Text 1-3. English as a universal linguage

(Abridged from the Toolkit for transnational communication in Europe. Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism. University of Copenhagen, 2011)

1. A lingua franca is a shared means of intercultural communication between speakers with different primary lingua -cultural backgrounds. In other words, a lingua franca comes to use when people who do not have the same mother tongue need to communicate and thus opt for an additional language resource. It is essentially a contact language emerging from linguistically diverse environments and constitutes a common denominator of elements available in the speakers' linguistic repertoires. Lingua francas (or linguae francae ) are often perceived as vehicular languages, i.e. languages for communication, rather than languages for identification.

The concept of lingua franca (literally 'the Frankish language') is often assumed to date back to the Crusades during which a mixed vehicular language emerged which was then widely used for purposes of commerce in the Mediterranean. It thus originates from times when the concept of the national language had not been introduced and when linguistic fluidity and multilingualism prevailed naturally.

2. Lingua francas are perceived to be potentially more neutral and democratic than territorially-defined, i.e. regional or national, languages since they are not directly connected to the primary lingua -culture of any fixed speech community. Originally, the concept involved a mixed kind of language which drew on elements of diverse origin. This definition has shifted in more recent days, however, when lingua francas based on pre-existing territorially-defined, i.e. national or regional, language varieties, have come into use. These languages are then being individually adjusted for intercultural purposes by their users in the lingua franca mode. On the whole, lingua franca use is best viewed from a usage-oriented, rather than from a code-oriented, perspective since functional issues strongly determine the forms emerging in this mode.

Historically, the most prominent lingua franca was Latin during the Roman Empire, later the language of religion and science. Also French used to be crucial, especially as a language of international diplomacy. In today's global communicative framework, English – in its lingua franca realisation – has developed to play the most central role for intercultural purposes (cf. English as a lingua franca, ELF).

Other manifestations of lingua francas are artificially constructed, 'planned' languages which are exclusively and deliberately established for lingua franca purposes. Examples are Volapük (a mixture of German, English, French, Italian, Spanish and Russian elements, developed around 1880) or – the most prominent representative of this type – Esperanto (an agglutinating language, largely based on Romanic, but also on Germanic and some Slavic elements, first made public in 1887).

These types of lingua franca have been promoted for their high degree of neutrality (as they are not directly related to a national language) and formal regularity (as they do not contain idiosyncratic elements that characterise naturally emerging languages). Their level of uptake has remained relatively low, however.

3. English as a lingua franca (ELF) is the currently most wide-spread and most frequently used manifestation of the lingua franca mode. It is defined as the use of an English-based resource as a shared means of intercultural communication between speakers with different primary lingua -cultural backgrounds.

In its contemporary definition, it has shifted from the original conceptualisation of lingua francas which developed as mixed and therefore relatively neutral vehicular languages (cf. Lingua franca). This shift is grounded in the fact that in more recent days national languages have come to serve as the basis of lingua francas which, through their activation in intercultural communication, become modified and detached from their primary origins.

ELF is to be viewed as a flexible mode of communication rather than as a fixed code. It is not defined as a set of formal features but as a flexible, dynamic resource: linguistic form is driven by functional purposes. With mutual intelligibility between the participants as the overall aim, considerations of correctness are overruled by notions of effectiveness.

4. Successful ELF talk, thus, does away with the opaque forms and 'unilateral idiomaticity', i.e. non-transparent language based on convention, rather than on straightforward form-meaning correspondences, that typically occurs in native-speaker language. It is situationally negotiated with regard to different contexts, resource constellations and purposes, and appropriated as to suit these purposes.

ELF is, thus, individually shaped by its users and, by implication, not 'the English language'. Rather, it is a variable intercultural adaptation based on English, which is determined by accommodative strategies between the speakers and which is typically characterised by plurilingual elements. ELF in this definition does not represent a restricted language resource. It can potentially take any form – from simplified to complex – and can potentially fulfill any function – from a basic interaction to the most elaborate argument.

It is 'non-territorial' in the sense that it could take place everywhere, in any constellation. It potentially integrates all speakers, also native speakers, of English who use it in an intercultural mode. As non-native speakers largely outnumber native speakers, however, ELF interactions most frequently take place between the former.

5.ELF is essentially a ‘contact language’ for people of different first languages for whom English is the chosen means of communication, including native speakers of English when they engage in intercultural communication. However, ELF is emphatically not the English as a property of its native speakers, but is democratized and universalized in the ‘exolingual’ process of being appropriated for international use.

6.While all of us are, in a sense, life-long learners of any language, including our mother tongue (for instance when we extend our language use into new domains), there is still a (traditional) distinction made between the concepts of 'language learner' and 'language user'. With reference to this distinction, ELF speakers are not considered merely learners striving to conform to native-speaker norms but primarily users of the language, where the main consideration is not formal correctness but functional effectiveness. Of course using and learning are related (you can learn while using), but the point is that with ELF the emphasis is on use and the learning is incidental. This user language may certainly exhibit the same forms as learner English, but the significance of the forms is a different one.

7.As we conceive of it, ELF is not bad or deficient English – it is just different in form from native speaker English and serves different functions. It does not in principle lack the potential to be effective for all the communicative purposes it is appropriated for. It can occur in any kind of intercultural communication ranging from the most rudimentary utterances to highly elaborate arguments. Proficiency in ELF, i.e. the ability to achieve mutual intelligibility in intercultural exchanges, seems to be determined by aspects such as cooperation, accommodation, lingua-cultural awareness and open-mindedness towards innovative linguistic forms rather than formal linguistic criteria.

8.ELF relates to other languages in the sense that it is evolving within a multilingual context. Influences of other languages are a natural and crucial characteristic of ELF at all linguistic levels (phonological, lexicogrammatical and pragmatic). As a means of communication, ELF is only one of several components of the multilingual repertoire of speakers and often combines with other languages as appropriate to the intercultural communicative situation. ELF is essentially a ‘partner language’.

9.In line with our definition, any speaker using English for the purpose of intercultural communication (i.e. with a speaker of a different L1), in principle, speaks ELF – unless they (inappropriately) insist on speaking 'endolingually'. ELF is thus defined functionally by its use in intercultural communication rather than formally by its reference to native speaker norms. The crucial point is that speakers of whatever L1 can appropriate ELF for their own purposes without over-deference to native-speaker norms. This counteracts a deficit view of lingua franca English in that it implies equal communicative rights for all its users.

OVERVIEW QUESTIONS: MAIN IDEA, MAIN TOPIC, MAIN PURPOSE, AND ORGANIZATION OF THE TEXT

 

Instruction: Patterns of organization of texts are commonly aimed at helping students get the most from their reading. Patterns of organization comprise description, step-by-step explanation, directions, comparison and contrast, analysis, analogy, and definition.

The main idea is implied by the use of analogy to make the complex concept of lingua franca easier to understand.

Keep in mind that definitions and descriptions are often counterposed in compared and contrasted pairs to develop the main idea.

Analysis will help break down the topic of the text into causes, effects, reasons, methods, purposes, or other categories that support the main idea.

The purpose of the pattern of definition is to exectify, explain, or clarify the meaning of the central concept. It may involve analysis, comparison or contrast, description, or even analogy. Students become adept at recognizing implied and explicit definitions.

 

Students are asked to complete these five activities:

1) to survey; looking over headings, reading introductory and concluding paragraphs, and identifying a definition of the lingua franca.

2) to formulate answers for the questions asked in the headings matching assignment.

3) to make a conscious effort to identify description, step-by-step explanation, directions, comparison and contrast, analysis, analogy, and definition in the text as they read.

4) having read the second paragraph, to look away from the book and try to recite the manifestations of lingua francas.

5) to take notes, characterising ELF.