Abstract
Much has been written on globalisation. It arouses different reactions in different people. Some regard it as an insidious way of penetration into cultures thus adopt a hostile attitude while others see it as an inescapable reality of modern times. This paper looks at the effects of globalisation in the area of English Language Teaching (ELT) with specific reference to Turkey. It begins with a conceptualization of the globalisation phenomenon in general. We then move to how it relates to linguistic concerns and its impact on how the English language is conceived. Here we deal with issues such as English as an international language (EIL), the question of ownership of such a language, the status of the native speaker as opposed to that of the non-native speaker of English, cultural content of ELT, appropriateness of methods and materials developed by Inner Circle for Turkish students. Where necessary, we refer to linguistic, cultural and teaching environment of English language teaching in Turkey, and the possible impact of the English language on the Turkish culture. In order to gain insights into the above mentioned issues in Turkish context, a questionnaire with ten open-ended questions has elicited teacher trainers’ perspectives working at ELT Departments of 12 different universities in Turkey. Additionally, 10 teacher trainers at Çukurova University have been interviewed. The paper presents the data together with pedagogical, ethical and methodological considerations that are suggested with reference to Turkish context.
Key words: globalisation & English Language Teaching (ELT) ,EIL, & the question of ownership of language.
Globalisation
Globalisation has been defined by Giddens (1990:64) as ‘the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa’. It is perceived in different ways, some tracing it back to the 15th century when Europeans began to map and colonize the world; others believe it began in the latter part of the 20th century. Some see it as an extension of an American imperialism while others reject the idea that globalisation is a question of Western dominance over ‘the rest’ (Block, 2004).
Globalisation, as a predominantly loan term from the science of economics, raises the interrelationship of economic (e.g. the impact of global capitalism over local financial institutions and business); political (e.g. the threat against national governance); and, most importantly, cultural (e.g. the effects of globalisation on the vivacity and viability of divergent cultures) issues. There are different interpretations of whether globalisation has beneficial or detrimental effects on these issues although there seems to be a consensus that language is intrinsic to this phenomenon as the primary means of human interaction (Block and Cameron, 2002).
For many the term globalisation is crucially linked with the rise of the English language (Yano, 2001; Salverda, 2002). It is not surprising therefore, in the light of the inseparable association established between English and globalisation, to hear this language referred to as world English, international English and global English. Globalisation and the ubiquity of English raise many questions for those active in language teaching such as “communication skills” taking on a new importance, languages being economic commodities and also led to an intellectual shift in applied linguistics that began in the 1990s. Anderson (2003) sees the publication of Linguistic Imperialism by Phillipson as its symbolic birth. To him, before this intellectual shift, there were certain unquestioned givens associated with the global spread of English produced and reproduced by professional organizations such as IATEFL and TESOL.
The first given sees English as a neutral vehicle of communication, an empty structural system that does not carry with it cultural, political and ideological baggage. It not only brings benefits in business, cultural exchanges, education and development to nation-states but can benefit individuals as they will have greater career opportunities. To Phillipson (1992), the global spread of English, particularly through English Language Teaching, is a part of linguistic imperialism. He argues that this is one of the ‘inflated claims’ about English and divorce ELT from political, social and cultural issues. Toh (2003) also argues that viewing ELT purely imparting a technical skill warrants scrutiny since it does not encourage learners and practitioners to ponder over implications concerning the presence of English and the claims about English.
According to the second given, the best teaching methods, materials and expertise come from countries in the Inner Circle. However, the transfer of pedagogic expertise and personnel from the developed English-speaking countries to other contexts is highly problematic according to Canagarajah, Pennycook and Phillipson especially when it comes under the banner of ‘technical assistance’ (Toh, 2003, p. 553). Cameron (2002) for example, argues that a discourse of ‘communication skills’ is being exported as something universal. In fact, it is originated in the USA and its interactional norms, genres and speech styles are socioculturally located. Block (2002) criticizes task-based language learning as the pedagogical outcome of McCommunication in which people are becoming progressively more Americanised, over-rationalised and dehumanised as seen in American chain of fast food restaurants.
Third, the ideal teacher is the English ‘native speaker’ from one of the English speaking countries. Therefore, educational institutions would benefit from employing these people. If this is not possible, the teacher should have ‘near-native’ oral competence in one of the standard varieties of these countries. Terming this ‘native speaker fallacy’, Phillipson (1992) argues that it aims to maintain relations of dominance by the Centre. It reinforces the linguistic norms of the Centre, creating an ideological dependence (p.199). In recent years, many ELT professionals have critiqued NS-NNS dichotomy for being more of a social construction than a linguistically based parameter. To move beyond this dichotomy, some scholars have employed the concept of ‘ownership’ (Widdowson, 1994). They take the view that speakers in the Outer Circle may appropriate English at the grammatical level for their own contexts, thus owning the language by altering it to suit their own local purposes, divorced from the norms of the centre. Taking a more critical perspective, Norton (1997) argues that learners claim ownership of a language if they can access the material and symbolic resources associated with knowing the language.
ELT in Turkey
English has always been an elite language, of benefit to the small middle classes and viewed as a prerequisite for access to the best educational opportunities (often abroad) and the most favoured professions, or top government positions in Turkey. Enormous resources are deployed by parents for their children to be educated in a foreign language despite the fact that most of the students are automatically excluded from realizing this dream by failing in one of the numerous exams they have to take. Although English has been introduced to 4th and 5th grades as a compulsory subject since 1997-1998, the pressure is so great that even these primary students are forced to take private courses in the hope that this will improve their chances of gaining access to an English-medium school. This struggle continues right up to the university entrance exam when students once more have to take private courses in a bid to obtain a place in one of the so-called “privileged” universities which supposedly guarantee their graduates a more prestigious position in life than regular universities can offer.
Behind such a huge enthusiasm for learning of English lie economic and political reasons. In Turkey, like in many other underdeveloped countries, the usual rationalization to promote English in the educational system is that we need scientific and technological development urgently. Since our own language is not developed enough to express highly sophisticated technical and scientific processes, the knowledge a major world language is a prerequisite for scientific and technological development.
Relation with the West, Europe in particular, has always been an important issue on the political agenda of Turkey. In fact, she looks at Europe as a deliberate choice of identity in foreign affairs. While Brussels is still dithering over Turkey’s request for full membership, Turkey anticipates joining the European Union soon. And if that ever happens, it is said that Turkey will need civil servants who are competent in English, which is on its way to becoming the most dominant official language of the Union. Therefore, learning English has been promoted wholeheartedly by successive Turkish governments.
The Study
The study elicited teacher trainers’ perspectives working at ELT Departments of 12 different universities in Turkey on issues such as
- English as an international language (EIL),
- the question of ownership of such a language,
- the status of the native speaker as opposed to that of the non-native speaker of English,
- cultural content of ELT,
- appropriateness of methods and materials developed by Inner Circle for Turkish students.
To do this, a twenty-two item Likert-scaled questionnaire was prepared by the researchers themselves. Before the actual administration of the questionnaire, it was piloted with the members of ELT Department, Çukurova University in order for the purposes of content and linguistic validity. On the basis of the feedback obtained, several modifications were done. The final version has been sent to the Universities through either e-mail or post. Teacher trainers at Çukurova University have been contacted personally.
In order to gain more insights into the responses given to the questionnaires, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten teacher trainers working at Çukurova University. All the interviews were taped and transcribed for data analysis purposes.
118 teacher trainers working at ELT Departments of 12 different universities in Turkey participated in the study. As seen Table 1 below, the ages of more than half of the participants ranged from 22 to 46, 19 were between 47-55 and only 4 were 56 and above. As for their teaching experience, 40 of the participants reported to have 11-22 years of teaching experience, 38 had 6-10 years, 19 had 23-30 years, 13 had 1-5 years, 3 had 31-40 years while only 2 had 41 years. Most of the teacher trainers participated (73) were females. Half of the participants reported having a master’s degree while 43 stated having a doctorate. Another 23 reported having only a bachelor’s degree.
Table 1. Participants
AGE |
EXPERIENCE |
GENDER |
LAST DEGREE RECEIVED |
22-35 |
36-46 |
47-55 |
56- |
1-5 |
6-10 |
11-22 |
23-30 |
31-40 |
41- |
M |
F |
BA |
MA |
PhD |
54 |
39 |
19 |
4 |
13 |
38 |
40 |
19 |
3 |
2 |
43 |
73 |
23 |
50 |
43 |
Findings
In this section, findings acquired from the questionnaires and interviews are presented. The results of the questionnaire were classified and analyzed under five headings:
- English as a global language
- Ownership of language
- Native speaker vs. non-native speaker
- Culture and Language
- Methods and materials
Thus, presentation of the findings obtained from the questionnaires will be done on the basis of this categorization, and findings obtained from the interviews will be presented to support the questionnaire data.
English as a global language
In this category, participating teacher trainers were asked 7 questions, two of which were added for content validity, therefore eliminated during analysis. These include questions such as “We need a global language”, “The rise of English in the world will continue.” The main purpose here is to elicit teachers’ perceptions as to the status of English at present and at the same time their predictions about the future of English in the world.
In response to the first question, all (only 2 of the teacher trainers disagreed) of the participants are of the opinion that English has become a global language (see Table 2 below). But when we asked if we need a global language, the number of disagreeing teacher trainers rises to 22 (18.8%). Yet, those who agree with the statement constitutes and overwhelming majority. As for the Item 4, participants seem to be uncertain since about 46% of them believe that there are drawbacks to having English as a global language while 47% of them disagree with the statement.
Table 2. English as a Global Language
One of those who thinks that there are drawbacks to having English as a global language claimed in the interviews that having a global language would cause a particular language and culture to lose its features. She stated
“We talk about language, culture, and thought. We believe that each has its own distinctive features. I believe if there is a global language then these differences will diminish and we will have only one culture, one life style, and one way of thinking. I personally do not want this because I think variety is richness.”
While one participant complained about the exaggerated and unconscious use of English in the Turkish context, another opined that having a global language, in this case English, constitutes a threat to the Turkish identity, language, and culture:
“I believe the use of English is exaggerated in our context. It was the same with French in the past….Some uneducated people are using it to show off.”
“I believe this is like a time bomb for Turkey. Interaction between cultures is inevitable. However, if this means the imposition of one culture on another then it constitutes a threat, especially for the underdeveloped countries like us….I feel so upset when I see that 70% of the shop names in the streets where wealthy people live are in English. Look at our students! They talk in the language of TV series and American movies. They have started to lose their own identity and language. Why hamburger? Why “elegant hairdresser”s?”
Ownership of language
Table 3 below presents the participants’ views about ownership of language, i.e. English. As for item 3, more than half of the participants (about 57%) claim that English is a neutral tool and nobody owns it anymore while about 41% of them think the opposite. Regarding item 4, the picture is much clearer as an overwhelming majority of the participants (about 82%) think that English does not belong to native English-speaking countries.
Findings acquired from the interviews seem to support this finding. Most teacher trainers interviewed stated that English is no longer the property of the inner world, but it has a status of world language. However, when asked if they themselves feel to own English they are cautious in saying that their own native language always has the priority and their ownership of English does not go beyond teaching it. The following extracts clearly illustrate this:
“English is no longer the property of the English speaking countries….It has now universal values. Does it belong to me? Yes and no. Yes, because I know this language and teach it. No, because it is not my property.”
“Nobody can deny the fact that English has gained the status of world language….My ownership of English has to do with the fact that I am a competent user of it, I adopt it as a profession and as a part of myself.”
“Everybody now speaks English. So they feel as if they owned the language. Though I teach English I still say long live Turkish as I never see English as an indispensable part of myself.”
Native speaker vs. non-native speaker
It is a common belief that having native English speakers as teachers makes the teaching program more attractive and of better quality. Thus, teacher trainers were also asked their views about the dichotomy of native speaker versus non-native speaker. Table 4 below presents their views. Concerning Item 5, a great majority (about 92%) claim to be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses in relation to native English-speaking teachers. As for Item 6 which asks whether or not they support hiring native English speaking teachers to come and teach alongside them, another overwhelming majority (about 80%) agrees.
Table 4. Native speaker vs. non-native speaker
Most of the teachers participated in the interviews also believe the necessity of employing native speakers in their university. They put forward various reasons for this. Some think that they might be good models in terms of speaking with the accurate pronunciation and accent. However, they are also cautious that not all the native speakers can be considered as eligible to work at the universities. They should be qualified in teaching English and also become involved in research. There is also a strong feeling of resentment that native English-speaking teachers are paid more than their Turkish counterparts.
Culture and language
Regarding the relationship between culture and language, the majority of teacher trainers (almost 89%) do not perceive culture existing independent of language. Almost half of the teachers point to the negative influence of English on the Turkish culture (49%) and language (49%) while the rest believes the opposite. The responses given to item 14 and 19 seem to be in line with their claims on the negative impact of English on the Turkish language and culture. A great majority of the participants (73%) think that English has no positive influence on the Turkish culture and another vast majority (71%) is of the opinion that English does not have any positive impact on the Turkish language.
Table 5. Culture and Language
The participants also emphasized in the interviews the negative influence of English on the Turkish language and culture as in the following:
“In 20 years or so, Turkish words will be replaced with the English ones.”
“This is how target culture penetrates into our own culture. This is what I term as cultural imperialism.”
“I am very disturbed by the fact that Turkish is being negatively influenced by such phrases as “hey dostum” (Hi mate!) and over use of “I love you” which is so unusual in our own culture. This is what I call the degeneration of our language and culture.”
However, one participant pointed out that the impact does not necessarily have to be negative. He stated
“I do not believe it has a negative influence on Turkish because I see it as an issue of diversity. One language can contribute to another by introducing new concepts. So it is a plus.”
Materials and methods
Concerning the participants’ views about the appropriateness of the materials and methods developed in native English-speaking countries, Table 6 below shows that more than half of the teacher trainers (57%) object to the use of materials produced in the native English-speaking countries.
Table 6. Materials and Methods
