The Spread of English

Perspective use to extend power and values to the ‘Periphery’, rather than the fact that peripheral people can resist and appropriate English.

b. The ownership of English

Widdowson 1994 defines the ownership of English as when “you are proficient in a language to the extent that you possess it, make it your own, bend it to your will, assert yourself through it rather than simply submit to the dictates of its form” p.384. Higgins 2003 emphasises what Widdowson 1994 noted the following as an ownership: when the speakers appropriate the language for their own needs such as ‘indigenisation’ in native Englishes. These indigenised varieties of Englishes “represent change, and the worries about deterioration of standard reflect evaluation” Kachru Nelson, 2006, p.94. This argument accepts the acculturation of English and leads to the development of ‘World Englishes’ although there is the possibility that SE is put in danger. Ownership becomes the tool to legitimate English speakers as it eludes the NS-NNS dichotomy Higgins, 2003. Instead of being intimidated by the idealisation of the Centre’s ideology, Norton Pierce 1995 suggests that learners can invest in English to gain material and symbolic resources since it positions them where they can claim the ‘right to speak’. In the following years, Norton 1997 further argues for the ‘right to speak’, demonstrating legitimacy as an English speaker. In other words, legitimacy is produced through language investment because speakers can fully access all the resources provided in society. Conversely, if the users fail to claim their ownership, their minor position can be constructed as ‘Other’ Phan, 2008.

c. English as a Lingua Franca ELF

EIL and ELF are sometimes used interchangeably because of their global nature Kirkpatrick, 2007; House, 2012. Since the discussion of EIL covers WE speakers’ interaction in ELF, it is important to see ELF as more like a ‘global currency’ in the complexity of EIL House, 2012. The term ELF has multiple lexical and pragmatic meanings which sometimes contradict one another. The main proponent of this, Seidlhofer 2005, defines ELF as a way Perspective of referring to communication in English between speakers with different first languages. In a similar vein, Jenkins 2000, 2009 posits the international interaction between NNS-NNS, while Holliday 2005 is aware of the tendency to exclude NS because the NS norms can hinder a NNS. However, as the discussion of the global use of English covers all users Ferguson, 2009, in her more recent study, Jenkins 2012 argues that NS is still a part of this ELF communication with the expectation that NS will adjust their “habitual modes of recep tion and production” in the interaction p. 487. In spite of her seminal works in ELF, Jenkins still highlights the fact that there are a greater number of NNS than NS who are using English 2009, 2012. Furthermore, Conrad and Mauranen 2003 view ELF as a variety of English in ELT. Yet, it raises some disagreement because the term ‘variety’ for NNS-NNS interaction does not add a new stable speech community because of the emergence of various indigenised Englishes which cause pluricentric interaction Maley, 2009, Prodromou, 2007. Cogo 2012 modifies these ideas, stating that ELF occurs in a community of practice with fluidity, variability and creativity where ELF is value-laden according to multicomponent speakers. Maley 2009 sets the example of many interactions among NSs, outer-cirle nativised users, and expanding-circle users. Obviously, the concept of World Englishes embraces ELF as it acknowledges the equal status of the varieties of Englishes owned by diverse users Berns et al., 2009. As a result, the use of varieties of English are acceptable in communication as bilingual resources for code switching and code mixing to bridge ELF communication Jenkins, 2009. All in all, ELF is a core sociolinguistic dimension of communication in EIL where the speakers are the agents who carry diverse linguistic resources. In order to gain further understanding of the complexity of EIL, this ELF perspective needs to be in accordance with views on an ideological as well as a pedagogical level Murray, 2012.

B. EIL in Pedagogical Practices

The conceptual discussion of EIL is brought into ELT pedagogy as a framework for educators to engage with linguistic competence and its sociolinguistic awareness in the classroom, as well as for the legitimacy of teachers’ dual identities as speakers and educators.