The principles, goals and models of ELF language teaching

Despite the fact that English is used by a diverse range of speakers around the world, most schools and education bodies still insist on teaching Standard English, regardless of the actual communication needs of the L2 learners, and most learners still seem to strive

of the goal of native-like proficiency. In addition, almost all course books sold on the global market still use a native standard as their models. In Europe, Pitzl (2015) has examined the term “misunderstanding” in the Common European Framework of

Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001), which has an impact on language teaching,

textbooks and requirements of language skills in professional contexts. She argues that the explicit native speaker orientation in some CEFR descriptors influences local teaching practices due to the stereotype in intercultural communication. It is assumed that the limited language proficiency of non-native language users is the cause of intercultural communication breakdowns.

In China, which has the largest number of English learners with around 400 million (Bolton & Graddol, 2012, p. 3), there has been little debate on the role of English as an International Language (EIL). After analyzing the four official documents issued by Ministry of Education (MOE) of China regarding English teaching in Mainland China, Wen (2012) reported none of the documents mentioned teaching English as an International Language. The pedagogical decisions on what is to be taught and what is to be achieved in English teaching have not been transparently and explicitly stated. The native English varieties, such as British English and American English are still “the only source of learning materials” in China 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” (Wen, 2012, p. 85).

The reasons for using the native-speaker model in English language teaching have been well summarized by Kirkpatrick (2006). First, native-speaker models have been codified, which means there are reliable resources for teachers and students to refer to. Second, the standard varieties based on native speaker norms are assumed to be a guarantee for mutual intelligibility in the international community. Third, the native-

speaker model represents power and fourth it has historical authority. Kirkpatrick argues that this easy and safe option would not be advantageous for teachers and students in Outer and Expanding Circles as native-speaker model is an impossible goal for students to achieve and can cause local English teachers feel insecure. In addition, the native- speaker model fails to reflect and respect regional cultures.

In their review of the history of English language teaching, Seidlhofer and Widdowson (in press) conclude that although the Structural Approach (SA) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) each have a different focus, SA on linguistic forms while CLT focuses on pragmatic functions, both are essentially based on the old assumption that English is the language of native speakers. Therefore, they (Seidlhofer & Widdowson, in press) argue that “there is no significant paradigm shift” between SA and CLT. Consequently, they assert that the assumption that communication depends on the conformity to native speaker norms is “invalid” as many ELF users are able to communicate effectively without conforming to these norms. Seidlhofer and Widdowson (in press) suggest that the findings of ELF research can indicate that what aspects of language use are of most value in language teaching and can guide learners to develop their communicative capability.

Given the situation of the use of English, it is imperative to examine which goals and principles in English language teaching are appropriate for ELF users. Scholars focusing on the teaching of EIL (Holliday, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Sussex, 2012; Marlina & Giri, 2014; McKay, 2002; Tomlinson, 2006) and ELF (W. Baker, 2015c; Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2014; Kohn, in press; Lopriore & Vettorel, in press; Seidlhofer, 2015) agree that ENL norms should no longer be the goal for language learners in ELF communication. Seidlhofer (2011) clearly states that if English is taught for international communication, it would make sense to examine how it is actually used, which means the

way English functions as a lingua franca in international communication. She (2011, p. 195) emphasizes “that the focus of teaching should not be on the forms of learner language and how far they deviate from NS norms, but on how effectively they function in making meaning.” Therefore, from the ELF perspective, the purpose of English teaching is to develop students’ capability for effective use of the language, which involves exploitation of available linguistic resources (Seidlhofer, 2011). She (2011) argues that what matters for learners is not how much language they acquire but how they make use of the language. Learning and using the language are simultaneous processes for ELF users.

Addressing the major role of English as a lingua franca throughout Asia, Kirkpatrick proposes the lingua franca approach to English language teaching (2012) and elaborates on the principles of this approach (Kirkpatrick, 2014, in press) in terms of linguistic targets, cultural targets, appropriate language teachers, learning environments and assessment. He argues that mutual intelligibility and intercultural competence in relevant cultures rather than native speaker norms and culture are the goals of English teaching in the Asian context. Kirkpatrick (2010a, p. 176) also argues that “learners need to be able to use the language in lingua franca contexts more than they need to be able to replicate the linguistic features of some imported exonormative standard of English”. In fact, the diverse linguistic backgrounds of the ELF speakers represent valuable resources to exploit rather than being the cause of misunderstandings. Most ELF scholars agree that developing the capability of using English in actual situations is the purpose of English teaching. In addition, bilingual or multilingual resources are advantageous for non-native English speakers. However, the aim of the models proposed by ELF researchers is not to replace the traditional native English model, because the traditional model is useful for learners who intend to communicate with native speakers and understand native speaker literature or cultures. As stated by Jenkins et al. (2011, pp. 305-306), “ELF research

provides insights into the heterogeneous nature of English as it is used in contact situations” and language teaching needs to “incorporate a multi-norm, multi-method approach”.

Wen (2012) has proposed a pedagogical model for teaching English as an international language, which based on the Chinese language teaching context, in accordance with the multi-norm approach. Since there was no ready-made pedagogical solution addressing the context of ELF in China, Wen’s three-level model is a practical alternative for college English teaching in China. The model comprises three components: linguistic, cultural and pragmatic components. For the linguistic component, three types of linguistic input, namely native varieties, non-native varieties and localized features are gradually offered to learners in different proportions according to their level of proficiency, thus aiming to develop effective communication skills. For cultural components, students are 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. The objective of teaching cultures is to acquire intercultural competence. For the pragmatic component, three groups of rules are taught: universal communicative rules, target language communicative rules and non-native communicative rules, in order to develop appropriate strategies for intercultural communication. This model also reflects what McArthur suggested for teaching English with multiple standards, that is, moving “from the known and safe to the unknown and disturbing, until that too becomes safe” (Rubdy & Saraceni, 2006, p. 29).

However, no model is likely to be the best for all learners. Determining which model is appropriate depends on the learner’s needs and the stage of the learning process. The key point is that learners should not have a native-speaker model imposed upon them as the only goal for their learning so that they are less likely to suffer the consequences of a

sense of deficiency and a lack of confidence in their communication.