AYA MATSUDA
World Englishes (WE) studies from the past several decades have shed light on the “messiness” of the English language today, including the diversity in forms, users, and uses of the language. This new awareness complicates the way we theorize and teach –from English language to linguistics to literature to intercultural communication.
The goal of this chapter is to explore how insights from the current WE research inform, challenge, and enrich our pedagogical practices. The primary focus of this chapter is on English language teaching (ELT), a field which is dominated by the monolithic view of English but has witnessed in recent years the increasing amount of attention given to the diversity of Englishes and its implication for theory and practices. The chapter explores how some ELT specialists envision the preparation of future users of English and what pedagogical innovations have been suggested in order to incorporate the WE perspective into their practices. The chapter also briefly touches upon a course about world Englishes. Such a course may be situated in various intellectual communities and offer opportunities for students from all Circles to develop awareness and sensitivity toward diversity found in today’s “English‐speaking world” as well as the intercultural communication competence that is critical for the globalized world.
The sociolinguistic reality of English which emerges from WE research is much more diverse and complicated than the rather static picture of English constructed in many English language classrooms. For instance, English plays an important role in intranational communication not only the Inner Circle but also in the Outer Circle, where the language has gone through the process of nativization and resulted in localized forms of English. The global spread of English also changed the demographics of English users, the majority of whom are now believed to be “nonnative speakers”1 of English (NNES) who use English in tandem with other languages (Crystal 2003: 61–71). In other words, there is a gap between the reality, in which the learners of English are and will be using English, and the classroom practices, in which students are exposed to mostly if not exclusively the sanitized, classroom variety of American or British English.
While implications for ELT have been “one of the well‐explored foci of World Englishes studies” (Matsuda 2012b) since its early days, it is only in the past decade or so that the field of ELT has experienced increased awareness and interests in exploring ways to reconceptualize ELT in light of the current, worldwide use of English (e.g. Alsagoff, McKay, Hu, & Renandya 2012; Bayyurt & Akcan 2014; Marlina & Giri 2014; Matsuda 2006, 2012a; McKay 2002; Sharifian 2009; Sifakis 2006). In this section of the chapter, I examine assumptions and practices that relate to four aspects of ELT – varieties, cultures, users, and assessment – that are particularly challenged but also enhanced by the insights that WE research offers.
The most direct way WE studies challenge the common assumptions and practices of ELT relates to the way English varieties are treated in the classroom, where a standard variety from the US or UK is typically the only model offered. The selection of instructional model (i.e. the kind of English to teach), in fact, is a critical step in designing an English language curriculum because of its implications for many other pedagogical decisions, including the selection of teaching materials, assessment, and even hiring of teachers, if that has not taken place. The fact that there are multiple national and regional varieties of English that are used effectively in various parts of the world implies that there is a wide variety of Englishes to choose from beyond US and UK standard varieties.
One guiding principle for the variety selection is to select one that is most appropriate in a particular instructional context, being mindful of such issues as students’ needs and goals, teachers’ expertise, and attitudes toward a particular variety of English. For instance, in an English class in an Outer Circle context, where “an external model does not suit the linguistic and sociolinguistic ecology” (Kachru 1992b: 61) and a nativized model of English has developed to better meet the local communicative needs (Bamgboṣe 1992; Kachru 1992a, 1992b; Llamzon 1969), the local educated variety of English may be more appropriate than US/UK varieties. English users in the Expanding Circle may also desire to express indigenous values through their own English, where a localized version of English may be introduced as a tool to serve some of their communicative needs more effectively (Hino 2009).
When the “appropriateness” guideline does not direct us to any specific variety, the sensible choice may be to select a “well established” variety of English – that is, an English that has been codified, used for various communicative functions, and is relatively well accepted in a wide range of contexts. An example of contexts in which such a decision would make sense is a general English course in the Expanding Circle in which students are learning the language as an important subject in school but do not have any immediate and specific communicative needs for it, and thus it is difficult to predict with whom, in what context, and for what purposes they might use English in future. Such a well‐established variety may also be welcome where the functional range of a local variety of English is limited (which is often the case in the Expanding Circle), and thus students need to learn a variety with a broader usage to cover all of their communicative needs. In those situations, although they are by no means the only options, US and UK standardized varieties are likely candidates because of the currency they carry in international communication as well as the availability of various teaching resources.
Regardless of the variety that is selected in the end, the key issue in the model selection is that the decision should be made after careful consideration. Even if the UK or US standardized variety is selected, there is a difference between maintaining the status quo and carefully choosing the most appropriate one among all the available varieties of English, and the difference has a ripple effect on other pedagogical decisions as well (see Kirkpatrick 2007, and Matsuda & Friedrich 2012 for further discussion of the model selection).
The current sociolinguistic landscape of English also points to the importance of raising English language learners’ awareness of linguistic diversity found in today’s Englishes, regardless of the variety selected as the dominant instructional model. WE studies not only illuminate the pluricentric nature of the language but also suggest that the lack of awareness about it may adversely affect the students’ attitudes toward other varieties of English, their confidence in successful communication involving multiple varieties of English (Matsuura, Chiba, & Fujieda 1999), and their actual ability to correctly interpret interactions in various Englishes (Smith & Nelson 2006). It is particularly important that English learners understand that the variety they are learning is merely a variety of English and that it is likely to differ from the kind of English used by their future interlocutors.
Raising awareness of and familiarity with national or regional varieties of English does not equal to being proficient in them. In reality, most English users are fluent in one national or regional variety of English (but most likely in multiple situational dialects within it) and continue to speak that variety in international lingua franca contexts. In fact, that is precisely why multiple varieties of English are found in such contexts and awareness of them is important. Moreover, it is impossible to introduce every single variety of English that students may encounter in the future. Hence, what is more important for both teachers and learners of English today is the metaknowledge of the linguistic diversity than the specific formal and functional rules of particular varieties.
Such awareness can be raised in different ways, from simply exposing students to different varieties of English to making it an explicit lesson focus. Some examples of resources include written and spoken materials from different English‐speaking countries, English‐speaking guest speakers and class visitors from various language and cultural backgrounds, and teachers from diverse backgrounds. Many of these practices, in fact, are already found in English classrooms as they provide ways to incorporate authentic materials and increase opportunities to use English for communication. These strategies not only expose learners to different varieties of English but also allow them to meet different types of English users and learn about their cultures—two concepts whose definitions have been broadened by the insights from WE studies, as discussed below.
The global spread of English did not result only in the linguistic diversity of English. It also significantly broadened the scope of “English‐speaking culture.” Even if we use the simplified concept of national culture as an example, we easily see that the cultural frame of reference that English users today bring with them go much beyond the American and British cultures that still dominate ELT (Decke‐Cornill 2002: 60, 64; Matsuda 2014b; Nault 2006: 315; Wandel 2003: 73). In addition to cultures from other Inner Circle countries (i.e. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada), the extensive intranational use of English in Outer Circle countries suggests that they are also part of “English‐speaking countries,” although the English used in those countries may be deculturized (Kachru 1992a: 305) or de‐Anglicized (Hino 2009: 106–108) and acculturated in the new context. Furthermore, the use of English as an international language, in which the cultural frame of reference from all three Circles may be represented, adds another dimension to the notion of culture in English (Smith 1983). In short, “English‐speaking culture(s)” today is much broader, more diverse, and more complex than it is represented in many English classrooms.
One way to respond to the broader definition of English‐speaking culture is to start drawing cultural materials from a wider range of sources (Matsuda 2006: 161–162). The first possible source of cultural materials is learners’ own, which Cortazzi & Jin (1999: 204) referred to as “source cultural materials” (see McKay 2002: 81–101 for its application to the Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL) classroom). The purpose of using English is not solely to learn from native English speakers, as we may have believed in the past. Our goal now is often to establish and sustain an equal, mutually respectful relationship with others, and for this, the ability to perceive, analyze, and express one’s own values, opinions, and practices is crucial (Hino 2009). Local culture is not limited to traditional national culture, such as sushi for Japan and flamenco for Spain. Any beliefs and practices in which the learners’ experience is situated (e.g. school, family, community) also constitute local culture. Incorporating materials from learners’ own culture encourages them to critically reflect on what they may take for granted and to work on skills to explain it in a way that is comprehensible to outsiders.
The second possible source of cultural materials is that of learners’ future interlocutors, who include not only the Inner Circle users of English but also those from the Outer and Expanding Circles. Both “target culture materials” and “international target culture materials” (Cortazzi & Jin 1999: 204) may be included in this category. While it would be impossible to touch upon every single national culture, let alone cultures within each country, learning about several countries from each Circle will help learners become aware of the diversity and variation that exist among “English‐speaking countries.” This awareness encourages students to expect differences without making assumptions or being judgmental about their interlocutors’ cultures.
The third possible source of cultural materials is a global community that cuts across national boundaries. Such topics as world peace and environment conservation are relevant for everyone, regardless of their nationality, but can be analyzed and discussed from multiple perspectives. Such materials prepare learners for their future use of English, especially as a global language, by illuminating the similarities and differences in ways we approach problems that pertain to the global society.
Drawing materials from multiple cultural sources certainly expands and enriches the cultural component of English language curriculum. However, that alone would not be sufficient to ensure the cultural preparedness of future English users. How we present the language is as critical as what we present. McKay (2002: 100) proposed three principles for handling cultural content:
These principles are important not only for promoting students’ better understanding of culture, but also for fostering their awareness, sensitivity, and respect necessary for cross‐cultural communication.
Another result of the global spread of English is the diversity among English users. Although it is difficult to arrive at a specific number of English language users, scholars have estimated that there are more English users in the Outer and Expanding Circles (traditionally considered nonnative English speakers, NNESs) than those in the Inner Circle (traditionally considered native English speakers, NESs). What it signifies, then, is that, especially in the context of international communication, interactions often take place exclusively among NNESs (Graddol 1997: 13), who have learned English as an additional language of their home community or as a foreign language, and thus the assumption that English learners learn English to communicate with NESs is only partially true. This leads to the importance of providing opportunities to meet various types of English users, either through teaching materials or in person, so that learners develop realistic expectations about how they might use English themselves, and with whom. Attempts to introduce different varieties of English and to broaden the source of cultural materials discussed above often facilitate exposures to diverse English users simultaneously.
In addition, the deeper understanding of the current profile of English users leads us to reexamine our assumptions about what type and level of proficiency learners should aim for. For example, the fact that the majority of English users come from the Outer and Expanding Circles – where languages other than English play the dominant role in the society – implies that the majority of English users are also multilingual. This complicates the way we think about their language proficiency because “someone who knows two or more languages is a different person from a monolingual and so needs to be looked at in their own right rather than as a deficient monolingual” (Cook 2016) or as “failed native speakers of the target language” (Pavlenko 2003: 251). Mere comparison of their English proficiency against that of (ideal) native speakers does not capture the linguistic resourcefulness of these multilingual users of English. In terms of language attitudes, WE research suggests that “native‐like” speech is not necessarily the most effective or preferred way of communication. For example, studies from Nigeria have shown that standardized British English, spoken by some Nigerians born and brought up in UK, is “socially unacceptable” (Bamgboṣe 1992: 150) and less preferred than Educated Nigerian English, which is close to standardized British English in syntax and semantics but differs in pronunciation and lexicon (see also Adegbija 1994; Obanya, Dada, & Oderinde 1979). Such complex attitudes toward and relationship with English in different contexts question the taken‐for‐granted assumption that the more native‐like, the better. Furthermore, WE studies have shown a cline of proficiency (Kachru 1992b: 57) among English users, which is closely associated with the cline of functional uses.
Even among monolingual native speakers of English, the knowledge of English is far from homogeneous because each language user acquires specialized registers that are associated with particular functions he or she performs with the language and speech communities he or she belongs to. But an even wider range of proficiency is found among English users outside the Inner Circle because the extent to which English is needed and the specific types of function they perform with it vary more greatly. These insights concerning the notion of multilingual users and their linguistic resources, the complexity of attitudes toward “native” proficiency, and heterogeneity of proficiency among English users today reinforce the importance of viewing one’s proficiency within the context of situation, and in relation to the specific linguistic activities one performs within a specific sociocultural context. In other words, key issues such as “the target model” and “target proficiency” need to be considered not in isolation but “[w]ithin the framework of users and uses” (Kachru 1992b: 57; emphasis in original).
Additionally, the current demographics of users of English call for a new way to think about teacher qualification. Native‐speakerism (Holliday 2005: 6–8) in ELT, especially in hiring practices of nonnative English speaking teachers (NNESTs), has already been challenged extensively in the field of applied linguistics (Davies 1991, 2003). The NNEST Interest Section of TESOL, for example, has actively promoted research activities and awareness‐raising initiatives on NNEST issues. The body of research accumulated in the past two decades challenged the beliefs that native speakers make better language teachers simply because of their nativeness, identified the strengths that native and nonnative speakers demonstrate as language teachers, investigated the beliefs and attitudes of students, program administrators, and teachers themselves, and urged us to move beyond the NS‐NNS dichotomy when thinking about teaching qualifications (Braine 1999, 2010; Kamhi‐Stein 2004; Liu 1999; Llurda 2005; Mahboob 2010; Matsuda 2014a; Moussu & Llurda 2008).
WE studies contribute to this discussion by showing that there are many NNESs who use English as effectively and successfully as NESs, especially in international communication. Of course, the ability to use the language is not equal to the ability to teach it effectively. However, it is the former in which NESs are often assumed to surpass NNESs, and this belief leads to the conclusion that NESs make better language teachers. Thus, the fact that NNESs can be comparable to (and in some cases, even better than) NS counterparts in the ability to use the language suggests that the native/nonnative distinction is not a good indicator of how well a person can teach the language. In terms of hiring, rather than relying on the vague concept of “native speakers,” we must carefully identify and articulate the knowledge, experience, and skills needed to teach effectively in a particular instructional context (Matsuda 2014a; Oda 2014).
Another aspect of ELT that is complicated by the findings from WE research relates to assessment and responses to errors. In some cases, the tradition of measuring learners’ proficiency against that of ideal monolingual NESs (Canagarajah 2006; Davies 2009; Hu 2012; Lowenberg 2012) is so strong that it is impossible to imagine an assessment plan that is compatible with the pluricentric view of English. This, in some cases, can discourage teachers from implementing WE‐informed pedagogy all together. In other cases, newly acquired awareness of linguistic, functional, and user diversity of English swings the pendulum to the other extreme, making some teachers uncomfortable about correcting any errors or engaging in any form of assessment, leading to pedagogy that does not provide any feedback learners may find useful.
Accepting the diversity of English does not mean “anything goes.” Kachru (1992b: 61–62), for instance, distinguished deviation, which results from a productive response to the new linguistic and cultural settings and is systematic (and not idiosyncratic) within a variety, from mistake, which cannot be justified by its sociolinguistics or sociocultural contexts or productive processes. Clearly, even in the field of world Englishes, not all “unexpected forms” are considered nativization. Furthermore, learners benefit from thoughtful assessment and feedback on their learning, including error corrections, just as in any learning situation.
One way to reconceptualize the notion of assessment and responses to errors is to move away from the question of “Do learners approximate NESs?” to “Can learners do what they need to do in English?” In other words, focusing on functional effectiveness, rather than exclusively focusing on how native‐like the forms and uses of language are. The context‐dependent nature of such concepts as communicative effectiveness, appropriateness, and intelligibility make them difficult to apply to a large‐scale standardized test that is used by learners and teachers who have various goals. But in a classroom context where teachers can identify the functions students should learn to perform, these concepts can guide teachers in deciding how to conceptualize and evaluate students’ language proficiencies as well as what types of feedback they provide, and how. In addition, there are several promising attempts to find WE‐compatible approaches to assessment, including the use of alternative assessment methods, such as portfolios (Kouvdou 2014; Xu 2014: 150–151), for classroom assessment and the use of texts in different varieties of English in the reading section of a standardized test (Liontou 2014).
Assessing students’ language and learning vis‐à‐vis the level of communicative competence needed to perform the required functions, as opposed to measuring it against the language of NESs, does not necessarily mean lowering the bar, because it is not about tolerating less‐than‐perfect production. Rather, it means to define the desired outcomes differently, which may, in fact, result in raising the bar. For a more in‐depth discussion of communicative competence, intelligibility, and assessment as they relate to WE‐informed ELT, see chapters by Berns, Smith & Nelson, and Brown in this volume.
In the past decade or so, a number of books, articles, and chapters have been published which explore how to incorporate our understanding of the sociolinguistic reality of English into ELT practices so that our students are better prepared to use the language in the real world. While different labels are used to refer to this new approach to ELT, including “Teaching English as an International Language” (Alsagoff et al. 2012; Hino 2018; Matsuda 2012a; McKay 2002), “Pedagogy of English as an International Language” (Marlina & Giri 2014), or “Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Franca” (Bayyurt & Akcan 2014), there are several stand‐alone books that promote innovative approaches to ELT that embrace the inclusivity and pluricentricity of WE today. Various contextual issues that are relevant to the implementation of WE‐informed pedagogy, such as language attitudes, policies, and teacher identities, have also received book‐length treatment (Birch 2010; Holliday 2005; McKay & Bokhorst‐Heng 2008; Phan 2008; Sharifian 2009).
There are also available chapter‐ and article‐length critiques of the current practices and exploration of the needed paradigm shift (Jenkins 2006; Matsuda 2006), and numerous others that specifically focus on an aspect of ELT. Although the discussion of such pedagogy tends to remain at the general and abstract level, specific pedagogical ideas are becoming more available as well (Bayyurt & Altinmakas 2012; Hino 2012; Honna & Takeshita 2014; Matsuda & Duran 2012; Xu 2014). Journals such as AILA Review, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, ELT Journal, English Today, System, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, TESOL Quarterly, and World Englishes also publish theoretical and practical articles on World Englishes and ELT.
Ideally, the entire language program should share the same vision and embrace the WE‐informed perspective on ELT in order to present a coherent curriculum. However, in reality, the WE‐informed pedagogy is being implemented mostly at the individual level (Bayyurt & Altinmakas 2012; Hino 2012). It may be that not everyone involved in a program is comfortable with a drastic paradigm shift, that they agree in principle with the change but are not sure how to implement it, or that the bureaucratic process to bring a program‐wide change is too overwhelming. A refreshing exception is the ELF program at Tamagawa University (Tokyo, Japan), where the campus‐wide English language program is based on the understanding of the global spread of English and diverse forms and uses of English, particularly its use as an international lingua franca (English as a Lingua Franca Program at Tamagawa University n.d.; Oda 2014). Another example, which is situated in the Inner Circle, is the Global Challenge Program in Honolulu, Hawai’i. This program draws from the understanding of EIL and World Englishes, and “integrates cross‐cultural experience with the learning of the diversity of English” (Hino 2013: 2; see also Hino & Oda 2012). It offers a variety of learning opportunities, including courses on Professional Experience in World Englishes and Living World Englishes.
Although most pedagogical discussion of WE to date has focused on ELT, WE studies also challenge the status quo in other fields, such as English studies (including English linguistics and literature) and education. Unlike English language courses discussed above, which are intended for L2 learners of English, a “WE course” – that is, a course about the global spread of English and its implications – may enroll students from any of the three Circles. The most common context for such a course is probably at the tertiary level, typically in programs in ESL/EFL teacher education (Brown & Peterson 1997; Dogancay‐Akutuna & Hardman 2008; Sifakis & Bayyurt 2015), linguistics, English studies, or general education. Other possible contexts include a new student orientation program in an English‐speaking country, a section of which focuses on preparing students for international classmates, teaching assistants and faculty, or a workshop for faculty and staff who interact in English with international students from various parts of the world. Some attempts have been made to offer it to high school students as well (Kubota 2001).
As Bolton (2006: 240–241) has asserted, WE research “involves not merely the description of national and regional varieties, but many other related topics as well, including contact linguistics, creative writing, critical linguistics, discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, lexicography, pedagogy, pidgin and creole studies, and the sociology of language,” and thus the content of a WE course should also reflect such inclusivity and pluricentricity of the study of English.
Kachru (1997) presented two sets of topics that should be considered for the content of a WE course. The first set, which responds to the question “Why teach world Englishes?” (Kachru 1997: 232–233) includes the following topics that are critical for understanding the paradigm shift that WE research brings:
The second set (Kachru 1997: 234–235) includes the aspects of WE research that Kachru believed that professional and advanced students should be aware of, including:
In addition, some common themes in recent WE courses include:2
Within this interdisciplinary, inclusive, and pluricentric scope, the specific content and emphasis of a particular course would vary depending on the goals of students and the instructional contexts. In teacher education courses, for example, pedagogical implications of WE studies would no doubt be emphasized, while a WE course offered for linguistics majors may include a substantial amount of linguistic analysis of different varieties of English and examination of its relevance to current linguistic theories. For literature majors, discussion of linguistic variations may be contextualized within the discussion of WE literatures, while the emphasis may be on the analysis of language policies surrounding English in the multilingual world in a course for education policy students. General education courses for undergraduate students or high school students may focus more on increasing awareness of and respect for linguistic and cultural diversity or intercultural communication, which can be applied much broader than discipline‐specific knowledge.
In terms of resources, Kachru (1988, 1997) and Baumgardner (2006) offer extensive lists of possible course books for a WE course. Some recent additions include Burns and Coffin (2001); Cheshire (1991); Crystal (2003); Graddol (1997, 2006); Jenkins (2014); Kachru, Kachru, and Nelson (2006); Kachru and Smith (2008); Kirkpatrick (2007); McArthur (2002); McCrum, MacNeil, and Cran (2002); Melchers and Shaw (2013); Mesthrie and Bhatt (2008); Nelson (2011); Sharifian (2009); Siemund, Davydova, and Maier (2012); Smith and Forman (1997); and Trudgill and Hannah (2008).
In addition, journals dedicated to the study of World Englishes and related topics, including World Englishes, English Today, English World‐Wide, Asian Englishes, and Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, continue to publish articles that reflect the current perspectives in the field, and thus may be appropriate for graduate‐level courses. There are also numerous journals and books on English language, literature, and teaching in general in which WE‐related articles and chapters are published.
Although most of these WE courses are offered as independent courses, a few programs and departments offer an entire curriculum based on the understanding of WE perspective. They include the Department of World Englishes and the School of World Englishes at Chukyo University in Japan (D’Angelo 2012) and the Department of English as an International Language at Monash University in Australia (Sharifian & Marlina 2012).
In this chapter, I explored the implications of WE studies for pedagogy, focusing first on English language courses and then on WE courses. Some readers may wonder whether the pedagogy discussed in this chapter is an attempt to be politically correct, urging teachers to include different varieties of English and users of English and embrace diversity. In my view, however, it is not about political correctness; rather, it is about reality. Whether one likes it or not – even if one believes that there is only one correct English that everyone should speak – the reality is there are people who speak other kinds of English to successfully achieve their communicative goals. That is the reality in which our language students must learn to function, and that is the reality that any English‐related disciplines must account for as they advance their respective knowledge.