INTRODUCTION

ENGLISH IN A POST-APPROPRIATION WORLD:

FACING THE NEW CHALLENGES

ROBY MARLINA AND RAQIB CHOWDHURY

In 1997 when British linguist Graddol anticipated that the number of

non-native speakers of English will outnumber native speakers, he was
foreseeing the inevitable global spread of English beyond just teaching and
learning. Non-native speakers now outnumber native English speakers by
three to one with around one quarter of the world’s population speaking
English in some form.
Concurrent with this changed scenario, in the last 30 years or so, we
may have witnessed or encountered – either through publications or
conference presentations – a paradigm shift in the Applied Linguistics
and/or TESOL disciplines. As Kuhn (1962) argues, a shift in paradigm is
prompted by emerging significant anomalies that consequently question
and challenge the applicability of current knowledge, beliefs or
perspectives. This has been observed in both disciplines especially as a
result of the changing sociolinguistic landscape of the English language in
the world. Naturally, these changes have generated significant implications
for the ways in which the English language, its practical usage, and its
approach to teaching/learning are understood, conceptualised, taught,
learned and practised. The more persistent concerns of debating the
usefulness of English have long given way into sustained discussions on
the ownership and appropriation of a language which is no longer the
prerogative of ‘native’ English speakers.
The colonial and postcolonial expansion of the English language
received mixed responses from scholars in academic research in the late
80s and early 90s. Another well-established and prolific scholar Robert
Phillipson (1992, 2009), using the notion of ‘linguistic imperialism’,
argued that the spread of English was due primarily to the attempts of
developed English-speaking countries such as the UK and the US to
maintain dominance over developing countries through the “establishment
viii Introduction

and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between

English and other languages” (p. 47). English language teaching enterprises
such as The British Council were and are one of the establishments to
which the developed English speaking countries had allocated a large sum
of money, with an aim to disseminate and promote English and favour its
use over other languages. English learners in these enterprises were taught
with the attitudes and pedagogic principles that favoured monolingualism
(Phillipson, 1992). Those who learnt English from these teaching
enterprises were expected to lose their mother tongue, speak the varieties
of English promoted by those enterprises, and internalise American or
British cultural norms.
However, Phillipson’s view was not entirely shared by other scholars.
Rather than viewing English as a symbol of imperialism, Pennycook
(1994) insisted on the benefit of viewing English as the world’s most
important international language – as a “crucial gatekeeper to social and
economic progress” (p. 13). With English emerging as a first-ranked
language in a variety of economic and cultural settings, many individuals
in diverse speech communities decided or chose to learn/acquire the
language. English has been spontaneously acquired by teeming millions all
over the world since, who have appropriated and claimed ownership over
English in their own, individual and unique ways, stories of which are
intricately embedded in the chapters of this book.
The notion of linguistic imperialism had denied the agency of learners
and users of English to alter the language according to their needs. For
example, it “obscures the role of Africans, Asians, and other peoples of the
world as active agents in the process of creation of world English” (Brutt-
Griffler, 2002, p. 107). In other words, the theory ignored the very natural
process of languages coming in contact and the dynamic, ever-changing
nature of a living language. When a language arrives and enters a
particular country, it does not get passively absorbed by the speakers, but
is ‘naturally’ nativised (Kachru, 1992) and appropriated (Canagarajah,
1999) to suit the speakers’ local contexts, and to project their local
identities. Not surprisingly, identity has emerged as a major theme across
the chapters of this book in relation to the teaching and learning of
English. The outcome of the process of languages in contact can be
observed in the emergence of the different varieties of English which are
now collectively called ‘world Englishes’ (Kachru, 1986, Kirkpatrick,
2007).
Not only has such emergence of these Englishes challenged the notion
of English as a monolithic entity, but it has also redefined and
renationalised the ownership of English (McKay, 2002), making it an
 Enacting English across Borders ix

‘Indonesian’, a ‘Bangladeshi’, a ‘Kenyan’, a ‘German’ or a ‘South-

Korean’ language. With the forces of globalisation, this label of English as
a language of a particular nationality is becoming even more blurry,
especially to those individuals who have been moving across different
geographical borders, and who may have been exposed to different
varieties of English as they move from one border to another. The
increased phenomena of transnational migration have not only spread
English; it has dispersed its active users to the point where national
boundaries can no longer be drawn insofar as speakers’ linguistic identities
are concerned.
In this continuum, English has now acquired the status of the
undisputed global language of communication to a degree that its
instrumentalist benefits are almost no longer questioned in academic
scholarship. Yet the inevitable conundrum we continue to face in our
attempt to impose a ‘standard’ to English remains well documented in
literature, especially in the last three decades. The notion of unproblematic
standardisation of English, which assumes a unitary, homogenous
monomodel is now widely disputed. In the backdrop of globalisation,
debate on which ‘model’ should be the norm in English classrooms around
the world has been heavily debated in the last three decades by authors
such as Kachru (1992), Conrad, (1996), Widdowson, (1997) and
Seidlhofer (2001), and this question continues to be problematised in the
articles in the current book where ownership and appropriation emerge as
recurring and prominent themes. However, rather than an international
‘model’ or ‘standard’, authors of this book, like Seidlhofer (2004), push
forward the need for a new ‘international attitude’ – the recognition that
native-like English is indeed unnecessary in most international contexts.
The recognition and acceptance of indigenous and nativised varieties now
reflect speakers’ cultural and pragmatic norms (Kirkpatrick, 2007). Indeed,
even in teaching and learning contexts, as Kirkpatrick (2007) has shown,
multilingual non-native teachers represent ideal teachers in many ELT
contexts with local (or glocal) varieties of English gaining increasing
endorsement in teaching and learning.
With English now well established as a pluricentric language, the
identity which today’s users of English choose to project or prefer to be
associated with has become more complex than ever before. The
traditional dichotomy between native-English speakers and non-native
English speakers has been challenged in multiple ways. Traditionally,
those who came from countries where English is used as a national
language were labelled as ‘native English speakers’ and those from other
countries were labelled as ‘non-native English speakers’. Such simple,
x Introduction

binary division is no longer sufficient in explaining the complex and

hybrid identities that millions of English speakers assume all over the
world today.
In academic literature identity has been viewed as a social
phenomenon which allows us to have social identities against social
‘groups’ (for example, ‘TESOL students’, or ‘English speakers’) we think
we belong to or in which we are placed (Tajfel, 1982). Within such
positioning, we automatically internalise the views of ourselves due to our
conformity to or membership of these social groups. In other words,
subscription to groups such as ‘English speakers’ automatically impose
upon ourselves identities that we project in our interaction to members of
the society.
However, identity is not just a passive imposition we assume. How
individuals have engaged in ‘identity work’ (Loseke, 2000, p. 108) in
which ‘selves are crafted out of the “messy” details of actual lives’ also
depends on how individuals draw upon their biographical particulars and
cultural knowledge to demonstrate different versions of themselves in
specific social circumstances in order to narrate their stories. In a number
of articles in this volume, participants have offered their biographies in
relation to how they have assumed, acquired, transformed and created
identities for themselves through their use of English and have claimed
unique membership to certain groups as powerful language users. Such
identity subscriptions have also empowered them into robust
epistemological positions that have allowed them into creating newer and
alternative roles for English.
Despite this, scholars, academics, teachers, practitioners and other
vested interest groups who still believe in the superiority of standard (often
native) English remain in powerful positions. While it is understandable
why academics who aspire to have their work published in international
journals need to adhere to ‘standard’ English followed by native English-
speakers, such logic does not stand when it comes to spoken English,
where comprehensibility, often in the absence of any native speakers, is all
that matters. In such contexts, English is often put to newer uses in forms
that mark a conspicuous departure from norms that have long been upheld
by its native speakers.
The global spread of English, the birth of new world Englishes, the
increased amount of exposure to English, and the changing patterns of
acquisition of English in multilingual and multicultural ‘non-English-
speaking’ countries have now blurred the distinction between native-
speakers and non-native speakers (Jenkins, 2007). In practice, users of
English today may not prefer to be identified either as ‘native’ or ‘non-
 Enacting English across Borders xi

native’ because these labels do not sufficiently capture their rich linguistic
repertoire as well as their complex linguistic usage or practices. They may
also have different or even conflicting attitudes, perceptions and
understanding of themselves as users of English. If they are teachers of
English, those from countries where English was historically the language
of colonial power, or those who have been ‘geographically mobile’ and
whose mobility has had significant effect on their linguistic repertoire and
practices, the aforementioned labels as well as conception of one’s identity
are likely to be far more complicated.
The changing sociolinguistic reality of English described above has
further generated a number of thought-provoking questions for the
teaching and learning of the English language. Since English is essentially
a ‘glocal’ communication tool, and is used by today’s users of English for
intercultural communication in multilingual and multicultural settings,
what are the main objectives or goals of teaching? What do curriculum or
syllabus materials now look like? What teaching approaches or models are
employed and considered as effective? What kinds of competence are
learners encouraged to develop? What is assessed and how? Whose or
which cultures/Englishes are espoused, taught and discussed in class? Who
are learners’ role models? Who are ‘qualified’ language teachers? What is
the role of teacher-education programs in EFL countries? What are
considered as important in national language policies and planning
documents?
Since it is beyond the scope of this book to provide ‘answers’ to these
questions, one view that we believe has informed the responses to the
above questions is that diversity should not be regarded as deficiency, but
as a crucial core element in today’s language education. This book houses
contemporary theoretical and empirical studies by emergent researchers
and scholars in the disciplines of ELT, Applied Linguistics and TESOL
who address some of the above issues from their own contexts
(predominantly in Asian settings). Each chapter in a unique way
challenges, unpacks and critiques existing misconceptions and pre-
conceived assumptions of the use, learning and teaching of English in
today’s fluid and globalised, postmodern era. While some contributors
have brought such issues to the forefront through a critical consideration
of histories and policies, others have explored how English is enacted,
practised, learned, and/or taught across a wide range of settings in order to
further illustrate the various manifestations of the worldwide expansion of
the language. Together the chapters highlight the current discrepancies and
inconsistencies in different areas of interest in the field of ELT, and
provide carefully considered suggestions on how to address these issues.
xii Introduction

Studies in this volume will facilitate greater understanding into our

optimisation of the delivery and use of English in Asian countries to the
advantage of learners, teachers, researchers, policy makers and
governments.
This book does not seek to answer if and how English is beneficial.
Nor does it address the numerous uses and abuses English is put into.
Within such post-politicisation and post-appropriation perspective, authors
consider the various manifestations of English, sometimes an
instrumentalist endeavour, and at other times as a purely professional
endeavour to deliver the benefits of an essentially local communication
tool.
These views revolve around national histories of curriculum policies
and development, the status of EIL in country-specific contexts, narratives
of ELT teacher training/education and reform – including in-service
teacher training, intercultural communicative competence and pedagogical
approaches, code-switching, materials and curriculum development,
second language acquisition, as well as transformative themes around
gender perspectives in the profession of teaching, ethnicities and ethnic
discourses in ELT pedagogy, identity and appropriation, and themes of
inclusion and nativisation. We ask, for example – to what extent is
teaching (English) a gendered profession? What are the factors that
contribute or influence our gendered beliefs? How does communicative
competence interface with the notion of identity and social interaction?
How can young and new teachers be engaged in the profession through
mentoring and exposure to long-term development plans? How can
universities take into consideration transferrable skills such as business
English that will enhance the employability of learners in the job market?
How aware are teachers of the varieties and legitimacy of ‘other’
Englishes and how much importance do they place on them? In the
overwhelmingly communicative atmosphere, what accounts for the
residual expectations of grammar-based language learning?
In this book Goward and Zhang show how, despite marked differences
in their histories, two emerging superpowers (postcolonial/outer circle
India and EFL/expanding circle China) have appropriated English into a
useful tool of local communication. Mohideen explores gendered views of
teachers’ language ability and how heavily underrepresented males fit into
the traditionally feminised profession of ELT in Malaysia. Linh, Dung and
Farnhill explore themes of power relations and self-identification within a
group of Vietnamese learners in the UK in terms of how they differently
interact with native and non-native speakers of English. Bukhori-Muslim’s
case study of a non-English speaking family living in Melbourne family
 Enacting English across Borders xiii

highlights the complexities of the role of code switching in children’s

bilingual development. Warouw tries to understand how teachers adapt
their teaching styles and materials in response to the multiethnic diversity
typical in university classrooms in Manado. Also analysing language
teaching materials, Dinh examines whose and how cultures are represented
in ELT textbooks in Vietnam and calls for the need to critically revisit
language teaching textbooks in the light of the predominant use of English
for intercultural communication in today’s globalised world. Afrianto
looks into how a group of prospective English teachers are transformed
into novice teachers through the teaching practicum at an Indonesian
university. By looking into how workers use pragmatic strategies to
overcome problems when communication breakdowns occur, Roshid
questions the role of intercultural knowledge in a readymade garments
industry in Bangladesh where English is the only means to communicate
with the world. Rather than seeing the emerging variety of Japanese
English as a deficit model, Ike argues for the need for greater recognition
of nativised and truly internationalised local varieties of English, not only
in Japan but all over the world. Drawing on a case study on identity and
teaching, Yazdanpanah and Brown show how teachers’ personal
understanding (rather than theoretical knowledge) of how language works
impacts how they teach. Cruz invites us to look into the need for
diversifying studies on second language acquisition and emphasising on
meaning making through negotiation rather than subscribing to norms
typically upheld in ELT classrooms. By comparing what teachers and
students view as most conducive in learning English, Wu explores how
EIL is perceived by learners and teachers of English in Hong Kong.
Through a critical evaluation of a number of projects that are currently
playing an important role in developing English teaching, Mishra pushes
for more equitable access to English education in India where ELT has so
far been the privilege of the wealthy urban population.
Rather than striving to come to complacent and conclusive
recommendations in terms of how English needs to be conceptualised,
understood, learnt and practised, this book attempts to debunk traditionally
taken for granted aphorisms and expose the complexities, indeterminability
and dialogic unfinalisability (after Bakhtin, 1981) surrounding the most
enacted language in the world. It shows how English metamorphosises
almost at every turn, defining its users as much as it defines the very uses
it is put to.

Acknowledgement: The editors would like to express their gratitude for

the editorial assistance of Farzana Khan and Mohammod Moninoor
xiv Introduction

Roshid, doctoral candidates in the Faculty of Education, Monash

University, for their invaluable help, especially at the early stages of this
book project.

References
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (C. Emerson
& M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Brutt-Giffler, J. (2002). English as an International Language. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, A.S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Conrad, A. (1996). The international role of English: The state of the
discussion. In J. Fisherman, A. Conrad, & A. Rubel-Lopez (eds.) Post-
imperial English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 13-36.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: attitude and identity.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, B.B. (1986). The Alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
—. (1992). Models for non-native Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (Ed.), The
Other Tongue: Englishes Across Cultures (2nd ed.) (pp.48-75). Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.Kachru, 1992.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007) World Englishes: Implications for international
communication and English language teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Loseke, D. (2000). Lived realities and formula stories of ‘battered
women’. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Institutional Selves:
Troubled Identities in a Postmodern World (pp. 107-126). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
McKay, S.L. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic Imperialism Continued. London:
Routledge.Pennycook (1994).
Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing the conceptual gap: The case for a
description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-157.
—. (2004). Research perspectives in teaching English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209-239.
 Enacting English across Borders xv

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: global issues and local
interests. World Englishes, 16 (1), 135-146.