• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Procedures
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • APA Style Guide
  • TESL-EJ Editorial Board

Plural Englishes and English as Language Resource

November 2022 – Volume 26, Number 3

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26103a27

Henry Widdowson
University of London
<henry.widdowsonatmarkunivie.ac.at>

This Special Issue presents different perspectives on ‘Global Englishes and translanguaging’. It might be noted to begin with that the use of the word ‘and’ is ambiguous – it could either be taken to indicate that the issue is to deal with two unconnected topics, or to imply that there is a connection between them, which the issue is designed to explore. This raises the question of how, if at all, the two are conceptually related – a question that obviously needs to be addressed before considering their implications for language education.

The term ‘Global Englishes’ is itself ambiguous. It has come to be used as an umbrella term to refer English as an international Language in all its manifestations.  But its plurality would suggest that the term also applies more specifically to different stabilized varieties of language usage associated with particular communities in what Kachru has called the Inner and Outer Circles and in this sense is synonymous  with ‘World Englishes’. ‘Translanguaging’ would usually refer to the immediate process of language use, the expedient exploitation of language as a communicative resource. Translanguaging  is particularly evident in the use of English as a lingua franca, ELF, which at times all users engage in whatever Kachru circle they are said to be members of.

Here we have two quite different ways of thinking about language and languages, which I think can be confused by the use of Global Englishes as an umbrella term.  One is based on the conception of Englishes as countable entities – particular formally defined languages or language varieties, and the other on the conception of English as non-countable language tout court –  a more general communicative resource.  This distinction is to my mind crucial and calls for a little further reflection on its significance.

Human language in general serves as an expedient means for relating intentions to others so as to co-operate with them, a necessity for humans as with all other species in order to survive and flourish. So language use, or languaging, is necessarily a social activity.  But language only becomes a reality for users when it is actualized as a particular language or variety, developed to serve the contextual needs of a specific community and thereby at the same time defining its socio-cultural identity.  So a language comes to be equated with the normal communicative behavior of a community and the communal identity of its users. Since this is how we have all made language specific as a particular named language in the process of primary socialization it is naturally not easy to think of it as a resource dissociated from its communal conventions of use.

In the case of English, the language, often historically imposed by colonization, has now been adopted by previously colonized communities to serve their own contextual needs and to represent their own distinctive socio-cultural identities and it is this that justifies pluralizing the language as World Englishes, WE. But in ELF communication, English is used as a language resource which does not have to be associated with any particular communicative conventions or communal identity, English as language resource is not a communally defined countable entity but an open source affordance available for expedient use wherever the need arises.

But, as has been routinely pointed out, ELF users do not only draw on English as a language resource, but on other languages in their repertoire as well. This has led some scholars to the mistaken conclusion that ELF is axiomatically multilingual. However, although there are frequently linguistic traces from other languages in ELF usage, it is not that ELF users simply transfer linguistic features from one language to another. They make use of them expediently as an additional communicative resource and in so doing dissociate them from their original specificity. So the translanguaging of ELF users is not a process that enacts multilingualism by transferring from one distinctive language to another but on the contrary counteracts multilingualism as it is often simplistically conceptualized by transcending the distinction. In this respect, ELF functions not as a multilingua but a translingua franca.  And it is franca precisely because it is freed of a dependency on the communal conventions which define particular languages, and openly available for adaptive use as a resource to cope with whatever communicative contexts and purposes might arise.

The conceptual distinction I have outlined between pluralized multi Englishes and translanguaging has an obvious educational relevance. Orthodox English language education, or ELT, is based on the concept of English as a specifically conventionalized linguistic variety and it is almost always an Inner Circle variety that is preferred and promoted. Its objective then is assumed to be to get learners to achieve so-called native speaker competence in that variety by conforming to the established norms of knowledge and ability that define it. The objective of language education that is based on the concept of translanguaging is radically different: it is to exploit the knowledge and ability that learners already have as language users to develop their existing communicative capability by encouraging them to draw expediently on the resources of English and any other language available to them. Such an objective is modelled on the natural use of English as a lingua franca rather than on conventional norms of native speaker usage, thereby prioritizing learner improvised creativity rather than teacher imposed conformity.

The study of Global Englishes as World Englishes and translanguaging  such as we see enacted in ELF communication both have their validity as areas of enquiry  and a special issue of TESL-EJ devoted to the different perspectives that are taken on them is greatly to be welcomed. But to my mind – from my perspective – it is important to recognise that they are informed by quite different ways of conceiving of language and language education.

About the Author

Henry Widdowson, Professor Emeritus, University of London, Honorary Professor at the University of Vienna has written extensively on the applied linguistics of language education, latterly with particular reference to the conceptualization and educational significance of English as a lingua franca. His most recent book, On the Subject of English, appeared last year.

To Cite this Article

Widdowson, H. (2022). Plural Englishes and English as language resource. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 26 (3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26103a27

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.
Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.

© 1994–2023 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.