Conferences – Page 2 – chiasuanchong

The BESIG Paris Summer Symposium 2012

The BESIG Paris Summer Symposium (in association with TESOL France) might have only been a day long, but it was certainly one of the best conferences I had ever attended.

It was well-organised. – From the moment the speakers’ proposals were accepted to the day of the conference, key information was disseminated in good time, queries were answered before they were even asked, and the speakers were even sent photos of the rooms that they would be presenting in.

It was well-programmed. – Like many conference goers, I had become used to attending conferences where inevitably there would be talks that might make one feel like the opportunity cost was little high, to put it diplomatically. This conference had no such talks. Every single session I went to either gave me useful ideas to implement in my teaching or brought up certain issues that made me think. And from what I heard, the sessions that I was unable to attend due as they clashed with the sessions I went to were just as good (Eric Halvorsen, Vicky Loras, Michelle Hunter, Adrian Pilbeam, Nick Robinson, Ian McMaster & Deborah Capras: Sorry I couldn’t come to your sessions, but I have been hearing so many positive things about your sessions!) So kudos to the selection committee and to the presenters for that.

It was well-attended.– There were about 160 delegates at the conference venue attending the talks, but there were also some 70 delegates that had congregated in Argentina, Serbia, and Croatia, watching some of the talks simulcasted live into their conference rooms. On top of that, there were those who were watching the talks live from the comfort of their own homes through the Adobe Connect rooms. This meant that talks like mine which had the privilege of being simulcasted were able to engage not just the live audience in the room but also the audience in Argentina, Serbia, Croatis, and those online, involving them in the workshops and the discussions.

However, by well-attended, I’m not simply talking about the large numbers in the audience. I’m also talking about the ‘quality’ of the conference delegates. The BESIG Summer Symposium was attended by some of the most influential people in the TEFL industry, from the iconic Business English book writers and speakers like Evan Frendo, Pete Sharma, Marjorie Rosenberg, to the intercultural experts like Barry Tomalin and Adrian Pilbeam, to the online celebrities like Brad Patterson and Vicky Loras and the new generation of TEFL movers and shakers like Nick Robinson, Mike Hogan, and Bethany Cagnol (conference organizer and speaker).

7403112308_e4e232a858_o — Kudos to the BESIG committee…
– photo by Mike Hogan

7403110360_10fbdb26dc_o — …and the folks of TESOL France!
– photo by Mike Hogan

For me, this conference was also about finally getting to meet up with some of the Twitter PLNers and Twitteratti in person (Christina @RebuffetBroadus, Eric @ESHalvorsen, Sue @SueAnnan, Vicky Loras @vickyloras, Brad Patterson @Brad5Patterson, Mieke @mkofab, and Carolyn @kerrcarolyn) and they are as marvellous if not more than their online presence!

On the 16^th June, the day of the conference, I walked from the hotel to Télécom ParisTech, where the conference was held. After an efficient registration process by the friendly TESOL France volunteers and committee members, and some early morning coffee with members of the PLN, I then headed to my first session, Barry Tomalin’s Teaching International Culture in Business – The Framework Approach ©.

Adding his own take to a mix of the dimensions and frameworks of Hofstede, Trompenaars and Richard Lewis, Barry creates the RADAR profile that helps us to learn about ourselves, before comparing our styles to others. Following some effective explanations and relevant examples, Barry had the audience first measure their expectations of business relationships by reflecting upon the following dimensions:

1. Are you more quality driven or cost/finance driven?

2. Are you more risk embracing or risk averse?

3. Do you prefer close contact or distance?

4. Are you more relationship driven or task driven?

We then measured our communication styles through the following:

1. Do you tend to be direct or indirect?

2. Do you often state your objectives before the reason or the background to a task before the objectives?

3. Do you tend to be formal or informal?

4. Are you more likely to be emotional or neutral?

Our organisational styles were measured according to the following:

1. Do you prioritise efficiency or effectiveness more?

2. Are you more time tight or time loose?

3. Do you tend to prefer top down or delegation?

4. Do you prefer individual decisions or team decisions?

Using framework provided by Barry, we marked out our answers to the above questions and then mapped it against the perceived styles of someone we work with, and considered the areas in which most gap was seen. Giving us the useful tip ‘Change 20% of your behaviour to get 80% of a change in the attitude towards you!’, Barry ended the session by encouraging us to think of a problem that we might have with another culture by going through the procedure he had taught us:

Identify your style;
Compare your style;
Empathise;
Manage your skills;
Reflect.

Judging from impressive attendance and the high levels of engagement, this session was certainly a resounding success. After a 15-minute coffee break, I managed to get a seat next to Christina Rebuffet-Broadus in one of the simulcasted talks, Pete Sharma ‘App-tivities for Business English’. Pete began by alerting us to several basic questions that we should ask ourselves about apps. Are they for the right platform? (Apple iPhone? Android? etc) Are they ELT apps or authentic apps? Do we need to pay for them? Is the app free-standing or does it need an internet connection to work?

7403129656_4b445c3b33_b — Photo by Mike Hogan

He then went on to give us plenty of useful and exciting suggestions for teachers who own smart phones and iPads and would like to exploit their use more in the classroom. Here are some of them:

For listening practice, TED or BBC iPlayer.
For reading practice, newspaper apps can come in handy.
For pronunciation and familiarizing one with the IPE chart is Macmillan Sounds. The paid version comes with multiple activities for students.
Presentation tools like Brainshark or Prezi can be useful for the Business English Classroom
Prezi Viewer can help students to organise complex subjects like ‘culture’, ‘online learning’ or ‘the environment’.
Camera apps like Acrossair for geo-tagging, or Android apps like Google Goggles can provide information of one’s surroundings.
Screenchomp can turn our iPads into IWBs (Interactive White Boards)
Mindmapping software like Simple Mind can help our business clients with their tasks.
Fun and games like the British Council apps can motivate our learners.
Flashcode Reader reads QR codes. Using a QR code writer, a teacher can make treasure hunt clues, web quests, or simply send a students to an IELTS practice website.
Flashcard apps are widely available and can be used for vocab review

Pete’s book App-tivities is now in the labs of The Round, so we can go to www.theround/labs for a free sneak preview! Next up was Mike Hogan and Bethany Cagnol’s ‘Managing Your Brand as a Trainer’, where the freelancers and school owners in the audience were made to seriously think about their business plans and how much they invested in themselves and their brand. Asking the key question, ‘When people hear your name, what do they say? What does your brand say about you?’, Mike and Beth takes the audience through the different aspects of managing one’s brand, from professionalizing oneself by thinking about our niche markets and how we appear to our clients, to considering our online presence when a client or employer ‘Googles’ our name, to taking part in our clients’ conferences and courses/workshops, and even specialized training, so as to understand the environment our clients operate in.

7403126026_c05d16bd5a_o — Photo by Chia Suan Chong

Reflection clearly has a huge part to play when examining our brand. Amongst many other useful tips, the audience left the talk with the following questions resonating in their heads:

Are we able to present and negotiate our services with our clients?
Are we adapting to the changes in the market?
Are we investing in ways to boost the quality of what we offer?
Are we getting referred by our clients? If not, why not?

My talk was scheduled for the slot straight after lunch, so a few of us went to the nearby sandwich shop and I bought myself a ‘Skipper Sandwich’ with a chopped-up beef patty and fries between two chunks of bread, just to ensure that I would be as sleepy as my audience during my presentation.

7403121698_33cd0dcea3_o — Photo by Mike Hogan

As I often feel uncomfortable summarizing my own talks and presentations, let’s just simply say that my ‘Myths and Controversies in BE Teaching’ was largely based on the discussions that were had on the Devil’s Advocate interview here on chiasuanchong.com (see I’m trying to manage my brand! Mike and Beth would be so proud!). Polls were conducted both with the ‘studio audience’ and those watching from Argentina, Serbia and Croatia, and those at home, and we were able to get some very interesting discussions going. Thanks for participating, everyone!

The video of the talk will be up on besig.org soon! Another talk that was also simulcasted was Evan Frendo’s ‘Using Corpora in Materials Development’. Introducing the Hong Kong Corpus of Spoken English and the Enronsent Corpus for written corporate communication, Evan encourages us to get Wordsmith Tools, a concordancing tool that will enable us to analyse the corpora data using word lists and frequency lists. Keyword lists can also be another useful tool for ESP teachers as it helps us to find words that are significantly more frequent in a corpus when compared to another corpus. Demonstrating some possible uses of the corpora, Evan shows us the common collocates used when discussing a CNC machine, something guaranteed to be quite foreign to the lay person, highlighting the usefulness of a corpora to help us teachers become more familiar with the language our students’ need.

But using the corpora is not just for ESP teachers. The answer to the question “What is the difference between ‘going forward’ and ‘looking forward’?” can be found by simply looking up examples of use in the corpus data, therefore avoiding precarious situations that might arise from teachers guessing the use of certain lexis by using their instinct. Evan then ends his talk with an optimistic ‘Isn’t this what we do as Business English teachers? We analyse the language, and then we teach it.’ If only all BE teachers were this conscientious, Evan… Just before the closing plenary, Divya Brochier and Brad Patterson provided the audience with an interesting and useful way of encouraging speaking in the classroom with their presentation ‘Using Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats to Boost Conversation Classes’.

Illustrating the fact that some students are simply not very motivated to talk through a hilarious roleplay with Brad and Rakesh Bhanot playing bored business students (Bravo for that French accent! It was so real I almost forgot that you both weren’t French!), Divya and Brad that goes on to show us how the use of the Six Thinking Hats could solve this problem.

The White Hat: Unbiased fact

The Green Hat: Creativity and Growth

The Red Hat: Emotions

The Black Hat: Problems. The Devil’s Advocate.

The Yellow Hat: Optimism and solutions.

The Blue Hat: Organisation

So the next time your student says something to the tune of ‘I don’t know’ when you ask them to comment on Global Warming or some topic in a reading text, try move around the six hats instead: What are the facts? (White) How do you feel about it? (Red) What are some of the problems with this? (Black) What are some of the advantages/benefits? (Yellow) How can we move forward from here? (Green) How would you summarise what’s been said? (Blue)

The fantastic conference then came to an end with David Crystal’s closing plenary ‘Language and the Internet’. David sets the tongue-in-cheek tone of the plenary by asking if we were addicted to the Internet and whether we check our emails when we wake up at night to go to the toilet? Surveying the audience with the questions, ‘How many of you here blog?’, ‘How many of you here tweet?’, and ‘How many of you here are tweeting right now?’ (I had my hand up to all three questions), David jokes about the fact that there now exists Twitter Scores that indicate how many people are tweeting in your talk. Clearly, the more people who tweet, the more important you must be!

7403114488_95728e836d_o — How many of you tweet?
– photo by Mike Hogan

What was known as Computer Mediated Communication in the 1990s no longer seems to be an appropriate term as the distinction between phones and computers blur. We now talk about Electronic Digital Communication. In fact, the mobilization of the internet means that by 2020, 80% of access to the internet will be through mobile phones.

While adults criticize text messaging and text speak as the way young people are harming our language through abbreviations, David Crystal debunks this myth, stating that text messages are NOT full of abbreviations as only 10% of texts are abbreviated, and we are now seeing abbreviations die away in text-messaging perhaps due to the fact that the novelty has worn out. (One Twitterer tweeted as a response to this, saying that this could be due to the dominance of predictive texts…but I’m not sure if this applies to smartphone users).

Interestingly, using ‘U’ for ‘you’ and ‘c’ for ‘see’ have been around for at least two centuries, and the very parents that criticize today’s teenagers for abbreviating were probably just as guilty doing the same with acronyms like ‘SWALK’ (Sealed with a loving kiss) at the back of envelopes. More interestingly, the earlier one gets their mobile phone, the better a speller one turns out to be. Text messaging is upping our literacy and not harming it.

7403114940_0cb6c917d3_o — Photo by Mike Hogan

Defining the difference between electronic communication and the spoken language, David Crystal highlights that electronic communication features successive feedback as opposed to simultaneous feedback. But we can be rest assured that there has not been many changes to the lexicogrammar of our language even with the advance of the internet. Perhaps the most noticeable change is in orthography, i.e. spelling and punctuation, but even so, this is a marginal feature.

Moving on to Twitter, David shows how the move from asking ‘What are you doing now?’ to ‘What’s happening?’ has made tweets less introverted and less about ‘I’ and more about ‘they’. Twitter is now used for business and for reporting on the things that are happening around us.

Ending his talk with a bit on blogging, David entertains the audience with a little skit on ‘blue bottles’, demonstrating how the internet and blogging has led to the start of many romantic relationships between the online users who share a common interest. The one and a half hours flew by with David Crystal telling anecdote after anecdote that the audience could engage with and relate to, and making his points loud and clear, all without the help of any slides or notes. It was certainly an impressive and thoroughly enjoyable presentation, and a great way to end the BESIG Summer Symposium.

Here’s a fascinating interview David Crystal himself by the BESIG Online Team.

7403105226_2fa04ef73b_o — The Presentation Award winners
– photo by Mike Hogan

All that is left is to congratulate the winners of the BESIG first-time presenters’ Award Vicky Loras, Eric Halvorsen, and Luke Thompson and Andy Johnson, and it’s off to the nearest restaurant for some escargots and frog legs!

(For more photos of the BESIG Paris Summer Symposium by Mike Hogan, go here)

ELF 5 Part 10 – Attitudes in Context-Specific Scenarios

Many presenters at the conference spoke about the research conducted within their own context and looked at the attitudes of students and teachers towards ELF.

First, there was Luis Guerra, who gave his presentation on ‘English as lingua franca in Portugal- What students want, what teachers teach’

It is often maintained that the educated NS is more likely to be intelligibile to other than the NNS (Smith, 1983)

The use of other models will lead to such a great diversity of NN varieties of educated English that soon persons speaking English may not be intelligible to their listeners (Smith, 1983)

NS are not always more intelligible than NNS (Smith, 1992)

Thus, it is familiarity that makes one more or less intelligible.

There is an implicit aim for NNS to be more like NS, at least in linguistic terms.

Ownership of English

It serves a whole range of different communities and their institutional purposes and these transcend traditional communal and cultural boundaries

A multiplicity of teaching practices and a view of the language as belonging to a broad range of people and culture is the best that language instructors can do (Modiano, 2001).

Learners’ goal

Expecting learners to comply with the set of linguistic norms would probably put unnecessary pressure on them, since they would hardly be able to fully live up to such expectations (Grutzmann, 1999)

Conclusion

A balanced presentation of linguistic and cultural aspects of English
Introduction of the difference between American Englihs and British English
Presentation of native and NN varieties and cultures
Developments of international topics o
Understanding the local culture
Acknowledgement of native and NNS use of English
Recognition of the value of ns and NNS teachers
Granting ownership of English to NS and NNS
Working on learners’ instrumental and international use motivation to learn English

We need to deepen our understanding of the minds and practices of those who use English in a foreign context.

They need to have a voice, but not in capital letters.

Next, after a coffee break, was Victoria Kazarloga – Immigrants attitudes towards pronunciation models taught in Montreal L2 Classrooms

Theoretical Framework

Expectations play a vital role in students’ motivation and learning (Tavani & Losh, 2003)
Pronunciation teaching is still influenced by EFL ideologies
Negative attitudes towards accent are pervasive among NS and NNS speakers of English (Friedrich, 2003; Lindemann, 2005)
Unrealistic goals result in self-loathing and a dramatic loss of confidence among students (Pavlenko, 2003)
The need for pronunciation teaching that embraces NNS-NNS mutual intelligibility and the needs of L2 local identity (Jenkins, 2000, 2002)

What is your main goal of pronunciation teaching?

NS teachers

To ensure sts understand and are understood;
Raising awareness of intricacies of spoken English.

NNS teachers

To make the language sound more natural;
To teach what I have learnt before
Not to sound native but to be understood.

Results

ESL/EFl Pedagogy

NS teachers were more relaxed about pronunciation.
Teachers teach according to native standards
NNS models not reflected in pronunciation teaching materials

ELF Pedagogy

Teachers are drifting away from native models
Teachers are affected by their university education
Teachers are supportive of students’ local identities
Teachers encourage students to keep their accents.

Other interesting findings

All respondents agreed that their ‘foreign’ English accents were part of their identity;
The majority disagreed that the main goal of pronunciation teaching/learning is to sound like a NS.
Majority wanted to learn international English and second largest group wanted to learn Canadian English.
The majority said that they didn’t like their own accents
Majority said they strongly agreed that they would feel more confident if they spoke with a native English accent.
But when asked if it more important to be understood than to sound like a English native speaker, all students agreed.
They were aware that American’s think their accents cute but it is the French speakers (their own communities) that had negative attitudes towards their accents.

Asian respondents didn’t want to keep their accents while those with European accents, e.g. French, did want to keep their accents.

Being Asian myself and always interested in the topic of the Asian diaspora, the last statement really caught my attention.

I am curious to find out why and what factors contribute to this. Any ideas?

ELF 5 Part 9 – Enric Llurda’s Plenary on Policies & Attitudes to ELF

The last day of the conference began with Enric Llurda’s plenary ‘Policies and Attitudes to ELF : A southern European perspective’.

Multilingualism is a natural habitat in Europe (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002)

However,

Myth 1 : One person – One Language

Myth 2: One country – One Language

This corresponds to the monolingualism ideology which leads to native speakerism.

Metaphor of the bridge for ELF –

ELF is a shared language which can connect people on two shores.

But actually, it’s a metaphor for EFL. The bridge is fixed and takes people from one shore always to the other shore and the destination is fixed.

So perhaps a better metaphor is that of a boat, that allows us to be flexible and takes us to different definitions. There are also different types of boats.

A necessary warning

ELF has to do with glabalisation = Englishization = Macdonaldization

Seidlhofer (2011) clearly differentiates Globish? from ELF.

ELF may be a global phenomenon but it’s always locally realized (Mortensen, 2012)

Here, Enric Llurda outlines his research into Catalan universities.

Language policy in Catalan universities

Problem 1: International students require course in English

Problem 2 Local students need to improve their English proficiency to go abroad

Solution courses offered in English (CLIL/EMI) [English as a Medium of Instruction]
If you look at the top 10 European institutions in 2007 academic world rankings, 8 of them have English as their main language. There is now an increase of English programmes in universities in Europe.

Due to a combination of a lack of skills in English, and lack of skills and will to learn by the international group might mean a possibility of Spanish becoming the lingua franca for the university. But this could be devastating for local language and damaging to the international ranking of the university.

Instead, the university should aim for trilingualism.

There was a significant different in English attitudes related to status. Students from high status families had more positive attitudes than medium and low. This might be associated with Dornyei’s (2008) ‘possible self’. No other language was affected by status.

When compared to the attitudes that students in University education, those in secondary education were dramatically different too. The attitudes towards Catalan and English were lower and attitudes towards Spanish were much higher.

International students came to the university to improve their Spanish, but there was also expectations of English being used as a medium of instruction. There were tensions and resistance to Catalan being used as a medium of instruction.

ELF can also lead one to an appreciation of other languages and multilingualism.

Catalan NNESTs’ self awareness

No need to be native-like in order to teach the language successfully
Students about to use English as international language
Knowledge of British culture preferred over local culture or European culture
NNESTs themselves would choose a NS teacher over themselves!

Other interesting findings

Lack of frequent opportunities for using English in interaction.
Significant impact of prolonged experience abroad on attitudes and self-perceptions – Those who had less contact with NSs and didn’t have as many opportunities to use the language were more ‘hooked’ on the NS model. Those who have been in England for a longer period of time were more open to different models of English.
Transformation due to interaction opportunities. They can be empowered through increased usage and better awareness of ELF.

Learners and parents often have the goal to become native-like. Parents are often willing to pay good money to give their children a ‘correct’ model

Users have the experience with a diversity of speakers of different origins and accents. They are aware of ELF and appropriate the language.

There is a growing awareness and people are starting to challenge notions that used to be taken for granted. There are effects of adding an ELF perspective into teacher training programmes.

He mentions Jeremy Harmer’s blog stating that ‘ learners need some standard to aim at’.

And the question then is – what standard should that be?

In a comment by Jim Smiley on Harmer’s blog, Jim appropriately says that it was about helping students to migrate from learner to user.

As a conclusion, he reminds us that change is on its way and teachers (both NS and NNS) can greatly contribute to it.

As Widdowson (2012) said, first to lead the change would be the community of language teachers and applied linguists.

And next, it’s the media and society at large.

ELF 5 Part 8 – Kirkpatrick and Graddol on Future of ELF

Andy Kirkpatrick on ‘ELF in Asia – Roles and Implications’

Historically, Malay was a lingua franca, and Bahasa Indonesia and Putonghua (Chinese) were lingua francas in quite different ways. Only 2% spoke Bahasa Indonesia although it was adopted as first language in Indonesia in the 1940s. Today, more than 70% would say they speak Bahasa Indonesia. But this means that other Indonesian languages and cultures are under threat as a result.

Putonghua is completely different

China is multi-ethnic and multilingual.

54 official national minority groups speaking many more than 54 languages.

7 major Chinese languages (with many sub dialects etc)

The language of the powerful has been adopted as the lingua franca.

ASEAN represent political, cultural and historical diversity.

Local Asian students are only learning their language + English, and not learning regional languages.

The ASEAN Charter states that they aim to promote diversity but then states they want unity…which is often obtained at the expense of diversity.

Andy Kirkpatrick stresses that although English being used as a lingua franca in Asian is almost a truism, we must be careful of subtractive multi-lingualism.

David Graddol follows on from Kirkpatrick on ‘How Economic Change can shape the future of ELF’ by talking about the economic expansion in Asia, using the Pearl River Delta economy.

David Graddol on the economic expansion in Asia

It is regarded as the factory of the world where a high proportion of the world’s electronic goods, garments, shoes, toys etc are made.
Foxconn, who assemble computers and phones (eg iPhone) employs 450,000 in Shenzhen
This economy is premised on the availability of huge numbers of cheap workers.
There is a close relationship between the SARS (HongKong, Macau) and the mainland border areas (especially SEX’s) such as Shenzhen.

CEFR Global Scale

Although we’ve been cruxifying CEF this conference, Graddol says it is revolutionary on its own because it focuses on ‘can-do’ statements and language skills.

But

Is the CEFR anglo-centric? Does it embody ideas about language learning which are rooted in the EFL experience? (50^th anniversary of Haycraft’s Teacher Training course at IH London)
Is the CEFR too euro-centric? It is based on European contexts of language learning.
Is the CEFR based on the NS norms?
The history of the CEFR explains some of the current biases in the CEFR but more can be renegotiated than may be assured.

David Graddol then looks at how CEF is being renegotiated.

CEFR is intended to be an instrument which is defined locally for specific purposes
The CEFR levels are instantiated by particular course and exams.
The functional level descriptors are in principle (but not in practice) ELF-neutral
The ELF community could attempt new descriptors which embody ELF notions.
There is already currently a huge research project underway.

A1 Can understand and use basic phrases related to familiar topics if the other person talks slowly and helps.

A2 Can understand sentences and common expressinos can communicate in simple and direct exchange of information related to routine and familiar situations.

Both these A level descriptors suggest ELF phenomena, but note that bot A1 and A2 levels have been primarily thought of as learner levels, as opposed to L2 user levels.

Level B is defines as the ‘independent user’ i.e. the first level at which users can successfully negotiate meaning without relying on an interlocutor of higher proficiency for support.

C1 has emerged as the key threshold for professional communication. C1 users are able to manage meanings with precision, not always in interactive contexts, At present, NS norms appear strongly in descriptors at this level.
CEFR started with the B1 level and C level descriptors are only now being fully elaborated. Is there a role for ELF?

Many call-centre workers are recruited at B1, trained along the way to B2, and eventually with experience and time, get to C1. When we get choices on the phone e.g. ‘If you need xyz, Press 1. If you want to leave us, Press 2, etc’, we are then put through to different call centre workers with differing levels of English dependent on how difficult the negotiation is likely to be. This is due to the fact that managers need to consider how much they can pay their workers and may not afford higher level English speakers.

We are seeing a number of different economic trends, many of them demanding a high level of English.

The global economic is hastening the shift away from manufacturing towards services.

Primary sector jobs are dropping but this is the sector that doesn’t need ELF.

The Secondary sector grew but is now declining.

What is growing is the Quartenary sector, and here, high levels of English competence is needed.

Interestingly, people who have A and C levels of the CEFR is increasing in demand, and it is the ones with the B levels which are less needed.

Does this mean that mid-intermediate students suffering from ‘mid-int-nigtis’ need to buck up and get to C1?

ELF 5 Part 7 – Mario Saraceni on The Future of ELF

I met the very friendly and eloquent Mario Saraceni at the conference and was keen to hear his point of view on the Future of ELF in this plenary-like early evening session of the day.

‘The Future of ELF: The Linguistic, Ideological and Pedagogical Relocation of English’.

Mario humbly introduced himself and joked that he had taken the title of the ‘Future of ELF’ symposium very literally.

Stating that ELF as a research area has moved from focus on language form towards language use and communities of practice, Mario starts by looking at early ELF research, and the shifts it has seen.

The form(s) of ELF

It was aimed at finding common features of ELF
Given the sheer size and complexity of ELF, such common features can be rathe elusive,
Risk of replicating the same ‘spot the difference’ approach adopted in some World Englishes research – ELF inevitably judged against NS models and so the common features end up being the common deviation from NS English.

Shifting Focus

The shift of focus towards the pragmatics of ELF and eventually towards the notion of communicative practice marks an importanat development in ELF research.

One fundamental implication is that ELF ceases to be a linguistic entity and the term acquires a more complex, subtle and itnersting meaning – it refers both to a research are (the new ELF journal is a concrete product of that), and to a particular orientation towards the study of English and ultimately of language in general.

Protracted anxieties

Some worries about the inherent ideological spread of ELF:
Lingua Franca or lingua frankensteinia?
National language policies : anxieties over the status of English
ELT ‘Anglo’ culture; NS vs NNS speakers – which model? What is the role of the NS?
Who ‘owns’ English?

Reconceptualising English

One fundamental contribution that ELF research has made is an invitation to understand the ‘thing’ English in different ways.
The move from EFL to ELF implies a move away from strict associations between language and nation-people-culture-territory
So English is no longer exclusively the language of the English and becomes deanglicized.

Mario shows some samples of Malaysian use of English on Facebook,

‘dialah di hat….siti 4ever…I really like this song… try 2 sing this song unfortunately sore x sampai… =,’ etc.

This is the norm in the age of Web 2.0 and not an exception.

Making the point that this linguistic matter does not necessarily need to be given a name, the mixing and evolution of language is a sociolinguistic reality and a way of communication.

Using more examples from the Bangkok post of the lexis ‘minor wife’ and ‘soi’ (meaning ‘street’) and ‘make merit’ (most teachers commented they would correct this ‘mistake’), Mario says we shouldn’t have to look at language in boxes.
The notion of ‘a language’ makes little sense in most traditional societies. And most people wouldn’t even consciously realize they are using ‘Language’.

Language are always mixed, hybrid, and drawing on multiple resources (Pennycook, 2010)

‘So long as people believe that their way of speaking constitutes a language in its own right, there is a real sense in which it is a real language.’ (Joseph, 2006)

The focus on the language user in ELF research is a useful direction in that a systematicitv investigation of the representations of English may help us establish whether observed language behaviour that we researchers see as deanglicization of English is such in people’s mindsets too.

In a short Q&A session after, Jennifer Jenkins asks him ‘Why not correct ‘make merit’ for if we expect international intelligibility from NSs, we should expect it of NNSs too.’ After all, we can’t negotiate meaning in a written text (remember that this was published in the Bangkok post).

Would you correct a student who writes ‘make merit’ in their essay?

ELF 5 Part 6 – Jagdish Kaur on Reconceptualising Competence

I came to this session partly because I had read papers by the speaker Jagdish Kaur for my dissertation and found them relevant and interesting, and was curious to see her in person, and to hear more.

What surprised me was the fact that she was the same person that was seated beside me during the opening plenary, and suddenly I felt rude for not having said hello.

Here is her very interesting and well-presented talk.

Reconceptualising Competence – Lessons from English as a Lingua Franca

What is competence?

Taylor calls competence a controversial and confusing term (1988), Widdowson says it’s a fussy concept (1989).

Is it just knowledge (as in Chomsky)? Or is it about the ability to use knowledge?

Confusion arises when a term intended to refer to a state is now exnded to include a process, when a term intended to refer to something absolute now includes relative dimension (Taylor, 1988)

Chomsy’s Competence

Knowledge of language, a mental state, characterized in the form of rules of grammar (linguistic knowledge)
Concerned with idealization – ‘the ideal speaker-listener, in a completely homogenous speech community, who knows its language perfectly’. Chomsky (1965)

Hymes’ Communicative Competence

Considers various aspects of language use which may be systematically accounted for by rules;
Includes the knowledge of how to use language appropriately;
Introduces a social element rather than a merely cognitive or individual one;
Does not merely expand the conception of competence but rather changes it as his notion of communicative competence conveys something quite different from what Chomsky intended.

Communicative Competence of the second language speaker

Researchers concerned with the competence of the L2 speaker have reconceptualised the idea further to suit the context.

Necessary given the multilingual reality of the today’s world in which individuals are increasingly becoming ‘users of multiple linguistics resources and (as) members of multiples communities of practice (Pavlenko)

Cook talks about multiple competencies.

We can’t just talk about the knowledge of linguistic forms, but a

Kim (1991) introduces intercultural communicative competence = an additional level of metacompetence involving explicit awareness of differential usages and ability to adapt communicative strategies to a variety of cultural situations.

Researchers working with post-structuralist ideas and sociocultural perspectives in language learning and use view competences as resulting from actual use of the language, rather than the contrary. It is by doing through engagement with others that competence is co-created in interaction.

Competences as socially constructed and the L2 Speakers’ competence as active and dynamic rather than static.

Evidence From ELF

Empirical research into ELF points to a form of intercultural communication that is both effective and efficient.
Participants accommodate to the communicative behaviour of their interlocutors to increase the intelligibility of their communication and to signal cooperation and affiliation (Cogo, 2009)
Low incidence of misunderstanding observed in ELF spoken attributed to the widespread use of repetition, reformulation, comprehension checks, confirmation and clarification requests as well as explanation and clarifications (Mauranen, 2006; Watt, 2008, Pitzl 2005)

Use of explicitness strategies like self-rephrasing, topic negotiation and discourse reflexivity to enhance explicitness of expressions (Mauranen, 2007, 2010)

Use of self-repair practices that reduce ambiguity and vagueness and emphasize explicitness and clarity can result in utterances that are perhaps more intelligible which may in turn contribute to increased comprehensibility (Kaur, 2011)

Immediate or fairly immediate repetition of a segment in an ongoing turn seem to contribute towards increasing the clarity of expression and the effectiveness of communication (Kaur, forthcoming)

Thus, as a conclusion:

Repeating a repaired segment of talk addresses any impairment to the clarity of the utterance caused by the repair move itself.
Widdowson (1989) in his conception of ‘communicative competence’ talks of ‘adjustments’ and ‘adaptations’ made to suit the contextual demands of the communicative situation.
The extracts reflect the speaker’s awareness of the precarious nature of the communicative situation and the need for greater communicative clarity.
Speakers display a ‘lingua franca communicative competence – cognizance of the diversity inherent in the lingua franca situation and the accompanying skills to manage this diversity actively and efficiently.

ELF 5 Part 5 – Kurt Kohn on Pedagogy and SLA

I listened to Kurt Kohn on ‘A Pedagogic Space for ELF in the English Classroom’ this afternoon and was extremely inspired by his social constructivist stance on the issue of teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards ELF.

Here is his talk.

EFL and ELF: Diverging perspectives

The orientation in EFL is towards standard NS English, Educational regulations for ELT institutions (in Europe) continue to be based on an exonormative SE role model.

Empirical evidence from ELF research shows that successful ELF communication despite deviations from standard, communication strategies are used for communicative success (accommodation, meaning negotiation, and ‘let it pass’), and deviant phrases and structures can be shown to emerge through endonormative processes of ELF development.

The ELF communication argument i.e. reference to the rich diversity of successful ELF communication seems to be the obvious line argumentation. But for many teachers, however, this argument doesn’t seem to work. There is low acceptance among teachers and teacher trainees, and there are frequent misunderstandings (‘Do you want me to teach incorrect English?’)

Kurt asks, Why do we have these misunderstandings?

Why is the ELF communication argument often only poorly accepted by teachers?

Convincing accounts of diversity, plurality and success of ELF communication.

But the perceived subtext by teachers is: Your SE orientation is not in sync with reality (=your SE orientation is bad!)

You end up in a deadlock: For teachers with an SE orientation, the SE part of the ELF communication argument sticks out and makes them reject the whole argument.

Teachers who better understand how languages are acquired (SLA) will better understand the implications of ELF. And teacher trainings does not cover SLA enough.

So, how do we acquire English?

I acquire English by developing/constructing/creating my own version of it my mind, my hear and my behaviour.
In communicative, social interaction with others.
Influenced by my target language model, my native language, my attitudes & motivation, my goals & requirements, my learning approach, the effort I invest and last but not least the people I talk to.
It is in this social constructivist sense that the English I develop is my own.
And it is inevitably different from any target language model toward which it is oriented.
The ‘My English condition’ is not an option, but part of the human condition.

In a strong version of SE orientation (which is what is most often done in EFL classrooms), learners are required to comply with standard English (teaching) norms and the closer they get, the better. But this is a procedure only compatible with behaviourist copying process that still lurks in the background.

In a weak version of SE orientation, learners take standard English as a model for orientation and they create their own version of it.

It is thus important to understand language learning as a cognitive and emotional process.

Imagine that the Mid-Atlantic SE (MASE) is my learning target. What kind of MASE would that be?

Linguistic descriptions of MASE on the basis of solid empirical research.

My version of what MASE is may not be another’s.

The weak version of a SE orientation is fully compatible with an endonormative conceptualization of ELF development.
Challenges for ELF research and pedagogy:

Extension of the endonormative view to include a ‘weak’ SE orientation

A promising turn in ELF research: teaching ELF is about the process of developing the kind of English users/learners are able to make authentic for themselves – including SE

Challenges for ELT

Because of the strong exonormative version of a SE orientation, learners tend to stay alienated from their creativity, resulting in frustration, anxiety and even fear.

Urgent need for an endonormative conceptualization of language learning and teaching (MY English) and acceptance of constructivist ‘weak’ SE orientation.

ELF in the foreign language classroom

Focus on raising awareness for LF manifestation of English

– to increase tolerance for others and for oneself

Focus on developing ELF-specific comprehension skills

– to get accustomed to NNS accents and ‘messy’ performance.

Focus on developing ELF-specific production skills

– to improve pragmatic fluency and strategic skills for accommodation and collaborative negotiation of meaning in intercultural ELF situations

Focus on developing the learners’ sense of ownership (‘agency’)

– to ensure speaker satisfaction and self-confidence

Liberation through communicative participation

How can ‘liberating’ conditions be successfully implemented in the English classroom?

CLIL – Practice Enterprise – Creative Writing
‘Pushed output processing’/ ‘languaging’ (Swain 2006) – with increased self-satisfaction as a target (instead of better compliance with an external norm)
Authentic and autonomous web-based communication and collaboration
All with the aim to explore and extend one’s own creativity ( Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development)

The overall principle is to acknowledge that NNS/learners of English are speakers of English and not merely people learning English.

All in all, this was a talk that was so inspiring that I thought it deserved a blogpost all on its own. Kurt Kohn not only spoke sense but also showed us in very practical ways how we can shift attitudes of ELF towards useful and empowering standpoints that can help both the teacher (NS and NNS) and learners to better understand the process of language acquisition and how to provide conditions for a more helpful mindset to developing language competence.

ELF 5 Part 4 – Plenary by Cem Alptekin

Cem Alptekin starts his talk ‘A Usage-Based Approach to ELF identity’, showing two different pictures of elves, showing how even within elves, there are different types and varieties.

In an article published by Guardian by Julianne House, she describes ELF as ‘a stateless language that Europe must embrace, stating that ELF was Europe’s lingua franca’, not an imperialist tool, but a language that recognize the different nationality and different cultures, and allowing individuals to creating their own discourse norms with their own free will with a view to promoting international understanding.

If European Lingua Franca or Euro-English is indeed a variety, then it should be possibility to describe and codify it, and use it for instruction.

Reminding us that Jenkins called ELF is a context variety, ELF is legitimate English, like outer circle speakers, the criteria that applied to outer circle applies also to expanding circle speakers.

Early ELF studies were focused the linguistic features of ELF communication, e.g. Seidlhofer’s early article about lexico-grammatical features that might appear in ELF use, paving the way for the view that ELF is all about language code.

However, recent articles by Seidlhofer and other ELF proponents are more focused on the negotiation of meaning and accommodation among those in the speech community.

It is time to debunk this myth.

ELF is not a language variety.

We can relate it to a speech community or geographic region.

The construct of linguistic variety may change when speech community undergo changes.

This would lead to our reconceptualization of ELF that is more usage- and context-based, one that may still show form and function patterns in its own right. Instead of a fixed structure that restricts and de-limit the forms and use, the code itself evolves, and repeated instances of language use brought about by different functional needs redefines the variety constantly.

Let’s not reduce ELF to a reductionist perspective.

Some mistaken beliefs:

Deficient form of English (non-monolithic/code-focused) – no linguistic variety is mono-lithic. There is no ELF community in a conventional sense.
English that functions as a lingua franca (circular/function-focused) – There are millions of Elf users with different communities and using English for different purposes. But what is clear is that the form is not based on NS-norms. The emphasis is on function.
Contact (pidgin? Without a NS in sight?)
English that serves functions in the expanding circle (geographic and ethnic bounds)
Insufficient and illegitimate English (pedagogic validity?) – Even ELT teachers believe that ELF is form-reductionist. But no code can exist in a function-vacuum, and no function can exist in a form-vacuum.

Idioms create a sense as they are stored as a chunk in your long term memory.

ELF reflects more metaphoric use than idiomaticity.

Interactions between contextual demands of a globalized world and ELF users’ cognitive systems leads to new schematic and linguistic configurations.

As an example of how ELF can be misunderstood, Friedrich & Matsuda (2010) is discussed. They argue that ELF is an ‘umbrella term’ referring to a ‘function’ because as a code it is non-monolithic (back to basics!)

Functionalising English involves the successful use of communicative strategies across cultures (=strategic competence).

They misconstrue Seidlhofer’s position that ELF is a variety;
They misconstrue Jenkin’s position by comparing ENL, ESL and ELF when they are completely different constructs – ENL and ESl are acquisitional constructs, whereas ELF describes the form and function mappings used when people with different L1s come together.
Narrowing down ‘ESL’, they go against the tide in SLA, distinguishing acquisition and use, the L2 learner and L2 user.
Parochialising ‘language variety’ – However, their calling ELF a variety is neither philosophically accurate nor useful. They subsequently define ELF as a function. There cannot be a function in language variety and no reason why ELF should be presented as such.
Ignoring cultural cognition.

An important talk that debunks some of the myths of what ELF is, and encourages us to see ELF as user-based, context-specific, and a fluid dynamism of functions mapped upon evolving forms.

ELF 5 Part 3 – Learners, Materials, Idiomaticity & Pronunciation

Claudia Borghetti spoke on ‘Language versus Intercultural Learning through ELF Interactions: Higher Education Students’ Perspectives’.

Emphasising that NS might not know how language works, let alone how to explain the rules to others, Claudia states that if one feels less judged by their use of English, it would affect their confidence and ability to use English positively. She then goes on to outline the use of Byron’s criteria of measuring intercultural competence in terms of attitude, knowledge, skills and awareness, showing that a successful intercultural speaker is one that is able to negotiate meaning, take an external perspective of oneself and adapt.

Reiko Takahashi was up next with her presentation ‘English as a Lingua Franca in a Japanese context: An analysis of ELF-Oriented Features in Teaching Materials and the Attitudes of Japanese Teachers and Learners of English to ELF-Oriented Materials’.

Using the following criteria, Takahashi measures how ELF-Oriented the materials used in Secondary and High School English education in Japan:

Number of characters featured that are from outer circle and non-Japanese expanding circle countries;
Number of words uttered by these characters;
Use of either outer or expanding circle country other than Japan as location for dialogues;
Type of communication existing between NNSs with no NSs.

It was found that some of the materials in Japanese coursebook indeed featured outer circle English usage, illustrating with an example that showed the use of Singlish, with a focus on how Singlish is more simplified than English, e.g. ‘Cheaper, can or not?’

Although NNS characters are found in Japanese coursebooks, no NNS varieties were found in the audio materials.
In a survey, most students wanted to have more of a variety of nationalities in their coursebooks (e.g. 1 NNS, 1NS and 1 Japanese in conversation).

However, Japanese teachers expressed fears about including ‘non-standard’ varieties as it might be dangerous, or not needed by high school students.

Purposes of using ELF-oriented materials or introducing ELF features should thus be clearly communicated, and students should know that they are not to be imitated but are there for the purpose of awareness raising and exposure.

Takahashi’s conclusion seemed to favour the use of NS-normative standards in the language used in coursebooks, while featuring a variety of characters from different countries.

After a break, Valeria Franceschi gave a talk on ‘Culturally-loaded language and ELF: Idiomaticity in Cross-cultural student interaction in university settings’.

In examining a sample of 130 tokens, of which 103 types of idiomatic language had been identified (phrasal verbs and routine formulae were excluded from her definition of ‘idioms’), she demonstrated the following by categorizing idioms into social functions, communicative strategies and managing content (not ELF-related):

Frequent use of pragmatic markers noticed (kind of, like, something, something like that), and often used as a distancing device;
Idiom use was related to re-phrasing in communicative strategies: Repetition and rephrasing was used to increase explicitness;
Idioms were used to reinforce concepts, for topic introduction (cataphora), for gettings attention, and for buying the speaker time to think;
Idioms were used to mitigate criticism and potential face threats, and controversial topics;
Idioms used to build solidarity and social cohesion, often through use of humour;
These findings coincide with the VOICE corpus findings that pragmatic markers tend to cluster around the use of idioms.

Franceschi also found that speakers often signaled comprehension by backchannelling, and backchannel items were frequent in the data;

In the Q&A to Franceschi’s session, Mauranen commented that if we relax our criteria as to what we consider idioms, we would see creative language use everywhere. Marie-Luise Pitzl then questions how we draw the line between what is idiomatic and what isn’t and suggests that this line on its own could be seen as NS-normative.

The day ended for me with Milan Stanojevic’s research findings in her talk ‘Profiles of Successful and Less Successful Learners of English Pronunciation in Croatian Primary Schools’.

She found that…

Best pronouncers (using the Lingua France Core as a basis for measurement) were:

Not always the most highly motivated;
Knows what L1 Englishes there are;
Are aware of Global English;
Have extensive exposure to external sources such as uses of Web 2.0 tools e.g. Facebook, where they can interact and produce English.

Meanwhile, the less successful pronouncers were:

Not particularly motivated;
Completely unaware of inner circle Englishes (They think that English = England and that’s it);
Unaware of Global English;
Have only passive exposure to English, e.g. through songs and film.

Suggesting future research possibilities that look into the question of whether a successful learner = a successful speaker, Stanojevic then goes on to ponder a question from the audience as to whether students from her monolingual Croatian class would use different pronunciation features when talking to other people who do not have the same L1, leaving the audience to think about the accommodation skills of our students when put in an intercultural scenario.

A full day of useful research findings and lots to think about…

But meanwhile, I must go worry about the findings of my own research that I will be presenting tomorrow morning…

No one has cracked a joke or shared a personal anecdote in the presentations I have seen today…this is a far cry from the TEFL talks that I am used to…

Do I tweak my presentation so that I do it straight-laced?

Or should I stay as the mad hyperactive Chia that the TEFL world is more used to seeing?

Funny how I am often told that I am too academic in the TEFL world, and now I feel like I am not academic enough…

Neither here nor there…

A familiar feelings of diaspora sets in…

Or is it just nerves?

ELF 5 Part 2 – Teacher Education

The gorgeous view from the conference centre at Bogaziçi University

The elective sessions at ELF5 are grouped into blocks of 2/3 speakers, each with about 30 minutes to present their research.

For the first elective session of the day, I chose 3 sessions on Teacher Education and ELF.

First up was Marie-Luise Pitzl’s talk – Preparing teachers for an ELF future: What we CAN tell them. Having read quite a few articles by Marie-Luise Pitzl, I found myself quite star-struck to sitting in front of her.

Quoting Dewey (2007), Pitzl reminds us that we can no longer regard language norms as fixed, pre-determined, and tied to a particular geographical or cultural centre, and that teachers should adopt a different approach to ELT, reassessing the way we select materials, methods, and approaches to testing, and promoting a pluralistic approach to competence and a flexible view of language.

On one hand, you have a global phenomenon,

And on the other, local contexts and local conditions.

And it is thus important to raise awareness amongst teachers and teacher trainees of this sociolinguistic reality and its teaching implications.

Here, Pitzl outlines the ELF component of here teacher training course.

Aims

Familiarising sts with core concepts (ENL, ESL, EFL, World Englishes, ELF, lang variation, variety, speech community)
Intro some descriptive ELF findings and linking them to ELF local contexts.
Raising awareness of what an ELF perspective might mean for ELT – shifting perspectives
Giving sts the opportunity to try out diff cooperative teaching methods.
Triggering reflective processes (on predominant NS models, own experience, own ideals, goals and standards discrepancies, challenges)

Course schedule

Into and organizational matters
The roles of English today – past and present developments, models for international English
World English : Basic notions
The ownership of English : From ENL, ESL, EFL, to ELF
ELF description 1: Phonological characteristics – Intelligibility, the Lingua Franca Core and suggestions for teaching
ELF Description 2: Lexico-grammatical characteristics: Processes of language variation and change (Jigsaw method)
Implications for the conceptualization of ELF – variety
Implications for ELT – Teaching ELF?
ELF Pragmatics and Basic notions
ELF Pragmatics : Negotiation of meaning and strategies for achieving understanding
ELF Pragmatics: Correctness, effectiveness and multilingual repertoires
ELF Pragmatics: Idioms, metaphors and metaphorical awareness
ELF, teacher identity and communities of practice.

Activities used include Jigsaw activity (lexicogrammar, Interviews (teacher identity), Roleplays, etc.

Next up was Lili Cavalheiro on Bringing New ELT Policies and ELF to Teaching Training Courses.

Aims for teaching ELF

To challenge the appropriateness of the NS model
Reconsider the inner circle as no longer providing the only adequate cultural content and the need to include materials from one’s own source culture
Critically analyse the cultural content and reflect on one’s own culture in relation to that of others as a crucial exercise.

While emphasizing the NNS teachers’ advantage of sharing common cultures and common goals with their learners, Cavalheiro reiterates Tim McNamara’s point made at the opening plenary about the inappropriacy of CEF descriptors, giving the following example:

C2 – Appreciates fully the sociolinguistics and sociocultural implications of language used by NSs and can react accordingly.

She then goes on to remind us of Seidlhofer (2011) paper on CEF’s lack of differentiation between the study of modern languages and EFL and ELF.

Still referencing Seidlhofer (2011), Cavalheiro then suggests that on a macro-level, teacher training courses should not only look at the nature of language and communication through language awareness, but also through communication strategies, intercultural communication, and sociolinguistics.

On a micro-level, we should take our teacher trainees’ context into consideration and develop a curriculum that fits into a more general framework of communication.

Last but not least, we should help trainees develop critical thinking of materials, and help them with not just what materials are being used, but how they are used.

The third presenter was Lucilla Lopriore speaking about ELF and Early Language Learning: Multi-lingualism, Language Policies and teacher Education

Early introduction of English to YLs mean plurilingualism. This means that classrooms will no longer be monolingual.

Parents want a NS teacher because they think it means their kids would pick up the ‘right’ pronunciation.

Multilingualism in Europe

The primary classroom population in Europe is mainly multilingual and multicultural.

The realities of early language learning implementation vary widely due to variety of factors:

National language policies
The assumption that earlier is better
Parental pressure
New media (access to foreign lang through the internet)
NNS teachers
Emerging new literacies

(Hoffman 2000, Edelenbos et al 2006 etc)

She appropriately draws the 3 sessions to a close with a quote from Henry Widdowson (2012):

‘The first step is to raise awareness of teachers that there is an alternative way of thinking about the subject they teach, based on an understanding of English as a lingua franca. We need to overhaul our descriptive systems and deconstruct our established concepts…and this involves quite a radical re-thinking about the relationship between what we know about the language and what we do with it…between the teaching and learning of the language as a subject.’

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this:

Tell your friends

Like this: