The Role of English in the World and in the University

Juliane House

jhouse@uni-hamburg.de

http://www.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-einrichtungen/sfb538/

1. English as a global lingua franca

Functional flexibility, global spread over many domains of language use, openness for foreign forms, defining feature: variation

Decreasing influence of „inner circle“ native speakers as guardians of a hegemonic variety

English as a lingua franca (ELF) is not a language for specific purposes, pidgin or creole language, „foreigner talk“ or learner language

The multilingual individual and its „multicompetence“ as behavioral norm (Cook 1993)Often simultaneous activation of L1(s) and ELF (Grosjean 2001) ELF as a language for communication (House 2003)Difference between language for communication and language(s) for identification (L1s)

2. ELF viewed from four perspectives

(1) The socio-political and socio-cultural perspective

Why English? David Crystal‘s (1997) explanation: Former British empire, present day US global power, increasing technology-driven need for international communication, preference for a „neutral ground“ in multilingual countries (?)

Preference for a „simple code?“ (Spielmann 2007)

ELF as Threat, Killer Language, Agent in the service of Linguistic Imperialism?

Voluntary use of ELF as language with widest communicative range and ‚linguistic capital‘Subjectively felt difference between language for communication and languages for identification ELF=language for communication, L1(s):language(s) for identification. NO competition, supplement each other, NOT an Either-Or Situation.ELF speakers accept being non-native speakers of English (House and Kasper 2000)

“Linguistic Human Rights” ?

ELF speakers know what they’re doing when they choose to use ELF

“Alas, what decides is not the right of human beings to speak whatever language they wish, but the freedom of everybody else to ignore what they say in the language of their choice.” (de Swaan: 2001:52)

(2) The Linguistic Perspective Main argument against ELF: Disadvantage of non-native speakers („reduced personality“)

Results of empirical discourse studies of everyday and institutional ELF interactions contradict this claim (e.g. Firth 1996; 2009; House 2002, 2009; 2010) Existing power relations in institutional ELF talk not affected by low ELF competence (House & Lévy-Tödter 2010)

Very few misunderstandings and repairs (stark contrast to native/non-native interactions)

Tolerant “Let-it-Pass“ behaviour, „Robustness“ and „Normality“ (Firth 1996) of ELF talk

Strategic use of discourse markers and discourse strategies (House 2009; 2010)

The Hamburg ELF ProjectData Basis

1. Interactions in L1 English

2. Interactions between L1 English speakers and ELF speakers

3. ELF interactions between speakers of different L1s

4. Retrospective interviews for collaborative interpretation

Results:

Confirmation of previous findings of ELF research

Four further ELF characteristics:

1. Transfer of L1 Discourse Conventions

Examples: Asian ELF speakers‘ tendency towards cyclical topic management. Result: Non-sequitur turns. This is ignored by other participants: Discourse remains „normal“ and „robust“

German ELF users‘ tendency towards directness in requesting, suggesting, complaining moves: discourse participants ignore this,too.

2. Frequency of Multi-functional Gambit „Represent“

(Parts of) previous speaker‘s moves tend to be “re-presented“ - Why?

Supports working memory in comprehension and production

Creates coherence (construction of lexical-paradigmatic clusters)

Signals receipt, confirms understanding

Functions as meta-communicative procedure, thus strengthening awareness

Represents (“echo-, “mirror- or “shadow elements“ ) typical of psycho-therapeutic interviews, instructional- and aircraft control discourse, where information is deliberately restated to create coherence and ensure understanding

ELF speakers‘ imitation of this convention is proof of their well-developed strategic competence

3. Solidarity and consensus via co-con-construction of utterances

Demonstration of consensus in the face of multiple cultural differences leads to feeling of community and group identity

ELF as egalitarian tool („We are all in the same boat“). Speakers explicitly support each other, pay each other compliments („My English is I think very bad“----“No no, it’s much better than mine!“.)

Data Excerpt

Mau: I think it begins erm of course with the

colonialism I think too because the

history of this development how the

language in the very early period erm

(3 sec)

Joy: Build up this basis

Mau: Yes

Joy: To be a world language

Mau: Yes

4. Strategically modified use of discourse marker "you know"

You know used in ELF talk as a routinized self-serving speaker strategy to

a. make salient coherence relations

b. to “fumble” for words

NOT as a polite hedge or a sociocentric expression appealing to knowledge shared with addressees

CONCLUSION

ELF users‘ strategic competence is intact: They can carry out meaningful, normal discourse.

No reduced personality syndrom!

ELF is simply a useful tool whenever no other common language is available.

Another argument against ELF: It „contaminates“ other languages

This argument can be relativised on the basis of the results of another empirical research project

Project “Covert Translation“ German Science Foundation Research Center on

Multilingualism (Sonderforschungsbereich Mehrsprachigkeit)

Intitial Hypothesis:Due to ELF‘s global status and massive uni-directional translations from English, ELF influences – over and above lexical invasions – communicative norms in other languages via translations

Communicative Styles English – German

(House 2006a,b)

English

IndirectnessOrientation towards personsImplicitnessVerbal routines

interactional

involved

German

Directness

Orientation towards contentExplicitnessAd-hoc-Formulation

transactional

detached

ImitationChange

English

IndirectnessOrientation towards personsImplicitnessVerbal routines

interactional

involved

CorpusEnglish-German originals and translations (French and Spanish control texts)

Popular Science Texts

– Scientific American, New Scientist and their satellite journals

– Micro-diachronic: 1978-1982; 1999-2002

– 500 000 Words

Economic Texts

– Annual reports by internationally operating companies

Letters to shareholders, Missions, Visions, Corporate statements

– Reverse Translation Relation: German-English, French/Spanish-English

– 130 000 Words

Method

Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods

Qualitative: House Translation Evaluation Model

Quantitative: Frequency Counts

Renewed re-contextualized qualitative analysis

Overall results of project: Increased frequency of certain means of realising Subjectivity and Addressee orientation in German translation and original German texts over past 25 years (differently) in popular science and economic texts, e.g.

- Speaker-hearer deixis- Modality - Connectivity

(Baumgarten et al 2004; House & Rehbein 2004; Becher et al 2009; Kranich et al in press)

Interpretation

Did communicative norms change because of direct contact with English in translation?

No mono-causal interpretation of results, in some cases, originals change more than translations. At least three explanations:

1. The Booh-Faktor: Translation as Mediator of the English Take-over

Translation EFFECTS change!

2. The X-Faktor: Universal Impact of Globalisation: Translation reflector of change, not

instigator thereof

Translation REFLECTS change!

3. The Green Factor: Translation as cultural conservation

Translation RESISTS change!

(3) Psycholinguistic Perspective (Linguistic Relativity)

Claims that masssive ongoing import of English lexis and routines influences thinking and concept formation in L1 is compatible with strong Humboldt-Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Accordingly, L1 speakers‘ thinking is exposed to „acts of organized violence“ because ELF damages their L1- mediated knowledge

This strong linguistic relativity hypothesis is refuted for at least three reasons:

1. The universal possibility of translation (Jakobson 1966)

2. Languages in use are „anachronisms“: their forms do not normally rise to our consciousness (Ortega y Gasset 1960)

3. Converging evidence suggests that multilinguals possess a „deep“ (partially) common conceptual store to which „lower level“ language-specific systems are attached ( Paradis 2004)

Neurolinguistic studies of translation (e.g. Price et al 1999) show that multilinguals move flexibly from L1 to L2, and vice versa: the two systems are distinct but permeable.

No proof of a direct link of only one particular language to thinking and conceptualizing.

Consequence: Increased use of ELF as language at e.g. tertiary levels do not necessarily inhibit knowledge in students‘ indigenous language(s).

(4) Pedagogic Perspectives

English as medium of instruction in non-anglophone universities: Dangerous for L1s?

Tendency presently away from “English only” towards increased instruction in national languages alongside or following instruction in English only (Motz 2005; Priegnitz 2007; Soltau 2007)

English in German UniversitiesPresently: 926 international study programs featuring English as sole or predominant medium of instruction

Of these: 84 Bachelor programs

563 Master programs

279 Doctoral programs

In all subjects, though fewer in Humanities

More than doubled in the last 4 years; tendency rising!

Reasons for Popularity of English

Instrumental relevance: perceived practical future relevance for life outside educational institutions is major motive: broad range of potential applicationsResults of analysis of subjective theories (Edmondson and House 2002): generally positive orientation towards English at all levels, often based on own communicative experiences

Importance of the ‘Language Factor’

According to Soltau (2007): for majority of students in international programs English is a Must, only 3.6% of students would have applied if instruction were in GermanPerceived importance of English as most important language of science, main medium for international recognitionEnglish language competence of instructors often not sufficient

Perceived Usefulness of English

English perceived as culturally neutral: Cultural-irrelevance hypothesis for ELF as medium of instruction in universitiesNative English speakers still “admired” but no longer seen as guardians of an intimidatingly superior standardNot all English or ELF varieties are perceived as equal. Some seen as more equal than others.

Suggestions for Quality Assurance in English medium instruction

Development of locally valid entrance tests following critical comprehensive review of TOEFL, IELTS, Cambridge international tests (cf. MuMiS Project Siegen, Kassel, Hamburg) Need: Improve quality of instructors’ competence in ELF through on-site linguistic assistance (cf. MuMiS)Need: Intensive German courses tailored to needs of international students in German language environment.

Thank you for your attention!