8/13/2019 60-1-5

1/9

P O I N T A N D C O U N T E R P O I N T

The spread of EIL: a testingtime for testers Jennifer Jenkins

This article argues that recent changes in both users and uses of English havebecome so far-reaching that a major rethink of English language teaching ( ELT ) goals is called for. It goes on to claim, however, that this will rst requirea substantial overhaul of English language testing, given that teachers and learners alike will be reluctant to embrace any curriculum change that is notreected in the targets set by the major examination boards.

Introduction Since the second half of the twentieth century, the English language hasspread around the world to an extent hitherto unknown in any otherhistorical period or for any other language. On the one hand, English hasdeveloped into a nativized language in many countries of the OuterCircle, i.e. countries such as India, Nigeria, and Singapore, where itperforms important local roles in the daily lives of large numbers of bilingual and multilingual speakers. On the other hand, it also servesas a lingua franca among non-native speakers ( NNSs) of English fromall over the world, many of whom come from the countries of theExpanding Circle (i.e. countries for whom English does not performinternal roles), whose members are more likely to communicate inEnglish with N NSs from other rst languages than their own, than witheither native speakers of English (NSs) or with people who share theirrst language.

One result of this spread of English is that many sociolinguists havebegun to talk of Englishes or World Englishes rather than English, inrecognition of the fact that the language now has a growing number of standard varieties and not only two globally useful or appropriateversions (standard British and standard American English). This viewof English recognizes that local linguistic and cultural inuences haveaffected the way it is spoken in its different L2 locations around theworld: its characteristic accents, its syntactic structures, its lexis, itspragmatic features, and the like. Still more importantly, the view acceptsthat these inuences, through natural evolutionary processes of languagecontact (see Mufwene 2001), have led and are continuing to lead to theemergence of a range of educated L2 English varieties which differlegitimately from standard NS English. In other words, supporters of thisview are able and willing to distinguish between N NS language variety and interlanguage , that is, between acceptable N NS variation from NS

42 ELT Journal Volume 60/1 January 2006; doi:10.1093/elt/cci080 The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

articles welcome

8/13/2019 60-1-5

2/9

English norms and N NS error caused by imperfect or incompletelanguage learning. The logical extension of this position is that thereseems to be no good reason for speakers from the Outer or Expanding

Circles to continue to defer to the NSs of the Inner Circle, to bow toexonormative (i.e. externally-dictated) standards and conform to normswhich represent the socio-cultural identity of other people (Widdowsonin Howatt with Widdowson 2004: 361).

On the other hand, large numbers of E LT professionals including many(and possibly the majority) involved in language testing still appear toregard any differences from British or American NS variants asdecienciesas errors caused mainly by L1 transfer (or worse in termsof the implicit attitude, L1 interference). There is, for many E LTprofessionals, no possibility that an L2 speaker, however procient, candepart from NS norms and yet be regarded as correct; no possibility thatNNSs of English as an International language (as contrasted with E NL,English as a Native Language) can be creative with the standard languagein ways that are permitted to its British, its American and recently (if stillbegrudgingly), its Australian L1 speakers.

The rest of this article looks at these issues in more detail and considersthe implications of moving away from NS norms for the testing and,because of the washback effect, for the teaching of English as anInternational Language.

Variation acrossEnglishes: NNSvarieties

Around twenty years ago, Quirk contended that [T]he relatively narrowrange of purposes for which the non-native needs to use English ... isarguably well-catered for by a single monochrome standard form thatlooks as good on paper as it sounds in speech (1985: 6). Even if we leaveaside the highly questionable assumption that NNSs have only a narrowrange of purposes when they use English, Quirks claim has twoweaknesses: rstly, it takes no account of the well-documenteddifferences between spoken and written English; and secondly, it ignoresthe vast amount of inter- and intra-speaker variation according to socialcontext that occurs within each channel, and particularly the spokenchannel. In both cases, variation performs important linguistic and socialfunctions regardless of whether the user is native or non-native.

What happens inexaminations?

It seems, then, unreasonable to expect N NSs to produce a more rigidlyconsistent kind of English than is typical or expected of NSs. However,almost two decades after Quirk made his claim, there is still an insistence

on correct grammar and pronunciation in E LT examinations (andtherefore classrooms). The only rather limited progress that has beenmade has been in the recognition of different levels of formality andsome of the ways in which these impact on lexico-grammatical choice.Even in this respect, however, candidates in E LT exams are expected inthe main to produce informal lexico-grammatical items entirely inaccordance with NS norms (so-called real English), and even then toclothe informal lexical items in standard NS English written grammar.For example, theres ve cars in my picture or Ive got less cars in mypicture, if noticed by an examiner, would not be likely to meet withapproval, despite the fact that both there are and fewer plus plural

The spread of E IL

: a testing time for testers 43

articles welcome

8/13/2019 60-1-5

3/9

count noun are rare in informal NS speech, and that these errorsgenerally pass unnoticed in NS spoken English.

The only exceptions to the written-grammar-for-speech rule seem tooccur when a N NS reproduces an instance of N S lexico-grammaticalcreativity that has passed into accepted (as opposed to unnoticed)informal NS speech. For instance, a candidate in an E LT speaking examwould be rewarded for theirknowledge of real English if they were to saythree teas or two coffees instead of three cups of tea or two cups of coffee. On the other hand, if they extended this use of uncountablenouns to wine and referred to two wines instead of two glasses of wine, they could be penalized for lack of competence with the countable/uncountable distinction. The same is likely of any N NS use of uncountable nouns as countable (a staff, four furnitures, etc.), eventhough these forms are standard in many of the nativized Englishes of the Outer Circle and used by many speakers of the Expanding Circle.And the same is also true of pronunciation where, for example, themajority of the worlds (NNS ) English speakers have extended the useof /t/ and /d/ or /s/ and /z/ to the voiceless and voiced dental fricativesounds for th, so that thin and this are pronounced tin and dis orsin and zis. Again, though widely intelligible in E IL, these forms arepenalized in E LT exams, and consequently discouraged in E LTclassrooms.

As Lowenberg (2002) demonstrates, the creative processes involved inNS and N NS linguistic innovation tend to be the same. But while bothtypes of innovation often start life as forms that are widely perceivedas errors in the standard language, the NS error gradually becomesaccepted as a new standard form (for example, the use of data to replacedatum in the singular), whereas the N NS error is likely to becategorized as such for perpetuitydespite the only difference being thatthe rst reects NS creativity and the second N NS creativity. What weseem to be faced with here, then, is an aspect of linguicism: the valuingof NS English language forms above those of N NSs even though theformer do not lead to greater communicative efciency for the majorityin international contexts of use (Ammon 2000).

Where E LT exams are concerned, the status quo leads, thus, to a bizarrestate of affairs, with candidates examined for qualications which claimto have international currency ( TOEIC , IELTS, and so on), but penalizedfor using internationally-communicative forms of the language. There isnothing international about deferring to the language varieties of a meretwo of the worlds Englishes, whose members account for a tiny minorityof English speakers. Nor is there reason to suppose that the study of British or American English will promote international understanding.This, as Matsuda (2002) points out, is more likely to occur througha more equitable representation of World English varieties in E LT. Themere fact of having an earlier place in the chronological development of the English language does not confer everlasting rights of ownership.

Sociocultural theory Further support for NNS varieties of English in testing and teaching canbe found in sociocultural theory. Here social context is paramount, the

44 Jennifer Jenkins

articles welcome

8/13/2019 60-1-5

4/9

construct of mediation is central, and language is seen as being learntthrough the medium of interaction in context. As Pavlenko and Lantolf point out, second language learning is not merely a question of acquiring

new grammatical, lexical, and phonological forms, but a struggle of concrete socially constituted and always situated beings to participate inthe symbolically mediated lifeworld ... of another culture (2000: 155).Learners, according to sociocultural theory, undeniably belong in theirsecond self-chosen world, not as observers but as fully-edgedparticipants (op. cit: 159). In the case of English as an InternationalLanguage, most of the meaningful interaction occurs between NNSsrather than between a NS and a N NS. Learners are present and futuremembers of an international community consisting largely of NNSs likethemselves, and in line with Donato (2000), are entitled, through theircontact with each other and with the L2, to transform their linguisticworld rather than merely to conform to the NS version presentedto them.

Thus, from a sociocultural perspective, N NS creativity is to be expected.NNS English variants have legitimacy and hence the right not to beautomatically relegated to the status of error. This in turn means thataccounts of variation across Englishes (interspeaker variation) need toinclude all the NNS Englishes for which we have information. (Currentlythese are mainly Outer Circle Englishes but also, increasingly, ExpandingCircle Englishes.) Testers for their part need to respond by taking accountof this variability andat the very leastnot penalizing candidates foremploying it with communicative success, whether in speech or writing.However, just as important for successful E IL interaction is intraspeakervariation. Whereas interspeaker variation concerns the inuence of the

wider EIL social context, intraspeaker variation involves the context of thespecic interaction and the way in which individuals adjust their speechto accommodate to the needs of their interlocutors. It is to this kind of variation, accommodation, that we now turn.

Variation withinEnglishes:accommodation inNNS interaction

In the discussion that follows, I will be focusing specically on spokenEnglish and speaking tests, although some of the points couldconceivably apply to written English and especially to electroniccommunication.

Accommodation is a major factor in almost all spoken interactionregardless of whether it involves NSs or NNSs . When speakers adjusttheir speech to make it more like that of an interlocutor, they are

employing a strategy known as convergence and when they do theopposite, the strategy they use is termed divergence. There are two mainmotivations for convergence: an affective motivation (the desire to beliked), and a communicative efciency motivation (the desire to be easilyunderstood). In N NSNNS communication between speakers fromdifferent rst languages, the latter motivation is thought to beparticularly salient. (See Jenkins 2000: Chapter 7.)

Convergence in EIL communication has been shown to manifest itself inthree main ways: speakers may converge on one anothers forms, theymay converge on a more targetlike form, or they may avoid a NS form.

The spread of E IL

: a testing time for testers 45

articles welcome

8/13/2019 60-1-5

5/9

Regardless of the communicative outcome, however, testing proceduresare likely to penalize the rst and third of these manifestations of convergence and reward the second.

Converging on oneanothers forms

This rst type often involves one speaker replicating the error of another.This is also common in NSNS interaction where, for example, onespeaker may substitute a word-nal or medial /t/ with a glottal stop, as inthe words right and water, and a conversation partner may then do thesame. Ultimately, though, this kind of convergence is thought to leadto language change, depending on both how widespread the use of a particular form and the extent to which the language is predisposed tomove in this direction. For, as Mufwene argues, [T]he agency of changelies denitely within the behavior of individual speakers, and causationpartly in the mutual accommodations they make to each other while theyare more intent on communicating effectively than on preservingidiolectal, dialectal, or language boundaries (2001: 24).

When NNSs communicating with one another engage in this kindof convergence, however, the outcome is regarded not merely asa stigmatized form (as in the NS example above), but as an interlanguageerror. So, for instance, if a German speaker of English substitutes /w/with /v/ when conversing with a Turkish speaker (for example, in theword wind), or an Italian omits the sound /h/ in communicationwith a French L1 speaker (as in the word hotel), the result isa phonological error. But this ignores the fact that in so adjusting theirpronunciation, the German and Italian render their Englishpronunciation more rather than less intelligible to their interlocutor. Thesame is true where interlocutors are both from the same L1. Two Koreans

taking part together in an oral test may both substitute /f/ with /p/(for example, pamily for family) while two Germans may substitutenal voiced consonants with voiceless consonants (for example, roatfor road). Again, the result is that they are able to communicate moreefciently within the context of the interaction.

Converging ona more target-likeform

Unlike the rst type of convergence, this second type occurs whenspeakers do not share either the same L1 or a mutual L2 English form.Instead of converging on a N NS variant, speakers in the presenceof certain conditions may converge on a more target-like form. Theconditions are:n the target-like form is in their linguistic repertoiren

they perceive their L1-inuenced rendering of a form as threateningintelligibility for a specic interlocutorn they regard being understood as important to the outcome of the

interaction (for example, some kind of task completion)n they have the opportunity to make the adjustment (especially freedom

from processing overload).

In the pronunciation data I collected from students practising for theUCLES (now Cambridge ESOL) Certicate of Advanced Englishspeaking exam, clear patterns arose in the use and extent of this type of convergence: it occurred statistically more frequently when interlocutors

46 Jennifer Jenkins

articles welcome

8/13/2019 60-1-5

6/9

were engaged in information-exchange tasks than in social interactiontasks (informal chats); it often did not involve adjustments to certainsounds shown elsewhere to be inconsequential in E IL, particularly

substitutions of voiced and voiceless th; and it did not occur at momentsof processing overload, for example, when a candidate was searchingtheir mental lexicon for a forgotten word. Candidates from different L1sproduced many more target-like pronunciations in the information-exchange phases of the exam than in the chats. On the other hand, whenthese same candidates were paired with interlocutors from their ownL1, they reverted to the rst type of convergence and produced manymore forms inuenced by their L1, as described above. This demonstratesthat the use of more target-like forms in the different-L1 pairingswas born of a desire to be understood rather than a desire to benative-likesomething that was conrmed by questionnaireresponses (see Jenkins 2000).

The problem is that the second type of convergence is rewarded inspeaking examinations not because of the use of convergence to bringabout a successful communicative outcome, but purely because theresulting form is close to the standard NS variant. Conversely, in therst type of convergence, if a N NS variant is used to promote mutualintelligibility, candidates may be penalized. In other words, testing ishere penalizing rather than rewarding appropriately-usedaccommodation strategies. Testing practice in turn inhibits the teachingof accommodation strategies, by discouraging the use of forms (writtenas well as spoken in the case of lexicogrammar) which are not standardin NS English but are nevertheless communicatively efcient in N NSinteractions. This is particularly shortsighted for the teaching of E IL,

where students are likely in their future use of English to interact withspeakers from a wide range of N NS varieties and need to developaccommodation skills appropriate to this kind of interaction.

Avoiding certainforms

The third type of accommodation, the avoiding of certain forms, involvesidiomatic language. It is often unilateral idiomaticity (Seidlhofer 2001),where one speaker employs a NS idiom that is not known to the other,which poses the greatest threat to intelligibility in E IL. In the followingtypical example,1 a Korean speaker of English has just asked a Frenchspeaker of English what he likes to do in his spare time:

French L1: I like er ... I like chilling out.Korean L1: Hmmm?

French L1: Doing nothing.Korean L1: Ah.

The Korean was evidently not familiar with the expression to chill out(and nor was the Japanese student to whom it was repeated a few dayslater). If successful communication was the primary object of theinteraction, the French speaker would have been more effective had heused the neutral verb to relax. However, in an exam situation, he wouldhave been rewarded for his knowledge of the idiomatic NS expression,while his unfortunate interlocutor may have been penalized for the gapin his knowledge. Yet as far as E IL is concerned, the French speaker was

The spread of E IL

: a testing time for testers 47

articles welcome

8/13/2019 60-1-5

7/9

8/13/2019 60-1-5

8/9

While it is too early to suggest that the examination boards should beestablishing EIL criteria, they could at least move to a position where theyrefrain from penalizing the use of those N NS variants which are

emerging through their frequent and systematic use as potential forms of future EIL varieties. This would send a strong message to teachers whosestudents aim is E IL, that they could safely stop correcting items such assubstitutions of th, uncountable nouns used as countable, omission of articles, or the use of an all-purpose question tag (for example, isnt it?).Instead, examsand therefore teachingcould turn their attentionto rewarding the successful use of accommodation strategies andpenalizing their absence, and to focusing for error correction on the useof forms that are not mutually intelligible in E IL, such as NS idioms.

I end with two requests to the examination boards. The rst concerns thewashback effect. A few years ago, Saville and Hargreaves claimed thatUCLES examinations had kept pace with changes in English teaching,so that modications to the examinations have taken place in anevolutionary way (1999: 42). This claim fails to recognize the order of events. For, as Davidson has indicated, the determination of what is andis not an error is in the hands of the linguistic variety that sets the test(1993: 116). It is changes in teaching which keep pace with changes intesting and not vice versa. This is why it is so very crucial for theexamination boards to engage with E IL. Unfortunately their apparentinaction in this time of shifting sands means that they risk seeming tobury their heads in them.

My second request concerns the nature of E IL. If and when theexamination boards nally embrace E IL, they need to guard againstproducing testing criteria that differ only in name from their existingcriteria. Davies et al . argue that existing international tests of English arebiased because they represent the old colonial Standard English of the U K, U SA, etc. (2003: 571). An E IL approach to English should bea pluricentric approachone which recognizes that while speakers of English around the world need sufcient in common to enable them tocommunicate, they are also entitled to use English varieties which projecttheir identities and protect their language rights in internationalcommunication. Some of the recent orientations to EIL appear to be littledifferent from traditional monocentric orientations: World StandardEnglish, World Standard Spoken English, International English,and Global English on closer examination all turn out to bear anunmistakable resemblance to standard NS English. If there is to be any

major change for the better as far as E IL is concerned, the examinationboards should beware of moving forward only to nd they are backwhere they started.

Notes1 Data provided by Martin Dewey, PhD student at

Kings College London.

ReferencesAmmon, U. 2000. Towards more fairness inInternational English: linguistic rights of non-

native speakers? in R. Phillipson (ed.). Rights toLanguage. Equity, Power, and Education. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc.Davies, A., L. Hamp-Lyons, and C. Kemp. 2003.Whose norms? International prociency tests inEnglish. World Englishes 22/4: 57184.

The spread of E IL

: a testing time for testers 49

articles welcome

8/13/2019 60-1-5

9/9

Davidson, F. 1993. Testing English acrosscultures: summary and comments. World Englishes 12/1: 11325.

Donato, R. 2000. Sociocultural contributions tounderstanding the foreign and second languageclassroom. In J. Lantolf (ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Howatt, A. P. R. with H. G. Widdowson. 2004. A History of English Language Teaching 2nd edn.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as anInternational Language. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Lowenberg, P. 2002. Assessing Englishprociency in the Expanding Circle. World

Englishes 21/3: 43135.Matsuda, A. 2002. International understandingthrough teaching world Englishes. World Englishes 21/3: 43640.Mauranen, A. 2003. The corpus of English aslingua franca in academic settings. TESOLQuarterly 37/3: 51327.Mufwene, S. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Quirk, R. 1985. The English language in a globalcontext in R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds.).English in the World: Teaching and Learning the

Language and Literatures. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Pavlenko, A. and J. Lantolf. 2000. Secondlanguage learning as participation and the(re)construction of selves in J. Lantolf (ed.).

Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Saville, N. and P. Hargreaves. 1999. Assessingspeaking in the revised FCE. E LT Journal 53/1:4251.Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: thecase for a description of English as a linguafranca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11/2: 13358.Taylor, L. 2002. Assessing learners English: butwhose/which English(es)? Research Notes 10.Cambridge: University of Cambridge ESOLExaminations.

The author Jennifer Jenkins is Senior Lecturer in theDepartment of Education and ProfessionalStudies, Kings College London, where she teachesWorld Englishes, sociolinguistics, and Englishphonology/phonetics. She is the author of The Phonology of English as an International Language (Oxford University Press 2000) and World Englishes (Routledge 2003), and is currentlywriting a book about perceptions of English asan International Language.Email: jennifer.jenkins@kcl.ac.uk

50 Jennifer Jenkins

articles welcome