[BOOKS] What English Language Teachers Need to Know: Volume I

Preface of the book what English language teachers need to know volume I. by Denise E. Murray & Mary Ann Christison.

English language teaching worldwide has become a multibillion dollar enterprise, one that the majority of nations in the world are embarking on to lesser or greater extents. For many countries, English is seen as a commodity through which they will become more competitive in the global marketplace. While English may have national and personal advancement potential, it is also pervasive in the global media. Youth culture in particular is influenced by English-dominant media and marketing. As a result, English is being consumed and transformed transnationally.

The settings where English is taught vary from countries where English is the official and dominant language, such as the United States or Australia, to those where it is an official language, usually as a result of past colonialism, such as India or the Philippines, to those where it is taught in schools as a subject of study, such as Japan or the Czech Republic. In the first set of countries, when English is taught to immigrants or to international students, the language is often called English as a second language (ESL), and its teaching TESL. In the second set of countries, where it is taught to citizens and increasingly to international students, it is usually referred to also as ESL. In the third set of countries, the language is often referred to as English as a foreign language (EFL), and its teaching TEFL. Because both ESL and EFL carry ideological baggage, there is much discussion in the field about more appropriate terminology and use of alternate terms. Some prefer to use (T)ESOL— (teaching) English to speakers of other languages—since it acknowledges that the learners may have more than one previous language and can be used to include both ESL and EFL contexts. Others prefer (T)EAL—(teaching) English as an additional language—for the same reason, whereas ESL implies there is only English, plus one other. Other terms in use include English as an international language (EIL) and English language teaching (ELT). Whatever the terminology used, distinctions are increasingly becoming blurred as people move around the globe and acquire their English in a variety of different settings, being taught by teachers from a variety of different linguistic backgrounds.

In these volumes, we will use ESL and EFL because they are still the most widely used terms, while recognizing the inherent reification of English in their use. When referring to teaching, we will use ELT to avoid confusion between the field of TESOL and the professional association called TESOL.

Similarly, the terminology used to define the users of English has been contested. The most commonly used terms have been native speaker (NS), in contrast to nonnative speaker (NNS). Both terms assume ideological positions, especially since the NS is valued as the norm and the model for language learning, not only in those countries where English is the dominant language, but also in many EFL settings.

Yet, the majority of English language users and teachers do not have English as their mother tongue or dominant language. In some ESL contexts, such as the United States, immigrant learners are referred to as English language learners (ELLs), even though all English speakers, no matter their immigration status, are English language learners—we both are still learning English! Leung, Harris and Rampton (1997) have therefore proposed refining what it means to know and use a language with three terms: language expertise (linguistic and cultural knowledge), language affiliation (identification and attachment), and language inheritance (connectedness and continuity). What is important then about a learner’s (or teacher’s) language is their linguistic repertoire in relation to each of these criteria, not whether they are an NS. Since there is no general acceptance of such terms, we shall continue to use NS and NNS, while noting that they establish a dichotomy that is neither valid nor descriptive.