Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:55:27.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenges and opportunities for the pluricentric approach in ESL/EFL teaching

An empirical study of college English teaching in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2014

Jianping Xie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

World Englishes (henceforth WEs) theory recognizes that English today is an international language that comprises ‘a unique cultural pluralism, and a linguistic heterogeneity and diversity’ (Kachru, 1985: 14). That is, WEs theory recognizes and appreciates an emerging group of English varieties worldwide (such as Australian English, Indian English, Singaporean English, etc.), seeing each as being of equal validity and legitimacy. This appreciation of the pluricentricity of English has aroused particular interest in the field of ESL/EFL teaching (e.g., Kachru, 1992; Jenkins, 2006; Kirkpatrick, 2008). It is well known that ESL/EFL teaching has long been dominated by the Inner Circle model (Kachru, 1985), also known as the native speaker (NS) model. The Inner Circle model of English teaching focuses on so-called ‘Standard English’ education and aims to develop ‘native-like proficiency’ among ESL/EFL learners. Such a monocentric approach posits the superiority of Anglo-American norms and cultures at the expense of other English varieties and cultures. However, criticisms of such an ‘exonormative native speaker model’ (Kirkpatrick, 2008: 184) have been frequently raised in the past decade, and a growing number of researchers (e.g., Kachru, 1986, 1992; Canagarajah, 1999; Jenkins, 2000, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2001; McKay, 2002; Kirkpatrick, 2006, 2008) have called for a paradigm shift to replace the monocentric Inner Circle model in ESL/EFL teaching. New models have also been proposed; for instance, Phillipson (1992a) argued for models in various specific English varieties that maintain international intelligibility; Kramsch (1998) proposed an intercultural speaker model, and Kirkpatrick (2008) advocated a lingua franca approach to replace the NS model; finally, Jenkins (2006) put forward the pluricentric approach to replace the monocentric approach in English teaching. Though different in some respects, these proposed new models all share the same aims for ESL/EFL teaching, that is, to promote pluralism in different cultures and English varieties, to raise ESL/EFL learners' awareness of the various English varieties, and to enhance ESL/EFL learners' confidence in their own English varieties. In this study, the term pluricentric approach is adopted because this term vividly catches the essence of the pluricentricity of English today.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 43 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baumgardner, R. & Brown, K. 2003. ‘World Englishes: Ethics and pedagogy.’ World Englishes, 22(3), 245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, G. 1999. (ed.) Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S. 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. New Models, New Norms, New Goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. 2006. ‘Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca.’ TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157–81.Google Scholar
Jin, J. 2005. ‘Which is better in China, a local or a native English-speaking teacher?’ English Today, 21(3), 39–46.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1985. ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle.’ In Quirk, R. & Widdowson, H. G. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1986. The Alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1992. ‘Teaching World Englishes.’ In Kachru, B. B. (ed.), The Other Tongue. English Across Cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 355–65.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1996. ‘World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy.’ Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2), Special Issue: Distinguished Humanities Lectures II, 135–55.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A. 2006. ‘Which model of English: Native-speaker, nativised or linguafranca?’ In Saraceni, M. & Rubdy, R. (eds.), English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles. London & New York: Continuum, pp. 71–83.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A. 2008. World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. 1998. ‘The privilege of the intercultural speaker.’ In Byram, M. & Fleming, M. (eds.), Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–31.Google Scholar
Li, W. 1993. ‘China English and Chinese-style English.’ Foreign Language and Foreign-Language Teaching, 25(4), 18–24.Google Scholar
Ma, F. 2007. ‘World Englishes theory can improve our English teaching in China.’ Foreign Language of China, 4(3), 65–8.Google Scholar
McKay, S. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McKay, S. 2003. ‘Teaching English as an international language: the Chilean context.’ ELT Journal, 57(2), 139–47.Google Scholar
Medgyes, P. 1994. The Non-native Teacher. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. 1992a. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. 1992b. ‘ELT: The native speaker's burden?’ ELT Journal, 46(1), 12–18.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. 2001. ‘Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca.’ International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 133–58.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. 2004. ‘Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 209–39.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. 2005. ‘Standard future or half-baked quackery?.’ In Gnutzmann, C. & Intemann, F. (eds.), The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom. Tübingen, Germany: Narr, pp. 159–73.Google Scholar
Wang, Z. 1991. ‘Some snags in English-Chinese communication.’ Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1, 1–6.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. 2002. ‘From TEFL to TEIL: Changes in perceptions and practice: Teaching English as an International Language (EIL) in Chinese universities in P.R. China.’ In Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.), Englishes in Asia. Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd, pp. 225–44.Google Scholar