- English is an international language.
- As a lingua franca of the past century and the new millenium,
English is one of the most important means for acquiring access to the
world's intellectual and technical resources. Though Shaw (1981)
recognizes it as a vestige of British colonism or the sign of the
American cultural imperialism, English is now seen less as a symbol of
imperialism and more as a viable candidate for the world's most
important international language. (Smith 1983; Kachru 1982; Alptekin
& Alptekin 1984; Jenkins 1998). At this point in the world's
history, English is the pre-eminent language of wider communication. It
is used as a library language, as the medium of science, technology and
international trade, and as a contact language between nations and
parts of nations.
- EIL is descriptive.
- Baxter (1980) characterizes EIL as a description of how it
functions today throughout the world not a prescription for how English
should be used. Approving the learners' equal right to take advantage
of this international tool, it directly deals with how people use
English to maintain their relationship. As a result, the arising of
different varieties of English is naturally expected.
- EIL is reformative.
- EIL can be justified as a natural reaction to the drawbacks of
the previous approaches. "The initial impetus for this approach is
found in realizing the inadequacies of EFL/ ESL models" (Baxter 1980).
EIL approach, thus, claims to reflect the international functions of
English with greater accuracy than either EFL or ESL. It is, therefore,
a new achievement evolved as a result of the growing similarities
between EFL and ESL programs.
- Interactors in EIL are unpredictable.
- For EFL/ ESL the interactors are predictable. EIL, however, is
characterized distinct in terms of its interactors. In an EFL
situation, one interactor is always a native speaker. In ESL situation,
the interactors may be non-native speakers communicating with native
speakers or the interaction may be between two local non-native
speakers, using English interanationally. However, in EIL the
interactors can be nationals of different countries.
- EIL is intervariatal.
- As there are many varieties of English, EIL is an
intervarietal way of communication. From EIL perspective no speaker is
realized as extreme. "They are all users of English, no matter whether
a black English, a Cockney, or an Alabaman tourist" (Baxter 1980). The
listener can be any speaker of English, native or non-native. In
addition, experience points out the learners' need to prepare for
understanding intervariatal spoken English in face to face
interactions. As far as spoken English is concerned, Received
Pronunciation (RP) may no longer be considered the ultimate model. "The
acquisition of native like accent is no longer the ultimate objective
of the majority of the learners" (Jenkins 1998). This assumption has
also been asserted by Stern (1992) since she notes that language
pedagogy is taking a more positive view than it did in the past of the
existence of varieties of language, dialects and sociolects within a
speech community
Admitting the fact that English has always been characterized by
diversity, the president's message to TESOL (1999) expresses
dissatisfaction that this diversity has not been seen as strength.
"This diversity reflects the global spread of English -- a trend that
has been accelerated by globalization" (ibid.).
- EIL is functional.
- EIL refers to functions of English not to the given form of
the language. Thus it is concerned with the use of English by people of
different nations and different cultures in order to communicate with
one another. It is conceptually different from Basic English. It
differs from English for Special Purposes (ESP) as well in the sense
that it is not limited to any specific domain or field. In this
relation Hardin (1979) has pointed out "the simple fact is that
international communication cannot be reduced to the limited range and
patterns of communication which are, I think, characteristics of ESP.
Neither can it be seen as the sum of all kinds of ESPs since it is a
language not a corpus."
- EIL is non-artificial.
- Though Zamenhof's Esperanto is so well known as an
international means of communication that, as Crystal (1992) reports,
several countries transmit radio broadcasts in it, it has no native
speakers Thus EIL differs from Esperanto in a sense that the latter is
artificial. In fact English is an exceptional natural language able to
obtain international appreciation. "For the first time a natural
language has attained the status of an international (universal)
language", (Kachru 1982). Even if we can accept Prodromou's (1988)
parallelism between English in international setting and Algebra, again
the latter is not a real means of human communication.
- EIL is cross-cultural.
- Students must somehow be prepared to operate with English in
unknown situations, which is characterized by variation in linguistic
and cultural behavior. Diversity in the learners' cultural background
and the forms of English around the world is a fact. Recognizing the
fact that the objectives in EIL are broader cross-cultural
communication, Baxter (1980) notes that students need practice in
listening to English in the real world. They have to have the chance to
hear actual spoken English with its inherited diversity. Accordingly as
a pioneering advocate of EIL, Smith (1983) proposes a value free or
cosmopolitan English that is quite independent of any cultural
background but able to represent, describe and illustrate all cultures
with equal vigor.
- EIL is multicultural.
- The unpredictability of the English speakers discussed above,
on the one hand, and their divergent range of cultural backgrounds on
the other, portrays a multicultural perspective for English in
international conditions. Approving this position Campbell et al.
(1980) note; "A major principle of EIL is that when speakers of more
than one country or culture interact, more than one set of social and
cultural assumptions will be in operation". It seems worth mention that
EIL will not de-emphasize or undermine the interest in culture but it
is to say that English culture is not the sole referent. This point is
also stressed in Stern (1992) as it notes; "In teaching of English as
an international language, there would be no particular culture to
which the second language could be related" (ibid.).
- EIL is universal.
- "English is the language most frequently used in international
trade, diplomacy and tourism and that it is studied by more people than
any other language" (Smith 1983). Crystal (1992) reports that
non-native speakers of English comprise more than two thirds of its
potential speakers. This seems to be an appropriate edge to argue that
English, in international settings, does not belong to any one group of
people. In fact people from different nations all around the world may
adopt this key for a variety of reasons. Under these conditions, for
overcoming misunderstandings a process of mutual adjustment amongst
interactors may automatically be activated.
As a typical instance, Smith (1983) reports that the German
chancellor and the French prime minister speak English while having
secret negotiations. This instance, by no means, can be interpreted as
a sign of diminishing their native language or cultures. Rather it
depicts that, as an accessible resource available to all, English is
used for its power in creating mutual intelligibility. This quality has
rightly attracted Campbell et al. (1982) to argue that "EIL can
summarily be defined as that English in all its linguistic and
sociolinguistic aspects which is used as a vehicle for communication
between non-native speakers, as well as between any combination of
native and non-native speakers".
Similar to these positions,
but in a different way, TESOL's (1999) president message argues for the
growth of English as a world language, . "In fact ,with the spread of
globalization and the rapid expansion of information technologies has
come an explosion in the demand for English worldwide" (Nounan 1999).
- EIL is intercultural.
- The use of English and any other language is always culture
bound, but the language itself is not bound to any specific culture or
political system. In EFL & ESL specific varieties of English and
specific cultures can be dealt with. This may not be considered valid
for EIL. "It is clear that in teaching of EIL the goal cannot be
knowledge of details of a given variety or culture or even numbers of
these" (Smith 1983). Ways of speaking and patterns of discourse are
different across cultures. Americans may speak English natively yet may
not be properly understood by a Briton. A native English speaking
Australian may have similar problems with an American or an Indian.
- Both native and non-native speakers need training in EIL.
- Smith and Rafiqzad (1979) clearly demonstrate that native
speakers have serious problems in understanding English spoken
internationally. It thus recommends that native speakers of English
need training in the use of their own language in the international
settings. Non-native speakers of English also need training in the use
of English not just with native speakers but with non-native speakers
as well. "Presently such training is not adequately dealt with in the
fields of EFL and ESL" (Campbel et al. 1982).
Today non-native speakers use English quite frequently with
other non-native speakers and they need specific training for that.
Thus Smith (1983) points out that native English speakers should study
English as an international language if they plan to interact in
English with non-natives or with other native speakers who use a
different national variety. " The basic problem in miscommunication is
caused by two false assumptions.1.If a person has native or native-like
grammar, lexis, and phonology, appropriate communication will
automatically follow; and 2.ways of speaking and discoursal patterns of
all fluent speakers of English are the same" (ibid.).
It is
important for the individuals working in the field of second language
acquisition to note that though a good command of English grammar,
lexis, and phonology is necessary to facilitate international
communication, it may not be sufficient. Accordingly, both native as
well as non-native English speakers should have assistance in their use
of English for international communication because of the different
functions of English across cultures.
Approving native
speakers' problem in understanding non-native speakers using English
internationally, Smith and Bisazza (1982) also note that the assumption
that non-native students of English will be able to comprehend fluent
non-native speakers if they understand native speakers is clearly not
correct. "They seem to need exposure to both native and non-native
varieties in order to improve understanding in communication" (ibid.).
As far as the culture is
concerned, due to the diversity among native speakers on the one hand
and the heterogeneous population of non-native speakers on the other,
the culture of native speakers can no longer be imposed. In contrast to
the idea of language hegemony or linguistic chauvinism, nonnative
speakers of English may use it to express, react or even propagate
their ideas to affect a relatively larger part of the world, including
native speakers. The increasing trend of globalization may indirectly
make us take immediate measures to live up to the demands of the
oncoming era, one of whose basic demands is the ability and readiness
to communicate and understand via an international language. Thus it
seems urgent that individuals in all parts of the world be adequately
equipped with this effective tool as soon and as much as possible.