24.3240, Review: Applied Linguistics; Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics; English: Bj=?UTF-8?Q?=C3=B6rkman_?=(2013)

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List: Vol-24-3240. Mon Aug 12 2013. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 24.3240, Review: Applied Linguistics; Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics; English: Björkman (2013)

Moderator: Damir Cavar, Eastern Michigan U <damir at linguistlist.org>

Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin Madison
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin Madison
Rajiv Rao, U of Wisconsin Madison
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin Madison
Mateja Schuck, U of Wisconsin Madison
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin Madison
       <reviews at linguistlist.org>

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Do you want to donate to LINGUIST without spending an extra penny? Bookmark
the Amazon link for your country below; then use it whenever you buy from
Amazon!

USA: http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-20
Britain: http://www.amazon.co.uk/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-21
Germany: http://www.amazon.de/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistd-21
Japan: http://www.amazon.co.jp/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlist-22
Canada: http://www.amazon.ca/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistc-20
France: http://www.amazon.fr/?_encoding=UTF8&tag=linguistlistf-21

For more information on the LINGUIST Amazon store please visit our
FAQ at http://linguistlist.org/amazon-faq.cfm.

Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajiv at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  


Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:32:05
From: Josep Soler-Carbonell [soler at ut.ee]
Subject: English as an Academic Lingua Franca

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=24-3240.html&submissionid=17376872&topicid=9&msgnumber=1
 
Discuss this message: 
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=17376872


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/24/24-525.html

AUTHOR: Beyza  Björkman
TITLE: English as an Academic Lingua Franca
SUBTITLE: An Investigation of Form and Communicative Effectiveness
SERIES TITLE: Developments in English as a Lingua Franca
PUBLISHER: De Gruyter Mouton
YEAR: 2013

REVIEWER: Josep Soler-Carbonell, University of Tartu

SUMMARY

This monograph examines the role of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in an
academic context in Sweden. More specifically, it provides a thorough analysis
of the linguistic form and communicative effectiveness of English in an
engineering course at an international university. The corpus of data that
gives shape to this study comes from a variety of methodological sources:
participatory observation and recordings of lectures delivered in ELF, as well
as observations of students’ group discussions of classroom assignments. A
survey was also delivered to a sample of students in order to find out about
their language attitudes towards ELF.

The book is inscribed in the growing research area of ELF (Seidlhofer 2011)
as, “the widest use of English in the world today” (p. 1). It contains six
chapters and four detailed appendices that clarify and strengthen the
methodological procedure followed to conduct the study. Chapter 1 provides the
introduction to the monograph. In it, the author discusses issues such as the
relevance of the English language in today’s world, touching briefly upon the
historical developments that have brought it to its current centrality,
specifically in the fields of science and technology. The chapter also
summarizes some of the most relevant scholarly debates on the role of English
as a global language, with particular emphasis on the internationalization of
higher education. It focuses on these debates in the context of continental
Europe and Sweden, more specifically. The author concludes the chapter by
arguing in favor of ELF and for the need to provide detailed analyses of it
that can legitimate a form of English as spoken by non-natives from a variety
of first language (L1) backgrounds. Such an effort, according to Björkman,
will help strengthen the view that English used in international settings does
not have to be linked necessarily to Englishization or Americanization (p.
28), thus explicitly detaching globalization from the view of English as a
result of (neo)imperialistic trends.

Chapter 2, “Previous research on ELF”, provides the reader with a detailed
summary of what has been said and written thus far in the area of ELF. The
content of the chapter is structured into two main parts: work without
normative elements (pragmatics) and work including normative elements (form).
It then advocates in favor of merging the two areas, or exploring how form and
function interact, which is a union that other authors have also recently
argued for (e.g. Cogo and Dewey 2011). The chapter concludes by briefly
mentioning other ELF studies that have placed identity and attitudinal issues
at the center of their analysis (e.g. Jenkins 2007).

Chapter 3, “Exploring an academic ELF setting in Sweden: the site”, presents a
description of the investigated setting, the specific objectives that the
author wanted to attain with her study and the methodology she implemented to
obtain the data needed for that. The monograph investigates “the morphosyntax
of spoken English as the academic language in Sweden and the pragmatic
strategies speakers use” (p. 60). The study follows a deductive approach,
setting out to explore some initial hypotheses, and validating or refuting
them. More specifically, the author seeks to describe the commonalities and
the differences of non-standard usage of English in her data as compared to
those features already described elsewhere in the literature. The chapter then
describes the procedures the author followed in collecting and analyzing her
data, which include a variety of tools and techniques: participatory
observation and recordings of lectures and of classroom group-discussion
sessions, and a survey investigating attitudes toward non-standard usage of
English.

Chapter 4, “Operating in a Swedish ELF site”, is the central chapter of the
monograph, offering an extensive overview of the main results obtained by the
author. These are presented in a well-organized fashion, concentrating on the
two main dimensions explored: (1) Form and (2) Communicativeness. The author
provides a fine-grained analysis of the naturally occurring data she has
gathered in the frame of the observed academic settings. In the “form”
dimension, she explores the commonalities of usage she has found in her data,
i.e., the features of ELF usage as already described elsewhere in the
literature regarding this dimension. Following this, she contrasts
non-standard and standard forms also present in her data. Regarding the
dimension of “communicativeness”, the author explores the issue of overt
disturbance, i.e., what elements are likely to produce communication
difficulties. In that sense, she concentrates on interrogative sentences, and
her intonation analyses show that non-standard questions are the only features
that cause overt disturbance. This, she argues, indicates that “questions per
se are important real-time signals that show comprehension or disturbance” (p.
119). The chapter also contains the results of the survey that was delivered
to a sample of the students to find out about their perceived
communicativeness and attitudes towards ELF.

Chapter 5, “Theoretical and practical implications”, includes a discussion of
the main findings reported in the previous chapter. It starts with a general
discussion, contrasting the results found in the analyzed ELF setting with
literature on other related areas such as World Englishes, Creoles, and
Learner Language. The author finds a certain degree of overlap between these
areas and her study, and claims that this is “due to the demands of functional
communication” (p. 150). Moreover, this degree of overlap is important in
strengthening the claim that ELF is not formally sui generis (as it has
sometimes been argued by some authors), as the features found in ELF are also
present in other forms of English. On the communicative dimension, Björkman
stresses the finding that questions are an important aspect of communication
in ELF, and that speakers do rely on more than one cue to make sense of them
(i.e. not just the syntactic structure, but also intonation). Regarding the
perceived communicativeness and attitudes towards ELF, the survey enabled the
author to map which non-standard features had the highest incomprehensibility,
on the one hand, and which ones produced more irritation, on the other.
Moreover, the survey also helped to reveal some key attitudes towards ELF.
Noticeably, some respondents reported negative appraisals of non-standard
forms if they were produced by their teachers or lecturers.

As per the theoretical implications of this study, the author discusses three
main strands: (1) the status of ELF, (2) norms and standards for speech, and
(3) good English. In this section of Chapter 5, Björkman tackles several of
the most-debated questions regarding ELF: Are speakers of ELF eternal language
learners, as opposed to native speakers?; Is ELF usage learner language?; Is
ELF a sui generis form?; What are the standards for speech?. Finally, a much
more general (but equally important) question briefly discussed here is: What
is good English?. Concerning this last question, the author argues that “the
notion of good English in ELF settings appears most strongly associated with
effectiveness, not with correctness or adherence to native speaker norms” (p.
178).

Regarding the practical implications, in light of the results from this study,
the author offers several suggestions that would be of significant help to
those needing to operate in an ELF setting, whether they be students,
lecturers, or other university staff. These suggestions revolve around one
core idea: raising awareness of ELF, particularly among those who need to
engage with it more actively. Specifically, the author addresses pragmatic
strategies to help teachers produce more effective lectures, and issues for
the language classroom, such as the design and development of pedagogical
materials.

Finally, Chapter 6, “Looking ahead”, concludes the monograph. In it, the
author first provides a summary of the study and what has been presented thus
far. She underlines what, according to her, has been the most important
contribution of the study: to help define the effective speaker and the notion
of communicativeness, with a particular emphasis in academic settings.
Björkman indeed succeeds in stressing the point that it is pragmatic ability,
not necessarily high (grammatical) proficiency, that makes a speaker
effective. She then discusses some implications of her study in relation to
the notion of the native speaker, arguing that in present times, being a
native speaker of a language does not necessarily yield having a position of
advantage vis à vis non-native speakers. In fact, according to her, it may be
a detrimental feature, and even more so if speakers’ degree of intercultural
awareness and awareness of ELF settings is rather low. Finally, she concludes
with further remarks in relation to the internationalization of higher
education and language policy making. In line with ELF academic work, Björkman
argues that ELF does not necessarily entail a threat to local languages and an
obstacle to multilingualism. In this sense, ELF is used in a complementary
fashion next to other linguistic resources, and therefore, it may actually
enhance plurilingualism. In this last section, the author discusses several
points from policy documents that are problematic, according to her. The book
is concluded with some final, optimistic remarks related to ELF and its future
scholarly developments.

EVALUATION

Considering its quality, the reviewed monograph constitutes an excellent piece
of work. It is very well organized, neatly presented, clearly written and is
smoothly developed from beginning to end. It is methodologically impeccable
and also constitutes a valuable addition to ELF scientific work. In this
sense, the book succeeds in attaining its main objectives. One of its foremost
strengths is the combination of methods that the author has used, both to
gather her data and to analyze it, which are clear indicators of the hard work
she invested.

In terms of content, I agree with the idea that, whether we like it or not,
English as a global language will maintain its centrality (a hyper-central
position, in terms of De Swaan 2001) in the foreseeable future. Indeed, it is
non-native English that is most likely to be found in today’s world. For this
reason, it makes a lot of sense to conduct detailed analyses of English in
contexts such as ELF. Moreover, I strongly sympathize with the notion that
these analyses are the necessary first step in raising awareness of such forms
of the language, and ultimately, legitimizing its use and its users.

However, seen from a more anthropological linguistic perspective, I think it
is necessary to combine such a linguistically focused analysis with a more
ethnographically informed approach (Rampton 2006). The fact that the author
collected her data by means of ethnographic tools (i.e. long hours of
participatory observation and recordings of those observed sessions) would
have allowed for that. Moreover, the language-ethnographic perspective also
requires giving more centrality to the question of diversity. In this sense,
given that ELF research strives to take into account the different
(linguistic) backgrounds with which speakers come to an interaction, it seems
arguable that a more prominent place be given to this fact. Indeed, we are
informed about the different languages and ethnic backgrounds of the speakers
in the investigated setting in Table 3.1 (p. 68), however, there is hardly any
more reference to that kind of diversity throughout the book. In my opinion,
this is a key issue, especially when trying to de-naturalize and
de-essentialize the English language and, in particular, the notion of the
native speaker. I think ELF is very well situated to make important
contributions in this area, particularly in relation to current debates in the
field of language and super-diversity (Blommaert and Rampton 2011). Scholars
in both fields (i.e. ELF, on the one hand, and language and super-diversity,
on the other) may disagree with me if I suggest that, in fact, I see both
lines of work as complementary and possibly feeding each other in a symbiotic
manner. Nevertheless, I do believe that if we are to provide potent holistic
analyses of our studied realities, this is the route to explore in order to
capture the complex interaction between language, communication, and society
(Bastardas-Boada 2013).

Another issue that seems underexplored relates to language attitudes and
ideologies of the speakers in the analyzed setting. It seems natural that this
is the case, as they occupy a secondary position in the author’s objectives,
but I would like to stress their importance and link it to one of the findings
reported in the monograph: the fact that “some of the respondents perceived
the non-standard forms as produced by the lecturers only and expressed
irritation although the survey was not about teachers’ production” (p. 158).
This result resonates with other recent studies conducted in a comparatively
similar context (Jensen et al. 2013) and may lead to important consequences
for lecturers, in particular, as well as for the general linguistic and
institutional environment. Jensen et al. (2013) find a strong correlation
between lecturers’ English skills and their general lecturing ability, as
reported by business students in teacher rating forms in Denmark. Although ELF
research shows that the notion of linguistic correctness is of less importance
in ELF settings, stereotypes and prejudices still seem to play an important
role, and the potential for downgrading lecturers’ general teaching skills is
of key relevance. This is also why research on ELF is of paramount
significance in demonstrating that communicative effectiveness, and not
(grammatical) correctness, is what needs to be emphasized. Yet again, the
crucial importance of language attitudes and ideologies and their potential
effects in people’s lives comes to the forefront of this discussion.

Another noteworthy topic revolves around the argument that ELF actually
fosters plurilingualism, rather than being an obstacle to it. On the contrary,
I believe it is receptive multilingualism (Rehbein, ten Thije and Verschik
2012) that favors a plurilingual context more decidedly. ELF may not be a
threat to multilingualism (House 2003) and may well be used as a complementary
resource by speakers of different linguistic backgrounds to aid their
communication (Seidlhofer 2011), but when ELF is present in an interaction,
other languages are not. Sure enough, speakers in ELF contexts use other
linguistic resources for meaningful purposes (Söderlundh 2012). Nevertheless,
it is precisely this playful use of other languages that makes ELF lead to
multilingualism. Possibly, receptive multilingualism presents a higher degree
of complexity and more difficulties for (effective) communication. However, a
couple of fundamental questions need to be asked here: What is effective
communication?; What makes a speaker an effective communicator? The answers
probably have to do with more than just conveying one’s thoughts and ideas
effectively. Björkman provides answers to these questions for the setting she
has investigated, but other contexts might require different pragmatic and
communicative strategies from the participants.

Finally, I am inclined to believe that historical and socioeconomic issues are
of relevance when producing analyses of English as used internationally. In
their recent essay, Block, Gray and Holborow (2012) clearly identify the links
between neoliberalism and applied linguistics. Additionally, Robert Phillipson
(2009) has been a leading scholar in debates around English as all but a
politically and economically neutral language. However, I would stress that I
do believe that English as a global language (i.e. ELF) is here to stay and
that we should equip ourselves with as much knowledge of it as possible. In my
opinion, these two views (i.e. ELF studies and historically and economically
situated analyses of English) are not necessarily antagonistic, but rather
complementary.

To conclude, all the points that I have raised for discussion in this latter
section constitute more general reflections for further thought rather than
shortcomings of the book under review. It is indeed a complex endeavor for a
single researcher to encompass all these different lines of investigation in a
monograph. I believe it is the task of interdisciplinary teams to work at
further levels and to produce multilayered studies, which are indeed
challenging in and of themselves. The reviewed monograph constitutes a
relevant contribution to ELF studies and is more than likely to become a key
reference in future developments of the field. Instructors of graduate courses
in sociolinguistics, English linguistics and/or English for Academic Purposes
will surely find it interesting to incorporate the book in their reading lists
and bibliography references.

REFERENCES

Bastardas-Boada, Albert. 2013. General linguistics and communication sciences:
Sociocomplexity as an integrative perspective. In Àngels Massip-Bonet and
Albert Bastardas-Boada (eds), Complexity perspectives on language,
communication and society, 151-173. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.

Block, David, John Gray & Marnie Holborow. 2012. Neoliberalism and applied
linguistics. London and New York: Routledge.

Blommaert, Jan & Ben Rampton. 2011. Language and superdiversity. Diversities
13(2). 1-21.

Cogo, Alessia & Martin Dewey. 2011. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A
corpus-driven investigation. London: Continuum.

De Swaan, Abraam. 2001. Words of the world. Cambridge: Polity Press.

House, Julianne. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to
multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4). 556-578.

Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and identity.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, Christian, Louise Denver, Inger M. Mees and Charlotte Werther. 2013.
Students’ attitudes to lecturers’ English in English-medium higher education
in Denmark. Nordic Journal of English Studies 13(1). 87-112.

Phillipson, Robert. 2009. Linguistic Imperialism Continued. London: Routledge.

Rampton, Ben. 2006. Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban
school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rehbein, Jochen, Jan ten Thije & Anna Verschik. 2012. Lingua Receptiva (LaRa)
– Remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International
Journal of Bilingualism 16(3). 248-264.

Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Söderlundh, Hedda. 2012. Global policies and local norms. Sociolinguistic
awareness and language choice at an international university. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 216. 87-109.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Josep Soler-Carbonell obtained his Ph.D. in Linguistics and Communication at
the University of Barcelona (2010) with a contrastive analysis of the
sociolinguistic situation in Estonia and Catalonia from the point of view of
speakers’ language ideologies. His main research interests gravitate around
the broad areas of sociolinguistics and language anthropology, language
ideologies, language and identity, language and media, and intercultural
communication. He now works as an Associate Professor at the Institute of
Communication, Tallinn University and as a postdoctoral research fellow at the
University of Tartu. In his current project, he investigates the role of
English as a global language in the internationalization of Estonian higher
education from both macro and micro perspectives.








----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-24-3240	
----------------------------------------------------------