Dual Language Instruction: Multiculturalism Through a Lingua Franca
Cem Alptekin
Boğaziçi University
Istanbul, Turkey
THE SPREAD OF ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA
The current spread of English as a lingua franca can best be described as a process that has
involved the colonial powers’ extending the use of the language worldwide for their political and
economic interests (Phillipson, 1992); the colonized people's appropriation and utilization of the
language in their quest for freedom and independence (Brutt-Griffler, 2002); and the social and
economic trends of globalization, especially in their connections to Anglo-American dominance
in technology, science, business, academia, and leisure.
At present, English has become a lingua franca of an unprecedented scope. Nonnative speakers
of English outnumber native speakers three to one (Crystal, 1997). According to a recent British
Council study reported in The Guardian ("Forked Tongues," 2005), 2 billion people are expected
to start learning English within the next 10 years, and 3 billion will be able to speak it. Currently,
80% of the users of English, or about 2 billion users, are said to be bilingual (Brutt-Griffler,
2002, p. 12), thereby creating the impetus for "English-knowing bilingualism" (Jenkins, 2003, p.
141) to become the recognized world norm in lieu of the traditional paradigm of
monolingualism. Furthermore, bilinguals for whom English is not their first language do not
passively absorb the language but mould it to fit with their indigenous realities. As such, local
varieties of English have emerged, each manifesting various characteristics of localization that
ostensibly may resemble attempts at de-Anglicizing or de-Americanizing the language. In
addition to the more familiar varieties found in Outer Circle countries (Kachru, 2001), such as
what is referred to as Hinglish (in India) and Taglish (in the Philippines), one observes the rise of
Japlish, Spanglish, and Franglais among others in Expanding Circle countries, not to mention
the significant emergence of Euro-English within the European Union.1 With its multitude of
users and its increasing varieties, English has become the world's primary vehicle for storing and
transmitting information. In fact, an estimated 75% of the world's mail, 80% of computer data,
and 85% of all information is reportedly stored or abstracted in English (Thomas, 1996).
Moreover, English is an official language in over 50 countries, and out of the roughly 12,500
international organizations, about 85% use it as an official language. For example, English is the
official language of the European Central Bank even though the bank is in Frankfurt, Germany,
and no predominantly English-speaking country is a member of the European Monetary Union.
ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA AND ITS WORLDWIDE IMPLICATIONS
As a lingua franca, English is believed to open doors that local languages do not. In Mongolia,
for example, where there is a major drive to make English the primary foreign language in
schools, the language is seen as “hip and universal” and the prime minister states that aside from
its communicative functions English is actually “a way of opening windows on the wider world”
(Brooke, 2005, n.p.). In Germany, where English is regarded among other things as the language
1
Phillipson (2005) reports that 127 varieties of English currently exist, with 42 in Europe.
Dual-Language Instruction: Multiculturalism Through a Lingua Franca - 2
of science and technology, 98% of all physicists claim it as their working language (Van Essen,
2004). Scholars who work in Expanding Circle countries, like Germany, are said to be under
increasing pressure to publish in English, particularly in what are deemed to be high-status
journals such as those listed in the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index
(Curry & Lillis, 2004, p. 674). Young people in Europe consider the language “cool,” as they
believe it stands for all “great” things in life such as music, TV, mobiles, computers, or the
Internet (Extra & Yagmur, 2004, p. 400). In general, even though Europeans want to safeguard
their native languages, 70% of them think that English should be spoken by everyone in the
European Union, this ratio rising to 77% in Denmark, 75% in Sweden, and 71% in the
Netherlands (Anderman & Rogers, 2005, p. 9).
Obviously, English in its present role as the lingua franca of the world is beginning to create an
impact on English language teaching programs in terms of both objectives and content. No
longer does any prominent educationist in the field give credence to the traditional idea of
learning English solely in order to be able to communicate with native speakers of the language.
The native speaker-based notion of communicative competence is described as utopian,
unrealistic, and constraining (Alptekin, 2002). It is utopian because a lingua franca cannot by
definition have native speakers. It is unrealistic because achieving nativelike competence in a
language without native speakers would be an anomaly. It is constraining because it
circumscribes learner and teacher autonomy by focusing on the parochial confines of native
speaker-based authenticity rather than the authenticity of a language of wider communication
used chiefly by English-speaking bilinguals in the context of cross-cultural encounters. The new
pedagogy takes into consideration the increasing number of bilingual users of English and puts
forth successful bilinguals with multicultural insights and knowledge as educational models
(Alptekin, 2002; McKay, 2003b).
Another area that has been influenced by the emergence of English as a lingua franca has been
instructional content. In general, there is a trend away from the conventional idea of teaching
culture as an essential part of teaching the language, which rested on the premise that a language
could only be fully understood if it was connected to its culture. Given the lingua franca status of
English, there are actually objections to the teaching of Inner Circle cultures to the exclusion of
Outer Circle cultures (Wandel, 2002), and there are even demands to omit the teaching of Inner
Circle cultures altogether (Van Essen, 2004), including courses dealing with English literature
and cultural studies (Edmondson & House, 2003). Others favor the use of relevant international
topics and themes (Alptekin, 1993) and, in addition, even topics and themes from the local
culture (McKay, 2003a, 2003b). These perceived needs for change all stem from the fundamental
irrelevance of Inner Circle contexts, individuals, values, and assumptions in the instruction of a
lingua franca. The current pedagogic focus seems to be on developing learners’ communication
skills and strategies in cross-cultural settings and on raising their multicultural awareness.
Thus, it is not surprising nowadays to encounter proposals to replace English as a foreign
language (EFL) with English as a lingua franca (ELF) on the grounds that whereas the former
emphasizes the principal role of English as a means of communication between native and
nonnative speakers of English, the latter capitalizes upon its essential role as an international
Dual-Language Instruction: Multiculturalism Through a Lingua Franca - 3
language among its nonnative speakers (Jenkins, 2005).2 As such, as English becomes more
global, it is eventually bound to lose its domestic character and will be open to all kinds of
innovations, which may be deemed odd or wrong by its native speakers who still adhere to Inner
Circle standards of use and usage. Yet, as Widdowson (2003) indicates, no nation can have
custody over an international language, for a language is international only to the degree it is not
the property of its native speakers (p. 43). Besides, the norms of native speakers of English can
be said to make no sense if interlocutors seldom interact with them (McKay, 2002).
In addition, the complacency of native speakers of English in learning other languages
challenges the authoritative centrality of the native speaker-based paradigm in pedagogy.
Speakers of English as a domestic language are known to be typically monolingual, showing
little interest in learning foreign languages. This attitude is clearly reflected in Edwards’ (1995)
account of an Arkansas school superintendent who refused a request to have foreign languages
taught at the secondary level by saying that if English was good enough for Jesus, it was good
enough for everyone (p. 204). On a more academic level, Widdowson (1994) argues that the
native-English-speaking world has not much to offer to foreign language pedagogy in that the
dominance of its own language does it a disservice. Referring strictly to the British scene, he has
the following to say:
The British are not noted for their ready acquisition of any language other than their own.
The record of foreign language instruction in their schools has, generally speaking, been
one of dismal failure. And yet there is this pervasive assumption that they are naturally
expert in the teaching of a foreign language to other people. … But why should the
British claim any authority to advise on foreign language teaching, in which they have no
credible credentials at all? It seems perverse. And yet authority is claimed. And
furthermore, it is conceded. Why? . . . Because there is this persistent confusion, I
suggest, between the phenomenon English as a native language, and the subject English
as a foreign language, and the invalid assumption that arises from it that experience in the
one readily transfers to an expertise in the other (pp. 1.10-1.13).
In the same vein, Brumfit (2002) bemoans the lack of interest shown by the largely monolingual
mother-tongue English speech communities in acquiring other languages and concludes that in
the absence of serious efforts for bilingualism, “citizens of the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, and other largely English-speaking countries” will not be able “to avoid being the
monolingual dinosaurs in a multilingual world” (p. 11). Despite such valid arguments for
bilingualism, a recent report on the issue, prepared by the Centre for Information on Language
Teaching in the United Kingdom and published in The Independent, suggests that Britain is the
foreign languages “dunce” of Europe (Garner, 2004). Based on data from 28 European countries,
2
The term English as an international language (EIL) is sometimes used to refer to the English used only
in Inner Circle and Outer Circle countries (Seidlhofer, 2001, p. 153), to the exclusion of English used in Expanding
Circle countries, while at other times it is used to describe the English of countries in all three categories. To avoid
this ambiguity, I use ELF instead, referring to a language of wider communication used in cross-cultural contexts,
irrespective of where those contexts are. Moreover, unlike Jenkins (2005), who focuses on nonnative speakernonnative speaker interactions in ELF, I view ELF as including nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker interactions as
well as native speaker-nonnative speaker interactions.
Dual-Language Instruction: Multiculturalism Through a Lingua Franca - 4
the report shows that fewer people in Britain can speak another language than anywhere else on
the Continent. The findings, the report claims, are not surprising in view of the steep decline
witnessed in British schools in foreign language course enrolments since these courses were
officially removed from the compulsory national curriculum for 14- to 16-year-old students. At
present, the report adds, two thirds of state schools in Britain no longer offer foreign languages
as a compulsory subject.3
FROM MONOLINGUALISM TO BILINGUALISM AND MULTICULTURALISM
With English being the lingua franca of this age, its native speakers find little incentive to learn
foreign languages, as the evidence presented so far suggests. Thus, we have the paradox of a
language going international while its native speakers remain resolutely monolingual and
parochial. On the other hand, ELF users are on their way to achieving the recognized world norm
of being English-knowing bilinguals. This new status enables them to develop an understanding
and appreciation of what it means to communicate in a language other than their own. Yet it is
unable to foster a new cultural identity that incorporates perceptual and conceptual elements of
both constituent languages in a synthetic way such that it is essentially different from them. The
primary reason for this failure lies in the obvious fact that ELF has no proper culture of its own
to speak of. As an international medium of communication it belongs to no single cultural
context. Given that culture as socially acquired knowledge plays a vital role in cognition, the
absence of a cultural context renders irrelevant another perspective on reality developed from the
ability to perceive physical distinctions (e.g., cross-cultural interpretations of colors) and to
generate conceptual distinctions (e.g., cross-cultural interpretations of tone of voice). Another
reason stems from the fact that ELF, as a culturally deracinated language, would be devoid of
idioms, puns, connotations, slang, humor, and grammatical subtleties or, for that matter, culturespecific pragmatic norms and values. As such, it would not enable interlocutors to use both
languages and their norms and values flexibly and eclectically depending on the sociocultural
context and the individual speaker--acts that a bilingual would be expected to perform. A third
reason comes from ELF being used basically as a medium of communication rather than a means
of identification. Edmondson and House (2003), for example, point out that ELF users, as
nonnative speakers from different nationalities, communicate with each other as “individual ELF
speakers belonging to … ‘the community of ELF speakers’, who use the language not
necessarily as a means of identification but as a means of communication.” Hence, they
conclude, ELF “does not provide a cultural identity, though it may, presumably, be used by the
individual to establish his or her cultural identity in ELF communication” (pp. 327-328).4 In
sum, the conventional notion that bilingualism will pave the way to biculturalism and a new
cultural identity is not necessarily tenable in the ELF context.
3
These findings stand in sharp contrast to the results of a recent opinion poll taken by Eurobarometer in
continental Europe, in which 50% of the participants said they could speak a foreign language, the ratio being close
to 100% in Luxembourg and less than 30% in Hungary. The same poll shows that 90% of students at the upper
secondary level in 13 European countries learned English regardless of whether it was compulsory or optional
(Delmoly, 2005).
4
The absence of a cultural identity fosters the spread and use of ELF because interlocutors do not feel that
the language threatens their mother tongue-related identity.
Dual-Language Instruction: Multiculturalism Through a Lingua Franca - 5
ELF users do have, however, the potential to use the language as a conduit for fostering a
multicultural identity, surprising as this may sound at first. To begin with, when they
communicate among themselves, they are not necessarily familiar with each other’s languages
and cultures. Consequently, in order to understand the interlocutor’s message fully and to be
reasonably intelligible, they need to develop some degree of cross-cultural versatility, which
would involve a gradual accumulation of insights into other cultures’ norms, values, and
behavior patterns. This will, out of necessity, develop to avoid the high potential for
miscommunication caused by the fluidity of emerging linguistic criteria as well as the paucity of
pragmatic guidelines of ELF, not to mention the English proficiency level of the interlocutors
involved. In due course, as users contribute to ELF through their own regional or national
identity, the communication pressure to expand the scope of cultural versatility for interlocutors
will inevitably increase, eventually giving rise to the formation of a multicultural identity.
Furthermore, in any given second language communication, interlocutors are known to add to
the cultural content of the exchange and, simultaneously, gain cultural insights from the
interaction. As such, each cross-cultural encounter is bound to enrich the interlocutor’s cultural
versatility by way of intercultural awareness and pave the way to multiculturalism.
This type of multiculturalism is also the natural outcome of the wide use of ELF in politics,
business, academia, leisure, science, technology, and, in particular, communication technologies,
as mentioned previously. Getting to know about a multitude of cultures through ELF is
nowadays a reality for English-knowing bilinguals, a reality they would be deprived of if they
simply remained monolingual or became bilingual in a local (as opposed to international)
language. In either case, they would still have very limited access to the kind of data available to
those who know English.
The new educational focus on raising multicultural awareness and ELF-oriented communication
skills and strategies among learners, combined with the selection of successful English-knowing
bilinguals as pedagogic models and the emphasis given to the international and local cultural
contexts, will likely foster the development of English-knowing bilinguals with multicultural
traits. These people will, it is hoped, use the kind of English that is separated from its original
culture and ideology, yet one that manifests the distinct linguistic and conceptual flavors of a
variety of cultures.5 Dual-language educational programs in those Expanding Circle countries
that promote bilingualism through ELF and the native language from an early age are the natural
habitats of developing bilingual individuals with multicultural identities.
5
Critics of ELF are concerned about the loss of one’s cultural identity as a result of what they refer to as
McDonaldization (Phillipson, 2003, p. 12), that is, the permeation of North American (or British) norms and values
in indigenous life-styles, which eventually pave the way to cultural homogenization or, worse, capitulation to the
forces of North American (or British) imperialism. What this highly political stance overlooks is the fact that a
language can be used separately from its original culture and its dominant ideology, without compromising one’s
own cultural and ideological perspective (Llurda, 2004, p. 321). In fact, a survey conducted by Eurobarometer
(2001) among residents of the European Union shows that Europeans, in general, believe in adopting English as an
international means of communication without adopting the customs and traditions specific to the United States, the
United Kingdom, and other major English-speaking countries.
Dual-Language Instruction: Multiculturalism Through a Lingua Franca - 6
REFERENCES
Alptekin, C. (1993). Target-language culture in EFL materials. The ELT Journal, 47, 136-143.
Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence. The ELT Journal, 56,
57-64.
Anderman, G., & Rogers, M. (2005). English in Europe: For better, for worse? In G. Anderman
and M. Rogers (Eds.), In and out of English: For better, for worse? (pp. 1-26). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Brooke, J. (2005, February 15). For Mongolians, E is for English, F is for future. The New York
Times. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www.nytimes.com/
Brumfit, C. (2002, February). Has everything changed? EL Gazette, 265, 11.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English:
Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 663-688.
Delmoly, J. (2005, September). Une nouvelle politique du multilinguisme. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Conference of Bi- and Multilingual Universities, Helsinki, Finland.
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (2003). English in the world and English in the school. In H.
Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven, & K. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of
Günther Raddan (pp. 321-345). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Edwards, J. (1995). Multilingualism. London: Penguin.
Eurobarometer. (2001). English as a lingua franca for Europe. Retrieved August 23, 2005, from
http://www.answers.com/topic/english-as-a-lingua-franca-for-europe?hl
Extra, G., & Yagmur, K. (Eds.). (2004). Urban multilingualism in Europe: Immigrant minority
languages at home and school. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Forked tongues. (2005, January 10). The Guardian. Retrieved August 9, 2005, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1386532,00.html
Garner, R. (2004, December 24). Britain is Europe’s foreign languages dunce, study shows. The
Independent. Retrieved August 9, 2005, from
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article26124.ece
Dual-Language Instruction: Multiculturalism Through a Lingua Franca - 7
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2005). ELF at the gate: The position of English as a lingua franca. Humanising
Language Teaching 7(2). Retrieved August 9, 2005, from http://hltmag.co.uk/mar05/idea.htm
Kachru, B. (2001). World Englishes. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of
sociolinguistics (pp. 519-524). New York: Elsevier.
Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an international language.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 314-323.
McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
McKay, S. (2003a). Teaching English as an international language: The Chilean context. The
ELT Journal, 57, 139-148.
McKay, S. (2003b). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT
assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-22.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (2005, September). English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of
languages? Paper presented at the meeting of the Conference of Bi- and Multilingual
Universities, Helsinki, Finland.
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua
franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133-158.
Thomas, L. (1996). Language as power: A linguistic critique of US English. The Modern
Language Journal, 80, 129-140.
Van Essen, A. (2004). The rise and role of English as an international language: Some
educational consequences. Humanising Language Teaching, 6(4). Retrieved August 9, 2005,
from http://www.hltmag.co.uk/nov04/mart02.htm
Wandel, R. (2002). Teaching India in the EFL classroom: A cultural or an intercultural
approach? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15, 264-272.
Widdowson, H. G. (1994). Pragmatics and the pedagogic competence of language teachers. In T.
Sebbage & S. Sebbage (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Iinternational NELLE Conference (pp.
1.10-1.13). Hamburg, Germany: Networking European Language Learning in English.
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Dual-Language Instruction: Multiculturalism Through a Lingua Franca - 8
TESOL Symposium on Dual Language Education: Teaching and Learning Two Languages
in the EFL Setting
September 23, 2005
Boğaziçi University
Istanbul, Turkey
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
700 South Washington Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314 USA
Tel: 703-836-0774
Fax: 703-836-7864
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.tesol.org/
Copyright © 2005 by Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL)
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any informational storage and retrieval system,
without permission from the author. Permission is hereby granted for personal use only.