canale on language

8/6/2019 Canale on Language

1/6

ENGLTSH S A GLOBAL LANGUAGE:A SOCIOLINGUISTICIEWON ITS MPLICATIONSAND CONSEQUENCESN TEFL

GermdnCanale,Dpto. Psico-y SociolingilisticaFHUCE, Universidadde la RePublica

Through he past decades he word "globalization"has becomepart of our lives.Although heterm was at firstused to refer o economicmatters, t is now being used to make reference o theinternational tatus of some languages.But what do specialistsmean when they argue, forinstance,hat Englishs a "globallanguage"?We couldanswer hisquestion y saying t meansthat English s spreadingworldwideand thereforebeingusedeverywhere, ut thatwouldbe us tscratching n the surface.The aim of this presentation s to outline some of the most relevantcharacteristics f theglobalization f the English anguage o as to becomeawareof the realmeaningunderlying ucha 1exible erm.Oncewe have shed ighton the meaningof the concept globalization",we willprobfem tize t by analyzingdifferentviewpointson the advantagesand disadvantagesof suchprocess.We will consider hese issues rom a sociolinguistic erspective,which presupposes roughlyspeaking- hat the link between anguageand society s unbreakable. his eads o an importantmethodological onsideration, s a social view on any linguisticmatter will not only studylinguistic henomena er se,butalso n relationo theirsocialbackground.On the term "global language"The fist thing hat must be done to fulfillour purpose s to define he term "globallanguage" ndto examine he two main socio-linguisticonsequences f the particular ase of English:achange n speakers'atti tudesoward he globalstatusof English, nd secondly change n EFLmethodology.We will akeas our pointof departureDavidCrystal's efinition.n his amousbookEnglish s aGlobalLanguage 1997)he claims hat or a language o acquirea globalstatus, t needs o berecognizedn every country.This implies hat there certain oles that a languagemust play inorder to becomeglobal.On this occasion,we will have a look at some of those rolesand thensee how heyapply o the English anguage.According o Crystal, he first requirement f a global anguage s that it mustbe usedas mothertongue: his meansthat the language n questionmust be the L1 in severalcountries, heEnglishanguages the mother onguenot only n the U.S., he U.K,Austral ia nd New Zealand,but also in many Asian and African countries,so English undoubtedlymeets this firstrequirement.The second equirement f a global anguages that t mustbe the officialanguage.For Crystal-as for many other inguists- off icial"means hat the language s used either n governmentalaffairsor in the media or promotedby the educational ystem. In this sense, English s

36


2/6


3/6

The term "attitudesto language" efers o " (...)considerations f superiority r inferiority, eautyor ugliness,ogicality nd il logicalityof a language)"Milroy& Milroy198015).Thismeans hatspeakersand even whole communities ttachcertainnon-linguisticalues o a language,andthat thesevaluesare sometimes eflectedn the speakers'discourse. n example s CharlesV'sfamousquotation: l speakSpanish o God, talian o women,French o men and German o myhorse".By saying l speakSpanish o God" here s a reinforcementf a nationalist isionof language;nother words, the languageof one's nation s alwaysthe true language. n fact, al l nationalistviewsof language end o idealize ne's anguage o the detriment f others.By saying ltaliantowomen", he means that ltalian s the languageof love, a "sweet",rhythmic anguage.Then,*Frenchto men"relates o the famousconception f Frenchas being he languageof reason,ofreal hinking, f logic.Finally,German s perceived s a "cold"language, languageof strength,brutality nddisciPline.In this presentation, will only refer o some negativeattitudes o Englishas a global anguage,accordingo somenewspaper rticlesand forums,all dated2006.Not all speakerswho holdnegative onsiderationso the globalization ive he same reasons ordoingso. On the contrary,t is essentialo studyseparatelywhat nativespeakers f English hinkformwhat oreignsPeakershink.As we all know, there existsan unbreakableink between anguageand identity Pool 1979),which is likely o becomeapparentwhen we studyattitudes owardsany language. n fact, thisseems o be supportedn the fact that,accordingo the corpus, hosenativespeakersof Englishwho do not agree o the globalization rgue hat theirmother ongue s gettingdenativized.Mosttimes, his denativization f English s considered o carry another mportant onsequence:helossof the national ultureand values.As one U.K.citizenwrote: Thepeoplewho will ose out ifEnglishbecomes he internationalanguage re the English.Non-native nglish peakers ankeeptheirown languageand culturesbut we will be forced o give ours up. English,as spokenby Englishpeople, s a diverse and beautiful anguage".Needless o say, there were otherargumentso complainabout he globalstatusof English,but the denativization as, by far, themost requent.In relation o non-native peakers,hosewho didn'tagree o the globalization f English, eferredto the fact that English s taking over other countries'social functions.These speakersweresomehowmakingreference o the vitalityof regionalcountries, omethingknownas "linguisticecosystem". hey argued hat if Englishwere to becomea universalanguage,hen their nativelanguageswouldbe unfairlywipedout. One Welsh eenagerwrote:"lt'sjust not fair that Englishis everywhere ou go and in everything ou do. lt's our right o speak he languagewe want and Iwant o speakmy language, ot English".Whatnegative ttitudes ave ed o in the methodologicalrenaAs we have statedbefore,all speakershold negativeand positiveattitudes owards anguages,but sometimeswhen what theseattitudesmply s perceived s a potential isk, anguageusersand anguage lanners ttempt o "solvethe problem" y causing change n the language. his

3B


4/6

is known n the linguisticieldas language lanning nd language olicies3.Roughly peaking,languageplanning efers to the fact that institutions, rganizations nd even individuals andesignany change n a language,f it is considered ecessary.Oncethere s a scheme o stickto, the institutionsn chargehave o makesure that languageuserssupport heir deas.Here swhere heyapply anguage olicieso persuade anguage sersabout he need or suchchange.Since the seventies, here have been many attempts o createa new phonological ystem n

consonancewith the global statusof Englishand the global dentities f its speakers.Appliedlinguistssuch as Crystal, Graddol and Hockett, among others, have carried out differentlanguageplanningproposals o simplify adapt / reduce he Englishphonological ystem,making t easier and more appropriate or non-native earners,as they considered he globalstatusof Englishmade it a non-democraticanguage4.Some of these proposals eemedveryappealing nd logical, owevernonesucceeded.On this occasion,we will brieflyoutline he most recentproposal,ha t of Jenkins 2000),calledThe lingua-franca ore. Basedon corpus esearchand understandinghat most communicativeinteractions owadays nvolvenon-native ather han nativespeakers, enkinsargues hat EFLshould stop concentrating n the nativespeakeras the canon for desirablepronunciation ndstart focusingon non-nativespeakers,whlch should become models in their own right. Butbefore his we will mention ome nterestingacts.Untilvery recently, tudents' nteractions ere measuredagainstnativepronunciation;hat is tosay, he more"native-like"the speaker, he bettermarkshe got. lf we takea lookat , fo r instance,past CPE handbook CambridgeUniversity), e realize his is true. Therewas a speaking calefrom 1 to 5 and thosestudentswho wanted o passwith 5 (gradeA) shouldbe a "virtuallynativespeaker ...)withvirtually ative peaker ccuracy". hisseems o havechanged n termsof theNew CPE, as the same gradingscale writes:"Examinersput themselves n the positionof thenon-EFl-specialists nd assess he overall mpactof the communication nd the degreeof effortrequired o understand he candidate(...) candidates'pronunciationmay be influencedbyfeaturesof their first language"S.Not everyoneagrees that this new discourse eally makesallowances or candidates' 1 interferences, owever, t is linguisticallyelevant o highlight hefact that there seems to be some kind of awarenessof the need to make English more"democratic"for foreignspeakers.Consideringhe currentsituation nfair or non-native peakers, enkinsproposesa reduction nthe Englishphonological ystem,so as to make t more democratic.She believes hat by doingthis, the gap betweennativeand non-native peakers'performances ill be somehowbridged.

' See, or further reference,Calvet (1997),one of the mostparadigmaticworks in languageplanning.oThis argument s connected o the threesourcesof power we havementioned n rela-tiono English (technological,cultural and economicpower), as both imply a power-relationbetween hosewho speak he languageand thosewhodo not.t For further reference, eeCPE Handbook(University of Cambridge,Local ExaminationsSyndicate)39


5/6

Here we will only present hree of the featuresshe proposes,as we will keep our focus on themethodologicalonsequences,ather han he phonological implificationtselfG.Among other hings,she proposes he use of rhotic r in all contexts, rguing hat it is easier orstudentso learn hatwhenever hey see the grapheme r" they shouldpronouncerl.ln thisway,she proposesnot to teach he typicalRP pronunciationn which rl is only pronouncedn word-initialpositionand in the so-called inking phenomenon. he argues hat this secondoption smore complicatedor foreignspeakers, s they need o be awareof thesecontextualules,whilethe use of rhotic r doesnot mplyany special ule.She also proposes o eradicate he distinctiveeaturesbetweensome pairs of phonemes, orinstancehe voicelessnterdentalricative 0l and its voicedcounterpart 6l. ccording o Jenkins'research,he failure o effectively ronouncehesesounds n their standard orm does not carryany miscommunication roblem. Hence, she considers eachers do not need to teach thedifferencebetweenboth phonemes,as any of them can occur in any contextwithout causingcommunicative roblems. n this sense,she concludeshat studentsmay pronounce0l,16l, orsomethingn between, epending n theirnative ongue.The last featurewe will make reference o is the use of flapped"r". According o Jenkins t isadvisablenot to teach this flapped"r", as it is easier or students o learn he relationbetweengraphemes t" and "d" and the sounds U and /d/. She believes hat teaching his flapped"r",which may occur in middle-word osition, s not necessary, s they can always use the samesounds or all threecontexts initial,middleand final),which are dl and U.Evaluating he LinguaFrancaCoreLeavingasidedlfferent pinionsabout hisproposal,what s sociolinguisticallyelevant s that hismatterdirectly elates o linguisticdentities nd to a sociolinguisticssue, hat is to say whetherit's advisable to create a global identity of English and to promote non-native standardpronunciationr if the English anguage elongs o its nativespeakers nd then it shouldonlychangewithin his community. he firstpositionpresupposes (n) (re)affirmationf the linguisticrightsof non-native peakers seeAmmon 2000 and Rassool2000), hat is to say "non nativesspeakersneed to learn English,so let's make Englishmore 'democratic'for them",while thesecond reinforces he nationalistic iew of languageaccording o which a languagemust beprotectedorm external nfluences.Final remarksAs I said in the introductiono this presentation,here. In fact, it wouldn't be possibleeither, asEnglishare still wo of the most heated opics oInstead, wil lposesomequestionshatone maythis ype:

I do not intend o find answers o this dilemmaJenkins'proposaland the democratization f

be discussedn the AppliedLinguist icsgenda.ask oneselfwhen acinga language lanning f

uIt seems air to add that Jenkinsdoesnot propose his Lingua FrancaCore as a definite system or Global English,insteadshementions he need o contrasther own work with further research.40


6/6

canale on language

Documents