of instruction for Science and Mathematics.
4.5 Challenges of Teacher Preparedness
In the conclusions arrived at in the studies discussed above, it is important to note

that the teacher plays a critical role, and to examine how this affected the implementa-
tion of EteMS. Teachers constitute the most important element in the implementation
of language policy. Whether it is just or unjust, they represent the human resource
that most impacts on the development of the human capacity needed for the nation.
Therefore, in the case of change of language policy, they are the ones who have to
carry most of the burden of implementation. If they are not convinced of the reasons
for the need for change, and do not put their heart and soul into improving their
proficiency levels, then the policy is doomed to fail.
Teachers of Mathematics and Science had been teaching in Bahasa Malaysia
since the latter was instituted as the medium of instruction in the education system,
that is, since post-Independence days. In parallel, with the marginalization of
English, exposure to the English language became much reduced, compared to
when it used to be the language of education. All of these decisions resulted over the
years in the development of a generation of students and teachers who were more
fluent in Bahasa Malaysia than in English. This greater competency in Bahasa
Malaysia rather than in English raised one of the major challenges amongst teachers
in facing the change in medium of instruction.
To alleviate problems such as these, the Ministry developed a retraining program
to enhance English language proficiency among Mathematics and Science teachers
(Pandian and Ramiah 2004; Choong 2004).
According to Pillay and Thomas (2004), the task of re-training for this language
conversion exercise was assigned to the Teacher Education Division of the Ministry of
Education. The English Language Teaching Centre Malaysia (ELTCM), a teacher-
training college for in-service teacher development, was appointed to develop a national
re-training program aimed at enhancing the English language proficiency of
Mathematics and Science teachers. It was designed to meet their specific needs and
focused on the skills for teaching Mathematics and Science disciplines in English. To
add to this program, the Ministry also provided continuous support programs at the
school level such as the Buddy Support Programme that stressed collaboration between
Mathematics and Science teachers with their language counterparts. Competent English
teachers were appointed as “critical friends” to Science and Mathematics teachers in
school. The teachers were also supplied with self-instructional materials to facilitate
their own learning. ELTCM was thus confronted with the mammoth task of planning a
nationwide re-training program.
Planners had to grapple with the reality that, “it is impossible to create a single,
centrally administered and planned programme of professional development that
will meet everyone’s needs and desires” (Clark 1992, p. 75). However, the challenge
for ELTCM was just that, which was to develop one national level program that
could cater for all.
There was also underutilization of instructional materials, as teachers did not
always fully utilize them (Subramaniam and Mardziah 2007). Teachers with low
proficiencies in English found it difficult to read additional texts in English outside
the classroom. Additionally, students with low proficiency could not understand
the language in the multimedia courseware designed for them (Gill et. al. 2010).
Tajul Ariffin & Nor’Aini (2002, cited in Kamsilawati 2005) state that while the
more senior teachers could cope, the younger teachers (who had been trained in
Bahasa Malaysia) were struggling with the courseware themselves and also with
having to explain the language to the students. Hence, the question was that, if it
was not possible for these same teachers to effectively use the English language to
teach content in Science and Mathematics, then a host of challenges would face
teachers in the implementation of this policy.
4.6 Rural-Urban Divide
In multi-ethnic Malaysia, the needs of the dominant ethnic group are paramount.
It is important for the stability of the nation that the needs of this community are
met, and that they are able to keep up and also develop in terms of educational
achievements which lead to socio-economic improvements and stability. In this
context, the deepening of the rural–urban divide is of great concern, and is cited
as a reason for reversing the language policy for Science and Mathematics from
English back to Bahasa Malaysia.
It must be pointed out that the empirical studies that the government depended
on for their decisions were largely carried out in the rural areas. It is in the rural
areas that you find most of the schools populated by members of the dominant
ethnic community, the Malays.
Dr. Nor Hashimah, a linguist, highlighted in The New Sunday Times (July 19,
2009) one of the main reasons why the policy should be discontinued. She refers to:
Research carried out by UKM-Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (2005)(Institute of Malay Language
and Literature, Malaysia) which showed that students in urban areas adjusted better to PPSMI
compared to students in rural areas, where a large number comprised Malay students from
medium and low income families. The research predicted that if the policy was continued, it
would result in further inequalities between rural and urban students.
Much has been written about how ETeMS victimized learners from the rural
areas as they were not as proficient in English as the urbanites (Mingguan Malaysia,
July 19, 2009b; Nor Hashimah 2003, 2009; Isahak et al. 2008). PKPIM (The Union
52 S.K. Gill
of Malaysian Islamic Students) alleged that PPSMI would widen the rural-urban
rift, as the urban students would greatly benefit from the education policy while the
former would drift farther backward socially and economically. All these effects
were the result of the assumption that urban students had better mastery of English
and as such stood to gain more from PPSMI. The Union further claimed that PPSMI
was unfair to the rural students, as the use of English in their classrooms had denied
them quality education (PKPIM 2008).
Mohd. Ariff Sabri bin Hj Abdul Aziz, the parliamentary representative of the
constituency Pulau Manis, Pekan (a town in the state of Pahang) from 2004 to 2008,
appealed to the government to look at language policy from a different perspective –
not to consider at it from a deficit perspective but instead investigate what needs to
be done for higher standards to be attained.
He explained this by asserting that,
One reason offered is that this current policy (reversal of PPSMI) will be a step to correct
the imbalance between rural and urban school children. Rural children are said to perform
badly in maths and science when they are taught in English. Urban school children do better.
The urban children do better because they have better facilities, better teachers, and tuition
opportunities. These should be made more readily available to rural children. Post better
teachers there if the deficiency in English language is the main cause for their poorer perfor-
mance. The logical inference then is if these subjects are taught in the common Malay
language, the performance of the rural children will be better. We seem to accept the
achievement of rural children as the gold standard by which all children must converge
upon. I find this reasoning faulty. If anything, we should be taking steps to elevate the standards
of rural children to the higher standards of urban children. The higher standards of urban
children is the standard that we must work to arrive at. (Mohd. Ariff Sabri 2009)
In other words, if a proper infrastructure were in place with the corresponding

and necessary support system, perhaps the rural schools would not find learning
Science and Mathematics such a daunting task. A policy that would enhance efforts
to minimize the rural-urban divide, while not compromising the importance of the
international language, was what was needed. Perhaps if this was considered, it
could have helped close the so-called gap that existed between rural and urban
students and prevented the ineffective implementation of the PPSMI policy.
4.7 The Element of Choice for Schools
There are counter-arguments to the above. These counter arguments state that the
nation needs to develop human capacity that is fluent in English in order to compete
with the demands of the innovative world, and if children are in environments which
provide infrastructural and parental support for English, then these children should
be given the opportunity to have access to an education system where English is
used as the MOI for Science and Mathematics.
These voices that support the ETeMS policy believe in development-oriented
nationalism, and the fact that the use of English facilitates direct access to knowledge
and information in English adds value to the educational system and assists with the
development of the human capacity that the nation needs in the face of international
competition. The case for the need to reinstitute this change in language policy is
based on Mahathir’s redefinition of the concept of nationalism. He explains that,
We need to move from the extreme form of nationalism which concentrates on being a
language nationalist only, not a knowledge nationalist, not a development oriented national-
ist. I feel that we should be a development oriented nationalist. We want our people to suc-
ceed, to be able to stand tall, to be respected by the rest of the world. Not to be people with
no knowledge of science and technology, very poor, very backwards, working as servants
to other people. If we have no knowledge we will be servants to those with knowledge.
(personal comunication with Mahathir Mohamed, 16 June 2005)
Stakeholders who supported the PPSMI generally felt that there should not be a
change in mid-course, as 6 years was too soon to come to any conclusions; they felt
that the Ministry of Education should wait till students who had begun school when
the PPSMI was in place had completed their fifth form (SPM), that is, after the full
11 years of primary and secondary education.
A poll conducted by the opinion research house, Merdeka Center, showed that
58% of Malaysians wanted the policy to be kept. Of the 1,060 people polled, only
32% wanted the teaching of Mathematics and Science policy reversed, while 9%
were undecided.
Mahathir, when informed of the impending change by the Deputy Prime Minister,
Muhyiddin Yassin, had suggested strongly that if the government wanted to reverse
the policy, they should retain the use of English for Science and Mathematics at
secondary school level (The Edge, July 9, 2009a). He said that his recommendations
were ignored, contrary to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement to the press that
Mahathir, as the former Prime Minister, had agreed to the abolishing of ETeMS.
Seeing as the government was not listening to the many voices that dissented
with their decision, Mahathir set up a blog where people could vote on this issue.
According to Dr. Mahathir, 74% or 6,690 voted against the abolition of PPSMI,
while only 26% or 2,334 supported the government’s initiatives:
“Seems to me like the government is not listening to the voice of the people. Perhaps a blog
poll might enlighten the government as to the opinions of the people,” said Dr. Mahathir.
(Blogging to Unblock online, July 8, 2009).
Analysis of the UPSR results has disclosed that teaching the two subjects in English
has produced better results in the English language paper, an improvement of 4.4%,
while the performance in Bahasa Malaysia remained stable. Another encouraging
sign was that the number of pupils opting to answer the two subjects in English had
increased significantly, reflecting greater confidence in using the language.
Of those in urban and rural schools who answered their Science and
Mathematics paper in English, 25% and 29% respectively of the A’s came from
the rural schools. An education officer who sat in for most of the roundtables to
discuss the policy change said that, if the decision was based purely on the analy-
sis of the UPSR results of the first cohort, there would be no need to change the
medium of instruction. The pupils are coping satisfactorily and the teachers are
becoming accustomed to teaching in English. Although there is still room for
54 S.K. Gill
improvement in its implementation, the results are pretty clear. However, he says
that this cannot be the sole criterion for the decision, as there are other consider-
ations in the big picture (The Star, December 21, 2008).
According to the Chair of the Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE), Noor
Azimah Abd Rahim, there is no need for anyone to feel threatened by the teaching
of Science and Mathematics in English, as 60% of teaching time in school is still in
Bahasa Malaysia. Co-curricular activities, assemblies and other activities, as well as
the administration of a school, are all conducted in the national language. Noor
Azimah said the Ministry should only assess the success rate of the policy after the
pioneer batch of students had sat for the SPM examination in 2013. She said the
pioneer batch, who first studied the two subjects in 2003, would only be sitting for
the PMR in 2011 and SPM in 2013. Noor Azimah said in an interview,
“To eliminate any problems, comparisons should be made perhaps based on the results for
three years, that is students who would sit for the SPM in 2013, 2014 and 2015”. (The Star
online, October 23, 2008).
Noor Azimah said this was because the students would have studied the two
subjects in English from primary school. PAGE had sent out survey forms to PTAs
in schools nationwide seeking feedback on the policy:
As of Monday, we have received replies from PTAs and teachers from 68 schools. We urge
those who haven’t received the survey forms to e-mail us as we need to compile a report for
the Education Ministry by early November. (The Star online, October 23, 2008)
Datin Noor Azimah Abd Rahim, who claims that PAGE represents 3,000 schools
in both urban and rural areas, points out that the huge majority of the schools want
the subjects to continue being taught in English. “As parents, we feel that the stu-
dents’ English will improve if the policy continues. It will also give students a com-
petitive edge.” She says the Ministry should only assess the success rate of the policy
after the pioneer batch of students sit for the SPM examination in 2013. “It is prema-
ture to assess the policy any earlier than that” (The Star, September 11, 2009).
More recently, after PPSMI had been scrapped, Datin Noor Azimah asked that
the government allow schools the English option (New Straits Times, November 9,
2009). She cited a survey of parents by PAGE in 2008 which showed that 95% of
these parents wanted PPSMI to be continued. PAGE appealed to the Education
Minister to allow the option of choice and let parents make known their wishes
through meetings with their parent-teacher associations. Noor Azimah feels that the
teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics in English (PPSMI) was never
about learning English through Science and Mathematics, but about learning the
knowledge of Science and Mathematics through English. She says:
We cannot depend on the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) to translate even a tenth of one
per cent of all the current knowledge in the world into Bahasa Malaysia. They even failed to
translate our foreign technical assembly-line manuals into Bahasa. The DBP has failed us in
the industrial era. And they failed us again in the information era when they were unable to
produce a practical online kamus (dictionary) for our children to use. The language of knowl-
edge in mathematics and science today is, first and foremost, English, followed by Mandarin,
French, German, Japanese, Korean, etc., but not Bahasa Malaysia.
The decision to abolish PPSMI is akin to asking us not to don Western attire but to keep
using our sarong for daily activities to maintain our Malay identity, hoping one day it will
become a universal dress code for the world. The survival of a nation is dependent not on its
language but by the knowledge held by its people. (New Straits Times, November 9, 2009).
4.8 Language Policy as a Means of Equalising Opportunities

amongst Multi-Ethnic Populations
One of the main points used to support the re-reversal was the legislated role of
Bahasa Malaysia in the Constitution. This was stressed by Nor Hashimah, a prominent
Malay linguist, who reminded everyone that the status of Malay as the national
language was enshrined in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution:
The use of Bahasa Malaysia as a medium of instruction was introduced to replace the dual
school system previously, namely the English and Malay medium schools. The dual school
system divided our nation into halves. The gap was very wide between the English and
Malay medium schools. One of the main reasons for the use of Bahasa Malaysia as the
single medium was to unite all Malaysians […] Bahasa Malaysia will once again become
the tool to unite the whole nation. It is understood by all. Logically, a country must have its
own national language which forms the identity of the people […] The idea of having two
languages as the medium of instruction is akin to repeating the old system that failed us in
the past […]. (Isahak Haron, et. al. 2003)
Therefore if one examines the changes in the language policy from the post-
Independence period to now, it will be clear that they have been driven by the needs
of the dominant ethnic group in terms of ensuring that they keep up with educational
achievements, attain socio-economic advancement, and are not left behind. When
Bahasa Malaysia was instituted as the language of education for all national schools
in the post-Independence period, one of the main reasons was to eliminate the
advantage that urban schools, which had mainly Chinese students and used English
as the medium of instruction, had over the rural schools, which used Bahasa
Malaysia, and were populated by Malay students.
Therefore, to rectify this social and economic imbalance, the Malays felt strongly
that the institution of Bahasa Malaysia as the national language, its legislation as the
official language and its development as language of knowledge, were necessary to
provide it with educational and administrative capital that would lead to its develop-
ment as a language of higher status. Therefore, having mastery of this language
would provide the Malays with linguistic capital and with greater economic oppor-
tunity, which would then lead to social and professional mobility. Through the land-
mark recommendation of the Razak Education Commission in 1956, the Government
implemented the National Education Policy, which stipulated Bahasa Melayu as the
medium of instruction in schools (Report of the Education Committee 1956, p. 4).
The aim of this policy was to remove the identification of a particular ethnic group
with high school achievement, and to reduce the inequality of opportunity among
ethnic groups.
56 S.K. Gill
In the 1980s and the 1990s countries, irrespective of their histories, were increasingly
driven by international trade and communication and their need to keep up with
Science and Technology to develop science and innovation sectors. This resulted in
English – the international means of communication and the main means of access
to knowledge in the fields of Science and Technology – regaining its position and
value in many post-colonial countries which had, in the throes of linguistic nationalism,
marginalized its role. One of the main challenges that resulted from the focus on
Bahasa Malaysia in the educational system was a generation that was fluent in
Bahasa Malaysia but weak in English. This resulted in one of the main problems
facing the nation to this day – that of the unemployment of graduates, particularly
those from the public universities who had to look for employment in the private
sector, where English is the main language of communication (Gill 2004). The
post-Independence language policy that was to help the dominant ethnic group was
the very policy that ultimately disadvantaged them. This is analysed by Lowe
and Khattab: “Globalization was to pose a dilemma for policy planners. The success
in having a national language resulted in the Malays – the race it was designed to
help – being disadvantaged. The current policy therefore had to be substituted with
one which in fact was directly opposed to the earlier policy. English has now to be
propagated amongst a population schooled only in Malay and with a vested interest
in its continued dominance” (Lowe and Khattab 2003, p. 219).
Thus in 2003, the language-in-education policy was reversed from Bahasa
Malaysia to English for the teaching and learning of Science and Mathematics.
Now, in 2010, the same issues are being articulated as in the post-colonial, post-
Independence period. The language-in-education policy has come full circle. Nor
Hashimah states that it is the urban schools that benefit from the use of English as
the MOI for Science and Mathematics, and that this policy disadvantages the rural
schools. In demographic distribution, the rural areas are largely populated by the
Malays. Therefore, to reduce competition and to level the playing field, and to
ensure that all have the use of the national language as the language of education,
the government, strongly influenced by research carried out by Malay linguists,
re-reversed the language in education policy, from English back to Bahasa Malaysia
as medium of instruction for Science and Mathematics.
This very clearly depicts how language-in-education policy is utilized to ensure
that the socio-economic advancement of the dominant ethnic group is not impacted
on and reduced. This is clearly explicated by Tsui and Tollefson, who stress that
Medium of instruction policy determines which social and linguistic groups have access to
political and economic opportunities, and which groups are disenfranchised. It is therefore
a key means of power (re)distribution and social (re)construction […]. (2004, p. 2).
The main question that arises from the discussion above is whether one can use
language as a tool to pursue advancement and equalize the opportunities provided
for the peoples of a multi-ethnic nation. Would there not be other criteria / qualities
that would need to be considered? Malaysia is a nation composed of ethnic groups
with immigrant ancestry – it is these groups that, for the sake of survival, have deep
in their ethos qualities of determination, hard work and achievement of the language
used in the educational system. They are the ones who have had to adjust to the
changes in language policy, adjusted to the use of languages which are not their
mother languages, and yet work hard to ensure that they succeed. So the decision to
revert to Bahasa Malaysia is done to ensure that the Malay community is not left
behind. But the government needs to think whether this would advantage or disad-
vantage them in the long term. For the sake of the advancement of the nation and the
development of the required human resources needed in this age where mastery of
Science and Technology is critical, one might be more pragmatic and provide the
element of choice to schools so that the opportunities are provided and can be
claimed across all ethnic groups. The reluctance of the government in wanting to
provide this element of choice draws into the picture the issue of politics and is
discussed next.
4.9 The Political Factor
Was the decision to scrap the ETeMS a political one? The question posed below to
the Minster of Education, Muhyiddin, arose during an interview at the Manek Urai
constituency by-election, where the government candidate (from the Barisan
Nasional party) was being challenged by opposition candidates. The interview
appeared on Muhyiddin’s website (pmo.gov.my). This was his answer:
Q: Will the announcement (to revoke the PPSMI) boost (Barisan Nasional) in the Manek Urai
by-election?
A: This decision is not political (laughter). I must say that. I do not take this opportunity to
gain political mileage. I want to say that it is not a consideration made based on Manek
Urai. What is Manek Urai to the question of the people and the country’s future (laughter
from the crowd). What is important is that Barisan Nasional will win in Manek Urai,
Insya-Allah (God Willing). But this is about our children’s future, so our decision is made
based on the objective and not political consideration. I want to explain this although the
opposition will make their own judgement. The root of this issue is that this was made
based on an objective consideration based on the empirical and scientific results gathered
from specific studies. Based on this principle, this is what we are doing, not political con-
sideration, although people say you need political will to make decision but that is not the
main criteria, it is being viewed from the context of necessity.
Many Malaysians, however, view the decision for the change as being based on
the desire to gain political mileage, since even the opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim,
and the Opposition party, Pakatan Rakyat, were anti-PPSMI and called for the move
to revert to the teaching of Science and Mathematics in Bahasa Malaysia, and Barisan
Nasional had no choice but to do the same since electoral votes were at stake.
It was noted that of the many Southeast Asian countries, this country faces some
difficulties due to a population that is multilingual, multiethnic, multi-religious and
multicultural (Abdullah Hassan 2004). This diversity is accompanied by varied feedback
and opinions in making a language decision that is beneficial for everyone in the country.
In education, government may devote vast resources to the teaching of English, which
in some contexts carries with it a long history of colonial domination, yet government
58 S.K. Gill
may also seek to disassociate English from that history and to reinvent national cultural
identities (Tsui and Tollefson 2007). And for that reason, decisions on language policy
are largely political in nature, as the Malaysian government is dominated by the Malays.
No doubt, language is an important rallying point for the Malays, therefore it is one of
the most sensitive issues in Malaysian politics, as mentioned by Hazri Jamil (2010).
Since education policies are strongly inter-linked and political, it has been a challenging
task for the main ruling party, UMNO (United Malay National Organization), to soothe
the ruffled feathers of those who feel that the status and importance of the national lan-
guage are at risk. Due to the history of being colonized, there exists a sentimental pride
in those who oppose the use of the national language. Antonio L. Rappa and Lionel Wee
mentioned that it is deemed anti-constitutional for locals or foreigners to criticize or
challenge the special position of the Malay language in any manner (2006).
Speaking at the International Conference on Language and Nationhood: New
Contexts, New Realities, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad stated, “I believe that multi-ethnic,
multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious Malaysians are interested in the
subject because we are trying our best to achieve nationhood through developing a
common national language, a language based on that of the indigenous people, the
Malays; a language that historically was the language of all races who resided in the
Malay states” (Kim et al. 2005).
According to Gill (2005), in Malaysia, decisions about language and the nation
are “top-down”, for they are “policies that come from people in power and authority
(mostly from the government) to make decisions for a certain group without con-
sulting the end-users of the language” (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997, p. 196). In the
case of the PPSMI, it was a “top-down” decision with consultations, in the format
of five round-table discussions, comprising academics, educationists and a Deputy
Minister, and other representatives from Malaysian society. These consultations
were held before the Cabinet made the decision to revoke the policy. However, there
has been a groundswell of bottom-up reaction from some parts of Malaysian society
to the top-down policy (Hassan 2008; Gomez 2008).
4.10 Conclusion
In order to respond to incessant lobbying from various ethnic-based political and

educationist groups, policy makers need to understand the larger forces at work in
this seemingly local issue that actually has global roots. The sensitivity surrounding
this issue will require policy makers to directly challenge the perception of critics
who mix all the issues into one and address them with a biased political agenda. The
fact is citizens are not being asked to abandon their ethnic languages in major
aspects of their lives, and ethnic languages are still significant and relevant in making
Malaysia unique. The implementation is purely a strategic response to the fact that
English is the international language of Science and Mathematics that students must
master to be competitive. The process of globalization does not need to compel
Malaysia to sacrifice ethnic languages for future economic growth. Policy makers
must convince critics of this; otherwise resistance to growth will be stiff. What
policy makers can do is to identify the core culture and national values which guide
and drive national progress, to ensure they are preserved. In other words, policy
makers will need to address socio-cultural perspectives as much as economic per-
spectives in globalization.
Would it be possible, then, to give government schools the freedom of choice in
the medium of instruction that they feel would be advantageous for them? After all,
the government has liberalized the education system, and there are private schools
and international schools which use English as the medium of instruction. How
does a nation decide on what is best for its people and for the long term development
of the country – how does it balance between the needs of linguistic nationalism and
those of development-oriented nationalism? Will patriotic essentialism prevail? Or
do we have the great good fortune to expect a heavy dose of realism and intelligence
from those in power in the drawing up and implementation of language policy in
Malaysia?
Malaysia is again at a linguistic crossroads, and has to work out the dilemma of
deciding what is best for the nation and its people to enable it to engage with the
challenges of globalization and its aim of becoming an industrialized nation by
2020. While the advocates of mother-tongue education are elated (for the moment
at least) by the victory they have secured, there remain a host of questions that need
to be addressed and answered seriously. What is more is that these questions pertain
not only to Malaysia and the Malaysian government, but to practically all of the
countries in the developing world.
References
Abdullah Hassan. 2004. One hundred years of language planning in Malaysia: Looking ahead to
the future. Language in India, 4. http://www.languageinindia.com/nov2004/abdulla1.html.
Retrieved on 10 November 2011.
Choong, K.F. 2004. English for the teaching of mathematics and science (ETeMS): From concept
to implementation. Retrieved April 2008, from http://eltcm.org/eltc/download/paperbank/PDF/
English.
Clark, C.M. 1992. Teachers as designers in self-directed professional development. In
Understanding teacher development, ed. A. Hargreaves and M.G. Fullan, 75–84. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gill, Saran K. 2004. Language policy and planning in higher education in Malaysia: A nation in
linguistic transition. In Multilingual approaches in university education: Challenges and prac-
tices, vol. 11, ed. C. van Leeuwen and R. Wilkinson, 109–125. Maastricht: Universiteit
Maastricht Press.
Gill, S.K. 2005. Language policy in Malaysia: Reversing direction. Language Policy, 4(3): 241–260.
Gill, S.K., A. Hazita, R. Norizan, and M. Fadhil. 2003–2005. Ongoing two year research project
on language planning and policy in higher education in Malaysia: Responding to the needs of
the knowledge economy. Funded by the Malaysian Government.
Gill, Saran K., M.K. Radha Nambiar, Noraini Ibrahim, and Tan Kim Hua. 2010. Globalization and
Language-in-Education policy shift in Malaysia: Challenges of implementation. In Globalization
of language and culture in Asia – The impact of globalization processes on language, ed. V. Vaish,
180–205. London: Continuum.
60 S.K. Gill
Hazri Jamil, January. 2010. Historical overview of Malaysia’s experience in enhancing equity and
quality of education: Focusing on management and mediation of multiethnic issues. Paper
presented at Africa-Asia Experience Sharing Seminar: Efforts towards Improving the Quality
of Education, Accra, Ghana.
Isahak Haron, Abdul Latif Hj. Gapor, Md Nasir Masran, Abdul Halim Ibrahim, and Mariam
Mohamed Nor. 2008. Kesan dasar pengajaran matematik dan sains dalam bahasa Inggeris di
sekolah rendah. (The effects of the teaching of mathematics and science in English in primary
schools). Penerbit Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjung Malim, Malaysia.
Jimadie Shah Othman. March 22, 2009. In Language Issues in Malaysia. Study: Language switch
has marginal benefits. Malaysiakini online. http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20090322. Retrieved
on 12 December 2009.
Kamsilawati, K. 2005. Teachers’ perceptions of their level of readiness in teaching mathematics
and science in English (ETeMS). Masters of Education thesis. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
Bangi, Malaysia.
Kaplan, R.B., and R.B. Baldauf Jr. 1997. Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Kim, L.S., S.M. Tan, and K.A. Bakar. 2005. Language and nationhood: Confronting new realities.
Speech by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in Language and nationhood: New contexts, new realities,
pp. vii. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia: Bangi.
Lowe, V., and U. Khattab. 2003. Malaysian language planning and cultural rights in the face of a
global world. In Cultural rights in a global world, ed. Anura Goonasekera, Cees Hamelink, and
Venkat Iyer, 217–222. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. 2009. Pengajaran dan pembelajaran sains dan matematik dalam bahasa
Inggeris (PPSMI) (Teaching and learning science and mathematics in English). 13 March,
2009. Blogging to Unblock Online. http://chedet.cc/blog/?p=221#more-221. Retrieved 12
December 2009.
Mohd. Ariff Sabri. 2009. The PPSMI Issue. Sakmongkol AK47 online. http://sakmongkol.
blogspot.com/2009/07/ppsmi-issue.html. Retrieved on 12 December 2009.
Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin. 2003. The acceptance of science and mathematics in English among
students and teachers. In The effects of using English as the medium of instruction for mathematics
and science in primary school, ed. Isahak Haron, Abdul Latif Hj. Gapor, Md Nasir Masran,
Abdul Halim Ibrahim, and Mariam Mohamed Nor, 30–32. Thesis. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan
Idris, Tanjung Malim, Malaysia.
PAGE MALAYSIA. 2009. Soft Landing Implications Table. http://www.pagemalaysia.org/images/
news/news_softlanding.jpg. Retrieved on 12 August 2009).
Pandian, A., and R. Ramiah. 2004. Mathematics and science in English. Teacher voice. The
English teacher, vol 33, pp. 11. http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2004/2004-50.pdf. Retrieved on
12 December 2009.
Pennycook, A. 1994. The cultural politics of English as an international language. London:
Longman.
Pillay, H., and M. Thomas. 2004. A nation on the move: From chalkface to laptops. Paper presented
at MICELT – Malaysian International Centre for English Language Teaching.
PKPIM Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (National Union of Malaysian Muslim
Students). 2008. Menolak Usaha Meneruskan Pengajaran, Sains, Matematik dan Teknologi
dalam Bahasa Inggeris (PPSMI) di peringkat sekolah hingga ke IPT. (Denying the efforts of the
teaching of Science, Mathematics and Technology in English from Primary School till Higher
Learning Institutions). http://www.pkpim.net/v2/info/memorandum/72-menolok-usaha-
meneruskan-ppsmi.html. Retrieved on 15 September 2009.
Rappa, A.L., and L. Wee. 2006. The federation of Malaysia. In Language policy and modernity in
Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Chapter 2, pp. 29. New
York: Springer.
Tsui, A.B.M., and J.W. Tollefson. 2004. The centrality of medium-of-instruction policy in socio-
political processes. In Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? ed. J.W.
Tollefson and A.B.M. Tsui, 1–18. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tsui, A.B.M., and J.W. Tollefson. 2007. Issues in language policy, culture and identity. In Language
policy, culture and identity in Asian contexts, ed. Amy B.M. Tsui and James W. Tollefson,
259–270. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Newspaper References
Chan Kok Leong. 2009. Dr M turns to Internet opinion on PPSMI issue. The Edge. 9th July, p. 9.
Chan Kok Leong. 2009. Interview with Professor Diraja Ungku Aziz. PPSMI satu kesilapan.
(PPSMI is a mistake.) Mingguan Malaysia. 19th July.
Chapman, K. 2008. Stick to English, parents urge ministry. The Star, 23rd October.
Chapman, K. 2009. Reeling from the reversal. Sunday star, 12th July.
Goh, L., and K. Chapman. 2008. Weighing all the pros and cons. Sunday Star, 14th December.
Goh, L., and K. Chapman. 2008. Going for a compromise? The Star, 21st December.
Gomez, J. 2008. Teaching of science and mathematics in English: Revert to Bahasa, urge writers.
The new sunday Times, 14 th September, p. 16.
Hassan, A. 2008. Time to drop linguistic shackles. The Sun, Friday, 5th September, p. 16.
Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin. 2009. Why PPSMI reversal makes sense. The New Sunday Times.
Sunday July 19th, p. 21.
Report of the Education Committee. 1956. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press.
Subramaniam, G., and Mardziah Hayati Abdullah. 2007. Concerted effort needed. The Star 23 th
December. Retrieved in June 2008.
Chapter 5
English in Multicultural and Multilingual
Indonesian Education
Fuad Abdul Hamied
5.1 Introduction
The national language policy issue in Indonesia is an intricate phenomenon. The

problem is amplified by the fact that the Indonesian language officially functions as
the state-unifying language and that there exist hundreds of local languages. In
addition, foreign languages, especially English, are positioned as an indispensable
tool in global competition and cooperation through the utilization of science and
technology as well as trade, commerce and other human-interaction activities.
Therefore, English teachers in Indonesia are very much aware that they belong to
the global community, one characterised by varied transactions in domains like eco-
nomics, communications, transportation, and politics. In response to the challenge
of English language proficiency, improvement of education has, in terms of policy,
been translated into using English in schools, despite all the pros and cons, includ-
ing the use of English as a medium of instruction.
Against this backdrop, this chapter will discuss issues and practices pertaining
to English as a foreign language in Indonesian education. English in Indonesia
can only be fully appreciated in the context of a national language policy, and
a national languages-in-education policy, which are still evolving to meet national
and international needs. Compared to other countries and their approach to
English covered in this volume, Indonesia presents a context in which issues of
English language teaching are particularly affected by in-country considerations of
policy and practice.
Specifically, the chapter will consider the influential status of the Indonesian
language, existing basic language policies, the educational stance of foreign language
F.A. Hamied (*)

Department of English Education, Indonesia University of Education,
Bandung, Indonesia
e-mail: fuadah@indo.net.id

64 F.A. Hamied
teaching, and EFL assessment praxis in Indonesian educational institutions. It will

also consider the large numbers of English learners, the teaching potential and
resources available, the development of schools with international standards, and
the roles of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher education programs at
the tertiary level and in EFL professional organizations. This analysis involves a
comparison of the position of the Indonesian language in its national multilingual
context with the international position of English(es).
5.2 The Indonesian Language as the Language

of National Unity
The ups and downs of the teaching of English in Indonesia have been significantly
affected by the political status of the Indonesian language, which has been made
dominant in all educational settings. In the early 1990s, an order was issued from
the Ministry of Domestic Affairs (Dirjen Sospol Depdagri 1992) regarding the
socialization of the Indonesian language: as a primary consideration, Indonesian,
as the national language, has a key status and role in developing and cultivating
awareness of the need to enhance togetherness and oneness within the robustly
diverse nation of Indonesia (Memet 1993). Amid this ‘chaotic’ multilingual setting
of Indonesia, characterised by the presence of 700+ languages of which more than
150 are spoken by over 10,000 speakers (Languages of Indonesia), the socio-political
status and function of Indonesian acquire strategic significance. The status of the
language is strengthened by Article 36 of the 1945 Constitution, which states that
“the state language is the Indonesian language”.
On the one hand, the multilingual atmosphere of the Indonesian nation constitutes
a culturally rich blessing; on the other hand, it presents a challenge that needs further
scrutiny. To appropriately understand the role of language in a context of mulitilin-
gualism, and especially Indonesian multiligualism, there is a need for consensus on
such various differing sociolinguistic-related concepts as nationalism and nationism
(Fasold 1984). Nationalism is to be understood as referring to feelings developed from
and supporting nationality; whereas nationism refers to more pragmatic governmental
actions and their consequences. The spread and use of the Indonesian language has
enormously enhanced the feelings of nationality among the Indonesians throughout
the country. And at the same time, it has also helped governments at the national and
regional levels to conduct their governmental affairs and services in effective ways.
Throughout its history, the Indonesian nation has enjoyed many divine blessings,
in spite of such bitter tests as are currently felt and experienced by the nation.
One of the most significant blessings was the smooth acceptance of the Indonesian
language, rooted in languages spoken in the central part of Sumatera, as the national
language. This is frequently held up as a good example of language planning
(Moeliono 1981). The acceptance was proclaimed in the historic youth pledge on
28 October 1928. Its status as the state language was explicitly formalised in the
5 English in Multicultural and Multilingual Indonesian Education 65
1945 Constitution, Article 36. In its status as the national language, the Indonesian
language functions as (1) a symbol of nationhood, (2) a conveyor of national
identity, (3) an instrument for unifying tribes and communities that have different
cultures and languages, and (4) a tool for cross-cultural communication. In its
function as the official language, the Indonesian language functions as (1) the official
state language, (2) the official medium of instruction in educational institutions,
(3) the official language for communication at the national level in social and gov-
ernmental affairs, and (4) the official language for development of culture and the
use of science and technology (Anas 1993).
As mentioned earlier, the role of a language in a nation involves both nationalism
and nationism. With regard to nationalism, a language has a variety of roles. These
include the role of “contrastive self-identification” or “unifying and separatist
functions”. Put simply, this particular role refers to the feeling of members of a
community that they are united and have a common identity with other members
who speak the same language. The Indonesian nation is a multilingual nation, and
a multilingual nation is likely to face more problems connected with national
unity than a monolingual nation (Moeliono 1981, p. 41). At the practical level,
difficulty in communication within a nation could serve as a constraint for trade and
industry, as well as for social interactions. In short, multilingual settings could
weaken the sense of nationalism. Fasold (1990) suggested two alternatives: the
development of a national language; or the development of nationalism rooted in
issues outside the language.
When applied to the educational setting, the competition between nationalism
and nationism causes its own specific problems. On the one hand, the optimal
strategy as regards language in education is the use of local or ethnic languages.
“The rights of ethnic languages are recognized in the 1945 Constitution, saying that
these minor languages are to be developed and protected by the government”
(Alwasilah 2001, p. 4). In reality, the local language is indeed the language already
proficiently acquired by the students in general, so that the teaching-learning activi-
ties could begin as early as possible without any necessary delay due to the acquisi-
tion of L2 as the medium of instruction to be used by the teacher. On the other hand,
this strategy could endanger efforts to develop nationalism. When school students
gain their education through the use of their ethnic language, the ethnic language
would automatically gain significant status. This could cause the emergence of
contra-national “nationalism”.
When talking about the role of a language as a unifying tool for national unity
in the context of Indonesia, we cannot ignore the 700+ local languages. Discussing
the Indonesian multilingual setting, as well as stating that Indonesian is the state
language, Article 36 of the 1945 Constitution, Chapter XV, continues, “in a region
which has its own language well maintained by its community such as Javanese,
Sundanese, Maduranese and the like, the language will be taken care of by the state.
Those local languages constitute part of Indonesian culture”.
The existence of many languages and varieties in a language community neces-
sitates the formulation and implementation of language policy. Language policy
66 F.A. Hamied
could be explicitly spelt out, or could be implicitly developed. Whatever form is

adopted as regards language policy, it must have specifically formulated goals. In
this respect, McKay and Hornberger (1996) observe two characteristics of the goals
of a language policy: (1) goals related to the language, and (2) goals that are politi-
cally and economically stimulated. As to the goals related to the language, three
types of policies can be identified: (1) policy of language shifts, (2) policy of lan-
guage maintenance, and (3) policy of language enrichment. In simple terms, lan-
guage policy can be partly determined by our position on language varieties.
The goal of language policy from the political point of view is to support the
formation of a nation. Language policy can be implemented not only as a solver of
communication problems in multilingual societies, but also as a strengthening
factor for national unity (Anas 1993, p. 10). In the Indonesian context, language
varieties could be seen as a mosaic ornamented by hundreds of ethnic languages. If one
of the ornaments were taken out, the mosaic would not remain as beautiful. Language
policy could be developed on the basis of economic motivation like international
communication and marketing.
In a multilingual nation like Indonesia, a variety of language behaviours could
become a unifying instrument of the nation, but it could also provoke disunity of the
nation. An intricate problem with regard to language and nation recalls the stereotype
hypothesis (Williams 1970). This hypothesis states that “one’s evaluational reactions
to speech are a stereotyped or generalized version of his attitudes toward the users
of that speech” (p. 381). Simply stated, this hypothesis states that we tend to relate
speech type to person kind. Speech types could be in the form of a language, a dialect
or a variety. This stereotyping could affect the behaviours of speakers and listeners
in an interactional setting—how one person perceives the message conveyed by the
other, what expectations could be held of the other, and so on.
This linguistic problem reflects the linguistic complexity of the multilingual
setting and atmosphere of Indonesia, a nation currently struggling to maintain
and strengthen its national unity. Our multilingual context indeed constitutes intri-
cate factors that may jeoperdize our nation’s nationalism. The spirit of “looking
distinctive” and “performing with full freedom” has seemingly been counterproductive
to our efforts in cultivating our national language. Moreover, the issuance of Law
No. 22 (1999) concerning the autonomy of local government could become a
difficulty-causing factor in maintaining the Indonesian language as the national
language, as one item in the law allows for the possibility of developing more room
for the local language.
Possession of a language develops a common identity among the users’ ways of
perceiving. Producing language becomes a specific signifier of an individual or the
community using the language; therefore, to enliven mutual understanding among
members of a multilingual society will require understanding and awareness of the
differences in the existing languages. It needs reemphasizing that as a tool of com-
munication, the benefit of language would be determined by the users of the tool.
Whether languages existing in a multilingual nation like Indonesia become a unifying
or disunifying instrument depends on the users of the language. It is up to the people
of Indonesia to treat the multilingual atmosphere as a divine blessing for further
enhancing the nation’s unity. The next question then is how we can keep a balance
in maintaining the language of national unity while at the same time cultivating
local languages for the purposes of cultural preservation, as well as fostering foreign
language proficiency for global interaction.
5.3 Language Policies
The national language policy in Indonesia has been articulated and formularized in
different seminars and congresses, specifically planned to review and revise the
existing policy and to accommodate new challenges and developments that occur
in the current Indonesian linguistic scene (Hamied 2001). The national language
policy issue in Indonesia is certainly an intricate phenomenon. We have to view the
linguistic environment with an open mind, first with regard to the Indonesian
language as the language of national unity; and, second, with regard to the existence
of hundreds of local languages. In addition, foreign languages, especially English,
are indispensable tools in global competition and cooperation and for science and
technology, as well as for trade, commerce and other human-interaction activities.
Language policies in Indonesia have been brought into being at different historical
moments since the Indonesian people’s struggle for independence. Moeliono (1981)
has noted that the first linguistic meeting in Indonesia that produced historically
significant language policies was initiated by Poedjangga Baroe (New Poets) at the
First Language Congress held in Surakarta in 1938. The Second Language Congress
was convened by the government in Medan in 1954, and the Third Language
Congress by the National Language Center in Jakarta in 1978.
At the First Language Congress, the Indonesian language was proposed as the
official language and as the medium for communication in representative bodies, in
courts and and also in legal documents. As to language development, it was sug-
gested that the existing spelling system be maintained, with some spelling revision
being undertaken. A new grammar needed to be written and the lexicon developed.
It was also agreed that the language of newspapers be standardised. Finally, the
establishment of an Indonesian Language Institute and Faculty of Letters and
Philosophy needed considering (Moeliono 1981:66–67).
The Second Language Congress, held in 1954, stipulated that language policy
should regulate the status and the mutual relationship between the Indonesian
language, local languages and foreign languages. The language policy should
develop a love for the Indonesian language as well as local languages, and maintain
self-respect among the users of the language. It was acknowledged that the basis
for the Indonesian language was Malay, which was appropriated within the context
of social growth of the Indonesian people. Regarding language development, it was
suggested that a guide to the pronunciation of Indonesian be developed and
published, and that the spelling be standardized on the basis of phonemic principles.
A norm-based grammar for primary and secondary education should be developed
in the short-term, while a complete and official descriptive grammar was to be
68 F.A. Hamied
developed in the long-term. New terms were to be coined on the basis of local and
international languages. Translating agencies whose responsibility covered literary
translation, an institute for developing an etymological dictionary, and the Indonesian
Language Institute, with a remit to develop and maintain the national language,
should be established. Public and school libraries should be set up. Guidance on
the growth of the Indonesian language and on the effort to make the Indonesian
language the mother tongue of the Indonesian nation should be developed
(Moeliono 1981:67).
At the Third Language Congress held in 1978 it was agreed that a congress on
national culture be convened. As regards language development, a grammar that
reflected an established, norm-based language was to become the first priority. A
standard dictionary of the Indonesian language should be published. Writing quality
text-books that took into consideration the differing cultural backgrounds of the stu-
dents should be prioritized. Counting-systems used in Anglo-Saxon countries and
France should be used as the basis for the Indonesian counting system in order to
ensure effectiveness in global transactions. It was proposed that a national board of
language development be formed to ensure that all layers of society be represented in
forming as well as implementing language policies. To build up a pool of well-
informed citizens, a national board of translation needed to be established. In addition,
proficiency in the Indonesian language should become a requirement, especially in
the public service. There should also be improvement in teacher training and lan-
guage teaching methodology including foreign language teaching methodology. Local
languages needed to be included in the school curriculum (Moeliono 1981:67–68).
Several congresses were subsequently held — for example, the Language and
Literature Symposium in 1966 which discussed spelling, grammar, literature and
language teaching; the Indonesian Language Seminar in 1968 which addressed
standardization, language analysis, and language use; the Indonesian Language
Seminar in 1972 that gave official recognition to the new spelling system; the
Terminology Symposium in 1972 which addressed the modernization of language
from the viewpoint of terminology; the National Language Policy Pre-Seminar in
1974 that placed language policy within the context of culture, national resilience,
education and teaching, literature and the press; and the National Language Policy
Seminar in 1975 which considered the status and function of languages in Indonesia,
standard languages and ways of standardization. Several themes recurred at the
congresses, due to either their significance or lack of earlier implementation.
The policy used as a guideline for handling language problems in Indonesia up
to 1999 was the one formulated in the National Language Policy Seminar held in
1975 (Alwi and Sugono 2000). Some 25 years later a review of the policy was con-
sidered necessary in order to adequately respond to current challenges due to
advancements and developments in information technology and globalization. On
the one hand, the Indonesian language had become more open to influences from
information technology and the wide use of foreign languages, especially of the use
of English in different forms of international intercourse. Increasing use of foreign
languages, especially English, for both governmental and business purposes neces-
sitates reformulation of the status and function of foreign languages. On the other
hand, in the context of the country’s move towards regional-autonomy-based gov-

ernance and of the preservation of local cultures, the local languages deserve more
thorough attention.
The Language Policy Seminar held in Cisarua, Bogor, Indonesia on 8–12
November 1999 considered a comprehensive range of linguistic and literary matters,
embracing problems regarding Indonesian language and literature, local language
and literature, and foreign languages (Alwi and Sugono 2000).
Later national congresses recommended that the National Language Center
become an institution equivalent in power to a Directorate General, reporting directly
to the Minister of National Education. And in 2011, the Center has now become
such an institution, called Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa.
Given the current position reflecting the status of the Indonesian language, both
as the national language and the state language, other indigenous languages have the
status of local or regional languages (Hamied 2001).
Each of the local languages in the Indonesian territory has its own functions.
The local language serves as the symbol of local identity, the tool for communication
among families and communities within the local region. It supports the local
culture, as well as supporting Indonesian language and literature, especially with
regard the lexical growth of the national language. Selected local languages serve to
support the national language as the medium for instruction at the preliminary stages
of education. In certain contexts, the local language can complement the Indonesian
language in regional governmental business.
Foreign languages function as the tool for international communication and
for accessing the benefits for national development brought about by science and
technology. The English language is considered as the first foreign language.
In addition, along with Latin and Sanskrit, it is a source for Indonesian language
enrichment and development, especially with regard to scientific terminology.
Arabic also has a special place in the Indonesian context. Arabic functions as the
language for religious matters and activities and for Islamic culture. When necessary,
other foreign languages are also used as a source for lexical development of the
Indonesian language.
Literature has historically played a specific and significant role in promoting
both the Indonesian language and the local languages. Therefore in our language
policy, Indonesian literature is seen as a part of our national culture as it expresses
national culture(s) in enhancing historical awareness as well as in augmenting
national spirit and solidarity. Local literature, the result of the creativity of local
people, acts as a tool for the expression of local culture in which cultural, aesthetic,
religious and socio-political experiences and values of the relevant ethnic group
are recorded; whereas foreign literature, as part of foreign culture, is viewed as a
source for inspiration and for a better and more comprehensive understanding of
Indonesian literatures.
The latest language policy also embodies guidelines for language development
and cultivation. As regards language development, three areas are covered, namely
research, standardization, and preservation (Pusat Bahasa 1999, 2003, 2008).
Research focuses on the use and usage of the Indonesian language and of the local
70 F.A. Hamied
languages. In addition, research on foreign languages is to be carried out to guard

against negative impacts on the growth and development of the Indonesian language
and to improve the quality of foreign language teaching. As to standardization,
the basic principle to follow is to move the democratic nature and pluralistic nature
of the Indonesian language towards more effective communication through the
development and publication of guidelines and dictionaries, including dictionaries
for specific disciplines or fields of study, grammars and other types of materials for
standardizing the Indonesian language. Preservation of the Indonesian language is
achieved by enhancing the proficiency of the Indonesian people in the language.
Preservation of local languages is the responsibility of the users themselves.
Documenting local languages which appear endangered is a priority.
Language cultivation refers to efforts to improve the quality of language use
through teaching and socialization. Efforts through teaching cover activities such as
curriculum development, and the development of materials that suit learner needs
and are in line with advances in language teaching methodology, as well as the
development of language-teacher professionalism. The use of a select few local
languages in the first few years in primary education is allowed. For example,
Javanese in Central and East Java, Sundanese in West Java, and now Balinese can
be used as a medium of instruction in the elementary school.
Efforts to develop and cultivate literature in the multilingual context of Indonesia
embody research and the procurement and development of facilities that enhance
the viability of literature at both the local and national level. Literary research is
conducted to develop and strengthen literary theories and to improve the quality of
literary works. Literature cultivation is carried out through teaching, socialization,
empowerment and preservation. Improving teacher education is a key to ensure that
the teacher is able to teach literature, use literary works available in school libraries,
to make better use of prominent local and national literary critics, and to be more
active in publishing literary works.
The best language policy is the one that is effectively and efficiently implemented
in real life contexts. To ensure implementation of the policy, institutions in charge of
initiating, supporting, supervising and evaluating every item in the policy as it is put
into practice have been set up. Governmental institutions involved include the National
Language Center, local/regional language centres, and overseas language centres.
Non-governmental institutions include such institutions as professional organizations
and foundations that deal with language and/or literature (Hamied 2001).
As outlined above, the language policy has set the status and function of the
Indonesian language, local languages, and foreign languages and provided guide-
lines for the development and cultivation of each. However, the linguistic and edu-
cational settings have created dilemmas. Should we use and teach Indonesian from
the earliest stage in education at all schools and in all multilingual communities, or
delay it until the students reach a level of bilingual maturity? Should we teach
English as early as the first grade of primary education or even in kindergarten, or
teach it only when the students have gained sufficient proficiency in the Indonesian
language, i.e. the seventh grade? Must we also take into account the need to recruit
qualified language teachers or accept the fact that the government has not the
financial capacity to train and employ new recruits?
In some local language communities there has been a strong movement for the
local language to be used as the medium of instruction, at least during the first
3 years of primary education. When no consideration is given to the level of multi-
lingualism of the school environment, this can bring about problems such as the
learning difficulties faced by students whose mother tongue is different from that of
the local community and the medium of instruction. A Javanese child who does not
have a sufficient level of proficiency in Sundanese and who has to go to school in a
rural West Java village has serious difficulty in his/her class activities. The use of
local languages as the medium of instruction also impedes cross-regional mobility
for the students. Thus, the use of local languages must vary from school to school
and take into consideration the multilingual nature of the school and locality, as well
as the need to allow for mobility for the students (Hamied 2010b, April).
With regard to the question of when to teach English, the Ministry of Education
has recommended that English can be taught at the primary school. It is not yet a
compulsory subject. In some elementary schools, local content subjects are taught
in English beginning from Grade 4 (BSNP 2006). Opponents argue that introducing
English at the primary school may hinder children’s learning of the national lan-
guage. They further point to the lack of readiness among primary school students
for mastering more than one language; however, many of these children are already
bilingual or even multilingual. Proponents of this idea argue that early exposure to
English would better equip students with enhanced multilingual awareness that
could itself promote their understanding of their own national language. Empirical
research to support or challenge either of these opposing arguments has yet to be
conducted. In my personal view, foreign language teaching, if conducted in a pro-
fessional fashion by trained teachers, will not cause harm. But the question that
requires an immediate answer is whether we have enough professionally qualified
English teachers and adequate teaching-learning facilities to offer English as a
foreign language at our primary schools, let alone teachers who can successfully
teach content subjects through English.
Offering any language program, whether it involves the national language, local
languages or foreign languages, requires qualified language teachers. In many
schools, however, there are language teachers whose educational background is
in a subject different from the language taught. For the many schools which badly
need qualified teachers the government can’t afford the training of new recruits.
Therefore, the shortage of qualified teachers and lack of financial resources are
on-going problems.
5.4 The Status of Foreign Language Teaching
The status of foreign languages in the Indonesian educational context is implicitly

and explicitly covered in several government regulations (RoI Law 24). At grades
7–12, English is a required subject. In retrospect, we have had a long history of
interacting with other countries, and hence with foreign languages. To improve our
current political and economic standing, intensive communication and relevant
72 F.A. Hamied
support is required from other countries. Bilateral and multilateral interactions with
other countries necessitate that many Indonesians need adequate proficiency in
foreign languages, especially English.
The role of English in the era in which information technology has become so
advanced and socially penetrating is both fundamental and strategic. It is fundamen-
tal, as information is commonly disseminated in English; it is strategic, as English
is also used to introduce our own marketable strengths and capacities to the global
community.
5.5 EFL Assessment
Implementing an English-in-education policy in Indonesia is closely bound up with

questions of language assessment, since the competitive pressures on education and
student achievement are intense. Assessment can also be of great help in collecting
information concerning success or failure in foreign languages, in the form of both
standardized and classroom tests. However, most tests are relatively limited as they
can only tell us about certain aspects of student achievement. Very often a test is
claimed as comprehensive (most commonly referred to in language testing as inte-
grative), and yet due to limited space and time, the so-called integrative test mea-
sures only part of what the test purports to measure (Hamied 2010a). The problem
of validity then surfaces. This problem could be further intensified by the fact that
validity could be seen from two different perspectives—positivistic and naturalistic
(Lynch 1996). The positivistic perspective has a tendency to value internal validity;
whereas the naturalistic perspective concentrates on an interpretation that is embed-
ded in and shaped by testees’ experiences.
In our TEFL arena in Indonesia, language assessment has been a burning issue
for as long as we have been involved in assessment at classroom, regional and
national levels. Regional and national assessments have been regularly administered
at different levels of schooling, generating results in the form of English national
examination scores. Difficulties, dilemmas, mysteries, perplexities and puzzles have
been experienced by both parents and school personnel alike. The test scores have
become the “only” tool that determines whether a student can achieve entry to his
or her first choice school. Moreover parents in certain regions know that malprac-
tices exist so that they can have their children’s test scores re-arranged or modified
to provide them with enhanced educational opportunities. Testing problems exist
not only at school, but also in colleges and universities.
It has been indicated (Hamied 2010a) that the Indonesian government remains
concerned about the standard of achievement of the nation’s students. Therefore,
national exams are still considered an important tool for setting national standards
to maintain and develop quality education throughout the school system. Until the
administration of the 2007 exam administration, however, national exams at junior
and senior high schools involving more than five million examinees had been mainly
used as a determinant for passing different school year exams and for school-leaving
certification, rather than for the improvement of teaching-learning pedagogy.
Undergraduate ELT programs in Indonesia also suffer from several problems
related to testing and evaluation, which will eventually jeopardize the quality of the
programs’ outcomes. From my own experience, and based on some informal inter-
actions with colleagues at some higher education institutions, it can be said that
language testing has confounded its fundamental goal. This is especially problem-
atic when ELT teachers have no faith in what they practise in test development and
test administration. Undergraduate ELT programmes in Indonesia suffer negative
backwash, being too reliant on testing to fulfill academic administrative require-
ments, on test development with the principle of efficiency as the first and only
consideration, and on norm-referencing test result analyses conducted to cover up
teaching weaknesses (Hamied 2000b, February).
An important point needs to be made here: although we face difficulties in
assessing language as communication, especially with regard to high standards of
reliability, we should try hard not to be too dependent on highly “reliable” language
test instruments when we question their “actual” validity. Undergraduate ELT
teachers are committed to creating more communicative testing instruments and
activities which are practical and which can be used and implemented in our
undergraduate ELT setting.
5.6 The Number of Learners and the Shortage of Resources
Indonesia is one of the biggest countries in the world, with a population now close
to a quarter of a billion (RPJMN 2010–2014; BPS-Statistics Indonesia 2009).
We have to also address the issue of an increasing population size through different
sets of educational offerings such as formal and non-formal education, including
types of life-long education programs for a new generation of longer-lived
Indonesians.
With regard to how competitive Indonesia is in the global race, its present global
competitiveness index stands 10 places higher than its rank in 2005, being 44th among
139 countries (World Economic Forum 2011). Three areas are of particular concern:
infrastructure (82nd), health & primary education (62nd) and technological readiness
(91st). On a more positive note, Indonesia ranks higher in business sophistication
(37th), macroeconomic environment (35th), and innovation (36th). This certainly
bodes well for the future, but does not reduce the urgency of making improvements in
the other priority areas.
The education participation rate is comparable to other Asian countries at the
primary school level. However, Indonesia starts to be left behind at the high school
level, and far behind at the college level. We are confronted with a huge school
population. In primary schools alone we have to manage close to 30 million students,
at the secondary level over 18 million, and 4.5 million at the tertiary level.
74 F.A. Hamied
English is taught in many primary schools, and is compulsory in junior and

secondary schools (with over 60 thousand schools and with over 18 million students).
Yet, there are, on average, only two teachers of English for each school. Therefore
one English teacher has to handle some 150 students. These are across-the-board
statistics, which, in reality, means that there are schools in which English teachers
have to handle even more students.
The teaching force is also a matter of concern. We still have teachers of English
whose academic background and qualifications do not meet the minimum require-
ments set out in the Law of Education, which is a minimum of a 4-year college
degree. More than 30% of English teachers have no academic qualifications.
In 2007 and 2008, more than 27,000 teachers and school personnel were involved
in a national assessment using the test of English for international communication
(TOEIC). The results were not convincing. In the 2007 test administration, more
than 50% of the candidates were categorized at the novice level. Only 15% achieved
intermediate levels and above. The results suggested that less than 5% of teachers
and school personnel were at a level capable of teaching subjects through English.
The role of teachers in any educational setting is central. Deficiencies on the part
of the teachers need to be addressed by teacher education institutions. At present,
we have more private tertiary institutions than public ones offering English lan-
guage teacher education. A and B accreditation levels are considered necessary for
producing better English teachers. Level A accreditation is conferred on a program
that has surpassed the minimum standards as outlined in National Standards for
Education, and B level accreditation is given to a program which is very close to the
minimum standards. However, more than 30% of ELT tertiary programs fall below
these levels.
Professional organizations are legally required to take part in a concerted effort
with the government in raising the quality of education, especially in improving the
professional capacity of teachers. English can only be enhanced by the realization
of English across the curriculum, an expectation which would need support from
both human and non-human resources. English across the curriculum could be suc-
cessful only when non-English teachers have sufficient English proficiency and
pedagogical skills to teach their students in English. In addition, English across the
curriculum can occur only when well-stocked school libraries and other types of
resources are available in the school.
5.7 Development of Schools with International Standards
As regards the recent move to establish schools with international standards, we

need to ask whether, in our school system, we emphasise subject matter content
or the medium of instruction; and whether we have to focus more on establishing
standards rather than looking into what potential exists for each individual school.
With regard to the use of English, the question is whether internationalization in
education is always the goal and whether English is the sine qua non of such
education.
We currently, directly and indirectly, respond to global challenges through using
English at schools, both as a subject which is examined nationally and as a medium of
instruction for selected subjects such as mathematics and sciences, as is the case in
Pilot Project Schools “with international standards”. By law, every province and every
district (there are about 450 districts altogether) is required to have at least one such
school, and these schools use English as a medium of instruction (RoI Law 20).
These schools must be recognized by the national board of accreditation at the
highest level. The curriculum should be school-based and benchmarked against
common practices in OECD and other developed countries. Another point most
strenuously debated is the requirement to use English in teaching mathematics,
science and other selected core courses (cf. Chap. 4 by Gill, this volume).
A further concern is that the cost of the international-standard schools is borne
by the students. Charging extra fees for this high quality education will inevitably
widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The requirements in the law for
turning a state school into an international-standard institution are flawed because,
among other things, they focus mainly on the facilities the school can provide.
The ambitious international-standards program was not accompanied by adequate
human resources. Some observers have demanded that the schools be scrapped
altogether because they threaten to price low-income students out of a quality
education.
5.8 English(es) in the Indonesian Context
Indonesians are used to living within multicultural settings. The position of the
Indonesian language in Indonesia is approximately analogous to the position of
English and world Englishes, as people have become used to the many different
varieties of the language now being spoken by Indonesians from diverse linguistic
and cultural backgrounds (Hamied 2000a, April). There are more than 700 living
languages spoken in Indonesia, 18 of which are used by more than one million
speakers, namely: Indonesian, Javanese, Sundanese, Madurese, Minangkabau, Musi
Malay, Bugis, Banjarese, Acehnese, Balinese, Betawi, Sasak, Batak Toba,
Makassarese, Batak Dairi, Batak Simalungun, Batak Mandailing, and Jambi Malay.
As we have seen, the Indonesian language is the official language in the country, but
as the language is in constant contact with more than 700 local languages, there are
many varieties of Indonesian.
The varieties of the Indonesian language are well accepted and used throughout
the country. The main aim is that interaction and communication among members
of the community needs to be successful. A Javanese speaker when talking in
Indonesian to a person from West Java would expect an Indonesian with a Sundanese
variety. Likewise, a Sundanese talking to a Makassarese would expect an Indonesian
with a Makassarese variety.
76 F.A. Hamied
Exposure of every individual citizen of Indonesia to different languages is a

positive asset for his/her acquisition of new languages, including English. Since
English has become a global language, more and more Indonesians are strongly
motivated to learn English. Without English, “one would not be able to function to
the full” (Alwasilah 2001, p. 56). With the tremendous advancement of information
and communication technology, exposure to English is a daily phenomenon, and
therefore, learning English is thereby automatically enhanced. To take the birth of
the Internet as an example, this now dominates many of our lives. According to
Internet World Statistics (www.internetworldstats.com), the number of estimated
Internet users was 1,802,330,457 for December 31, 2009. The largest number live
in Asia, where there are nearly 800 million internet users. In the list of the top ten
internet user countries, Indonesia is the sixth with more than 30 million users. And
considering that more than 80% of home pages on the Web are in English, and
between 60% and 85% of email messages are also in English, then a substantial
portion of Indonesians have daily contact with and exposure to English, including
to a wide range of varieties of English. As the Indonesian people represent an extensive
number of linguistic backgrounds, we teachers should accept varieties of English.
Openness and flexibility should consequently characterise teachers of English in
multilingual Indonesia.
5.9 Conclusion
Within the context of multicultural and multilingual Indonesian education, the fol-
lowing issues with regards to English language teaching are significant:
• As a multilingual setting, Indonesia is likely to have English learners with variet-
ies of English characterized by linguistic features influenced by hundreds of
local languages (Hamied 2000a, April).
• For an Indonesian learner of English as a lingua franca, the key issue is how to
get things across, how to understand and how to be understood; the issue is not
primarily native-like English.
• English as a lingua franca (Kirkpatrick and Proshina, this volume) is to be taught
using content from local cultures. For example, a translation of Indonesian litera-
ture into English could enable Indonesian learners to explain Indonesian culture
to the international community. Local literature can be seen as a tool for the
expression of local culture in which cultural, aesthetic, religious and socio-political
experiences of the ethnic group are recorded, and can then be communicated to
the global community (McGlynn 2008).
• Since Indonesia is an archipelago with thousands of islands, information and
communication technology become indispensable. Therefore, the focus of EFL
teaching and learning at schools should be on communication through
technology.
• English is the first foreign language taught at school and is included as one of the
six subjects for the national examination throughout the country. However, the
teaching of the Indonesian language needs to be better promoted, as school
students are becoming weaker in their national language, possibly due to too
much emphasis being placed on learning foreign languages, especially English.
For example, more than 50% of senior high school students failed Indonesian
language in the 2010 national examination.
References
Alwasilah, A.C. 2001. Language, culture, and education: A portrait of contemporary Indonesia.
Bandung: CV Andira.
Anas, A. 1993, October. Peran bahasa Indonesia dalam pembangunan bangsa. Paper presented at
Indonesian Language Congress VI in Jakarta.
Alwi, A., and D. Sugono (eds.). 2000. Politik bahasa: Risalah seminar politik bahasa. Jakarta:
Pusat Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
BPS-Statistics Indonesia. 2009. Statistical yearbook of Indonesia 2009. Jakarta: BPS-Statistics
Indonesia.
BSNP. 2006. Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar Tingkat SD/MI. Jakarta: Badan Standar
Nasional Pendidikan.
Dirjen Sospol Depdagri. 1992. Instruksi Menteri Dalam Negeri nomor 20 tahun 1991 tentang
pemasyarakatan Bahasa Indonesia dalam rangka pemantapan persatuan dan kesatuan bangsa.
Jakarta: Depdagri.
Fasold, R. 1984, 1990. The sociolinguistics of society. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, Inc.
Hamied, F.A. 1997. EFL program surveys in Indonesian schools: Towards EFL curriculum
implementation for tomorrow. In Language classrooms of tomorrow: Issues and responses, ed.
George M. Jacobs, 67–77. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Hamied, F.A. 2000a, April. Language policy within the multicultural context of Indonesia. Paper
presented at RELC Seminar on language curriculum and instruction in multicultural societies,
Singapore.
Hamied, F.A. 2000b, February. Perspectives of validity of testing and evaluation in the context of
undergraduate ELT in Indonesia. Paper presented at the third national conference on testing
and evaluation at ITB, Bandung Indonesia.
Hamied, F.A. 2001. English language education in Indonesia. Paper presented to the East-West
Center and Ohana Foundation workshop on Increasing Creativity and Innovation in English
language education, Honolulu, Hawai’i.
Hamied, F.A. 2010a. EFL assessment in Indonesia: National exams and quality education. In Asia
TEFL book series: Language assessment in Asia, ed. Young-in Moon and Bernard Spolsky,
99–120. Seoul: Asia TEFL.
Hamied, F.A. 2010b, April. World Englishes across cultures – an Indonesian perspective. Keynote
address at the LIA 50th Anniversary International Conference, Denpasar, Bali.
Languages of Indonesia. Retrieved from Wikipedia on 3 October 2011 at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
languages_of Indonesia/.
Lynch, B.K. 1996. Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
McGlynn, J. 2008. Memperkenalkan sastra Indonesia ke dunia internasional: Hambatan dan
tantangan. Paper presented at the 9th Indonesian language congress, Jakarta.
McKay, S.L., and N.H. Hornberger (eds.). 1996. Sociolinguistics and language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78 F.A. Hamied
Memet, M.Y.S. 1993. Peranan bahasa Indonesia dalam persatuan dan kesatuan bangsa. In Pusat
Bahasa. 1998. Bahasa Indonesia menjelang tahun 2000: Risalah Kongres Bahasa Indonesia
VI. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Moeliono, A.M. 1981. Pengembangan dan pembinaan bahasa: Ancangan alternatif di dalam
perencanaan bahasa. Jakarta: Penerbit Jambatan.
Pusat Bahasa. 1998. Bahasa Indonesia menjelang tahun 2000: Risalah Kongres Bahasa Indonesia
VI. Jakarta: Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Pusat Bahasa. 1999. Rumusan seminar politik bahasa. Rumusan Seminar Politik Bahasa Nasional,
Cisarua, Bogor, Jawa Barat, 8–12 November 1999 (Konsep-7).
Pusat Bahasa. 2003. Putusan Kongres Bahasa Indonesia Kedelapan. (The 8th Indonesian Language
Congress was held on 14–17 October 2003 in Jakarta).
Pusat Bahasa. 2008. Keputusan Kongres IX Bahasa Indonesia. (The 9th Indonesian Language
Congress was held on 28 October-1 November 2008 in Jakarta).
Republic of Indonesia Law, Number 20 Year 2003 on the National Education System.
Republic of Indonesia Law, Number 22 Year 1999 on Regional Autonomy.
Republic of Indonesia Law, Number 24 Year 2009 on Flag, Language, and the Indonesian Great
Seal as well as the National Anthem.
RPJMN. 2010–2014. Medium-Term National Development Plan of the Republic of Indonesia. The
1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
Williams, F. (ed.). 1970. Language and poverty: Perspectives on a theme. Chicago: Markham
Publishing Company.
World Economic Forum. 2011. The global competitiveness report 2011–2012: Country profile
highlights. Retrieved from www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_CountryProfilHighlights_
2011-12.pdf.
Chapter 6
Teaching English as an International
Language in Mainland China
Wen Qiufang
6.1 Introduction
English has been increasingly used as an international language along with the
development of globalization. It is employed to communicate between native speakers
and non-native speakers, but also, more often than not, among non-native speakers
such as Japanese and Norwegians, etc. There is not much debate on the role of
English as an International Language (EIL) in Mainland China, and pedagogical
decisions on what to be taught and what is to be achieved in English teaching have
not been transparent and explicitly stated.
This paper will contextualize the situation in Mainland China. It starts with the current
education system and English teaching in China to provide the reader with relevant
background information. It then describes, discusses and explains what is stated in the
English teaching syllabuses across different levels of formal instruction concerning the
issue of EIL, followed by a diachronic account of scholars’ and teachers’ views of
teaching EIL. Finally, the paper presents a model for pedagogical practice.
6.2 The Current Education System and English Teaching
To gain a bachelor’s degree in China normally takes 16 years, with 6 years for primary
education, 6 years for secondary education and 4 years for tertiary education. English,
as the most popular foreign language, is a required subject from Primary 3 onwards.1
1
Since 2001, the primary schools in urban areas have been required by the Ministry of Education
to offer English as a compulsory course for Primary 3 onwards (MOE 2001a).
W. Qiufang (*)
National Research Center for Foreign Language Education,
Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing, China
e-mail:wenqiufang@bfsu.edu.cn

80 W. Qiufang
In primary schools the students have 3 lessons per week with 40 min per lesson, and
in secondary schools they have no less than 4 weekly lessons with 45 min per lesson
(Ministry of Education [MOE] 2001b). At the tertiary level there are two kinds of
English instructional program: College English for non-English majors, and BA pro-
grams for English majors. Non-English majors refer to those taking physics, mathe-
matics, biology, business studies, sociology, etc. as their majors, while English majors
are those studying for a bachelor’s degree in English. Non-English majors usually
have four lessons a week with 50 min per lesson in the first 2 years of university study
(Department of Higher Education of the MOE 2004). English majors have about
2,000 lessons, with 14 lessons per week on average (Teaching Advisory Committee
for English Majors 2000).
A professional committee for implementing the policies of the MOE in English
teaching at the tertiary level is called an Advisory Committee. The members on such a
committee are nominated by universities and approved by the MOE. They are dis-
tinguished scholars, department heads, deans of foreign language schools, or even
university presidents, who all have rich experience in teaching English. Guided by
the MOE, they help design a syllabus, promote teaching reforms, evaluate text-
books, and develop high-quality teaching resources (Xia 2006). The committee
for non-English majors is called the College Foreign Language Teaching Advisory
Committee, and the committee for English majors is called the Teaching Advisory
Committee for BA programs in English. Unlike English teaching at the tertiary level,
the professional committee for English teaching at the primary and secondary level is not
a governmental organization. Instead, it is an unofficial association known as the
Foreign Language Teaching Association, a branch of the China Education
Association. Its functions are very similar to the tertiary level English Teaching
Advisory Committee.
According to the statistics reported by the MOE in 2008, enrolments of students
receiving formal instruction is 163.71 million, of which primary 3–6 school students
comprise 71.03 million; junior secondary school students number 57.21 million,
senior secondary school students 25.22 million, and tertiary students 10.24 million.
The overwhelming majority of these students are learning English, while a very
small proportion are learning Russian, Japanese or other languages. Evidently, China
has the largest number of students in the world who are learning English through
formal instruction. It is estimated that about 1.22 million English teachers are needed,
including 0.44 million primary teachers; 0.69 million secondary teachers, and 0.09
million tertiary teachers. In fact, only 0.2 million primary English teachers, 0.6 million
secondary English teachers (STEPSS 2005) and 0.05 million tertiary English teachers
are available (Wu 2005), leaving a staff student ratio of 1 teacher to 160 students at
primary level and 1:120 at secondary and tertiary levels. Therefore, Chinese schools
are now experiencing an acute shortage of English teachers. Moreover, the English
teachers who are teaching now are not all qualified. This information is presented in
Table 6.1.
6 Teaching English as an International Language in Mainland China 81
Table 6.1 The number of students and English teachers

in 2007: in millions (MOE 2008)
English English
teachers teachers
Student (actual (required
enrolment number) number)a
Primary 3–6 71.03 0.20 0.44
Junior secondary 57.21 0.60 0.69
Senior Secondary 25.22
Four-year 10.24 0.05 0.09
undergraduate
Total 163.71 0.85 1.22
a
The expected number of teachers is estimated by the
following formula: number of primary school teachers = the
number of enrollments/160 pupils, the number of secondary
schools and universities = the number of enrollments/120
students
6.3 Synchronic and Diachronic Descriptions

of Views About EIL
6.3.1 A Synchronic Analysis of the Four Official Documents
The Chinese education system is centralized, with nation-wide documents guiding

English language teaching across different levels. These documents are drafted by
different working committees, and their members are mostly from the advisory
committees mentioned above. The draft curriculum documents can only be approved
by the MOE after several cycles of extensive consultation with classroom teachers,
scholars and mid-level leaders in different parts of China. Considering that the
development of these documents involves various kinds of people, I believe an overall
analysis of these documents can present the reader with a general understanding
about the issue of EIL among Chinese academics and government officials.
Altogether, there are four official documents describing the objectives, require-
ments, etc. in relation to English teaching (see Table 6.2). The first two documents were
issued by the MOE (2001b, 2003), the third by the Department of Higher Education
(MOE 2007 > 2004) and the fourth by The Teaching Advisory Committee for Tertiary
English Majors of the Tertiary Foreign Languages Advisory Committee, which has
been approved by the Department of Higher Education of the MOE. The first docu-
ment covers primary education and junior secondary education, and the second covers
senior secondary education only. The third is for tertiary non-English majors, and the
fourth for tertiary English majors. An analysis of the four documents shows that they
share the same features, that is, they all include the development of cultural awareness
82 W. Qiufang
Table 6.2 Four official documents for English teaching in Mainland China
Title Who published When
1 The standard of English Courses for MOE 2001b
9 year Compulsory Education
2 The standard of English Courses for MOE 2003
Senior Secondary Schools
3 College English Curriculum require- Department of Higher 2004
ments (for non English majors) Education, MOE
4 English Teaching Syllabus for Tertiary Teaching Advisory 2000
English majors Committee for
Tertiary English
majors
National commitment
International vision
Team working
Motivation
Confidence
Affective attitudes
Cogn
it
Monit ive strateg ledge
egy
Cultu
Comm oring strat

y al know g
Cultur understandin
strat
e
Resou unication gy C u lt u r a l
ar e n e s s
ral aw
rce st st
rategy r. ult. aw
Cross-c ltural comp.
ning
s -c u
Language use ability Cros
ar
Lear
eness
ge
Lin wled
gui
stic kno
ski stic
lls gui
Ph cabu ar
Lin
Re akin g
Vo amm ns
Sp tenin
W adin g
on lar
Gr nctio
Fu pics
rit g
olo y
To
s
ing
Li
e
gy
Fig. 6.1 The structure of course objectives (Translated from Chinese: MOE, 2003, p. 6)
and cross-cultural abilities as one of the teaching objectives or as one of the teaching
principles, but do not explicitly touch upon the issue of EIL at all.
The first two syllabuses share the same objectives, which are described as a
wheel with one overall objective in the centre and five sub-objectives surrounding it
(see Fig. 6.1). Cultural awareness is one of the sub-objectives, and includes cultural
knowledge, cultural understanding, and cross-cultural communication awareness

and abilities. The English teaching syllabus for non-English majors takes cross-
cultural abilities as one of the learning objectives in parallel with other objectives
such as language use ability, autonomous learning ability, and overall human all-
round development. Unlike the other three syllabuses, the teaching syllabus for
English majors emphasizes the development of cross-cultural abilities as one of the
teaching principles. It states that all the courses should pay attention to sharpening
the students’ sensitivity to cultural differences, increasing the students’ tolerance of
cultural differences and promoting flexibility in dealing with cultural differences.2
Surprisingly, none of the above documents mentions teaching English as an
International Language. Logically speaking, cross-cultural ability functions in a
multicultural context. When syllabus designers have a sound understanding of the
importance of cross-cultural ability, they must share the underlying assumption that
English is used in an international setting which involves diverse cultures. Why do
they avoid mentioning the concept of EIL? Are they avoiding it intentionally or
incidentally? The following section will provide the answer to these questions.
6.3.2 A Diachronic Account of the Understanding

of Teaching EIL
The previous section presents a seemingly ambivalent stance reflected in the official
documents in Mainland China. On one hand, cross-cultural ability, which is essential
for effective communication in EIL, is stressed in all the official documents. On the
other hand, EIL is not mentioned explicitly. The conclusion we can draw at the
moment is that attitudes towards EIL in the four official documents are not very
clearly expressed in Mainland China. This section will describe progress made in
the understanding of teaching EIL in terms of three subtopics: (1) changes in the
overall awareness of the role of EIL; (2) advancement in understanding the teaching
of cultures; and (3) no practical change in the teaching of the native variety. I believe
the diachronic description of our understanding, combined with the previous syn-
chronic analysis of the official documents, can present the reader with a comprehensive
picture of teaching EIL in Mainland China.
6.3.2.1 Changes in the Overall Awareness of the Role of EIL
In the 1970s and 1980s, when China started to open up to the outside world, teachers
and students were eager to learn a native speaker variety of English, without ques-
tioning its validity. Furthermore, native-like or near-native-like performance was the
2
This principle is based on the author’s suggestion, since she is one of the members responsible for
drafting this syllabus.
84 W. Qiufang
criterion for identifying the most successful learner, although it was well understood
that a Chinese learner could rarely achieve native-like English competence in the
Chinese context. “Interlanguage” was then extensively used to describe the learner’s
English, which was regarded as different from the learner’s L1 and distinct from the
target language. By the end of the twentieth century, Chinese educators developed an
awareness of English as a lingua franca in the context of globalization, and realized
that native-like or near-native-like performance on its own might not lead to successful
communication if it was not accompanied by a sound understanding of the meanings
and manners of speaking by diverse speakers. Such a change in the perception about
the international role of English has not required much effort. However, this expanded
understanding of EIL is primarily limited to the receptive skills. That is to say, as L2
learners, we should be able to understand not only the native variety, but also non-
native varieties.
6.3.2.2 Advancement in the Understanding of Teaching Cultures
Along with the change in the Chinese awareness of the expanded role of English,
Chinese attitudes towards teaching cultural knowledge have been changing accord-
ingly. Generally speaking, this development has gone through three stages. At Stage
One, we moved from teaching linguistic knowledge alone to teaching both linguistic
and cultural knowledge. This is a noticeable advance in our understanding of the
relation between language and culture. However, this cultural knowledge was
confined to the target language culture. The prominent cultures are either British or
American, occasionally supplemented by elements of Australian or Canadian cultures.
In Stage Two, starting from the late 1990s and the beginning of this century, the
scope of cultural knowledge expanded from the target language culture to all the
possible cultures that might be involved in communication. That is to say, we tried
to expose our students to multi-cultures instead of only the target language culture.
In 2000, Cong (2000) wrote an article entitled “A deficiency of Chinese culture,
weakness in Foreign Language Teaching in China” published in Guangming Daily,
which induced a heated discussion among scholars, teachers and students. This
marked the beginning of Stage Three. Since then we have begun to attach equal
importance to Chinese culture and the multi-cultures of other countries in English
teaching, in addition to the target language culture. Some subsequent exploratory
steps have been taken. For example, some universities offer a course on Chinese
philosophy and Western philosophy in English; and some textbooks have included
as a component “Reading across cultures”, in which various kinds of cultures
including our own culture are introduced. By so doing, we hope our students can not
only learn multi-cultures of other countries but can also use English to share Chinese
culture with people from the other countries. In other words, it is expected that by
using English our students can “introduce the world to China and introduce China
to the world” (把世界介绍给中国,把中国介绍给世界), by means of a two-way
cultural exchange. To sum up, our views about what is to be learned about culture
have been progressing steadily without too much disagreement.
6.3.2.3 No Practical Change in the Teaching of the Native Variety
Although Chinese teachers and scholars have achieved remarkable progress in the
overall understanding of the role of EIL, our daily teaching has in general remained
untouched by this development. That is to say, the native variety is still used as the only
source of learning materials, except for a very few textbooks which have made pio-
neering efforts in enriching cultural content. Why Chinese teachers refuse to produce
any changes in practice in this aspect is primarily because there is no clear and feasible
answer to what could be used as a model for L2 learners if the native variety is not.
Some international scholars advocate that we should go beyond the native speaker
in language teaching, and take successful L2 users as a model for L2 learners. For
example, Cook (1999) argues that “L2 users are not monolingual native speakers
and never will be […] L2 users have to be looked at in their own right as genuine L2
users” (p. 195). Furthermore, he advocates that teaching should be based on descrip-
tions of L2 users. There is no argument about his positive attitude towards L2 users,
but it is difficult to accept his position of using L2 users’ English as a teaching basis.
First of all, it is extremely demanding to differentiate successful L2 users from
unsuccessful ones. How can we describe and define “successful”? Success in using
English can be found in various fields, such as business, diplomacy, journalism,
research 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). If there was no such fundamental differ-
ence, there would be no point in seeking a new model for L2 learners. Therefore, the
focus of discussion has shifted from who could be regarded as successful L2 users
to whether successful L2 users in China do use a markedly different variety English
from the native one. To resolve the controversy, quite a number of empirical studies
were undertaken (Gao 2008; Wen and Yu 2003; Yu 2006). Instead of identifying
individual successful users for description, they studied publications in English,
such as The 21st Century, China Daily, and the English TV Script. The question they
intended to answer is to what extent English has been nativized in Mainland China.
The findings of the studies are more or less the same, showing that there are more
quantitative differences (i.e. under-use, or over-use, or non-use) than qualitative
ones. Among the qualitative differences, the overwhelming majority are lexical or
collocational rather than grammatical. Moreover, such differences appear to be
acceptable to native speakers, according to their responses to the questionnaires.
Along the same line of argument, some scholars such Jenkins (2002, 2006) and
Seidlhofer (2001) suggest that 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.
However, the assumption underlying their suggestion has been challenged by several
scholars (Alptekin 2010; Canagarajah 2007; Ferguson 2009). EIL, in their view, serves
as a medium of communication for a virtual community but is not a tangible product.
There is no such an entity that can be called EIL since “it has no native speakers and no
proper culture of its own to speak of” (Alptekin 2010, p. 101). In each specific context,
interlocutors negotiate, co-construct EIL, which is dynamic, varying from one situation
86 W. Qiufang
to another in accordance with the purpose of the interlocutors (Canagarajah 2007,

p. 925). Therefore, it has no consistent and relatively stable system that can be identified
across diversified contexts. Granted that EIL is variable and fluid in nature, it might not
be possible or necessary to codify EIL in the first place.
6.3.3 Summary
As a result of more than 30 years’ changes, Chinese teachers and scholars have become
more aware of English as an international language. However, we have strong doubts
about the use of non-native varieties employed by expert L2 users as a model for L2
learners. What is to be taught in the context of EIL is not only a conceptual issue but
also a pedagogical one. Without any ready-made pedagogical solutions to what is to
be taught in the classroom, syllabus designers might think that, instead of asking for
trouble, it is better to avoid stating the issue clearly. I think this could be the reason
why the four official documents do not directly address this issue.
6.4 A Pedagogical Model for the Teaching of EIL
In this section, the issue of the teaching of EIL will be further discussed from the
teacher’s perspective, and a proposed pedagogical model will be presented and
explained.
Figure 6.2 presents a pedagogical model which consists of three parts. The first
part is the L2 language system, which contains three components: linguistic, cultural
and pragmatic. The second part refers to what is to be taught or the object of teaching;
and the third part specifies the outcome or the objective of teaching.
6.4.1 Linguistic Component
For the linguistic component, learners are expected to be exposed to native varieties,
non-native varieties, and those localized features which are needed to express the
learner’s own culture. As Fig. 6.3 shows, these three types of linguistic input are
intended to be offered to learners in different proportions according to their level of
proficiency. They are required to be first exposed to a native variety, either British
English or American English. Gradually, they can be exposed to non-native varieties
of other speakers for the purposes of comprehension, for example, providing the
learner with opportunities to listen and read materials produced by non-natives such
as Indians or Singaporeans. Once they have reached the advanced level, they are
encouraged to learn how to describe and explain their own cultures in English to
speakers from other countries.
The objective they are supposed to achieve is no longer native-like performance.
Instead, they are required to develop effective communicational skills. Phonologically,
they are expected to produce intelligible English and understand English with
L2 language system What to be taught What to be achieved
Native varieties
Effective
Linguistic Non-native varieties
communication skills
Localized features
Target lang. cultures

Cultural Non-native cultures Intercultural competence
Learners’ own culture
Universal com. rules Abilities to generate

Pragmatic Target lang. com. rules appropriate communicative
Rules of other non-natives rules and strategies
Fig. 6.2 A pedagogical model for the teaching of EIL
Native varieties From the beginning stage

onward
Non-native varieties From the intermediate stage

(other speakers) onwards for reception only
Localized features used

by the speakers from From the advanced stage
learners’ community onwards
Fig. 6.3 Three types of linguistic variety in relation to the learner’s proficiency level
non-native accents; lexically, to use high-frequency words to express what they

want to say, and to understand both high-frequency and low-frequency words;
syntactically, they are required to produce comprehensible sentence structures and
comprehend non-native syntactic structures. When evaluating how much students
have achieved, attention is not particularly paid to individual phonological, lexical
and syntactic errors that do not affect meaning. Instead, the teacher examines to
what extent the task has been done successfully.
The above pedagogical suggestion is based on a core-peripheral hypothesis of
EIL in which EIL consists of many layers of English with many speakers from dif-
ferent L1 backgrounds (see Fig. 6.4) who, however, share a common core, with each
layer having some peripheral nativized features such as “socialist market economy”
(社会主义市场经济), or “scientific concept of development” (科学发展观) as
used by Chinese speakers of English to describe the current situation in Mainland
China. This common core, derived primarily from native varieties, is essential for
88 W. Qiufang
Fig. 6.4 Common core and

peripheral features of English
Common core
Peripheral
features
English to play the role of a lingua franca. Meanwhile, the peripheral features reflect
the nativized culture of each ethnic group. With these nativized features, it is pos-
sible for people with different L1 backgrounds to exchange their unique beliefs,
customs and life styles. Along with the development of English, some nativized
features may move gradually to the centre, for example, kongfu (功夫), fengshui(风
水)and guanxi (关系) which are words originally used only by Chinese speakers
and are now extensively accepted by the other speakers of English.
Therefore, to communicate effectively in the context of EIL, as an L2 user, she/
he should be able to understand and use the core system, as well as the nativized
features needed for transmitting her/his own culture, while at the same time compre-
hending the nativized features used by other non-native speakers. To summarize, the
object of teaching includes the native variety forming a common core and nativized
features forming the periphery of EIL. Some of the nativized features will be used
by other non-native speakers, and some by L2 users with the same background as
the speaker.
6.4.2 Cultural Component
For the cultural component, students are required to be exposed to three kinds of
cultures: target language cultures, the cultures of other non-native speakers, and the
learner’s own culture or the local culture. Unlike the linguistic component, these
three kinds of culture are not introduced to the learner in relation to their proficiency
level. In other words, there is no preferred order for presenting these three types of
cultures. However, the cognitive complexity of the cultural content could be a primary
consideration for deciding what type of culture is to be taught, particularly for young
learners.
The objective of teaching cultures is described as intercultural competence,
which includes three sub-objectives: sensitivity to cultural differences, tolerance of
cultural differences, and flexibility in dealing with cultural differences. The expla-
nation of intercultural competence was first presented by the author in Wen (1999),
and then further elaborated in Wen (2004).
Although the three sub-objectives are different from each other, they are inter-
related. Figure 6.5 presents a conceptual link among the three sub-objectives and
factors that may influence the achievement of each sub-objective.
Logically speaking, sensitivity to cultural differences is a precondition for the other
two kinds of sub-objectives to be achieved. Becoming aware of cultural differences
Fig. 6.5 A graphic

Speaking/writing ability
description of the relation Flexibility Clarifying/Negotiating Strategies
among the three sub- Willing to compromise
objectives
Empathy
Tolerance
Egalitarian attitude
Listening/reading ability
Sensitivity Multi-perspective thinking
Knowledge of different cultures
can take place only when we have exposure to new cultures. By comparing other
cultures with our own, we may enhance our awareness of differences. However, the
ability to discern differences is not the same as a knowledge of one or more cultures.
This kind of awareness can cope with a culture which has never been encountered
before, while knowledge of a specific culture has only a limited role. For example,
rich knowledge about American culture can facilitate the understanding of differ-
ences between Chinese and American culture. This kind of knowledge may not be
much help in appreciating the difference between Korean and Chinese culture.
Therefore, our sensitivity to cultural differences should go beyond specific cultures. Why
is discernment emphasized here rather than specific cultural knowledge? First, we
cannot predict what kinds of culture will be encountered in our lifetimes. Furthermore,
we don’t know the exact number of all the different cultures in the world. Even if
this number were available, no education system could afford the time to teach all
the cultures in the world. Even if we could afford the time, this would not be an
efficient way of learning. In practice, humans cope with unknown situations by
bringing their relevant abilities into full play. Therefore, what we need to do is to develop
the ability to discern differences. However, this sensitivity cannot be developed
without a basis of a knowledge of cultural differences. This can be gradually cultivated
by analyzing the differences between two cultures. In this case, cultural-knowledge
learning is not an end, but a means. The process of identifying differences by its
nature is paradigm-shifting or perspective-shifting. It requires thinking about things
from a new perspective.
Even more important, perhaps, than knowledge and perspective-shifting thinking
in intercultural communication are our listening abilities, as we need to be able to
understand what our interlocutors are saying. Imagine a student who has been equipped
with a substantial core of knowledge about different cultures but is poor in listening
comprehension in the target language: naturally, there is no way for him/her to discern
any cultural differences. In this sense, listening ability is a precondition for the cultiva-
tion of sensitivity to cultural differences. However, having proficient listening skills
alone cannot guarantee the learner’s sensitivity to cultural differences.
To be tolerant in intercultural situations, a person should not only have appropriate
attitudes towards different cultures, but also be psychologically empathetic. We have
been brought up in our own culture since our birth, and this culture has become part
90 W. Qiufang
of ourselves. Psychologically, we may unconsciously feel our own culture is more

natural and reasonable than others’ and thus, perhaps unconsciously, show negative
feelings towards others. To change one’s attitudes is not easy, but to change one’s
psychological perspective is even more challenging.
Flexibility in dealing with cultural differences demands a behavioural solution
that is suitable for a specific intercultural context. As was mentioned above, inter-
cultural communication is open and dynamic, so that we do not know in advance
what kind of intercultural rules we will need to activate. As a result, interlocutors
need constantly to make choices as they progress through intercultural communication.
To make sure such communication is successful, interlocutors must be able to take
prompt actions based on a sound evaluation of the context. In this sense, flexibility
is needed both for the evaluation of a context and in taking actions in normal face-
to-face intercultural communication. Furthermore, this flexibility is needed when
conflicts arise due to cultural differences. In order to resolve the conflicts, both
sides, in addition to their sharpened sensitivity to and tolerance of cultural differ-
ences, need to be engaged in a mutual search for a practical solution. First of all,
they need open communication to discuss the issue of conflict and to understand the
possible cause(s). Second, both sides have to make some form of compromise, espe-
cially when conflicts occur. Nevertheless, the degree of compromise may be asym-
metrical: one interlocutor may need to make more compromises than the other.
6.4.3 Pragmatic Component
Three groups of rules are to be taught in the pragmatic component: (1) universal
communicative rules; (2) target language communicative rules; and (3) non-native
communicative rules. The first group includes such rules as the cooperative prin-
ciple, the politeness principle and the principle of relevance, as proposed by Grice
(1978). The second group refers to those rules which are extensively applied in
target language communities, but are different from the community in which L2
speakers are living. For example, in an Anglo community, questions about age or
salary are generally avoided in conversation, since they are regarded as sensitive
and private issues, and the response to compliments is normally “thank you”,
instead of a self-denial, as required by the Confucian value of modesty. The third
group comprises the myriad number of rules followed by non-natives. As these
rules are innumerable, what counts is not the number of the rules taught but the
learner’s awareness that different rules are likely to emerge in communication.
The objective of pragmatic teaching is stated as the development of abilities to
generate appropriate strategies in order to effect successful communication. This
means that L2 users are expected to adopt appropriate strategies depending on the
situation. The underlying assumption of this objective is that in an EIL setting, strat-
egies are dynamic and unpredictable. More often than not, L2 users cannot follow
pre-prepared strategies to guarantee the success of communication. What is needed
is an ability to respond to the on-going communication with appropriate strategies.
Take for example the following three scenarios where English is used as a lingua
franca:
1. An Italian manager is talking in English to a Chinese staff member in a branch of
the Iveco company in Nanjing.
2. A Japanese employer is talking to a Mexican employee in English in a branch of
Toyota in the United States.
3. A New Zealander, an Australian, an American, a Chinese, an Egyptian, an Indian,
a Japanese, a Malaysian, an Israeli and a Norwegian are having a group discussion
on a joint research project for the first time. The team leader is Swedish and the
working language in the discussion is English.
In each of the above scenarios it is most unlikely that the interlocutors will follow
the same pragmatic strategies. It is more probable that rules from each of the three
groups mentioned will be adopted as the speakers consciously adjust to the changing
situation. In the first scenario, the Italian rules are likely to be more influential and
powerful than those of Chinese rules because the Italian is in the position of power.
Suppose in Scenario 2 that the Japanese employer has worked in the US for more
than 20 years and his English proficiency is near-native like. The conversation
between the Japanese employer and the Mexican employee will most likely observe
the American rules with some influence from Japanese ones, while Mexican rules
are likely to be marginalized. In Scenario 3, the situation is more complex. No-one
can predict whose rules would be followed in this communication scenario. All the
participants have to be flexible and ready to adjust their linguistic behaviour to the
responses given by the person who is speaking. Communicative strategies will
develop during the discussion, and it is likely that no one will be familiar with the
communicative rules of all the other members. Even knowledge about one language
community will not give the participant much help, since this is a group discussion
in which communicative strategies will be negotiated on the spot. Successful com-
munication in the above contexts is not determined by the implementation of the
communicative rules of English. Rather, success in this kind of communication is a
result of continual negotiation and adjustment made by the participants.
L2 users are not able to predict what kind of speakers they will meet. Therefore,
they can’t learn specific rules and store them for future recall, retrieving them when
needed: what we need when learning the English language is not the mastery of
specific communicative rules of the target language, but the ability to develop appro-
priate strategies for intercultural communication.
6.4.4 Advantages of the Pedagogical Model
The above pedagogical model has an obvious advantage. Unlike the traditional view
that the native variety is the only norm, and unlike the radical view that the model is
that created by successful non-native speakers, the proposed pedagogical model
caters for the needs of both globalization and nativization in the context of using
92 W. Qiufang
English as a lingua franca, taking into full consideration the complicated and
dynamic aspects of communication in an international setting. First of all, the model
makes a clear distinction between what is to be taught and what is to be achieved.
On the one hand, this can avoid confusion and uncertainty on the part of classroom
teachers; on the other hand, this provides a series of feasible suggestions for what to
teach in class and for teaching objectives. Currently teachers’ confusion and uncer-
tainty are mainly caused by the denial of the native variety as a model for the non-
native speaker. Although the pedagogical model does not regard the native variety
as the only source of teaching materials, it still remains the primary source of what
to teach, particularly at the beginning stage, since the native variety provides a common
core shared by all the speakers and is the basis for mutual intelligibility. If teaching
is based on the language used by the expert L2 user, apart from the problem of having
no adequate description of such a system, there would be a great danger that the role
of EIL would be gradually weakened, since each non-native variety used by its own
community would move further and further apart, and eventually it would no longer
be possible to use English as an international language.
The objectives of L2 learning in this pedagogical model are specified in terms of
effective communication skills, intercultural competence, and the ability to generate
appropriate pragmatic strategies with reference to the linguistic, cultural and prag-
matic components. All these objectives are clearly set up for L2 users to communicate
in the situation where the participants are from diverse cultural backgrounds. The
essential purpose of such communication is to successfully accomplish tasks.
Therefore, all the objectives have the same focus, the successful accomplishment of
communication in English.
To sum up, this pedagogical model is comprehensive and well-suited for the EIL
setting in which we find ourselves today. Furthermore, it is practical and feasible for
syllabus designers, textbook writers and classroom teachers to follow and implement.
It has the potential of providing a new way of teaching English that encompasses
both the native speaker model and successful communication with the millions of
non-native speakers of English who use English as an international language across
Asia and the world. However, it needs to be empirically tested in real classroom
settings so that it can be further revised and refined.
References
Alptekin, C. 2010. Redefining multicompetence for bilingualism and ELF. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics 20(1): 95–110.
Canagarajah, S. 2007. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition.
Modern Language Journal 91: 923–939.
Cong, Cong. 2000. Zhongguo wenhua shiyu: Woguo waiyujiaoxue de quxian [A deficiency of Chinese
culture: Weakness in foreign language teaching in China]. Guangming Daily, 19 October.
Cook, V. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2):
185–209.
Department of Higher Education of the MOE. 2004. Daxueyingyu kecheng jiaoxue yaoqiu
[College English curriculum requirements (Trial version)]. Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
Department of Higher Education of the MOE. 2007. College English curriculum requirements.
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Ferguson, G. 2009. Issues in researching English as a lingua franca: A conceptual enquiry.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19(2): 117–135.
Gao, C. 2008. A corpus-based study of the use of creation and transformation verbs in China’s
English newspapers. Beijing: University of International Business and Economic Press.
Grice, H.P. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics,
ed. P. Cole, 41–57. New York: Academic.
Jenkins, J. 2002. A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for
English as an international language. Applied Linguistics 23(1): 83–103.
Jenkins, J. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca.
TESOL Quarterly 40(1): 157–158.
Ministry of Education. 2001a. Jiaoyubu guanyu jiji tuijin xiaoxue kaishe yingyuke de zhidao yijian
[MOE’s guiding principles for promoting English courses in primary schools]. China:
Document issued by the Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education, China. 2001b. Quanrizhi yiwujiaoyue, putong gaoji zhongxue yingyu kech-
eng biaozhun(shiyangao) [Standard of English courses for 9-year compulsory education and
general senior high schools (trial version)]. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
Ministry of Education, China. 2003. Putong gaozhong yingyu kecheng biaozhun (shiyan) [Standard
of English courses for general senior high schools (trial version)]. Beijing: People’s Education
Press.
Ministry of Education, China. 2008. 2008 nian jiaoyu tongji shuju [Educational statistics in 2008].
Retrieved 10 November 2010, from http://www.moe.edu.cn.
franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 133–158.
STEPSS. 2005. Standards for teachers of English in primary and secondary schools. Beijing:
Unpublished project report.
Teaching Advisory Committee for Tertiary English Majors. 2000. gaodengxuexiao yingyuzhuanyi
yingyu jiaoxue dagang [English teaching syllabus for tertiary English majors]. Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.
Wen, Q.F. 1999. Yingyu kouyu ceshi yu jiaoxue [Testing and teaching spoken English]. Shanghai:
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Wen, Q.F. 2004. Globalization and intercultural competence. In English and globalization:
Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, ed. K.-K. Tam and T. Weiss, 169–180.
Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Wen, Q.F., and X. Yu. 2003. Yingyu de guojihua yu bentuhua [Globalization and localization of
English]. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching 3: 6–11.
Wu, Q.D. 2005. Zai daxueyingyu siliujikaoshi gaige xinwen fabuhui shang de jianghua [A speech
at the news conference on the reform of CET4 and CET6]. Foreign Language World 106(2):
2–4.
Xia, L H. 2006. Woguo gaodeng xuexiao zhidao weiyuanhui de huigu yu zhanwang [The develop-
ment of the advisory teaching committees of tertiary institutions: Looking back and forward].
Retrieved 5 August 2006, from http://www.edu.cn/20060703/3198207.shtml.
Yu, X. 2006. A corpus-based study of the nativized use of evaluative adjectives in China’s English
newspapers. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Nanjing University, Nanjing.
Part II
Communication and Lingua Francas
Chapter 7
English as a Medium for Russians
to Communicate in Asia
Zoya G. Proshina
7.1 Introduction
The specific geopolitical and economic situation resulting from Russia’s location
and the intensity of her contacts with other nations has made the country consider
herself as a European culture with a high degree of infiltration of Asian cultures,
especially since the Far Eastern and Siberian regions constitute two-thirds of
Russia’s giant territory. This Eurasian symbiosis of cultural and linguistic trends
has long played a key role in the formation of Russian identity. Today, the country
is looking to the West as well as to the East, serving as a “geopolitical bridge
connecting Europe and Asia” (Baklanov 2010, p. 22). This two-sided orientation is
reflected in the national symbol of the country: one head of the two-headed eagle
looks to the European West, the other to the Asian East. The Russian approach
to relations with Asian countries was summarised at the top political level by the
then President Putin in an article published on the eve of the meeting of leaders of
the APEC countries in Bangkok in October 2003, where he argued that “Kipling’s
well-known postulate, which seemed to be unshakeable in the past of “East Is
East and West Is West”, is outdated. These vectors are equally valid for Russia”
(Putin 2003).
The Russian Federation’s relationships with Asian countries are currently
developing in various directions – in politics, economics, and culture. For example,
in 2007, China became Russia’s second most important trading partner in the world;
Z.G. Proshina (*)

Department of the Theory of Teaching Foreign Languages,
School of Foreign Languages and Area Studies,
M. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication,
Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia
e-mail: proshinazoya@yandex.ru

98 Z.G. Proshina
Japan was Russia’s sixth largest trading partner, surpassing the USA, Britain and
France; and Russia became Korea’s eighth largest trading partner (Lukin 2010).
In 2010, Russia carried out a year-long program to promote the Chinese language
among her people. China mounted a similar Russian language program in 2009.
The year of 2007 was declared to be the Year of China in Russia, and the year of
2006 was known as the Year of Russia in China, marked by various events of
scientific and cultural exchange between the Chinese and Russian peoples. In July
2002, the Agreement on Cultural Exchange between the Government of Japan and
the Government of the Russian Federation came into effect, followed by the Japanese
Culture Festival 2003 in Russia. Russian culture festivals are held yearly in Japan.
The 20th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the Republic of Korea and
Russia, the Korea-Russia Dialogue, was celebrated by the events of the 2010 Korea-
Russia Culture Festival lasting 7 months.
It is no wonder, then, that issues of intercultural communication with what are
still felt to be somewhat exotic Asian countries, rich in tradition and culture, as is
comprehended by common Russians, have become very important for scholarly
studies. The English language, which is used as the key instrument for this com-
munication in the region, and which has acquired specific features and functions,
sets new tasks and challenges for Russian education and the study of language.
7.2 Russian Education: ELT and Culture Studies
Until recently the Russian education system aimed to prepare learners of English to
communicate mostly with native speakers of English about British and American
cultures and Russian life. That is why Russian English textbooks typically con-
tained material about Great Britain, the United States, or, very rarely, about Australia
and Canada, in their comparison with Russia. Naturally, the model of English taught
at schools was based on either the British or American standard, with the European
part of Russia gravitating towards the British norm and Asian Russian schools
giving preference to American English, since Asian Russia has had more intensive
economic contacts with the USA than with the United Kingdom. However, the
description of Russian values and Russian life has always been the objective of
English Language Teaching curricula in Russia, and even in Soviet times students
read articles and talked about Yury Gagarin’s space feats, young pioneers helping
collective farmers to harvest crops or, following the example of a character from a
novel by the Soviet author Arkady Gaidar (1958), about teenagers helping lonely
elderly people about the house. Before perestroika, a period in the Russian history
that re-opened the country’s way to capitalism, many textbooks were ideologically
biased and reflected the Communist Party’s ideals. However, the ELT objective of
teaching English to express the Russian (Soviet at the time) culture was more or less
achieved. At that time it is probable that this goal was partly enhanced by the lack
in Russia of textbooks published by international publishers like Cambridge
University Press, Oxford University Press, Longman, or Macmillan, which had not
yet overcome the Iron Curtain commercial fence. As a result Russian schools had a
7 English as a Medium for Russians to Communicate in Asia 99
strong need for ELT materials, and Russian authors had to compile home-made
textbooks, which were the only resources in the learning and teaching English until
the end of the 1990s.
Nevertheless, the situation and the goals of ELT did not change drastically with
the opening of Russia to the world after perestroika. The Federal Educational
Standards in Foreign Languages – which include English, since it is studied as
a discipline in schools – set as a goal the facilitating of an individual’s social
adaptation to the ever-changing polycultural and multilingual world (Primernye
programmy po inostrannym yazykam, p. 1), and at the same time an integral
objective of foreign language learning is formulated as developing a communicative
competence in a foreign language, i.e. students’ ability to communicate with and
achieve mutual understanding with native speakers (my italics – ZGP) (p. 2). Thus the
native speaker model continues to be the desired goal of ELT in Russia, and a native
speaker is seen as the only possible type of an addressee in communication.
The last two decades have intensified even more the necessity to communicate
about Russian national culture and values. Parallel cultural texts and comparative
exercises are included in almost every unit at all levels of language learning, which
is required by the educational standards approved by the Ministry of Education
(Obrazovatel’ny standart). In Russia, English teaching generally begins at the level
of elementary school. Many schools, both secondary and tertiary, have introduced
courses for future guides and interpreters working with tourists coming to Russia.
These courses focus on the history of Russian culture and the description of
tourist sights. Naturally, the main challenge proves to be Russian culture-loaded
words, so research on expressing Russian culture through English has been
conducted (Kabakchi 1998, 2009). The awareness of the complexities of inter-
cultural education and the role of English in this process have been emphasized
(Ter-Minasova 1999, 2004).
However, the need to study other cultures through English as a lingua franca is
barely beyond the initial phase, so there are so far only very limited results in
research and teaching experience. Studies of the role of English in intercultural
contacts of Russians in Asia, the linguistic features of East Asian Englishes (Proshina
2002), as well as the possibility to talk about Asian cultures in English, and the
application of research findings to education and translation practice, were initiated
at the Far Eastern National University (Vladivostok), where a special course on
Asian Englishes was developed (Proshina 2004b) and several PhD dissertations
were defended (Belonozhko 2007; Bogachenko 2003; Ilyina 2005; Ivankova 2007;
Krykova 2004; Lupachova 2005; Matvienko 2010; Pivovarova 2005; Polianskaya
2011; Revenko 2006; Titova 2010; Uyutova 2004; Zavialova 2001). As the author
of this course I was later invited to other Far Eastern and Siberian universities to
present and teach this course, and students from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Khabarovsk,
Blagoveschensk and Novosibirsk had a chance to take it and discuss the urgent
issues which it raises. This course is now incorporated in the World Englishes course
and is regularly taken by students of two Moscow Universities, M. Lomonosov
Moscow State University and Moscow City Teachers’ Training University. Inter-
cultural communication with Asian people through English is therefore a current
focus of intense interest for linguists and educationists in Russia.
100 Z.G. Proshina
7.3 Challenges of Intercultural Communication via English
In a closed society as the Soviet Union was, intermediary intercultural contacts

through a third language, a lingua franca, or a link language, took place much more
seldom than did direct contacts. Direct contacts were generally appreciated and
developed. Therefore, there was a primary need for experts in facilitating direct
contacts, e.g., Chinese-Russian, or Japanese-Russian, etc. To communicate with repre-
sentatives of Asia, specialists were trained at Russian schools or institutes of Asian
or Oriental Studies. This promoted direct translation between Asian languages
and Russian. Russian Sinologists, Japanologists and other experts in Asian studies
developed strong traditions of translation and interpretation based, primarily, on
oral perceptions of Asian speech, though the practice of written translation was also
well developed. But graduates from English departments were unprepared to face
the challenges of translating even Asian names written in Roman letters, tending to
render them as if they were Anglophone English, to say nothing of culture-loaded
Asian loanwords in English. It is due to this fact that today so many Asian words
have been borrowed by the Russian language in their English form (for example,
суши ‘sushi’ rather than /susi/, and Хитачи ‘Hitachi’ rather than /hitati/ and many
others). Intercultural communication between Russians and Asian people via
English was often unsuccessful and, naturally, caused frustration on both sides.
There was a widespread impression among Russians that Asians’ bilingual speech
in English was unintelligible, and communication was compromised unless there
was a translator working directly between the Asian language and Russian.
The lifting of the Iron Curtain was accompanied by a parallel raising of the
Bamboo Curtain. Russian communicators found it necessary to use English in their
interactions with Asian people. As it turned out, this caused a number of problems.
1. Even advanced and proficient speakers of English in Russia were unprepared
to comprehend Asian Englishes and interpret Asian cultures via English
As we have seen, in general, English textbooks in Russia dealt with Inner Circle
Englishes, to use Kachru’s term (Kachru 1985). Russian students knew a great
deal about Britain and the British, and about the USA and the Americans, some-
times even more than the British and Americans knew about their own cultures.
The video course “England and the English” (Pavlovskaya and Titova 2008),
produced at the School of Foreign Languages and Area Studies of M. Lomonosov
Moscow State University, is a representative example. Progressive teachers inter-
ested their students in Canada, Australia and New Zealand – the rest of the major
Inner Circle countries. Analogously, students could more or less successfully
embark on a conversation about Russia. But it was unusual to hear conversations,
or find English texts, on Asian or African cultures (with the exception of African
American culture). Even students of the departments of Asian Studies, in their
English classes – which were and still are mandatory in their curricula – studied
in detail the governmental and judicial systems of Great Britain and the USA,
as well as other aspects of British and American life. English teachers of these
students were also educated through English textbooks focused on Great Britain
and the USA. Though these students can express a great deal in Asian languages
and are experts in Asian cultures, they are unprepared to talk about these cultures
in English.
At English departments that provide training for English language teachers and
translators from English, Russian students do not study Asian cultures and know
nothing of the history of their representation in English. That is why they can be
confused by the fact that Peking and Beijing, Busan and Pusan, Xianggang and
Hong Kong are duplicate forms referring to the older and the current names of
the respective cities.
When it comes to Asian names translated or interpreted from English, as the case
might be at conferences or business negotiations, the forms produced by Russian
translators from English could be unrecognizable under the test of back translation.
For example, Cao Guangjin might be transliterated as Kao Guandzhin, or Jin Xin
as Dzhin Ksin, which makes these backtranslated names unrecognizable to their
owners.
2. English schools in Russia did not focus on teaching Asian Englishes
As we noted above, the priority goals of ELT have been British or American
English, as well as English applied to Russian culture. It was only at the begin-
ning of this century that a pioneering course on Asian Englishes was developed
at Far Eastern National University, and was included in the curriculum as a man-
datory course of regional significance (there being a difference between courses
of federal significance, mandatory for all tertiary educational institutions, and
courses of regional significance, studied only at certain universities of a par-
ticular region). At the Moscow universities (see above) where this course is stud-
ied in the framework of the World Englishes paradigm, it is optional. No
secondary school has ever touched upon the challenges of intercultural commu-
nication with Asian speakers of English.
3. The Russian linguistic community at large was unaware of the concept
of Asian Englishes
Though the World Englishes paradigm has existed for about three decades
(counting from the date of the first publication of the journal World Englishes),
this framework is little known in Russia. The term Asian English, as well as
Russian English, and moreover, the seemingly agrammatical plural Englishes,
may still sound like a “heretic tenet” (Prator 1968, p. 123 ) for many Russian
teachers and linguists. Some of them will find the idea exotic or even extravagant
(Safonova 2000). Egocentrically, many Russian teachers do believe that they
speak British English rather than Russian English, as the localized variety is not
recognized in its own right. The idea of the native speaker model still dominates
in the minds of those who are responsible for English language teaching in
Russia. The awareness of viable real life varieties that constitute parole, in
Saussurian terms (Saussure 1983), as opposed to ideal language models or
langue, is still only latent in the linguistic community, and will still take some
time to be recognized. I must sadly admit that even the largest national libraries
in Russia do not subscribe to the journals that share and spread the ideas of the
World Englishes paradigm, including World Englishes, English World-Wide and
102 Z.G. Proshina
Asian Englishes. Only English Today and WE can be found in the Central Library
of Foreign Literature in Moscow.
Significantly, Russian research in world Englishes started not in the capital city
of Russia, but rather in the Russian Far East, where the real need for communi-
cating with Asian people through English was most vivid, acute, and urgent. It
was through Asian Englishes that Russian Far Eastern scholars came to the
World Englishes paradigm (Proshina 2005).
4. The attitude of “deficient” speech has prevailed in relation to other Englishes
distinct from the British or American norms
Since there was a certain cult of British and American standards in Russia,
the speech performance of other speakers of English was looked down upon.
Their accent, unless it was of the acrolectal type and so closer to British or
American prestige standards, seemed unintelligible; the speech rhythms seemed
unfamiliar; sentence structures appeared incomplete and often incomprehensible
(Bondarenko 2007). The principal reason for this attitude can be found in
the lack or shortfall in exposure to non-native varieties of English, and to the
ethnocentrism typical of people in the early phases of intercultural communication.
The idea that Russians also have an accent and that they speak with typical and
systematic differences when compared to British or American norms is still not
widely accepted, whereas the speech behaviour of other English-speaking
bilinguals, especially Asian, whose vernaculars are typologically so different
from Indo-European languages, is often interpreted condescendingly. Even
those who know something of language interaction usually speak of Ruslish,
or Runglish (or Chinglish, Japlish, Konglish, etc.) only as a basilectal hybrid
form of the language, thus revealing confusion in understanding an individual
“interlanguage” and a social speech continuum of a variety.
5. Spelling and pronunciation of culture-loaded Asian loans are often non-
traditional as compared with other Englishes
The difficulty of understanding Asian Englishes, even in their written forms, is
often aggravated by their written standards of Romanization that are infrequently
different from traditional English spelling. Thus, Chinese Pinyin has a number of
letters pronounced in a distinctive way which can be confusing for a person who
does not know Chinese and who reads only English: for instance, a Russian
English speaker, unfamiliar with Chinese Pinyin, will not read the word qi as
[tɕi] but rather as [ki]. Moreover, the letter combination “Q without U” is unusual
in English. Similarly problematic is the letter X in Chinese words, which should
be pronounced as ‘sh’ [ɕ] and not as [ks]: Xianggang.
The problems are intensified when students find out that it is not only Pinyin
that is used for writing Chinese loanwords. Even now we encounter texts about
Chinese culture with loans written in the old Wade-Giles system of transcription.1
1
Wade-Giles was widely-used to transcribe Chinese words in English for most of the twentieth
century, including reference books (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica, 1999 <http://www.eb.com>).
Wade–Giles spellings and pinyin spellings for Taiwanese place names and words are still used
interchangeably in English-language texts (e.g., Bates and Bates 1995).
Thus, duplicates different in spelling but similar in reading and meaning occur:
qigong – chikung; gongfu – kungfu; ren – jen; xian – hsien. No wonder, when
Russian English bilinguals see these words, that they may easily take them for
different lexemes. Two systems of Romanization (McCune-Reischauer and the
New Korean System) are also characteristic of texts on Korean culture.
It is not only English to Russian translation of Asian words that can challenge a
translator. Knowledge of the phonological and graphical characteristics of Asian
speech in English might also be useful for decoding Russian words borrowed by
Asian English speakers. Thus the China Daily (29 June, 2006) published an article
on constructing a special trade complex on the Chinese-Russian border. Without
knowing the trend to use voiced consonants instead of voiceless ones (since in
Chinese plosives, voice is characteristic of allophones rather than phonemes), to
substitute [l] for [r] that may also be taken as allophones in Chinese English, and
to insert epenthetic vowels in consonant clusters, it would be difficult to recognize
the location of the constructing complex on the Russian side, for the Russian place
name of Pogranichny (‘border’, adj.) was perceived by a Chinese journalist as
Bogelaniqinei and written correspondingly in the English text.
6. Traditional direct translations from Asian languages to Russian and translations
from Asian languages through English do not coincide
Many words of Asian origin were borrowed into Russian directly and, therefore,
they are translated according to the long-standing rules of direct translation based
on the oral perception of a word. The differences between the Russian, English
and Asian phonological systems can mean that sounds produced by Asian speakers
are perceived (heard) differently by the Russian and English ear. Thus, when a
Japanese pronounces the sound romanized by SH, an English-speaking person
hears ‘sh’ [∫] whereas a Russian perceives the palatalized [s,]: Hiroshima sounds
like [hiros,ima] in Russian. Similarly, English speakers perceive Japanese words
with CH as an affricate, while Russians hear the palatalized plosive [t,] (pachinko –
[pat,inko], Hitachi – [hitat,i]). Chinese loanwords are also problematic: the family
name Jia will be heard by Russians as [tzja]. Words written in Pinyin with the
letter R, which is a retroflex voiced fricative in Mandarin Chinese, are conven-
tionally represented in Russian by the letter Ж ‘zh’ [ʒ] and not by Р [r], as is typi-
cal of transliterated English loanwords: compare loans from English ratification
= > ратификация ‘ratifikatsiya’; roastbeef = > ростбиф ‘rostbif’; and loans from
Chinese: Renmin Ribao = > Жэньминь Жибао ‘Zhenmin Zhibao’ (in Russian
pronunciation), rui = > жуи ‘zhui’ (Proshina 2004a).
Rules of direct transcription are of longer standing than rules of indirect translit-
eration of Asian words from (or via) English as a link language. Therefore, rules
of direct translation should be given precedence. However, today more and more
Asian words are borrowed into Russian through the written mediation of English.
They tend to be pronounced in an English way and direct loans give them away.
Thus, the Russian language has doublets for sushi / susi, tamagochi / tamagoti,
Hitachi / Hitati, Mitsubishi / Mitsubisi, etc. Of these doublets the first, Anglicized
version definitely dominates and with the increasing role of English, the number
of Anglicized Asian loans will become increasingly numerous.
104 Z.G. Proshina
7.4 Conclusion
These challenges, and the fact that English has become an Asian language (Bautista
1997), mean that it is timely to reconsider the goals of ELT teaching in Russia and,
probably, in other countries as well. Asian Englishes as part of the World Englishes
paradigm should be included in university curricula, especially for majors in English
language teaching, and English translation and interpreting. Those students who
study English to communicate with native and non-native speakers in any part of the
world need to know the linguistic and cultural features of English as it is used on the
largest continent of the world. It can be argued that the study of Asian Englishes, as
well as translating from them, should be introduced at the advanced and proficient
level, not at the level of beginners or intermediate students, though elements of the
receptive skills, listening and reading, can be given students at an earlier stage in
their English studies. Exposing students to diverse varieties will prepare them for
real life encounters, will promote toleration, and make them reflect on natural
ethnocentrism evident not only in culture but in language too. As a model to follow
I would suggest Honna and Takeshita’s textbook Understanding Asia (2009),
addressed to Japanese students, which includes texts written and recorded by users
of various Asian varieties of English – Indian, Thai, Vietnamese, Malay, Singapore,
Indonesian, Filipino, Chinese, Hong Kong, Korean, Russian and Japanese.
This textbook provides teachers with a good opportunity for intercultural teaching,
using English as a link language or lingua franca. This project is an example to
follow – it presents real life Asian Englishes in a teaching resource book, developing
students’ intercultural awareness and their listening and adjusting skills, so that they
will be able to communicate with non-native English speakers and not only with
native speakers.
I believe that given the increasing role of Asia in the modern world, teaching
Asian Englishes should be paid special attention, at least in regard to those
communicators whose vernaculars are typologically different from Asian languages.
It should include passive skills (listening and reading), as well as – at the advanced
level – translation, and should simultaneously familiarize students with Asian cultures
and help them interact with their peers and partners.
References
Baklanov, P. 2010. The new in Eurasian geopolitical space. In East Asia in the multi-polar world.
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on East Asian studies, Vladivostok, 9–10 Sept.,
pp. 22–25.
Bates, C., and Ling-Li Bates. 1995. Culture shock! Taiwan. A guide to customs and etiquette.
Portland: Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company.
Bautista, M.L.S. (ed.). 1997. English is an Asian language. Proceedings of the conference held in
Manila on August 2–3, 1996. North Ryde, NSW, Australia: The Macquarie Library Pty. Ltd.
Belonozhko, Y. 2007. Slog i ritm angliiskoi rechi nositelei yaponskogo yazyka [Syllable and
rhythm in the English of native speakers of Japanese]. Candidate’s dissertation (A Candidate’s
dissertation in Russia is a approximately equivalent to a PhD). Vladivostok: Far Eastern

National University. [In Russian.]
Bogachenko, N. 2003. Istoria vostochnoaziatskikh zaimstvovanii v angliiskom yazyke [History of
East Asian loan words in English (based on material from the Concise Oxford Dictionary)].
Candidate’s dissertation. Vladivostok: Far Eastern National University. [In Russian.]
Bondarenko, L. (ed.) 2007. Slog i ritm angliiskoi rechi v Stranakh Vostochnoi I Yugo-Vostochnoi
Azii [Syllable and Rhythm of English Speech in the Countries of Eastern and South-Eastern
Asia.] Vladivostok: Far Eastern University Press. [In Russian.]
Gaidar, A. 1958. Timur i ego komanda [Timur and his team / In Russian]. Moscow: Detskaya
Literatura.
Honna, N., and Y. Takeshita. 2009. Understanding Asia. Tokyo: Cengage Learning.
Ilyina, S. 2005. Obrashchenie v singapurskom variante angliiskogo yazyka [Forms of address
in Singapore English]. Candidate’s dissertation. Vladivostok: Far Eastern National University.
[In Russian.]
Ivankova, T.A. 2007. Leksicheskie i grammaticheskie osobennosti kitaiskoi regional’noi raznovid-
nosti angliiskogo yazyka [Lexical and grammatical features of Chinese English (based on written
texts)]. Candidate’s dissertation. Vladivostok: Far Eastern National University. [In Russian.]
Kabakchi, V. 1998. Osnovy angloyazychnoi mezhkul’turnoi kommunikatsii [Fundamentals of
English intercultural communication]. Saint Petersburg: Russian State Pedagogical University
Publishing House. [In Russian.]
Kabakchi, V. 2009. Angloyazychnoe opisanie russkoi kul’tury [Russian culture through English].
Moscow: Akademia. [In Russian.]
Kachru, B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism. The English language in the
outer circle. In English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, ed.
R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Repr. in
World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics, vol. 3, ed. K. Bolton and Braj B. Kachru.
2006, 241–269. London and New York: Routledge.
Krykova, I. 2004. Angloyazychnye ergonimy i slovesnye tovarnye znaki Yaponii kak oposredovannoe
otrazhenie natsional’noi kultury. [Japanese English ergonyms and trade marks as an intermedi-
ary reflection of ethnic culture]. Candidate’s dissertation. Vladivostok. [In Russian.]
Lukin, A. 2010. Russia in East Asia: Challenges and interests. In East Asia in the multi-polar
world. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on East Asian studies, Vladivostok,
9–10 Sept., pp. 40–48.
Lupachova, T.A. 2005. Funktsionirovanie kitaiskikh vkraplenii v proizvedeniyakh amerikanskoi
pisatel’nitsy Amy Tan [The function of Chinese insertions in the works of the American author
Amy Tan]. Candidate’s dissertation. Vladivostok: Far Eastern National University. [In Russian.]
Matvienko, E.V. 2010. Yazykovaya reprezentatsiya obrazov vosochnoaziatskoi mifoloii v anglo-
yazychnykh tekstakh [Verbal representation of East Asian mythology in English texts].
Candidate’s dissertation. Moscow: M. Lomonosov Moscow State University. [In Russian.]
Obrazovatelny standart srednego (polnogo) obschego obrazovania po inostrannomu yazyku.
Bazovy uroven’[Educational Standard of the General Comprehensive Education in a Foreign
Language, Basic Level]. Available online: http://www.school.edu.ru/dok_edu.asp?ob_
no=14413. Retrieved 2 September, 2011. [In Russian.]
Pavlovskaya, A., and S. Titova. 2008. England and the English. Moscow: Narody.ru.
Pivovarova, M.O. 2005. Slogo-ritmicheskaya organizatsiya angliiskoi rechi nositelei vietnamskogo
yazyka. [Syllabic and rhythmical organization of Vietnamese English speech]. Candidate’s dis-
sertation. Vladivostok: Far Eastern National University. [In Russian.]
Polianskaya, M.A. 2011. Prosodiya angliiskoi frazy v rechi nositelei kitaiskogo yazyka [English
phrase prosody in native speakers of Chinese]. Candidate’s dissertation. Vladivostok: Far
Eastern National University. [In Russian.]
Prator, C.H. 1968. The British heresy in TESL. In: Language problems of developing nations, ed.
J. Fishman, C.A. Ferguson, and J.D. Gupta, 459–476. New York: Wiley. Repr in K. Bolton and
Braj B. Kachru ed. 2006. World Englishes. Critical concepts in linguistics, vol. 5, 123–105).
London & New York: Routledge.
106 Z.G. Proshina
Primernye programmy po inostrannym yazykam. Angliiski yazyk. [Sample Syllabuses in Foreign

Languages: English]. http://window.edu.ru/window_catalog/pdf2txt?p_id=14191. Retrieved 2
October 2010. [In Russian.]
Proshina Z.G. 2002. Angliisky yazyk kak posrednik v kommunikatsii narodov Vostochnoi Azii i
Rossii (problemy oposredovannogo perevoda) [English as a mediator in communication
between East Asian and Russian people (problems of intermediary translation)]. Doctoral
dissertation. Moscow: Moscow Oblast Teacher Training University. [In Russian.]
Proshina, Z. 2004a. Perekriostok [Crossroads.] English-Russian dictionary of East Asian culture
contacts. Vladivostok: Far Eastern University Publ.]
Proshina, Z. 2004b. Vostochnoaziatskie raznovidnosti angliiskogo yazyka. [East Asian varieties of
English]. Vladivostok: Far Eastern University Press. [In Russian.]
Proshina, Z. 2005. Diversity of Englishes as object of study in Russia. In Sharing challenges, shar-
ing solutions: Teaching languages in diverse contexts. The 5th Pan-Asian conference on lan-
guage teaching at FEELTA 2004. Vladivostok, June 24–27, 2004, 88–95. Vladivostok: Far
Eastern University Press.
Putin, V. 2003. Russia and APEC: Topical issues and prospects for cooperation. Oct. 17, 2003.
http://www.president.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2003/10/17/1548_54203.shtml Retrieved 1
November 2010.
Revenko, E. 2006. Genderno-markirovannye nominatsii lits v lingvoetnicheskom aspekte. [Gender-
marked person names in lingacultural apect (based on works by Chinese American authors)].
Safonova, O. 2000. Angliysky lingvistichesky komponent v yazykovoi situatsii sovremennoi Rossii
[English language component in the linguistic situation in current Russia]. In: Teoreticheskaya
i prikladnaya lingvistika. Issue 2: Yazyk i sotsialnaya sreda [Theoretical and Applied
Linguistics. Issue 2. Language and social environment], 68–77. Voronezh: Voronezh State
University Press. [In Russian.]
Saussure, F. de. 1983. Course in general linguistics, ed. Charles Bally, and Albert Sechehaye.
Trans. Roy Harris. La Salle, Illinois: Open Court.
Ter-Minasova, S. 1999. Yazyk kak zerkalo kul’tury [Language as a mirror of culture]. Moscow:
Moscow State University, Faculty of Foreign Languages. [In Russian.]
Ter-Minasova, S. 2004. Yazyk i mezhkulturnaya kommunikatsiya. [Language and intercultural
communication]. Moscow: Moscow University Publishers. [In Russian.]
Titova, O. 2010. Vietnamizmy v angloyazychnom opisanii kul, tury Vietnama [Vietnamese words in
describing Vietnamese culture in English]. Candidate’s dissertation. Moscow: Moscow City
Pedagogical University. [In Russian.]
Uyutova, E. 2004. Slogo-ritmicheskaya struktura angliiskoi rechi nositelei koreiskogo yazyka.
[Syllabic and rhythmical structure in English in the speech of native speakers of Korean].
Zavialova, V. 2001. Osobennosti slogo-ritmicheskoi organizatsii angliiskoi rechi nositeliami
kitaiskogo yazyka. [Syllabic and rhythmical organization of English speech in native speakers
of Chinese. / In Russian.] Candidate’s dissertation. Vladivostok: Far Eastern National
University.
Chapter 8
Global vs. Glocal English:
Attitudes and Conceptions among
Educators, Administrators and Teachers
in Eight Asian Countries
Dương Thị Hoàng Oanh
8.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses inconsistencies related to the use of English in Asia’s rapidly
developing economic environment. Key to this process of integration is the use of
foreign languages, with English being the main contender for the position of lingua
franca in Asia. As a result of this emphasis, knowledge of English has become an
essential and powerful skill for individuals as well as societies in the region. While
the prominence of English has facilitated growing ties between the region and
the rest of the world, an apparent over-emphasis on English generates a number of
potential risks and challenges. A potentially dangerous trend that could be a result
of Asia’s relatively new-found emphasis on English is the diminished use of native
Asian languages both in the regional sphere and within Asian countries themselves.
This chapter presents a study of attitudes and beliefs about global English on
the part of educators, administrators and teachers with their own perceptions on the
dynamics and balances of aspects of English, especially within their countries.
The questions raised for discussion are:
1. Is there asymmetry in the positioning of English and Asian languages within
Asian societies?
2. What must be done for Asian glocal English to be comprehensible, standardized,
and widely accepted?
3. Is there a need for Asian countries to establish and develop assessment tools and
varieties of English from within Asia to suit Asian needs?
4. What can be done to help the process of standardization and localization of
English in Asia to be more effective and applicable?
D.T.H. Oanh (*)

International University, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
e-mail: dthoanh@vnuhcm.edu.vn

108 D.T.H. Oanh
In order to look for answers to the above questions, information related to the
research issues was collected by conducting questionnaires with 86 educators,
administrators and teachers from several countries in East and South East Asia,
including Singapore (15), Vietnam (15), Japan (12), South Korea (12), Malaysia
(8), Thailand (8), Indonesia (8), and the Philippines (8). Furthermore, four partici-
pants from Singapore, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea volunteered for subsequent
in-depth interviews.
This report covers the definition of term “glocal English”, research methodology,
findings and discussions, and implications.
8.2 Definition of Terms: Glocal English
The terms “glocal” (adjective) and glocalization (noun) (a combination of “global”

and “localization”) have been used in a wide variety of contexts, but “glocal English”
is not very commonly known. According to the Oxford English dictionary (2010),
“glocal” first appeared in the 1980s and refers to a concept that is “both global
and local”. Its derivative, “glocalization”, had its origins in business and often
refers specifically to “the adaptation of global influences or business strategies in
accordance with local conditions”.
From a cultural perspective, Friedman (1999, p. 295) defines glocalization as
“the ability of a culture, when it encounters other strong cultures, to absorb influences
that naturally fit into and can enrich that culture, to resist those things that are truly
alien, and to compartmentalize those things that, while different, can nevertheless
be enjoyed and celebrated as different”. Supporting these points, Tagüeña (2008)
emphasizes, “Glocalization embraces both universal and local values, and places
them in a familiar context”, which is useful in the effort to find ways to bring global
knowledge to native groups and vice-versa, enabling the individual, organization
and community to “think globally and act locally” (Eblen and Eblen 1994, p. 702).
Robertson (1997), p. 2) also claimed, “Glocalization means the simultaneity – the
co-presence – of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies”.
However, in terms of language and the role of English in the era of the interna-
tionalization of education, “glocalization” has not been clearly defined. In the pres-
ent study, “glocal” English is understood as the interaction between English and
local languages and societies in non-English-speaking countries, and the resulting
evolution of the English language in that locality as the use of English becomes
more widespread. In a similar framework to that proposed by Friedman (1999), the
development of glocal English can be characterized by English’s being influenced
by local languages and cultures to better meet local communicative needs while
maintaining basic intrinsic English comprehensibility.
In such a process, aspects of the local language and culture that bear little
resemblance to English are often resisted, while the features that are more compatible
with English are assimilated and developed to form a new part of glocal English in
a sustainable manner. Similar to Friedman’s description of cultural glocalization,
8 Global vs. Glocal English: Attitudes and Conceptions among Educators… 109
some aspects of the local language that are different to English are also embraced
within the context of their difference, enlivening and enriching communication in
the region (with the use of code-switching) and offering the potential to contribute
to international standard English (through loanwords for new concepts and ideas,
etc.). At the same time, these glocal varieties of English run the risk of assimilating
far too much of the local vocabulary and syntax, rendering these varieties incompre-
hensible to international speakers of English. Some of these influences have been
researched extensively (Kirkpatrick 2007, 2008).
Kirkpatrick (2009) analyses the current role of English as a lingua franca (ELF)
in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and East Asia. English
plays an essential role which is strongly and officially supported by the ASEAN
governments, through the national policies to the curricula of all levels of education
(except for the case of Indonesia, which does not specify English as a compulsory
subject at the primary level), a factor which is obviously reflected through the
region’s educational curricula.
Kirkpatrick (2009) also suggests the distinctions between a lingua franca and a
world English, emphasizing that the greatest difference between the two appears
in pronunciation, followed by the use of vocabulary, and code-mixing (see also Li
2002; McLellan and David 2007). For world Englishes the words are primarily
about the expression of identity and the reflection of local culture(s), while English
as a lingua franca is more concerned with communication. Kirkpatrick also argues
that when speakers use a language to express identity, they will use terms, idioms,
accents and strategies that are shared by the local speech community (which is
closer to the ideas of “glocal” English as discussed earlier). Similarly, a major
characteristic of a world English is that it will reflect local cultural and pragmatic
norms (language at a discourse level such as how to use and reply to compliments,
requests, or to take turns in academic seminars). In ASEAN, English is mainly
used as a principal working language of the group, and though there are cultural
differences between people from the ten different nations of ASEAN, they also
share a number of pragmatic norms. These arguments are consistent with the
focus of the present research, which investigates how the participants view global
English and glocal English, as well as what can be done to strengthen the use of
English as a means of effective communication in specific cultural and social
contexts.
In a similar manner, many researchers, including Seidlhofer (2001, 2004, 2005),
Firth and Wagner (1997, 2007), Freeman (2007), and Kirkpatrick (2010), suggest
different pedagogical implications of the above-mentioned phenomenon. They pro-
pose that the goal of language learning needs to be significantly re-shaped in con-
texts where the major role of English is as a lingua franca (such as in the case of
ASEAN). Rather than following the traditional second language acquisition (SLA)
cognitive paradigm and seeing the goal of language learning as the acquisition of
native-like proficiency, there is a great need to consider adopting a more social and
cultural perspective of SLA where the ability to use the language successfully and
effectively becomes the goal. This will affect both (1) the possible preference for
the linguistic recognition of “local” pragmatic norms in English as a lingua franca
110 D.T.H. Oanh
communication, and (2) a possible option for non-standard grammatical forms

over standard forms. In doing so, the goal will not only be to achieve the acquisition
of standard forms, but also to gain the ability to use language successfully in
lingua franca contexts. Furthermore, Jenkins (2000, 2007) suggests adopting a
lingua franca core which can help comprise the non-standard phonological
features that have caused common problems in lingua franca communication.
The language learning goal thus becomes being able to use English successfully
in lingua franca or multilingual contexts, rather than to acquire standard forms
and native-like proficiency. These issues are parts of the focus for the present
report, and the participants of this study provided rich data with different opinions
related to these issues.
8.3 Research Methodology
8.3.1 Participants and Data Collection Tools
This is a case study, partly a pilot case study, aiming to investigate the attitudes and
beliefs about global and glocal English on the part of educators, administrators
and teachers. From this point of view it is in one sense pre-policy; in another sense
it presents a snapshot of views on policy-in-action. The subjects are not students,
and so are not consumers of the policy’s outputs. They have perceptions on the
dynamics and balances of aspects of English, especially within their countries.
This is not primarily a statistical study, and so the results will focus on qualitative
methodologies, and will explore a mosaic of a part of the picture which has so far
received rather limited attention.
The data collection instruments consisted of relevant document reviews, a
questionnaire, and interviews.
The participants took part in the research through completing one questionnaire
and attending subsequent in-depth interviews. One questionnaire was sent to poten-
tial participants through the researcher’s working network in the education sector,
and those who signalled their interest were invited to participate in an interview to
elaborate on the questions raised in the questionnaire.
The questionnaires were constructed within Asian contexts, aiming to provide a
general picture of and background to the situation, and to capture the participants’
own perceptions and reflections. The questionnaires consisted of both factual
and non-factual questions, in both closed and open-ended format. Care was taken
to make sure that a balance between the proportion of closed and open-ended
questions was kept, aiming to obtain full answers with relatively rich and in-depth
information (see the Appendix).
The participants were chosen from the researcher’s professional networks, with
some consideration for achieving a representative cross-section of educators, admin-
istrators and teachers in Asian countries; this approach is consistent with the explor-
atory and qualitative native of the present study. Questions were sent to participants
Table 8.1 Questionnaire participants

Total Gender Age range
Country 86 Male Female 30–35 40–49 50–59
Singapore 15 8 7 3 8 4
Vietnam 15 9 6 3 9 3
Japan 12 8 4 1 7 4
South Korea 12 8 4 4 4 4
Malaysia 8 4 4 3 4 1
Thailand 8 4 4 2 4 2
Indonesia 8 5 3 2 5 1
Philippines 8 4 4 1 4 3
from ASEAN countries, Korea and Japan, but responses were received from only
eight countries. There were 86 participants (46 males and 40 female), from different
countries of Asia, including Singapore (15), Vietnam (15), Japan (12), South Korea
(12), Malaysia (8), Thailand (8), Indonesia (8), and the Philippines (8). All the
participants were Asians, except for one participant of British origin from Thailand
(he had worked in Thailand for nearly 20 years, and his views were not necessarily
different from those of the other participants coming from Thailand). Most of the
participants are experienced teachers and (associate-) professors at the tertiary level
with at least 5 years’ teaching experience (72), senior managers in education (8), or
senior national government officials (6). Information about the participants who
responded to the questionnaires is summarized in Table 8.1 below.
The subsequent interviews were semi-structured, conducted through the Internet
(Skype), with one interview for each volunteer. Each interview lasted from 30 to
50 minutes. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed, and then analysed for
main patterns, together with the questionnaire data. The interview participants
(referred to by pseudonyms) are Jen (Singaporean, female, 35 years old, university
lecturer for 7 years), Mi (Vietnamese, female, 40 years old, university lecturer for
7 years), Sato (Japanese, male, 52 years old, university professor) and Kim (South
Korean, male, 51 years old, university manager).
8.4 Findings and Discussion
8.4.1 Views on and Concepts of Global/Glocal English
8.4.1.1 Global (World) English(es)
The participants shared similar understanding of the terms, with some variety in
their focuses and local perspectives. In general, they agreed that a global (world)
English is a tool of international communication, ensuring high levels of compre-
hension, and some argued that global English requires a standard form. The details
are presented below.
112 D.T.H. Oanh
Global English Is Used as a Tool for International Communication
English as a global language is thought of as an “essential tool to work internationally”,

“a language in widespread use”, a “kind of language instrument for communication
[between] each world people” (Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia), as “the
English used and understood internationally”, or “used in international contexts”
(Vietnam).
Some participants reflected a rather different opinion: for example, an Indonesian
participant considered global English as “English spoken and used in the English-
speaking world”, unlike a Japanese participant, who thought that “Global English
is the concept of the English language as a global means of communication in
numerous dialects” or even a South Korean participant, who considered that “English
spoken by non-speaking English countries also can be considered as global English”.
Global English Ensures High Levels of Comprehension
Many participants emphasized the essential attributes of Global English, stressing

that, most important of all, “global English should be understood by all the people
who’re speaking English (from the perspective of interlocutor/ listener/interpre-
tation)” (South Korea), and that “Global English means something ‘good’, ‘under-
standable’” (Thailand). Though other participants had different perspectives, such
as “global Englishes are ‘contextualized’” (Philippines) or “situated Englishes”
(Malaysia), they all agreed that global English should ensure the intelligibility
among the users without many obstacles.
Global English Requires a Standard Form
Many participants from Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam emphasized the need
for global English to be standard, for example “(…) it is the movement towards an
international standard for the language” (a Japanese participant), “it has to be in
the international standard form(s) of English, which is commonly used in interna-
tional communication” (a Vietnamese participant). Mi (Vietnam) emphasized in
the interview, “In my opinions, global English is the one used worldwide. That
means the standardized English that people in all over the world consider the best
one to communicate successfully with all people who can communicate in English
in the world”.
It can be observed that most of the Vietnamese participants and many of the
Japanese and South Korean participants shared strong concerns about the stan-
dardized aspects of global English. However, the questions of “how standard
is standard” and “which type/variety of English is considered standard” were not
discussed very deeply by the participants. Many South Korean participants claimed
“standard English means a type of English that can be the norm for everyone to
understand and use correctly”, and that “global Englishes mean specific varieties of
English, especially American or British English in terms of vocabulary, usage, and

pronunciation”.
However, many participants from Singapore suggested a different point of view
related to this issue. For them, global Englishes meant “Co-existing varieties of the
English language, standard and non-standard”, and that “the term World Englishes
is commonly used to refer to the different types/varieties of Englishes that evolve as
a result of contact between English and local languages, including the different old
varieties of Englishes from the Inner Circle countries”. Many other participants
(from Malaysia and Singapore) also suggested a distinction between Global English
(English is used as an international language/a lingua franca) and Global Englishes
(different varieties of English coexist.)
It can be seen that the concept of “global” is interpreted from the many different
perspectives of the Asian participants, influenced by the context in which English is
used in their home countries. These opinions can help with the understanding of
glocal English as well, as illustrated in the following section.
8.4.1.2 Glocal English
The understanding of glocal English(es) seems to be more limited than that of global
English, with general observations, such as it is a “communication tool” (Japan,
Korea), or “situated Englishes” (Malaysia) which is considered a product of global-
ization; “a relatively recent term that is an offshoot of the globalization process and
the rise of the English language as a world language” (Singapore). Many others
offered definitions of glocal English from different perspectives, depending on
where they come from, where they work and how English is used there. Some main
patterns identified are as follows.
Intelligible to the International Community with Local Linguistic

and Cultural Features
A Vietnamese reflected, “Glocal English is a variety of English that is intelligible to

the international community but maintains and reflects local linguistic and cultural
features. Each community should have its own ‘glocal English’ variety”. Similarly,
a Malaysian participant thought that glocal English is “the English that affected by
the native language of the English learners which can create the English that is typi-
cal for that area”. In his perspective, all varieties of English are considered glocal
Englishes, as supported by a participant from Vietnam: “in the world, there are
British English, American English as well as Indian or Malaysian English, etc.;
these are examples of glocal Englishes”.
A South Korean participant also emphasized that a glocal English is used at a
discourse level, as “glocal English is understood mainly by the people [who belong]
to a particular discourse group”. In his interview Kim agreed, elaborating in his
follow-up interview that “glocal English is a variety of English to be understood by
114 D.T.H. Oanh
the people who share similar perceptions of the world and society, under influences
of similar cultures and traditions, so glocal English is meaningful not only by shared
linguistic features but by contextual and cultural characteristics of a community”.
A Means of Communication for Both International and Local Purposes
In addition, many participants agreed that glocal English is extremely resourceful,

because it is a means of communication for both international and local purposes.
For example, participants from Vietnam and Malaysia asserted that “Glocal English
is localized English, which is commonly used in international communication
among countries in an area as well as between them and the rest of the world”, and
specifically “is the one that local users can use and obtain the communication
purposes in that community”.
In a similar manner, Mi (Vietnam) explained in her interview that “Glocal English
is collaboration between global English and local languages”. She argued that in
this relationship, global English plays a major role in linking localities to the world,
while local languages also help to maintain connections among different groups of
people in a non-English speaking community; i.e. English is used by local people
and can be treated as a common means of communication among people from
various areas. For example, many Vietnamese can speak English and their English
can be understood globally.
A Localized/Nationalized Variety of English
Furthermore, many participants provided insights into the concept of “glocal

English”. For example, the participants considered glocal English as “the English
used and spoken in the non-English world” (Indonesia), and “it seems like reflecting
its own culture and language through English” (Malaysia). Sato (Japan) said in his
interview, “there are English words used directly for items/matters from foreign
countries using English as a means for communication”, and gave examples, “in
Japan, there are some Japanese-English words (English-like words, but not under-
standable for English native speakers) made in Japan; for example “night
game” = “nighter”, “gas station” = “gasoline stand”, “made to order” = “order
made”.
Pragmatically speaking, Jen (Singapore) shared in her interview, “Chiefly, my
understanding of glocal English derives from Singlish in Singapore: a glocal
English/Malay/Chinese dialect mix that has grown from people of different lin-
guistic backgrounds needing to communicate with each other”, and a Filipino
participant agreed with this point of view, with an example from her country, “We
call it Taglish in Philippines – with the infusion of Tagalog words/syllabus into
the English language”.
However, many participants claimed that they did not know anything about
glocal English, that “It is the first time for me to hear the words ‘glocal English’”,
or “I have no idea about glocal English” (Japan, Korea), or “Glocal English is not
familiar with me” (Malaysia), or “This is the first time I come across this term”
(Singapore). Some even expressed themselves very strongly against the idea of
glocal English, as a Thai participant pointed out, “[…] ‘glocal’ is a useless and
inappropriate term, almost as bad as ‘globish’ […] which has already been
commented upon by Seidlhofer as being ‘rubbish’”, and a Korean participant
agreed, saying, “I think glocal English is used instead for some language which
is needed so I don’t like glocal English because human would better think in their
own language”.
The participants’ reflections reveal interesting insights into the expected features
of a glocal English. Most of the participants agreed that a glocal English should
• be understood by both local and international communities;
• be accepted by both local and international communities;
• be used to express local concepts and ideas.
• incorporate aspects of the local language, such as vocabulary and syntax, to facil-
itate English teaching and learning in the area.
In addition, for them, Glocal English cannot be prescribed by linguists and

authorities, but should develop naturally; features more compatible with commonly
used forms of English are more likely to be accepted by the local population; fea-
tures more compatible with commonly-used forms of English are more likely to be
assimilated and developed consistently; and features similar to those of the local
language and culture are likely to be resisted.
8.4.2 Views on the Use of English, and Which Variety

of English
The data show that English is commonly used in all the countries the participants
come from. Related to the frequency of using English, English is marked as always
used in Singapore (13/15), the Philippines (6/8), then Indonesia and Malaysia (3/8).
Most of the other countries claimed that English was only used occasionally, depending
on the programme and context [Japan (10/10), Korea (12/12) and Thailand (8/8)].
8.4.2.1 Events Where English Is Used as a Medium
All the Singaporean, Malaysian, Thai and Indonesian participants claim that
English was used in the media, in regional and international documents and
announcements, in education, in sport activities, and in cultural events (except in
Indonesia). As with the case of Singapore, where English was used as a second
language, the other countries claimed that English was very popular within the
116 D.T.H. Oanh
countries, with relatively different extents of uses. Vietnam was the only country
in the group where 100% of its participants asserted that English was used as a
foreign language in the country. In sum, it can be seen that English plays a very
important role in communication within each country, albeit with different levels
of frequency.
In terms of the use of variety of English, it is worth noticing that whereas
American English was the variety of choice in several countries (Korea, 12/12,
Thailand 4/8) and British English popular in some others (both Thailand and Japan,
4/8), localized English was most popular in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and
the Philippines (100% of the participants chose this option), Japan (6/10) and
Thailand (4/8).
The other countries claimed that they did not have “localized English” in their
countries. Mi (Vietnam) emphasized in her interview, “The English used here is
sort of a mixture. I’m not sure if we have a localized variety of English or not.
Maybe what people speak is some sort of an interlanguage (English mixed with the
mother tongue) rather than a variety of English in its own right”. Jen (Singapore)
also observed, “British English is popular here but young people nowadays use
more and more of American English due to the influence of media and pop culture.
They also resort to what they call Singlish, i.e. a localized variety of English”.
A Thai participant shared his point of view, “I think English as a lingua franca is
more widely used in Thailand in urban areas [for tourism] than in rural areas.
There is a considerable distinction here…although ELF is spreading into the rural
areas as well”.
8.4.3 The Roles the Participants Saw English Fulfilling

in Their Countries (Social, Educational,
and Economic Perspectives)
The participants, opinions about the role English should play in their countries
varied:
• Singapore: All the Singaporean participants (15/15) showed their agreement and
support of the role of English as a national language now in Singapore, as a “lin-
gua franca, language of international communication, education at all levels, cul-
tural language, and mother tongue”. One participant noted the importance of
English in co-existing with many other local languages, that “English is the first
and home language for many school children and it should maintain its status as
one of the predominant languages (alongside with other national languages)”.
Mastering English is the strength of young Singaporeans; as a participant
commented, “It should be made the medium of instruction in school so that the
children will have an edge in education and job opportunities”. However, in her
interview, Jen wondered about the social class gaps due to the competence
of using English, because “English can be a unifier of people from different

cultural, ethnic and linguistic backgrounds but could be a divider based upon
socio-economic or educational background”.
• South Korea: Most of the South Korean participants (9/12) considered English as
a means of communication, to enhance the effectiveness of a multi-cultural soci-
ety, of education and business, to earn money, but not as a replacement for the
national language. They specified that English should be used as a common tool
to enhance a multi-cultural society (8/12), a kind of ‘economic capital’ in South
Korea (8/12), a useful role as a path to communicate from outside without
detracting from their identity and culture (7/12).
• Japan: The participants from Japan shared a similar point of view to that of
the South Koreans: English was a means to communicate to foreigners (9/12),
a common tool to enhance a multi-cultural society (6/12), and has a “comple-
mentary role with the local native language” (6/12).
• Indonesia: The Indonesian participants said that English was the language for
business, higher education and research; but not a national language.
• Philippines: Similarly, the Philippinos considered English “as a medium of
instruction especially in college/university”, and “as a means to link the nation to
the rest of the world, especially in Cyber-world”.
• Malaysia: For Malaysian participants, English was very useful because it can be
used for “expression of meanings and identities in a multilingual context” and
was highly useful in Malaysia.
• Thailand: The Thai participants considered “English as a lingua franca means
using a common language to communicate with native speakers and non-native
speakers. Tourism, which plays a major role in the Thai economy, also needs
successful users of English”.
• Vietnam: The Vietnamese participants asserted that in Vietnam, English was
used as a main foreign language, for education and business, to enhance peo-
ple’s capacity for international communication and employability, but
Vietnamese should remain the national language. A participant added, “English
should be used officially so that it can become a useful means of communica-
tion for the people in their international competition for employability”. In her
interview, Mi concluded, “In Vietnam, English should be continued to be
learned as a foreign language because we don’t need it for daily communica-
tion with family, friends and other members of the community. But a good
command of English will certainly help in intercultural communication and
international relations so it should be continued to be taught as a compulsory
school subject”.
In a word, except for the case of Singapore, where English was promoted as a
national language, the other participants in the South East Asia and Asia region
agreed with the role of English as a main foreign language, a lingua franca, to be
strengthened as a means of communication, especially in the field of education
and business, along with the maintenance and preservation of the national
language(s).
118 D.T.H. Oanh
Table 8.2 Potential risks of overusing English

Countries Yes No Not sure Total
1 Singapore 0 10 5 15
2 Vietnam 6 3 6 15
3 Japan 5 5 2 12
4 South Korea 6 3 3 12
5 Malaysia 4 2 2 8
6 Thailand 4 2 2 8
7 Indonesia 4 2 2 8
8 Philippines 4 2 2 8
Total 33 29 24 86
8.4.4 The Risks of Overuse of English
The participants chose to comment on the potential risks of overusing English

for communication in the region and country. They shared a similar point of view,
with Singaporeans as an exception. Whereas no Singaporean thought there were
potential risks of overusing English for communication in the region and country,
6/15 Vietnamese, 6/12 Koreans, 5/12 Japanese, and 6/8 of the participants from
the other countries thought there was such a risk. Whereas 12/15 Singaporean
participants thought there was no risk of English being overused, all the others with
Japan (5/12) and the rest (40–45%) believed there was such a risk. The Vietnamese
participants were most doubtful of the situation: 7/15 marked their answer as “not
sure”, followed by the Singaporeans (5/15) whereas the other countries showed a
much lower extent of uncertainty (see Table 8.2).
In their interviews, the participants provided more insights into the issue.
Mi (Vietnam) commented,
It’s very difficult to say. Take Vietnam as an example. While MOET (Ministry of Education
and Training) seem to give more emphasis to the teaching of English at schools, by, for
example, talking about teaching English from Grade 3, or training more English teachers,
I’m not sure if they have done enough to bring their plan to a success. So it seems to me that
English is being under-emphasized rather than being over-emphasized in this nation.
Regionally speaking, English is used as the lingua franca so everyone acknowledges the
important status of the language, but there’s nothing wrong with this. Actually, thanks to
having English as our lingua franca, the ASEAN has saved quite a substantial amount of
money on translation.
Jen (Singapore) also reflected:

Not really. There is no such risk. Many Singaporean parents are worried that their children
cannot speak their ethnic language fluently because they tend to speak more English
than the other language. But I guess the problem is not to do with the kids’ “overuse” of
English but is rather to do with a lack of parents’ effort to inspire their kids to learn and
maintain their native language. It’s totally possible (and desirable) for Singaporean kids to
remain bilinguals.
Table 8.3 Whether English is being over emphasized in the region

Yes No Not sure Total
Singapore 3 8 4 15
Vietnam 8 7 0 15
Japan 6 6 0 12
South Korea 6 3 3 12
Malaysia 4 4 0 8
Thailand 2 4 2 8
Indonesia 2 4 2 8
Philippines 0 6 2 8
Total 31 42 13 86
Table 8.4 Measures to maintain the native language and develop English if needed
Legislate Limit English Promote Reform and
compulsory borrowings positive improve the
use of local when local perception of teaching of
Countries language words available local language local language Total
Singapore 4 4 8 4 15
Vietnam 7 13 13 13 15
Japan 4 0 4 0 12
South Korea 0 3 3 0 12
Malaysia 4 6 6 6 8
Thailand 0 0 0 0 8
Indonesia 0 0 0 0 8
Philippines 0 8 8 8 8
Total 19 34 42 31 86
From another perspective, a Vietnamese participant added,

In Vietnam, as more and more Vietnamese kids go to international schools where English is
the major medium of instruction, recently there has been a concern that the kids might not
be able to speak Vietnamese fluently. But I doubt that much of this claim is true. Why? Because
outside the school context the kids still have to speak Vietnamese, which is the only one
language that people communicate in across the nation, so it’s unreasonable to assume that
their “overuse” of English at school might lead to an attrition or loss of their first language.
In answering the question whether English was over-emphasized in the

region, more than half of the participants [Vietnam (8/15), Japan (6/12), Korea
(6/12), and Malaysia (4/8)] said “yes”, whereas only 3/15 Singaporeans, 2/8 Thai
and Indonesians agreed. When 6/8 of the Philippines said that English was not
emphasized in the region, 8/15 of the Singaporeans, 7/15 of the Vietnamese, 6/12 of
the Japanese, 4/8 of the Malaysians, Thai and Indonesians, agreed with such choice,
with the exception of Korea (only 2/8 agreed, and another 2/8 were uncertain about
the issue raised) (see Table 8.3).
The participants also chose the measures they thought could be effective in the
effort to maintain the native language and develop the use of English as a common
means of communication (see Table 8.4). Among these, the most popular choice
120 D.T.H. Oanh
was “to promote positive public perception of the local language”, followed equally
by both “to reform and improve the teaching of the local language” and “to limit bor-
rowings from English when local words already exist for concepts”. The least popular
choice was “to legislate compulsory use of the local language in public spheres”,
because the participants were well aware of the nature of the development and accep-
tance of a communicative language. As one Japanese explained, “there is no means to
control the use of language: we just can’t force people to use any kind of language!”
8.4.5 Alternatives to Lingua Franca English –

An Asian Lingua Franca?
8.4.5.1 Possibility of Using an Asian Language as a Lingua Franca
The participants were in substantial agreement in responding to the questions about

whether an Asian language would be a more appropriate lingua franca in compari-
son with English. All of the participants from Thailand (8/8), Indonesia (8/8), the
Philippines (8/8) and 10/12 from Singapore disagreed with the idea (the rest
ranged from 40 to 60%). All the others marked “not sure “or “no idea” (see Table 8.5
below).
The participants chose to comment further on this issue. In her interview, Jen
(Singapore) asserted,
No, because it would be extremely difficult for ASEAN nations to choose one. No nation
would want their native language to be left out and to vote for the language of another
nation instead. Accepting the native language of a particular nation to be the regional
lingua franca would mean granting them the leadership status in political, economic and
diplomatic areas, which I doubt any nation would want to do. So to maintain regional
harmony and peace, it would be wiser to choose a language that is not a native language of
any ASEAN nations and that is already widely used by the wider international community,
and English fits in with this criterion so well.
Many others shared a similar point of view, “No, because the Asian nations
are not united and they do not have proper respect for any single language”
(South Korea), and “No, because no Asian language comes remotely close to
being appropriate, politically or culturally or linguistically” (Singapore). A Filipino
participant wondered, “If yes, which one? There are too many local languages even
within countries”. One Indonesian added, “Internationally speaking, Chinese has
the potential to become another world’s lingua franca but I doubt it can completely
replace English because for many years to come the US will be likely to still take
lead in all areas of life”.
From other perspectives, other participants supported the use of English for
linguistic and communicative convenience. Sato (Japan) shared, “I think […] mainly
for linguistic reasons: English is easier to acquire as an additional language than
most other Asian languages because of familiarity. The pronunciation, morphology,
Table 8.5 Should an Asian language be a lingua franca?

Countries Yes No Not sure No idea Total
1 Singapore 0 10 5 0 15
2 Vietnam 0 6 4 5 15
3 Japan 0 7 5 0 12
4 South Korea 0 6 3 3 12
5 Malaysia 0 4 2 2 8
6 Thailand 0 8 0 0 8
7 Indonesia 0 8 0 0 8
8 Philippines 0 8 0 0 8
Total 0 57 19 10 86
syntax, and phonetic values of English are somehow introduced to different Asian
groups”. For the Vietnamese, they thought that “English is the most appropriate
choice”, and that “English is now an international language. Thanks to English, an
Asian can communicate with not only Asian people but also he/she can make his/
her life / business easier in non-Asian countries or with non-Asian partners.
Therefore, it is not necessary to use an Asian language as a lingua franca”. A Thai
participant agreed: “I doubt it if an Asian language can be used in the place of
English because it depends on the frequency of communication, and no Asian
language is used frequently enough […]”, and wondered if any Asian language
would ever have the global reach which English had achieved. Furthermore, in the
view of a Singaporean, English was an advantage for Singapore, because “One reason
Singapore has been successful was because it selected English as a working language
rather than Bahasa (Malaysia or Indonesia) […] political reasons are an important
issue in this part of the world”.
8.4.6 Participants’ Views on the Effectiveness of Glocal English,

and How It Could Be Consolidated
8.4.6.1 Views on the Effectiveness of Glocal English
In terms of the effectiveness of a commonly-used localized variety of English, the

participants shared different opinions. Only 4/15 of Singaporeans thought the use of
a localized variety of English was “very effective”. The rest chose “effective” with
different levels of agreement (top of the list is Malaysian (6/8), then Vietnam and
Singapore (8/15 each), followed by Japan (5/12), and with the lowest numbers from
Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines (2/8 each). Several participants thought it
was ineffective (Philippines 4/8, Japan 5/12, Korea 5/12, Thailand 2/8 and Vietnam
3/5). Half (4/8) of the participants from Thailand thought it had not much effect, and
4/15 Koreans, and 3/15 Vietnamese and 2/12 Japanese agreed with this choice. Ten
others said they had no view on this issue (see Table 8.6).
122 D.T.H. Oanh
Table 8.6 Views on the effectiveness of glocal English

Countries Very effective Effective Ineffective Not much effect No idea Total
1 Singapore 4 8 0 0 3 15
2 Vietnam 0 8 3 3 1 15
3 Japan 0 5 5 2 0 12
4 Korea 0 6 3 3 0 12
5 Malaysia 0 6 0 0 2 8
6 Thailand 0 2 2 4 0 8
7 Indonesia 0 2 0 0 2 8
8 Philippines 0 2 4 0 2 8
Total 4 39 17 12 10 86
Though many participants chose not to give any opinion on this issue, which
shows different extents of uncertainty, other participants commented further.
A Singaporean argued, “A localized English has grown organically from grass roots
level rather than be imposed from the top down. What works for people has become
adapted and adopted”. A Malaysian shared, “It is effective in the case of Malaysian
Englishes; though I can’t answer the question: it depends on the domains and the
levels of engagement”.
Those who thought using localized English was ineffective gave many arguments
to support their choice. Japanese participants said, “It is ineffective because if a
localized variety can be used in international communication the main essence of
the theme will be lost”, and that “It is ineffective to cover all dialects for good
communication”. In her interview, Mi (Vietnam) wondered, “Using a localized
English can create a gap between the localized variety of English and global
English”, and then “consequently, English will become difficult to understand
worldwide”. Another Vietnamese participant shared her worries about the danger
of English losing its popularity when it is localized: “Though it’s better to use
glocal English to express something better which international English cannot
do, it becomes dangerous when being used commonly because when it is used
commonly, we cannot integrate with international environment”. A Singaporean
agreed, saying “It can be effective as a means of communication in the community
but might not always be so for wider contexts of international communication.
For example Singlish is understood by all Singaporeans but causes a lot of confusion
to non-Singaporeans”.
8.4.6.2 How to Consolidate a Localized Variety of English
In answering the question about what could be done to make localized English (if it
was used in the country) comprehensible, standardized, and widely accepted, the
participants gave different thoughts, both supporting and wondering about the role
and the effectiveness of a localized variety of English.
Only a small proportion of the participants accepted a localized variety of
English, or expected to recognize it if they did not have a localized variety.
A Malaysian participant said, “It is already being spoken by the elites of the
country, i.e. in education, media and in social life. It is already used as the norm”.
The Vietnamese participants chose to reflect on this issue in more detail. For
example, one said, “I am sorry that I cannot answer this question because it seems
that English is not used commonly in Vietnam, so it seems not to be localized”,
while another added, “we need to change negative public perception towards
localized English and make them see its value as it has its application in the local
context”. They suggested further that in order to make a societally-realized local-
ized variety of English, there was a strong need to “improve teaching English,
especially changing curricula and teaching methods” and “to standardize the
teaching English system at school with local contents if we are to call it a desir-
able localized variety of English”.
However, other participants expressed reservations about this issue. Even with
the case of Singapore, where “Singlish” has been used and accepted widely, the
participants thought that in many cases, the acceptance was at a “street level”, as Jen
claimed: “It is difficult, and these things are up to those who use it. I have known
(native English speaker) expatriates who have picked up Singlish well, especially
school-aged children. The acceptance is at street level, though. The authorities
would prefer a more standardized English use”. Similarly, another Singaporean
emphasized, “Singapore has been promoting Standard Singapore English, which is
a localized variety of English but has been made more intelligible to the interna-
tional community (by speaking grammatically accurately and improving pronuncia-
tion but maintaining local linguistic features that do not interfere with intercultural
communication)”.
The participants from South Korea made their point of view quite clear, more or
less against the localization of English. Kim said, “I think we don’t have localized
English in South Korea; not yet” and another added, “Why should we have localized
English? I think it could be comprehensible and easy for local people but there
would be another problem happened to communicate with foreigners who don’t
understand our culture. We can communicate with our own language but why do we
have to make localized English again?”. Another Korean participant asserted, “I
think localized English will be globalized only when the particular local group is
globalized. Any artificial endeavour to make localized English to be globalized will
not be successful!”.
From another perspective, a participant from Thailand showed his uncertainty:
“Why and how could we intervene? Why? Local dialects are just that, ‘local’, and
the role of English in the modern world is just the opposite […] it is used for inter-
national communication. A Filipino participant agreed, “Absolutely a difficult task.
I do not see any need for intervention at all”.
It can be seen from the statistics and arguments above that most of the partici-
pants in this study showed quite strongly that they were not ready to accept a local-
ized variety of English, or thought seriously about the role and the influence of such
a variety. They still had a strong bias in favour of “standard English” and its prestige
for communication and education and economic development. What can be done to
advocate the role of localized English in Asia is still a difficult question.
124 D.T.H. Oanh
8.4.7 Testing: Views on the Pros and Cons, and the Possibility
of English Tests Designed By and For Asians
In direct contrast to the increasing adoption of glocal Englishes in Asian countries at

various levels, the standards used for the assessment of English education in Asian
countries have not been modified to reflect this changing reality. This section will
discuss the currently used English proficiency tests, the participants’ views on their
pros and cons, as well as the possibility of English tests designed by and for Asians.
8.4.7.1 Views on the Pros and Cons of the Currently Used English Tests
Observation shows that the vast majority of English language programmes in Asia
use international textbooks exclusively, and English teaching and learning rely on
international standardized tests as methods of assessment.
It can be seen that for all the countries which participated in the questionnaire,
international standardized tests such as the International English Language Testing
System (IELTS) and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) are widely
used as benchmarks for entrance exams and other purposes across their countries,
as shown through the data.
These tests are used for a wide range of purposes – for national, regional and inter-
national education and employment – because these tests are commonly recognized
nearly all over the world. In terms of advantages, the participants thought “the tests
served as a general gauge of a person’s language proficiency and is helpful in job
application and entering universities” (Singapore), that “it is effective to improve
English” (Japan). They also emphasized the values of these tests, that “they are estab-
lished with validity and reliability” (Singapore), qualified to be trusted (Malaysia),
and being a “good indicator for estimating the English skill” (South Korea).
It can be seen that domestic entry exams to universities, vocational schools,
international study abroad programmes, and even immigration requirements all
commonly use IELTS or TOEFL as the preferred method of determining the candi-
date’s language proficiency. While the original reason for implementing these tests
was to set a uniform standard of linguistic proficiency for entering universities in
English-speaking countries, the current use, or indeed overuse, of these tests as a
catch-all method of testing has serious flaws. The participants shared their thoughts
on the disadvantages of these tests as well. They commented about its effectiveness,
that these tests were “not a good standard for us: why do we have to shape our
English in such a direction?” (South Korea), and that “we can’t figure it out how
proficiently people use in English only by the tests: they’re not able to assess learn-
ers’ productive skills” (Thailand).
The participants also asserted that these tests were not contextually and cultur-
ally appropriate. A Thai participant shared, “The main issue with any standardized
test is what ‘norms’ are being used. Almost exclusively these norms are exonorma-
tive and do not take into account how English is used in the local context or even
within the wider community as in ASEAN”. Other participants agreed: “They may
not reflect local use of English” (Singapore), “They don’t take into account local
varieties of English” (Indonesia). These tests “set a benchmark for diverse speech
communities, but the disadvantage is that they exclude local forms, and their dis-
courses are embedded in first world ideology and cultures” (Malaysia).
The cost effectiveness of these international tests is another major concern.
Almost all the participants complained that it was too expensive to prepare for and
take them. For example, a South Korean participant said, “It costs a lot of money for
preparing and registering [for] the test, including private tutoring and English acad-
emy, textbook, online class and so on”. A Japanese participant agreed, “They’re
more costly because of manual ratings by certified testers and it’s too much” (Japan).
All Vietnamese participants said the tests were very expensive for most people in
their country (Vietnam).
While these concerns may seem to raise the question of creating a purely Asian
test for English, there have already been domestic efforts to create proficiency tests
that meet the needs of the local population; however, these have not been widely
recognized.
Details are displayed in Table 8.7 below.
Some countries also provided information about the local or institutional tests
for English proficiency such as MUET (for university entrance, Malaysia), and
TOSEL or TEPS (for administrative and screening purpose or admission to foreign
language high schools, recognized by foreign language high schools and local
universities, Korea).
Similar to the case of the international standardized tests, the participants shared
their comments about the advantages and disadvantages of these tests, focussing on
the strength of the localized nature of this type of tests and the weakness in the quality
of the test. According to the participants, “the national standardized tests seem to be
the most appropriate option for short-term in the country” (Vietnam), because “they are
able to evaluate the ability of students” (Korea) and “they can be approached by
students with low levels and from remote areas with less modern facilities” (Vietnam).
Some talked about both the advantages and disadvantages of these tests. For
example, Jen (Singapore) said in her interview, “The national standardized tests and
local or institutional tests may not be comparable with tests in other educational
settings, thus making it harder when it comes to benchmarking, but reflect local
use of English and local socio-cultural norms”. Kim (Korea) also commented,
“They are easy to be organized, with low cost, but not qualified enough to be trusted”
(Korea). Furthermore, the biggest advantage that all participants expressed was that
these tests did not meet international requirements, and thus they were not accepted
by international organizations and other countries.
8.4.7.2 The Possibility of English Tests Designed By and For Asians
Though there seems to be an obvious need for a purely Asian test for English, the
answers to the question of whether Asian countries should establish and develop
assessment tools and varieties of English from within Asia to suit Asian needs are
126 D.T.H. Oanh
Table 8.7 National English proficiency standardized tests

National
Countries standardized tests For purposes Recognized by
Singapore SPM, STPM Academic and professional Governmental
purposes organizations
Universities
Japan EIKEN Certification for recruitment Organizations
South Korea TEPS Entering university or graduate Universities
school, and companies
Korean Scholastic Administrative and screening
Aptitude Test purpose
Vietnam Level A, B, C University graduation, job Governmental
application organizations
Annual university University admission Universities
entrance test
Thailand ‘A’ NET and ‘O’ Net’ Entry into higher education Government
Malaysia MUET Academic purposes Universities
diverse, as shown in Table 8.8 below. It is worth noting that though many participants
complained about the cultural and contextual appropriateness and cost effectiveness
of the current international standardized tests, no country provided unequivocal
support for the idea of establishing tests by Asians and for Asians.
The majority of the participants from Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines
(6/8 each) supported this idea, followed by Indonesia (4/8); the lowest rate of agree-
ment came from Singapore (3/15) and Korea and Japan (2/12 each). Specifically, no
Vietnamese participants wanted to have their own test, and 15/15 disagreed with an
Asian type of test, followed by the Japanese (8/12). Many participants were unsure
about a suitable solution (Singapore 8/15, Japan 2/12, Korea 2/12, Malaysia and
Thailand 2/8 each). Half of the Indonesian participants (4) and 3/15 Singaporeans
and 2/12 Koreans had no specific ideas regarding the question raised.
The participants chose to give more in-depth explanations of their responses,
with many more ideas on opposing the ideas of having tests designed by and for
Asians. One Japanese participant said, “Basically and personally I do not support
using any localized English. Asian English should also be based on the standard
English and so does the test”. The Koreans also agreed, “We have so many different
concepts and languages (with different voice, intonation, and so on) to have one
type of test for us”, and that “Asian English should also be based on the standard
English, an Asian specific test might not be valid and reliable”. The Vietnamese
were strongly against the idea as well. They commented:
• For linguistic reasons: “The special assessment tools may be established only
based on native language features compared to English”;
• For international recognition: “We cannot limit the assessment tools and varieties
of English within Asian recognition as the globalization cannot work in that
limitation”;
Table 8.8 The possibility of English tests designed by and for Asians
Countries Yes No Not sure No idea Total
1 Singapore 3 0 8 3 15
2 Vietnam 0 15 0 0 15
3 Japan 2 8 2 0 12
4 Korea 2 2 2 2 12
5 Malaysia 6 0 2 0 8
6 Thailand 6 0 2 0 8
7 Indonesia 4 0 0 4 8
8 Philippines 6 2 0 0 8
Total 29 27 16 9 86
• For the desire to integrate into global English: “Because English has certainly been
considered international one since so far, and the learners of English in Asia also
want to know an international language, not as an Asian standardized language”.
However, the supporters of the idea also had strong opinions, arguing that Asians
should have their own norm for English assessment, because “English is used
differently in Asia than in the rest of the world and if we accept Asian English
norms we need to have assessment tools that measure students against these norms”
(Singapore). Others agreed, emphasising that such a test would be more suitable and
of more use for local needs. For example, Kim said, “Because most of tests made
by non-Asian country require particular culture brought from the country made the
test and so some of the prompts used in the tests and the expected communication
patterns are not appropriate to some Asian learners. If the tests are developed for the
Asian varieties of English, the tests should be developed by Asian countries to suit
Asian needs”. A participant from Malaysia agreed, “We need our own test because
it’s the fusion of the meanings and situated knowledge of the region”. A Thai
participant asserted, “We do need our own test and our own methodology and
curriculum. Why? English does not belong to the ‘English’; assessment is still used
as a gatekeeper and controlling factor for many people. The target usage is non
native speakers (NNS) to NNS, not native speakers to NNS, yet this is what many
forms of assessment presume”.
Furthermore, two other participants expressed their concerns. A Singaporean
participant said, “I think it all depends on the purpose of assessment. If it is to be
used within a country, it is an option worth considering. If it is to serve as a lingua
franca in the Asian region, we need to consider which Asian variety is to be
chosen as the benchmark. I don’t think there will be an easy solution to this
problem”. A Philippine shared a similar idea, “Yes, and no. There is no easy solution.
An Asian type of test should take into account current realities, but are we having
a common voice to implement such as task?”
It can be seen from this section that though not much support was found for
in-country testing, the few arguments supporting the possibility of English tests
128 D.T.H. Oanh
designed by and for Asians were solid, reasonable and thought-provoking. If more
research and support from the educators and policy makers are to be realized, this
option could be realized in the near future.
8.5 Conclusion
As discussed above, English is now being used as a lingua franca for regional and
international communication across Asia. We now consider the implications of
these views and conceptions for a wider and richer understanding of the global/
glocal English bifurcation.
(a) Global (world) and glocal English
English is a tool of international communication, which should ensure a high
level of comprehension and a standard form, and should be responsive to the
context of use in each country. Glocal English(es) are seen as “situated
Englishes”, a means of communication for both international and local purposes,
comprehensible to the international community with local linguistic and cultural
features, which should develop naturally.
(b) Level of English use and favoured varieties
English is commonly used in all the participants’ countries. Apart from
Singapore, where English is used as a national language, in the other countries
English is very popularly used as a foreign language to different extents (in the
media, in regional and international documents and announcements, in educa-
tion, in sport activities, and in cultural events – except in Indonesia). American
English and British English are popular in Korea, Thailand and Japan, whereas
localized English was most popular in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and the
Philippines.
(c) The roles of English (social, educational, economic)
English is the main foreign language, a lingua franca, to be strengthened as a
means of communication, especially in the field of education and business,
along with the maintenance and preservation of the national language(s).
(d) Overuse of English?
No Singaporeans thought there were potential risks of overusing English for
communication in the region and country, but between 40% and 50% of the
participants of the other countries thought there was such a risk, and measures
should be taken to maintain the native language and develop the use of English
as a common means of communication.
(e) An Asian lingua franca?
The survey shows no support for an Asian lingua franca. All of the participants
from Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, and most from Singapore, disagreed
with the idea, with 40% to 60% of the other participants showing disagreement.
The participants seemed to be content with the role of English as a lingua franca
in Asia for various reasons.
(f) The effectiveness of glocal English and how it could be consolidated

How to combat asymmetry in the positioning of English and Asian languages
within Asian societies is not a simple question. The increasing role of Asian glocal
English is undeniable, and a lot of effort is needed to help Asian glocal English
if it is to be comprehensible, standardized and widely accepted. As a result of
the widespread adoption of English, individual nations have modified English
syntactically, lexically, and phonologically to suit their specific needs, leading to
the rise of many local varieties of English. But while localized English might
ease the challenges of learning and teaching English, and may facilitate communi-
cation within the country and region, an increasingly localized variety of English
could risk diverging so far from “standard English” that it may no longer be under-
stood properly by the larger international community. Therefore there is a need for
appropriate use of global and local Englishes – “glocal Englishes” – if we are to
ensure effective communication, both at regional and international levels.
(g) English proficiency testing (exonormative and endonormative)
The issues related to the type(s) of English proficiency tests which are most
commonly used. The possibility of designing English tests by and for Asians
was not supported. However, though not much support was found for in-country
testing, the few arguments supporting the possibility of English tests designed
by and for Asians were solid, reasonable and thought-provoking.
It is important to make the best use of English as a means of communication and
to promote the role of the local agencies in strengthening the role of English for
optimal use at the least cost to the local language and (human and physical)
resources. National, intuitional and individual support is needed to ensure the use of
English as well as local languages.
As shown through the study, the Japanese participants considered the role of the
governments and institutions as essential in this process, by providing “fundamental
education” and making “appropriate decision based on real situation of each country”.
A Filipino participant said that governments could “document and assess the
effectiveness periodically”. The Singaporean participants offered many measures
for the governments and institutions to contribute their part to the cause, keeping a
balance between the use of English and local languages:
They should promote English as a language for international communication and trade as
well as for the acquisition of knowledge especially in the areas of science and technology,
and not as a colonial legacy / baggage that evokes resentment among the people. They
should also make the people see that English is not a threat to the local language as the
people are free to learn their own language(s) at school. (Jen, interview)
The Malaysian participants shared their belief in the importance of multilingualism

and the Government’s strong support to realise such a policy. One said,
I believe multilingualism should be encouraged. Local varieties of English have developed
organically to meet human needs so should be recognized and people given the opportunity
to develop language skills and the ability to code switch. Local languages should be given
primacy as the heart and home of a distinctive culture and heritage. All this would require
government will and finance.
130 D.T.H. Oanh
Many others raised the issue of respecting local norms and emphasized describing
and not prescribing these norms: “Firstly they should accept that each speech com-
munity has its own local norms. Then they should work closely with linguists to
describe (but not prescribe) these norms, and actively promote them in the commu-
nity as well as regionally and internationally” (Sato, Japan); and the Government
“shouldn’t try and over-prescribe, while trying to maintain acceptable international
intelligibility” (an Indonesian participant). The Vietnamese commended the suc-
cessful role of the government’s nationwide effort in promoting the role and the use
of English, and noted that the status and standard of English have improved strongly
over the last few years, thanks to series of policies promoting the use of foreign
languages, with priority given to English.
Governments and organizations therefore need to encourage the development of
international standardized English, but the localising process of English should not
be banned. This may create a new language for enhanced use in the future. In order
to help such a process, suitable policies to improve English teaching quality and its
role in the community as the most important foreign language should be estab-
lished, with high quality and accessible English textbooks which satisfy interna-
tional standards. Local experts need to collaborate with international experts in
developing standard assessment processes.
Asia would need to create appropriate tools and conditions in recruiting human
resources, with a specific and standard level of English required nationwide if the
language is to be suitable for the country’s contexts and requirements. This relates
to the question of how Asian countries can establish and develop assessment tools
and varieties of English from within Asia to suit Asian needs. Currently interna-
tional standardized tests like TOEFL and IELTS are often used as entrance exami-
nations for many domestic Asian education systems, and for recruiting students to
study and work in other Asian countries. These tests are produced by Western coun-
tries, and in an important sense are designed for Western use. As a result they inevi-
tably reflect Western cultural and societal views; the co-opting of such tests to assess
students’ abilities within an Asian framework is inappropriate.
The widespread use of English in student recruitment to neighbouring Asian
countries also neglects to assess the students’ ability to live in societies that are very
different from those portrayed in TOEFL and IELTS, leading to a lack of cultural
and linguistic preparation for students in these programmes. The Japanese have
established “twinning programmes” with other universities in the region that require
a set proportion of coursework be completed in Japanese along with a home-stay
system to encourage the use of Japanese and an understanding of Japanese culture
and daily life. However, Japan’s solution is not easily adopted and adapted by all
nations, as pure-English programmes remain more popular, and not all countries
possess a native language with foreign language learning popularity like Japanese.
A more widely based solution needs to be found: for instance, an Asia-wide stan-
dardized test for English that is designed with Asian cultures in mind and aims to
test candidates’ abilities to live and work in countries within the Asian cultural
sphere. In the current state of affairs, such a goal seems unattainable due to the lack
of cooperation between Asian education systems and the lack of trust among testing
agencies, accreditors, and administrators, as well as candidates.
During such a process, apart from the joint efforts of the educators, curriculum
designers, teachers and students themselves, there is a great need for support at
institutional and governmental levels. However, care should be taken in emphasiz-
ing intervention from the governmental side as well. There are doubts over the role
of the governments and institutions related to the role of English. As Sato (Japan)
noted, “the localization of English or the globalization of English within local con-
texts should depend on the natural flow of development and the governmental inter-
vention toward the globalization should only disturb this natural development of
English”. Kim (Korea) supported that sentiment: “the development of a language is
something that is natural following the needs of people, the context of situation and
the culture. What we are doing is learning how to ‘mean’ through another form of
communication…in this case English.”
The data collected in this study show some support for in-country glocal English,
but not for testing, and not for trans-national communication. The picture is quite
complicated, and more research on related issues identified with larger samples
from a wider population can provide more solid findings and solution to the issues
of using English as a lingua franca in Asia.
A harmonization in the use, teaching, learning and testing of English in Asia is
needed. Governments and educators in Asia as well as the English-speaking world
need to provide specific guidelines for English used in Asian societies, tailoring
English for ease of local education without compromising the fundamental inter-
national communicative value of the language itself. There is a great need to
establish a benchmark of English testing to ensure uniformity and flexibility in
language requirements across the region. Only then can the use of comprehensible
English as a lingua franca be compatible with the development of glocal English
without endangering the use of local languages; at the same time, glocal English
can benefit from increased standardization and gain increased prominence on the
international stage.
Appendix: Questionnaire for the Participants
The use of English in Asia in the context of international trade relations and educa-
tion integration is more significant than ever. Key to this process of integration is the
use of foreign languages, with English identified as the biggest contender for the
lingua franca in Asia. This study aims to discuss the role of global (international)
English vs. glocal English in Asia. Glocal English (a portmanteau of “global” and
“local”) is understood in the context of this study as the interaction between
English and local languages and societies in non-English speaking countries and the
resulting evolution of the English language in that locality as the use of English
becomes more widespread.
132 D.T.H. Oanh
Please complete the following questions by indicating your answers with a (✓)
in the appropriate box or by writing your response in the space provided. Thank you
very much.
How old are you?

£ £ £ £ £
Under 30 30–39 40–49 50–59 Over 60
Are you: ® male or ® female?
What is your job?
For how long have you been working/teaching?
In which country did you grow up?
What is your name? (optional)
1. What is your understanding of global (world) English (es)?
2. What is your understanding of glocal English (es)?
3. Is it important for a glocal English to
a £ be understood by both local and international communities
b £ be accepted by both local and international communities
c £ be used to express local concepts and ideas
d £ incorporate aspects of the local language, such as vocabulary and syntax,
to facilitate English teaching and learning in the area
Others (please specify) …
4. Please tick your choice (True, False, No idea) as appropriate:
True False No idea
a Glocal English must develop naturally
b Glocal English can be prescribed by linguists
or authorities
c Glocal English which contains features similar
to those of the local language and culture is likely
to be resisted
d Glocal English which contains features more
compatible with commonly-used forms of
English is more likely to be accepted by the local
population
e Glocal English which contains features more
compatible with commonly-used forms of
English is more likely to be assimilated and
developed to form a new part of glocal English in
a consistent manner
Other ideas (please specify) …
5.a. Is English commonly used in your country?

£ Yes, always £ Yes, sometimes; depending on the programme and context
£ Yes, but seldom £ Not used at all £ Not sure £ No idea
5.b. If yes, how is English used in your country?
a £ In media (TV, radio, newspaper, entertainment …)
b £ In regional/international documents and announcements
c £ In education
d £ In sport activities
e £ In cultural events
f £ As the first-choice language for communication (English only)
g £ As a second language (bilingual)
h £ As a foreign language (being translated)
Others (please specify) …
5.c. If yes, what type/variety of English is most commonly used in your country?
American Australian British Canadian International Localised New Not
standard type English Zealand sure
£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £
Other ideas (please specify) …
6. According to you, what role should English play in your country?
7.a. Is there a potential danger of overusing English for communication both in the
regional sphere and within your country?
£ Yes £ No £ Not sure £ No idea
7.b. If yes, how strongly do you agree?
Very much not much
1 2 3 4 5
8.a. Is English overemphasised in the region right now?

8.b. If yes, what can be done to maintain the native language and develop the use of
English as a common means of communication?
a £ Legislate compulsory use of the local language in public spheres
b £ Limit borrowings from English when local words already exist for concepts
c £ Promote positive public perception of the local language
d £ Reform and improve the teaching of the local language
Others (please specify)
9. In youropinion, would an Asian language be a more appropriate lingua franca?
Why?
134 D.T.H. Oanh
10. If a localised variety of English is commonly used, do you think that

£ It is very effective £ It is effective £ It is ineffective
£ I doubt that there is much effect £ No idea
Why?
11. What can be done to make localised English (if it is used in your country)
comprehensible, standardised, and widely accepted?
12.a. Which type(s) of test are most commonly used to test English proficiency in
your country?
Types of Test For example For purposes Recognised by
a International standardised
tests (e.g. IELTS, TOEFL …)
b National standardised tests
c Local or institutional tests
d Other types of tests
12.b. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these tests in your view?
13. Should Asian countries establish and develop assessment tools and varieties
of English from within Asia to suit Asian needs?
Why?
14. What role should governments and institutions play in relation to the standardi-
sation and localisation of English as well as its position vis-à-vis the local
language?
15. Do you have any further comments to make?
If you are willing to take part in a follow-up interview, please give me your
email address:---------------------------------------------
References
Eblen, R.A., and W. Eblen. 1994. The encyclopedia of the environment. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. Modern Language Journal 81(3): 285–300.
Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 2007. Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment:
Elaborations on a reconceptualised SLA. Modern Language Journal 91(1): 800–819.
Friedmam, T.L. 1999. The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2007. World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English
language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2008. English as the official working language of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN): Features and strategies. English Today 24: 24.27–34.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2009. English as an Asian lingua franca and the multilingual model of ELT
(Revised version of a plenary paper presented at the Hong Kong Association of Applied
Linguistics Research Forum on December 12th 2009, Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong.) Research Centre into Language Education and Acquisition in Multilingual
Societies. Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong:
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007. Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second language acquisition.
Modern Language Journal 91(5): 773–787.
Li, D.C.S. 2002. Cantonese-English code-switching research in Hong Kong: A survey of recent
research. In Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity, ed. K. Bolton, 79–99. Hong Kong:
McLellan, J., and M. David. 2007. A review of code switching research in Malaysia and Brunei
Darussalam. In English in Southeast Asia, ed. David Prescott, 93–117. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Oxford English Dictionary (2010). http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/276090?redirectedFrom=gloc
al#eid. Retrieved 25 August 2010.
Robertson, R. 1997. Comments on the ‘Global Triad’ and ‘Glocalization’. In Globalization
and indigenous culture, ed. N. Inoue, 217–225. Tokyo: Institute for Japanese Culture and
Classics, Kokugakuin University. Also available at: http://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/ijcc/wp/
global/15robertson.html.
franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11: 133–158.
Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics 24: 209–239.
Seidlhofer, B. 2005. Key concepts in ELT: English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59(4):
339–341.
Tagüeña, J. 2008. ‘Glocal’ approach makes global knowledge local. http://94.228.39.23/fr/opinions/
l-approche-glocale-permet-d-adapter-des-connaissan.html. Retrieved 15 December, 2011.
Chapter 9
Lingua Francas as Language Ideologies
Alastair Pennycook
9.1 Introduction
One supposed truism in the discourses around the global spread of English is that it
is the most widely spoken language in the world as a second language, whereas
Chinese is the most widely spoken first language. English, while maintaining a base
of a few 100 million “native speakers”, is numerically superior because of the huge
number of “non-native speakers” around the world, who now vastly outnumber the
former. Chinese, by contrast, while on the rise as a second language, achieves its
numerical superiority from its colossal base of “native speakers”, the majority of
whom reside in China. On the one hand, the world’s great lingua franca (LF), on the
other hand the world’s great mother tongue. As one such version of this analysis
explains, “Although Modern Standard Chinese has more mother-tongue speakers
(approximately 700 million), English is unquestionably used by more people
as a second or foreign language, putting the total number of English-speakers
worldwide at well over one billion” (English for students 2011).
“In terms of native-speaker rankings”, suggests Graddol (2006, p. 60), English,
which was “clearly in second place” behind Chinese, is falling behind Spanish and
Hindi/Urdu and will soon also be challenged by Arabic “in the world league tables”.
Crystal (2003) explains it thus: “about a quarter of the world’s population is already
fluent or competent in English, and this figure is steadily growing – in the early 2000s
that means around 1.5 billion people. No other language can match this growth. Even
Chinese, found in eight different spoken languages, but unified by a common writing
system, is known to ‘only’ some 1.1 billion” (p. 6). This common argument raises
several questions: First, what credibility can be given to such figures? What is the
basis for these calculations of numbers of speakers? One obvious concern is the vari-
A. Pennycook (*)
Language Studies, University of Technology,
Sydney, Australia
e-mail: alastair.pennycook@uts.edu.au

138 A. Pennycook
ability in these figures: rather than Crystal’s 1.5 billion second language speakers of
English, Graddol (2006), citing the Ethnologue website (see Ethnologue, 2011),
which is based on Ostler’s (2005) estimates, gives a figure of 508 million for native
and nonnative speakers combined, while the English for students website suggests
that while an “estimated 354 million people speak English as their first language”,
estimates about second language speakers of English “vary greatly between 150 mil-
lion and 1.5 billion”. This is more than mere variation. Such figures must be based on
profoundly different definitions of native and non-native speakers.
Concerns about the meaningfulness of such figures leads to several broader ques-
tions. On one level, we need to ask how they are derived and with what definitions
of fluency or competence. I shall not dwell on this here, but it is important to con-
sider that such figures are often based on school attendance data, and in fact tell us
very little about use and capacity in English. At another level, we need to ask more
generally what such approaches to language enumerability tell us. As Moore et al.
(2010) observe, the counting of languages and the counting of speakers of those
languages is such a flawed enterprise that there is little to be learned from these
figures, percentages and league tables. From this point of view, attempts to count
languages or speakers of languages, to compare the number of people who speak
English with the number who speak Chinese makes little sense. At another level
again, we need to ask what language ideologies underpin these particular versions
of languages as native tongues or lingua francas.
In talking of language ideologies, I am pointing to the significance of understanding
the “structured and consequential ways in which we think about language” (Seargeant
2009, p. 26). Languages are not pregiven entities that exist outside human under-
standing of what they are and what they do. They are ideological constructs that
serve different purposes. By maintaining a distinction between English as a second
language (and therefore lingua franca) and Chinese as a first language (and therefore
not a lingua franca), we are constructing an idea of languages based on the widely-
questioned divide between native and non-native speakers. There is an irony here that
many who question this divide in relation to English language pedagogy nevertheless
uphold it to make these claims about English and Chinese. The very assumption that
Chinese is a native language to the vast populations of China, furthermore, is a
language ideology of very large proportions. If it in fact makes much more sense to
look at Chinese as a lingua franca (Chew 2010; Li 2006) spoken across a region
comprising almost a quarter of the world’s population, then not only does this dis-
tinction between English as the great lingua franca and Chinese as the great mother
tongue become questionable, but we are also forced to turn a more critical eye on the
language ideologies that underpin these arguments.
9.2 English as a Lingua Franca
The idea of English as a lingua franca (ELF) has engendered considerable debate,
with a focus particularly on whether ELF is the same as English as an international
language (EIL); whether it is a new, monolithic model replacing earlier proposals
9 Lingua Francas as Language Ideologies 139
for a global standard; and whether, if it moves from a description of interactions to

a pedagogical model, it may become a new form of deficit English teaching.
Phillipson (2003, p. 176) warns that the use of English across Europe is leading to
“a simplified, pidginised but unstable ‘Euro-English’ that inhibits creativity and
expressiveness, whether English is used as a mother tongue or as a foreign lan-
guage, a language that is spoken with so much imprecision that communication
difficulties and breakdowns multiply”. Others, however, have addressed the ques-
tion of what happens to English when used as a lingua franca on a less deficit-
oriented basis. Taking up many concerns common to the World Englishes (WE)
framework, studies of English as a lingua franca have sought to identify features
common to regional (particularly European and Asian) communication among
diverse users of English. While there is a wide variety of work under this rubric, the
attempts to describe a lexicogrammatical (Seidlhofer 2001) or phonological (Jenkins
2000) core of English as a Lingua Franca have received wide attention. ELF
researchers, explains Jenkins (2006b, p. 161), “seek to identify frequently and sys-
tematically used forms that differ from inner circle forms without causing commu-
nication problems and override first language groupings”. The point, then, is to find
through analyses of corpora of English language use how communication is achieved
across regions. What regular forms that differ from native speaker norms appear not
to impede – indeed may appear to improve – communication?
The ELF approach has been critiqued from the World Englishes perspective on
the grounds that it falls into the camp of those approaches to English that “idealize
a monolithic entity called ‘English’ and neglect the inclusive and plural character of
the world-wide phenomenon” (Kachru and Nelson 2006, p. 2). Such a critique,
however, as Jenkins (2006b) points out, is misguided, since it rests on the mistaken
assumption that English as a lingua franca is the same as English as an International
Language, which in turn may be associated with the notion of World Standard
(Spoken) English proposed by authors such as Crystal (2003). While Crystal’s
notion is of a possibly emergent variety of common spoken English rather than any
prescribed version, it differs from both the pluricentric focus of World Englishes
and from the Lingua Franca focus. Certainly the suggestion that ELF somehow
promotes inner circle norms is mistaken, since “ELF researchers specifically exclude
mother tongue speakers from their data collection. Indeed, in its purest form, ELF
is defined as a contact language used only among non–mother tongue speakers”
(Jenkins 2006b, p. 160).
Challenges to this “purer form” of ELF, however, as only occurring between
non-mother tongue speakers, have led to a softening of this view, so that Jenkins has
more recently asserted that while ELF is “a means of communication in English
between speakers who have different first languages” (Jenkins 2009, p. 41), this
does not necessarily exclude native speakers, but instead shifts their role in English
use from central to peripheral participants. Even if mother-tongue speakers of
English are included as possible participants in ELF discourse, however, this by no
means renders ELF a so-called inner circle variety or a monolithic entity. Rather it
acknowledges that such speakers also participate in global English exchanges, and,
more normatively, urges them to acknowledge equal speaker rights to all partici-
pants. The inclusion of mother tongue speakers of English, on the other hand, does
140 A. Pennycook
open ELF to some of the critiques that Phillipson (2009, p. 167) aims at it, arguing
that “lingua franca is a pernicious, invidious term if the language in question is a
first language for some people but for others a foreign language, such communica-
tion typically being asymmetrical”. More generally, he goes on to argue that it is a
“misleading term if the language is supposed to be neutral and disconnected from
culture”. He suggests instead that English as a lingua frankensteinia might be a
more appropriate term. While Phillipson’s concerns about an apparently monolithic
ELF may seem misguided, his warning that there may only be a weak engagement
with the cultural politics of English does need to be taken seriously.
A major focus of debate is whether the description of ELF is also used as a basis
for teaching, that is as a prescriptive rather than a descriptive tool. As Rubdy and
Saraceni suggest,
so long as the underlying tacit assumption is that once the Lingua Franca core is systemati-
cally codified, it can then be used as a model for teaching and learning this form of English
in the classroom, the question that arises is whether one form of prescription is not being
(unwittingly or even wittingly) replaced by another. (p. 10)
Certainly, some of the discussions about ELF do seem to suggest more than just
a descriptive project. Expressing concerns with the trend in applied linguistic circles
to adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards heterogenisation, Jenkins (2006a, p. 35)
suggests that “if a policy of pluricentricity is pursued unchecked”, there is a danger
that mutual comprehension may be impeded, that accents will move further and
further apart until a stage is reached where pronunciation presents a serious problem
to lingua franca communication. Yet the ELF protagonists vehemently reject accu-
sations of prescriptivism, arguing that it is precisely “the polymorphous nature of
the English language” (Seidlhofer 2006, p. 42) that is of interest, that they are “try-
ing to understand as far as possible emically, from participants’ perspectives, what
they do when they negotiate meaning in these encounters” (p. 44), or that an ELF
approach “closely approximates […] Kachru’s idea of a ‘polymodel’ approach to
the teaching of English” (Kirkpatrick 2006, p. 81) .
While some ELF researchers therefore claim an interest only in description
rather than prescription (to the extent that such a distinction is workable – see
Harris 1981) – there are other reasons why the prescriptive label does not hold.
While Jenkins (2006a) maintains a goal to “safeguard mutual phonological intelli-
gibility” (p. 36), she does not do so by seeking “to impose a monolithic pronunciation
model on ELF users” (p. 36). Rather, she suggests
that anyone participating in international communication needs to be familiar with, and
have in their linguistic repertoire for use, as and when appropriate, certain forms (phono-
logical, lexicogrammatical, etc.) that are widely used and widely intelligible across groups
of English speakers from different first language backgrounds. This is why accommodation
is so highly valued in ELF research. (Jenkins 2006b, p. 161)
For other ELF researchers, meanwhile, the goal is not in any case to propose a
model, but rather simply to account for the diversity of language uses that are tied
neither to native nor to nativised varieties (Kirkpatrick 2006) in order to capture
how “postcolonial speakers of English creatively negotiate the place of English in
their lives” (Canagarajah 2006, p. 200) .
As Rubdy and Saraceni (2006, p. 13) put it,

In the end, the validity of the EIL/ELF proposal will probably depend upon whether or not
it chooses to embrace a polymodel approach to the teaching of English or a monolithic one,
whether it leads to the establishing and promoting of a single (or a limited form of) Lingua
Franca Core for common use among speakers in the Outer and Expanding Circles, possibly
stripped of any cultural influences, or whether it will be flexible enough to manifest the
cultural norms of all those who use it along with the rich tapestry of linguistic variation in
which they are embedded.
Defending themselves against some of the challenges to ELF research, Dewey

and Jenkins (2010, p. 89) argue that it “upholds and celebrates linguistic diversity”.
It does not, they insist, “propose a uniform version of the language that might be
termed ‘Global English’”; nor does it prescribe norms of usage. Rather, the goal of
ELF research is “to describe how the language is manipulated in innovative ways to
suit the communicative needs of speakers who interact in complex multilingual
communities of practice, in settings where the language is sufficiently stable to act
as a lingua franca, yet sufficiently variable to fit the infinite purposes it serves”.
Whether an ELF perspective can remain consistent with World Englishes per-
spectives remains an open question. World Englishes, and particularly the rather
static “concentric circle” model, have come in for considerable criticism over the
last few years, with Bruthiaux (2003) amongst others pointing out the model’s many
inconsistencies, descriptive inadequacies, and perhaps above all its inabilities to
deal with current contexts of global language use. Ultimately, concludes Bruthiaux,
“the Three Circles model is a twentieth century construct that has outlived its use-
fulness” (2003, p. 161), or as Ostler (2010) puts it, the three circles “are not an
adequate basis for our attempt to fit the spread of English into some more general
theory that would characterize lingua-francas in general, and not just English as it is
currently spoken around the world” (p. 35).
Although on some levels there seems to be no important difference between the
idea of South Asian English (a WE construct) and English as a lingua franca in South
Asia (an ELF construct), the WE focus is always centrifugally towards local varieties
(at least up to the point of describing national varieties), while the ELF orientation
appears centripetal in that it aims to find out what is common to English across Asia,
Europe, or other regions. The two frameworks also take slightly different approaches
to the relation between their described entities (local or regional varieties of English)
and other languages. While WE adherents have emphasised very strongly that World
Englishes are not interlinguistic varieties caused by first language interference, but
rather sociolinguistically evolved varieties that are learned in their communities of
users, it is nevertheless quite possible to trace the relation between certain forms in a
WE variety and local languages. Thus while there are features in common across
World Englishes (more user-friendly invariable tag questions such as isn’t it or
regularisation of uncountable plurals, such as furnitures and informations), terms
are also adopted from local languages (count words such as lakh “100,000” and crore
“10,000,000” in Indian English, for example) precisely because there may be shared
language knowledge of one or more other languages.
The ELF position, while also distancing itself from any suggestions of inter-
linguistic deficit, posits a greater distance between the use of English and other
142 A. Pennycook
languages, since it is premised on the communicative strategies among those who

do not share a language. Indeed to talk of ELF in South East Asia is to focus on a
region of the world in which it may be unclear why we would expect communica-
tive norms to appear at all if such commonalities emerge from any first language
similarities. ASEAN includes both the Philippines and Indonesia, which have very
large numbers of languages across their many islands. Although English operates as
a class dialect here as elsewhere (and thus speakers of minority languages, who are
often disenfranchised in multiple ways, may be less likely to use ELF as a means of
communication), ELF in ASEAN may nevertheless involve speakers of a very wide
range of languages (Javanese and Cebuano, for example, in addition to Indonesian
and Tagalog). Developing forms of communication in English in the region, there-
fore, are unlikely to be based on linguistic commonalities, or on knowledge of each
others’ language.
One of the things that has been missing in some of these discussions is the
differences between Europe and South East Asia. In Europe, English is often
used by people who may likely know some of each others’ languages or similar
languages (a Romance or Germanic language, for example). They therefore speak
and interpret in the knowledge that certain tenses or terms may have particular
meanings, not as English but as part of some other language. When a Spanish
speaker, for example, suggests that “It is always moving […] to see how the camera’s
gaze captures emotions, habitual body languages, especially when people ignores
they are captured” (my data), someone who knows the Romance language use of
the term ignore – meaning not to know rather than to deliberately overlook – can
interpret this more or less as intended. This speaker does not have to speak one of
those languages as a first language, but needs to to know the use. A French speaker
might not notice the use (or might register it, having been warned about this
faux ami in English). A German speaker who knows English and Italian might
accommodate this differently, drawing on their knowledge of Italian to interpret
the Spanish in the English.
The South East Asian case is a different one, since English has taken on a
particular role in relation to the other languages of the region which are generally
less widely learned (Japanese used to be a partial exception and Chinese is an
emerging one). As Kirkpatrick (2010a) points out, while the European Union has
insisted on a multilingual policy, ASEAN by contrast has adopted English as its
working language. While there are of course some commonalities across these
languages, especially those influenced by Chinese language and scripts – Japanese,
Korean and Vietnamese, for example, share some underlying meanings and terms
from Chinese, and have to different extents and over different periods of time,
shared writing systems – the possibility of a Vietnamese speaker interpreting, say,
Thai terms or tenses in English is at the very least different from the ways parallel
understandings may happen in Europe.
In a comparison of WE and ELF approaches, Pakir (2009) suggests they have
four working axioms in common: an emphasis on the pluricentricity of English;
seeking the recognition of a variety; accepting that language changes and adapts;
and focusing on the discourse strategies of English-knowing bilinguals. Although a
focus on language change and bilingual discourse strategies are indeed shared
aspects of these approaches, Pakir’s first two points are more contentious. While
WE focuses on a multiplicity of “centres”, and although ELF is also oriented towards
a notion of diversity, it does not posit a plurality of centres. And although some ELF
work may be oriented towards the description, codification and acceptance of ELF
as a variety, most work views ELF as far too flexible and open-ended to be seen as
a variety (Saraceni 2010). On the other hand, Pakir (2009) suggests that WE and
ELF differ in that WE focuses on language users in all three circles, while ELF is
interested only in the expanding circle. This too is questionable, however, since the
major focus of WE has always been the outer circle, with less to say about the
expanding circle and almost nothing about the inner circle.
The lack of attention to the diversity of inner circle contexts – what to do with
Lebanese English in Sydney, for example, or Aboriginal English in other parts of
Australia – has been one of many oversights of the WE model. A plausible case
can in fact be made that the ELF focus is trying to address precisely that gap
left by the holes in the World Englishes model: how to come to grips with a
non-centrist understanding of English as an international language that is depen-
dent neither on hegemonic versions of central English nor on nationally defined
new Englishes, but rather attempts to account for the ever-changing negotiated
spaces of current language use. The ELF model, it is argued, “liberates L2 speak-
ers from the imposition of native speaker norms as well as the cultural baggage of
World Englishes models” (Rubdy and Saraceni 2006, p. 8). That is to say, by
adopting neither inner nor outer circle norms, and by admitting that ELF occurs
in all three contexts – English is used as a lingua franca in Sydney, Singapore,
Stockholm and Shanghai – an ELF focus opens up a more flexible space for think-
ing about global English use.
9.3 What Is a Lingua Franca Anyway?
By and large, there is fairly common agreement that the original lingua franca was
a language that developed for trading purposes across the Mediterranean, using
vocabulary from Arabic, French, Greek, Italian, Spanish and Turkish (to the extent
that these were namable entities). Ostler (2010) describes the original LF as “the
common contact language of the eastern Mediterranean in the first half of the sec-
ond millennium, the pidgin Italian in which Greeks and Turks could talk to
Frenchmen and Italians” (p. 4). While we need to be cautious here when terms such
as pidgin Italian, Greeks, Turks, Frenchmen and Italians are used, since what these
terms referenced 1,000 years ago is very different from their current meanings, this
does give us a sense of the original lingua franca as a widely used language of trade.
Dewey and Jenkins (2010), drawing on Knapp and Meierkord (2002), explain this
original LF as being composed of Italian dialects, and elements of Spanish, French,
Portuguese, Arabic, Turkish, Greek and Persian, “its hybrid nature being a defining
feature of all the lingua francas that have followed” (p. 72).
144 A. Pennycook
The term lingua franca (Italian for “Frankish tongue”) originated in the
Mediterranean region in the Middle Ages among crusaders and traders of different
language backgrounds. Phillipson (2009) suggests a certain historical irony here
that the language of the medieval crusaders has now become the term affixed to
“English as the language of the crusade of global corporatization, marketed as ‘free-
dom’ and ‘democracy’” (p. 167). The term itself comes from the Italian, and the
Arabic view that all Europeans were “Franks” (Faranji/ farengi). As Ostler (2005)
explains, one long-term effect of the French support for the Crusades and the estab-
lishment of Frankish domains in Palestine was the association for many Arabs of
Franks with Europeans more generally. Hence, the widespread Arabic term for
Europeans, based on the generalisation of Franks as Europeans, was adopted in the
Italian term lingua franca, referring to the European-based means of communica-
tion in the Mediterranean. The original lingua franca, or Sabir, mixed Italian,
Spanish, Portuguese and Arabic words and used a basic and reduced syntax (Walter
1988, p. 216).
A slightly different version is given in Kirkpatrick’s (2010b) explanation that
“The origin of the term ‘lingua franca’ stems from when Germanic Franks moved
into Gaul in the fifth century and adopted the local language, which became known
as the language of the Franks, or lingua franca” (p. 2). For Kirkpatrick, a “lingua
franca can thus be defined as a common language between people who do not share
a mother tongue” (p. 3). From this point of view, a lingua franca, both historically
and in the present, means a language adopted and used by speakers of other lan-
guages, which differs from the definitions above (where it is a language that emerges
for trading purposes), but fits more with current definitions of English as a lingua
franca. It is interesting to note, too, that his claim that “lingua francas tend to con-
tain a large number of non-standard forms” (p. 2) depends on the idea that there is a
standardised version of the language from which non-standard versions differ. In
this view, then, a lingua franca may be a language variety that emerges from a more
standardised version that has been adopted for wider communication.
It has also of course become common to adopt a broader definition of a lingua
franca than the original meaning of an emergent trading language. Thus the Longman
dictionary of applied linguistics (Richards et al. 1985) explains that a lingua franca
is any language that is used for communication between different groups of people
who speak a different language. A lingua franca, from this point of view, could be
an internationally used language of communication, such as English, French or
Spanish, which is the view taken by many current writers on ELF. Ostler (2010)
provides a very broad understanding of a lingua franca as any language learned
outside the home: on the one hand there is the “mother tongue” (or vernacular), a
language learned as a first language, at home, at one’s mother’s knee; and on the
other a lingua franca, any language learned outside that environment: “all language
deliberately acquired outside the home environment is a kind of contact language,
consciously learned for social or pragmatic reasons” (pp. 36–37).
If Ostler’s position suggests that any language can therefore serve as a lingua
franca (French is a lingua franca to someone who learns Arabic at home in Paris;
Arabic is a lingua franca to someone who learns Berber or Tamazight at home in
Rabat, and so on), it also suggests that a lingua franca may be spoken between those
who speak it as a mother tongue and those for whom it is a language learned outside
the home. As seen in the discussion above, this remains a contentious position in the
ELF debates, since for some, ELF occurs only between nonnative speakers (NNSs)
of a language and does not include native speakers (NSs). As Jenkins (2006b, p. 160)
suggested above, those who speak English as a mother tongue may be excluded
from the notion of ELF, which is seen by some as a “contact language used only
among non–mother tongue speakers”, even if she herself does not adhere to this
position (Dewey and Jenkins 2010, p. 72).
Braj Kachru (2005) objects to the notion of English as a lingua franca largely on
the grounds that the term is inaccurately used. While these objections to the idea of
ELF stem in part from the struggle for ascendancy between the World Englishes and
ELF paradigms, his critique is primarily that the term lingua franca is used loosely
and with a variety of meanings, and that this does not accord with the historical use
of the term, which referred to a contact language used by Arabs, Turks and other
traders around the Mediterranean. It was not therefore a pre-existing language
adopted for communication, but a language of trade developed for pragmatic com-
mercial purposes. The term lingua franca, Kachru explains, derives from the Arabic
lisan –al-farang, which originally referred to Italian. Both this claim that the term
referred to Italian (whatever was meant by that), and his odd claim that there is not
much variation in lingua francas (an unlikely possibility that contradicts many of
the other discussions of the original lingua franca), are themselves highly question-
able. Is there nevertheless more than just a minor quibble here over changes to the
current use of the term in his critique?
While it is clear that for a contemporary understanding of lingua francas not
much is to be gained by an insistence on consistent use across very different con-
texts (whether the language of the Franks, Italian, or a mixture of Arabic, Italian
Spanish and Turkish), there is nonetheless an important point worth further discus-
sion here. On the one hand, a lingua franca is understood as an emergent mix of
languages, where, as Walter suggests, one can believe on both sides that one is
speaking the other’s language. “This language served its purpose perfectly in com-
mercial exchanges because of its particular quality that each user thought that it was
the other’s language” (p. 216, my translation). On the other hand, it is seen as a com-
mon language used as a second language. It is only in this second sense that a claim
that lingua francas contain a large number of non-standard forms can be understood,
since in the first case there is no standard by which they should be judged. Only
when there is a standardised version of a language can we suggest that there are
non-standard varieties.
Whereas with the first lingua franca, a language emerged for trading purposes, in
the case of ELF an existing language has been adopted for such purposes. The
extent to which this distinction works, however, takes us back to language ideologi-
cal debates: it depends on how we understand language. If ELF does not include
speakers of English as a first language, or even if it does include them as peripheral
participants, the question becomes whether ELF really is a language adopted for
international communication, or whether it may indeed be an emergent form of
146 A. Pennycook
communication more akin to the original lingua franca. Perhaps neither Kachru’s
view of World Englishes as a preexisting system of communication with regional
variations, nor the view of ELF as a means of communication in English between
speakers of different languages, captures the more dynamic view of English as a
lingua franca more like the original than would at first appear. In order to pursue this
discussion further, I want to look first at the problems of whether Chinese should be
considered a lingua franca.
9.4 Chinese as a Lingua Franca
Comparing English and Chinese, Wang (2008) suggests that “One can hardly find
situations where Chinese serves as a lingua franca among non-native speakers of
Chinese, as does English” (Wang 2008, 32.4). This may be true to the extent that
Chinese does not serve similar purposes globally to those that English now serves.
But if, as Crystal (2003) asserts, Chinese is found in eight different spoken lan-
guages, it is less clear Chinese is not also a lingua franca for those speakers.
Kirkpatrick, for example, argues that
Bahasa Indonesia and Putonghua are the two most widely spoken Asian-based lingua
francas in East and Southeast Asia. Indeed, with over one billion speakers in China alone,
Putonghua is far and away the most widely spoken language on earth, and its influence and
reach is growing. For the moment, however, English remains the region’s (and world’s)
primary lingua franca in that English is the language most commonly used by people who
do not share a mother tongue. (Kirkpatrick 2010b, p. 3)
Here, then, we confront an apparent contradiction: on the one hand, Chinese is

claimed to rarely serve as a lingua franca among non-native speakers of Chinese; on
the other hand, Chinese, or at least Putonghua, is claimed as one of the most widely
spoken lingua francas in the region. Putonghua is claimed to be spoken by over a
billion speakers in China, and if a lingua franca is used by speakers of other lan-
guages, then presumably native speakers of Chinese are not native speakers of the
lingua franca Putonghua. This will take a bit of unravelling.
We might look at Chinese as a lingua franca in the general sense of a widely used
language and focus on its use across “Greater China” (China, Hong Kong, Macao
and Taiwan) (Li 2006). Assuming a general understanding of a lingua franca as a
language used as a language of wider communication by speakers of other lan-
guages, there are several different ways in which this can be understood. The first
possibility is that Chinese as a lingua franca (CLF) refers to the use of Chinese
among minority groups within China. Although China may be more heterogeneous
than is often acknowledged, with 54 officially recognised national minority groups
speaking over 200 languages, this is only a small percentage (around 8%) of the
overall population. The second possibility is that CLF refers to the use of standard
Chinese (Putonghua) across the different language/dialect groups in China: if we
assume that Chinese refers to the Mandarin (Guan) variety, then this lingua franca
function might apply to some 20% of the population who speak the other major
varieties. This, however, would only account for a few 100 million users of Chinese/
Putonghua as a lingua franca.
Among linguists (e.g. Li 2006) there is reasonable agreement that, aside from the
many minority languages spoken in China (some related to Chinese, others not),
there are somewhere between half a dozen to a dozen (though most commonly
seven) main regional groupings of Chinese languages or dialects (as we know, the
language/dialect distinction is not a clear one and not generally a linguistic one),
including Mandarin (Guan), Wu (including Shanghainese), Cantonese (Yue), Min
(including Hokkien and Taiwanese), Xiang (Hunanese), Hakka (or Kejia, spoken in
regions of Guangdong and other southern provinces), and Gan (Jiangxi province).
These varieties are largely mutually unintelligible in the spoken form of the lan-
guage, and also contain considerable internal variation. Within these large-scale
varieties, however, there are also some two thousand “distinct dialects and subdia-
lects” spoken across different parts of China (Li 2006, p. 150). If we take a province
such as Hunan, for example, which alongside various minority languages is also
where the Xiang variety of Chinese is spoken, there are also many mutually incom-
prehensible varieties of Xiangyu (Hunanese) such that speakers from one area of the
province may have great difficulty in understanding speakers from another region
(Zhou 2001).
These major varieties, then, are in themselves regional lingua francas, with
Min, for example, operating across a wider range of varieties in Fujian Province
(Chew 2010); or Chinese in Hong Kong referring to both the spoken “dominant
vernacular and regional lingua franca Cantonese” and to Modern Written Chinese,
which is closer to Mandarin Chinese (Li 2006, p. 150). On top of this Putonghua,
standard (or common) Chinese, which is based on the Chinese spoken around
Beijing, is used as a lingua franca across varieties. Ostler (2010, p. 227) lists
Cantonese (56 million mother tongue speakers) and Shanghainese (77 million)
among the world’s 25 languages with the largest number of native speakers. Both
are far behind Mandarin Chinese with 873 million native speakers. The difference
between this figure of speakers of Mandarin Chinese and the total population
(or the total of non-Mandarin Chinese and other languages) gives us the figure,
according to Ostler (2010), of 178 million speakers of Chinese as a lingua franca.
This position would therefore support the view that Chinese (Mandarin / Putonghua)
is a major lingua franca across China, but nevertheless only one for less than 20%
of the Chinese population.
Chinese versions of this picture tend to differ somewhat, however, with varieties
of Chinese generally described as fangyan (regional speech, usually translated as
“dialects”). From this point of view, most people in China speak “Chinese” though
with regional dialectal variation. As Dong explains,
The language versus dialects debate lies in the fundamentally different definitions of ‘dialect’
between the Chinese tradition and the western tradition: ‘mutual intelligibility’ serves as the
central criterion in the Western tradition, whereas common orthography, shared literature,
historical roots, cultural heritage, and political unity, play a decisive role in labelling a variety
as a ‘dialect’ or a ‘language’ in the Chinese tradition. (Dong 2009, p. 29).
148 A. Pennycook
From a Chinese point of view, then, Chinese is not a lingua franca because it is
the first language of Chinese people, at least as defined according to shared culture,
script and traditions. “The Chinese are also averse to discussing variety in the
country and prefer the use of the term fanyan1 (dialects) to refer to Chinese multi-
lingualism, despite the existence of mutual unintelligibility” (Chew 2010, p. 60).
Putonghua (common language) itself presents us with a number of further
difficulties. Putonghua has been disseminated as the linguistic norm, the acceptable
variety of schooling and communication across China. “In the twentieth century”,
Chew (2010) explains, “the Chinese nationalists, influenced by the European
concept of nationhood, attempted to promote a national language as a means of
communication both within and between provinces of China” (p. 64). Putonghua
has become standardized as the national model for pronunciation (and to a lesser extent, for
literacy), a form of semiotic capital, associated with linguistic ‘correctness’, and socially
recognized as indexical of speaker attributes such as social status and advanced education
backgrounds. (Dong 2010, p. 265)
And yet, as Dong (2010) notes, within mainland China

it is reported that 53% of the Chinese people are able to communicate in Putonguhua or
near-Putonghua (China Daily 26/12/2004). Although this figure is not confirmed by socio-
linguistic research, and it is not clear what are the speech practices of the other 47% (most
probably vernaculars, dialects that are unintelligible to Putonghua speakers, and minority
languages), it does sketch out the scale of Putonghua and its quasi-equivalent paralects
within China and beyond. (pp. 265–6).
If the idea of Chinese as a lingua franca (CLF) refers to Putonghua (the alterna-
tive is that it refers to a more generic and symbolic notion of Chinese), then these
figures would suggest that if the China Daily (not noted for rocking the boat) is
reporting as a success that over 50% of the population of China now speak Putonghua
(or “near-Putonghua”), then the level of diversity is far greater than is accounted for
in the figures for the seven major varieties plus minority languages.
Indeed, if this figure is to be taken seriously, then, on the one hand the idea of
Chinese as the most widely spoken first language in the world becomes less clear
(or at least it is not as far ahead of the pack as supposed in common figures), and a
broader idea of Chinese as a lingua franca starts to gain ground. This might give us
figures of about 600 million native speakers of Chinese/Putonghua and 600 million
CLF speakers of Chinese/Putonghua. There are further complications, however,
since Putonghua is predominantly a language learned at school: “People acquire
Putonghua through formal education, as it is institutionally supported as the lan-
guage of instruction in schools, as well as the official language in the state’s other
institutions” (Dong 2009, p. 16). Putonghua, spoken by just over 50% of the popula-
tion, has been learned in school, and is not, therefore, easily considered the first
language of a large part of the population. Putonghua may in fact be a lingua franca
(and therefore a second language) for a large proportion of the population.
1
Chew refers to fanyan rather than the Putonghua fangyan, testimony in its own small way to the
variety in Chinese.
Two further points complicate this picture. Despite the linguistic capital that
accrues to Putonghua, as it is used across different regions of China, it also takes on
local characteristics: “Like English, putonghua itself is spoken in many different
accents and dialects, some more prestigious than others. What began as a limited
dialect has now become a conglomerate of mushrooming regional varieties, united
only by the grammar and core vocabulary of the written script” (Chew 2010, pp.
65–66). Thus, following a World Englishes-type orientation, we might argue that
Putonghua should now be viewed as a conglomeration of varieties. Not only do we
therefore need to consider Chinese as a cluster of languages, both united and dis-
united by the written script (while the Chinese script can unify, it also allows for
diversity), and not only do we need to consider Putonghua as a lingua franca used
across these mutually incomprehensible languages, but we also need to understand
that as Putonghua has become localised and taken up in different regions of China,
it has also become a lingua franca with considerable variety.
We also need to take on board the point that what unites Putonghua is the gram-
mar and core vocabulary of the written script. While this view that Chinese refers to
a variety of languages or dialects unified by a script is commonly enough reiterated,
the implications need further consideration. Although this ideographic script may
on the one hand be unifying – it provides both the ideological grounds for the main-
tenance of a notion of Chinese and indeed the material conditions for shared forms
of communication – it is also a divisive system in that the use of a non-phonetic
script allows for the co-existence of much greater spoken variety. This view of a
homogenous written script, furthermore, does not acknowledge the use of alterna-
tive characters to write other Chinese languages, such as Cantonese (Snow 2004).
But most importantly, if it is written Chinese that is the lingua franca, since people
speak different Chinese languages, then we have to explore the possibility not just
that a lingua franca is a language spoken by people who do not share a first lan-
guage, but rather that it may in this case be a written language used by people who
speak different languages.
A similar case might be made for English: Written English as a lingua franca, or
rather certain registers of written English (this does not include emails, SMS and so on),
exists as a fairly standardised and recognizable entity. As Gupta (2010) argues, “in
many respects Standard English really is essentially monolithic. In any given text of
Standard English (such as a newspaper article) more than 99.5% of words will be
words spelled, inflected and used in the same way by Standard English everywhere.
Standard English is so much a given that it is almost invisible” (p. 86). Standard
written English is not static, nor is it centred on the traditional norm-providing
centres in the UK and USA. Rather it is a product of the totality of regulated writing
across many regions of the world. In this sense it is an emergent yet regulated entity.
It is a very different thing from the spoken and negotiated lingua franca English that
emerges from daily interactions and bears many more traces of the languages that
surround the interaction. And in this sense, a case could be made that it is written
English that is the lingua franca, while spoken English is a diversity of different
languages, or that English, like Chinese, has different spoken versions unified by a
written version.
150 A. Pennycook
9.5 Emergent Lingua Francas
What can we conclude from all this? Common truisms about English as the most
widely spoken lingua franca, and Chinese as the most widely spoken mother tongue,
stand on very thin ground indeed. The vast disparity between figures of speakers
suggests not only that such figures are hard to produce accurately but also, more
importantly, that they rest on highly questionable definitions of languages, second
languages, native speakers, lingua francas and so forth. This arithmetical approach
to languages is deeply flawed. As Moore et al. (2010) put it, “‘speakerhood’ and
‘language-hood’ are matters whose complexity poorly suits them for numerical rep-
resentations” and “the use of such numbers, which continues unabated, privileges a
conception of ‘languages’ as neatly-bounded, abstract, autonomous grammatical
systems (each of which corresponds to a neatly-bounded ‘worldview’)” (p. 1).
When we claim that English is the great lingua franca of the world and Chinese
the great mother tongue, or when we equally concede that Chinese is the great lin-
gua franca and English only comes second, we are dealing not only with incom-
mensurable objects but also staking out very particular ideological ground. What
counts as a language, a mother tongue, or a lingua franca, is an ideological position.
If we argue that Chinese exists only as an ideological construct (it is a unifying
language only by the will for it to be so, not by actual practice), we need to reflect
on the fact that this also applies to English: ELF is not so much a linguistic system
as an ideological construct. Language ideologies are not necessarily false, but they
are interested ways of viewing the world. They represent very particular, and as
Phillipson (2009) reminds us, at times insidious claims about language, communi-
cation and the world.
If the supposed truism that English is the great lingua franca and Chinese the
great mother tongue stands on shaky ground, where might we want to head with a
notion of English as a lingua franca? The problem, I have been trying to suggest,
lies with the many unsubstantiated claims as to what constitutes language. Saraceni’s
(2010) conclusion about ELF is that
we do not need to know the what, but the how and the why. We need to understand how
people position themselves towards it, how they locate it within their linguistic repertoire,
how it contributes to shaping their identities and how they use it to participate in, or resist,
aspects of globalization. If World Englishes constitute an attitude, so should ELF, and, in a
final analysis, the two can be seen as two terms denoting our laborious attempts to under-
stand the unprecedented phenomenon of English in the world. (p. 99)
One thing that emerged from the discussion of CLF is that the very differing
attitudes to this from a Chinese and non-Chinese point of view are not in the end
answerable as linguistic questions, but are in fact deeply ideological concerns. The
problem has been, however, that this understanding has been all too often one way:
Western linguists know what a language is, and it is Chinese ideology that denies
that its dialects are really languages. The next step is to turn this perspective round
and to show that Western insistence on particular definitions of language and dialect
need to be equally accountable to the ideologies in which they are grounded.
If the Chinese view that most Chinese in China speak Chinese with certain
regional variations (fangyan) is evidently a cultural and ideological position on
language and nationhood, so too we have to recognize a similar position with
respect to English. Where the Chinese position is a fundamentally nationalist one,
the English one is a fundamentally internationalist one. The ELF project “main-
tains the ambition of a universal language, but does so in a fragmentary form”
(Seargeant 2009, p. 12). The insistence that Chinese is the great mother tongue and
English the great lingua franca are deeply held ideological convictions. At the heart
of the problem is the predefinition of languages as entities, the a priori assumption
that communication has to be premised on an idea of knowing the same language.
As Harris (2009) remarks, the idea of “knowing a language” is one that is best
discarded: “There is no longer any need to postulate, as in the Classical model, that
A and B must both know the same language in order to engage in verbal commu-
nication” (p. 74). The idea of knowing the same language obscures the point that
for communication to occur, participants need to “integrate their own semiological
activities with those of their interlocutor (e.g. in such matters as paying attention,
making eye contact, answering questions, complying with requests, responding to
greetings both verbal and non-verbal, laughing at jokes, etc.). This is both much
more than and much less than is involved in ‘knowing a language’ as traditionally
interpreted” (p. 75).
For the Japanese dive instructor in the Philippines, for example, describing the
afternoon dive sites, assisted by her Danish co-instructor and Philippine dive mas-
ter, to a group of divers from different parts of the world, we do not have to postulate
the existence of English as a lingua franca to achieve communication. The register
comes from the diving community (“at 100 bar give me a sign, OK?”); the nonver-
bal communication (the sign for “low on air”), the use of other props (a chart of the
dive site), all contribute to the contextual use and understanding of these communi-
cative resources. This is in part why Canagarajah (2007b) opts for the idea of Lingua
Franca English (LFE) rather than ELF, since from this position LFE is emergent
from its contexts of use: speakers “activate a mutually recognized set of attitudes,
forms, and conventions that ensure successful communication in LFE when they
find themselves interacting with each other” (p. 925). LFE is “intersubjectively con-
structed in each specific context of interaction. The form of this English is negoti-
ated by each set of speakers for their purposes” and thus “it is difficult to describe
this language a priori” (Canagarajah 2007b, p. 925).
Individual language knowledge should be defined “not in terms of abstract
system components but as communicative repertoires – conventionalized constella-
tions of semiotic resources for taking action – that are shaped by the particular
practices in which individuals engage” (Hall et al. 2006, p. 232). From this point of
view, language knowledge is “grounded in and emergent from language use in con-
crete social activity for specific purposes that are tied to specific communities of
practice” (p. 235). Likewise Blommaert (2010) insists on the need for “sociolinguis-
tics of speech and of resources, of the real bits and chunks of language that make up
a repertoire, and of real ways of using this repertoire in communication” (p. 173).
Sociolinguistic life is best understood as “mobile speech, not as static language, and
152 A. Pennycook
lives can consequently be better investigated on the basis of repertoires set against
a real historical and spatial background” (p. 173). As Canagarajah (2007a)
reminds us, lingua franca English does not exist outside the realm of practice: it is
not a product but a social process that is constantly being remade from the semiotic
resources available to speakers, who are always embedded in contexts and who
are always interacting with other speakers. LFE is not so much about variations
to an assumed linguistic system but rather about local language practices
(Pennycook 2010).
Tan, Ooi and Chiang suggest that “it would not be a bad thing to make English,
in some respects, more like the original Lingua Franca, where variation existed and
where speakers were less concerned about standards” (2006, p. 92). We need to
push this proposal further, however, beyond the idea that lingua franca communica-
tion is less concerned with standards, and beyond the narrow ELF or WE focus on
whether count nouns get pluralised, local language terminology enters English, tag
questions become fixed, certain phonological distinctions do not seem important
for communication, or verb tense and aspect are realised differently. It is not merely
that the original lingua franca allowed for variation, but that it emerged from con-
texts of communication. It allowed people to believe, as Walter (1988) put it, that
they were speaking each others’ languages. Lingua franca communication is emer-
gent and multilingual: we speak both our own and each others’ languages. It is built
from the bottom up: it as en emergent collection of local language practices.
References
Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.
Canagarajah, S. 2006. Interview. In English in the world: Global rules, global roles, ed. R. Rubdy
and M. Saraceni, 200–212. London: Continuum.
Canagarajah, S. 2007a. The ecology of global English. International Multilingual Research
Journal 1(2): 89–100.
Canagarajah, S. 2007b. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition.
Chew, P.G.L. 2010. From chaos to order: Language change, lingua francas and world Englishes.
In Contending with globalization in world Englishes, ed. M. Saxena and T. Omoniyi, 45–71.
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a global language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dong, J. 2009. The making of migrant identities in Beijing: Scale, discourse, and diversity. Tilburg:
University of Tilburg.
Dong, J. 2010. The enregisterment of Putonghua in practice. Language and Communication 30:
265–275.
Dewey, M., and J. Jenkins. 2010. English as a lingua franca in the global context: Interconnectedness,
variation and change. In Contending with globalization in world Englishes, ed. M. Saxena and
T. Omoniyi, 72–92. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
English for students. 2011. http://www.english-for-students.com/EnglishHistory.html.
Ethnologue. 2011. http://www.ethnologue.com/.

Graddol, D. 2006. English next. London: British Council.
Gupta, A.F. 2010. Singapore standard English revisited. In English in Singapore: Modernity
and management, ed. L. Lim, A. Pakir, and L. Wee, 57–90. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Hall, J.K., A. Cheng, and M. Carlson. 2006. Reconceptualizing multicompetence as a theory
of language knowledge. Applied Linguistics 27(2): 220–240.
Harris, R. 1981. The language myth. London: Duckworth.
Harris, R. 2009. After epistemology. Sandy, Bedfordshire: Authors Online.
University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2006a. Global intelligibility and local diversity: Possibility or paradox? In English in
the world: Global rules, global roles, ed. R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni, 32–39. London:
Continuum.
Jenkins, J. 2006b. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca.
TESOL Quarterly 40(1): 157–181.
Jenkins, J. 2009. Exploring attitudes towards English as a lingua franca in the East Asian context.
In Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Current and future debates, ed. K. Murata and J. Jenkins,
40–56. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kachru, B. 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Kachru, Y., and C.L. Nelson. 2006. World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2006. Which model of English: Native speaker, nativized or lingua franca?
In English in the world: Global rules, global roles, ed. R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni, 71–83.
London: Continuum.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2010a. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong:
Kirkpatrick, A. 2010b. English as an Asian lingua franca and the multilingual model of ELT.
Language Teaching. doi:10.1017/S0261444810000145 (published as 2011, 44, 212-224).
Knapp, K., and C. Meierkord (eds.). 2002. Lingua franca communication. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Li, D.C.S. 2006. Chinese as a lingua franca in greater China. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
26: 149–176.
Moore, R., S. Pietikäinen, and J. Blommaert. 2010. Counting the losses: Numbers as the language
of language endangerment. Sociolinguistic Studies 4(1): 1–26.
Ostler, N. 2005. Empires of the word: A language history of the world. New York: HarperCollins.
Ostler, N. 2010. The last lingua franca: English until the return of Babel. New York: Walker and
Company.
Pakir, A. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Analyzing research frameworks in international English,
world Englishes, and ELF. World Englishes 28(2): 224–235.
Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a local practice. London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. 2003. English only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. 2009. Linguistic imperialism continued. New York: Routledge.
Richards, J., J. Platt, and H. Weber. 1985. Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Harlow:
Longman.
Rubdy, R., and M. Saraceni. 2006. Introduction. In English in the world: Global rules, global
roles, ed. R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni, 5–16. London: Continuum.
Saraceni, M. 2010. The relocation of English: Shifting paradigms in a global era. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Seargeant, P. 2009. The idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the evolution of a global language.
franca. International Review of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 133–158.
154 A. Pennycook
Seidlhofer, B. 2006. English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn’t. In English in
the world: Global rules, global roles, ed. R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni, 40–50. London:
Continuum.
Snow, D. 2004. Cantonese as written language: The growth of a written Chinese vernacular. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Tan, P.K.W., V.B.Y. Ooi, and A.K.L. Chiang. 2006. World Englishes or English as a lingua franca?
A view from the perspective of non-Anglo Englishes. In English in the world: Global rules,
global roles, ed. R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni, 84–94. London: Continuum.
Walter, H. 1988. Le français dans tous les sens. Paris: Robert Laffont.
Wang, L. 2008. The spread of English in China and its implications. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics 31(3): 32.1–32.4.
Zhou, M.L. 2001. The spread of Putonghua and language attitude changes in Shanghai and
Guangzhou, China. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 11: 231–253.
Part III
Languages and Cultures in Contact
Chapter 10
Negotiating Indigenous Values
with Anglo-American Cultures in ELT
in Japan: A Case of EIL Philosophy
in the Expanding Circle
Nobuyuki Hino
10.1 Introduction
This chapter looks into the negotiations between indigenous Japanese values and
Anglo-American cultures in the teaching of English in Japan, evident in such areas
as the debates over methodologies, materials, and models. While World Englishes
studies thus far tend to assume that English would remain literally a foreign
language to users in the Expanding Circle including Japan, and that the learners
thus have no choice but to take or leave an imported model of English with little
chance of remodeling it to their own needs, the Japanese have long been struggling
to accommodate English to their indigenous cultural values so that they could
adequately express themselves in international communication.
Pedagogies for English language teaching (ELT), based on Western notions of
language learning, have been brought to Japan from Britain and the U.S. for more
than a 100 years. However, those methods have had to be extensively adapted to meet
local sociolinguistic traditions, most notably the Japanese concept of language that
had been formed upon the unique ways of using Chinese characters in Japan, before
they were accepted there. Most significantly, the Japanese concept of language was
framed by the ways they interpreted and translated the use of Chinese characters, and
this led to a belief in the relative importance of writing over speaking.
Textbooks for teaching English in Japan have also gone through a similar
process as to their cultural content. Starting with the overwhelming dominance of
Anglo-American cultures in teaching materials when Japanese began to learn
English in the late nineteenth century after 250 years of international isolation, the
cultural content of English textbooks swung like a pendulum between the two
extremes of “admiration of Anglo-American cultures” and “Anglophobia coupled
with nationalism” before finally reaching some balance in the 1980s.
N. Hino (*)
Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
e-mail: hino@lang.osaka-u.ac.jp

158 N. Hino
The most controversial aspect, in terms of indigenization of ELT in Japan, is the

issue of target production models for Japanese learners of English. In the highly
influential World Englishes paradigm, Englishes in the Expanding Circle such as
Japanese English have been viewed as “norm-dependent” or “exonormative,” as
opposed to their counterparts in the Outer Circle such as Singaporean English
which are regarded as “norm-developing” and thus considered to be becoming
“endonormative” (Kachru 1985, p.17). In other words, it is presumed that learners
of English in the Expanding Circle rely on external norms, most probably native
speaker models. However, Japanese learners of English have actually been seeking
original models of their own, dating back to the lexicographer Saito’s proposal in
1928. In fact, it is essential for any users of English to enjoy their own models if
they wish to fully express themselves in English for international communication,
regardless of which “circle” they may belong to.
In this chapter, negotiations of indigenous Japanese values with native English
speaking cultures in the teaching of English will be discussed as a case in the
Expanding Circle. It is the intention of this paper to illustrate and highlight, through
the analysis of this dilemma of internal and external values, the challenges for
the teaching of English as an International Language (EIL) in the Expanding Circle
in Asia.
10.2 Negotiations Between Japanese and Anglo-American

Values for ELT Methodologies
There are two salient features in the Japanese approach to foreign languages.
One is their strong tendency to always translate the foreign texts, often word-by-
word, into their native language. The other is their inclination toward the written
language rather than the spoken language. Both of these orientations come, in
large part, from the sociolinguistic tradition of Japan concerning the indigeniza-
tion of Chinese characters. As these Japanese attitudes toward foreign languages
are in serious conflict with the modern Western approaches to language teaching,
seeking a point of compromise has constantly been a major task for ELT profes-
sionals in Japan.
The cultural practice of understanding foreign languages via word-by-word (also
word-for-word) translation into Japanese is most clearly observable in the subject
“the National Language” (i.e. Japanese) in the senior high school curriculum, in
which the Ministry of Education sees the reading of classical Chinese as mandatory.
It may seem strange in the first place that the reading of Chinese is taught as a part
of the Japanese language curriculum, but this is regarded as essential. For well over
1,000 years, the Japanese have been reading classical Chinese by squeezing this
foreign language with no linguistic kinship to Japanese into the template of their
native language by way of word-by-word translation.
This word-by-word translation is a well-established process. A number of symbols
have been added to guide the reordering of Chinese words into the Japanese
10 Negotiating Indigenous Values with Anglo-American Cultures in ELT... 159
word order. This is a method of reading that has been practised for more than a
millennium in Japan. Below is an example from a current senior high school
textbook of classical Chinese:
ビテヲリニ
結盧在人境
レニ一 (Shibata 2008, p.84)
The small letters written above the Chinese words, ビテヲリニ, are kana, a syl-
labic writing system developed in Japan by simplifying Chinese characters. They
are employed here to supply the particles and inflectional suffixes required in the
grammar of Japanese. Symbols beneath the Chinese such as 一二レ indicate, in
accordance with a set of rules, how the Chinese words should be reordered to match
Japanese syntax.
一 and 二 are Chinese numerals for “one” and “two” respectively, but are used
here as signs for reordering.
The reading basically proceeds from left to right, guided by those symbols as to
where the reordering should take place. For instance, the symbol レ is a command
to reverse the adjoining two Chinese characters, 結 and 盧 in this example. Also,
while adhering to the default rule of going from left to right, the portion between 一
(one) and 二 (two), 人境, is read first, then returning to 在, the Chinese character
placed before 二 (two). If we simply replace these symbols with numbers, it will
appear as follows:
結盧在人境
2 1 5 3 4
(build) (house) (live) (town)
(→ Building a house, I live in town.)
This method of reading classical Chinese, known as kundoku, became an integral

part of education in Japan, especially for intellectuals. With this background, it is
not surprising that Japanese scholars later decided to apply this approach to the
learning of Dutch, when they were faced with the need for modernization toward
the end of the shogunate era (Hino 1988a). Below is an example from Kunten
Oranda Bunten (1857):
諸ﾉ本名ｶﾞ之婦人
Alle-eigennamen van vrouwen
二上一レ
3 4 2 1
(All) (proper nouns) (of) (women)
(Reprinted in Sogo 1970, p.189. The Arabic numerals and English translations are mine.)
The symbols beneath the Dutch words, 二上一レ, indicate the reordering
into the Japanese word order, as they did in the reading of Chinese. The Chinese
characters put above the Dutch words are Japanese equivalents, which are to
be reordered into the Japanese word order together with the added Japanese
particles shown in kana.
In the late nineteenth century, when the Japanese began to study English, the
kundoku method (usually referred to as yakudoku when used for the reading of
160 N. Hino
modern languages today) was applied as well. Though the complex reordering
symbols gradually came to be replaced by mere numerals (written in Chinese
characters一二三四五…), the principle of word-by-word translation remained the
same. One such example is shown below:
What does etymology treat of?
何ニ為スカ詞論ハ論ジ付テ
二五一四三
2 5 1 4 3
(Soyaku Igirisu Bunten 1867. Reprinted in Sogo 1983, p. 168. The Arabic numerals are mine.)
The history of kundoku described above informs us of two important facts on the
Japanese attitudes toward the learning of foreign languages. One is that decoding a
foreign language by translating it into Japanese is a deeply rooted sociolinguistic
convention in Japan (Hino 1988a, 1992). The other, which should not be overlooked,
is that the Japanese have been trying to understand foreign languages largely through
Chinese characters (Hino 1991). This latter point leads to my next point, which is
the Japanese inclination toward the written language.
The Western concept of language, under the influence of Saussurean thought,
takes it for granted that language is primarily speech, and only secondarily written.
Most of the modern Western approaches to foreign/second language teaching, since
Sweet (1899) and Jespersen (1904), have been based on this notion. However, this is
an idea that cannot be easily accepted for those who grew up in Japan, including the
author, who intuitively feel that the written form is more important in Japanese
despite the fact that speech preceded writing in the history of any natural language.
This feeling among the Japanese seems to come from their original mode of
using Chinese characters, imported from the Asian continent in the fourth or fifth
century to Japan where there was no indigenous writing system. Hisashi Inoue, a
Japanese novelist well-known for his keen sense of language, once observed, “Every
time we listen to words, we seem to have mental image of their corresponding
Chinese characters behind them” (1986, p.16). Suzuki (2009) also points out that
understanding spoken Japanese entails not only its sound but also the mental visu-
alization of its Chinese characters.
Spoken Japanese, with its simple phonological structure, just does not carry much
meaning as long as it remains a sound. Many Japanese words of Chinese origin have
a large number of homophones, which can be distinguished only when they are writ-
ten in Chinese characters. In Chinese, those words are not homophones, as they are
distinguished from each other by the complex phonological system, including the
four tones. Taking the first word in the title of this chapter as an example, the pronun-
ciation of the Japanese word for “negotiate,” which is kosho, could represent at least
48 different words, including 交渉 (negotiate), 口承 (oral tradition), 高尚 (high-
brow), etc. In fact , though it is possible to transcribe Japanese entirely in kana, a
phonemic writing system, it is extremely tiresome and inefficient to attempt to read
it, as the reader is required to figure out, for each word, which of the homophones
matches the author’s intention. Suzuki (2009) draws our attention to the fact that
homophones are quite common in Japanese even in confusing contexts. For example,
suisei could mean the planet Mercury or a comet, meanings distinguished by the
Chinese characters 水星 and 彗星, respectively. Succinctly put, the sound of Japanese
makes sense to the listener only when it is mentally visualized in the form of Chinese
characters. The Western tenet that language is primarily speech is essentially differ-
ent from the Japanese concept of language.
For the Japanese, writing bears more importance than its spoken forms. Suzuki,
in personal communication with the present writer (2003), observed that the
Japanese language had changed its nature since the introduction of Chinese charac-
ters. His argument would be tantamount to saying that the Japanese language went
through a process of rebirth with the use of Chinese characters to the extent that the
primacy of writing is felt as if it had been a historic fact.
Earlier in this chapter, we saw that the Japanese have long been absorbing for-
eign languages through the medium of Chinese characters. A hypothesis that I pos-
ited in Hino (1991) is that understanding foreign languages via Chinese characters
is not just a page of Japanese history but is an ongoing practice even today. Though
Inoue (1986) and Suzuki (2009) cited earlier were referring to the case of listening
to Japanese rather than to foreign languages, their point could also be applied to the
process whereby the Japanese comprehend foreign languages. The Japanese seem
to have the habit of mentally translating English not only into Japanese, but at the
same time also into Chinese characters in their mind. Though it is difficult to sub-
stantiate this hypothesis psycholinguistically, it has intuitive support. For instance,
Madoka Ogiwara, a professor of German philosophy, has told me, “When I see the
English word ‘push’ on a door, firstly I have to visualize the Chinese character 押 in
my mind. Only by doing so, I will understand that I should push this door instead of
pulling it”. This hypothesis would partly explain why the Japanese habit of always
translating English into Japanese is so strong and tenacious. That is, if they subcon-
sciously want to put English into Chinese characters, it is surely inevitable that they
have to translate it into Japanese.
In the history of ELT in Japan, many reformers, most of whom were from over-
seas, have tried to introduce innovative language teaching methodologies to this
country. However, it is not an exaggeration to say that none of them have enjoyed
any lasting success. Their attempts at reform have been overwhelmed by the
Japanese orientation toward “translation” and “the written language,” when most
Western pedagogies since Sweet (1899) and Jespersen (1904) avoid recourse to the
mother tongue, while putting an emphasis on the spoken language (Hino 1991).
In 1922, the British educator Harold E. Palmer, known as the advocate of the
Oral Method, came to Japan at the invitation from the Ministry of Education. In the
original form of the Oral Method, spoken language was heavily emphasized, espe-
cially at the beginning level (Palmer 1921). Translation was minimized, if not elimi-
nated. The abovementioned sociolinguistic tradition in Japan certainly kept the Oral
Method from functioning in its original manner. In fact, as he became familiar with
the reality of ELT in Japan, Palmer gradually changed his position (Imura 1997;
Ando et al. 1978). He came to pay much more attention to the teaching of reading
and writing, and to make effective use of translation. Though we do not exactly
know to what extent Palmer was aware of the Japanese concept of language, this
162 N. Hino
modification of the Oral Method was an appropriate adaptation to the indigenous

sociolinguistic tradition. If his efforts had not been interrupted by the tide of war,
Palmer might have been able to impose a stronger influence on the teaching of
English in Japan.
After World War II, the biggest attempt to reform ELT in Japan was the introduc-
tion of the Audio-Lingual Approach, known in Japan as the Oral Approach. Charles
C. Fries, the American linguist who invented this approach, actively tried to promote
this new idea in Japan. The Oral Approach, which was based on structural linguistics
including phonemics, viewed language as primarily speech. Naturally, oral practice
was strongly emphasized in this approach. Translation was also “eliminated” (Fries
1945, p.7). However, the way the Oral Approach was actually practised in Japan
was considerably different from Fries’ original intention. The Japanese teachers of
English simply added some activities used in the Oral Approach to their traditional
yakudoku practice. For example, in the author’s experience as a first year junior high
school student in 1970, the teacher of English, using a textbook written for the Oral
Approach, engaged students in “pattern practice,” a major technique used in the
Oral Approach, and had them translate each English sentence word-by-word into
Japanese. From what I have heard from many of my contemporaries, this was typical
of junior high ELT classes of the period.
This unique interpretation of the Western methodologies by the Japanese teach-
ers of English, in which the Audio-Lingual Approach is allowed to co-exist in the
same classroom with their indigenous version of the Grammar-Translation Method
(kundoku/yakudoku), seems to be one instance of the traditional Japanese tolerance
of conflicting principles. In Japan, for example, it is considered to be acceptable for
Buddhist temples to have Shinto shrines inside them, despite the fact that these two
are completely different religions. In fact, on some occasions, Japanese Buddhist
priests are even allowed to serve as masters for Shinto ceremonies. Though this
practice may appear contradictory, if not sacrilegious, to those from monotheistic
backgrounds, this is part of Japanese culture. Japan is sometimes criticized by the
U.S. for lacking in “principles,” but this Japanese attitude toward inclusiveness can
be a strength in reconciling conflicting values.
The efforts by Palmer and Fries have been succeeded by two organizations in
Japan known as the Institute for Research in Language Teaching (IRLT) and the
English Language Education Council (ELEC), respectively. Both continue to be active
today and a key task for both is to find still better ways to harmonize these Anglo-
American pedagogies with indigenous sociolinguistic values (cf. Henrichsen 1989,
for a discussion of ELEC activities).
The above analysis of how Japan has adapted Anglo-American approaches to
ELT underscores the importance of locally-appropriate methodologies for the teach-
ing of EIL (Hino 1992), stressed nowadays by studies such as McKay (2002, 2003).
Struggles for reconciliation in this regard are an inevitable process for the successful
teaching of English. As much as the indigenization of English is a prerequisite for
being able to use English for one’s original cultural expression, the indigenization
of ELT methodologies, through their accommodation to the learners’ cultural
contexts, is equally essential.

Values for ELT Materials
The history of ELT materials in Japan has also been that of a continuing struggle for
reconciliation between indigenous and Anglo-American values. A conservative
view on the cultural content of ELT materials is presented in one of the major TEFL
textbooks authored by leading Japanese scholars in the late 1970s:
Each English word and each English phrase bears the weight of its history. Therefore, we
believe that it is best to learn English in such contexts as it is spoken and written in Britain
and America. (Ando et al. 1978, p.60) (Translation mine)
However, as is symbolically represented in the fact that the first author, Shoichi
Ando, later radically changed his position to become one of the EIL pioneers in
Japan with his promotion of the de-Anglo-Americanization of ELT textbooks, the
Japanese have long displayed ambivalent attitudes toward the policies concerning
the cultural content of ELT materials. In fact, the cultural components of ELT text-
books in Japan have been swinging back and forth like a pendulum between the two
extremes of Anglophilia and Anglophobia, constantly reflecting the changes in the
socio-political environment surrounding the country, until some balance was found
in the 1980s (Hino 1988b).
Textbooks used in the infancy of ELT in Japan were filled almost solely with
Anglo-American cultures. After opening the country in 1868 after about 250 years
of international isolation under the Tokugawa shogunate, it was a time to learn from
the West due to the urgent need to catch up with industrialized nations. This period
of appreciation of Anglo-American values continued more than 50 years. The
example below shows that this attitude is evidently displayed even in sample sen-
tences of a grammar textbook:
The island of Great Britain is only a small spot in the globe, but it is one of the greatest
countries in the world. It had many colonies which are found all over the world. “The sun
never sets on the British Empire.” (New Epoch English Grammar, 1922. Reprinted in
Shimaoka 1968, p.316)
However, the subsequent rise of militarism in Japan, which became evident in a

series of aggressive actions including its invasion of China from 1931, led to the
deterioration of its relationship with Britain and America. This tide of nationalism
coupled with Anglophobia had a tangible impact on the content of ELT textbooks,
where the cultural focus came to be put on indigenous Japanese values at the expense
of Anglo-American cultures.
During the Second World War in which Japan fought against Britain and the U.S.
in an attempt to be the ruler of Asia, Japanese nationalism went to the extremes, and
this was directly reflected in the content of ELT textbooks. Below are some of the
guidelines given by the Education Ministry during World War II to the writers of
English textbooks, which were subject to governmental censorship:
1. Develop materials which will promote patriotism.
2. The Christian era must not be used. Use the Imperial era.
3. Pro-British/pro-American materials are prohibited.
164 N. Hino
4. Materials which imply the superiority of the British and Americans or the inferiority
of the Japanese are not permitted.
5. Use materials about Japanese territories rather than about Europe and America.
6. Topics about academic disciplines, arts, biographies should be taken from Japan.
(Hoshiyama 1980, p.60) (Translation mine)
One of the resulting products based on the above requirements is quoted below.
It is taken from the one and only official English school textbook in Japan toward
the end of World War II, at the time when English language education itself was
criticized and reduced to the teaching of an “enemy” language:
When we get up, it is still dark. We stand in a line, turn towards the Imperial Palace and
bow. We thank our soldiers and sailors for their brave deeds. We pray for our success in war.
(Eigo, 1944. Reprinted in Kawasumi 1978, p.773)
De-Anglo-Americanization and an emphasis on the learner’s indigenous cultural

values in ELT materials are clearly evident in these examples, which may look similar
to today’s concept of EIL. However, as I have argued in Hino (1988b), its underlying
philosophy, which is a radical nationalism, was actually far from the idea of EIL
advocated today for cross-cultural communication based on the understanding of a
diversity of values. The following position expressed in 1942 by Ryuzaburo Shikiba,
a Japanese psychiatrist also active in many other fields including literature and
education, illustrates the war-time Japanese conceptualization of ELT through its
exhibition of ethnocentrism, which runs fundamentally counter to the contemporary
concept of EIL (e.g., Smith 1976, 1978):
[…] English has already become an international language. It is by no means owned solely
by America and Britain. When we fight with the Anglo-Americans, we should make use of
the language in order to let them know Japan’s strength […] It should be regarded as a good
strategy to use English as a weapon in beating the Anglo-Americans. […] We ought to
make a point of giving up the admiration for Britain and America or the idea of treating
them like advanced countries. In short, we should change our attitude toward the learning
of English. (Reprinted in Kawasumi 1978, p.571) (Translation mine)
The defeat in World War II caused the Japanese to become disorientated from
their identities, while their former belief in nationalistic values was suddenly and
totally denied. In line with the negative attitudes toward indigenous values, descrip-
tions of Japanese culture largely disappeared from ELT textbooks for more than
20 years in post-war Japan. In turn, Anglo-American cultures were back in favour
again in those ELT materials. The focus on American values reflected the beginning
of Japan’s close socio-political relationship with the U.S.
Below is an example from a junior high school ELT textbook in Japan 15 years
after the War. This text was not only intended for an American pedagogy known as
the Audio-Lingual Approach mentioned earlier in this chapter, but also its cultural
content was predominantly American:
The United States produces many things. Fruits and vegetables are grown in many parts
of the country. A lot of wheat and corn are grown in the northern states. Cows are raised
for milk in the northern states and for meat in the southern states. Here the cowboys ride
their horses to bring the animals together. These horses are rather small, fast, and strong.
The cowboy’s horse is his friend. (Kuroda et al. 1960, pp.83–84)
In the early 1970s, when the present author was a junior high school student
in Japan, the cultural components of my ELT textbooks were still dominantly
Anglo-American with very little room for Japanese values. The following dialog
is an example:
Uncle: It’s half past two now. Where shall we go next?
Roy: I want to see the British Museum.
Uncle: All right. I often go there to read.
Roy: Is it a library?
Uncle: Yes, it is. It’s a museum, too. You’ll find a great many books there. Many people go
there to study the fine arts, too. It’s the biggest museum in the world. I have a friend
there.
(Inamura et al. 1968: 42)
Roy, an American junior high school student, is a leading character in this text-
book along with an American girl Pearl. This text basically describes their daily life
in the U.S. In the above scene, Roy is visiting his uncle in the U.K. who shows him
around London. In other words, even in a situational setting when a leading charac-
ter goes abroad, the authors of the text have chosen Britain for his destination, in
order to ensure Anglo-American cultural contexts.
As the Japanese gradually regained confidence in their own cultural values with
their major success in economic development, ELT materials in Japan came to
include more and more indigenous cultural values again, a trend which became
clear in the 1980s. Another significant development was the revision of the Courses
of Study in 1969 by the Ministry of Education. The new guidelines instructed text-
book writers to expand the cultural scope beyond native English speaking countries,
triggering an increase in the description of non-native English speaking cultures
(Hino 1988b; Erikawa 2008). Major social events such as the Osaka World Expo in
1970, which exposed the Japanese to the diversity of cultures around the world,
accelerated this move in ELT materials in terms of cross-cultural awareness. ELT
textbooks in Japan now include cultures from all of the Inner, Outer, and Expanding
Circles in addition to Japanese values. Below is an example from a 21st century
junior high school ELT textbook:
Ryo: Was Hong Kong always a big city like today?
Jing: No, it wasn’t. It was a very small village once.
But now, it is famous for business and sightseeing.
Ryo: Which places are good for sightseeing?
Jing: Well, let’s see….I like Victoria Peak.
The night view from there is beautiful.
(Horiguchi et al. 2002: 16)
This text presents a sharp contrast in many respects with Inamura et al. (1968)
mentioned above. Ryo in this textbook is a Japanese junior high school student, along
with his female Japanese classmate Aya, both of whom can be identified with by the
intended readership. This book describes the daily life of these Japanese students,
highlighting the values of modern Japanese life. In the conversation above, their
school has a foreign student from Hong Kong, who talks about her own culture with
Ryo. This is also significant, as it presents a NNS/NNS interaction in an EIL setting.
166 N. Hino
It would therefore seem that the Japanese have achieved some success, as far as
the cultural content of ELT materials is concerned, in negotiating their indigenous
values with Anglo-American cultures. However, do these new textbooks promote
what may be called Japanese English? This question will be taken up in the next
section, which concerns the controversial issue of pedagogical models.

Values for Models in ELT
The challenging of Anglo-American models in ELT is usually traced back to the

1960s with Halliday et al. (1964). Then, in the mid-1970s, works such as Kachru
(1976) and Smith (1976) became influential among ELT professionals. However, as
we have seen, the desire for an indigenous Japanese model of English was expressed
as early as the 1920s. There were also a few bestsellers in Japan around 1970, which
argued that original “Japanese English” in place of native speaker English could be
the target for learners with a view to the realities of the diversity of English. I return
to examples of these below. It is often assumed in World Englishes studies that such
movements would be prevalent in the Outer Circle, but Japan is a country where the
need for original models of English has been strongly felt for many years in spite of
its Expanding Circle status. In this section, we will briefly consider the Japanese
debate over reconciling Japanese and Anglo-American values for the issue of models
in ELT.
Within the World Englishes paradigm (eg., Kachru 1985, 1997) it has been
argued that learners of English in the Expanding Circle, unlike their Outer Circle
counterparts, would settle for native speaker norms, or that they would have no
other choice anyway. The quote below exemplifies this position:
A speaker of English in the Outer Circle will be careful to speak English in a way that will
make his or her cultural identity clear. In the Expanding Circle, on the other hand, the ideal
goal is to imitate the native speaker of the standard language as closely as possible. […]
Keeping a native standard in the Expanding Circle does not seem to present problems.
(Andreasson 1994, pp.401–402)
The lack of intra-national use of English, or the paucity of interactions in English

between fellow nationals, has been especially emphasized in casting doubt on the
feasibility of developing independent norms for the Expanding Circle. For example,
at a symposium on EIL held in Tokyo, Mufwene (2008, p.5) observed:
While there is undoubtedly a “Japanese English,” there is apparently no room for a “Japanese
standard” in English, because the language is for external consumption.
In an argument centering around the sociolinguistic situation of Japan, Schell

(2008) also argues, with a focus on the significance of oral communication, that no
independent norms of English would develop in the Expanding Circle, where there
is little interaction in spoken English among the compatriots, or between Japanese

nationals in the case of Japan:
[…] we can see that long-standing EFL educational programs plus abundant use of spoken
English in international contexts plus countless written English documents exchanged
among compatriots (including the quasi-speech of email) still do not add up to an indepen-
dent variety of English that generates its own norms. The missing element seems to be the
most ancient and fundamental one: speaking the language with another member of one’s
own group (p.127).
Those viewpoints quoted above run counter to the premise held by Japanese
proponents of EIL such as Suzuki (1975), which is that independent Japanese norms
of English could be generated through the international use of English, even with
the lack of intra-national communication in the language. It should be also pointed
out here that the rejection of the feasibility of original models of English could be
tantamount to the suppression of self-expression in English, which itself could even
be viewed as an infringement upon fundamental linguistic rights, when English is
an indispensable means of international communication.
In fact, as we have seen, Japan has a long history of seeking its own models of
English. In the preface of his Japanese-English dictionary in 1928, Hidezaburo
Saito, a lexicographer and an early ELT leader of Japan, wrote:
But language-study must not stop with imitation. […] The mastery of a language has for its
final object the expression of the exact light and shade of meaning conceived by the speaker.
In a word, the Japanese speaker of English should be original. […] In short, the English of
the Japanese must, in a certain sense, be Japanized. (Saito 1928, Preface)
Saito’s foresight was later echoed by several influential Japanese thinkers in the
early 1970s, when many Japanese became keenly aware of the importance of the
means of international communication. For example:
It seems possible to say that de-Anglo-Americanized English, rather than the one deeply
embedded in the Anglo-American culture, more efficiently communicates our own feelings
and our original patterns of thought. (Kunihiro 1970, p. 262, Translation mine)
It would be strange, as we come to use English more extensively, if the features of Japanese
English were not internationally recognized. When Japanese people begin to make full use
of English, it is inevitable that the English they use will be ‘Japlish’ which is influenced by
the Japanese language. (Suzuki 1975, p.224, Translation mine)
Both of these books discuss the prospects of “Japanese English” in more detail
in reference to their observation that diversity of English characterizes international
communication. Neither of these Japanese scholars is concerned by the lack of
intra-national use of English in Japan in arguing for a Japanese variety of English.
A fact that is worth noting is that these two publications, both of which have
turned out to be long-term best sellers, have proven to be highly popular not only
among ELT professionals but also among the general public in Japan. For example,
Kunihiro is famous for selling approximately 750,000 copies. This fact shows that
the desire for and an interest in an original model of English is strong among
Japanese learners of English, despite their Expanding Circle status.
168 N. Hino
This sentiment in Japan would explain why Larry Smith’s concept of EIL was
welcomed by a number of Japanese ELT professionals in the late 1970s and early
1980s. Though Smith himself seems to believe that his notion of EIL has been merged
into the larger paradigm of World Englishes (Smith 2004), as I pointed out in Hino
(2001), his original concept of EIL was significantly different from the Kachruvian
Three Circles model (Kachru 1985, 1997) which distinguishes Englishes in the Outer
and the Expanding Circle by labeling them “norm-developing” (i.e. becoming
endonormative) and “norm-dependent” (i.e. exonormative) respectively. As Smith
(1978) stated, in his EIL framework, “any educated speaker is acceptable” as a model
of English for international communication (Reprinted in Smith 1983, p.18).
Smith’s position, which accepts educated Japanese English as a model, continues
to give a lot of hope for many ELT professionals in Japan who are not happy with
the traditional imposition of native speaker models. The present author was one of
the Japanese who were greatly inspired by Smith and Rafiqzad (1979) who made no
distinction between ESL and EFL (or Outer and Expanding Circle) varieties, by
saying “Since native speaker phonology doesn’t appear to be more intelligible than
non-native phonology, there seems no reason to insist that the performance target in
the English classroom be a native speaker” (p. 380).
The call for an original model for Japanese learners of English is, however, by no
means unanimous in Japan. For example, the abovementioned Masao Kunihiro
compromised his position in his later years, stating that he believes that the target
for learning English should remain the native speaker model, while acknowledging
the value of Japanese English as its actual outcome (e.g. Kunihiro 1981). This fact
once again points to ambivalent attitudes among the Japanese toward English.
Honna (2008, pp. 154–155) also suggests that it may be realistic to employ American
English as the pedagogical model for Japanese learners of English, while promoting
the acceptance of varieties of English including Japanese English. Though the latest
arguments in support of the idea of an autonomous model of Japanese English (e.g.
Suenobu 2010; Yoshikawa 2010; Komiya 2010) represent the ongoing Japanese
quest for an English through which the Japanese can express their own cultural
values on the international stage, the question of which model to adopt would still
be best described as controversial.
With a considerable number of ELT experts influenced by the concept of EIL, is
there any actual evidence of indigenous models of English in the teaching of English
in Japan? In the recent ELT textbook for junior high school mentioned earlier, which
is approved by the Ministry of Education, some interesting examples are found as
to the use of the auxiliary “will”. While certainly acceptable in many native varieties
of English as endorsed by the native speaker proofreaders of this text, Japanese inter-
pretation of this function word of English seems to be observable in these usages:
Aya: Excuse me, will this plane arrive at 11:15?
Woman: No, it won’t. It’ll arrive at 11:50. Is this your first visit to the U.K.?
Aya: Yes. I’ll meet my friend in London tomorrow.
Woman: How exciting! You’ll love London.
Aya: Will you go to London, too?
Woman: Yes, I will. But I won’t stay in London. I’ll go home to Liverpool tonight.
(Horiguchi et al. 2002, p. 32)
Mark Petersen, an American professor in Japan, argues that all of the above
“will” are used incorrectly except for the one in “You’ll love London.” He empha-
sized that distinction should be made between “will” and “be going to,” with the
latter referring to future plans that have been already decided on (Petersen 2004, pp.
143–146). According to him, the latter half of the conversation should be rewritten
as follows (p. 145):
Aya: Yes. I’m going to meet my friend in London tomorrow.
Woman: How exciting! You’ll love London.
Aya: Are you going to go to London, too?
Woman: Yes, I am. But I’m not going to stay in London. I’m going to go home to Liverpool
tonight.
Although Petersen is being really pedantic here, as many of the native speakers
that I have consulted prefer the simplicity of the original version to his extreme
prescriptivism, his argument still reveals the fact that a certain values are reflected
in the Japanese usage of “will”. In my observation, it may be argued that the
Japanese, with their cognitive framework, are not very interested in distinguishing
the two kinds of future in the first place, and that it often makes better sense to them
to treat “will” and “be going to” more or less synonymously. Thus, Peterson’s criti-
cism actually highlights, against his intention, an example of what may be accepted
as a model of EIL.
The need for original models of English for expressing the speaker’s own cul-
tural values is no less strong for the Expanding Circle than for the Outer Circle,
irrespective of the lack of intra-national use of English in the former. As much as the
independent models of English are essentially important for the voice of the Outer
Circle, they are also of crucial importance for the Expanding Circle for the same
reason, as far as international communication is concerned (Hino 2001).
Since 1983, the author has been attempting to incorporate the concept of
“Japanese English” to his EFL/EIL classes at the university level in Japan, prompted
by the belief that it would be a disservice to our students if we keep giving the
native speaker model as if it was the sole option. It is the teacher’s responsibility
to try to provide the students with an alternative model (or models) of English
which are internationally communicative as well as being capable of expressing
indigenous cultural values. The production model of English for my everyday
classroom practice, though mostly without explicit codification, differs from native
speaker English in many areas including phonology, grammar, lexicon, discourse
rules, sociolinguistic rules, and non-verbal behaviours (Hino 1989, 2008, 2009).
It has been developed by combining my observation, personal experiences, and
available research results such as the classic study by Smith and Rafiqzad (1979),
the Lingua Franca Core proposed within the ELF framework (Jenkins 2000,
2002; Walker 2010), and the latest works on the international intelligibility of
Japanese English (e.g. Oda and Tajima 2010). For example, I allow my students
to pronounce English with syllable-timed rhythm consisting of little elision and
linking (Hino 1989; Jenkins 2000; Deterding and Kirkpatrick 2006; Kirkpatrick
2007; Walker 2010) as an aspect of non-native phonology that could be more intel-
ligible than native pronunciation in NNS/NNS interactions. Likewise, I assure my
170 N. Hino
students that they have every right to always define their siblings with the word
“older” or “younger” to show the Japanese respect for seniority, regardless of the
fact that Americans often find it to be unnecessary. I also suggest that the stu-
dents may employ, when appropriate, a Japanese style of argument with the
“introduction – development – reflection on the other side – conclusion” sequence
in order to ensure the balance and harmony that are regarded as a part of traditional
Japanese values. These are just a few examples of the author’s day-to-day practice
in pedagogical contexts.
Contrary to the prevalent theory in the World Englishes studies (e.g. Bamgbose
1998), a lack of codification does not necessarily preclude the existence of original
models for the Expanding Circle. A model may function in an inductive manner,
and may not need explicit description. It should be kept in mind that it is quite
possible to teach what is not overtly described. For holistic approaches such as
Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Lave and Wenger 1991) and Content-Based
Instruction, codification is not a prerequisite. In this sense, it is particularly important
to regard the Japanese teachers’ English as models for their students. Respecting the
local teachers’ English as models is the beginning of the process of freeing the
learners from the “norm-dependent” label attached to the Expanding Circle.
Moreover, it does not matter if “Japanese English” exists as a national variety.
The model of Japanese English discussed here is a pedagogical target that the stu-
dents may work toward as an alternative to the Anglo-American model. Likewise, it
is also irrelevant to our present consideration whether an educational model of
Japanese English would help generate a national variety of English. My proposal of
Japanese English is restricted to pedagogical purposes, that is, how we could best
help our students to learn to express themselves in English. In this regard, such
macro-sociolinguistic theories as the Dynamic Model by Schneider (2007) and the
Ecology of Language Evolution by Mufwene (2001), both of which account for the
natural emergence of Englishes in the Outer Circle, should not be directly applied
to educational efforts in the Expanding Circle.
10.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, I have looked into the negotiations between Japanese values and
Anglo-American cultures in the teaching of English in Japan in terms of methodolo-
gies, materials, and models. Despite the general lack of intra-national use of English
as a country in the Expanding Circle, indigenization across all three fields has been
playing a major role in the implementation of ELT in Japan for many years.
Japanization of methodologies, materials, and models is of crucial importance for
leading students to learn to express their own cultural values in international com-
munication. It is hoped that this case study can shed some light on the direction that
EIL education should be heading for in the Expanding Circle in Asia.
Acknowledgment This research is partly funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science, Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 20520548, 2008–2010.
References
Ando, S., K. Kuroda, Y. Narita, and S. Osawa. 1978. Gendai no eigoka-kyoikuho [More successful
teaching of English]. Tokyo: Nan’undo.
Andreasson, A. 1994. Norm as a pedagogical paradigm. World Englishes 13(3): 395–409.
Bamgbose, A. 1998. Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes
17(1): 1–14.
Deterding, D., and A. Kirkpatrick. 2006. Emerging South-East Asian Englishes and intelligibility.
World Englishes 25(3–4): 391–409.
Erikawa, H. 2008. Nihonjin wa eigo wo dou manandekitaka: Eigokyoiku no shakaibunka-shi [How
the Japanese have been learning English: A socio-cultural history of English language educa-
tion]. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Fries, C.C. 1945. Teaching and learning English as a foreign language. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Halliday, M.A.K., A. McIntosh, and P. Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teach-
ing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Henrichsen, L. 1989. Diffusion of innovations in English language teaching: The ELEC effort in
Japan, 1956–1968. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Hino, N. 1988a. Yakudoku: Japan’s dominant tradition in foreign language learning. JALT Journal
10(1&2): 45–55.
Hino, N. 1988b. Nationalism and English as an international language: The history of English
textbooks in Japan. World Englishes 7(3): 309–314.
Hino, N. 1989. Nihonshiki-eigo no kanosei [The possibility of Japanese English]. Modern English
Teaching 26(9): 8–9.
Hino, N. 1991. The impact of the kanji culture on the teaching of English in Japan. In Gendai no
Eigokyoikugaku-kenkyu [Recent studies on English language teaching], ed. K. Ito, 265–280.
Tokyo: Yumi Press.
Hino, N. 1992. The Yakudoku tradition of foreign language literacy in Japan. In Cross-cultural
literacy: Global perspectives on reading and writing, ed. F. Dubin and N.A. Kuhlman, 99–111.
Englewood Cliffs: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Hino, N. 2001. Organizing EIL studies: Toward a paradigm. Asian Englishes 4(1): 34–65.
Hino, N. 2008. Kokusai-eigo [English as an international language]. In Supesharisuto ni yoru
eigo-kyoiku no riron to oyo [Theories and practice of English language teaching by special-
ists], ed. S. Kotera and H. Yoshida, 15–32. Tokyo: Shohakusha.
Hino, N. 2009. The teaching of English as an international language in Japan: An answer to the
dilemma of indigenous values and global needs in the expanding circle. AILA Review 22:
103–119.
Honna, N. 2008. English as a multicultural language in Asian contexts: Issues and ideas. Tokyo:
Kurosio Publishers.
Horiguchi, T., et al. 2002. Total English 2. Tokyo: Gakko Tosho.
Hoshiyama, S. 1980. Senji-ka no eigokyoiku-kai [The English teaching circle during the war]. In
Showa 50-nen no eigokyoiku [50 years of English language teaching in the Showa Period], ed.
S. Wakabayashi, 46–62. Tokyo: Taishukan shoten.
Imura, M. 1997. Palmer to nihon no eigokyoiku [Harold E. Palmer & Teaching English in Japan].
Tokyo: Taishukan shoten.
Inamura, M., et al. 1968. New prince readers 2. Tokyo: Kairyudo.
Inoue, H. 1986, May 27. Panelist comments in the symposium Kanji-bunka no rekishi to shorai
[The past and future of kanji culture]. May: The Asahi Shimbun. May 27, p. 16.
172 N. Hino

University Press.
Jenkins, J. 2002. A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for
English as an international language. Applied Linguistics 23(1): 83–103.
Jespersen, O. 1904. How to teach a foreign language. London: G. Allen.
Kachru, B.B. 1976. Models of English for the third world: White man’s linguistic burden or
language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly 10(2): 221–239.
the outer circle. In English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures,
Kachru, B.B. 1997. World Englishes 2000: Resources for research and teaching. In World Englishes
2000, ed. L.E. Smith and M.L. Forman, 209–251. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Kawasumi, T. 1978. Eigokyoiku ronsoshi [Controversies on English language teaching]. Tokyo:
Taishukan shoten.
Komiya, T. 2010. Nihonjin to eigo [English for the Japanese]. In Eigokyoiku to bunka [English
education and culture], ed. T. Shiozawa, H. Yoshikawa, and Y. Ishikawa, 169–174. Tokyo:
Taishukan shoten.
Kunihiro, M. 1970. Eigo no hanashikata [English works for you]. Tokyo: Simul Press.
Kunihiro, M. 1981. “Takokuseki-eigo” wo kangaeru [On “multinational” English]. ELEC Bulletin
74: 3–5.
Kuroda, T., et al. 1960. New approach to English 2. Tokyo: Taishukan shoten.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
McKay, S. 2002. Teaching English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
McKay, S. 2003. Teaching English as an international language: the Chilean context. ELT Journal
57(2): 139–148.
Mufwene, S.S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mufwene, S.S. 2008. Does Japan need a separate English norm? [PowerPoint slides.] Symposium
What is global English communicative competence?: Models, standards, and pedagogy for the
teaching of English in Japan. The 47th annual convention of the Japan Association of College
English Teachers. Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan. September 13.
Oda, S., and T.T. Tajima. 2010. Analyzing speaker and listener factors affecting the intelligibility
of Japanese English. Asian English Studies 12: 61–77.
Palmer, H.E. 1921. The oral method of teaching languages. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd.
Petersen, M. 2004. Nihongo, hanasemasuka?[Can you speak Japanese?]. Tokyo: Shinchosha.
Saito, H. 1928. Saito’s Japanese-English dictionary. Tokyo: Nichieisha. (Repr in 2002. Tokyo:
Nichigai Associates).
Schell, M. 2008. Colinguals among bilinguals. World Englishes 27(1): 117–130.
University Press.
Shibata, T. 2008. Kotogakko koten kanbun-hen [Classical Chinese for senior high schools]. Tokyo:
Sanseido.
Shimaoka, T. 1968. Eigokyokasho [English textbooks]. In Nihon no eigogaku 100-nen [100 years
of English studies in Japan: The Taisho period], ed. K. Takanashi et al., 305–317. Tokyo:
Kenkyusha.
Smith, L.E. 1976. English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal 7(2): 38–53. Also
in Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1983. Readings in English as an international language, 1–5. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Smith, L.E. 1978. Some distinctive features of EIIL vs. ESOL in English language education.
The Culture Learning Institute Report June, 5–7 & 10–11. Also in Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1983.
Readings in English as an international language, 13–20. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1983. Readings in English as an international language. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Smith, L.E. 2004. From English as an international auxiliary language to world Englishes. In
Development of a teacher training program, ed. Y. Otsubo and G. Parker, 72–80. Tokyo:
Soueisha/Sanseido.
Smith, L.E., and K. Rafiqzad. 1979. English for cross-cultural communication: The question of
intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly 13(3): 371–380. Also in Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1983. Readings in
English as an international language, 49–58. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Sogo, M. 1970. Zusetsu nihon no yogaku [Western studies in Japan: Pictures and notations].
Tokyo: Tsukiji shokan.
Sogo, M. 1983. Eigo manabi kotahajime [The beginning of the history of learning English]. Tokyo:
Asahi Evening News.
Suenobu, M. 2010. Nihon-eigo wa sekai de tsujiru [Japanese English communicates around the
world]. Tokyo: Heibonsha.
Suzuki, T. 1975. Tozasareta gengo nihongo no sekai [A closed language: The world of Japanese].
Tokyo: Shinchosha.
Suzuki, T. 2009. Nihongo-kyo no susume [Taking pride in the Japanese language]. Tokyo:
Shinchosha.
Sweet, H. 1964, originally published in 1899. The practical study of languages. London: Oxford
University Press.
Walker, R. 2010. Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Yoshikawa, H. 2010. Kokusaieigo-ron to bunka [Culture and the concept of English as an interna-
tional language]. In Eigokyoiku to bunka [English education and culture], ed. T. Shiozawa, H.
Yoshikawa, and Y. Ishikawa, 138–142. Tokyo: Taishukan shoten.
Chapter 11
Switching in International English
Roland Sussex
11.1 Introduction
Inter-language switching, once the pariah of language learners, is now an eminently

respectable part of both bilingual language performance and linguistic analysis.
Switching involves the use of more than one language code or system in an utter-
ance. Scholars like Myers-Scotton (2002) have created a theoretical and analytical
framework where language material is transferred from one language to another:
And mon Dieu, it was an absolute disaster.
Such inter-language switching is endemic, creative and popular in many of the

Outer Circle (Kachru 1985) communities like Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia.
In places like Singapore it may routinely involve three languages, or even more – in
Singapore that means especially English, Chinese and Malay. In this chapter we will
use “code-switching” to cover all inter-language transfers.
Unlike Chap. 9 by Pennycook (this volume), the present chapter sees a language
as a system and entity (see the Introduction, and the Postscript and Prolegomenon).
This position is not so much a theoretical claim as a working hypothesis, even a
heuristic. People who practise switching are sometimes so competent in the languages
involved, or so competent at cross-language mixing, that they can appear to be
working creatively without a need for a language boundary to cross. But as we shall
see, there are good (though not exclusively persuasive) reasons to hold to the system
view, at least for the purposes of this investigation.
R. Sussex (*)
School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies,
and Centre for Educational Innovation and Technology,
The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia

176 R. Sussex
11.2 Language Switching, Pragmatic Switching and Culture

Switching
Most studies of switching are concerned with the forms of languages. This can be
phonological, as happens when we swap from authentic to “foreign” pronunciation.
It can be morphological, for instance in the unstable realization of the plural in
Asian Englishes (see also Kirkpatrick 2007) in public signs:
Luggages (Macao Ferry Terminal)
Thermal imaging in progress. 20 meter (KL International Airport)
Please mind your steps (KL International Airport)
No trolley on the aerotrain (KL International Airport)
Such forms may well become either standard, or fully accepted variants respec-
tively in Macao and Malaysia. As things stand at present, however, this use (or not)
of the plural is not standard, and constitutes switching or cross-code interference.
Switching requires that both speakers share sufficient knowledge of two or more
shared languages. It is also typically asymmetrical, in that one speaker will be more
competent than the other, or that one speaker will make more accommodation than
the other: the two often go together, since the more competent speaker has a larger
repertoire of choices to find messages appropriate for a particular interlocutor and
context. This may involve the negotiation and choice of the language which the two
speakers best share for communication (Ting and Sussex 2002), or it may involve
the selection of language forms appropriate to the language level of both, and espe-
cially the weaker speaker. Switching is therefore a communicative strategy. It is often
deliberate and strategic, as when a stronger speaker accommodates to a less competent
interlocutor. But it can also be motivated by language gaps, when a speaker lacks
command of language forms for a particular task of communication. And with really
competent bilinguals switches can be part of competent, witty, expressive interpersonal
communication, where the enjoyment and exploitation of language resources seem
to emerge naturally, rapidly and seamlessly in the flow of communication. Bilingual
children do this with particular ease and unconscious grace. Switching is a natural part
of finding appropriate expression for a message.
But switching need not be only motivated by language forms. Pragmatic switching is
also found, though its presence is often more subtly expressed, and is often more difficult
to identify, because it can involve either a change in language code, or the expression of
pragmatic functions from one language in the forms of the other language. Bilingual
politeness can give rise to issues of switching, often occasioned by pragmatic differ-
ences between the languages in involved. So too can the modest deflecting of compli-
ments as a cultural practice under the influence of Confucian values (Pham 2011).
11.3 Language vs Pragmatic vs Cultural Switching
There are speakers with superior command of L(anguage) who have incompetent
P(ragmatics) and C(ulture), for instance people who have studied language mainly
from books with no interpersonal or in-country experience. Alternatively, some
11 Switching in International English 177
expatriates, on returning home after years living in another country, still have very
competent L but their P and C have become affected by the values of the countries
where they have lived. Or there are people with competent performance in P and C
but incompetent L – culturally sensitive tourists who have managed to assimilate
key values and practices by interpersonal contact, but whose command of L remains
uneven and unreliable. Many combinations of L, P and C will be found in cross-
language encounters in Asia, and speakers need to be able to work out the fit between
their own L / P / C and that of their interlocutor.
Cultural shifts in particular can appear inscrutable. English translations of
Chekhov’s play The cherry orchard struggle with one particular cross-cultural
switch. The family is late for a train; the train’s whistle is heard; and they agree that
they must all sit down together; and do, in spite of the fact that this makes their
catching the train even more problematic. The answer lies in a Russian tradition:
before a journey one sits down with the company for a moment of shared time and
feelings. In Russia it would be unthinkable to forego this custom even with an
approaching train that one is possibly about to miss. In English it just doesn’t make
much sense. The hapless translator has either to add an explanation (As is customary
in Russia), or has to hope that the audience will suspend disbelief long enough for
them to make the train.
In order to explore these issues of L/P/C switching, we will examine in detail
three phenomena which reveal both the nature and the complexity of switching in
bilingual contexts. The three phenomena are the Arabic inshallah “if God wills”;
contrastive data on evidentials, the English verb think and the expression of cer-
tainty; and the use of diminutives in English, specifically Australian English. These
three case studies allow us to probe the interactions of language, pragmatic and
cultural switching, and to move towards a statement of the kinds of expertise which
will be necessary in bilinguals, specifically but not only English-speaking bilin-
guals, in an Asian context. All these phenomena are triggered by, and rely on, lan-
guage cues. It is common to find non-language shift (e.g. in ritual and ceremonies
in intercultural contexts), but these are outside the scope of the present chapter.
11.4 Inshallah
Arabic inshallah literally means “if God wills”, corresponding to English God willing
(Farghal 1995; Masilyah 1999; Nazzal 2001). The English God willing, which used
to be moderately common in the nineteenth century, is now rather seldom heard. In
Arabic, on the other hand, inshallah is extremely common. It is required in sentences
containing a future or hypothetical predicate. In English one routinely commits to
future events and intentions of one’s own volition: I’ll see you tomorrow at 5. This
covers intentions, promises and expectations, as well as straight statements of
expected events. In Arabic, on the other hand, such confidence about future events
is presumptuous. The realization of statements about future action depends on God’s
will, and inshallah is required. The standard Anglo interpretation of the future is
therefore radically different from the Islamic-Arabic one in terms of how we view
God’s will in relation to human intentions, the notion of free will, and the role of
God in everyday human affairs.
178 R. Sussex
The role of inshallah in switching is immediately obviously in the speech of

Muslims operating in another language, as is seen in this English example from the
website “Islamonline”. A female correspondent is contemplating her future:
I am currently 20 years old. INSHALLAH I will be a doctor in a few years. […] If I am lucky
enough to marry […], I would like to work for a few years. My question is, would it be
wrong to expect [my husband] to watch the kids (if we have any INSHALLAH), while I’m
away at work.
Here both a regulation future (INSHALLAH I will be a doctor) and a conditional

IF-clause (if we have any INSHALLAH) are accompanied by inshallah. In one sense
inshallah approximates to the sentence-adverbial hopefully, though hopefully is far
less frequent and not motivated by religious belief. The prominence of inshallah in
English can be approximately demonstrated by Google searches:
Phrase Google frequency (13 December 2011)

If God wills 3.2 m (especially in the Bible: Acts 18:21)
If God wishes 671 k
God willing 6.2 m
With God’s help 3.7 m
God protect 1.7 k
God bless America 10.6 m
Inshallah 6.8 m
(Inshallah is also, in Australia, the name of a surfboard.) Inshallah is common not

only in English, but also in other “Western” languages with strong contact with
Arabic, like French, especially but not only through contact with Arabic in the
French-speaking parts of North Africa and the Maghreb:
je te verrai demain, inchallah (“I’ll see you tomorrow, inshallah”)
And it is widespread in “Muslim” languages like Bangla, Bahasa Indonesia and

Malay, Farsi / Persian, Urdu and Turkish.
For Muslim L1 speakers of English it is arguable that inshallah is, from the point
of view of language forms, not a switch but a borrowing, in spite of its clear cultural
significance. Between Muslims speaking English it is the default, as it is for Muslims
speaking English for a more general audience: this can be heard on the television
channel “Al Jazeera”, and read in numerous blogs, websites and social media. Some
Muslims, especially from less conservative Muslim societies like Indonesia, will
use inshallah less when speaking English to non-Muslims, as I have observed from
my research students, and especially in a Western country like Australia.
But an intriguing and difficult question arises when we ask whether non-Muslims
can or should use inshallah when speaking to Muslims, especially in Muslim coun-
tries. Westerners in countries like Saudi Arabia are required – and expected – to
respect local norms of behaviour and dress, so that women wear at least a head scarf,
and everyone observes the cultural prohibitions about flesh-contact, and therefore
shaking hands, between people of opposite sexes who are not related or married.
Whether Westerners should use inshallah when speaking Arabic is a question for a
later paper. The issue here is whether Westerners should use inshallah in English
when speaking to Muslims, and specifically in Islamic countries.
There is one recent factual barrier to the use of Allah in relation to the non-
Islamic God. A decision in Malaysia – though one still under adjudication by the
religious courts – is that Allah is only for the Muslim God, and the Malay term
tuhan “Lord” should be used for non-Muslim concepts of God. This would make
inshallah potentially problematic for non-Muslims: may they, with cultural sensi-
tivity, refer in this way to a God from another religion and cultural context? On the
other hand, if I don’t use inshallah when I am otherwise obeying – say – Malay
cultural conventions of social behaviour, will I appear as an ordinary Western-
culture-bound Australian? When I put this question to one Indonesian informant the
answer was “Why not? It’s the same God, after all”. A Saudi colleague, in contrast,
was uncomfortable with this suggestion. Another agreed with the Indonesian.
The issue of inshallah is of central concern in the Muslim countries of Asia, Asia
Minor and the Mediterranean, as well as to Muslim communities in the many
Muslim diasporas, and the people who interact with them. It is so common in the
English of Muslims in these countries that visitors need to understand the pragmat-
ics and cultural significance of inshallah, and the constraints – still very much to be
established, and probably in need of person to person negotiation – on its switching
use by non-Muslims. Inshallah is unlikely to be an issue of usage by non-Muslims
with non-Muslims (though inchallah is now a common borrowing in French). But
it is clearly a substantial issue for English as an International Language in Asia. It is
a question of language forms (use with the future and hypothetical statements), of
pragmatics, and of cultural values.
11.5 Facts, Assertions, Evidentials, Understatements

and Stereotypes
A rather different kind of interaction between language, pragmatics and culture in

intercultural communication concerns the expression of facts, certainty and uncer-
tainty and the speech act of assertion. Stereotypes are well represented in the literature
in relation to the direct expression of views: a typical example is the well-known
Japanese/Korean avoidance of “no” in face to face situations, and their use of para-
phrases, euphemisms and circumlocutions to capture an implied negative
(Wierzbicka 1996). More subtle, however, is the question of the expression of an
event as fact or hearsay. Balkan languages like Turkish, and two Slavic languages
(Bulgarian and Macedonian), have inflexional verb systems, which originated with
Turkish, to differentiate between attested fact and an event which can be anything
from hearsay to simply unwitnessed events which the speaker is not in a position
to vouch for (Sussex and Cubberley 2006, pp. 247–248). These are the renarrative
moods, and are typically used in fairy stories, where the content is manifestly
imaginary, as well as in everyday reports to mark that the events described are not
vouched for by the speaker. Even more radical is the four-way division of Eastern
180 R. Sussex
Pomo, a nearly extinct language of California, where the verb system requires that
the speaker specify whether the event was experienced by the speaker, witnessed
by the speaker, known to the speaker by indirect evidence, or known only by hearsay
(Evans 2009). Other languages can capture these nuances by paraphrase, as we
have just done. But it is unusual to find it morphologically encoded in this way and
to this level of delicacy.
English has a not dissimilar concern for asserting events as facts or less than facts.
The mechanism in English is not morphological but lexical (unlike Turkish, Bulgarian
and Macedonian, or in Eastern Pomo). These issues are captured by Wierzbicka in
English. Meaning and culture (2006). The issue has to do with the confidence with
which one offers a statement, where X is Y is the strongest factual assertion; and with the
ways in which the assertiveness can be attenuated. Wierzbicka’s list (p. 29) includes:
COMPROMISERS: comparatively, enough, kind of, more or less, quite, rather, relatively,
sort of
DIMINISHERS: a little, in many/some respects, in part, mildly, moderately partially,
partly, pretty, slightly, somewhat
MINIMIZERS: a bit, barely, hardly, scarcely
APPROXIMATORS: almost, basically, nearly, practically, technically, virtually
English also has verbal expressions which deal with different levels of assertion of
facts: think, guess, suppose, suspect, estimate, feel:
fact: I vouch for that, know it to be true
less than fact: I say this but won’t necessarily vouch for it
English speakers, then, are punctilious about what is offered as fact (see Locke’s
An essay concerning human understanding, 1690). The key phrase is I think,
especially followed by that or an embedded sentence:
I think that he’s going to be elected
I think he’s going to be elected
Wierzbicka compared the frequency of “I think” in English with its frequency in

Swedish, Dutch and German, all Germanic languages with a long history of cultural and
linguistic interaction with English. The results were, per 10,000 words (2006, p. 37):
Written English I think 35

Conversational English I think 51
Spoken Swedish jag tror 2.6
Spoken Dutch ik denk 9
Spoken German ich glaube (“I believe”) 5
ich meine (“I believe”) 3
ich denke (“I think”) 0.6
There are, therefore, important differences between inshallah and the English use of
epistemic think in terms of their communicative and intercultural implications. Inshallah
is motivated by questions of theology and belief. Its use is a matter of cultural habit, one
which is so customary for Muslims that it is not immediately perceived, except by its
absence. In contrast, for non-Muslims, especially in their L1, the presence of inshallah
is striking and noteworthy: it is lexically and stylistically prominent. Evidentials and

think, however, are more subtle. Technically they involve the epistemic weakening
of assertions. But Wierzbicka’s data suggest that the use of think in English is more a
matter of cultural habit, a discourse feature which may have an epistemic effect on the
hearer, but which for the speaker, especially the L1 speaker, may be more a matter of
convention. L1 speakers of English are usually unaware of a difference in usage
between their frequency and usage of think and that of L2 speakers, except in their
reactions to its absence: they are aware of an impression of varying levels of out-of-the-
normal assertiveness on the part of their interlocutor, but have difficulty in determining
the cause. Furthermore, once the cause is known, to either L1 or L2 speakers of English,
negotiation of a shared mode of epistemic usage is not a simple matter. One can either
acknowledge that the speaker, say an L2 English user, may have different patterns of
epistemic think which transfer from their L1. Or one can attempt to use English
epistemic think rather less, as an accommodation strategy, in order to smooth and facili-
tate communication.
Controlling the use of think at a conscious level is a matter for the advanced L2
speaker. It is not as easy as deciding whether and when to express thanks, for instance,
where the speech act of thanking is more prominent and more accessible to con-
scious control (Ohashi 2008) (though Asian students in Australia frequently com-
ment on the Australians’ habit of thanking bus drivers; in their view, no particular
service has been rendered, and so no expression of thanks is required, since the driver
has just been doing a paid job). Advanced bilingual-biculturals do handle the cross-
language differences of think, but may be unaware of what they are doing or why.
Speakers who under-use think, using L1 English as a base-line, can appear unduly
assertive to speakers who are tuned in to L1 English norms in the use of think. But,
as Wierzbicka has shown, reduced levels of think will be the norm for German, Dutch
and Swedish speakers, and the L1 English frequency of think can give an impression
of indecision or undue fussiness about expressing a conventional message.
11.6 Diminutives and Australian English
Diminutives (or hypocoristics) are a common feature especially of nouns in Indo-

European languages:
Latin mus “mouse”, musculus “little mouse”
This explains their widespread use in naming and addressing. Some languages
may have as many as ten or so different forms of personal names, often with mul-
tiple levels and layers of affection (or not):
Russian Aleksandr, diminutives Sasha, Sanya, Shurik, Shura, Aleksandrushka
Diminutives have many cultural values in talk in interaction. One of their basic
meanings is smaller physical size (hence the name “diminutive”). But diminutives
are very common in expressing pet names, especially with forenames, as suggested
182 R. Sussex
by the Greek term “hypocoristic” from under + child; here the core meaning is
affection:
Margaret > Meg > Peggy
Diminutives can express familiarity, either of speaker and hearer, or of the interlocu-
tors’ joint understanding of the topic of conversation:
Bring mummy the little doggie
Do you like veggies with your burger?
Diminutives can even fulfil the function of hedging:

wait a minnie = wait a minute
Diminutives are also common when used of names, including proper names, in in
everyday life or in professional practice:
Chinese: Beijing Daxue “Beijing University” > Bei Da
French: faculté “faculty” > fac, sciences politiques “political sciences” > sciences po
Russian: Biblioteka imeni Lenina “The Lenin Library” > Leninka
And in English:
Orthodopaedic surgeon > orthopod
truck driver > truckie
Wierzbicka (1984) astutely notes that this usage is a form of solidarity, identity
sharing and social cohesion. People who share a language, an ethnicity, a set of values,
a common interest or hobby, or other common ground of identity or practice, will
often use diminutives among themselves, partly as a mark of in-group ownership and
shared knowledge, and partly to differentiate themselves from outsiders.
What is distinctive about Australian English is that diminutives are extremely
richly developed over a wide range of linguistic forms, especially nouns, both common
and proper (Simpson 2001). I have a data-base of around 5,000 such forms. In terms
of types, they rate significantly, at just under 5%, of the total headword count of a
standard dictionary of Australian English like the Australian Oxford dictionary or the
Macquarie dictionary, both of which contain over 100,000 headword entries. But in
terms of tokens – the total number of words used in a text, not the number of distinct
words – diminutives can often exceed 25%:
“I’ve got to go to Bundy (Bundaberg) on Friay.”
“You’d better take the ute (utility). Pick up some rockies (rock melons) for your mum
(mother) on the way back. And I’d like a carton of cab-sav (cabernet-sauvignon) from that
pub (public house) near Childers.”
“No worries. Is the diff (differential) on the ute (utility) ok now?”
“Had it fixed last week when you were in The Isa. (Mount Isa)”
“Great. Maybe we can go to the footy (football) on Saturday night to see Vossy (Voss)
play?”
These examples are far from atypical of Australian colloquial English, and show
diminutive forms of both common and proper nouns, including borrowed nouns
(cabernet and sauvignon). They are consistent with what Baker (1970, p. 366) calls
the “relentless familiarity” of Australian speech.
Competent speakers of Australian English use such forms much of the time.
Some terms like Aussie for Australian (noun or adjective) are even achieving inter-
national acceptance. While their frequency is less in careful speech, public speaking,
or writing, diminutives are endemic in everyday conversation, especially in less
“educated” or less formal contexts. Significantly, the absence of diminutives, espe-
cially in contexts where they are expected or already the default, can send potent
pragmatic and interpersonal signals. Male Australians in particular, when discussing
the mechanics of cars, will routinely use carbie rather than carburettor. Or asking
for cabernet-sauvignon rather than cab-sav at the local liquor store can indicate
either a lack of familiarity with wines, or an attempt to take a higher conversational
position – a strategy which may not be appreciated.
Diminutives in Australian English pose a genuine difficulty for tourists, visitors,
incoming students, migrants, and for people conversing in English with Australians,
especially Australians who have less experience of communicating in English in
intercultural contexts. Students of English are seldom exposed to diminutives as part
of their language education, even if it is known that they are coming to Australia.
The first task is to understand diminutives, most of which are not yet recorded.
Understanding can require both an appreciation of the more than 20 different types
of formation involved:
Australian – Aussie
cucumber – cuey
BMW – Beemer
derelict person – dero
Alice Springs – The Alice
Hong Kong – Honkers
tatoo – tat
Barry – Bazza
A not inconsiderable number of diminutives are homophones: flattie can mean

flat-bottomed boat, a flat tyre, a flat shoe, a flat mate, or a fish called a flathead. And
a number have alternative forms: a flat tyre can be either flattie or flat, and an alco-
holic person is either an alkie or an alko. It is therefore necessary to work out which
features of the current discourse and context are relevant in order to recover a probable
meaning. One can always ask for clarification; but after several requests that can
risk giving offence by appearing to suggest that the other speaker cannot speak their
own language. I have seen Australians moderate their use of diminutives when they
know they are talking to, or are in the company of, people (including other L1
English speakers like Americans and Britons) who may not be attuned to this variety
of language use. But comprehension remains a problem.
Once an L2 English speaker understands Australian diminutives, there is a decision
about whether, and when, to use them – an issue which we have considered in relation
to inshallah. The cultural-pragmatic dynamics of diminutives are not stable. It is neces-
sary to know when they are not acceptable (e.g. in an academic essay); and, if the
context does permit them, whether it is appropriate to do so. People who are obviously
L2 English speakers, by pronunciation or other language features, can sound presump-
tuous, importunate, or just trying too hard, especially when speaking to Australian L1
184 R. Sussex
English speakers. On the other hand, between friends the L1/L2 barrier rapidly lowers,
and one’s Chinese, Italian, Greek and Vietnamese friends will use diminutives freely,
and indeed will be expected to do so, especially in informal conversational contexts.
These issues have not yet been thoroughly researched. But there are parallels
in the inappropriate use of other colloquial, demotic or vernacular language across
language barriers, including the inadvertent violation of taboos (Dewaele 2004).
A well-known example occurred in They’re a weird mob, a novel by Nino Culotta
(1957) about an Italian immigrant in Australia in the 1950s. The central character,
Nino, whose English is halting and highly Italian, has heard “King’s Cross” in
Sydney referred to as “King’s bloody Cross” from a taxi driver, and assumes that
this is the proper name of King’s Cross. But when he later asks a policeman for direc-
tions to “King’s bloody Cross” the law takes substantial umbrage at what appears
to be a lack of civility. One should not switch slang from colloquial Australian
English into migrant Italian English.
11.7 Towards a Conclusion
Switching is endemic in intercultural English. It may occur at the level of purely

linguistic phenomena (phonetic interference, morphological cross-language hybrids,
syntax, lexis). It may be pragmatic, in the importing of thanking conventions and
frequency from one language-culture to another. And it can be purely cultural, espe-
cially in ritual and convention. There are also many combinations. The three types
of switching investigated in this chapter – inshallah, epistemic think and Australian
diminutives – all involve, and are cued by, language. But they involve language in
different ways in its relation to pragmatics and culture.
Inshallah in English is clearly a switch, an import, though in the speech of
English-speaking Muslims it is probably more appropriate to analyse it as a borrow-
ing, a lexical item and a pragmatic practice fully integrated into their English-
language repertoire. For non-Muslims inshallah is striking, frequent, initially
obscure and clearly meaningful in ways which need to be explored and understood.
And when its import is clarified, and non-Muslims understand what it means and
why it is used by Muslims, the decision remains about whether to accommodate to
their usage and values, and use inshallah when Muslim discourse dictates, or not.
Australian English diminutives offer a cross-English contrast of a different kind,
and a different possibility of switching for non-Australian English speakers.
Australian diminutives are always phonologically related to some standard word.
For non-Australians (and indeed for some Australians) confronted by a novel
diminutive, there is an initial task of determining what the base form of the word
or expression is, and how the diminutive form is to be interpreted. The language
material is English, but of a particular geographical, and to some extent social,
register. Unlike inshallah, a single unfamiliar lexical item, diminutives are varied,
dynamic, productive and creative. They also belong with a well known Australian
penchant for language play and playfulness. The problem for the non-Australian is
whether to switch to accommodate to the Australian norms of diminutive-enriched

communication, and whether this accommodation will be successful or may actually
inhibit communication by appearing gratuitously intrusive.
Wierzbicka’s epistemic think is an issue of switching of a different order. With
inshallah and Australian diminutives the language material is unfamiliar and provoca-
tively challenging. But with epistemic think the task is more subtle, and potentially
the more ominous in its implications precisely because the familiar forms conceal
differences of which we are not aware. The language material is familiar; indeed,
perhaps too familiar, since native English speakers are, one may predict, unaware of
the kinds of pragmatic differences which Wierzbicka reveals, and the cultural impli-
cations which then follow. For the L2 English speaker, speaking in English, the shift
which involves following their L1 patterns of epistemic think can have disruptive
consequences of communication by making the speaker appear too assertive,
brusque or pedantic without immediately obvious cause. Mutatis mutandis, English
speakers can appear tentative or devious by avoiding direct assertions of fact, and
insisting on including I think.
In one important sense we can now see that Pennycook is right to insist on the
compromised nature of the concept of “system”. Bilinguals using inshallah out of
their habitual cultural-communicative space, or Germans speaking English with a
German-based frequency and pattern of think-usage, are creating mixed codes on
the fly, in response to contextual and interpersonal needs. Part of the problem is with
the word “switch” itself. “To switch” implies deliberate, conscious choice. In speaking
languages other than English I often switch code deliberately, with interlocutors
who share with me the same language / pragmatic / culture knowledge. The motive
may be for communicative effectiveness, or the exercise of wit, or because of unex-
pected lexical or other gaps, especially in an L2, which emerge as a conversation
progresses. This is conscious language manipulation, the deliberate importing of
resources from a different bucket of expertise. The “different-ness” of the bucket is
evident, and the motive is appreciated by the hearer. Such inter-language mixing is
indeed a matter of switching. But “mixing” is itself not a suitable replacement for
“switching”, since it can imply either deliberate or inadvertent action.
On the other hand, the perception of “otherness” in switched codes is unmistake-
able. Hearers of switched code are aware of being offered something unfamiliar,
something which does not belong in the compendium of elements and processes
which they identify with their language – the code which does not arouse reactions
of “otherness”. It may be that for speakers who are engaging – or indulging – in
switching, the perception of “otherness” is not as acute or objectively felt: one is, as
we saw above, mixing elements on the fly for the purposes of communication. If the
two systems are perceived by speakers and hearers to be different, then we would
expect some psycholinguistic evidence to support the difference: switching between
systems could be expected to involve some time cost. There is some evidence that
switches are processed more slowly than monolingual L1 input (Heredia and Altarriba
2001), but it is annoyingly equivocal, with some evidence showing similar processing
times on the receiving side for monolingual L1 and L1-L2 mixed texts for Hong
Kong Chinese speakers (Chan et al. 1983).
186 R. Sussex
We can, then, envisage bilinguals without biculturalism: people who have studied
a language from books, perhaps for the purposes of reading academic texts in their
discipline. “Without” here is shorthand: it may be that a zero score for cultural content
is meaningless. But in such cases the cultural content is low and the cultural goals
are restricted. Conversely, we can imagine biculturals without bilingualism: tourists
with zero or almost zero L2, but who are alert enough to cultural patterns to function
competently, at least to some extent, in different contexts outside the first language
and culture. We can then apply a similar line of argument to bilinguals without biprag-
matism, which happens with speakers who can manage the linguistic forms without
controlling the pragmatic implications: they treat would you like to sit down? as a
YES/NO question rather than as a polite request to be seated. Since “pragmatics”,
in the wide sense, covers the ways in which contextual factors contribute to meaning,
it is possible (though not easy) to contemplate someone who understands, perhaps
from body language, what is going on, and responds accordingly, without under-
standing the language. And there are certainly speakers who are culturally competent
but whose linguistic and pragmatic skills are wanting.
In all these cases we are dealing not with binary YES/NO scores for linguistic,
pragmatic or cultural competence, but with gradient values. And the gradient values
have three points of evaluation: in the mind of the speaker, the mind of the hearer, and
the minds of onlookers. This is not the same as the scores in an individual’s separate
(if we can use that term, pace Pennycook) languages: those are separate matters.
In this research agenda English in Asia emerges as a partner code, a lingua franca.
In this process English – whether global, glocal or local (Chap. 8 by Duong, this
volume) – will certainly acquire substantial new language, pragmatic and cultural content
and processes. On the Web I happened across this characterization of English as a
predatory language:
English doesn’t borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark
alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.http://www.
reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/ebloc/til_americans_hardly_understand_roundabouts_wtf/
c16uwq9
We can re-formulate this in the light of our discussion of switching and inshallah,
epistemic think and Australian diminutives:
English doesn’t borrow from other languages. It walks down the middle of the road, clothed
but sartorially curious, and says to the people it meets: “Would you like to share my clothes,
and let’s see how we might make them fit?”.
References
Baker, S. 1970. The Australian language, 2nd ed. Melbourne: Sun Books.
Chan, M.-C., H.L.H. Chau, and R. Hoosain. 1983. Input/output switch in bilingual code switching.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Resesarch 12(4): 407–416.
Culotta, N. (pseudonym of O’Grady, J.). 1957. They’re a weird mob. Sydney: Ure-Smith.
Dewaele, J.-M. 2004. The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of multi-
linguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25(2 & 3): 204–223.
Evans, N. 2009. Dying words. Endangered languages and what they have to tell us. Chichester/
Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Farghal, M. 1995. The pragmatics of insallah in Jordanian Arabic. Multilingua 14(3): 253–270.
Heredia, R.R.H., and J. Altarriba. 2001. Input/output switch in bilingual code switching. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 10(5): 164–168.
the outer circle. In English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures,
Masilyah, Sadok. 1999. A cross-cultural misunderstanding: The case of the Arabic expression
Inshallah, “If God Wills”. Dialog on Language Instruction, Defense Language Institute,
Monterey, California 13(1–2): 97–116.
Myers-Scotton, C. 2002. Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes.
Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Nazzal, Ayman R. 2001. The pragmatic function of Qur’anic verses: The case of INSHA’ALLAH
in Arabic discourse as a species of indirectness. Albany, NY: SUNY PhD dissertation.
Ohashi, J. 2008. Linguistic rituals for thanking in Japanese: Balancing obligations. Journal of
Pragmatics 40(2): 2150–2174.
Pham, T.H.N. 2011. Communicating with Vietnamese in intercultural contexs: Insights into
Vietnamese values. Hanoi: Education Publishing House.
Simpson, J.I. 2001. Hypocoristics of place-names in Australian English. In English in Australia,
ed. D. Blair and P. Collins, 89–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sussex, R.D., and P.V. Cubberley. 2006. The Slavic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ting, S.-H., and R. Sussex. 2002. Language choice of the Foochows in Sarawak, Malaysia.
Multilingua 21: 1–15.
Wierzbicka, A. 1984. Diminutives and depreciatives: Semantic representation for derivational cat-
egories. Quaderni di semantica 5(1): 123–130.
Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Japanese cultural scripts: Cultural psychology and “cultural grammar”.
Ethos 24(3): 527–555.
Wierzbicka, A. 2006. English. Meaning and culture. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Part IV
Norms
Chapter 12
English in South Asia – Ambinormative
Orientations and the Role of Corpora:
The State of the Debate in Sri Lanka
Joybrato Mukherjee
12.1 Introduction: From English in Sri Lanka

to Sri Lankan English
In South Asia, British colonisation of Sri Lanka set in relatively late and represented
the third wave of colonisation (after the Portuguese and Dutch period) on the island.
In 1802, it was declared a Crown Colony of Britain, and English became the sole
official language. When Sri Lanka became independent in 1948 (under the then
official name Ceylon), the English language continued to play a significant role as
in many other postcolonial contexts in South Asia and beyond. However, although
English remained a de facto official language of Ceylon in the years after 1948,
the official language policy implemented in the 1950s was not intended to stabilise
English as a medium of communication and instruction – quite the contrary. This
was not surprising, given that in many other postcolonial territories the political aim
was to establish local national languages that would replace the former colonisers’
language in the not too distant future. In India, for example, the Constitution passed
in 1950 provided for a transition period of 15 years before English was to be replaced
by Hindi, the new national language of independent India. Against this background,
the Sinhala-only policy introduced in Sri Lanka in the 1950s was in line with general
postcolonial emancipation processes.
But the rigidity of the Official Language Act No. 33 of 1956, which declared
Sinhala the sole official language, was primarily a language-political weapon of the
Sinhala-speaking majority against the Tamil-speaking minority, as it denied Tamil,
the indigenous language mainly spoken by Hindus and Muslims in the Northern
and Eastern provinces of the island, an equivalent status. As was to be expected,
J. Mukherjee (*)
Department of English, Justus Liebig University,
Giessen, Germany
e-mail: Mukherjee@uni-giessen.de

192 J. Mukherjee
the Sinhala-only policy was met with hostility by the Tamil-speaking minority, and
paved the way towards civil war conditions in Sri Lanka for a major part of its post-
independence history. From a language-political point of view, it is this very conflict
that helped to stabilise and reinforce the role of English as a neutral means of com-
munication and mediation. In fact, a constitutional amendment enacted in 1987
reintroduced English in Chapter IV on the official languages of Sri Lanka:
CHAPTER IV – LANGUAGE
Official Language.
18. (1) The Official Language of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala.
(2) Tamil shall also be an official language.
(3) English shall be the link language.
(4) Parliament shall by law provide for the implementation of the provisions of this
Chapter.
National Languages.
19. The National Languages of Sri Lanka shall be Sinhala and Tamil.
(The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka; http://www.priu.gov.
lk/Cons/1978Constitution/CONTENTS.html, accessed 11 April, 2011)
English is thus acknowledged as the third (quasi-)official language alongside the

two national languages Sinhala and Tamil. The term “link language”, however, seems
to understate the depth and range of English in present-day Sri Lanka, as Mendis and
Rambukwella (2010) point out:
In terms of use and functions, English in Sri Lanka is far more than a mere “link”. It is still
pervasive in many areas of officialdom, it is the language used in Sri Lanka’s Supreme
Court, it has a strong presence in the media and in advertising, it is making a comeback in
the country’s education system, and it is the undisputed language of choice in private
business and commercial sectors. (Mendis and Rambukwella 2010, p. 182)
Given that English was re-established as a de jure official language more than 20
years ago, and in the light of its wide-spread and institutionalised use, it may seem
odd that the status of Sri Lankan English as a variety in its own right is not entirely
undisputed: Fonseka (2003), for example, is of the opinion that English as used by
Sri Lankans is a manifestation of a learner language. On the other hand, in view of
the changing language policies and the changing status of English over the past six
decades, these pockets of resistance against accepting English as part of the local
linguistic repertoire of Sri Lanka may not come as a surprise.
A useful model to assess the variety status and the degree of indigenisation of
English in Sri Lanka is provided by Schneider’s (2003, 2007) dynamic model of the
formation of New Englishes. He distinguishes between five stages in the evolution
of a postcolonial variety of English:
As the English language has been uprooted and relocated throughout colonial and postcolonial
history, New Englishes have emerged by undergoing a fundamentally uniform process which
can be described as a progression of five characteristic stages: FOUNDATION, EXONOR-
MATIVE STABILIZATION, NATIVIZATION, ENDONORMATIVE STABILIZATION,
DIFFERENTIATION. (Schneider 2003, p. 243)
Of particular interest for the South Asian context in general, and Sri Lanka in
particular, is the question as to what extent a New English has developed into an
12 English in South Asia – Ambinormative Orientations and the Role of Corpora... 193
Table 12.1 Endonormative stabilisation of English in present-day Sri Lanka:

parameters and criteria (Adapted from Mukherjee 2008)
Parameter Criterion +/–/?
History and politics Post-independence? +
Self-dependence? +
Identity construction Settlers and indigenous population –
interwoven?
New nation with panethnic identity? +/−
Sociolinguistics of Acceptance of local norms? ?
contact, use, attitudes Positive attitude to local variety? ?
Literary creativity? +
Linguistic developments, Stabilisation of a new variety? ?
structural effects Codification (e.g. dictionaries)? –a
Relative homogeneity of local norms? ?
a
Usage guides have been published (cf. Meyler’s (2007) Dictionary of Sri Lankan
English)
endonormatively stabilised variety in phase 4, i.e. a localised, stable and generally

accepted local form of English. In various studies, Indian English, by far the largest
institutionalised second-language variety of English in South Asia and world-wide,
has been shown to be a case of endonormative stabilisation (cf. Mukherjee 2007).
For Sri Lanka, however, the question of the evolutionary status of the English language
in Sri Lanka remains open: is it more appropriate to speak of “English in Sri Lanka”
as being still in the process of being nativised, or to posit a stable and full-fledged
“Sri Lankan English” variety?
Table 12.1, which is adapted from an earlier study (cf. Mukherjee 2008), provides
an overview of the parameters and criteria that are relevant in Schneider’s (2003,
2007) model to the assessment of whether New Englishes have already reached
the stage of endonormative stabilisation. In the right-hand column a “+” means that the
situation in present-day Sri Lanka fulfils the criterion, while a “–” indicates that
the criterion is not met. A question mark means that the criterion cannot be properly
assessed, as empirical data are not available.
From a historical and political perspective, Sri Lanka clearly is an independent
and a self-dependent nation. With regard to the construction of a new “hybrid” identity
based on both the colonial settlers and their descendants and the indigenous population,
the problem is that this criterion is usually not applicable to those countries where
English is spoken predominantly as a second language, as there are hardly any
descendants of the settler population left (cf. Schilk 2006, p. 280). True, English L1
speakers also exist in Sri Lanka, but they form a small fraction of the total population
of English language users, including the so-called Burgher community (cf. Sect. 12.2).
Whether we can speak of Sri Lanka as a nation with a pan-ethnic identity very much
depends on the individual perspective, given that there is a long-established conflict
between the Sinhala-speaking majority (and the central government) on the one hand,
and on the other hand a certain part of the Tamil-speaking minority (and groups that
194 J. Mukherjee
may either be referred to as freedom fighters or as terrorists, depending on one’s

position in this conflict), the aim of the latter being the creation of an independent
state for all Tamils in the North and the East of the island. It remains to be seen
whether this pan-ethnic identity will emerge and be stabilised after the end of the
civil war in 2009. At this stage, therefore, both a “+” and a “–” are indicated for this
criterion.
With regard to the sociolinguistic and linguistic parameters in Table 12.1, the
assessment of four criteria is not possible, and they are thus marked with “?”: there are
only very few empirical studies of speakers’ acceptance of – and attitudes towards –
localised variants of English (e.g. Künstler et al. 2009; Bernaisch 2012), which will
need to be complemented with more survey data; it is also difficult to say to what
extent Sri Lankan English is marked by stable and more or less homogenous lin-
guistic norms, as most of the linguistic analyses are based on small databases, and
large corpora of Sri Lankan English have just been finalised or are in the process of
being compiled (cf. Sect. 12.4). What we do know, however, is that on the one hand,
English is used by Sri Lankan authors as a creative vehicle for their fiction writing
(cf. Goonetilleke 2003), but that no genuine dictionaries of Sri Lankan English are
available on the other hand, also because English language teaching in Sri Lanka is
still largely oriented towards British standards and norms (cf. Wijesinha 2003). The
Dictionary of Sri Lankan English produced by Meyler (2007) includes a list of
2,500 words that are characteristic of English used by well-educated speakers of an
acrolectal form of Sri Lankan English. Laudable as it is as the first major attempt to
codify local norms in the use of lexical items in Sri Lankan English, it is not a dic-
tionary in the strict sense, but a contrastive usage guide comparing Sri Lankan English
usage with British English norms. This publication plays a significant role in the
current debate on standards and norms in Sri Lankan English (cf. Sect. 12.3).
Given that English is an official language in Sri Lanka and that it fulfils a wide
range of functions in various domains (including fiction writing), it is reasonable to
assume that Sri Lankan English is an institutionalised second-language variety of
English which may well be on its way to endonormative stabilisation. There also
exist various studies on isolated aspects of Sri Lankan English that indicate that
there is a potential for the development of local norms, e.g. in lexis (e.g. use of Sri
Lankan words and phrases, cf. Fernando 2003), syntax (e.g. deviant use of the verb
be, cf. Herat 2005) and lexicogrammar (e.g. deviant use of light-verb constructions,
cf. Hoffmann et al. 2011). These studies, therefore, seem to corroborate Mesthrie
and Bhatt’s (2008, p. 200) view that “Sri Lankan English is not simply ‘English in
Sri Lanka’, but a variety with a certain regional and social identity”.
While this is no doubt true, one has to bear in mind, however, that there are also
clear signs of a constant on-going process of nativisation of English in Sri Lanka,
manifesting itself in persisting complaints about seemingly falling standards, in
what Kachru (1992) has labelled “linguistic schizophrenia”, and different orientations
in the speech community with regard to standards and norms. It is these ambinormative
orientations in present-day Sri Lankan English that are the focus of the following
sections.
Table 12.2 Ambinormative orientations amongst Sri Lankan speakers of English (Adapted from
Künstler et al. 2009)
OT (%) RP (%) GA (%) IE (%) Comb. (%)
I. What kind of English do you think people speak in 62a 31 1 1 –
Sri Lanka?
II. Which of the following kinds of English do you 40b 50 3 – 7
want to speak, i.e. what is your model?
III. What kind of English do you think should be 38c 49 2 – 7
taught in Sri Lankan schools?
RP Received Pronunciation/Standard British English, GA General American English, IE Indian variety
of English, OT some other variety of English, Comb. Combinations of OT, RP, GA and/or IE
a
hereof 30% “Sri Lankan English”
b
c
12.2 Controversies in Sri Lanka and Ambinormative

Orientations in Sri Lankan English
The notoriously difficult question of standards and norm-orientations in postcolonial

contexts is particularly complex in Sri Lanka. This has to do with various controversies
that exist in Sri Lanka with regard to the relevance of the historical input variety, the
influence of L1 and L2 variants of English in Sri Lanka, the role of the neighbouring
variety of Indian English, and the constitutional status of English.
12.2.1 Relevance of the Historical Input Variety?
As in many other postcolonial settings in which a new English variety is in the

process of emerging, there is a tension in present-day Sri Lanka between the tradi-
tional and conservative orientation towards the (exonormative) standards of the
(assumed) form of the historical input variety, i.e. British English, on the one hand,
and the actual use of a localised variant of English on the other. There are various
studies that highlight this tension. For example, Gunesekera (2006) shows in her
questionnaire survey with 350 respondents from all over Sri Lanka that there is an
interesting correlation between the region a speaker comes from and the variety of
English that they assume they speak: while 51% of the respondents from Colombo
claim to speak British English, the majority of speakers from other parts of Sri Lanka
believe they speak Sri Lankan English. Künstler et al. (2009) report on a survey
with 122 respondents, most of whom are from Colombo and speak Sinhala as
L1. Their findings corroborate the growing popularity of English and the growing
preference for English in various domains, but they also shed light on ambinorma-
tive orientations, as shown in Table 12.2. The option “Sri Lankan English” was not
196 J. Mukherjee
given on purpose so that respondents were forced to tick OT for “other” and specify
“Sri Lankan English” explicitly. As the figures in Table 12.2 show, a substantial
number of speakers assume that British English is the variety of English that
Sri Lankans use (31%), that it is their own target model (50%), and that it should
be used as a teaching model in school (49%). American English, the most dominant
native-speaker variety world-wide, and Indian English, the much larger neighbouring
variety in South Asia, only play a marginal role. What is interesting is the fact that
many speakers opt for “other variety” with regard to the three questions (62, 40, and
38%, respectively), with a substantial proportion of these respondents explicitly
labelling the “other variety” as Sri Lankan English (30, 41, and 47%, respectively).
In sum, these results reveal a mismatch between the actual production form and the
target norm which the informants aim for. About 60% of the respondents are in fact
aware of the existence of Sri Lankan English and claim that it is the variety which
is spoken in Sri Lanka. Nonetheless, only about 40% admit that they actually accept
it as their target norm. This situation is the Sri Lankan manifestation of Kachru’s
(1992, p. 60) “linguistic schizophrenia”. Bernaisch’s (2012) attitudinal survey on
varieties of English in Sri Lanka, based on bipolar semantic differential scales, also
indicates that British English continues to be highly valued by Sri Lankans, while
a positive attitude towards Sri Lankan English has also clearly emerged.
12.2.2 Power Relations Between L1 and L2 Variants of English?
The issue of ambinormative orientations becomes even more complex in the Sri Lankan
context as the various Englishes that exist in Sri Lanka have a fundamentally different
status and prestige and, thus, a different normative potential. Meyler (2007) sketches
out the complexity of the situation as follows:
Sinhalese, Tamils, Muslims and Burghers speak different varieties; Christians, Buddhists,
Hindus and Muslims have their own vocabularies; the older generation speak a different
language from the younger generation; and the wealthy Colombo elite (who tend to speak
English as their first language) speak a different variety from the wider community (who are
more likely to learn it as a second language). (Meyler 2007, pp. x–xi)
Indeed, there is a small but influential minority, especially in the capital, for whom
English is a first language. Their usage exerts an enormous normative influence on
language in the media, in politics and in the education system. The continuing use
of English as a native language in Sri Lanka, albeit by a small fraction of the popula-
tion, seems to be an attractive target model for many because of the power and
prestige of anything that is perceived as native-like performance.
Most competent speakers of acrolectal Sri Lankan English, however, use it as
their second (or third) language. Because of the economic and political dominance
of the Sinhala-speaking majority, the vast majority of ESL speakers in Sri Lanka in
general, and in Colombo in particular, have Sinhala as their L1. Because of the
given power relations between the Sinhala-speaking (and mostly Buddhist) majority
and the Tamil-speaking (mostly Hindu) minority, the norm-developing potential of
L1 Sinhala speakers of English is, by definition, much higher in present-day Sri Lanka.
Generally speaking, the existence of a community of L1 English speakers and
the history of a socially and politically privileged group of L2 users of English can
be viewed as one of the reasons for the persistence of ambinormative orientations
in Sri Lanka.
12.2.3 Indian English as a Potential Epicentre?
In the description of postcolonial Englishes, for a long time the assumption has
been that it is a combination of the following three types of linguistic processes
that is at the basis of the formation of new varieties of English (cf. Schneider 2007,
pp. 99 ff.):
(a) continuity: the retention of features taken over from the historical input variety,
i.e. British English in most former British colonies such as Sri Lanka;
(b) innovation: the emergence of local forms and postcolonial divergences due to
forces of simplification, regularisation, analogy and the like;
(c) contact: contact with local languages, resulting in interference phenomena,
and, possibly, with other dialects of English.
What has so far been widely neglected is the influence that new major varieties
of English may exert on other and smaller neighbouring English-speaking
communities: such new major varieties are called “epicentres” by Leitner (1992,
2004), a term and concept that has been taken over, inter alia, by Peters (2009)
for the Pacific context.
Epicentres of English are marked internally by endonormative stabilisation and
externally by their potential to serve as a model variety for the region. Institutionalised
second-language varieties of English, too, can turn into epicentres: “The emergence
of SL [second language] centres is […] to be expected. Epicentres have already
been recognized in India, Singapore and other areas” (Leitner 1992, p. 225).
The concept of an epicentral influence of Indian English on Sri Lankan English
is attractive and compelling because of its high degree of endonormative stabilisa-
tion and its sheer quantitative and functional dominance in the South Asian context.
From a contact-linguistic point of view, it thus makes sense to assume that Indian
English may exert some normative influence on Sri Lankan English, even though
this does not figure prominently in the survey conducted by Künstler et al. (2009),
see Table 12.2. From a language-political perspective, the Sri Lankan Government’s
recently launched initiative English as a Life Skill, with its focus on English
curricula shaped by Indian language teaching experts and on English instructors
from India, could well pave the way for a much stronger influence of Indian
English standards and norms on the English language classroom in Sri Lanka in
the future. This in turn may lead to increasing ambinormative orientations – torn
between endonormative Sri Lankan models, epicentral Indian norms and exonormative
British standards.
198 J. Mukherjee
12.2.4 English – a “Link Language”?
A final factor that contributes to the growth of ambinormative orientations is the

multiplicity of functions and the unclear status attributed to the English language in
Sri Lanka. On the one hand, English is recognised as a (quasi-)official language
by the Constitution of Sri Lanka, but its function is referred to as a “link language”
(cf. Sect. 12.1). What the English language is supposed to link, what exactly the
linking functions of English are, and in what respect this label specifies (or restricts)
the officialdom of English, remain unclear. As the reintroduction of English into
the Constitution in the 1980s followed a decade-long civil war between the
Sinhalese majority and the Tamil-speaking Hindu minority, it is safe to assume that
English has been expected to serve as a neutral, interethnic “link language” – in a
similar vein to the function it fulfils in other postcolonial multiethnic and multilin-
gual settings.
However, the official status of a “link language”, i.e. as an additional lingua
franca to communicate between ethnic and linguistic boundaries, is in stark contrast
to the fact that English has undergone a process of nativisation, has been appropri-
ated to the new socio-cultural context, and has become an integral part of the
local linguistic repertoire: a Sri Lankan variety of English is – and must be, by
de fi nition – more than a link language, both for the minority of L1 speakers
of English and the majority of regular and competent users of English as L2. This, of
course, has implications for speakers’ orientations towards emerging local standards
and norms.
What contributes to ambinormative orientations as well is the growing importance
of English as a key to upward social mobility on an increasingly globalised job market.
The largely international orientation of an ever-increasing number of Sri Lankans
for whom the instrumental function of English is of particular importance may lead,
as Bolton (2008, p. 11) puts it, to a “reorientation of linguistic performance away
from localised, intranational norms towards a ‘native-like’ performance”.
12.3 The Current Debate
Against the background of the various factors that contribute to the complex and
complicated situation of divergent norm-orientations and different models of
language standards in present-day Sri Lankan English, it is no surprise that the
questions of what kind of English is considered to be correct or acceptable, what
kind of English should be used and codified, and what kind of English should
be taught and learned in school, are hotly debated in Sri Lanka. There are two
particularly prominent events that instigated the current debate on standards and
norms of Sri Lankan English: the publication of Meyler’s (2007) Dictionary of
Sri Lankan English, and the English as a Life Skill initiative launched by the
Sri Lankan Government in 2008.
12.3.1 Meyler’s (2007) Dictionary of Sri Lankan English
Meyler’s (2007) Dictionary of Sri Lankan English sparked off a lot of interest
amongst linguists, language-teaching professionals and laymen. In general, linguists
have welcomed the first systematic attempt to codify some of the major lexical
peculiarities of Sri Lankan English that can be found in L1 speakers’ and competent
L2 speakers’ use of English in Sri Lanka. The value of this dictionary, which is a
usage guide rather than a dictionary, is described by Raheem (2007, p. viii) as follows:
“This ‘Dictionary’ […] charts the social and cultural nuances of the words and
phrases that we use, nuances that we as Sri Lankans are scarcely aware of. It pinpoints
Sri Lankan usage of grammatical structures and compares it with British usage, vividly
demonstrating that our English is distinct in a number of ways” (Raheem 2007, p. viii).
The following two sample entries illustrate this contrastive description of Standard
Sri Lankan English usage: all the examples in the dictionary are taken from a corpus
of Sri Lankan fiction writing in English:
to make somebody to do something
to make somebody do something ° That really made me to think. ° On the whole there was
a feeling of cordiality between teachers and students, which did not make the students to
hate or dislike them.
next day morning
the next morning ° Next day morning we went back to the rock.
(Meyler 2007, pp. 159, 178)
A number of language-teaching professionals, and especially many Sri Lankans

outside the inner posse of the linguistic sciences and language pedagogy, however,
take issue with Meyler’s (2007) dictionary, as it is viewed as an attempt to raise a
localised non-standard variant, seemingly marked by learner errors, to a new standard
which would undermine Sri Lankan speakers’ British English target model. The
following quotation is taken from a recent debate in two leading national Sri Lankan
newspapers and magazines, namely The Sunday Observer and Groundviews:
Meyler seems to believe that codifying non-standard English, especially the Sri Lankan
variety/varieties is the foundation on which the non-standard will cross swords with the
“standard” (shall I call it “Snooty English”?). I am not so sure. […] [The Dictionary] can
give the Sri Lankan speaker a false sense of security and achievement while leaving intact
the relevant class distinctions and tyrannies pertaining to and flowing from language. It can
all end up in a massive Orientalist party with halfwits praising one another for raising the
banner of mediocrity. (Seneviratne 2010a)
Above and beyond the rhetoric of linguistic imperialism and the complaint about
falling standards in the future, this position points to the observation that for a number
of speakers in Sri Lanka a localised variant of English is not (yet?) an acceptable
standard variety to be used, let alone codified. Against the background of persistent
ambinormative orientations, this does not come as a surprise. What is unexpected,
however, is Seneviratne’s (2010b) insistence on the Sri Lankan English Standard
being described and codified by Sri Lankans: “[W]e are talking about Sri Lankan
English and […] there’s something being advocated for Sri Lankans. I am a Sri Lankan.
I may be wrong, but I think I ought to have more say in matters Sri Lankan than a
200 J. Mukherjee
Brit, surely?” (Seneviratne 2010b). This is representative of a number of postings

that argue that Non-Sri Lankans are not entitled to describe Sri Lankan English
usage and contribute to the codification of what the standard variant of Sri Lankan
English is. It is not astonishing that in the Sri Lankan context, in which language
conflicts have been an integral part of all post-Independence ethnic conflicts, and in
which language politics has always been influenced by ideological and political
agendas, the question of what variant of English is codified – and by whom – has raised
a controversial debate.
In a sense, much of the ill-informed and implausible criticism in Sri Lanka of
Meyler’s (2007) dictionary is the mirror image of Quirk’s (1990) well-known critical
view of what was labelled “liberation linguistics” – what they have in common is
the shared worry that by describing and accepting non-native Englishes as full-
fledged varieties with their own endonormative potential, the English language in
postcolonial settings will deteriorate, and “deficits” and “errors” will become more
and more wide-spread.
Generally speaking, the current debate following the publication of Meyler’s
(2007) Dictionary of Sri Lankan English is marked by two major issues:
• What is the standard form of Sri Lankan English that should be taught and
learned in school?
• Who is entitled to describe and codify the Standard form of Sri Lankan English?
The first question addresses issues of linguistic schizophrenia and the complaint
tradition that is characteristic of many postcolonial contexts in which English is in
the process of on-going nativisation and endonormative standardisation. The second
question raises issues of linguistic power-relations, and refers to a wide-spread
worry that in the postcolonial world a new kind of “linguistic imperialism” aims at
stabilising the power and influence of native speakers of English by promoting non-
native and deficient standards in outer-circle countries.
12.3.2 The Governmental Initiative English as a Life Skill (2008)
Because of the growing importance of the English language for the global job market
and international collaborations, the Government of Sri Lanka decided in 2008 to
review its previous focus on the indigenous languages (in particular Sinhala) as
the medium of instruction in the education system. In 2008, English as a Life Skill,
a job-oriented language education programme, was launched, intended to provide
systematic training for a large number of English language teachers so that the number
of competent speakers of English across the island could be raised significantly
within a short period of time.
In the first phase of the English as a Life Skill programme, which ended in 2010,
80 master trainers and 320 assistant trainers were trained, who in turn provided
training programmes for 60% of the 22,500 English language teachers in Sri Lanka.
Interestingly, the master trainers and the assistant trainers were trained at the English
and Foreign Languages University (EFLU) in Hyderabad, India. In addition, the
teaching materials that are used in the programme are also imported from India.
The focus of the programme is on speaking and communications skills both for
formal and informal situations, and with a special emphasis on communicative
contexts that are relevant to English in professional contexts. Students taking part
in the programme are provided with special grants. The Guardian Weekly reported on
the launch of the first phase of the programme as follows:
President Mahinda Rajapaksa last month invited leading language training providers from
India to meet Sri Lankan investors to explore joint ventures at a three-day “English Teaching
Business Mela” in Colombo. The “English as a Life Skill” initiative is intended to provide
special loans to 50,000 young people aged between 18 and 24 over three years, helping
them access training in work-related English skills. Sunimal Fernando, who is coordinating
the initiative, said: “India has emerged as the country which now has the most successful
methods for teaching job-oriented English – English without the social and cultural baggage”.
(The Guardian Weekly – Learning English, 23 May, 2008)
Fernando seems to assume that there is no colonial baggage that is linked to the
Indian variety of English, which makes it more acceptable in the Sri Lankan context
than the historical input variety of British English. Whether this is true or not, in the
light of the on-going debate on which standards should be set for Sri Lankan English
and who is entitled to set those standards, the Sri Lankan Government’s decision to
draw on Indian expertise, to have the teacher trainers trained in India, and to use
Indian teaching material, is no doubt courageous. Unsurprisingly, this decision
has also been met with wide-spread hostility, especially as the Government of Sri
Lanka supports the codification of Standard Sri Lankan English along the lines of
Meyler’s (2007) descriptive approach.
The linguistic motto of the English as a Life Skill initiative that is used in
Government publications and in a corresponding media campaign is “Speak English
Our Way”. Sunimal Fernando (2010) comments on the aim of the programme and
campaign as follows:
Our intention was to promote spoken English, with its own unique accent and manner of
pronunciation. English language [sic] was introduced to the world by the English and was
the language of the English people. But, today, English is a global language, and it is no
longer the language of the English people. Our intention was to promote English speaking
in keeping with Sri Lanka’s culture devoid of the old British flavour. Today, we seek to
teach English in our schools and institutions in keeping with our culture, traditions and
customs indigenous to Sri Lanka. It is taught purely as a life skill, and not as a challenge to
our own culture. (Fernando 2010)
What the Government seems to have in mind, then, is a mixture of Sri Lankan
English as an accepted and codified localised variety of English, and a kind of culturally
dissociated lingua franca variant of English as an international language.
A further complication arises from the Government’s orientation towards the
English language as used in India, which Fernando (see above) seems to miscategorise
as a culture-free vehicle for communication. Given the dominant role that India
plays in South Asia in general, and the political influence that India has exerted on
202 J. Mukherjee
Sri Lanka – especially in the 1980s when Indian peace troops were stationed in the
North and West of Sri Lanka – it does not come as a surprise that the orientation
towards Indian expertise in the English as a Life Skill programme has been heavily
criticised:
I attended the symposium “Speak English Our Way” held at the Bandaranaike Centre for
International Studies (BCIS) on 16 January this year. […] [I]t was intriguing to note that
four of the six […] institutional partners of the forum (and presumably of the entire enterprise
altogether) were from India. One of them is the “English and Foreign Languages University
Hyderabad India” [sic], one of the supposed “expertise providers” to the Speak English
Our Way enterprise. Why do we need Indian expertise to devise methods of speaking it
“OUR way”? It is not “English the Indian Way”, after all. The institutional makeup of this
enterprise is troubling […]. (Boange 2010)
What obviously needs to be clarified in the course of the second phase of the
programme, embedded in the Government’s “National Plan for a Trilingual
Sri Lanka”, is the extent to which methodological expertise from India in stan-
dardising a local variety of English (and teaching it) is utilised, and the extent to
which Indian English as an endonormatively stabilised and the dominant neighbour-
ing model is used as a target model for language teaching and learning.
From a linguistic point of view, the English as a Life Skill initiative is particularly
interesting, not only because of the growing acceptance of the existence of a local
standard which needs to be codified and which may provide the future target model
for English language teaching in Sri Lanka, but also because the influence of Indian
language teaching experts may pave the way for an epicentral influence of Indian
English on Sri Lankan English in the future. The current debate on language standards
and norms in Sri Lanka makes it all the more necessary for the description of actual
language use in Sri Lanka to be based on empirical evidence as provided by large
corpora of Sri Lankan English, to which I will turn in the following section.
12.4 The Role of Linguistic Corpora
The current debate in Sri Lanka on English language standards and norms, as well
as the Government’s initiative to provide a wide-ranging English language training
programme for a much higher number of Sri Lankans than in the past, make it
necessary to think about systematic ways of providing empirically sound, linguis-
tically plausible and socio-culturally and politically acceptable descriptions of the
English language as it really is used by competent Sri Lankan speakers of English
as L1 and L2. It is here that large-scale corpora of Sri Lankan English come into
play: the analysis of linguistic corpora provides an appropriate starting-point for a
truly endonormative model of Sri Lankan English based on usage-based norms,
i.e. generalisations from competent local speakers’ actual usage (cf. Mukherjee
2002). In this context, two corpus-linguistic projects at the University of Giessen
and collaborating institutions seem to be particularly promising: the Sri Lankan
component of the International Corpus of English (ICE-SL), and the South Asian
Varieties of English (SAVE) Corpus.
12.4.1 Corpus-Linguistic Projects: ICE-SL

and the SAVE Corpus
The International Corpus of English (ICE) was launched by Sidney Greenbaum in

the late 1980s and will, in its final version, include more than 25 components, each
representing a regional variety of English (cf. Greenbaum 1996). Native varieties
(e.g. ICE-GB, ICE-New Zealand and ICE-USA), as well as non-native second-
language varieties (e.g. ICE-Hong Kong, ICE-India and ICE-Jamaica), are repre-
sented by individual ICE components. Each component has the same design: every
ICE corpus contains one million words, 60% from spoken language, 40% from
written language, with the same genres represented in the same proportions.
Therefore, ICE corpora are comparable corpora par excellence.
ICE-SL, the Sri Lankan component of ICE, is being compiled at the University
of Giessen in collaboration with the University of Colombo (cf. Mukherjee et al.
2010). It is the first attempt to produce a fully computerised, large-scale and repre-
sentative corpus of present-day spoken and written Sri Lankan English. The 400,000-
word written part has already been completed; Table 12.3 provides an overview
of the genres that are covered by the written component of ICE-SL. The data for the
spoken part are currently being compiled and transcribed; additional external funding
will be needed, however, to complete this part of ICE-SL.
ICE-SL can be compared with other ICE components that have already been
completed, especially ICE-Great Britain and ICE-India. It goes without saying,
however, that the written component of ICE-SL is too small for a range of research
questions, e.g. the description of lexicogrammatical routines (as, for example, in the
area of verb complementation).
In the context of a research project on verb complementation in South Asian varieties
of English, funded by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungs-
gemeinschaft, DFG Project No. MU 1683/3-1) since 2008, we also compiled six
large databases of the major six varieties of English in South Asia, including English
in India and in Sri Lanka. Each national database consists of three million words
from two leading national newspapers each. The newspaper data were obtained
from the web archives of the newspapers from which we downloaded the texts
semi-automatically, utilising the “webpage-to-megacorpus” method described by
Hoffmann (2007). The data were cleaned in various rounds and also checked exten-
sively for duplicates. In the end, we produced an 18-million-word mega-corpus of
written standard newspaper English, the South Asian Varieties of English (SAVE)
Corpus, including six components representing English in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Nepal and the Maldives. The components are comparable: Table 12.4
gives an overview of the sources for the Sri Lankan and the Indian components.
Again, it is possible to analyse the two South Asian varieties and to triangulate the data
with British English data, e.g. the nine-million-word news section from the British
National Corpus (BNC, cf. e.g. Schilk et al. 2012).
With ICE-SL and the Sri Lankan component of the SAVE Corpus, a unique and
unprecedented corpus environment for Sri Lankan English has been produced,
204 J. Mukherjee
Table 12.3 The written component of ICE-SL (complete)

Category Texts Number of words
Student essays (W1A) 20 40,000
Correspondence (W1B) 30 60,000
Academic writing (W2A) 40 80,000
Non-academic writing (W2B) 40 80,000
Press reportage (W2C) 20 40,000
Instructional writing (W2D) 20 40,000
Persuasive writing (W2E) 10 20,000
Creative writing (W2F) 20 40,000
TOTAL 200 400,000
Table 12.4 The SAVE Corpus: the Sri Lankan and the Indian components
Variety Newspaper Number of Words
Sri Lankan English Daily Mirror (DM); 2002–2007 1,518,726
Daily News (DN); 2001–2005 1,528,917
Indian English Times of India (ToI); 2002–2005 1,521,388
The Statesman (ST); 2002–2005 1,511,753
which can serve to describe the lexical, grammatical and morphosyntactic features
of the written standard of the Sri Lankan variety of English. In the following section,
I will illustrate the descriptive potential of our new corpus environment by reporting
on a range of findings obtained from the SAVE Corpus.
12.4.2 Corpus-Based Findings Obtained from the SAVE

Corpus: Case Studies
It has been noted in various studies that many postcolonial Englishes display a
“bookish” flavour even in informal contexts, and retain lexical items that have
become archaic in inner-circle native varieties of English (cf. Mesthrie and Bhatt
2008, pp. 114 ff.). A case in point is the use of the lexical item thrice. As can be seen
in Table 12.5, thrice is hardly ever used in present-day British English, which is
represented here by the entirety of the 100-million-word British National Corpus
(BNC). In Sri Lankan English, however, it is (still?) wide-spread, accounting for
37% of all instances of thrice and three times in the Sri Lankan component of the
SAVE Corpus.
In the light of the figures in Table 12.5, thrice should be viewed as part of standard
acrolectal Sri Lankan English vocabulary. Note in this context that in the Indian data,
thrice represents the preferred choice, accounting for two-thirds of all occurrences
of thrice and three times.
In many intuition-based descriptions of South Asian Englishes (e.g. Nihalani
et al. 2004), it has been noted that the particle verb cope up with is frequently used
Table 12.5 Thrice and three times in Sri Lankan, Indian and British English
SAVE corpus –
Sri Lanka SAVE corpus – India British National Corpus
Thrice 22 (37%) 43 (67%) 47 (2%)
Three times 37 (63%) 21 (33%) 2,364 (98%)
59 (100%) 64 (100%) 2,411 (100%)
Table 12.6 Cope with and cope up with in Sri Lankan, Indian and British English
SAVE corpus – Sri
Lanka SAVE corpus – India British National Corpus
Cope up with 4 (6%) 4 (7%) 0 (0%)
Cope with 61 (94%) 51 (93%) 3,708 (100%)
65 (100%) 55 (100%) 3,708 (100%)
Table 12.7 Committed to V and committed to Ving in Sri Lankan, Indian and British English
SAVE corpus – Sri Lanka SAVE corpus – India British National Corpus
Committed to V 66 (56%) 20 (69%) 100 (16%)
Committed to 51 (44%) 9 (31%) 537 (84%)
Ving
117 (100%) 29 (100%) 637 (100%)
instead of cope with (e.g. in he coped (up) with the problem). As Table 12.6 reveals,
this form cannot be found in the BNC at all; it does not appear to exist in British
English. What is surprising is the fact that it hardly ever occurs in Sri Lankan English
either: it seems that in this particular case there is no major difference at the level
of the standard language between Sri Lankan and British English: cope with is
the standard variant in Sri Lankan and British English. The same holds true for
Indian English.
An interesting case at the level of lexicogrammar is provided by the verbal
complementation of committed to, which can be either the infinitive or the ing-form
(e.g. in she was committed to support(ing) him). As Table 12.7 shows, there is a
clear preference for the ing-form in British English. In Sri Lankan English, on the
other hand, the two variants are more evenly distributed (56 and 44%, respectively).
Thus, both variants should be viewed as admissible standard forms in Sri Lankan
English. In the Indian data, the distributional pattern and the overall preferences are
similar to Sri Lankan English, but with a more pronounced preference for infinitival
complementation.
In general, the findings reported on in Tables 12.5, 12.6, and 12.7 show a range
of more or less different patternings of linguistic forms across the three varieties.
What they have in common, however, is the fact that the innovative – or retained –
forms (thrice, cope up with, committed to V) occur in both South Asian Englishes
with similar tendencies, sometimes in contradistinction to British English (in the
case of thrice and committed to V), sometimes not (in the case of cope up with).
206 J. Mukherjee
While linguistic corpora lend themselves to such quantitative descriptions of

preferred and dispreferred forms, they also provide a database for the identification
of low-frequency forms that are interesting because they may indicate the incipient
use of forms and structures that may at some point in the future become standardised.
Sometimes these incipient low-frequency forms are clearly variety-specific innovations.
A case in point is the use of take a (phone) call with the meaning of make a (phone)
call in Sri Lankan English:
(1) One day I meet the Korean executive who works for the garment factory close
by, when he comes to take a phone call to my Aunt’s house. (SAVE-Daily
News, 15.12.2001)
(2) “They got hold of Ranga (Wimalawansa) and I managed to escape and run to
the nearest telephone booth to take a telephone call to our coach and report the
incident”, he said. (SAVE-Daily News, 20.12.2001)
(3) But when I asked to take a call to my office I was told that both parties were
tapping the line. (SAVE-Daily News, 20.2.2002)
The reason for this use of take, which cannot be found in the Indian component of
the SAVE Corpus, is most likely due to the interference from the two major substrate
languages in Sri Lanka, namely Sinhala and Tamil. In both languages, the equivalent
of English take (namely ganne and edukke, respectively) can be used in the sense of
“make a call”. In other words, in Sri Lankan English, influence of the first language
(either Sinhala or Tamil) is likely to have produced a semantic broadening of take as
exemplified in the usage under (1) to (3)1. Given the recurrent use of this phrase
in the highly edited language of Sri Lankan newspapers, it seems that take a call
with this particular meaning should be viewed as emerging standard usage in the
Sri Lankan context.
12.5 Concluding Remarks
I would like to wrap up the present chapter with a few concluding remarks:
• Firstly, it has been shown that ambinormative orientations with regard to standards
and norms in present-day Sri Lankan English are the result of the complex interplay
of various factors, including the changing language policies in the post-Independence
period, the unclear status of English, the power relations between the various
variants of Sri Lankan English, and the potential epicentral influence of Indian
English.
• Secondly, I have tried in the present chapter to contextualise the current debate
on standards and norms in Sri Lanka, which seems to have been fuelled by two
major events and developments: the publication of Meyler’s (2007) Dictionary of
Sri Lankan English and the Government of Sri Lanka’s English as a Life Skill
initiative, linked to the campaign “Speak English Our Way”.
1
Prof. Ruqaiya Raheem (personal communication).
• Finally, I hope to have shown and illustrated how large-scale corpora of written
Sri Lankan English can help to put the description and codification of the standard
variant of Sri Lankan English on an empirical footing. The analysis of acrolectal
newspaper language as included in the SAVE Corpus is particularly relevant in
this context.
It is to be hoped that in the second phase of the English as a Life Skill initiative,
corpus-based descriptions of Sri Lankan English will be utilised to a much greater
extent than in the past. An empirical approach to the description of language standards
is particularly important in a socio-cultural context that has been characterised far
too long by the use and abuse of languages and language policies as weapons.
References
Bernaisch, T. 2012. Attitudes towards Englishes in Sri Lanka. World Englishes 31: 279–291.
Boange, D. 2010. The bowl-or-ball dilemma of rubbishing English standards, The Sunday Observer,
6 June 2010. http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2010/06/06mon08.asp. Accessed 1 Dec 2010.
Bolton, K. 2008. English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today 24:
3–12.
Fernando, S. 2003. The vocabulary of Sri Lankan English: Words and phrases that transform a
foreign language into their own. Paper presented at the 9th international conference on Sri
Lankan Studies, Matara, 28–30 Nov 2003.
Fernando, S. 2010. Promoting English as a life skill: Interview with Sunimal Fernando. Daily
News, 19 July 2010. http://www.dailynews.lk/2010/07/19fea01.asp. Accessed 1 Dec 2010.
Fonseka, E.A.G. 2003. Sri Lankan English: Exploding the fallacy. Paper presented at the 9th
international conference on Sri Lankan Studies, Matara, 28–30 Nov 2003.
Goonetilleke, D.C.R.A. 2003. The interface of language, literature and politics in Sri Lanka:
A paradigm for ex-colonies of Britain. In The politics of English as a world language: New
horizons in postcolonial cultural studies, ed. C. Mair, 337–358. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Greenbaum, S. 1996. Comparing English worldwide: The international corpus of English. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Gunesekera, M. 2006. Why teach Sri Lankan English in a multilingual environment? In English in
the multilingual environment, ed. H. Ratwatte and S. Herath, 29–45. Colombo: SLELTA.
Herat, M. 2005. BE variation in Sri Lankan English. Language Variation and Change 17: 181–208.
Hoffmann, S. 2007. From web-page to mega-corpus: The CNN transcripts. In Corpus linguistics
and the web, ed. M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf, and C. Biewer, 69–85. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hoffmann, S., M. Hundt, and J. Mukherjee. 2011. Indian English – an emergent epicentre? A pilot
study on light verbs in web-derived corpora of South Asian Englishes. Anglia 129(2): 258–280.
Kachru, B. 1992. Models for non-native Englishes. In The other tongue: English across cultures,
ed. B. Kachru, 48–74. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Künstler, V., D. Mendis, and J. Mukherjee. 2009. English in Sri Lanka: Language functions and
speaker attitudes. Anglistik – International Journal of English Studies 20(2): 57–74.
Leitner, G. 1992. English as a pluricentric language. In Pluricentric languages: Differing norms in
different nations, ed. M. Clyne, 179–237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leitner, G. 2004. Australia’s many voices: Australian English – the national language. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Mendis, D., and H. Rambukwella. 2010. Sri Lankan Englishes. In The Routledge handbook of
world Englishes, ed. A. Kirkpatrick, 181–196. London: Routledge.
208 J. Mukherjee
Mesthrie, R., and R.M. Bhatt. 2008. World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyler, M. 2007. A dictionary of Sri Lankan English. Colombo: Meyler.
Mukherjee, J. 2002. Norms for the Indian English classroom: A corpus-linguistic perspective.
Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(2): 63–82.
Mukherjee, J. 2007. Steady states in the evolution of new Englishes: Present-day Indian English as
an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics 35: 157–187.
Mukherjee, J. 2008. Sri Lankan English: Evolutionary status and epicentral influence from Indian
English. In Anglistentag 2007 Münster: Proceedings, ed. K. Stierstorfer, 359–368. Trier: WVT.
Mukherjee, J., M. Schilk, and T. Bernaisch. 2010. Compiling the Sri Lankan component of ICE:
Principles, problems, prospects. ICAME Journal 34: 64–77.
Nihalani, P., R.K. Tongue, and P. Hosali. 2004. Indian and British English: A handbook of usage
and pronunciation, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peters, P. 2009. Australian English as a regional epicenter. In World Englishes: Problems, properties
and prospects, ed. T. Hoffmann and L. Siebers, 107–124. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Quirk, R. 1990. Language varieties and standard language. English Today 6: 3–10.
Raheem, R. 2007. Foreword. In A dictionary of Sri Lankan English, ed. M. Meyler, vii–viii.
Colombo: Meyler.
Schilk, M. 2006. Collocations in Indian English: A corpus-based sample analysis. Anglia 124(2):
276–316.
Schilk, M., T. Bernaisch, and J. Mukherjee. 2012. Mapping unity and diversity in South Asian
English lexicogrammar: Verb-complementational preferences across varieties. In Mapping unity
and diversity worldwide: Corpus-based studies of New Englishes ed. M. Hundt and U. Gut,
137–165. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schneider, E.W. 2003. The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth.
Language 79(2): 233–281.
University Press.
Seneviratne, M. 2010a. Sri Lankan English: Another snooty English speakers’ [sic] project?
The Sunday Observer, 23 May, 2010. http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2010/05/23/mon05.asp.
Accessed 1 Dec 2010.
Seneviratne, M. 2010b. A public apology to Michael Meyler. Groundviews, 11 July, 2010. http://
www.groundviews.org/2010/07/11/mon05.asp/a-public-apology-to-michael meyler/. Accessed
1 Dec 2010.
Wijesinha, R. 2003. Bringing back the bathwater: New initiatives in English policy in Sri Lanka.
In The politics of English as a world language: New horizons in postcolonial cultural studies,
ed. C. Mair, 367–374. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Chapter 13
Authenticity of English in Asian Popular Music
Andrew Moody
13.1 Introduction
Popular music is frequently judged according to its authenticity. When it was

revealed that the pop duo Milli Vanilli had not actually performed on the recordings
that were attributed to the two members, Fab Morvan and Rob Pilatus, the media
reaction was swift and severe. Although the Academy did not withdraw their three
American Music Awards (i.e. Grammies), individuals who bought copies of singles,
LPs, CDs or concert tickets of the duo were granted partial refunds as damages in a
class-action consumer fraud lawsuit. We might say, therefore, that authenticity in
popular music is not only valued by consumers, but protected by the law; inauthentic
recordings may be considered as fraudulent, and punitive damages may be awarded
for recordings that are not what they purport to be.
But most musicians and fans would recognise that this is one possible stand
to take about authenticity, and that the example of Milli Vanilli is an unusual one.
The two performers who accepted the Grammy for the performance were not
performing in a style that was inauthentic; they were not performing at all. When
looking at authenticity there are, therefore, a number of issues to be considered that
do not go to the extreme of fraudulence. “Linguistic authenticity” is one such type
of authenticity. In his recent account of his rise to international prominence as a part
of the rap duo Silibil N’ Brains – a group that never released a CD and was built
upon the lie that the two partners were rappers from California, not Scotland –
Gavin Bain documents the group’s development after they had been laughed out of
an audition and a producer’s office and told that they “sound like the rapping
Proclaimers” (Bain 2010, p. 58). The audience and the record company representatives
A. Moody (*)
English Department, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau
e-mail: amoody@umac.mo

210 A. Moody
felt that the group’s “authentic” Scottish accents were inappropriate for the style of
music that was being performed. Instead, Bain began experimenting with using an
American accent when rapping as a more “appropriate accent” (p. 84). Bain notes
that this is the usual practice among Scottish acts (except, interestingly, The
Proclaimers) in many different genres; performers may use their “authentic” accents
in every aspect of the business other than the musical performance, where they
instead adopt an American “mid-Atlantic accent” (p. 84). In this way, the appropriated
accent is seen as a more “authentic” part of the genre, even when it is not authentically
part of the performer.
Bain and his partner Billy Boyd, however, felt that it would not be enough when
performing hip hop music to simply adopt the accent of the genre. Instead, they felt
that they would have markedly better success as rappers if they could portray them-
selves as Americans. So they created a back-story that they were from Torrence,
California, and, according to an interview with Gain Bain, the way that the duo were
perceived changed instantly:
These lyrics were just the same when we did them again in American accents […] There
was nothing different, and all of a sudden, people were saying, “Oh, wow. They’re just as
good as Eminem”. But in the Scottish accent, they’re saying, “Oh, no. They don’t have any
talent”. (Gavin Bain, qtd. in NPR Staff 2010)
As a result of the change in accent and the concocted story to go along with it,
Silibil N’ Brains were awarded a US$350,000 recording contract. However, the duo
never released any recordings, and Bain’s book describes how the deception eventu-
ally destroyed Boyd and Bain’s relationship.
Towards the end of the volume, though, Bain describes the moment and the
decision on stage to both end the lie and to assert his linguistic and national iden-
tity in his new band, Hopeless Heroic. Bain had ridden atop the promise of
Silibil N’ Brains’s success to form a new band, but without his band mates ever
knowing that he was not an American rapper. As they began to play the opening
song of their first show Bain announced to the band and his audience his true
identity:
“We’re Hopeless Heroic”, I said, not in my affected accent, but in my broad, natural one,
and with pride. “I’m Gavin Bain and […]” My mouth was dry. I took a breath. “And I’m not
American, I’m Scottish”.
I dared a glace at Grant on guitar, who was watching me curiously, as if waiting for the
punchline to a joke he didn’t get. I turned to face the crowd again as “Become the Monster”
took off, and I sang out loud in my own voice – at last. (p. 273)
The moment of linguistic freedom, which Bain interestingly describes as using a

“natural” voice, comes as a moment of liberation from the 5 years of lies and decep-
tions that are documented in the memoir. Bain had successfully appropriated what
EMI Records believed was the “authentic” voice of a rapper, only to leave it behind
in the end because it entailed that he also pretend to an inauthentic identity.
Nevertheless, the American accent, which was not authentic to Boyd and Bain, was
associated with the musical style in a way that lent appropriateness and authenticity
to the musical performance.
13 Authenticity of English in Asian Popular Music 211
In this example of dialect in pop music, then, judgements about the relationship
between dialect and music revolve around authenticity. The first is the judgement
that Scottish English is inappropriate for the style of music, and that if American
English is used instead, the performers become more authentic rappers. The second
judgement, however, is that the performance of rap in American English is not
authentic to the identity of the two performers, and this is why Bain and Boyd’s
third partner in their first incarnation of the band Oliver decided to leave the group
when they were planning to perform in American accents. In order to perform hip
hop music that a record company, and perhaps listeners, would find authentic, the
duo had to adopt accents and identities that were not, in fact, authentic.
13.2 Authenticity in Language
The question of authenticity in sociolinguistic data has been one that has been under
constant scrutiny within sociolinguistic research, and much of dialectology, too (see
discussion in Moody 2010). In his ground-breaking work on the social stratification
of post-vocalic /r/ in New York City, Labov (1972) introduces the notion of the
“Observer’s Paradox”: the simple idea that the act of observing linguistic data will
compel speakers to alter the form and provide inauthentic speech. Labov (1972)
argues that sociolinguistic methodology should focus on developing analyses that
will account for the Observer’s Paradox:
[…] our goal is to observe the way people use language when they are not being observed.
All of our methods involve an approximation to this goal: when we approach from two
different directions, and get the same result, we can feel confident that we have reached
past the Observer’s Paradox to the structure that exists independently of the analyst.
(Labov 1972, pp. 61–62)
Labov’s account of sociolinguistic methodology does not claim that authentic

speech can be sampled; instead, he suggests that all sociolinguistic methods will be
affected to some degree by the Observer’s Paradox. However, the curious claim here
suggests that “structures” of behaviour may exist behind the realm of what the soci-
olinguist observes. To “reach past” the observable speech will lead the sociolinguist
to the style of speech that is use when they are absent, and this style is in fact the
authentic style.
In an examination of the role of authenticity in language, Mary Bucholtz (2003)
traces the emphasis on authenticity that is found in Labov to the Romantic period
and notions about rural and pastoral lifestyles that came to influence the study of
dialectology:
In its political guise, Romanticism sought to locate the underpinnings of the European
nation in the spirit of its people – particularly the peasants whose culture supposedly
remained untouched by urbanity. In its scholarly guise, Romanticism valorized the rural
population as the authentic source of traditional cultural knowledge and practice, including
language. Dialectology furthered both of these efforts (Bucholtz 2003, p. 399).
212 A. Moody
Although sociolinguistics revises dialectology’s preference for rural speech com-

munities and instead pursues the examination of language in urban environments
(e.g. “social dialectology” was largely subsumed into the study of sociolinguistics),
sociolinguistics did inherent from dialectology an emphasis on collecting speech
that is “spontaneous” and “naturally occurring”.
There is, however, a potential circularity that may result from the attention to
spontaneous and naturally occurring language as more authentic than other types of
speech. If a particular speaker or language sample does not return the expected result,
the sociolinguist may simply dismiss the speaker or the recording as inauthentic and
move to one that does display the expected socially stratified characteristics. Authentic
speech potentially becomes speech that supports a hypothesis, and speech that does
not support the hypothesis can simply be dismissed with insufficient consideration as
inauthentic. The pursuit of authenticity in the collection of sociolinguistic data, how-
ever, has recently been questioned on both practical and theoretical levels. Describing
the excessive emphasis given to authenticity in sociolinguistics, Nikolas Coupland
(2003) argues that the examination of speakers and languages as “authentic” implies
that there should also be “inauthentic” speakers and languages:
In fact, my starting point is that sociolinguistics has invested very heavily – and arguably
too heavily – in the view that some sorts of language and some sorts of speaker are
authentic, and that it has thought them more valuable for being more authentic. (Coupland
2003, p. 418)
The value endowed to authentic speakers and language is certainly similar to the
way that consumer popular culture also values authenticity of recordings. Whereas
Milli Vanilli’s inauthentic recordings, however, were considered as fraudulent, it is
unlikely that a speaker or a recording would be considered “fraudulent” in a socio-
linguistic study. Fraudulence is a judgement that is reserved for only the most hei-
nous cases of manufacturing or counterfeiting of data. But this does not seem to the
kind of behaviour that was described by Silibil N’ Brains’ adoption of American
accents above. While the accents may not be their own, Boyd and Bain authentically
performed them, and, as illustrated above, inauthentic voices may be deemed as
appropriate. The excessive emphasis on authenticity in sociolinguistics, therefore,
misses many possible instances of appropriate language that is neither spontaneous
nor naturally occurring. Coupland (2003) continues to note that some styles are
overlooked, arguing that “playful, ironic, quotative or other ‘performing’ informants
have, until recently, been either hard to conceive or easy to ignore in sociolinguis-
tics” (Coupland 2003, p. 423). The re-examination of language from popular culture
genres, however, has driven much of the recent reconsiderations of performance
varieties as authentic.
Pop culture genres – and none more so than those performed in English –
showcase the performance of language, and with it a performance of identities. One
of the earliest papers to examine this type of performativity of identity was Trudgill’s
(1983) investigation of dialect in British pop music. Although Trudgill linked the
performance of dialect with a somewhat unexplored conceptualisation of identity, the
importance of this study lies in the fact that it explored authentic and inauthentic
languages as the basis for the development of a national identity. Trudgill uses an
early version of LePage and Tabouret-Keller’s (1985) “acts of identity” framework

in order to argue that British pop musicians who were singing in American accents
gradually shifted to British accents during the 1960s. In terms of identity, LePage
and Tabouret-Keller explain how the “acts of identity” framework can function:
The speaker is projecting his inner universe, implicitly with the invitation to others to share
it, at least insofar as they recognise his language as an accurate symbolization of the world,
and to share his attitude towards it. (LePage and Tabouret-Keller 1985, p. 181)
Using this framework Trudgill argues that for British pop bands “the motivation
towards the American model diminished from 1964 on” (Trudgill 1983, p. 154).
Unfortunately, the fuller versions of the “acts of identity” approach allowed for the
possibility that listeners – in this case popular culture consumers – may choose to
accept or reject the singers’ symbolisation. This interactive role between artist and
audience and the acts of identity that authenticate performances prove to be a much
more interesting approach to the use of English in Asian song.
13.3 Authenticity in Music
Authenticity, explains Walter Benjamin, relies on the fact that an object is uniquely
transmitted through historical experience and has the ability to pay testimony to
the past:
The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning,
ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced.
Since the historical testimony rests on the authenticity, the former, too, is jeopardized by
reproduction when substantive duration ceases to matter. (Benjamin 1970, p. 223)
Although Benjamin is referring more directly to the relationship between a work of

art such as a sculpture or a painting and the ability to photograph the work, the
importance of historicising musical performance is also important for popular
music. It is difficult to refute the authenticity of a live musical performance, and
there is little need for an audience to validate that authenticity. However, the intro-
duction of recording technology to the performance introduces the possibility that,
as with Milli Vanilli’s recordings, a performance may have been fraudulently produced.
Therefore, within a popular culture that trades millions of musical recordings on
a regular basis, the consumer – who is, in fact, a member of the audience – may
consider what factors make the recording authentic, or not.
It is rare to find music that is not authentically recorded by the artist(s) who
purport(s) to perform it, and, indeed, the law protects against such inauthentic types
of recording. There are, however, other types of authenticity that might be repre-
sented in music and popular culture. In their discussion of authenticity in popular
music, Barker and Taylor refer to three different types of authenticity:
When people say a musical performance or recording is authentic, they might refer to
representational authenticity, or music that is exactly what it says it is – unlike, say Milli
Vanilli posing as singers, which they weren’t. They might refer to cultural authenticity,
214 A. Moody
or music that reflects a cultural tradition – the traditional black guitarist and singer
Mississippi John Hurt’s version of “Stagger Lee”, an old African American song about an
outlaw, is more culturally authentic than the Grateful Dead’s. They might refer to the
personal authenticity, or music that reflects the person or people who are making it –
when Ozzy Osbourne sings “Iron Man”, he tells us nothing about his own life, but when
Loretta Lynn sings “Coal Miner’s Daughter”, she tells a lot. (Barker and Taylor 2007, p. x;
emphasis added)
The first of these three types of authenticity does not really concern us when looking
at the linguistic authenticity of music. A pop song can be treated as belonging to the
singer who produces it or to the community that consumes it, or both. And, while it
is clearly a tension within a work of popular culture that can be examined linguisti-
cally, it is not clearly important to the examination of a performance. For example,
with regard to Silibil N’ Brains, it does not matter that the representational authen-
ticity of the rappers was compromised by the lies they told about themselves being
high school dropouts from California. This may have altered the way that the record
company dealt with them, but their application of a false linguistic accent to their
music was instead an attempt to find cultural authenticity within their performance.
Similarly, Bain’s ultimate rejection of the performance of an American accent on
stage with his new band was an act of personal authenticity.
Authenticity within popular music has become an important value that performers
and consumers both find to be necessary. Simon Frith describes the special impor-
tance of authenticity in popular music:
Good music is the authentic expression of something – a person, an idea, a feeling, a shared
experience, a Zeitgeist. Bad music is inauthentic – it expresses nothing. The most common
term of abuse in rock criticism is “bland” – bland music has nothing in it and is made only
to be commercially pleasing. (Frith 1987, p. 136)
Nevertheless, Lawrence Grossberg underscores the importance of authenticity as an

ethic by arguing that, with the demise of rock culture, there has been a deterioration
of the ideology of authenticity within rock culture:
I am claiming instead that the ideology of authenticity is increasingly irrelevant to contem-
porary taste, that the difference no longer makes a difference, that the history of rock is no
longer convincingly constructed on the traditional cyclical map. And consequently, the way
in which rock matters, its place in the fan’s everyday life, is changing […]. If the ideology
of authenticity is becoming irrelevant, then the difference doesn’t matter and we can, in
very noticeable ways, become rather blasé about the configurations of rock taste. In fact, as
many critics have pointed out recently, there is a very real “crisis of taste” in rock culture
where, even for the fan, no single version of rock taste seems any truer than any other.
(Grossberg 1993, p. 203)
The issue of authenticity in Asian pop music, therefore, is framed here within a
more general discussion of authenticity in music and how various communities find
the “ethic” or the “ideology” of authenticity to be valuable for their performance.
The desire to appear “authentic” is an aesthetic quality that both pop culture art-
ists and fans have come to expect from pop culture performances. The pursuit of
authenticity, however, is frequently in opposition to the commercial considerations
that define much of pop culture: “authentic” performances are often not commer-
cially successful nor popular. There is, therefore, a tension between “authenticity”
and “popularity” that appears within any of the various popular culture media:
movies, television, music, etc. In addition, there are various ways that popular
culture performances may be deemed as “authentic”, and these ways may not always
be compatible with one another. This paper “linguistic authenticity” as an aesthetic
dimension of popular music and discuss some of the ways that the pursuit of
“linguistic authenticity” in Asian pop music might be at odds with the commercial
“popularity” of the performance, or might be complementary to commercial
success.
However, English is used across Asia with varying degrees of proficiency, and
with vastly different sociolinguistic (i.e. attitudinal) meanings across different Asian
pop cultures. The use, therefore, of an “authentic” English is by no means the same
from culture to culture. For example:
(i) Ethnic varieties of English that have been closely associated with particular
musical genres (e.g. African American English with hip hop music, London
Urban English with punk, etc.) are borrowed into Asian pop music, or the
speech styles may influence Asian speech styles.
(ii) Speech practices (e.g. code-switching, code mixing) that are somewhat stig-
matised within the society generally may be adopted within the pop music
with varying effects. Similarly, the same speech practices, although socially
acceptable, may be avoided in pop music.
(iii) Local varieties of English may be adopted or specifically avoided for particular
varying local effect.
There are, therefore, a variety of linguistic practices across Asia, and these prac-
tices are not easily unified in a comprehensive statement of how English functions
within different Asian popular cultures, or how it is received as a form of popular
culture. Instead, the cultural value of “authenticity” – and, especially, “linguistic
authenticity” – can be seen as a constant within pop music performance across Asia.
13.4 Asian Popular Music and Authentic English Performances
In an overview of the role of popular culture within the spread of global languages –
languages like English, French, Chinese or Arabic – Pennycook (2010) notes that
the study of language within popular culture potentially informs the study of identity:
[…] a study of popular cultures (cultural forms that have wide public appeal), popular
languages (languages and styles that emerge in popular usage), and global identities
(transcultural identifications made possible by global popular cultures and languages)
allows for the study of how the take-up of different languages made possible by popular
culture has significant implications for new forms of identification: not just new possible
alignments along old linguistic lines, but rather new possibilities of local/global affiliation,
which have not been imagined before. (p. 592)
The development of what Pennycook calls “popular languages” – languages of pop-

ular culture – is made possible by a number of different factors in Asia: the historic
216 A. Moody
development of growing middle class societies; the spread of popular culture across
various low-cost and free media, such as radio, television and print; and the “flow”
of cultural forms to and from the West and Asia. Pennycook has argued elsewhere
that transcultural flows are defined by “ways in which cultural forms move, change,
and are reused to fashion new identities in diverse contexts” (2007, p. 6). In the
same way that American musical forms flowed from North America to England in
the 1950s and 1960s to inspire a new generation of British musicians to perform
rock ‘n’ roll, musical forms also flowed into Asia. The so-called “British invasion”
of rock and pop acts from the UK to the US, however, was the second part of the
transcultural flow, when cultural forms flowed back to the US (see Miles 2009).
Similarly, musical forms and performance styles flowed from the West – and espe-
cially from English-speaking cultures – into various cultures in Asia, as noted by
Lockard (1998):
The flood of Anglo-American music around the world in the 1950s and 1960s influenced
local musicians but did not prevent them from developing their own styles, adapted to their
own cultures. The result has been transculturation, where individual music cultures pick up
elements from transcultural music – but also some national and local music cultures
contribute to transcultural music. The resulting process is characterized by a two-way flow.
(pp. 49–50; emphasis in original)
The consolidation of transcultural music elements – elements that may include lin-
guistic performance – alongside of local music elements represents what Lockard
calls the “two-way flow” of elements. This, however, does not fully represent the
way that cultural forms travel back and forth between cultures. Instead, a type of
ebb and flow can develop between the cultures, and this is at least in part what has
happened with Asian music. After transcultural music flows from the West into
Asia, Asian English flows (i.e. or ebbs) back into Western cultures. This, however,
raises various questions about the “authenticity” of a performer and performance
and possible conflicts between the cultural authenticity of a musical genre and
incumbent styles and the personal authenticity of the performer and their language.
In each of the three examples of cultural flow of English-influenced music and per-
formance styles cited below the Asian performers and audiences actively authenti-
cate their English in order to perform in a style that will be viewed as commercially
and critically “authentic” according to the standards discussed above. This exami-
nation of how “authenticity” can be interpreted variably in Asia will look at the
work of three Asian musical acts: Love Psychedelico from Japan, Zee Avi from
Malaysia, and Arnel Pineda from the Philippines and his work with Journey.
13.5 Love Psychedelico
English lyrics in Japanese pop (J-pop) music have frequently been noted to be
important statements of ethnolinguistic and cultural identity (Stanlaw 2004; Moody
2006). Throughout the discussion of English lyrics in J-pop music, there does not
seem to be a clear single function for English lyrics. English lyrics may function to
express feminine or other identities, as describe by Stanlaw (2000), or they might

fulfil a “ludic” function (see Bolton 2000; Kachru 2006) of “humor, satire, irony,
and simple playfulness” (Kachru 2006, p. 224). This is much of what Moody and
Matsumoto (2003) made of the mixing of English into Japanese, where the pronun-
ciation of Japanese in Love Psychedelico songs was affected and intended to sound
stereotypically like the Japanese of an English speaker, or at least a non-native
speaker of Japanese.
A number of fans and critics of Love Psychedelico have also commented on the
Japanese pronunciation of songs, which are never without English lyrics blended
into the song. For example, a recent review of Love Psychedelico has the following
to say about Kumi’s vocal performance:
The most remarkable thing about Love Psychedelico would have to be the Sheryl Crow-
esque vocals of Kumi. The influences are clear, as she shifts fluently and easily from
Japanese to English in mid-sentence with the strut well intact. The packaging contains
lyrics that expose her almost imperceptible movements from language to language.
(Richardson 2008)
These comments from a Canadian blogger echo various descriptions of Love

Psychedelico’s singing style by Japanese critics. Moody and Matsumoto (2003) cite
Konuki’s (2003) description of the Love Psychedelico song “Last Smile”:
In this song, both Japanese and English exist at the same temperature. That is new.
(This song) goes back and forth between Japanese and English easily and wonderfully.
Moreover, the lyrics don’t seem to be a circus of words, but make good sense. (Konuki
2003, p. 79; cited in Moody and Matsumoto 2003)
Although Konuki’s description of language mixing is neither technical nor clearly

understandable, he clearly admires a kind of balance between English and Japanese
within the song. This balance is represented in the way that English lyrics are mixed
within a text that is primarily Japanese, and it leaves Konuki to say that the song
“goes back and forth” between the two languages. But there has also been an
identifiable effect on the pronunciation of words that may also leave the author to
hold that the two languages “exist at the same temperature”. Whereas the pronun-
ciation of English words is affected by the norms of Japanese, the pronunciation of
Japanese is heavily affected by stereotypical norms of English (Moody and
Matsumoto 2003).
Indeed, the style of vocal performance, especially the Englishised Japanese pro-
nunciation, is difficult for many Japanese speakers to reproduce and, as argued in at
least one web blog, has hindered the growth in the popularity of Love Psychedelico:
70’s psychedelic sounds, great vocal ability, and American Rock; Superfly is very similar to
Love Psychedelico. However, unlike Love Psychedelico, whose songs are more like “west-
ern songs” and not easy to sing [in Karaoke], Superfly’s songs are perfect for young girls to
sing in Karaoke. (Koara 2010)
Love Psychedelico’s vocal performance style, one that is affected to sound like the
Japanese produced by a non-native speaker of Japanese, is difficult to replicate in
karaoke settings. The musical performance is very popular and Love Psychedelico
do enjoy a fair amount of success, but Koara’s comments suggest that other bands
218 A. Moody
that only imitate the musical performance style, such as the neo-psychedelic band
Superfly, may enjoy more popularity because the lyrics are easier to sing when fans
perform karaoke.
In terms of the “acts of identity” that are associated with Love Psychedelico’s
vocal performance, the style of Japanese pronunciation corresponds closely to a
stereotypical “returnee” style of Japanese (Moody and Matsumoto 2003). And the
features of this style are relatively “focused” in the sense that both the performer
and the audience are able to identify the style. In order to respond to the style as a
focused style (i.e. to recognise the features of a returnee’s pronunciation) the audi-
ence is willing and able to authenticate the style and consider Kumi, Love
Psychedelico’s lead singer, as a “returnee”. This process of authentication, however,
does not really reflect the actual facts of Kumi’s overseas experience; authentication
occurs in spite of the actual facts. In a radio interview conducted with “Recording
Express” Kumi explains that she did indeed live in San Francisco for 5 years, from
age 2–7 (Recording Express 2010). Although Kumi does technically qualify as a
“returnee” and she may have had some school experience in the United States before
returning to Japan, her status as a “returnee” is not very recognisable, and it is not
very likely that the time in San Francisco had a deep impact upon her Japanese.
Certainly her spoken Japanese does not display any of the usual features of “returnee”
style speech. Instead, Love Psychedelico’s performance of “returnee” style Japanese
should be considered an ethnic crossing (Rampton 1995).
The response to Love Psychedelico’s vocal performance illustrates the audi-
ence’s role in authenticating a performance. “Returnee” style Japanese is an
actual variety of Japanese that many people have access to, that there are stereo-
typical representations of and that is frequently imitated in popular culture
(Moody 2009). When listening to the “returnee” style a Japanese audience will
project onto the performer the characteristics of the style and in this way authen-
ticate the performance. This act of authentication effectively legitimates the style
as an authentic performance, even when it is not an authentic style otherwise
used by the performer.
13.6 Zee Avi
Zee Avi is a Malaysian singer who primarily performs in English. She first started
recording original songs that she would post on YouTube and My Space until she
was discovered by Patrick Keeler, of the Raconteurs, and signed by Jack Johnson’s
Brushfire record label (NPR Staff 2009). Many of her songs are performed with
ukulele, which accents the playful nature of her lyrics. One example of this is the
song “Kantoi”, which Avi translated from Malay as “busted” (Avi 2011). The song
tells the story of a young woman who tried to call her boyfriend on the mobile
phone only to learn that he was not answering because he was secretly seeing
another girl. The song ends on an unexpected twist of irony by noting that the young
woman knew that her boyfriend’s alibi – that he was with his best friend Tommy – is
false because she herself was secretly seeing Tommy on the side. Unlike Avi’s other
songs, however, this song is written in a mix of English and Malay. In an NPR inter-
view with Guy Raz, Avi notes that the language used is an authentic language that
all Malaysian young people would use:
RAZ: Tell me about the mix of languages in that song, Malay and English. Do a lot of
people understand it?
Ms. AVI: Yeah, I mean, all Malaysians and everything, all Malaysians are at least bilin-
gual. I speak four languages myself, and, you know, that song, that version of the song, it’s
actually – it’s not pure, pure Malay, but it’s, you know, a modernized, you know – it’s how
this generation of, you know, Malaysians speak. And we alternate English and Malay in
a sentence, and you know, the guys told me, yeah, I’ve heard you do that, and, you know,
my band mates tell me, I’ve heard you on the phone with, you know, your parents or your
friends or whatever, and, you know, it sounds kind of like, I kind of understand what you’re
saying, but it’s just sort of in and out. (Raz 2009, emphasis added)
Avi affectionately and laughingly calls the language of the song “Manglish” in
the interview and notes that, although it is not a “pure” language, the song’s
language is an authentic representation of how people of her generation actually
speak.
Unfortunately, Avi has not enjoyed widespread success within Malaysia, and this
may be partly related to the fact that she does not sing in Malay, but in English. The
audience does not authenticate the performance in English, nor in mixed code. Avi’s
claims, therefore, that the language is an actual and authentic language and that this
is the way that young Malaysians actually talk becomes, in fact, an act of authenti-
cation. The language is personally authentic, but it is culturally inappropriate for the
type of performance that is offered, and therefore the audience cannot deem it as an
authentic linguistic performance.
13.7 Arnel Pineda and Journey
One example of how these flows work back and forth between Western musical
traditions and traditions in Asian popular cultures is illustrated by the rock band
Journey. The band was formed in the early 1970s from members who had played in
the band Santana, fronted by guitarist/singer Carlos Santana. When the band hired
Steve Perry in 1977 as a lead singer, they had a string of 17 hits that appeared in the
Billboard Top 40 between 1979 and 1987. With a number of line-up changes, includ-
ing the loss of Steve Perry and replacement by at least two other lead singers, it
appeared that Journey had little hope of future commercial success until December
2007, when the band hired Arnel Pineda to sing lead. Pineda had been the lead
singer in a cover band from The Philippines called The Zoo, and Journey guitarist
Neal Schon first saw him perform 1980s songs – including songs originally recorded
by Journey – on YouTube. After Pineda joined the band, they had successful tours
in 2008 and released Revelation in 2009, their most successful album since 1996’s
Trial by Fire.
220 A. Moody
In terms of Pineda’s personal authenticity, there are few chances for him to per-
form Philippine English as the front man of Journey. Instead, his practice of North
American norms as part of the cultural authenticity of performing 1980s power bal-
lads not only makes him viable as Journey’s lead singer, it also constrains his ability
to express his personal authenticity within his linguistic performance. A number of
rock critics note that Pineda’s authenticity as a performing member of Journey
derives from his ability to sound like the iconic former singer Steve Perry. For
example, in a review of a Journey concert in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Darin Estep
writes:
But mostly, lead singer Arnel Pineda made a convincing case for why he’s a bona fide,
full-fledged member of classic rock’s Journey […] maybe even the star of the show. […]
[M]ost [fans] also were curious to know how in the world a 41-year-old Filipino could fill
the shoes – and replace the vocal cords – of Steve Perry, one of the most distinctive voices
of the power ballad-era of the late ’70s and ’80s. (Estep 2009; emphasis added)
Estep continues in the review that Pineda “may never have sounded more like Perry
than he did on the soaring ballad “Faithfully” […]” (Estep 2009). Ben Wener,
reviewing the Journey concert in Irvine, California, also remarked about the similar-
ity between Pineda and Perry’s vocal performance:
It’s positively baffling: What your ears hear doesn’t quite connect to what your eyes see.
How is it possible that this tireless Filipino spitfire with stringy black hair, who guitarist
Neal Schon discovered last summer via YouTube clips of him singing covers in his former
band the Zoo, could sound so eerily like Steve Perry, that rarely rivaled voice of every
Journey smash? (Wener 2008)
Although Estep and Wener are certainly referring to the vocal quality and timbre of
Pineda’s voice, and its similarity to Perry’s, Wener continues to include factors that
might well be considered as linguistic imitation of Perry. He notes that
It’s not just that Pineda can nail […] all of Perry’s helium-high notes. It’s more so that he
unerringly mimics everything else about his voice – the tonal qualities, the phrasing and
inflections, the way it can be both bell-like yet passionately gritty at the same time. (Wener
2008; emphasis added).
Pineda’s authenticity as the lead singer of Journey, therefore, is judged by how accu-
rately he can imitate Steve Perry, and in this way the questions of personal authen-
ticity for Pineda and most Journey fans becomes irrelevant.
There are, however, occasional objections to this standard of authenticity. In a
response to an on-line blog posting by Arnie Barrett, one reader writes that Pineda
“is not a mimic and he is certainly NOT Steve Perry. He is who he is” (Barrett 2008;
comment by Thad). Similarly, another fan echoes the comment and writes for fans
to “let Journey 2008 create its own history. Let the guy Arnel create his own”
(Barrett 2008; comment by conrad). These comments, though, are rare within the
blog and the vast majority are focussed on either accepting Pineda on the basis of
his similarity to Perry, or rejecting him because he is not Perry. While there may be
some limited willingness among Journey’s audience to authenticate Pineda’s per-
formance independent of comparisons to Perry, there do not appear to be any per-
formances that will allow such authentication.
13.8 Conclusions
English has influenced the languages used in musical performance throughout Asia.
In each of the cases cited here, there are attempts by both performers and audiences
to “authenticate” the language that is used in music. Authentication, therefore, is not
a given in any of these cases, but is instead a process that both performer and audi-
ence engage in. Although there are different ways to measure the authenticity of a
performance – culturally authentic and personally authentic, to name two – authen-
ticity is neither passively attached to the performance nor passively received by the
audience. It is an active mode of both performance and reception, and therefore
important to the understanding of language in popular music.
References
Avi, Z. 2011. Music. Brushfire Records and Monotone present Zee Avi. http://www.zeeavi.com/
music/. Accessed 16 Apr 2011.
Bain, G. 2010. California schemin’: How two lads from Scotland conned the music industry.
London: Simon and Schuster.
Barker, H., and Y. Taylor. 2007. Faking it: The quest for authenticity in popular music. London:
Faber and Faber.
Barrett, A. 2008. Arnel Pineda fronting Journey: Genius or blasphemy? EW.com, Popwatch. http://
popwatch.ew.com/2008/03/28/steve-perry-arn/. Posted 28 March 2008. Accessed 16 Apr
2011.
Benjamin, W. 1970. The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. (trans: H. Zohn). In
Illuminations, ed. H. Arendt, 217–251. New York, London: Collins/Fontana Books.
Bolton, K. 2000. The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English. World
Englishes 19(3): 265–285.
Bucholtz, M. 2003. Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7(3): 398–416.
Coupland, N. 2003. Sociolinguistic authenticities. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(3): 417–431.
Estep, D. 2009. Lead singer Arnel Pineda delivers the voice for Journey at Van Andel Arena
concert. mlive.com. http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/08/
lead_singer_arnel_pineda_deliv.html. Posted 26 August 2009. Accessed 20 Apr 2011.
Frith, S. 1987. Towards an aesthetic of popular music. In Music and society, ed. R. Leppert and S.
McClary, 133–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grossberg, L. 1993. The media economy of rock culture: Cinema, postmodernity and authenticity.
In Sound and vision: The music video reader, ed. S. Firth, A. Goodwin, and L. Grossberg,
185–210. London: Routledge.
Kachru, Y. 2006. Mixers lyricing in Hinglish: Blending and fusion in Indian pop culture. World
Englishes 25(2): 223–233.
Koara M. 2010. 【これじゃ売れない!】すっかりSuperfly に人気を取られたLove Psychedelico
“露出アップ”で巻き返しなるか! [Koreja urenai! ] Sukkari Superfly-ni ninki-o torareta Love
Psychedelico “Roshutsu appu”-de makikaeshi naruka! “[Cannot sell like this!] Will Love
Psychedelico make a recovery with ‘increase exposure (in media)’ after having completely lost
their popularity to Superfly!” リアルライブ Riaru laibu ‘The Real Live Web’. http://npn.co.jp/
article/detail/84448514/. Posted 16 January 2010. Accessed 22 Nov 2010.
Konuki, N. 2003. 歌のなかの言葉の魔法 Uta-no naka-no kotoba-no mahou “Language magic
in songs”. Tokyo: Yamaha Music Media Corporation.
222 A. Moody
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns (Conduct and communication series). Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.
LePage, R.B., and A. Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to
language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lockard, C.A. 1998. Dance of life: Popular music and politics in Southeast Asia. Honolulu:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Miles, B. 2009. The British invasion: The music, the times, the era. New York: Sterling.
Moody, A. 2006. The role of English in Japanese popular culture and J-pop music. World Englishes
25(2): 209–222.
Moody, A. 2009. Englishization in Japanese popular culture: Representation of ethnicity. In
Englishization in Asia: Language and cultural issues, ed. K. Tam, 183–206. Hong Kong: Open
University of Hong Kong Press.
Moody, A. 2010. The Englishes of popular cultures. In The Routledge handbook of world Englishes,
ed. A. Kirkpatrick, 535–549. London: Routledge.
Moody, A., and Y. Matsumoto. 2003. “Don’t touch my moustache”: Language blending and code
ambiguation by two J-pop artists. Asian Englishes 6(1): 4–33.
NPR Staff. 2009. Zee Avi: Tiny desk concert. NPR Music. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=120650097. Posted 23 November 2009. Accessed 16 Apr 2011.
NPR Staff. 2010. The fake “American” rappers who fooled everyone. NPR Music. http://www.npr.
org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128567769. Posted 18 July 2010. Accessed 25 Nov
2010.
Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. 2010. Popular cultures, popular languages, and global identities. In The handbook
of language and globalization, ed. N. Coupland, 592–605. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rampton, B. 1995. Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. London: Longman.
Raz, G. 2009. Zee Avi: Jazz, Americana and island pop. 90.9 WBUR. http://www.wbur.org/
npr/106990903/zee-avi-jazz-americana-and-island-pop. Posted 26 July 2009. Accessed 16 Feb
2011.
Recording Express. 2010. 第10回放送ゲストトーク:Love Psychedelico(1/4). Dai jukkai hou-
sou gesuto tooku: Love Psychedelico. “Broadcast No. 10 Guest Talk: Love Psychedelico”.
YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_5TUoEZ__w. Produced by Music Master.jp,
Sound Designer and InerFM. Posted 7 January 2010. Accessed 22 Nov 2010.
Richardson, J. 2008. Music review: Love Psychedelico – This is Love Psychedelico. BC Music.
Retrieved 27 November 2010 from http://blogcritics.org/music/article/music-review-love-
psychedelico-this-is1.
Stanlaw, J. 2000. Open your file, open your mind: Women, English, and changing roles and voices
in Japanese pop music. In Japan pop! Inside the world of Japanese popular culture, ed.
T.J. Craig, 75–100. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Stanlaw, J. 2004. Japanese English: Language and culture contact. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Trudgill, P. 1983. Acts of conflicting identity: The sociolinguistics of British pop-song pronunciation.
In On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives, ed. P. Trudgill, 141–160. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wener, B. 2008. Journey’s uncanny new vocalist wows at Verizon. OC Register.com. http://articles.
ocregister.com/2008-07-17/entertainment/24735378_1_arnel-pineda-deen-castronovo-ross-
valory. Posted 17 July 2008. Accessed 22 Nov 2010.
Chapter 14
A Postscript and a Prolegomenon
Roland Sussex and Andy Kirkpatrick
Successful round tables reveal and raise questions as well as solve them. The First
Macao International Forum posed a number of issues relating to the current and future
trajectory of English in Asia. Some of these relate to the language itself: its forms, its
content, its profile, its political and cultural roles, and its functions in the policies and
cultures of the countries where it is used. Others relate to the future of English lan-
guage studies: the kinds of questions which need to be investigated, the goals of these
investigations, and the ways in which they might be conceptualized and carried out.
So we present a Postscript to outline where we are at, combined with a Prolegomenon
to anticipate the road ahead. This is not a summary of the papers in this volume, but an
attempt to see how they extend existing paths of investigation, or open up new ones.
14.1 English as System-Entity-Edifice and as an Emergent

Means-for-Communication
The traditional view sees English in terms of the system-entity-edifice approach.

Let us call this the “SEE” model. SEE is the world of EFL, ESL and ELT, as well as
language planning and policy, corpus planning, and most of language-in-education
policy. Here mastery and management of the system is the goal, not the successful
negotiation of contingent and often unpredictable conversations.
R. Sussex (*)
School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, and Centre
for Educational Innovation and Technology, The University
of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
A. Kirkpatrick
School of Languages and Linguistics, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

224 R. Sussex and A. Kirkpatrick
In contrast, Chap. 9 by Pennycook (this volume) puts an elaborated case for

emergent English as a code which is constantly being negotiated and created in use.
On this view English is not a system, nor an entity, nor – in its socially elaborated
versions – an edifice, supported by the flying buttresses of grammars, dictionaries,
orthographies and orthoepies. English is not bifurcating or arborifying from a
common trunk. Nor is it a matter of the imperial edifice versus the multiple centric
Englishes in different countries (Chinglish, Vietlish, Japlish, etc.). Not only is each
“variety” not an entity; it is inductively and interactively built for each act of commu-
nication by the people engaged in communicating. As Pennycook presents this
argument, this is a matter of epistemology – what we mean by “language” and how
we use those notions in thinking about and working with language.
Canagarajah’s “LFE” (2007) for Lingua Franca English, as we have argued in
the Introduction, will do well for negotiated, emergent language. This label covers
the language forms exhibited in this kind of English, together with the relevant
pragmatic and cultural practices. ELF, on the other hand, can be used to refer to the
functional role of English as a lingua franca in Asia and elsewhere. But which kinds
of English performance are involved in LFE?
Especially when it is used between L2 speakers of English, the spoken language
is the preeminent domain of negotiation. Spoken English in face-to-face contexts
may approximate the SEE models to some extent among L1 speakers in formal
contexts, though this is statistically a minority event, and qualitatively liable to
substantial departures from any of the centric norms.
But the area where the SEE model of English is persisting is the written language,
and especially the formal written language. As Gupta notes,
[…] in many respects Standard English really is essentially monolithic. In any given text of
Standard English (such as a newspaper article) more than 99.5% of words will be words
spelled, inflected and used in the same way by Standard English everywhere. Standard
English is so much a given that it is almost invisible. (Gupta 2010, p. 86)
If we add differences between the two major centric norms (USA and UK), this
seems to hold well for the written language. Most writing activities are predomi-
nantly not synchronous-interactive (even though texting is a major written genre for
certain, especially younger, age cohorts). There is limited negotiation. And certain
kinds of writing are specifically designed to leverage Gupta’s monolith for specific
purposes of communication. As we move from this locus of SEE English, on the
one hand, towards informal spoken LFE interactions on the other, we can imagine a
progressive gradient whereby the SEE models decline, and the LFE emergent, nego-
tiated Englishes rise:
Formal written Edited written E Formal Informal written Informal

E, e.g. e.g. journalism Spoken E E: e.g. Email Spoken E
Legal documents Letters SMS
Academic articles
SEE LFE, Emergent
Negotiated
14 A Postscript and a Prolegomenon 225
We deliberately present this cline horizontally to avoid any inadvertent metaphor

of top to bottom (albeit with the written axis at the left, Latin sinister, end). In some
sense, say, formal spoken English can show emergent and negotiated features, espe-
cially in the exercise of wit, word-play and creativity. Or informal spoken language
can exhibit features of SEE English, given the right kinds of speakers and contexts.
What is important is that this is not an EITHER / OR matter, but a MORE / LESS
matter, where elements of both poles may coexist.
There is a further issue here which needs to be addressed. If the language is
emergent for each act of communication, just what do the communicators bring to
the start of their interaction? It can’t be a linguistic tabula rasa, otherwise we would
spend too much time and effort in negotiating a starting point. There has to be some
organized body of linguistic knowledge, experience and practice to provide a point
of departure, or at least an entry point for negotiation. On the other hand, it is also
true that the across-the-board SEE English view constrains the developing interactions
inappropriately, and makes it at best difficult to provide a framework to capture the
dynamics of the “language” as it progressively shapes itself as it emerges.
We are therefore not at a point where we can use either the SEE or the LFE
model to build a holistic theory. It will take some time for the contributions of
the models to shake out. In the meanwhile it makes sense to treat them either as
heuristics – as guides to conceptualizing and tackling issues of language interpretation
and modelling – or as working hypotheses. The extent and way in which the system
and emergent frameworks can co-exist and collaborate represent a major challenge
for research.
14.2 The Exercise of English
This book is about English as an Asian language, and the exercise of English in Asia.
A number of scholars have addressed the question of the nature of English when it
is studied by all, is used by many, and becomes one of the background competencies
of an educated person. As Seidlhofer puts it, referring to Carmichael (2000, pp. 285 ff.),
[…] in the early twenty-first century, the significance of a certain command of English is
closely comparable to that of reading and writing at the time of the industrialization of
Europe. (Seidlhofer 2010, p. 359)
Students acquire literacy and numeracy, and now “multi-literacies” in terms of

different capacities to manipulate and work with different cognitive skillsets. English
as a background competence will share some of these properties. It will continue to
be a subject in the curriculum, one to be assessed like all the others. But it will also
be one which, like literacy and numeracy, provides cognitive capacity to address
other tasks. This is not a 21st century recension of conventional bilingualism. English
in Asia will have distinctive functional, social and interpersonal roles which go
beyond current understandings of bilingualism (e.g. Romaine 1996).
As argued by Sussex (Chap. 11, this volume), these requirements can be captured
in three principal domains of skill for the kind of successful language learning that
we have in mind. The three are:
L: language, linguistic skills, forms, sounds, vocabulary; in English this
could involve a core along Jenkins’ (2000) lines, in phonology, grammar
and lexis (lexical choice and collocations);
P: pragmatics, using L to make meanings. For the purposes of convenience
we will, for the moment, include body-language here, together with
features like silence, speech speed and pitch;
C: culture, values systems.
This is, of course, a working over-simplification. But it helps to identify a set of
characteristics to capture the kind of successful intercultural language users who
will prosper in Asia in the 21st century. It also takes us beyond an emergent, even
evanescent picture of interactions in a code like LFE, to the point where we can start
talking sensibly about designing an educational program, not only for English
(Chap. 6 by Wen, this volume), but for any pair or multiple of languages in intercultural
communication in Asia. This involves the cultivation of specific skillsets (14.3,
below) aimed at achieving intercultural communicative competence.
We tentatively call this mindset and skillset “communicacy”. It denotes the
expertise of an alert, adaptive communicator who can relate to different mismatches
of L, P and C with sophistication and sensitivity. In keeping with the title of this
volume, we focus on English data and issues. But the application of this framework
is potentially much wider.
14.3 Communicacy: Skillsets for Successful Language Users
Unlike the conventional paradigm of English, where success was measured principally
in terms of the student’s ability to approximate one of the standard powerful models
(UK or US), the skillset which drives successful intercultural communication,
including LFE, covers abilities which are typically not part of the repertoire of
the first-language native speaker of a language. Nor are they, at the moment, part of the
training in many, and probably most, courses in second languages.
In no particular order of priority, a representative (though incomplete) set of
skills for our languages-in-Asia expert would include:
14.3.1 Variation
Tolerance of and participation in variation is axiomatic. Meeting and matching the

centric norm is no longer the primary objective. The L / P / C material that one hears is
going to vary on one or more of these three vectors, perhaps unstably. It is necessary
to observe and receive this variation, to understand its intention and communicative
function, and if necessary to respond to it. The variation may not match either the
speaker’s English or any of the standards. The variation may involve grammatical
factors like singular/plural. For instance, a brochure in a Malay hotel advises:
Do not leave any cash or valuable in your room. (standard: valuables)
Or it may involve lexical choice, as in this datum from the same hotel:
Kindly produce keycard when signing bills at outlets. (standard: checkouts)
The standard forms are given here merely for clarification. In terms of commu-
nication in context these are not deviations, but uses which are communicatively
perfectly adequate. A great deal does depend on context. Interestingly, local solidarity-
based contacts tend to generate and tolerate more variation, whereas general-purpose
international communication has a narrower range of variation, and more reliance
of regular and formulaic language:
Local Technical General international

Solidarity Professional Wider communication
More variation Less variation
This is what Kirkpatrick (2007a, p. 173) was trying to get at with the “identity-
communication continuum”, whereby the need to communicate internationally
would necessarily limit variation, while communication with members of the same
speech community would allow for more variation.
14.3.2 Switching
Tolerance of and participation in switching, usually studied as language-switching

under the rubric of “code-switching” and “code-mixing”, is also basic. Older
models of language teaching and learning used to eschew switching and mixing as
violations of the norm. But code-switching is endemic among bilinguals. It is a
major conduit of L, P and C material from one system (we can’t avoid this term –
see Chap. 11 by Sussex, this volume) to another, and one can language-switch, and/
or pragmatic-switch, and/or culture-switch, both together or at different times.
The main constraint is that both interlocutors need to have mastery of the relevant
area of both systems to a relevant level of expertise. Without this condition the
switched material will be incomprehensible, or at least in need of rolling negotiation
and clarification to the point where communication becomes ineffective. Typically,
reluctance to participate in switching leads to frequent miscommunication or non-
communication in LFE, and calls for expertise in repair.
14.3.3 Repair and Recovery
Competent LFE communicators need to be able to recognize communication

breakdown, and to take appropriate action. Over-ambitious switching (above) is one
trigger for repair. Another is over-ambitious use of elements of L, P and C which are
then found to lie outside the hearer’s area of competence.
Handling breakdowns requires tact, negotiation, accommodation and emotional
intelligence (see below). The relevant strategies include paraphrase and finding
alternative formulations for the communication under discussion, accommodating
to the hearer’s capacity and intentions (Kirkpatrick 2007b). One may speak more
slowly, or consciously shift towards a core of pronunciation (Jenkins 2000); avoid
complex syntax or advanced vocabulary; or negotiate, for instance by asking questions
about the breakdown: Did what I say offend you? Can I express that in a culturally
more appropriate way?
14.3.4 Negotiation
Rather than taking the centric norm – or any other norm – as a given, the key to successful
LFE is negotiation. In fact, LFE interactions are perpetual, rolling negotiations.
The default expectation is that interlocutors will be asymmetrical in one or more of
their L, P or C competencies: it would be difficult to conceive of a conversing pair
with exactly equal L, P and C. This means that interlocutors will be constantly
negotiating understanding in terms of L and/or P and/or C, particularly since this is
most likely to be second language, second pragmatics and second culture (L2, P2, C2).
The first step is realization and understanding. The next is accommodation.
14.3.5 Accommodation
Accommodation involves modifying your language and behaviour to more closely

match those of your interlocutor. By doing this you lessen the distance between
you, and so promote harmony, confidence, comfort and ease of communication.
Accommodation can involve the choice of language. In multilingual communities
participants in communication need to determine which language they best share to
promote communicating. Once a language – or languages, since switching is a
common feature of multilingual intercultural communication – is established, it is
necessary to discover how competent the hearer is in terms of language, pragmatics
and culture.
In managing these negotiations it is the stronger communicator (in L and/or P
and/or C – note that we cannot say “speaker”) who typically accommodates more,
since he/she has more choices available, and more flexibility to find suitable forms
and behaviours for productive communication. This stronger communicator is also

better able to handle the demands, or at least to take the lead, in facework: the
managing of communication so that both speakers feel that their dignity and “face”
have been observed (Ting-Toomey 2005; Brown and Levinson 1987). Accommodation
requires a heightened level of alertness to differences between speaker and hearer;
a sensitivity not only to what is said and done but also what is not said and done; and
a readiness to shift one’s behaviour in the interests of harmony and communication.
In these respects it accords well with the large and growing literature on emotional
intelligence.
The obverse of accommodation is distancing. In some situations a speaker may
choose not to accommodate in order to assert or emphasize their authority or power,
their distinct identity, or a disinclination to seek a closer interaction with the hearer.
14.3.6 Emotional Intelligence
“Emotional intelligence”, or “EQ”, is a model of emotional self-awareness devel-

oped and popularized in recent times by Goleman (1995, 1998; see also Digman
1990). EQ complements the traditional intelligence quotient (IQ), and more recently
CQ, or communicative intelligence (Brown 2008). EQ involves a heightened
self-awareness, which leads to enhanced management of one’s own emotional and
subjective resources, as well as elevated empathy towards others and enriched
interpersonal relationships. EQ has been widely applied in the business training
and management fields (Goleman 2000). Its commercialization has somewhat
overshadowed its real contribution to language learning (Rouhani 2008). In terms of
proactive empathy it has substantial potential to facilitate interpersonal relation-
ships of the LFE type that we have been discussing here in terms of promoting
proactive empathy and understanding between individuals who are cautiously
negotiating a basis for communication. This area presents major opportunities for
serious research in LFE.
14.3.7 Intercultural Communication
Emotional intelligence offers a framework – but not yet a theory or even a model –
in which ELF/LFE research can find common ground. The other key area with a
related interpersonal and cognitive skillset is Intercultural Communication, a currently
burgeoning domain broadly anchored in applied linguistics (e.g. Ting-Toomey and
Chung 2005). This is the domain where awareness of and alertness to the L / P / C
of the interlocutor in trans-cultural communications play a central role, together
with issues like accommodation, negotiation and openness to difference. Although
not yet theoretically well elaborated (though see Spitzberg 2009), Intercultural
Communication presents a growing body of empirical evidence, and some continuous
time-depth of empirical investigation and analysis (Hofstede 1986, 2001).
14.4 Conclusion
The thrust of this Postscript and Prolegomenon is that SEE English and ELF/LFE
English are not an either/or choice. There are gradients and overlaps between the
two. L1 speakers of English can belong anywhere along the continuum, given appro-
priate training and empathy, though they will tend to dominate at the SEE end. And
L2 speakers will dominate the LFE end of the spectrum, but with a more articulated
skillset and a more structured knowledge base than might have appeared at the outset.
EIL occupies much of the space in the middle, in a shifting and dynamic way which
is yet to be properly tied down.
In order to operate along this continuum, however, successful communicators
will have to acquire and skilfully exercise a number of capacities – to be expert in
communicacy. One way of thinking about this is to propose that people should be
bilingual in English. This apparent contradiction highlights the notion of parallel
complementary codes. But such speakers would also have to be bipragmatic and
bicultural, and they would have to master the skillsets outlined above. This is not a
trivial task, and much of the learning would have to be done in practice. They need
to be highly reflective learners, very alert, able to learn from their performance and
mis-performance, and adept in repair. And probably judicious risk-takers as well, as
they encounter novel contexts with possibly undefined or ill-defined parameters of
English, pragmatics, culture and shifting skillsets. Many LFE encounters will start
with negotiation: what is your rating in the various categories, how does it fit with
mine, and what kinds of types and levels of communication can we attempt? Or, if
the encounter does not involve LFE, which is our best shared language of communication,
and what assumptions can be make about the other’s linguistic, pragmatic and cultural
abilities (Ting and Sussex 2002)?
This is more than just bilingualism. “Bi-“ implies “two”, and essentially two entities.
But we are not dealing with SEE entities here. A better term could involve diglossia.
Greek “di-” means “two”, and “diglossia” (Greek: “bilingual”) originally meant the
command of two varieties, a High (H) and a Low (L): in Ferguson’s original (1959)
formulation, High literary Koranic Arabic and Low colloquial Arabic. But over time
diglossia came to mean not only the existence of sharply defined H and L varieties,
but also the control of multiple varieties, or even multiple languages, where they
were differentiated by social function: e.g. Latin in Church in the Tridentine Mass,
French in the market place; or, in Mukherjee’s account of Sri Lanka (Chap. 12, this
volume): English in the High Court and Sinhala elsewhere, except in the Tamil
regions. The successful language user in multilingual Asia, then, will be trained in
something like the programs advocated by Hino (Chap. 10, this volume), Proshina
(Chap. 7, this volume) or Wen (Chap. 6, this volume), and will need superior skills
in strategic interpersonal language, pragmatic and cultural management.
References
Brown, J.S. 2008. Learning 2.0. The big picture. Retrieved on 5 November, 2011 from www.
johnseelybrown.com/learning2.pdf.
Brown, P., and S. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, S. 2007. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition.
Carmichael, C. 2000. Conclusions: Language and national identity in Europe. In Language and nation-
alism in Europe, ed. S. Barbour and C. Carmichael, 280–289. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Digman, J.M. 1990. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology 41: 417–440.
Ferguson, C.A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15: 325–340.
Goleman, D. 2000. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Gupta, A.F. 2010. Singapore standard English revisited. In English in Singapore: Modernity and man-
agement, ed. L. Lim, A. Pakir, and L. Wee, 57–90. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Hofstede, G. 1986. Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations 10(3): 301–320.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and orga-
nizations across nations, 2nd ed. London: Sage.
University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2007a. World Englishes: Implications for international communication and
English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. 2007b. The communicative strategies of ASEAN speakers of English as a lingua
franca. In English in Southeast Asia: Varieties, literacies and literatures, ed. D. Prescott,
118–137. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Romaine, S. 1996. Bilingualism, 2nd ed. Oxford/New York: Blackwell.
Rouhani, A. 2008. An investigation into emotional intelligence, foreign language anxiety and empa-
thy through a cognitive-affective course in an EFL context. Linguistik Online 34(2): 41–57.
Seidlhofer, B. 2010. Lingua franca English: The European context. In The Routledge handbook of
world Englishes, ed. A. Kirkpatrick, 355–371. London/New York: Routledge.
Spitzberg, B.H. 2009. Axioms for a theory of intercultural communication competence. In
Intercultural communication: A reader, 12th ed, ed. Larry A. Samovar, Richard E. Porter, and
Edwin R. McDaniel, 424–434. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Ting, S.-H., and R. Sussex. 2002. Language choice of the Foochows in Sarawak, Malaysia.
Multilingua 21: 1–15.
Ting-Toomey, S. (ed.). 2005. The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ting-Toomey, S., and L.C. Chung. 2005. Understanding intercultural communication. New York:
Oxford University Press.
About the Contributors
Kingsley Bolton is Chair and Professor of English at City University of Hong

Kong. He has published widely on language and society, English across Asia, and
language and globalization. His publications include a monograph on the history of
English in China, Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History (Cambridge
University Press, 2003), and World Englishes: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (six
volumes, co-edited with Braj B. Kachru, Routledge, 2006). He is Co-Editor of the
Blackwell-Wiley journal, World Englishes, and Co-Editor of the Cambridge
University Press journal, English Today. From 2003–2004, he served as Elected
President of the International Association for World Englishes (IAWE).
Saran Kaur Gill obtained her Ph.D. from the University of London on an
Association of Commonwealth Universities Award. She is Professor of
Sociolinguistics in Multi-Ethnic Nations at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(The National University of Malaysia). She has a passion for research on language
and cultural policy and planning. She has successfully led a 2-year government-
funded research project on “Language Policy and Planning in Higher Education in
Malaysia” and a 2-year research project on “Examining the Quality of Teaching and
Learning Science in English in Higher Education”. She was recipient of the Fulbright
Scholars Award for research on “Language policy – Managing Ethnic, National and
Global Identities” at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, for the spring term,
2006. She has been invited to present plenary papers at several international confer-
ences and written several articles in international journals, which include World
Englishes, Journal for Asia-Pacific Communication, Asian Englishes, Language
Policy and Current Issues in Language Planning.
Fuad Abdul Hamied is Professor of English Education at Indonesia University of
Education, Bandung, Indonesia. He obtained his first degree from IKIP Bandung,
Indonesia; his M.A. in EFL is from the Department of Linguistics, SIUC, Illinois,
USA, and Ph.D. from the same university. He is currently President of the Association
of TEFL in Indonesia (TEFLIN). He is a member of Asia TEFL and on the editorial

DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4578-0, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
234 About the Contributors
board the Asia TEFL journal. Very recent topics presented at conferences include:
English at Schools in the Indonesian Context, a plenary presentation to the 20th
Melta Conference at Trengganu, Malaysia; English as a Lingua Franca: an Indonesian
Perspective, a keynote presentation to the 4th ELF International Conference in
Hong Kong; and Southeast Asian English teacher associations: advocacy and con-
cerns, a colloquium presentation to the 45th Annual TESOL Convention at New
Orleans, USA, 2011. A very recent article, EFL Assessment in Indonesia, was pub-
lished as a chapter in a book series published by Asia TEFL.
Nobuyuki Hino is Professor, Graduate School of Language and Culture, Osaka
University, Japan. He also served as a Visiting Fellow at the East–West Center,
USA, from 1999 to 2000. He has produced numerous publications on the teaching
of EIL (English as an International Language). In addition to his over 200 articles
and books in Japanese, his publications include papers in international journals such
as AILA Review, World Englishes, and Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics. In Japan, he was also a lecturer for the radio program
English for Millions from 1989 to 1992, where he came to be known as a pioneer in
the teaching of de-Anglo-Americanized EIL. For his undergraduate classes at Osaka
University, where he has been teaching EIL in place of EFL, he has received the
Best Teachers’ Award for 11 consecutive semesters as of 2011.
Andy Kirkpatrick is Professor and Head of the School of Languages and Linguistics
at Griffith University in Brisbane, immediately prior to which he was Chair and
Professor of English as an International Language and Founding Director of the
Research Centre into Language Education and Acquisition in Multilingual Societies
at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. His recent publications include English as
a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A Multilingual Model (2010), The Handbook of World
Englishes (2010) and World Englishes: Implications for International Communication
and English Language Teaching (2007). In addition to editing the book series on
Multilingual Education for Springer, he is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of
Multilingual Education. His most recent book is Chinese Rhetoric and Writing: An
Introduction for Language Teachers, co-authored with Xu Zhichang.
Andrew Moody is an Associate Professor of Linguistics in the English Department at
the University of Macau, where he teaches Sociolinguistics at both the undergraduate
and graduate levels. He has taught at universities in Beijing, China and Japan before
coming to Macau and holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Kansas, USA.
His research interests include the development of varieties of world Englishes and the
role of English in popular culture, especially within Asia. His articles have appeared in
American Speech, World English, Asian Englishes and English Today, and he has
co-edited a volume of essays entitled English in Asian Popular Culture for Hong Kong
University Press. In addition to a macro-Sociolinguistic survey of Macau, he is also
working on the relationship between language and identity in popular music.
Joybrato Mukherjee is Professor of English Linguistics at Justus Liebig University
Giessen, Germany. His research interests include corpus linguistics (including
teaching applications), English syntax (with a focus on lexicogrammar) and varieties
About the Contributors 235
of English (with a special emphasis on English in South Asia). He is the coordinator

of various corpus-compilation projects, e.g. the Sri Lankan component of the
International Corpus of English (ICE-SL) and the South Asian Varieties of English
(SAVE) Corpus, an 18-million-word corpus of newspaper language from six South
Asian countries. His book publications include English Ditransitive Verbs (Rodopi,
2005), Exploring Second-language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes
(co-edited by Marianne Hundt; Benjamins, 2011) and introductory textbooks on
(applied) corpus linguistics. He has also edited collections of Indian English fiction
writing for students, e.g. Short Stories from India (Cornelsen, 2005).
Dương Thị Hoàng Oanh obtained her M.A. in TESOL from Canberra University
(1994), Australia, and her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Victoria University of
Wellington, New Zealand (2003).
She also has a Post-doctorate in Management in Higher Education from Yale
University, USA (2007). She is currently Director of the Department for External
Relations at Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City. Her teaching and
researching interests focus on communicative competence, international and com-
parative studies, educational reform, curriculum design, learner autonomy, and class-
room practice. She has received national and international grants for research on
educational reforms, higher education management, and assessment. Her publica-
tions include books, articles and book chapters on cross-cultural studies, educational
reforms, needs assessment, community values and classroom dynamics, student feed-
back, integrative classroom techniques, and teacher development.
Alastair Pennycook is Professor of Language Studies at the University of
Technology, Sydney. His best known work has been on the global spread of English
(The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, Longman, 1994;
English and the Discourses of Colonialism, Routledge, 1998; Global Englishes and
Transcultural Flows, Routledge, 2007) and critical applied linguistics (Critical
Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001). His most
recent books are Language as a Local Practice (Routledge, 2010) and Unexpected
Places: Language, Locality, Mobility (Multilingual Matters, 2012). His current
research focuses on urban multilingualism (metrolingualism).
Zoya G. Proshina is Professor in the Department of the Theory of Teaching Foreign
Languages, School of Foreign Languages and Area Studies, M. V. Lomonosov
Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia) and part-time professor of the Department
of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Far Eastern Federal University
(Vladivostok, Russia). Her areas of interest are in EFL, cross-cultural communication,
translation and interpretation theory and practice. She has been on the editorial
board of a number of Russian and international journals (World Englishes, Asian
Englishes, the Journal of Asia TEFL, Humanities and Social Studies in the Far
East; Personality, Culture, and Society). She served as the first president of the
Russian Far Eastern English Language Teachers Association (FEELTA). She is
(2011–2012) the President of the International Association of World Englishes.
236 About the Contributors
Roland Sussex is Professor Emeritus of Applied Language Studies at the University

of Queensland, where he had taught and researched from 1989 until his retirement
in 2010. Before that he taught Linguistics and Russian at the University of Reading
(UK) and Monash University in Melbourne, and was the foundation professor of
Russian at the University of Melbourne from 1977 to1989. He is currently
research fellow at the Centre for Educational Innovation and Technology, and in the
School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, at the University of
Queensland. He is chair of the Library Board of Queensland; and President of the
Alliance Française of Brisbane and a Vice-President of the Australian Federation
of Alliances Françaises. His current research is located in the triangle between
language, culture and society, and technology. He is co-chief investigator in the
PainLang Research Group at the University of Queensland, which is investigating
the use of language in the diagnosis, treatment and management of pain (http://
www.uq.edu.au/painlang/). His most recent major publication is The Slavic
Languages with Paul Cubberley, Cambridge University Press, 2006. Roland Sussex
writes a weekly column on language for the Brisbane Courier-Mail, and has been
broadcasting to Queensland on ABC radio since 1997, and more recently to South
Australia and the Northern Territory.
Wen Qiufang is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of the National
Research Centre for Foreign Language Education at Beijing Foreign Studies
University. She obtained her Ph.D. from Hong Kong University and M.A. from
Bombay University. She is President of China English language Education
Association and a member of Executive Board, AILA. Her research interests
include second language acquisition, spoken English testing and language learner
corpus analysis and language teacher development. She has published nearly 100
articles and 20 books on second language acquisition, research methodology, lan-
guage teaching and testing. She is the editor of the Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics and Foreign Language Education in China. She is the editor of a book
series on second language acquisition and is on the editorial board of five journals.
She has presented at over 100 international and national conferences, many as a
keynote speaker, and frequently conducts workshops on research methods, learning
strategies instruction and action research.
Index
A Authenticity, Asian popular music

ACE. See Asian Corpus of English (ACE) Arnel Pineda and journey, 219–220
Anglo-American cultures, ELT in Japan “British invasion”, 216
EIL, 158 description, 209–210
materials ethnic, speech and local varieties, 215
audio-lingual approach, 164 historical experience, 213
Osaka World Expo, 1970, 165 language
Second World War, 163 dialectology, 211
methodologies fraudulence, 212
ELEC, 162 Observer’s Paradox, 211
oral method, 161–162 pop culture genres, 212–213
personal communication, 161 sociolinguistic data, 211
phonological structure, 160 speakers and languages, 212
syllabic writing system, 159 linguistic freedom, 210
western concept, language, 160 love psychedelico, 216–218
word-by-word translation, 158 middle class societies, 215–216
nationalism, 157 pop song, 214
values, models rock culture, 214
cultural values, 168 transcultural music elements, 216
expanding circle, 166 types, 213–214
fundamental linguistic rights, 167 Zee Avi, 218–219
production model, 169
theory, World English’s studies, 170
ASEAN. See Association of Southeast Asian B
Nations (ASEAN) Bahasa Indonesia (BI), 31
Asian Corpus of English (ACE), 38 Bain, G., 209–212, 214
Association of Southeast Asian Nations Baker, S., 182
(ASEAN). See also English as an Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies
International Language (EIL)BI, 31 (BCIS), 202
economic and political association, 24 Barker, H., 213
pragmatic norms, 109 Barrett, A., 220
working language, 33 BCIS. See Bandaranaike Centre for
Australian English International Studies (BCIS)
cultural-pragmatic dynamics, 183 Benjamin, W., 213
demotic/vernacular language, 184 Benson, C., 34
social cohesion, 182 Bernaisch, T., 196

DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4578-0, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012
238 Index
Bernardo, A.B.I., 30 Coupland, N., 212

Bhatts, R.M., 194 Crystal, D., 15, 16, 19, 137–139, 146
BI. See Bahasa Indonesia (BI) Culotta, N., 184
Blommaert, J., 151
Bolton, K., 16, 198
Boyd, B., 210–212 D
BPO. See Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) Dardjowidjojo, S., 32
Bruthiaux, P., 17, 18, 141 Deterding, H., 39
Bucholtz, M., 211 Dewey, M., 141, 143
Business Process Outsourcing (BPO), 4, 23 Dong, J., 147, 148
Dubos, R., 108
C
Canagarajah, A.S., 17 E
Canagarajah, S., 151, 152, 225 Eblen, R.A., 108
Carmichael, C., 225 Eblen, W., 108
Cenoz, J., 35 Education
Chew, P.G.L., 148 Bahasa Indonesia, 4
China, teaching EIL China, 6
diachronic account Indonesia, 5–6
awareness, 83–84 Malaysia, 4–5
interlocutors, 85–86 policy makers and politicians, Malaysia, 5
international scholars advocate, 85 EFL. See English as a Foreign Language
pedagogical solutions, 86 (EFL)
scholars and teachers, 85 EIL. See English as an International Language
teaching cultures, 84 (EIL)
education system, 79–81 ELEC. See English Language Education
native speakers and non-native speakers, 79 Council (ELEC)
pedagogical model ELF. See English as a lingua franca (ELF)
advantages, 91–92 ELTCM. See English Language Teaching
cultural component, 88–90 Centre Malaysia (ELTCM)
linguistic component, 86–88 English
pragmatic component, 90–91 Asian education, 2
synchronic analysis BPO, 4
cross-cultural ability, 83 dynamic perturbation, 3
cultural awareness, 82–83 ELF, 2
education system, 81 epistemology, 1
official documents, 81, 82 multilingual users, 2
structure, 82 pluralistic models, 3
Chinese as a lingua franca (CLF) English as a Foreign Language (EFL), 13, 16,
divisive system, 149 63, 64, 72–73, 124
fangyan, 147 English as a lingua franca (ELF)
Putonghua, 146, 148 ASEAN, 142
CLF. See Chinese as a lingua franca (CLF) cultural politics, 140
Coleman, H., 33, 35, 37 definition, 139
Communicacy EIL, 138
accommodation, 228–229 European Union, 142
emotional intelligence, 229 LFE, 2
intercultural, 229 policy of pluricentricity, 140
negotiation, 228 Romance language, 142
repair and recovery, 228 static “concentric circle” model, 141
switching, 227 World Englishes model, 143
variation, 226–227 English as a Native Language (ENL), 13, 16
Cook, V., 6, 85 English as an International Language (EIL)
Index 239
Bangkok Declaration, 30 English language teaching (ELT) and culture

China( see China, teaching EIL) studies, Russian education system,
communicative purposes, 6 98–99
description, 29–30 English Language Teaching Centre Malaysia
effective use, 10 (ELTCM), 50, 51
exonormative approaches, 9 ENL. See English as a Native Language
Indonesia (ENL)
“cultural treasures”, 31 Erling, E.J., 34
international standard schools, 32 ESL. See English as a Second Language
ISS, 33–34 (ESL)
Javanese, 31 Estep, D., 220
Malay, 31 ETeMS. See English for Teaching
TOEIC test, 32 Mathematics and Science
urban and rural, 33 (ETeMS)
vernacular language speakers, 31, 32
lingua franca approach, 37–40
linguistic and cultural diversity, 30–31 F
phonological and grammatical features, 41 Fasold, R., 65
primary and secondary school, 42 Ferguson, C.A., 230
role, 79 Fernando, S., 201
states, 30 Firth, A., 109
student Fonseka, E.A.G., 192
home language, 36 Foreign language teaching, 71–72
Malaysian government, 35 Friedmam, T.L., 108, 109
mother tongue, 35 Frith, S., 214
Philippines Bilingual Education
Policy, 35
primary school, 37 G
Singapore government’s bilingual Gaidar, A., 98
policy, 36 Gill, S.K., 4, 45, 46, 58
“submersion education”, 36 Global (World) English(es)
tenets, 34 levels, comprehension, 112
UNESCO report, 37 standard form, 112–113
synchronic and diachronic descriptions, tool, international communication, 112
81–86 Global vs. Glocal English
English as a Second Language (ESL), 13, 16 communicative language, 120
English as communicating medium, Russia definition, 108–110
description, 97–98 economic environment, 107
ELT and culture studies, 98–99 emphasized, region, 119
intercultural global (world)( see Global (World)
advanced and proficient speakers, English(es))
100–101 Glocal( see Glocal English)
“deficient” speech, 102 harmonization, 131
English schools, 101 human and physical resources, 129
Iron Curtain, 100 integration process, 107
linguistic community, 101–102 lingua franca, 120–121
Soviet Union, 100 localized/nationalized variety, 114
spelling and pronunciation, 102–103 measures, native language and
traditional direct translations, 103 development, 119
teaching, 104 participants views, effectiveness
English for Teaching Mathematics and education and economic
Science (ETeMS), 52–53, 57 development, 123
English Language Education Council international communication, 122
(ELEC), 162 views, effectiveness, 121, 122
240 Index
Global vs. Glocal English (cont.) Indonesian educational system.

research methodology See Multicultural and multilingual
data collection instruments, 110 Indonesian education
questionnaire participants, 111 Inoue, H., 161
social, educational and economic International Corpus of English (ICE), 203
perspectives, 116–117
standard assessment processes, 130
testing J
Asians, 126, 127 Jamil, H., 58
national proficiency standardized, Jenkins, J., 16, 39, 85, 110, 139–141, 143,
125, 126 145, 226
NNS, 127 Jespersen, O., 160, 161
policy makers, 128 Jhingran, D., 36
TOEFL, 124 Johnson, J., 218
use, 115–116
Glocal English
ASEAN, 109 K
business strategies, 108 Kachru, B.B., 3, 9, 14, 16, 100, 140, 145, 146,
code-switching, 109 166, 194, 196
communication, international and local Kachruvian approach, 17
purposes, 114 Kachru, Y., 16
ELF, 109 Keeler, P., 218
localized/nationalized variety, 114 Khattab, U., 56
non-standard grammatical forms, Kim, L.S., 111, 113, 123, 125, 127, 131
109–110 Kirkpatrick, A., 4, 24, 40, 109, 142, 144, 146,
Goleman, D., 229 227
Görlach, M., 15 Knapp, K., 143
Graddol, D., 16, 21, 137, 138 Koara, M., 217
Greenbaum, S., 15, 203 Konuki, N., 217
Grice, H.P., 90 Kosonen, K., 36
Grossberg, L., 214 Künstler, V., 195, 197
Gunesekera, M., 195
Gupta, A.F., 149, 224
L
Labov, W., 211
H Language-in-education policy, Malaysia
Hadisantosa, N., 33 description, 45
Halliday, M.A.K., 13, 166 government, researchers and parents, 49–50
Haron, I., 49 knowledge-driven nationalism, 47
Harris, R., 151 mother-tongue education, 59
Heder, S., 37 multi-ethnic populations, 55–57
Hino, N., 8, 9, 161, 164, 168 policy makers, 59
Hoffmann, S., 203 political factor, 57–58
Honna, N., 104, 168 post-Independence period, 46
Hornberger, N.H., 66 re-reversal, science and technology, 47–48
rural-urban divide, 51–52
schools
I concept, nationalism, 53
ICE. See International Corpus of English counter arguments, 52
(ICE) ETeMS policy, 52–53
ICE-SL. See Sri Lankan component of the PAGE, 54
International Corpus of English science and mathematics, 54–55
(ICE-SL) urban and rural, 53
Inamura, M., 165 teacher preparedness, 50–51
Index 241
Languages and cultures McIntosh, A., 166

EIL/EFL, 10 McKay, S.L., 66, 162
intercultural pragmatic interference, 9–10 Meierkord, C., 143
Japanese, 9 Mendis, D., 192
Leitner, G., 197 Mesthrie, R., 194
LePage, R.B., 213 Meyler, M., 194, 196, 198–201, 206
LFC. See Lingua franca core (LFC) Moeliono, A.M., 67
LFE. See Lingua franca English (LFE) Mohamad, M., 58
Lingua franca approach Moody, A., 10, 217
ACE, 38 Moore, R., 138, 150
Asian multilinguals, 37–38 Mufwene, S.S., 166, 170
cultures traditionally, 38 Mukherjee, J.M., 7, 10
LFC, 39 Multicultural and multilingual Indonesian
potential implications, 40 education
regional cultures and literatures, 40 description, 63–64
Lingua franca core (LFC), 39 EFL assessment, 72–73
Lingua franca English (LFE) foreign language teaching, 71–72
Chinese, 8–9 Internet World Statistics, 76
endo-empowerment, 7 Javanese speaker, 75
Russians communication, Asia, 7 language policies
Singaporeans, 8 Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan
Lingua francas, language ideologies Bahasa, 69
arithmetical approach, 150 democratic nature and pluralistic
CLF, 146–149 nature, 70
collection of local language practices., 152 foreign languages function, 69
definition governmental institutions, 70
hybrid nature, 143 literary research, 70
social or pragmatic reasons, 144 norm-based grammar, 67–68
trading purposes, 145 qualified teachers, 71
divisive system, 150 school environment, 71
ELF, 138–143 seminars and congresses, 67
LFE, 151 spelling system, 68
native-speaker rankings, 137 standard dictionary, 68
Linguistic Corpora learners and shortage, resources, 73–74
corpus-based findings national unity
Indian and British English, 204, 205 cultivating awareness, 64
linguistic forms, 205 cultural preservation, 67
corpus-linguistic projects language policy, 65–66
ICE, 203 official language, 65
morphosyntactic features, 204 socio-political status and function, 64
SAVE, 202 speech types, 66
Lockard, C.A., 216 schools, international standards, 74–7
Love psychedelico significance, 76–77
English lyrics, 216–217 spoken languages, 75
Japanese pronunciation, 217 Myers-Scotton, C., 175
language mixing, 217
neo-psychedelic band, 217–218
“returnee” style, 218 N
Lowe, V., 56 National Union of the Teaching Profession
(NUTP), 47
Nelson, C.L., 16
M Nelson, G., 15
Matsumoto, Y., 217 NNSs. See Nonnative speakers (NNSs)
Mauranen, A., 16 Nonnative speakers (NNSs), 127
242 Index
Norms R
authenticity, 11 Rafiqzad, K., 168
endo-normative tendency, 11 Raheem, R., 199, 206
Sri Lanka, 10–11 Rambukwella, H., 192
NUTP. See National Union of the Teaching Ranta, E., 16
Profession (NUTP) Rappa, A.L., 58
Raz, G., 219
Re-reversal, language-in-education policy,
O 47–48
Oanh, D.T.H., 6 Robertson, R., 108
Ostler, N., 138, 141, 143, 144, 147 Romaine, S., 225
Rubdy, R., 140, 141
P
PAGE. See Parent Action Group for Education S
(PAGE) Saito, H., 9
Pakir, A., 142, 143 Saraceni, M., 17, 18, 140, 141, 150
Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE), SAVE. See South Asian Varieties of English
48, 54 (SAVE)
Pedagogical model, EIL Schell, M., 166
advantages, 91–92 Schneider, E.W., 15, 170, 192, 193
cultural component Searjeant, P., 34SEE. See System-entity-
flexibility, 90 edifice (SEE)
graphic description, 88, 89 Seidlhofer, B., 16, 40, 85, 109, 115, 225
sensitivity, 88, 89 Seneviratne, M., 199
tolerance, 89–90 Smith, L.E., 9, 16, 166, 168, 169
type, 88 Sociolinguistic approaches, 16
language system, 86, 87 South Asian Varieties of English (SAVE)
linguistic component Corpus-Linguistic Projects( see Linguistic
common core and peripheral features, Corpora)
87, 88 ICE-SL, 235
nativized features, 88 Sri Lankan component of the International
types, 86, 87 Corpus of English (ICE-SL), 235
pragmatic component, 90–91 Sri Lankan debate
Pennycook, A., 8, 9, 17, 19, 46, 175, 185, ambinormative orientations
215, 216 link language, 198
Peters, P., 197 potential epicentre, 197
Philippines Bilingual Education Policy, 35 power relations, L1 and L2 variants,
Phillipson, R., 16, 17, 139, 140, 144, 150 196–197
Pillay, H., 50 relevance, historical input, 195–196
Pluricentric and pluralistic approach, 16 Burgher community, 193
Postscript and Prolegomenon communication and mediation, 192
communicacy( see Communicacy) corpus-based descriptions, 207
diglossia, 230 empirical approach, 207
language, pragmatics and culture, 226 endonormative stabilisation, 193
LFE, 230 governmental initiative, life skill
“multi-literacies”, 225SEE (see System- BCIS, 202
entity-edifice) lingua franca variant, 201
Proshina, Z.G., 7 systematic training, 200
Putin, V., 97 Meyler’s (2007) Dictionary of Sri Lankan
English
grammatical structures, 199
Q linguistic imperialism, 199, 200
Quirk, R., 15, 200 role, Linguistic Corpora, 202–206
Index 243
sociolinguistic and linguistic parameters, TOEIC. See Test of English for international
193, 194 communication (TOEIC)
wave, colonisation, 191 Tollefson, J.W., 56
Stanlaw, J., 217 Trudgill, P., 212, 213
Strevens, P., 166 Tsui, A.B.M., 56
Sussex, R., 9, 10, 226, 227
Suzuki, T., 160, 161, 167
Sweet, H., 160, 161 W
Switching, International English Wagner, J., 109
characterization, 186 Walker, R., 39
cultural-communicative space, 185 Walter, H., 145, 152
diminutives and Australian English, Wang, L., 146
181–184 Wee, L., 58
facts, assertions and stereotypes Wener, B., 220
cultural and linguistic interaction, 180 Wen, Q.F., 88
epistemic effect, 181 Wierzbicka, A., 10, 180–182, 185
intercultural communication, 179 World Englishes (WE) and Asian Englishes
gradient values, 186 approaches, 14, 15
inshallah Asian lingua franca, 22–23
cultural significance, 179 capitalist neoimperial language, 17
role, God, 177 economic and social factors, 20
social media, 178 expanding circle societies and outer circle,
inter-language, 175 19, 20
language vs. pragmatic vs. cultural, features, 21–22
176–177 “Inner Circle”, 18
pragmatic and culture, 176 international auxiliary language, 14
System-entity-edifice(SEE) journals, 14
heuristics, 225 Kachruvian approach, 17
informal spoken language, 225 language education
language-in-education policy, 223 ASEAN economic and political
LFE, 224 association, 24
norms, 224 governments and educational
authorities, 23
linguistic imperialism, 16, 17
T “native speaker” and “non-native
Tabouret-Keller, A., 213 speaker”, 13
Tagüeña, J., 108 “Outer Circle”, 18–19
Takeshita, Y., 104 pluralistic approach, 16
Tan, P.K.W., 152 scholars, 15
Taylor, Y., 213 school systems, 21
Test of English as a Foreign Language sociolinguistic approaches, 16
(TOEFL), 124 “structural nativisation”, 22
Test of English for international teachers, 20
communication (TOEIC), 74
Thomas, M., 50
TOEFL. See Test of English as a Foreign Y
Language (TOEFL) Young, C., 36

(Andy Kirkpatrick, Roland Sussex (Auth.), Andy Kir PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Andy Kirkpatrick, Roland Sussex (Auth.), Andy Kir PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

English as an International Language in Asia:

Implications for Language Education

David C.S. Lee

Jan Blommaert, University of Tilburg, The Netherlands

For further volumes:

ISSN 2213-3208 ISSN 2213-3216 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012946201

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)

The First Macao International Forum

3 English as an International Language in Asia:

Part II Communication and Lingua Francas

7 English as a Medium for Russians to Communicate in Asia .............. 97

9 Lingua Francas as Language Ideologies ............................................... 137

Part III Languages and Cultures in Contact

10 Negotiating Indigenous Values with Anglo-American

12 English in South Asia – Ambinormative Orientations and the Role

About the Contributors .................................................................................. 233

Index ................................................................................................................. 237

Andy Kirkpatrick and Roland Sussex

A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex (eds.), English as an International Language in Asia: 1

Asia will be a key influence in the future evolution of World Englishes. It is in

As English takes root in different locales it undergoes different degrees of lexical

Education is represented by four papers by Kirkpatrick, Gill, Hamied and Wen.

1.2 Communication, International English

1.3 Languages and Cultures in Contact

Canagarajah, S. 2007. The ecology of global English. International Journal of Multicultural

2.2 From International English to World Englishes

A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex (eds.), English as an International Language in Asia: 13

Table 2.1 Approaches to world Englishes

Sociolinguistic approaches to world Englishes have included (i) “the sociology

2.3 Current Debates on World Englishes

In my own view, in defence of the WE paradigm, I would argue that both

2.4 English Across Asia

The contemporary importance of English throughout the Asian region, coupled

2.5 Asian Englishes

2.6 English and Language Education Across Asia

societies, has tended to occlude or undermine other educational and curricular

A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex (eds.), English as an International Language in Asia: 29

3.2 ASEAN: A Brief Background

With a population of around 230 million Indonesia is ASEAN’s most populous

Table 3.1 Vernacular language speakers in 1980, 1990, 2000

These schools do not have to use BI as the medium of instruction. Instead,

This is an extraordinary document. The definition of “international standard”

3.4 When Should the Student Be Introduced to English?

In Singapore, the adoption of English as the medium of instruction has led to

3.5 A Lingua Franca Approach

Benson, C. 2008. Summary overview. Mother tongue-based education in multi-lingual contexts.

Saran Kaur Gill

The language-in-education policy journey in Malaysia has been a tumultuous one

S.K. Gill (*)

A. Kirkpatrick and R. Sussex (eds.), English as an International Language in Asia: 45

Decision-making on language-in-education policies in a multi-ethnic nation, made

4.3 The Re-reversal of Language-in-Education Policy

The implications of the “soft landing” are illustrated in the table:

4.4 Unravelling the Responses: Voices of the Government,

4.5 Challenges of Teacher Preparedness

In the conclusions arrived at in the studies discussed above, it is important to note

4.6 Rural-Urban Divide

In other words, if a proper infrastructure were in place with the corresponding

4.7 The Element of Choice for Schools

4.8 Language Policy as a Means of Equalising Opportunities