Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
266 A similar situation occurs at the discourse level of language teaching. McKay 2002
further affirms that the rhetorical goals of the L2 speaker of English, as well as the intended audience of the certain texts, need to be considered when making curriculum choices in EIL
teaching. The fact that there are differences in how various cultures develop particular genres, such as that used in a business letter or an argumentative essay as the result of research in
contrastive rhetoric has raised questions as to what extent learners of EIL need to internalize the discourse rules of native speakers of English. The use of EIL should not be associated
with any particular rhetoric tradition. Besides, the need for readers of English to be willing to process English texts that conform to a variety of rhetorical patterns McKay, 2002 and Acar,
2009.
3.2 Issue and Consideration 2; Pedagogy Reorientation
Within the teaching and learning English as a foreign language, learners are not only expected to acquire accurate forms of the target language, but also to learn how to use these
forms in given social situations in the target language setting to convey appropriate, coherent and strategically affective meaning for the native speakers Alptekin, 2002. The native
speakers‘ language and culture making NS standard English norms, NS authentic communication and NS culture are the ultimate focus of curriculum design and classroom
practice. The learners should acquire norms of English language use and usage appropriate to the users of the inner circle. It is taken for granted that English pedagogy should judge the use
of English by non-native speakers by how it approximates native language use while considering differences in non-native language use as mistakes or errors which should be
corrected to avoid fossilization Acar, 2009. The validity of this pedagogic model that based on the inner circle native speakers‘
English has been seriously questioned by some researchers as Kachru, 1985; McKay, 2002, 2003; Alptekin, 2002; Nunn, 2005, 2007; Canagarajah, 2006 whose pluricentric view of
English and hence English language norms at all levels. They argue for the recognition of variations in the use of English in the outer circle from the native standard English as
innovations rather than mistakes or errors and of outer circle Englishes as local standard Englishes rather than
interlanguages and the inclusion of these local Englishes as pedagogical models in these local
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
267 contexts Acar, 2009. Besides, English is no longer the sole property of the native speakers
but it is also the language of non-native speakers who adapt it to their own sociolinguistic and socio-cultural contexts. The emerging reality of the legitimacy of multiple norms of English
around the world also calls into question the validity of the native speaker based notion of communicative competence as the ultimate goal for language learners and necessitates a
reconceptualization of communicative competence which would embrace such international variability in English Acar, 2009.
The pedagogic model based on the native speaker is challenged by McKay 2002 who bases herself on the features of English as an international language. She claims that an
appropriate EIL pedagogy should no longer be informed by native speaker models. She convincingly states that ―it cannot be assumed that the culture of any one particular country,
especially an inner circle country should provide the basis for cultural content when teaching EIL…and...that if one of the goals of using culture in EIL teaching is to help individuals
interact in cross-cultural encounters, then merely knowing about a culture will not be sufficient to gain insight into how to interact in these encounters‖. She, then, suggests that the
examination of the various ways in which bilinguals make use of English within their linguistic repertoire is more important than comparing them to native speakers. The focus of
attention should also be drawn to bilingual speakers‘ own linguistics, pragmatics and rhetorical competence especially the bilingual speakers of English in the outer circle rather
than native speaker competence. Acar 2009 who also states the similar notions explains that the orientation to culture teaching in which learners are required to learn the cultures of the
inner circle native speakers would not be adequate when teaching English as an international language, which involves cross-cultural communication among speakers from different
cultural backgrounds. Alptekin 2002 also questions the validity of the pedagogic model based on the
native speaker based notion of communicative competence. He assumes that the model is utopian for native speakership is a linguistic myth and it portrays a monolithic perception of
the native speaker‘ language and culture. The model is also considered to be unrealistic because it fails to
reflect the lingua franca status of English. The restriction on both teacher and learner autonomy by associating the concept of authenticity with the social milieu of the native
Research in Teacher Education : What, How, and Why?, November 21-22, 2012, UKSW
268 speaker makes this model a constraint in relation to EIL. He, then, argues for the need of a
new pedagogic model which would accommodate the case of English as an international and intercultural communication that is characterized by these criteria:
1. Successful bilinguals with intercultural insights and knowledge should serve as
pedagogic models in English as an international language EIL rather than the monolingual native speaker.
2. Intercultural communicative competence should be developed among EIL learners by
equipping them with linguistic and cultural behaviour which will enable them to communicate effectively with others, and also by equipping them with an awareness
of difference, and with strategies for coping with such difference. 3.
The EIL pedagogy should be one of global appropriacy and local appropriation, in that it should prepare learners ‗to be both global and local speakers of English and to
feel at home in both international and national cultures.‘
4. Instructional materials and activities should involve local and international contexts
that are familiar and relevant to language learners‘ lives. 5.
Instructional materials and activities should have suitable discourse samples pertaining to native and nonnative speaker interactions. Discourse displaying
exclusive native speaker use should be kept to a minimum, as it is chiefly irrelevant for many learners in terms of potential use in authentic settings.
3.3 Issue and Consideration 3; What Culture Content Should Be Presented
