Globish 101

Last week Jack Richards gave a lecture on campus.  Professor Richards lectures internationally on foreign language teaching and had some interesting things to say about world Englishes.  Example: globally, most "English teachers" (of course this means different things in different contexts) are non-native speakers of English who have intermediate proficiency in English.  Not surprising when you stop and think about the reach of the language and the increasing amounts of cultural and material capital English has, but kind of interesting, no?  If you're reading this in the U.S., think about that for a minute.  Most English teachers are not from North American, Australia, or the United Kingdom.  Most have not attained what applied linguistics consider "advanced" proficiency.

Advanced competence can be helpful for some facets of language teaching (having a larger vocabulary) but not others (knowing effective teaching methods).  Same goes for being a native speaker, which can mean, for instance, better pronunciation.  However, non-native speakers have a "been there" advantage when it comes to effectively teaching other non-native speakers: non-native speakers know to avoid excessive idioms--in Sharjah, I sometimes catch myself while teaching when I'm about to repeat some little expression or saying--and often can better articulate grammatical concepts since native speakers have internalized those concepts since they were little kids.

Speaking of idioms, Richards also reviewed some of the latest literature on the status of what's sometimes called "English as an International Language," which essentially refers to English as a lingua franca, a shared language among various groups whose first language isn't English.  This concept is familiar to anybody here in Sharjah, where English is the language usually used by Pakistani taxi drivers talking to American teachers and Arab business owners talking to Indian engineers!  As the economy shifts and political changes happen, no single race, ethnic group, or political entity can control the language.  So there are all kinds of interesting, cosmopolitan things happening to Englishes around the globe, aka, Globish, the popular book by Robert McCrum that Professor Richards referenced.  In some countries, EIL textbooks and curriculum are teaching an ultra-neutral form of English, mostly free of idioms and expressions and cultural specificity.  A standard English designed specifically for those "lingua franca" situations in business, scientific, and academic settings. 

Thanks to Richards for visiting campus and giving a nice overview.  Made me wish I had taken more applied linguistics and ESL courses back in grad school.  The "Globish" issues are especially provocative.  When I studied Spanish, learning about the culture was probably the reason it was my favorite class in high school and college.  As I learn Arabic, the language sheds light on assumptions and attitudes and values.  So it's odd to think about these lingua franca versions of English that strip away culture and aim for some kind of neutrality.  And that's the real kicker--there never can be total neutrality, can there?  You'll never fully wipe a language "clean," though I understand why, say, a scientific journal publishing research from around the world might want to.  But doesn't acceptance of English as a lingua franca signify just that: acceptance?  I hope adoption of "English as an International Language" doesn't mean uncritical adoption.  There's a lot of research--both empirical and theoretical--looking at the implications of "lingua franca" moments/contexts, and there needs to be more.  Yet another reason why this book, which brings together my own field (rhetoric and composition) and applied linguistics, strikes me as one of the most interesting and important texts in years.