ELF – a Future Model for English Teaching?

As Modiano (2009b: 208) points out, European language teaching has always relied on inner circle varieties, in particular standard British English and American English. Not only do all teaching and learning materials as well as teaching methods promote the standard varieties but they also “collectively promote the understanding that the acquisition of an idealized rendition of a prestigious L1 variety is the given goal of institutionalized foreign-language education” (Modiano 2009b: 208). As Kirkpatrick (2006: 71) puts it, the reasons behind the decision on which model of English is chosen are often political and ideological not educational. The choice of a native model is often justified by the power and the “inherent superiority” of the variety (Kirkpatrick 2006:

72). However, due to the international expansion of the English language and its universal status (Modiano 2009b: 208) and the increased interest in issues related to ELF, questions about the appropriateness of the current ELT practices have been raised as well as the effectiveness of the native speaker model questioned. Suggestions for an ELF based model for English teaching have consequently been proposed.

A common argument used in favor of the ELF model for English teaching is the number of NNSs of English in comparison with NSs (e.g. McKay 2002). As previously mentioned there are more NNSs of English than NSs, and the number of NNSs is growing as people in the expanding circle acquire English. Thus, NNSs no longer learn English in order to communicate mainly with NSs; instead it is more likely that they

interact mostly with other non-native speakers. It has also been stated that as the ratio of NNSs to NSs keeps on changing, NNSs of English will determine the future of the language (Graddol 1997: 5). Thus, the examination of the numbers of NNSs and NSs thus indicates that English learners would benefit more from learning a universal variety of English rather than a standard variety that is spoken by fewer people.

McKay (2003b: 35-38) further argues for an ELF based curriculum by bringing forward issues which make the current English language teaching objectives and goals problematic. First, ELT curricula have been formed according to native speakers’

linguistic needs and their acquisition process of the language. It is obvious that the functions in which native speakers and non-native speakers use English in most cases are not similar. McKay further notes that English is usually an additional language for speakers in the outer and expanding circles. Thus, the goals for language learning for NSs and NNSs are undeniably different, usually ignored by ELT curricula. In agreement with McKay’s notion, Modiano (2000: 29) indicates that due to the changing status of English in the global world, and the functions for which learners need English, the traditional ELT practices do not necessarily meet the communicative needs of the majority of learners. Secondly, even though the general assumption and ideal of English learning is to achieve a native like competence, according to McKay (2003b: 35-36), in reality for most learners the situation is different. As the functions and purposes for which NNSs need and use English differ from NSs, it is thus unjustified to presume that the goal for these learners would be to achieve a native-like proficiency. McKay (2003b) consequently proposes that a specific ELF curriculum set apart from native norms should be formed after examining and assessing the learners’ needs in their own speech community.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle still preventing ELF from being accepted as a model for English teaching, along with native varieties, is the lack of extensive research and codification. As Modiano (2000: 29) puts it, ELF is neither standardized nor an actual variety according to its opponents. Kirkpatrick (2007:193) further acknowledges that the different varieties of lingua franca English make it complicated to codify ELF for classroom use. Similarly, the opponents of ELF supporting native speaker models (American English, British English) argue that teaching different varieties of ELF and the absence of a common set of standards would lead to intelligibility problems among English speakers. They further maintain that the codification and the abundance of

dictionaries and teaching materials for native varieties ensure that mutual understanding between speakers’ remains.

Many scholars alike (e.g. Seidlhofer 2004, Kirkpatrick 2006) recognize the fact that more research is needed before a curriculum based on ELF can be formed and introduced into English teaching. The research on ELF is indeed still in its initial stages but the works of Jenkins and Seidlhofer, for example, have set the foundation for future studies. Moreover, many scholars argue that the aim of ELF research is not to construct a specific single model of ELF that would fit every classroom as such (Jenkins 2012:

492). In addition, instead of dictating a set of rules and norms, the goal of ELF is to provide an alternative to the traditional ELT practices and to the pursuit of a native-like competence (Modiano 2009b). Jenkins (2012: 492) continues that teachers and students themselves should decide on the teaching targets and the elements of ELF included in teaching depending on their individual needs. Furthermore, regarding the critique on intelligibility, Kaur (2009) points out that research has shown that ELF interactions do not in reality suffer from a lack of intelligibility but instead different communication strategies and interactional practices used in lingua franca interactions result in mutual understanding.

Besides intelligibility problems, it has been argued that teaching ELF would mean lowering the standards and learning objectives due to ELF’s disregard of rules, as discussed in chapter 2.3. If the goal of teaching is merely to imitate native speakers this argument might be correct to some extent. However, since the focus of ELF is on intelligibility and communication, this means that instead of spending time on trying to teach the students to pronounce all sounds native-like, they would learn, for example, a variety of useful communication strategies, how to communicate in international contexts and how to accommodate their speech according to context. In other words, instead of lowering the standards, the students would learn perhaps even more challenging skills which would be beneficial for them when interacting with both NNSs and NSs of English. Tomlinson (2006: 142) further points out that teaching accommodation and exposing the students to different varieties of English, both native and non-native, would help the students to develop their abilities to communicate with all English speakers with different backgrounds. It is also important to note that including elements of ELF into English teaching, further, would not mean giving up the native varieties and all standards completely, instead they would be used alongside with ELF and thus providing more information and possibilities for the learners. It is

therefore misleading to assume that ELF equals lowered standards since not only would the students learn more practical communication skills but also, in addition to native

varieties, they would learn about non-native varieties of English.