Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal

ISSN: 0123-4641
caljournal@yahoo.com
Universidad Distrital Francisco José de
Caldas
Colombia

Kumar Bhowmik, Subrata

World Englishes and English Language Teaching: A pragmatic and humanistic approach
Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, vol. 17, núm. 1, enero-junio, 2015, pp. 142-157
Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas
Bogotá, Colombia

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=305739087010

How to cite
Complete issue
Scientific Information System
More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal
Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative
 REFLECTION ON PRAXIS

World Englishes and English Language Teaching: A

pragmatic and humanistic approach

Lenguas inglesas del mundo y la enseñanza del inglés: un

enfoque pragmático y humanístico

Subrata Kumar Bhowmik1

Citation / Para citar este artículo: Bhowmik, S. K. (2015). World Englishes and English Language Teaching: A Pragmatic and Humanistic Approach.
Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J., 17(1), pp.142-157.
Received: 12-Aug-2014 / Accepted: 27-Apr-2015
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.1.a10

Abstract
Seidlhofer (2005) describes the current status of English as an “unstable equilibrium.” In many ways this analogy
regarding the current state of affairs with English language teaching (ELT) is appropriate. Taking a World Englishes
(WE) perspective, this paper presents various mismatches between teaching goals and objectives vis-à-vis the teaching
and learning outcomes in ELT. The paper then makes the argument that in order for more successful English language
teaching and learning to take place, a pragmatic and humanistic approach needs to be adopted. An outline of such an
approach is discussed.

Keywords: ELT, a humanistic approach to ELT, a pragmatic approach to ELT, World Englishes

Resumen
Seidlhofer (2005) describe el estado actual de inglés como un “equilibrio inestable”. En muchos sentidos, esta
analogía con respecto a la situación actual con la enseñanza del idioma Inglés (ELT) es apropiado. Tomando una
perspectiva de las lenguas inglesas del mundo (World Englishes), este trabajo presenta varios desajustes entre las
metas y los objetivos en relación con los resultados de enseñanza y aprendizaje en la enseñanza ELT. En el documento
se presenta, entonces, el argumento de que para que la enseñanza y el aprendizaje del idioma Inglés tengan lugar con
más éxito, un enfoque pragmático y humanista debe ser adoptado. Se discute un esquema de este tipo de enfoque.

Palabras clave: ELT, enfoque humanístico a ELT, enfoque pargmático a ETL, lenguas inglesas del mundo

1 University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. sbhowmik@ucalgary.ca

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

142 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
 World Englishes and English Language Teaching

Introduction ELT in the twenty-first century encounters a

myriad of problems. A closer look at them suggests
English language teaching has witnessed a that the root of many of these problems lies in the
major boom around the globe in recent times. unprecedented global spread of English in the last
The continuous spread of English has given rise few decades that has given rise to different varieties
to different varieties of English language, making it of English language. A brief explanation in this regard
almost impossible to trace the norms for Standard is in order. Different varieties of English mean that
English (SE) (e.g., Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Kachru, 1982; ELT can no longer afford to choose between only
Lowenberg, 2000, pp. 69-73). As the proliferation of British or American English as the primary target
English education continues at our time, the variety variety for instruction. As the spread of English
of English to be considered as SE, the norms to be continues, nonnative-nonnative interactions have
followed in English language pedagogy (Kachru, become more common than native-native and
1982, p. 49), and the materials to be used for native-nonnative interactions (Lowenberg, 2000, p.
English language teaching (ELT) curriculum are but 67). For instance, according to an estimate provided
only a few issues that constitute some of the most by Crystal (1997, cited in Graddol, 1997), in 1995
intriguing concerns in the field. Research shows that there were approximately 377 million people using
the global spread of English has significant bearing English as their L1, while at the same time there
on ELT. Much of this bearing has manifested itself were about 235 million people using English as their
in the lack of a uniform target variety of English for second language. Crystal (1997, cited in Graddol,
instruction and the prevailing problems in setting 1999) notes that in 50 years (i.e., from 1995) this
suitable teaching goals and objectives commensurate balance would shift significantly as the number
to teaching and learning outcomes. In this paper, of people using English as a second or foreign
I take an exploratory approach to investigate these language would almost double. In fact, it is argued
conundrums relating to ELT. Specifically, I look that at present, nonnative speakers of English have
at problems that ELT faces in setting a uniform already outnumbered their native counterparts and
target variety for instruction; curriculum design that native speakers comprise only “a fifth or less”
and materials development; testing; and teacher of world’s total English users. (e.g., Lowenberg,
training—areas that are absolutely crucial for any 2000, p. 67).
language pedagogy.
In spite of this ever-widening spectrum of the
Prevalence of more than one standard variety English speaking population, ELT is still mostly
of any given language may not be entirely unusual. controlled (i.e., determining the norms for teaching,
This trend may hold true for various languages designing syllabus, producing materials, and so
in the world such as Arabic, Chinese, French, on) by “native-speaking,” inner-circle countries.2
Greek, and so on. Difficulties in setting a uniform Seidlhofer (2004) refers to this situation as an
standard variety while teaching these languages as “unstable equilibrium” (p. 209). That is, while
a second or foreign language may parallel those 2 It is worth noting that Kachru’s concentric model distinctions
in English. However, what separates the context between inner-, outer-, and expanding-circle are not absolute.
There has been a great deal of criticism about this model. For
of the teaching of English from other languages is example, Tripathi (1998) observes that this model assumes that
English’s status as the most high stake, most used, there is uniformity of English language within each group of
and most widespread language the world has ever countries. But in reality, this notion is far from true. He further
argues that great linguistic diversity exists within inner-circle (such
known (Kachru & Nelson, 1996, p. 71). Besides, as USA, Canada) as well as outer-circle (such as India, Pakistan)
the continuous spread of English worldwide has countries. Furthermore, Tripathi (1998) maintains that the
concentric model cannot sufficiently explain the evolving nature
put it in a unique situation. For example, because of the linguistic changes within each circle. Although circles in
of its spread over time, English has become more their “connotational sense” could be expanded due to various
external or internal forces, “…this happens regardless of the
hybridized and diverse, a phenomenon captured spatial order inner or outer” (p. 56). Australia and New Zealand,
by the term World Englishes. In such a milieu, it is for instance, were included in inner-circle English in the past;
natural that English language teaching at present is similarly, there could be more inner-circle English countries in
future. This happens due to the natural course of various (socio)
more challenging than ever before. linguistic phenomena.

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157. 143
nonnative speakers have outnumbered their native I make it a point that a pragmatic and humanistic
counterparts, native speakers of English still enjoy approach to ELT is necessary for a globalized world
the privileges of being “native.” Native speakers, that is diverse and fast-changing.
for instance, are entitled to getting “special status”
(Graddol, 1999, p. 67) as well as various material
and psychological benefits while using English in English in the twenty-first century—
everyday life. After all, it is the inner-circle speakers what are the standards?
who set the standard norms for English, get jobs
that are meant only for “native speakers,” get The global spread of English in the last few
a raise or promotion at work just because they decades has caused an unprecedented growth of
identify themselves as native speakers of English the language. What this means is that English has
(e.g., Kirkpatrick, 2007). At pedagogical levels, the grown into a great many varieties. An important
impacts of this phenomenon are quite pervasive fact about the rise of different varieties of English
too—inner-circle-oriented curriculum design is that they are not only limited to the outer- and
and materials development that show little or no expanding-circle countries, rather varieties of
sensitivity to local contexts, developing tests that English are equally prevalent in inner-circle countries
are incompatible with local teaching and learning (Widdowson, 1994, p. 378). With so many existing
goals and objectives, preference for native English varieties, maintaining standard norms for English to
speakers for English teaching positions, undue be used as a single reference point has always been
stress on learners for appropriating a particular a challenge for its users. The issue is particularly
variety of inner-circle English often disregarding critical for practitioners of ELT since they need to
more popular localized varieties are some examples set fixed standards for their teaching purposes. In
in this connection (Canagarajah, 1999; Kirkpatrick, the section below, I examine issues relating to SE
2007; Phillipson, 1992). As one can see, ELT these that often intrigue ELT practitioners. The ownership
days is characterized by numerous tensions on the of English, a related concept, also figures in the
part of both teachers and students. What is important discussion. After all, standards are typically set by
to note here is that these factors not only impact the “owners” of the language.
teachers and learners but also the actual English
language teaching practices (e.g., approaches and Widdowson (1994) problematizes the concept
methods). At times, these impacts are so far reaching of standards and ownership of English. He suggests
that they lead to failures and/or disruptions of English that language maintenance is a task that is not
language teaching and learning goals (Canagarajah, necessarily endowed upon a particular subset of
1999). Therefore, it is important to engage in people who are by default native speakers of the
deliberations on how WE issues permeate ELT. language. In fact, Widdowson argues that the
responsibility of maintaining the standard rests
In the following sections, I organize my upon all of those who speak/use the language.
discussions as follows: I first draw on issues relating That is, he implicitly concedes that the ownership
to standards of English and how they have made it of the language belongs to all. But in reality the
difficult for ELT practitioners to set a uniform target fact remains that inner-circle countries determine
variety for ELT. As mentioned above, because there the standards of English. ELT courses modeled
are so many varieties of English, encompassing after inner-circle norms do not address local needs
inner-, outer-, and expanding-circle countries, there and preferences. Matsuda (2003), for example,
is always a conflict as to which variety should be used maintains that when the English language that is
as a standard norm. Further, various ownership- taught in EFL/ESL follows inner-circle English, it
related ideologies (i.e., ownership of English) may result in the neglect of local learners’ linguistic
make things more complicated in this regard. In needs, ignoring their education about the history
the subsequent sections, I discuss the difficulties and politics surrounding the English language, and
that ELT faces in curriculum design and materials the failure to empower learners with ownership of
development, testing, and teacher training. Finally, English (p. 721).

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

144 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
 World Englishes and English Language Teaching

What is more, the measures used to evaluate the most native speakers. One of the most commonly
standards vary across time and space. For instance, made arguments by native speakers is that a ­lack of
in Britain many people relate spelling errors to standards allows a proliferation of what they label as
a non-standard variety of English. For others, it deficit English. One may notice that this argument
might be the lexical, grammatical, or phonological involves more material than practical considerations;
system. Widdowson (1994) distinguishes between it involves material stakes such as the control and
two major functions of language: communal ownership of English on the part of native speakers.
and communicative. While communal functions An example to this end would help clarify this point:
relate more to the conventions (such as spelling It is predominantly the native speakers who control,
and accent) of a given language, communicative design, and produce the majority of ELT materials
functions have more to do with communication worldwide and provide themselves with a huge share
among its users. According to Widdowson, it is at of the ELT market (Kirkpatrick, 2007). Therefore,
the level of communal function that the concept of a complete control and ownership of English are
“standard” becomes an issue as it allows its users to of significant material interests to them. However,
exclude those who do not follow the conventions— considering the volume of the global spread of
the “standards” of English. It also allows the English in the twenty-first century, restricting the
followers of the standard variety of English to wield language to native speakers is as impractical as it is
power and prestige (Lowenberg, 2000) over those inappropriate.
who do not belong to the “community” (see also
Kachru, 1982, pp. 49-52 for an account of how Indeed, pluricentricity is the theme of much of
the concept of “models” [roughly synonymous to the work related to the spread of English in recent
“standards”] can be disadvantageous). In contrast, times. While Kachru’s (1982, 1985) concentric
at the communicative level, the fact remains that model sets the tone for conceptualization of what
as long as communication is accomplished, the is now popularly known as World Englishes (WE),
English language remains fully functional. This is the trend has moved on and continued to promote
not to say, however, that the communal function of the importance of viewing English as a language
English should be considered unimportant. of the world, owned by the peoples around the
globe. Over the years, English has been “the most
As one can see, the ownership of English and the widely taught, read and spoken language the world
“standards” of the language are inseparably related. has ever known” (Kachru & Nelson, 1996, p. 71).
The concept of SE is relative to how the native While researchers recognize different varieties of
speakers define the term to maintain its communal English based on various linguistic levels such as
functions. As discussed above, no matter how vocabulary and grammar, and accent (Strevens,
important standards are for maintaining communal 1983; cited in Kachru & Nelson, 1996), what binds
integrity, they may not simply serve any purpose in it together is its common communicative goal.
accomplishing communicative functions. In the Indeed, helping learners develop communicative
current scenarios in which English language teaching skills in English has been one of the primary
and learning take place, it is the communicative teaching goals in ELT curricula. However, with so
function that matters the most to both learners and many different indigenous varieties of English (e.g.,
teachers (e.g., Alptekin, 2002; Rajagopalan, 2004). Indian English, Nigerian English, Singaporean
Since the main purpose of most English language English, etc.) coupled with conflicting learning
education is to make learners communicatively needs for passing standardized English tests and
competent, addressing the communal function of communicating with different subsets of people,
English, making students learn about the nuanced setting appropriate teaching goals in ELT and
conventions or standards of the language may be teaching communicative skills is not an easy
a misfit in the long list of ELT goals and objectives. task. A corollary of this has been a tremendous
impetus for the codification of the characteristics
This approach to English language teaching/ of different varieties of English, which has resulted
learning is in contradiction with the interests of in new research agenda in WE.

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157. 145
 Efforts have been well underway to describe and these days so many nonnative speakers use
and codify varieties of English language spoken by the language, the control over English may go into
nonnative speakers. Some of the notable projects in the hands of the nonnative speakers. Control here
this area are: Jenkins’ “Lingua Franca Core” (LFC) does not necessarily indicate hogging the language
(Jenkins, 1998, 2002); work on English as a Lingua as a possession. The measure of control of English
Franca Pragmatics by Blommaert and Verschueren in this case is determined by the sheer number
(1991) and Spencer-Oatey (2000); and Seidlhofer’s of people using the language. As mentioned
work on the description of lexico-grammatical earlier, nonnative speakers of English have already
issues of English as a Lingua Franca as part of the outnumbered their native counterparts. As a result,
VOICE project at University of Vienna (Seidlhofer, nonnative-nonnative interactions in English are far
2002). Although different researchers may be in more common than native-nonnative interactions.
disagreement with each other over the meanings of This alone has significant implications relating to the
the terms such as English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) concept of SE. For example, with the continuing rise
or English as an International Language (EIL) (e.g., of nonnative speakers of English and interactions
Jenkins, 2006), it must be kept in mind that they are among themselves, it is believed that English will
intended to serve a common purpose—to underscore be used more for its communicative functions
the importance of describing English used by (more in line with what is described above), leaving
nonnative speakers and to come up with a uniform standards to be of less significance. In fact, the new
reference point for English language used by outer- “world order” might just compel them to forgo the
and expanding-circle countries. Research in this area purists’ version of English for a more hybridized
of English studies has increased exponentially in and “impure” version of “world English,” known by
recent times (see Jenkins, 2006 for more) to signal terms such as ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) and
a welcome shift from a monocentric approach to EIL (English as an International Language).
English to a pluricentric one. Interestingly, this shift
of approach to English language studies is directly That said, although several research projects
related to the issue of ownership of the English are aimed at codifying different levels of ELF/EIL
language. While a monocentric approach would give (e.g., Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004), it is by no
more power to the native speakers, their norms and means an easy task for various reasons. First, it is
ways of using English; pluricentricity, by contrast, is extremely difficult to come up with a uniform set
everyone’s norm, everyone’s usage. This invariably of characteristics with so many varieties around.
puts the custodians of English (to use Widdowson’s, Second, it is also difficult to devise an objective
1994 words), the native speakers, in a less powerful set of principles of ELF/EIL for pedagogical
position with regard to the future course of the purposes. The intelligibility principle (Levis, 2005),
English language. for example, has been a long-held reference point
in the practice of pronunciation teaching, although
Graddol’s (1997) observation regarding the it is widely believed that there is no single and
ownership of English may be relevant at this point. universally-agreed-upon definition and measure
In the overview of his book The Future of English, of “intelligibility” in language teaching (Derwing
Graddol (1997) predicts “significant global trends & Munro, 2005; Jenkins, 2000). Finally, even if
– in economics, technology and culture…” (p. 2) researchers in the field successfully come up with
that may transform the world in the twenty-first proper descriptions of the characteristics of ELF and
century and cause a new world order. Graddol EIL, in the end it is feared that it may only yield a
further points out that ultimately the native speakers set of prescriptive formulae for ELT, much like what
of English might be uncomfortable with the effects native-speaking varieties of English have done over
of these changes on the English language. Based the years. This, of course, is contradictory to the
upon various facts, trends, and ideas, Graddol’s spirit of a pluricentric view of WE in ELT.
prediction has several implications regarding the
status of English—most crucially, its ownership. In fact, it is true that the monocentric, “native-
Because the spread of English is occurring so fast speaker-oriented” perspective of SE is extremely

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

146 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
 World Englishes and English Language Teaching

difficult to do away with. Seidlhofer (2005), for one encounters on a daily basis. Like other spheres
example, maintains that the “Anglo-Saxon attitudes” of life, this phenomenon is applicable in ELT as well.
(p. 167) are still extremely prevalent in English Likewise, it is important to consider the adaptability
language education around the world. That is, factors in ELT—factors that would make various
while on the surface we have moved away from aspects of ELT—curriculum and materials, methods
monocentrism, in reality pluricentrism is still to be and approaches serve the desired purposes most
materialized at various levels of English language efficiently. The ensuing discussions will show this
teaching and learning. Seidlhofer (2005) calls this task is not easy. Hadley (1999) reports on novelty in
phenomenon “submission to native-speaker norms” ELT curricula at the tertiary level in some Japanese
(p. 170). This tendency of submission is so strong colleges and universities. To keep up with the need
that in certain non-native contexts educators are for effective English language pedagogy and at the
establishing the so called “English village” in order discretion of the Japanese Ministry of Education,
to immerse nonnative English learners (Jenkins, these colleges and universities introduced what
2006, p. 172) to approximate the native standards. Hadley describes as “innovative” ELT curricula.
Some of the characteristics of these curricula
As one can see, ELT in the twenty-first century are: only English language usage in classrooms
suffers from a lack of a uniform variety of English (also known as immersion), no teacher-centered
for instructional purposes. The discussions above classes–students may express themselves the way
illustrate how issues such as “standards” and they wanted—“laughing, joking, and expressing
“ownership” of English play significant roles in ELT their opinions in English” (Fukuda & Sasaki, 1995;
today. The continuous spread of English has been a cited in Hadley, 1999, p. 93). Also prevalent were
tremendous boost for the recognition of nonnative practices such as “English lounges” where English
varieties of English as viable alternatives to inner- was the only language for communication, native-
circle English for ELT. In spite of a considerable speaker-conducted English classes, pairing
amount of work in this regard, it seems as though students with native-English-speaking roommates
it is going to take a while before such a pluricentric (e.g., American), and increasing the number of
approach to English becomes the norm rather than native-speaking teachers to promote co-operative
exception in ELT. learning based on interactions between teachers
and learners. Furthermore, English content courses
taught exclusively in English were introduced.
Issues of curriculum and materials
As one examines the characteristics of
While setting a uniform target variety is important “innovative” ELT curricula, several interesting
for English language instruction, designing effective phenomena emerge. Clearly, making learners
curricula (although there are disagreements, I use communicatively competent is an objective that
the term syllabus and curriculum interchangeably was taken seriously by administrators at these
in this paper, see Brown, 1995 for more) and institutions. Furthermore, there is an attempt to
developing suitable materials are also part of provide learners with as much exposure to English as
important considerations in ELT. With an ever- possible, by creating English-speaking environments
expanding landscape of English, ELT curriculum within a non-native context. In fact, there are overt
and materials need to be innovative to meet the efforts to have native-speaking teachers/students
burgeoning complexities surrounding English involved in the process (which may remind one of
language pedagogy. Below, I discuss why it is often the “Anglo-Saxon attitudes” [Seidlhofer, 2005, p.
difficult to make ELT curriculum and materials 167] of grassroots-level administrators). While it is
effective while facing the challenges that various WE heartening to see efforts for innovation in ELT, one
phenomena pose. cannot help wondering about potential challenges
associated with it. For instance, implementing the
Innovation and flexibility are two major themes in mandatory use of English at all times may help
the twenty-first century to deal with the new challenges improve learners’ spoken abilities, but the question

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157. 147
remains as to how an instructor may objectively write ELT, there are potential shortcomings to her notion
and give a test on such open-ended skills acquired of ELT syllabus. English education in the twenty-first
by learners. How about learners’ reading and writing century has crossed all national borders. Therefore,
skills–do the administrators consider them entirely it is extremely difficult to devise a localized, context-
irrelevant to learners for effective communication in specific syllabus that would address all possible
English? Having as many native-speaking teachers social and cultural contexts in which English
as possible may sound exciting, but is it not, in learners would operate. Also, for the most part,
essence, reverting to the old days of approximating the major theme of ELT in our time is to acquire
native varieties of English, and thus undermining the communicative competence. Having students
“World Englishes movement”? Issues such as these learn a handful of spoken and written genres would
continue to baffle ELT circles far and wide. certainly not serve them well to this end.

Drawing on the “functional” dimensions of Adding second language acquisition

language use, Coffin (2003) recommends that perspectives to the current discussions on ELT, Ellis
curriculum designers/language teachers organize (1993) argues for structural syllabuses in English
and structure the language curriculum in ways that language programs. Structural syllabuses would
would fall in line with the “theory of language as ‘social incorporate structures of the language at various
action’” (p. 11). She identifies four areas of language levels (e.g., phonology, morphology, syntax) for
use on which learners need to build their knowledge, English language learners. The rationale behind
namely, text structure, experiential, interpersonal, Ellis’ argument rests upon the claim that grammar
and textual grammar. Each of these four areas serves teaching should be done as part of “consciousness-
various aspects of language use in everyday life. raising” act among learners. In short, consciousness-
Knowledge of text structure, for example, would help raising refers to instilling an understanding of the
learners with different types of written and spoken various “formal and functional properties” of the
texts in different cultures and contexts. Knowledge target language in learners’ minds. This process
of experiential grammar provides learners with of consciousness-raising is compatible with L2
“grammatical resources for representing the world” acquisition theory of “learnability” (Ellis, 1993).
(p.15)—making them aware of the people or things, While Ellis’ (1993) accounts add interesting L2
processes, and circumstances involved in language acquisition perspectives to ELT syllabus design, it
use. And, while interpersonal grammar relates to must be remembered that there have been long-
knowledge of successful incorporation of linguistic drawn debates regarding whether or not grammar
choices based on various social relations and instruction helps language learning in the first place
attitudes, textual grammar helps learners organize (e.g., Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996). Furthermore,
the message so as to facilitate the smooth “flow of much of English language learning in the twenty-
information” (Coffin, 2003). first century occurs in informal, out-of-class settings
and learners are generally exposed to a myriad of
Coffin (2003) argues that a careful and systematic language input, derived from different varieties of
analysis of these four areas of language use can English in various contexts. Therefore, ELT syllabuses
provide important insights into devising syllabuses that do not account for contextual variables such as
for English language learners. What is interesting in these may turn out to be ineffective.
Coffin’s (2003) argument is that she proposes the
identification of a set of spoken and written genres As research aims to reach a common ground for
that directly relate to the social and cultural contexts intelligibility of different varieties of English across the
in which language learners are most likely to world, Jenkins (1998) presents some core phonological
operate. These genres then could be incorporated issues to be included in the pronunciation syllabus
into the language syllabus. While Coffin’s (2003) of English language programs. Jenkins (1998)
acknowledgement of social and cultural sensitivity identifies problems with setting the unrealistic goal of
renders support to the pluricentrism that is central approximating native speakers (e.g., either British or
to the discussion of a World Englishes perspective of American) norms in the syllabus. Instead, she argues

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

148 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
 World Englishes and English Language Teaching

for a compromise norm of pronunciation of English contexts (i.e., materials used come from contexts
as an International Language (EIL). EIL norms such as USA or Britain that are completely foreign to
would have three core areas of instruction namely them). The claim that authentic materials stimulate
segmental, nuclear stress, and the effective use of motivation in language tasks also needs to be
articulatory setting. Jenkins (1998) maintains that EIL considered with caution. Peacock (1997) shows how
norms of pronunciation would promote international authentic materials were found less interesting than
intelligibility, freedom to express EIL speakers’ own artificial materials. On a separate note, Wong, Kwok,
variety, and stop approximation of native speakers’ and Choi (1995) maintain that the effectiveness of
norms. Jenkins’ (1998) argument, while persuasive, authentic materials depends upon, among other
it is just a proposal and likewise, we must examine things, teacher’s knowledge of “each student’s
it carefully. As one would imagine, codifying all ability,” students’ “temperament and readiness,”
pronunciation problems with non-native speakers of and the teacher’s judgment on manipulation of the
English is an extremely difficult task. Also, it is quite materials. González (2010), in this regard, argues for
daunting to address pronunciation difficulties of non- an incorporation of local teacher educators’ voices
native speakers with so many different L1s and to into the design of curricula and development of
come up with a uniform set of core pronunciation materials.
instruction areas. All in all, one may see that designing
an effective English curriculum entails a great deal of As one can see, materials by themselves cannot
difficulty. involve students in tasks for language learning.
It requires a great deal of perseverance and hard
Since curriculum design and materials work on the part of the teachers. In fact, without
development go hand in hand, failing to shed some teachers’ conscientious efforts, it is extremely
light on materials development, this section of the difficult for language learners to make the best use
paper would remain incomplete. Good materials are of the materials. The bottom line is that unless more
essential for achieving the goals and objectives stated localized culture- and context-specific materials are
in the syllabus. Lately, the concept of authentic texts used in ELT classrooms, it is difficult for both teachers
(Little, Devitt, & Singleton, 1988) is quite pervasive and learners to relate to the language tasks. Matsuda
in ELT circles. It is believed that “…exposing (2003) fittingly argues that textbooks should provide
students to the language of the real world will help English language learners more exposure to English
them acquire an effective receptive competence in as an International Language (EIL) by incorporating
the target language” (Guariento & Morley, 2001, p. more characters from outer- and expanding-circle
347). It is also believed that authentic texts bridge countries. In order for a successful incorporation of
the gap between students’ linguistic knowledge and EIL components into the materials, textbook writers/
their capacity to use the language in real life situation materials developers must be conscientious of the
(Wilkins, 1976 as cited in Guariento & Morley, 2001). appropriacy of the characters and activities/tasks so
Literature in the field suggests that, in spite of their that they derive “authentic” response from learners.
supposed effectiveness, authentic texts/materials
are not devoid of their own share of problems. One
of the problems voiced by Guariento and Morley What to test, how to test?
(2001) is the mismatch between authentic texts and
language tasks. They argue that authentic materials Tests are integral part of any language program.
are of no help unless they can derive authentic No matter how undesirable tests are, for both
responses from language learners. teachers and learners, there needs to be some form
of tests in order for teachers to assess learners’
This phenomenon is especially true in the case achievement and to evaluate the effectiveness of
of English language materials. In ELT, for example, instructions. Furthermore, tests may be required for
learners’ tasks are typically based upon guessing gate-keeping measures for various purposes (e.g.,
rather than a complete control and understanding of jobs, immigration, pay raise, etc.). More often than
the tasks as students cannot relate the tasks to the not, language tests entail high-stakes choices. Tests

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157. 149
in ELT are particularly complicated, at least on two 2005). The same is true about TOEFL. For instance,
counts: First, there are an unprecedented number although TOEFL’s purpose statement endorses the
of test takers (more generally, “users,” which include use of the TOEFL scores by various institutions
both test givers and test takers, and all others who such as government agencies around the world, its
use test scores for some reasons) of English and research agenda and test design and development
the stakes involved in these tests are enormous. do not support the incorporation of such uses
Second, as mentioned earlier, there is no single of English (Chalhoub-Deville & Wigglesworth,
reference point for SE, making both teachers and 2005). Test of Spoken English (TSE), a component
learners grapple with the design and preparation for of TOEFL, supposedly measures test takers’
these tests. It is the latter that relates more directly proficiency in communicating in English. However,
to various WE phenomena. Because there is no Chalhoub-Deville and Wigglesworth (2005) maintain
uniform reference point for SE, it is difficult for test that the “design, development, and research… [are]
givers to design and administer tests that would truly …oriented by and focused on North American
test learners’ knowledge for communication in the contexts” (p. 386), ignoring the vast majority of
pluricentric world. Furthermore, although there are other contexts around the world in which the test
various local varieties of English, they are invariably results are to be used.
excluded from most high-stakes proficiency tests
in English. At the local level, too, teachers are High-stakes proficiency tests aside, localized
compounded by questions such as how to test English tests too are compounded by various
learners’ proficiency in English objectively and what phenomena of WE, for the most part, by the fact
skills reflect learners’ actual proficiency. that there are so many varieties and norms of
English. As a result, while writing tests, local test
Hamp-Lyons and Davies (2008) maintain that administrators fail to set the appropriate target
high-stakes English proficiency tests such as TOEFL model of English. Additionally, because there is no
and IELTS are often condemned on the grounds uniform variety of English to be used as a reference
that they are biased and unfair to test takers who point, English language learners often go through
follow exonormative standards. The contention enormous stress as well.
revolves around the fact that while an International
English (IE) view of the situation suggests that there Another level of problem emerges when test
is and should be only one norm of English, the norm givers have to decide what kind of proficiency is
of the educated native speakers of English, the more to be tested. Generally speaking, one’s language
liberal of WE is that to impose an IE norm on non- proficiency entails a holistic measure of one’s
native English speakers, many of whom already competence in the target language. However,
have local standards/norms (such as Singaporean in reality, especially after the inception of the
English, Indian English), is discriminatory (Hamp- communicative method of language teaching,
Lyons & Davies 2008). English educators are caught-up between testing
learners’ communicative competence and discrete-
Additionally, though high-stakes proficiency point grammatical knowledge. In outer- and
tests of English such as IELTS, TOEFL, TOEIC, etc. expanding-circle countries, it is still not certain
are often claimed to be international in their scope whether it is enough to test learners’ communicative
of potential test takers and the varieties of English competence as an appropriate measure for
tested, Chalhoub-Deville and Wigglesworth (2005) proficiency in English, since testing communicative
express their reservations about such claims. While competence by itself may not be able to provide a
it is true that IELTS has international partnership true indication of learners’ writing and reading skills
(i.e., University of Cambridge, The British Council, necessary for various academic and professional
and IDP Australia) for developing tests, it still fails contexts. That is, someone who is communicatively
to provide a uniform reference point as to what competent in non-academic, informal situations
should be considered as an international knowledge may still have difficulty in reading and writing tasks
base for English (Chalhoub-Deville & Wigglesworth, at academic and professional levels.

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

150 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
 World Englishes and English Language Teaching

Conundrums relating to standards of English to work within various local exigencies, which keep
pose a different kind of problem in testing spoken changing across contexts and cultures and give rise
English. As mentioned earlier, because there is no to further challenges (e.g., Baumgartner, 2007).
uniform reference point for SE pronunciation, it Overall, in order for English teachers to be successful
is extremely difficult for test administrators to set in their job, it is imperative that they are aware of the
uniform grading rubrics for testing pronunciation. various nuances of ELT at present. Matsuda (2006)
Although Levis’ (2005) “intelligibility principle” amply maintains that changing curriculum alone
may be considered to be a compromise position does not help materialize the changes in ELT. Since
in assessing pronunciation, researchers argue teachers play a crucial role in carrying out the actual
that there is no universally-agreed-upon measure teaching activities, teacher training is an important
for “intelligibility” of speech (Derwing & Munro, process that must be given due importance.
2005; Jenkins, 2000). In fact, there are so many
variables that affect intelligibility measurement that Non-native English-speaking teachers
it is almost impossible to obtain a truly objective (NNESTs) constitute about 80 percent of the total
score of intelligibility. Finally, most second language English teachers in the world (Canagarajah, 1999).
acquisition research shows that foreign accent is a Considering the current status of English language
natural phenomenon for post-puberty learners of education, it is neither practical nor possible to
any given language. Therefore, there are questions employ only native English-speaking teachers
regarding whether or not it is practical to set native- (NESTs) to teach English (Pasternak & Bailey,
like pronunciation norms for testing spoken English. 2004). What this means is that NNESTs need to
be properly trained and educated with the current
As one can see, testing in ELT can be extremely theories of language and methods of language
difficult. It is evident from the discussions above that teaching. In addition, they must also be abreast of
many of the problems occur due to the unavailability the latest language acquisition theories so that they
of a uniform, universally-agreed-upon standard can employ the requisite knowledge of ELT.
variety of English that can be modeled while designing
tests. Additionally, diverse global communication This brings us to the core issue of teacher
scenarios as well as new needs and new demands education: How are language proficiency and
coupled with an ever-changing landscape of English professional qualifications viewed in ELT? It is
language because of its continuous spread over the indeed an intriguing issue that has left scholars in
last few decades make it challenging for educators to the field occupied in debate for years. Pasternak and
determine English language testing norms. Needless Bailey’s (2004) view on the matter is that language
to say, this continues to confound English language proficiency is only one aspect of English language
teachers in their classroom teaching and beyond. teachers’ professional qualification. English
teachers must also have appropriate professional
preparations to be able to teach (Phillipson, 1992).
New age, new challenges, new roles They must have declarative knowledge–knowledge
of English teachers about the subject area, in this case the English
language, as well as an understanding of various
English teachers these days are confronted facts relating to educational psychology, second
with unprecedented challenges that make their language acquisition, and current socio-political
job difficult. Because teachers play a central role events. They must also have procedural knowledge–
in language pedagogy both in and outside the knowledge about how to/ability to do things, in this
classroom, the way they go about doing their tasks case the actual teaching. Pasternak and Bailey (2004)
has a profound impact on ultimate teaching and maintain that English language teachers should be
learning outcomes. Literature in the field suggests able to accomplish at least three key things: Knowing
how English teachers’ jobs have become complex about (1) how to use the target language; (2) how to
with the emerging norms and varieties of English teach in a culturally sensitive way; and (3) how to
across the globe. Additionally, English teachers have behave in a target culture (p. 158). As explained in

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157. 151
Pasternak and Bailey’s (2004) accounts, ELT in our remains that it is difficult to entirely do away with
times is much more complicated than many believe. inner-circle-centric norms, partly because in many
English teachers need much more than just being cases teacher education programs are either funded
native speakers of English. In fact, being native or administered by inner-circle English language
English speakers and having proficiency in English educators (Snow, Kamhi-Stein, & Brinton, 2006).
do not necessarily go hand in hand (Pasternak & A corollary of this is that English teacher training
Bailey, 2004). Furthermore, even if an English objectives, materials, or even the training itself
teacher is proficient in English, that alone does not rarely addresses context-specific needs. In fact,
qualify him or her to be a good teacher–he or she inner-circle-centric ideologies are so profoundly
needs much more professional preparation to be embedded into the teacher training curricula
eligible for teaching. This means that associating that native-speaking norms are automatically
native English speakers with an automatic choice transmitted into the training activities. Since there is
for English teaching positions is quite problematic still a lack of a well-laid-out and comprehensive non-
since native English teachers may be completely native-speaking English teacher training program,
foreign to various local needs and preferences. realistically it is going to take a lot of time before
one can move beyond the inner-circle norms.
Drawing on the examples of the teacher
education programs in Egypt and Uzbekistan, Snow, As with the three other areas I discussed
Kamhi-Stein, and Brinton (2006) outline important previously, teacher training programs are heavily
points that need to be taken into consideration for dependent upon inner-circle norms. Although
both pre- and in-service English teacher training literature abounds arguing for a pluricentric, all-
programs. They stress that “…the immediate encompassing ELT approach that would recognize
context of language teaching and the socio-cultural non-inner-circle varieties of English, the accounts
factors…” (p. 274) should be important criteria while above show that while we are well underway to that
devising teacher training programs for English-as-a- end, problems are still prevalent. In order to take
lingua-franca settings. Indeed, contextual variables ELT forward, both educators and theorists in the
are too important to be ignored in teacher education field must recognize these facts sooner than later.
curriculum since teachers have to work under
various local constraints. Snow, Kamhi-Stein, and
Brinton’s (2006) further recommendations include Discussions and implications
going beyond the inner-circle variety of English
both in teacher training programs and classroom So far in this paper I have problematized some
teaching and deconstructing the myth of the native of the contentious issues surrounding ELT from WE
speaker. They also argue that while there can be perspectives. My discussions looked at the difficulties
collaboration between local and outside experts, in four major areas of concern, namely, setting a
professional development should be guided by uniform standard variety for ELT, curriculum design
local norms. González (2010), for example, shows and materials development, testing, and teacher
how Columbian teachers and teacher educators are training. Literature on these issues indicates that
gaining “respected space” in ELT and “displacing much work has already been done. However, one
some traditional voices of world-renowned scholars” must say that ELT in the twenty-first century faces
(pp. 344-45). stiffer challenges than ever before. Tasks related
to ELT are constantly confounded by the current
Overall, literature in the field recognizes the trend of the global spread of English, emerging
importance of promoting local norms for the English new stakes coupled with diverse, and at times,
language in teacher training programs. There is also conflicting expectations of the various stakeholders.
enough indication for going beyond inner-circle While it is extremely difficult to come to terms with
varieties of English and training English teachers the challenges that ELT faces, below I discuss
to value local varieties of the language (e.g., Snow, what I consider to be a pragmatic and humanistic
Kamhi-Stein, & Brinton, 2006). However, the fact approach to ELT.

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

152 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
 World Englishes and English Language Teaching

A pragmatic approach to ELT A related and somewhat complementary

A pragmatic approach to ELT considers the measure to the above would be a complete
“do-ability” issues in teaching and all relevant tasks. abandonment of the “Anglo-Saxon attitudes”
It is evident from the accounts above that ELT in our (Seidlhofer, 2005) up to the grassroots levels. This
time is complex. Therefore, the most viable option entails that more awareness and recognition of the
for educators would be to first determine the “do- enormity of the nonnative speaking population need
ability” criteria for ELT. An evaluation of the English to be firmly established. Although understandably
language teaching goals against the do-ability an arduous task, this can be initiated by including
factors would help teachers/administrators set more the current status, and the statistics relating to the
realistic targets for themselves. outer- and expanding-circle English in ELT materials
all over the world. We can hope that knowledge
So what would be the procedures for of the current status of English would empower
determining the do-ability criteria in ELT? How nonnative speakers by instilling confidence in
would an inventory of do-ability criteria help ELT them and helping generate more neutral attitudes
practitioners better? How would such a move help toward speakers of English worldwide. Although the
re-conceptualize the priorities of ELT in the twenty- current efforts in the literature to describe English
first century and to what benefits? One can begin speakers from the outer- and expanding-circle as
by considering Widdowson’s (1994) accounts speakers of English as a lingua franca (ELF) or of
discussed earlier as a starting point. ELT practitioners English as an international language (EIL) provide
should focus more on the communicative functions alternative perspectives on the ongoing conundrums
of English rather than its communal functions. regarding the issue, these terms are by themselves
That is, focus on communicative functions would discriminatory. Instead, a more pragmatic and
allow the users of English, native and nonnative meaningful approach would be to describe all
alike, to become more tolerant and respectful English speakers within a single bracket as “English
to each other (e.g., Bhatia, 2014), to accept speakers,” in which case, all English speakers would
the realities regarding the current status of the be known as “English speakers” only, without a
English language. That said, considering the vast string attached to them. It is only at this point that
landscape of English, finding a common ground one can expect true change of attitudes towards and
for communication is understandably not easy. For efforts for accommodation of all English speakers
instance, a huge majority of English language users regardless of their L1 backgrounds.
would be concerned about the intelligibility and
comprehensibility of English interlocutors’ speech, A rather more obvious and less drastic measure
communication failures, misunderstanding and/ would be to train English teachers within the latest
or other potential scenarios thereof. However, as language acquisition theories and perspectives on
Canagarajah (2013) suggests, showing tolerance WE. Efficient English teachers are central to ELT;
and respect to each other emanating from the therefore, efforts must be made for educating
realization of the current status of English can help English teachers with up-to-date theories of
enhance mutual understanding to a large extent. language. Furthermore, it must also be established
It would also help erase the myth of nonnative that professional expertise is much more important
speakers’ inability to communicate in English in than language proficiency. That is, proficiency
challenging situations. In order for this to happen in English alone does not qualify someone for an
sustained communicative efforts (rather than English teaching position (Phillipson, 1992, p.15).
communal propaganda) need to be enforced so Teachers’ professional expertise—knowledge about
that people become savvier about the intelligibility the subject area plus an understanding about
and comprehensibility of ELF and EIL. Promoting various facts relating to educational psychology,
the communicative functions would also help second language acquisition, and current socio-
break the jinx of native-nonnative dichotomy and political events as well as the ability to deliver the
broaden the perspectives on the users of English knowledge should be the sole criteria for determining
across the world. professional expertise. Local norms for professional

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157. 153
development as well as more universal standards there is no universally-accepted single reference
must be incorporated in teacher training. point for SE. Second, research shows that it is
extremely difficult, if not impossible, especially for
A pragmatic approach to ELT in line with the post-puberty language learners, to achieve native-
accounts above is necessary in order for making like proficiency (e.g., Derwing & Munro, 2005). Why
English language pedagogy more accessible and should ELT course goals and objectives then persist
viable. It is imperative that the practitioners in the with an elusive “native-likeness,” approximating
field shake off all limiting factors in order for ELT proficiencies that are ostensibly impossible to
to assume a more progressive agenda to take the achieve while leaving out more viable alternatives
English language teaching and learning movement for acquiring communicative competence? Aloni’s
forward. Eliminating all barriers and embracing humanistic education views learning to be “the
diversities should be the driving principles for ELT properly human way of developing natural talents
to sustain its growth and vitality in the twenty- and capacities” (Gadamer, 1975, p. 11, as cited in
first century. Aloni, 1997).

In this connection, one may consider the

A humanistic approach to ELT example of the high-stakes English proficiency tests.
The concept of a humanistic approach has Although TOEFL and IELTS scores are widely used
been part of educational theories and practices for as standard measures for proficiency in English, for
a long time. The efficacy of such an approach lies the most part these tests are designed to measure
in explaining some of the problems relating to ELT either American or British norms of English. While it
raised in this paper. I adapt renowned educational is well-accepted that the bulk of the communication
theorist Nimrod Aloni’s (1997) notions on humanistic in English in today’s world occurs among nonnative
education in my attempt to delineate a humanistic English speakers, to what extent these tests are
approach to ELT. According to Aloni, a humanistic justifiable for measuring English proficiency remains
approach to education must be committed: a contentious issue (Canagarajah, 2006). A poignant
direct effect of this on test takers is that they attempt
…to the enhancement of human freedom and to approximate the native speakers’ norms (primarily
growth, to the realization and perfection of human to pass these tests), knowing that in real life situations
potentialities, and to an ethical code that places they are more likely to communicate with nonnative
the highest value on the dignity of humanity, as speakers of English. What is more, definitions of
an end in itself, in relation to which all political, the terms such as “native-likeness” or “nativeness”
religious, economic, and ideological doctrines are themselves are relative to contexts as they vary even
regarded as means to its enhancement. (p. 96) within native-speaking societies, and that there is no
uniform measure for native-likeness and nativeness
Taking Aloni’s (1997) accounts as a departure (Levis, 2005). A humanistic approach that aligns
point, I suggest that a humanistic approach to ELT with the terms and definitions stated above rejects
relate to considerations about setting goals and such objectives of ELT on the ground that they are
assigning tasks in ELT that are “humanly” possible. devoid of “self-generation, self-nourishment, and
Such ELT goals and tasks must help the “realization self-creation” (Aloni, 1997, p.102). The most logical
and perfection of human potentialities” (Aloni, 1997, goal for ELT courses should be such that English
p. 96) rather than acting as political, economic, and learning helps learners communicate successfully–
ideological means to subjugate English learners. that is, the learners are able to accomplish “the
Literature in the field suggests that English language ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual
teaching/learning has traditionally targeted native- functions” (Berns, 1990, p. 104) in English.
like proficiency. However, apart from its underlying
political and ideological ramifications, setting such Furthermore, a blind approximation of native-
a target is problematic on at least two counts: First, like proficiency or a specific standard for English
it is clear from the discussions in this paper that language teaching and learning denounces the

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

154 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
 World Englishes and English Language Teaching

fundamental human spirits that crave the values English-speaking high school/college/university),
and ideologies specific to the native culture to what extent the prevalent high-stakes English
(Canagarajah, 1999). González (2010) reports tests are successful in providing reliable measures
how the adoption of the Common European for the diverse communication needs for English
Framework of Reference (CEFR) as the standard language learners given the changing landscape
in English language education policy in Colombia of the English language, and whether a preference
encountered resistance from students and teachers for native English teachers is customary only at
alike. A humanistic approach to ELT would promote college or university levels or whether it pervades K
sensitivities towards learners’ native cultures, and through 12 education as well. Furthermore, it would
“self-regulated development [and] spontaneous … be interesting to explore to what extent nonnative
exercise of natural powers” (Aloni, 1997, p. 92). speakers of English are willing to accommodate
Such an approach would also help both teachers and their native-speaking counterparts to facilitate
learners appreciate diversity and pluricentrism–two communication, for communication is a mutual
central characteristics of WE. After all, considering act, and successful communication is not only a
the current landscape of English, no one can confine native speakers’ burden, after all. This entails that
his or her perspectives to the native-speaking norms in order for successful communication to take place
of English anymore. nonnative speakers of English must learn how to
accommodate their native-speaking counterparts
Finally, if the purpose of having native- in ways that would enhance mutual intelligibility.
speaking norms of English is “exclusion” rather than In order for a more comprehensive understanding
“inclusion” (Widdowson, 1994), such a purpose is of ELT, future research must look into issues such
completely uncalled for given the current socio- as these.
political scenarios. A pluricentric approach to
English is what the world needs most, whereby To conclude, in this paper I attempted to
diversity would stand for a welcome change, not as point out various mismatches in English language
a basis for discrimination, intended or unintended. teaching goals and objectives vis-à-vis teaching
Only a humanistic approach to ELT can ensure an and learning outcomes in four major areas of
end to this effect. concern—I discussed how setting standards for the
target variety of English for instruction purposes,
designing curriculum and developing materials,
Conclusion testing, and training teachers have become
complicated due to the global spread of English.
I must concede that ELT in our time is much Although chosen somewhat arbitrarily, these four
more complex than a framework of the kind areas constitute the major components of any
proposed here can resolve. There are issues that are language education program. It is hoped that
difficult to deal with as the ever-changing landscape delineating these issues may instill useful insights
of English comes up with fresh challenges. For into the rich body of literature and research in
instance, people all over the world learn English ELT. I must also acknowledge at this point that my
for a variety of purposes, with a whole range of plea for a pragmatic and humanistic approach to
goals and objectives in mind. Likewise, designing ELT is derived partly from the predicament English
a uniform needs analysis framework, curriculum, language learners around the world face due to
appropriate teaching methodology, and assessment various WE phenomena described here and partly
tools for this entire spectrum of the population is from my personal experience as a nonnative speaker
almost an impossible task. Nevertheless, future of English. Although some of the issues discussed
research in the field may delve into issues such in this paper can be found elsewhere, especially
as what gatekeeping systems are prevalent (and publications relating to WE, my efforts here have
appropriate) in the contexts of nonnative-nonnative been intended to make ELT practitioners aware
communication (e.g., in a context where a non- of the current challenges they face because of the
English-speaking student seeks admission to a non- global spread of English. I argue that in order for

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157. 155
 Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language.
English language learners to become successful, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
ELT must promote pluricentrism as its core and
diversity of English in the real sense of the term to Derwing, T., & Munro, M. (2005). Second language
accent and pronunciation teaching: A research based
do away with the so-called native-speaking norms approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379-397.
for SE.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second
language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
References Fukuda, K., & Sasaki, M. (1995). Immersion program ni
kanren suru shisatsu hokoku [Task group report on
Aloni, N. (1997). A redefinition of liberal and humanistic immersion programs]. Paper presented at the Niigata
education. International Review of Education, 43, University General Education and Language Group,
87-107. Niigata City, Japan.

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative Ferris, D. (1999). The case against grammar correction
competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56, 57-64. in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996).
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Baumgartner, R. (2007). Teaching world Englishes.
In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. New York:
Handbook of world Englishes (pp. 661-679). Oxford, Crossroad.
UK: Blackwell. González, A. (2010). English and English teaching in
Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and Colombia: Tensions and possibilities in the expanding
cultural considerations in communicative language circle. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge
teaching. New York: Plenum Press. Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 332-351). New
York: Routledge.
Bhatia, T. K. (2014). Review of translingual practice:
Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. World Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English. London: The
Englishes, 33, 294-297. British Council.

Blommaert, J., & Verschueren, J. (Eds.). (1991). The Graddol, D. (1999). The decline of the native speaker.
pragmatics of international and intercultural AILA Review, 13, 57-68.
communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Guariento, W., & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task
Brown, J. D. (1995). Elements of language curriculum: A authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 55,
systematic approach to program 347-353.

development. Boston, MA: Heinle. Hadley, G. S. (1999). Innovative curricula in tertiary ELT: A
Japanese case study. ELT Journal, 53, 92-99.
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its
development. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hamp-Lyons, L., & Davies, A. (2008). The Englishes of
English tests: Bias revisited. World Englishes, 27, 26-
Canagarajah, S. A. (1999). Resisting linguistic 39.
imperialism in English teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and
models for English as an international language? ELT
Canagarajah, S. A. (2006). Changing communicative Journal, 52, 119-126.
needs, revised assessment objectives: Testing English
as an international language. Language Assessment Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an
Quarterly, 3, 229-242. international language: New models, new norms,
new goals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, S. A. (2013). Translingual practice: Global
Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically
Routledge. researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an
international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83-
Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Rater 103.
judgment and English language speaking proficiency.
World Englishes, 24, 383-391. Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching world
Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL
Coffin, C. (2003). Exploring different dimensions of Quarterly, 40,157-181.
language use. ELT Journal, 57, 11-18.

Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

156 Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157.
 World Englishes and English Language Teaching

Kachru, B. B. (Ed.). (1982). The other tongue: English Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on
across cultures. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal, 51,
Press. 144-156.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: The native speaker’s burden?
sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the ELT Journal, 46, 12-18.
outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.),
English in the world (pp. 11-30). Cambridge, UK: Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The concept of “World English”
Cambridge University Press. and its implications for ELT. ELT Journal, 58, 111-
117.
Kachru, B. B., & Nelson, C. L. (1996). World Englishes. In
S. L. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics Seidlhofer, B. (2002). Habeas corpus and divide et
and language teaching (pp. 71-102). Cambridge, impera: “Global English” and applied linguistics. In
UK: Cambridge University Press. K. Spelman Miller & P. Thompson (Eds.), Unity and
diversity in language use (pp. 198-217). London:
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for Continuum.
international communication and English language
teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching
Press. English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24, 209-239.
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms
of pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Standard future of half-baked
369-377. quackery? In C. Gnutzmann & F. Intemann (Eds.), The
globalization of English and the English language
Little, D., Devitt, S., & Singleton, D. (1988). Authentic classroom (pp. 159-173). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
texts in foreign language teaching: Theory and
practice. Dublin: Authentik. Snow, M. A., Kamhi-Stein, L. D., & Brinton, D. M. (2006).
Teacher training for English as a lingua franca.
Lowenberg, P. H. (2000). Non-native varieties and the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 261-281.
sociopolitics of English proficiency assessment. In
J.K. Hall & W. G. Eggington (Eds.), The sociopolitics Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2000). Culturally speaking.
of English language teaching (pp. 67-82). Clevedon, London: Continuum.
UK: Multilingual Matters. Strevens, P. (1983). What is “Standard English”? In L.
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating world Englishes in Smith (Ed.), Readings in English as an international
teaching English as an international language. language (pp. 87-93). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
TESOL Quarterly, 37, 719-729. Tripathi, P. D. (1998). Redefining Kachru’s “Outer Circle”
Matsuda, A. (2006). Negotiating ELT assumptions in EIL of English. English Today, 14, 55-58.
classrooms. In J. Edge (Ed.), (Re) locating TESOL Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction
in an age of empire (pp. 158-170). Hampshire, UK: in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-
Palgrave Macmillan. 369.
Pasternak, M., & Bailey, K. M. (2004). Preparing nonnative Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English.
and native English-speaking teachers: Issues of TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377-389.
professionalism and proficiency. In L. D. Kamhi-
Stein (Ed.), Learning and teaching from experience: Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford
Perspectives on nonnative English-speaking University Press.
professional (pp. 155-175). Ann Arbor: University of Wong, V., Kwok, P., & Choi, N. (1995). The use of authentic
Michigan Press. materials at tertiary level. ELT Journal, 49, 318-322.

Bhowmik, S. K. (2015) • Colomb. Appl. Linguist. J.

Printed ISSN 0123-4641 Online ISSN 2248-7085 • January - June 2015. Vol. 17 • Number 1 pp. 142-157. 157