November 2022 – Volume 26, Number 3
Shantou University, China
Shantou University, China
This conceptual paper aims to review some commonalities between two paradigms: Global Englishes and translanguaging. It does so by considering the postcolonial varieties of English, the challenge of native speakerism ideology and the inclusion of multiple discursive practices in classroom discourse. This paper argues that both paradigms should be recognised and incorporated into current English language education. It further asserts the need to regard the two paradigms as complementary but possibly conflated in future English language education. If the notion of Global Englishes aims to incorporate some issues in English language education, including linguistic imperialism, language policy and planning, translanguaging brings that aspiration into classroom discourse. Both policy makers and language practitioners should recognise the commonalities of Global Englishes and translanguaging to be conflated in current English language education. This paper discusses some proposals for how these two paradigms can be incorporated into English language education from the perspectives of 1) critical pedagogy in applied linguistics and 2) decolonising pedagogy for the inclusion of minority/indigenous languages in language education. This paper concludes that English language education, as well as language education in general, has the multilingual and translinguistic opportunity to promote diversity and inclusion of language use. The field of teaching English as a second/foreign/additional language should address the need for diversity and inclusion in language education from the perspective of Global Englishes and translanguaging not as lip service but by implementing these proposals into practice.
Keywords: Global Englishes, translanguaging, commonality, critical pedagogy, decolonising pedagogy, language education
The Global Englishes (GE) paradigm that includes World Englishes (WE), English as a lingua franca (ELF), English as an international language (EIL) and translanguaging, as portrayed by Galloway (2017), has generated an issue regarding the epistemology of GE and translanguaging. WE was established in the 1980s with an emancipation of post-colonial varieties of English with claim of their legitimacy (Kachru, 1992) and later with a focus to codify phonological and morph-syntactic features of such varieties. In the 2000s, ELF developed from the WE paradigm but with a slightly different focus. To put it simple, ELF is the medium of communication between people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds as a contact language in that English use is no longer limited to the use of varieties within certain national borders (Jenkins, 2015; Seidlhofer, 2011). Similar to ELF, EIL has often used interchangeably with ELF but it is often linked to teaching English as an international language (McKay, 2002; Matsuda, 2017) (see Figure 1 by Galloway, 2017). All WE, ELF and EIL contribute to the overarching paradigm of GE (Cogo et al., 2021; Jenkins, 2015).
Figure 1. The Global Englishes Pardigm (Galloway, 2017)
In the field of applied linguistics and Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), there are still concerns about whether translanguaging should be included in the GE paradigm (see Galloway, 2017) or whether it should be regarded as a separate paradigm (see García & Li Wei, 2014). For instance, although stakeholders have improved their understanding of GE and translanguaging, and they believe in the importance of incorporating these concepts into English language teaching (ELT) (see Fang & Liu, 2020; Fang & Ren, 2018; Prabjandee & Fang, 2022; Sung, 2015), there are still some disputes and challenges in terms of the Standard English (StE)/monolingual ideology, language policy, curriculum design and classroom practices (Fang & Ren, 2018; Fang & Liu, 2020). As Galloway and Rose (2015) argued, if the notion of GE aims to incorporate some issues of English language education, including linguistic imperialism, language policy and planning, the adoption of translanguaging may bring that aspiration into classroom discourse (Fang & Liu, 2020; Liu et al., 2020) and apply it further into inclusive education and social justice (Li, 2022). This conceptual paper aims to review some of the commonalities between GE and translanguaging to conflate these concepts in current English language education.
An Overview of the GE and Translanguaging Paradigms
Confronted with the reality of globalisation of linguistic and cultural diversity with an increase of people mobility, the GE and translanguaging paradigms both deem that the English language is bound to embrace an inclusive and diverse future rather than a monolithic and invariant one. Almost four decades ago, Kachru (1985) proposed the influential ‘three concentric circles’ model for the WE paradigm, classifying Englishes into Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circles. The Inner Circle represents the contexts in which English is spoken as the native language; the Outer Circle includes contexts in which English is spoken as the second language; the Expanding Circle involves contexts in which English has been studied or used as a foreign language. WE has recognised new varieties of English as “a way of viewing language variation that attempts to investigate common trajectories of change in the Englishes spoken in countries colonised by Britain” (Galloway & Rose, 2015, p. 48). For example, Collins and Yao (2013) investigated some common colloquial grammatical features of WE varieties to see the driving effect of colloquialism on the grammatical development of such varieties of English. In this regard, it has been argued that English does not belong to any one particular group (Widdowson, 1994); with its many varieties formed, it has almost become the ‘property’ of all people who use it (Kachru, 1992). However, the original WE paradigm still focuses on the identification of national varieties of English of the colonised based on specific norms of native-speaker English (Galloway & Rose, 2015; Pennycook, 2007). In the WE paradigm, the term, Englishes, is still limited to dealing with bounded varieties of English within national borders in a rather fixed manner, particularly in Outer Circle contexts, and the interaction among speakers across the three circles is underexplored (Sadeghpour & D’Angelo, 2022).
Considering the defects of the WE paradigm and the need to reconstruct the new socio-linguistic landscape, the ELF paradigm has emerged. According to Park and Wee (2011), the ELF paradigm can be considered to be an important extension of the WE paradigm. In the globalised context, many English language learners or users do not share their first languages (L1s); thus, the ELF paradigm transcends the national boundaries and norms of native-speaker English to advocate for the flexible and dynamic use of the English language as a primary shared communicative resource (Jenkins, 2014; Jenkins et al., 2011); for example, someone from Mozambique conversing with a business partner from Honduras, or someone from Brazil discussing academic issues with a Swedish. The ELF paradigm places greater emphasis on mutual intelligibility in intercultural communication where the English language, as a bridge of medium of choice, can be reconstructed and renegotiated based on new, emergent, and contextualised communicative purposes (Seidlhofer, 2011). Despite differences in some of their aspects, both the WE and ELF paradigms challenge and resist the traditional StE ideology and the exclusive ownership of the English language (Fang, 2017). Both WE and ELF have become important components of the GE paradigm (Galloway, 2017) and are used to incorporate “many peripheral issues associated with the global use of English, such as globalisation, linguistic imperialism, education, language policy, and planning” (Galloway & Rose, 2015, p. 787).
With a main focus on “newer non-nation bound uses of the English language” (Rose & Galloway, 2019, p. 6), the GE paradigm is considered to be an extension and consolidation of the WE and ELF paradigms to “unite the shared endeavours of these interrelated fields of study in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics” (Rose & Galloway, 2019, p. 6). The English language is more often used among speakers of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds and not limited within the national boundaries, According to Rose and Galloway (2019), GE is an inclusive paradigm, “looking at the linguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural diversity and fluidity of English use and English users in a globalised world” (p. 4). As for English language users, the GE paradigm expects to cultivate multi-competence users with communicative competence as an assessment criterion (Rose & Galloway, 2019). This is in line with the translanguaging paradigm. According to Cook and Li (2016), the translanguaging paradigm also aims to develop linguistic multi-competence, transgressing the language dimension to include multimodal and semiotic elements, such as gestures, body language and images, in communication. In this sense, both paradigms consider the global use of language and the emerging communicative needs of English language learners within the multilingual turn, promoting multilingualism in identity, literacy, and language education (May, 2014). Moreover, the translinguistic turn in sociolinguistics aims to capture the complexity of language practices (Dovchin & Lee, 2019). Thus, the GE paradigm, together with the translanguaging paradigm, helps interrogate the static and homogeneous representation of English and maximise language practices as user-oriented in challenging the traditional exam-oriented ELT. Indeed, traditional exam-oriented language assessments might not test people for things they need in order to communicate “with multilingual English users from other first languages in both established groupings and transient encounters” (Jenkins & Leung, 2019, p. 97) ; instead they would test people to produce and reproduce English based on native English forms but not assess people their “readiness to engage with the specific literacy practices within the candidate’s specific target discipline” (Jenkins & Leung, 2019, p. 97).
Similar to the GE paradigm, the concept of translanguaging was developed to challenge the monolingual ideology in language use and pedagogy. It refers to multilingual speakers’ multiple discursive practices and recognises the multimodal and semiotic nature of communication (García, 2009; García & Li, 2014; Li & Lin, 2019). Indeed, both the GE and translanguaging paradigms acknowledge the existence of diversity and the flexible use of English in different contexts in situ. However, as a practical theory of practice and a political stance (Li, 2022), the translanguaging paradigm focuses more on the decolonising process of the English language in both educational and social levels, having the potential of transcending the divide of English. According to Li (2018), translanguaging sees language as a “multilingual, multisemiotic, multisensory, and multimodal resource that human beings use for thinking and for communicating thought” (p. 26), encompassing multi-faceted exchanges to convey meanings in communication in situ. Thus, translanguaging does not only apply to the English language, in comparison to the GE paradigm, it goes beyond the named languages and not to view language based on fixed ‘codes’ in terms of communication and identity construction (Li, 2022; Liu & Fang, 2021). Therefore, it is suggested that both paradigms recognise their commonalities and conflation to re-conceptualise, re-position, and re-negotiate the nature and the role of the English language (and beyond) in the new era of globalisation to promote linguistic hybridity for greater introspection about equitable English language education. This paper argues that the English language should be viewed as a collection of Englishes, each of which incorporates elements of a unique style. Thus, every community and each individual should have the right to flexibly use their own style of English based on their communicative needs in the globalised context as long as it does not hinder intelligibility. As both paradigms touch the aspect of StE ideology or native-speakerism ideology, the next section of this paper presents a discussion of how the ideology of native-speakerism are challenged from the two paradigms.
Figure 2. A Comparison of the Global Englishes and Translanguaging Paradigms
The Challenge of Native Speakerism Ideology
Both the GE and translanguaging paradigms are opposed to and critique the exclusive and native-speaker-centric views of monolingualism (Li, 2018, 2022; Rose & Galloway, 2019). According to Holliday (2006), the ideology of native-speakerism upholds the belief that the so-called native speakers are the best models and teachers of English because they “represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology” (p. 385). A disparity of treatment of English users is described and an ‘us versus them’ division between native and non-native speakers is created (Rose & Galloway, 2019). Considering the dynamic nature of this concept from the GE/translanguaging perspective that people are more mobile and that people’s native language can become complex, this dichotomy has been regarded as a fallacy (Phillipson, 1992). The native-speaker fallacy believes that being a native speaker might afford one a more fortunate position than being a non-native speaker. Consequently, native speakers are privileged, and the English they speak is honoured as a well-accepted standard language while non-native speakers, and the English they speak, are considered deficient and become marginalised. Under this fallacy, many English language learners pursue illusive language standards and language purity to emulate native speakers and win a comparably honourable native-speaker status. In fact, this unattainable goal of language learning with the ideology of linguistic purism constructs the monolingual and monocultural priority in ELT (Wang & Fang, 2020; Zacharias, 2019) or even perpetuates the ideal of whiteness in ELT (Kubota, 2021; Ruecker & Ives, 2015). The native-speakerism ideology also discourages the display of multilingual, multicultural and multisemiotic repertoires as well as the manifestation of linguistic hybridity in dynamic language contact and pluralingual situations.
The dominant ideology of native-speakerism has long been criticised in the field of English language education (Canagarajah, 1999; Galloway & Rose, 2015). This is because the trend of globalisation through the use of language has led scholars to call for a paradigm shift in the field of ELT to match the new sociolinguistic landscape of the 21st century (Rose et al., 2020). It is argued that English language education should no longer be regarded as merely acquiring native-like forms of English based on fixed native speaker model (Fang, 2020; Jenkins, 2014); it should become multi-dimensional involving multi-faceted manifestations, including socio-political orientation, linguistic capital, culture comprehension, and ideological construction (Gao, 2021). In this regard, the native-speakerism ideology fails to stand in ELT if it is regarded from the GE/translanguaging paradigms; both paradigms promote the students’ varied linguistic and multimodal repertoires in language learning (including students’ L1s as resources instead of as hindrances), acknowledging the use of English in various global and local communities for knowledge exchange and intercultural communication. However, the monolingual paradigm and the native-speakerism ideology, as powerful concepts long rooted in people’s mind, still pose challenges to the promotion of the GE and translanguaging paradigms in English language education and use.
Although both the GE and translanguaging paradigms recognise the complexity and diversity of language use and the importance of multimodal resources in language learning and communication, the translanguaging paradigm seems to penetrate more into its multimodal perspective than GE. For instance, Schreiber (2019) investigated an online intercultural learning activity between master’s level TESL students in Sri Lanka and undergraduate students in New York City and found that both groups of students questioned their beliefs about the superiority of native-speakerism through their multimodal and multicultural online exchanges. Thus, it has been argued that intercultural, multimodal exchanges can help lay the foundation for developing “intellectuals who will be prepared and committed to questioning the native speaker fallacy” (Kiczkowiak et al., 2016, p. 1). Therefore, more research is needed to further investigate how the GE and translanguaging paradigms can combat the ideology of native-speakerism in ELT by infusing multimodality into specific contexts.
Both the GE and translanguaging paradigms offer solutions to the mismatch between how the English language is traditionally perceived and how the English language is actually used in globalised contexts. The ideology of native-speakerism, essentially a misunderstanding of the nature of language, does not match the complex reality of how English is used worldwide (Galloway & Rose, 2015; Saraceni, 2009). In this sense, the two paradigms can be effectively used to overthrow the ideology of native-speakerism by testing it in classroom practice. In recent years, a considerable amount of classroom-based research and language teacher education research has emerged to investigate the GE and translanguaging paradigms in classroom practice. Those studies have addressed the dominance of the native-speakerism ideology and the discussions they evoked continue to gather momentum in the field of GE (Fang, 2020; Fang & Ren, 2018; Rose et al., 2021; Tupas, 2022) as well as in the growing field of translanguaging (Fang & Liu, 2020; Fang, Zhang & Sah, 2022; García & Li, 2014; Liu & Fang, 2022; Ren & Guo, 2022).
Studies have been conducted to seek ways to incorporate GE and translanguaging into ELT classroom practices to challenge the standard language ideology (Fang & Ren, 2018; Rose & Galloway, 2017; Sahan et al., 2022; Sung, 2015). It is suggested that GE-oriented and learner-centred innovative tasks in classroom practices help question the dominance of the native speaker episteme in language curricula and increase students’ confidence in and awareness of themselves as legitimate users of the English language. For instance, Rose and Galloway (2017) designed a GE-inspired multi-lesson task for Japanese university students to state their views on the debate of the Singaporean Speak Good English Movement. Rose and Galloway (2017) found that, through this activity, the students were able to increase their GE awareness and critically reflect on the native-speakerism ideology. Later, Galloway and Rose (2018) adopted a presentation task for Japanese university students to explore how a GE approach could be implemented in an ELT classroom. Galloway and Rose (2018) found that the approaches students used in their presentation also contributed to increasing students’ awareness of GE and showcasing the global ownership of English to challenge the students’ stereotypes of prescribed StE norms.
Moreover, Galloway and Rose (2018) observed students’ attitudes towards Englishes and indicated that adoption of different pedagogical approaches had the potential to change students’ perceptions of the native models and alternative models of Englishes. For example, Galloway and Rose (2018) incorporated task-based language teaching into their GELT classroom to raise students’ awareness of diversity and flexibility of English; they viewed learners’ L1 and culture and communicative strategies as important resources for language learning and promoted the inclusion of GE classroom materials to challenge the fixed native-oriented language goals of English language education. Sahan et al. (2022) explored the role of English in English as a medium of instruction classrooms in Thailand and Vietnam to debate the English-only implementation and native speaker norms. Their findings indicated that students’ positive attitudes towards native English might help justify the native models in ELT. Thus, they called for more research on the factors influencing these attitudes and ways to address the dominant constraints and attitudes. Furthermore, they argued for increasing awareness of GE and addressing the native-speakerism fallacy to recognise the value of translanguaging practices. Here, both the GE and translanguaging paradigms are likely to cultivate a critical and dialectical view on the dichotomy and antinomy of the constructs of native and non-native.
Previous studies (Hwang & Yim, 2019; Widodo et al., 2020) also investigated how the ideology of native-speakerism was challenged in terms of teacher education. Hwang and Yim (2019) explored the influence of native-speakerism on both native and local English teachers’ fragmented professional identities and anxiety in South Korea “due to the power fluctuations and lack of institutional cultural capital” (Huang & Yim, p. 1); they argued that a localised ELT model for English teachers and learners should be recommended to address the problems associated with the native-speakerism ideology in the local context in order to sustain linguistic and cultural diversity through the use of English. Widodo et al. (2020) investigated how Chinese English language teachers challenged the ideology of native-speakerism as they were routinely engaged in the identity construction of legitimate English language teachers. They addressed the importance of including GE and critical language pedagogy in language teacher education. Therefore, this paper suggests that further research should examine how the conflation of the GE and translanguaging paradigms would challenge the constructs of native-speaker and non-native-speaker in ELT. To summarise, both GE and translanguaging paradigms help confront and dismantle the monolingual native model to ensure equitable English language education.
The Inclusion of Multiple Discursive Practices in Classroom Discourse
The conflation of the GE and translanguaging paradigms helps develop a holistic and equitable view of critical multilingualism and a de-colonising pedagogy. It does so by promoting the agentive use of linguistic and non-linguistic communicative resources and the inclusion of minority/indigenous languages in language education (Fang & Hu, 2022; Li & García, 2022; Ma, 2022). As more attention has been paid to language use in situ, both the socio-linguistic and socio-cultural characteristics of human interaction and intercultural communication have become more apparent in this globalised era. This requires more frequent adoption of multimodalities and trans-semiotic approaches in terms of the ways in which students express themselves and communicate in the ELT classroom. Thus, more multiple discursive practices should be included in language learning and teaching classroom discourse. Previous studies (e.g. Bengochea & Gort, 2022; Infante & Licona, 2022) have investigated how discursive practices have ensured successful efforts in specific classroom discourse. Under such an exploration, the effective pedagogy and language practices adopted by stakeholders to promote diversity and inclusion of language use have been recognised.
Stakeholders’ pedagogical or spontaneous translanguaging during student-teacher or students’ peer-to-peer interaction allows for discursive practices and promotes equitable knowledge and language learning in a classroom-based context where monolingual norms are dominant (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Liu et al., 2020). Research has increasingly examined the promising prospects of more dynamic and fluid integration of languages within the classroom through the lens of translanguaging (Fang & Liu, 2020; García, 2009). For instance, Infante and Licona (2022) studied a middle school science teacher’s translanguaging practices in an English/Spanish dual language classroom and revealed that the teacher’s flexible and dynamic use of the two languages through translanguaging promoted the students’ understanding of the content and the discursive practices that underlay scientific argumentation. Thus, they argued that translanguaging as pedagogy functions as a linguistically responsive approach that fosters emergent bilinguals’ access to discursive practices and knowledge in the classroom setting.
Translanguaging has been found to be a natural and spontaneous phenomenon among students, rather than a behaviour consciously triggered by teachers through specific pedagogical strategies (Canagarajah, 2011; Cenoz & Gorter, 2017; Fang & Liu, 2020) in English language education. Therefore, different from the study conducted by Infante and Licona (2022), in which the teacher was the main subject, Rajendram (2021) explored the pedagogical affordances of student-led translanguaging through students’ collaborative learning in Grade Five Malaysian classrooms with a prevalent English-only policy. She pointed out some of the affordances and constraints the students experienced in trying to agentively leverage translanguaging, and argued for the active and indispensable role of both teachers and policymakers in assisting them. Bengochea and Gort (2022) also focused on the pedagogical affordances of students’ spontaneous translanguaging by investigated how preschool young emergent bilinguals with different linguistic profiles use their discursive and bilingual resources to negotiate with their peers and teachers in play-based interactions. They found that in early childhood bilingual education contexts, sociodramatic play can serve a potential venue for multifaceted and innovative meaning-making language practices. In this way, emergent bilinguals are able to apply their developing language and cultural repertoire for various discourse functions or communicative purposes. The findings in the studies mentioned above imply that the exploration of translanguaging helped illustrate how intersecting events in the interactions were naturally organised so as to respond to and (co-)create new discursive practices in classroom discourse in English language education.
Both the GE and translanguaging paradigms call for the adoption of multiple linguistic and socio-cultural resources and communicative strategies in classroom discourse. Translanguaging is believed to bring about a paradigm shift that could activate the linguistic, cognitive, socio-linguistic and socio-cultural resources available for language learners to embody meaning construction and negotiation either spontaneously or intentionally (García & Li, 2014; Li, 2022). The GE paradigm also recognises the importance of English language learners’ whole linguistic and cultural repertoire and semiotic system and sees other languages and cultures as a resource for ELT (Rose & Galloway, 2019). However, the discussions presented above seem to demonstrate that current studies have more often explored the discursive practices in classroom discourse through the lens of the translanguaging paradigm than from the perspective of the GE paradigm. It may be that, in the globalised context, one’s language choice for communication can be made dynamically and flexibly rather than solely or preferentially through English. The GE paradigm focuses more on the English language according to its different definitions, while translanguaging tends to focus on natural communication in various contexts. This can be seen from one of the most influential interpretations of translanguaging by García (2009): “Translanguaging is the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to maximise communicative potential” (p. 140).
Furthermore, the GE and translanguaging paradigms should be conflated to increase exposure to minority/indigenous languages in English language education. The GE paradigm emphasises respect for multilingualism and diverse culture and identity in ELT (Rose & Galloway, 2019), while the translanguaging paradigm emphasises the intertwining process of language with factors such as politics, culture, race, identity, cognition, emotion and society (Li, 2022). García and Li (2014) have argued that translanguaging aims to emancipate language education from the societal and political constraints imposed by dominant monolingual and monoglossic ideologies to achieve creativity, criticality, and social justice. In this regard, translanguaging pedagogy seems to take a political stance and act as a political act, facilitating a critical response to the monolingual and monoglossic bias of current language education policy (Li, 2022).
Moreover, as a political stance, translanguaging has “the potential to decolonise our conception of language” (García, 2019, p. 162). According to Li (2022), a language seems to be named and labelled based on “the socio-political categorisation of its users” than “the language itself” (p. 174). Thus, language is not neutral; rather, it is a socio-political construct endowed with symbolic power (Bourdieu, 1991; Kramsch, 2020) by human beings. Consequently, minority/indigenous languages seem to be marginalised and discouraged from being incorporated into ELT classrooms, triggered by the dominant nationalist and raciolinguistic ideologies of monolingualism in the context of either colonisation or neo-colonisation (Alim et al., 2016). For example, Putjata and Koster (2021) revealed the monolingual policy at schools at a German state as migrants were asked to learn the national language while their family languages were regarded worrisome. Fang and Hu (2022) also found that local Teochew dialect was marginalised in both educational setting and daily communication among local people compared with the national language and English. However, translanguaging can help resist colonialism and neo-colonialism and deconstruct the hegemonic power relations between the dominant elite groups and minoritised social groups. This is because translanguaging considers that all languages and other meaning-making resources, as well as the prior knowledge that a language learner commands, serve a positive role in successful and equitable language education (Li, 2022). Therefore, to address the need to ensure equality, English language education should be infused with local elements, such as different knowledge systems, modes of thinking and behaving, ideologies, values, traditions, cultures and practices of different communities.
In summary, translanguaging functions as a human communication and interaction theory, a critical and decolonising pedagogy and a political stance. In this regard, translanguaging seems to be independent of GE. However, it does not matter whether the two paradigms are independent or overlapping. The important thing is that they aim for the same goal, which is the promotion of equitable language education to depart from the monolingual native ideology. This is particularly important in not only English language education that a multilingual/translanguaging perspective should be recognised and promoted but also in the situation in which a national official language is the main force of the medium of instruction in education and social use that might threaten the sustainability of other indigenous languages/dialects (Fang & Hu, 2022; Haukås, 2016; Huang & Fang, 2021; Putjata & Koster, 2021). In the globalised context, it has become more common and reasonable to see dynamic and complex meaning construction and negotiation in interactions through the flexible use of multiple resources and repertoires in classroom discourse to resist the ideology of native-speakerism. Therefore, this paper argues that the two paradigms should be incorporated for greater inclusion of all-embracing discursive practices in classroom discourse to promote effective and equitable English language education.
This paper argues that both the GE and translanguaging paradigms should be recognised and incorporated into current English language education. This paper discusses some proposals for how these two paradigms can be incorporated into English language education to promote equality from the critical pedagogy perspective and the decolonising pedagogy perspective.
From a critical pedagogy perspective, the nature and role of the English language should be revisited and re-negotiated in English language education policies, pedagogies and practices to resist the ideology of native-speakerism (Cogo et al., 2021). The ideology of native-speakerism prioritises a standardised variety of English and erases linguistic diversity (Canagarajah, 1999; Phillipson, 1992). This goes against the current globalised trend for English language to be inclusive. The ecological perspective of English use should not only cover those legitimised varieties (as WE scholars endeavour to do); it should also embrace diverse minoritised and underexplored linguistic resources. Moreover, the use of English needs to be more flexible and dynamic; the agentive use of linguistic and non-linguistic resources and repertoires should also be encouraged and supported. Native-speakerism has pre-set certain standards and norms for authentic and consistent language use within a specific scope; however, it seems to function as a misleading trap to limit language use by advocating monolingualism. Moreover, exclusive use of one language contrasts the complex use of language in actual situations in the current context of globalisation. Thus, this paper has argued for the use of critical multilingualism to resist the dominant monolingualism paradigm in order to promote critical and equitable English language education.
From a decolonising pedagogy perspective, the nature of race, inequality, language and education should be reconsidered to counter raciolinguistic ideologies in English language education (Alim et al., 2016; Flores & Rosa, 2015). Whether in a colonial or neo-colonial context where unequal power relations always exist, racial inequality in English language education has never been resolved. However, to promote equality in English language education, English language learners of any race are entitled to have their own languages, epistemologies, ideologies, cultures and identities respected and included in language education policies and practices. Thus, greater effort should be made to decolonise the use of the English language by increasing awareness of minority/indigenous groups in English language education through the incorporation of minority/indigenous languages, local knowledge (Canagarajah, 2002) and their real lived experiences (Phyak, 2021) into English language education. Moreover, according to Flore and Rosa (2015), the language proficiency of minoritised English learners has always been perceived as deficient and their linguistic practices have been judged by the dominant subject in a racialised way. This paper also suggests that, in addition to supporting greater inclusion of minority/indigenous elements in ELT, being open-minded to and treating all languages and their communities fairly without prejudice or discrimination is another step forward in ensuring equitable English language education.
About the Authors
Fan Fang obtained his PhD from the Centre for Global Englishes, University of Southampton, UK. He is currently Associate Professor at College of Liberal Arts, Shantou University, China. His research interests include Global Englishes, language ideology, language attitude, identity, intercultural communication and ELT. He has published articles in many well-known journals. His latest volume (co-edited with Dr. Handoyo Puji Widodo) Critical Perspectives on Global Englishes in Asia: Language Policy, Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment (2019) was published by Multilingual Matters. ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4210-9042
Yidie Xu obtained her Bachelor Degree in English language and literature from Jiangxi Normal University. She is currently a postgraduate student at College of Liberal Arts, Shantou University. Her research interests include sociolinguistics and foreign language education.
To Cite this Article
Fang, F. & Xu, Y. (2022). Commonalities and conflation of global Englishes and translanguaging for equitable English language education. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 26(3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.26103a9
Alim, H. S., Rickford, J. R., & Ball, A. F. (Eds.). (2016). Raciolinguistics: How language shapes our ideas about race. Oxford University Press.
Bengochea, A., & Gort, M. (2022). Translanguaging for varying discourse functions in sociodramatic play: An exploratory multiple case study of young emergent bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(5), 1697-1712. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1799319
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. In: J. B. Thompson, (ed.). (G. Raymond, & M. Adamson, trans.). Polity Press. (Original work published in 1982).
Canagarajah, S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford University Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2002). Reconstructing local knowledge. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 1(4), 243-259. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0104_1
Canagarajah, S. (2011). Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110239331.1
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or opportunity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855
Cogo, A., Fang, F., Kordia, S., Sifakis, N., & Siqueira, S. (2021). Developing ELF research for critical language education. AILA Review, 34(2), 187-211. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.21007.cog
Collins, P., & Yao, X. (2013). Colloquial features in World Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 479-505. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.4.02col
Cook, V., & Li, W. (Eds.). (2016). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence. Cambridge University Press.
Dovchin, S., & Lee, J.W. (2019). Introduction to special issue: ‘The ordinariness of translinguistics’. International Journal of Multilingualism, 16(2), 105-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2019.1575831
Fang, F. (2017). World Englishes or English as a lingua franca: Where does English in China stand. English Today, 33(1), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078415000668
Fang, F. (2020). Re-positioning accent attitude in the Global Englishes paradigm: A critical phenomenological case study in the Chinese context. Routledge.
Fang, F., & Hu, G. (2022, online first). English medium instruction, identity construction and negotiation of Teochew-speaking learners of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2051711
Fang, F., & Liu, Y. (2020). ‘Using all English is not always meaningful: Stakeholders’ perspectives on the use of and attitudes towards translanguaging at a Chinese university. Lingua, 247, 102959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102959
Fang, F., & Ren, W. (2018). Developing students’ awareness of Global Englishes. ELT Journal, 72(4), 384-394. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy012
Fang, F., Zhang, L.J., & Sah, P. (2022). Translanguaging in language teaching and learning: Current practices and future directions. RELC Journal, 53(2), 305-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221114478
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing Appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
Galloway, N. (2017). Global Englishes and change in English language teaching. Routledge.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing Global Englishes, Routledge.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2018). Raising awareness of Global Englishes in the ELT classroom. ELT Journal, 72(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx010
Gao, F. (2021). Negotiation of native linguistic ideology and cultural identities in English learning: A cultural schema perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(6), 551-564. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1857389
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
García, O. (2019). Decolonizing foreign, second, heritage, and first languages. In D. Macedo (Ed.), Decolonising foreign language education: The misteaching of English and other colonial languages (pp. 152-168). Routledge.
García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism, and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Holliday, A. (2006). Native speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), 385-387. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl030
Huang, Y., & Fang, F. (2021, online first). ‘I feel a sense of solidarity when speaking Teochew’: Unpacking family language planning and sustainable development of Teochew from a multilingual perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1974460
Hwang, K., & Yim, S. Y. (2019). The negative influence of native-speakerism on the sustainability of linguistic and cultural diversities of localized variants of English: A study of local and expatriate teachers in South Korea. Sustainability, 11(23), 6723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236723
Infante, P., & Licona, P. R. (2022). Translanguaging as pedagogy: Developing learner scientific discursive practices in a bilingual middle school science classroom. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(7), 913-926. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1526885
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. Routledge.
Jenkins, J., & Leung, C. (2019). From mythical ‘standard’ to standard reality: The need for alternatives to standardized English language tests. Language Teaching, 52(1), 86-110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000307
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281-315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000115
Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In: R. Quirk, & H.G. Widdowson, (Eds.). English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, B.B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. University of Illinois Press.
Kiczkowiak, M., Baines, D., & Krummenacher, K. (2016). Using awareness raising activities on initial teacher training courses to tackle “native speakerism”. English Language Teacher Education and Development Journal, 19, 45-53.
Kramsch, C. (2020). Language as symbolic power. Cambridge University Press.
Kubota, R. (2021). Critical antiracist pedagogy of English as an additional language. ELT Journal, 75(3), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab083
Li, W. & García, O. (2022). Not a first language but one repertoire: Translanguaging as a decolonizing project. RELC Journal, 53(2), 313-324. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221092841
Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039
Li, W. (2022). Translanguaging as a political stance: Implications for English language education. ELT Journal, 76(2), 172-182. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab083
Li, W., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2019). Translanguaging classroom discourse: Pushing limits, breaking boundaries. Classroom Discourse, 10(3-4), 209-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2019.1635032
Liu, J.E., Lo, Y.Y., & Lin, A.M.Y. (2020). Translanguaging pedagogy in teaching English for academic purposes: Researcher-teacher collaboration as a professional development model. System, 92, 102276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102276
Liu, Y., & Fang, F. (2022). Translanguaging theory and practice: How stakeholders perceive translanguaging as a practical theory of language. RELC Journal, 53(2), 391-399. http://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220939222
Ma, W. (2022). Language education for ethnolinguistic minority students in China: A review. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 394-397. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0305
Matsuda, A. (2017). Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783097036
May, S. (Ed.). (2014). The multilingual turn. Routledge.
McKay, L.S. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford University Press.
Park, J. S. & Wee, L. (2011). A practice-based critique of English as a Lingua Franca. World Englishes, 30(3), 360-374. https://doi.org/10. 1111/J.1467-971X.2011.01704.X
Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Phyak, P. (2021). Epistemicide, deficit language ideology, and (de)coloniality in language education policy. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 267-268, 219-233. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-0104
Prabjandee, D & Fang, F. (2022). ‘I was like, just wow!’: Insights from Global Englishes teacher professional development. Asian Englishes. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2021.1989546
Putjata, G., & Koster, D. (2021, online first). ‘It is okay if you speak another language, but…’: Language hierarchies in mono- and bilingual school teachers’ beliefs. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.1953503
Rajendram, S. (2021, online first). Translanguaging as an agentive pedagogy for multilingual learners: affordances and constraints. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2021.1898619
Ren, W., & Guo, Y. (2022). Translanguaging in self-praise on Chinese social media. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0169
Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2017). Debating standard language ideology in the classroom: Using the speak good English movement to raise awareness of Global Englishes. RELC Journal, 48(3), 294-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688216684281
Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Global Englishes for language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Galloway, N. (2021). Global Englishes and language teaching: A review of pedagogical research. Language Teaching, 54(2), 157-189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000518
Ruecker, T., & Ives, L. (2015). White native English speakers needed: The rhetorical construction of privilege in online teacher recruitment spaces. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 733-756. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.195
Sadeghpour, M., & D’Angelo, J. (2022, online first). World Englishes and ‘Global Englishes’: competing or complementary paradigms?. Asian Englishes, 24(2), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2022.2076368
Sahan, K., Galloway, N., & McKinley, J. (2022, online first). ‘English-only’ English medium instruction: Mixed views in Thai and Vietnamese higher education. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211072632
Saraceni, M. (2009). Relocating English: Towards a new paradigm for English in the world. Language and Intercultural Communication, 9(3), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708470902748830
Schreiber, B.R. (2019). “More like you”: Disrupting native speakerism through a multimodal online intercultural exchange. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 1115-1138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.534
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.
Sung, C.C.M. (2015). Exposing learners to Global Englishes in ELT: Some suggestions. ELT Journal, 69(2), 198-201. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu064
Tupas, R. (2022, online first). The coloniality of native speakerism. Asian Englishes, 24(2), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2022.2056797
Wang, L., & Fang, F. (2020). Native-speakerism policy in English language teaching revisited: Chinese university teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards native and non-native English-speaking teachers. Cogent Education, 7(1), 778374. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1778374
Widdowson, H.G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377-389. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587438
Widodo, H. P., Fang, F., & Elyas, T. (2020). The construction of language teacher professional identity in the Global Englishes territory: “We are legitimate language teachers.” Asian Englishes, 22(3), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2020.1732683
Zacharias, N.T. (2019). The ghost of nativespeakerism: The case of teacher classroom introductions in transnational contexts. TESOL Journal, 10(4), e499. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.499
|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.