Unit 2-3. English as a universl linguage

 

Guidelines for extensive reading of ESP texts

The extensive reading procedure assumes that students will not only enjoy reading as a means of enhancing English but will also get into topics of professional interest in the target language. A few other points on the definition of extensive reading should be clarified. Extensive reading is not just another reading subskill such as skimming or scanning. This confuses the whole with its parts. We see extensive reading as a teaching/learning procedure, not a reading subskill. In this course extensive reading is confined to graded materials. Basing on the assumption that the students will be actively using the graded Part 2 of the Manual, extensive reading can be studied more effectively and enjoyably when students use easy material that they can understand and enjoy professionally. Exactly this is (a) an authentic reader, (b) specially written for ESL students; and (c) abridged from authentic texts. Strictly speaking, materials in this category are graded without simplifying the language.

Text 2-3. ENGLISH AS A UNIVERSL LINGUAGE

(After C. Gnutzmann’s “Can Euro English or English as a European lingua franca contribute to establishing a European identity?“)

European identity

The EU has recently experienced a major expansion of membership, with new members waiting to join and with ever-growing trends of migration from both within and outside. Yet, major players within the EU are now adjusting to the newcomers, still without previously having really established a clear sense of their own European identities. In this context, we aim at exploring key issues in the negotiation of identities within the new socio-political, economic and cultural framework. Key questions will be:

1. What are the main characteristics, mechanisms and dissemination features of neo-colonial modes of representation in contemporary Europe?

2. How are they received by groups commonly associated with the former periphery, and how are they shaped by other groups?

The case for considering neo-colonialism in Europe is justified and explained from the perspective of postcolonial theory, while the context will be examined from the perspective of EU discourse that reflects its stance on national, regional and ethnic identity and the policies aimed at encouraging a harmonious bonding of Europe’s postcolonial, diasporic, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and mobile communities. All this includes an investigation of aspects that might be directly linkable to patterns of European colonialism and/or to related issues of globalization and diaspora, which still represent a rather marginal area in postcolonial research.

Questions of European identity are much discussed and debated, both in relation to an over-arching EU identity and in relation to the groups that go to make up the EU. It seems clear that while a distinct European identity is some way off for many Europeans, within Europe there is nonetheless a constant quest and a need by many people to re-position themselves, either consciously or unconsciously, in relation to the changing environment. In this quest to reposition, the role of language is fundamental on a number of dimensions.

Language is often cited as an essential element in our identity, albeit one among many. On one level it is crucial as the medium through which groups express their own aspirations and concerns, as their means to selfexpression and self-image: “Language allows us to identify our own place in the world and our own subjectivity. A language is the product of the collective attitudes and values of a particular group”. At the same time, language is also the medium through which people’s perceptions of others are reflected and is thus a mirror for the biases and prejudices that they may hold.

On another level, language can be a vital factor in its own right, becoming another actor in identity construction within debates over language status, language policy and language form. The EU has of course long appreciated the importance of language in the future success or otherwise of the EU and has embodied in its own treaties the inviolability of national languages and the importance of guaranteeing individual language rights within Europe. It has also increasingly supported Europe’s minority languages, at least in its own discourse and in its funding initiatives and both of these positions are reinforced in the Framework Strategy for Multilingualism (Commission of the European Communities 2005) currently under discussion. EU philosophy is enshrined in the new Framework Strategy which promotes linguistic and cultural diversity, stating that:

It is this diversity that makes the European Union what it is: not a “melting pot” in which differences are rendered down, but a common home in which diversity is celebrated, and where our many mother tongues are a source of wealth and a bridge to greater solidarity and mutual understanding. Language is the most direct expression of culture; it is what makes us human and what gives each of us a sense of identity.

 

Language issues in the EU

The EU has yet really to acknowledge or come to terms with language issues relating to the excolonial groups of non-European origin. And, as regards individual nations, both France and Britain have in recent years come up with some rather clumsy attempts to get to grips with language differences among their non-indigenous populations—often identifying language as a cause for social ills. A good example of this was the controversial Bénisti report for a bill on the prevention of delinquency in France (Commission Prévention du GESI 2004), which provoked uproar by appearing to identify inability to speak French with problems of social unrest and in its early stages proposed that mothers should be obliged to speak to their children in French in the home. And Blackledge shows that in the debate in Britain surrounding the strengthening of legislation relating to language testing for citizenship the apparently liberal discourse of politicians and policy-makers links languages other than English, and therefore speakers of these languages, with civil disorder, school underachievement, social segregation, societal burden, isolation, unhappy marriage, poor employment prospects, mental health difficulties, lack of social mobility, and threat to democracy, citizenship and nationhood.

Furthermore, these ideologies gain force as they are debated in increasingly legitimate settings, and are ultimately enshrined in the least negotiable domain of all, the law.

Language rights and language status issues can easily become a channel for the expression of wider group grievances or aspirations, especially when a language has been long suppressed and subjugated to that of a dominating force, whether intra-nationally, as in the case of regional languages, for example, or cross-nationally, as with the Baltic states. Although sometimes debates over language can be a diversionary tactic, either conscious or unconscious, to mask other underlying concerns, because of its identity function, language can become imbued with immense symbolic potential among groups wanting to reassert their separateness and the right to control over their own affairs. Our language lets us set our boundaries, lets us differentiate ourselves from others and, we imagine, has the power to unify. As a result, language can be endowed with a kind of idealistic potential as a unifying force that will overcome former divisions–an approach used with both benign and less benign intent according to context. Such a unifying role, although counter to the stated aims of the European Commission, is often proposed for English within Europe where increasingly it functions de facto as a lingua franca.

Crucial in discussing linguistic issues in relation to Europe, whether it be from the perspective of own and others’ discourse, or in relation to language as actor in identity negotiation, is the disparity in power between dominant and less dominant groups. While this may derive from the legacy of what is traditionally understood as colonialism, similar power disparities also remain as the legacy of over-powerful neighbours, or an overweening state apparatus in relation to the regions. For the purposes of this volume we have identified three groups within Europe where power disparities of the kind mentioned above are evident, and where a neocolonial mentality might be anticipated.

The concept of lingua franca usually denotes a medium of communication between people each speaking different mother tongues, which means that it is used as an auxiliary or a third language. According to the defining criterion of “third language”, native speakers of English could not be part of lingua franca communication in English, simply because English would not be a third language in their case. This position is in line with traditional definitions of lingua franca and defines EELF interactions “as interactions between members of two or more different linguacultures in English, for none of whom English is the mother tongue”. Thus, failing to meet the criterion of third language for the use of the English language, e.g. between an Australian and a Bulgarian at an international meeting, would not fall within the scope of the above-mentioned.