Abstract

Language teaching methodology has been changing over a period of time. The teacher-centered approach is gradually giving way to learner-centered approach. However, even today in many classrooms, the teacher remains a donor of knowledge and corrector of learner errors. Students are required to memorize irrelevant and trivial details such as definitions of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. The goal of English language teaching in such classrooms is to develop meta-linguistic and literary competence in the learner. Accuracy is prioritized over confidence building, fluency, appropriateness and general communicative competence. Classroom practices emphasize rote learning and examinations test memory rather than understanding and use of the English language in real life situations. Consequently, several students develop fear complex, which in several cases leads to suicides. Therefore, there is an urgent need to rethink the objectives of teaching English as a second and foreign language. The present paper attempts to explain how it is imperative to place confidence building, fluency and appropriateness before accuracy, and narrates the author’s personal views on this issue.
 
Keywords: priorities, confidence, appropriateness, accuracy, fluency

Background: Before I tell you what I want to tell you
Just before the start of the new academic year, an organization called PACE hosted an annual seminar for teachers in New Delhi where hundreds of teachers and some well-known speakers participated in a brainstorming session. In the past only teachers were invited to this event. This year eminent speakers were invited to conduct interesting motivational sessions. In view of the disturbing trend of examination stress taking serious toll on student life, the organization collaborated with a well-known hospital named Apollo Hospital to present a talk to help teachers identify and address this grave issue. A famous medical consultant delivered a talk on “A teacher’s role in eliminating student stress”. 
   Tragically, examination time means suicide season. Recently, on a particular day at least six students across India committed suicide. Why did these youngsters commit suicide? The reasons were varied, but a common factor was classroom related and examination related stress. According to estimates, five thousand eight hundred fifty seven students committed suicide in 2006. This means that sixteen students committed suicide ever day. This is a hocking figure, which should prompt us to reflect upon the nature of interaction in our classrooms and the type of tests and examinations we have at the end of the year. 
   It seems that suicides or suicidal tendencies among students are related to pedagogical practices and examination patterns. There is evidence to suggest that suicides or suicidal attempts tend to skyrocket before examinations. In a study conducted in 2007 in New Delhi, it was found that three hundred students attempted suicides immediately before the commencement of the board examinations. The same study reported that seventy per cent or two thirds of students preparing for examinations showed symptoms of examination related disorders. This clearly indicates that there is something terribly wrong with the examination system, which determines classroom pedagogy to a large extent.  
   The board examination tests rote learning, putting tremendous pressure on students to memorize vast amounts of data such as definitions of parts of speech, rules for sentence formation, indirect narration, passive construction, and so on. As a result, students take ‘memory pills’. The point here is that the amount of detail expected to be studied at this stage of learning is entirely unnecessary and defeats any attempt at developing communicative and creative skills. I would like to bring to your notice that it is because of the examination system and patterns that most teachers dole out vast amounts of trivial and irrelevant detail. 
   Our school learning system does not make learning interesting or a pleasure. On the contrary, it tortures our children endlessly. Students are expected to master huge heaps of data presented in a dry fashion. Moreover, the context, which helps us form associations for memorizing, or more accurately, remembering things, is absent. Sadly, classroom methodology and examination patterns strike at children’s self worth and belief I themselves. Surprisingly, a teacher’s performance is evaluated on the basis of her students’ performance in the board examinations and not by her accomplishment in making students understand, let alone enjoy, what is being taught.    
   The malady of the present day scenario of English language teaching can be summed up in the following words: overemphasis on (1) rote learning of trivial and irrelevant data, (2) meta-linguistic and literary competence at the neglect of communicative competence, and (3) accuracy at the expense of fluency and appropriateness. Hence it is imperative to rethink the content, the methodology, and above all, the objectives of the English language education in Asia. It is in this context that I would like to discuss my priorities. 

Introduction: Let me tell you what I am going to tell you
When I was a school and college student, my English teachers would correct my grammar and spelling errors indefatigably. They would constantly bring home the point that accuracy was of top importance. Accordingly, I labored hard to perfect my spelling and grammar. Happily, my hard work paid dividends. Finally, I could spell words correctly, use punctuation adeptly, and produce sentences accurately. My teachers rewarded me with excellent grades and certificates, which I have preserved with great pride till date. Honestly, I am indebted to my teachers for my lexical, phonological and grammatical competence. However, later I realized that grammaticality alone was not sufficient.  The moment I started using English in real life situations, I found my grammatical competence embarrassingly inadequate to communicate effectively and efficiently. To my dismay, my bookish English occasionally made me a butt of ridicule.  On completing my Masters in English I was recruited as a lecturer in English in a college and began to deliver my wares. Gradually, I started sorting out my objectives of teaching English to my students. Subsequently, I laid down the agenda for myself: confidence building, fluency, appropriateness, and accuracy. As I gained more teaching experience, my adherence to this sequence strengthened. Thereafter, this intuitive claim got converted into a firm conviction when I started teaching in Vietnam. Since then I have made it my mission to enable my students to use English confidently, appropriately and accurately. The order is, of course, significant. Now let me take up these priorities one at a time. 

Discussion: Let me tell you
The first occupant on the agenda is confidence building. Let me start with my claim that most students in some Asian countries (especially in Japan) are diffident when it comes to using English. Understandably, the biggest challenge for a teacher of English in such countries is to help students overcome shyness, inhibitions and nervousness. As we know, in Asian countries English is either a foreign language or a second language. To use the well-known three-circle metaphor (Kachru, 1992), we do not belong to the inner circle; some of us are in the outer circle and some in the expanding circle. Most of us do not get opportunities to hear and speak English. Consequently, unlike people who fall within the inner circle, we are primarily visual learners, not auditory learners. Incidentally, I will be drawing my examples from Vietnam and Japan for two reasons. First, I have taught English to pre-service diplomats and sea- port officers in Vietnam for three years, and to pre-university and university students in Japan for the same length of period.

Secondly, unlike in India, in these countries English is a foreign language and exposure to English is very minimal. Families do not speak English at home; employees do not use English in the office, at the station, at the post office, and even at the airport, etc. The only place where English has some privilege is the English classroom. And even here teachers and students use Vietnamese, Japanese or whatever the native language is quite extensively. By the way, this is not to deny the facilitating impact of the use of the first language in an English class. In fact, I personally acknowledge and endorse the utility of bilingual technique in second and foreign language classes. Nevertheless, there is a difference between the use of the native language as a facilitating instrument and as an eclipsing substitute. If the teacher uses Japanese, for example, extensively, then s/he loses a potential opportunity to help students overcome inhibitions about English. The few occasions when learners have an opportunity to listen to some English are missed. Learners remain as shy at the exit level as they were at the entry level. Another reason why Asian students, for example, do not try to speak English is their constant fear of instant teacher correction. As teachers we need to understand and remember the importance of indirect and positive feedback. Clearly, such feedback has encouraging effect on the learners and instills confidence in them. In short, the first priority in such a situation is to make the learner feel comfortable with the language and eradicate the fear of making mistakes. Once the learner is at ease with the teacher and the language, half the battle is won. 
   In this context, I would like to share with you an interesting observation about Vietnamese learners. I have observed that most Vietnamese students learn a lot of English in karaoke centers. When they sing karaoke, their enunciation of English words is amazingly accurate. They can approximate American or British pronunciation incredibly perfectly. A karaoke is one place where they get rid of their nervousness. There is no teacher to correct pronunciation and grammar. They feel absolutely comfortable with their peers and try to emulate their favorite singers with unbelievably close approximation to the original articulation, rhythm, pitch and pace. 
I have always believed that learning how to speak English is similar to learning how to swim or how to ride a bicycle. I remember the day I first jumped into water to swim. I was scared of water and thought that I was going to drown; but gradually, I picked up confidence, gathered courage and began to move my arms and legs and was amazed at my progress in swimming. Speaking English is very similar to this. As you know, every big thing has a small beginning. The Ganges is a small stream at its origin in the Himalayas. Let our learners make a small beginning. Let them make mistakes. We need to break the ice, set the ball rolling. Only then can our students develop their English speaking skills. Let the learner take the initiative. This will not happen if the teacher explains rules of grammar and sentence structures in a mechanical and mindless manner. This will not happen as long as we teach English through Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean or Chinese, depriving our learners of invaluable opportunities of language practice in meaningful, relevant, realistic situations. This will not happen unless they themselves use the language in simulated situations. Can we become champion swimmers just by reading a dozen books on swimming? We want our learners to become expert swimmers, but we do not let them jump into the water. Instead, we spend hours after hours standing by the side of the swimming pool and explaining to them how to swim! How can our learners become confident Olympic swimmers if we do not let them walk into the pool? How can they become champion cyclists if we do not allow them to pick up the bicycle, ride it, fall and rise a few times and then pedal it away? Our job as teachers is just to support them when they first ride a bicycle, just to give the bicycle a push and leave it and let it go. Confidence results from falling off and getting up, not from continuous support from the teacher and parasitic dependence on the part of the learner. 
   Teachers can instill, sustain, and increase self-confidence in the learners in various ways. Dornyei (2001) lists five strategies to help our learners in this respect: 

• Teachers need to foster the view that competence is not a static condition but an ongoing process. Thus learners come to think that growth is gradual but sure.
• They need to provide regular experiences of success in the classroom.
• They need to give opportunities to the learners to contribute meaningfully. When students feel that they can contribute, they will feel more interested.
• They need to praise the learners for their contribution and their progress. An occasional word of encouragement will elevate their spirits and level of motivation. In this context, I would like to mention a custom prevalent among the citizens of Solomon Islands. They say that when these people want to cut a tree, they do not use any axe or saw to fell it; they gather around it and pelt curses and swear words. After a few days, the tree withers away and collapses. I think this custom has a lot to teach us.
• They need to make the classroom climate less stressful. Learning gains momentum when the classroom situation is relaxed, friendly and homely.

   Now let me say a few words about appropriateness. Let me begin with the example of Japanese, which is widely known as one of the most difficult languages to gain pragmatic competence in. Many learners complain that though they have vast amounts of Japanese vocabulary and grammar, they cannot communicate effectively with native speakers. Let us assume that one’s pronunciation is amazingly close to native accent and one’s grammar without blemishes. Are these two competencies enough to ensure effective communication? Impeccable enunciation and grammatically sound sentences are, no doubt, important. However, phonological and grammatical competence alone cannot guarantee effective communication. In order to communicate in an acceptable manner in various social and interpersonal situations we need more than mere clear accent and accurate grammar. Rules of grammar are necessary, but rules of use are essential. Let me cite some examples to substantiate the point.  
   Unfortunately, a certain gentleman’s friend lost his mother.  On hearing the sad news, he rushed to the bereaved friend to offer condolences. The following conversation is a transcript of what transpired between them: 

Mr. A: I’m greatly shocked by the news. I couldn’t believe my ears.
Mr. B: I’m deeply touched and overwhelmed by the spontaneous overflow   of your powerful feelings of sympathy. Let me reiterate, I left no stone unturned, but as luck would have it, the hand that rocked my cradle kicked the bucket one score days ago.  …. It was a nocturnal demise. 

   What do you think of Mr. B’s language? Would you describe it as living English or bookish English? I do not think you would expect this kind of English in a friendly conversation, would you? Let us examine Mr. B’s English. As you can see, its grammar is perfect and it is evidence of the idiomatic/lexical competence of the speaker. However, it is language without life in it. Let us analyze the utterances and talk about its highlights: 

• overwhelmed by the spontaneous overflow of your sympathy
• reiterate
• left no stone unturned
• as bad luck would have it
• the hand that rocked my cradle
• kicked the bucket
• one score days ago
• nocturnal demise

In normal circumstances, people would use the following expressions: 

• thanks for your feelings
• tell
• did whatever I cold
• unfortunately
• my mother
• passed away
• three weeks ago
• passed away at night/died in sleep

Mr. B’s English is too ornate to express a sense of loss of a dear one. Instead, he could have said: 
“I tried hard, but unfortunately I lost my mother three weeks ago. She passed way in sleep.” 
   I remember another example, which is an anecdote. One day a snuff (powdered tobacco taken into the nose by sniffing) addict was traveling by bus. After some time he got fidgety because he had left his snuff box at home. Luckily for him there was another snuff addict on the bus. He went over to the gentleman and said: 
“Excuse me, sir. Would you mind if I inserted my digital extremities into your concavity and take a pinch of pulverized tobacco, which, on entering my nasal cavity, will cause a tickling sensation and a blissful titillation in my olfactory organ.” 
What a circuitous and roundabout way of making a simple request! I am sure you find this English funny and frozen. Now, let us gloss the highlights: 

• digital extremities= finger tips
• pulverized tobacco= snuff; tobacco that is powdered into snuff
• nasal cavity= nose
• a tickling sensation and a blissful titillation= a sneeze and a feeling of relaxation that follows it
• olfactory organ= nose

The speaker could have said: 
“May I have a pinch of snuff, please?”  
   An extensive vocabulary can be a powerful writing and speaking tool; however, it can also be misused, made to make others feel powerless. I would never use a five-dollar or a “hyaku yen” word where a fifty-cent or a “ju yen” word will do the job just as well or even better. Do we really need utilize when a three-letter word, use, will nicely suffice. In everyday situations do we really need risible when laughable is at hand? Bovine spongiform encephalopathy is a perfect expression, but is it worth sending our listeners/readers to a specialized, technical dictionary when we can express the idea through mad cow disease? It's an important question that we need to ask ourselves. On the other hand, we should not cheat our readers out of some important nuance of meaning that we have discovered in a word that is new to us. At some time we have to assume that our readers also have dictionaries. It's sometimes a tough line to draw—between being a pedantic, pretentious boor (Oh, there are three dandies!) and being a writer who can take full and efficient advantage of the multifarious (another one!) resources of the English language. As someone has said, the finest language is mostly made up of simple and unimposing words. There is no need to use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice. 
   The above illustrations throw light on the fundamental differences between living English and bookish English. The latter does not consider the factors (such as speaker-listener relationship characterized by ‘solidarity principle’ and ‘power principle’, formal and informal nature of the occasion, etc.) that influence the choice of words and sentence types. On the other hand, living and appropriate English does take these factors into account. It is sensitive to the nature of occasion, speaker-hearer relationship, and topic. An informal, friendly interaction requires simple, easily decipherable English. Intimate relationship between speaker and hearer demands short sentences and simple words. An everyday topic needs non-technical, monosyllabic vocabulary. In other words, the degree of formality of English depends on the extent of formality of topic, occasion and speaker-hearer relationship. Any mismatch might lead to either humor or bitter feelings. Thus when we speak, we are all the time making choices at lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic levels. As teachers of English we need to sensitize our learners to the norms of appropriateness and acceptability of vocabulary, grammar, style and tone in various situations. Young learners learning a second or foreign language not only need to understand the grammar of the language but they also must learn language socialization. Learning how to speak, how to use different styles of communication in different contexts (casual, formal, etc.) is as important as, or perhaps more important than, learning the rules of grammar and spellings of words.  
   Finally, let us talk about accuracy. Let me make it clear what I mean by the term. When people talk about accuracy they usually think of it in terms of external norms- norms of British English, American English, and Australian English. They want their learners to emulate the so-called native accent in terms of minute but details such as (1) the deletion of the /r/ sound in words that appear in front of words beginning with consonantal sounds, and (2) aspiration of the /p/, /k/ and /t/ sounds. You will bear me out that these phonological nuances are communicatively irrelevant for a foreign or second language learner. They may be relevant to a learner who is aspiring to be an international pilot or an intelligence service worker. However, this does not mean that we can speak and write the way we want. Undeniably, there are aspects of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary, which need to be mastered for comfortable intelligibility. We Asians do not need to speak like the Americans and the Australians; but need to be understood by the Americans and Australians and indeed by fellow Asians. 
   We can talk about accuracy with reference to three broad categories: pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. As I mentioned earlier, I will draw examples from my experience of teaching English to Vietnamese, Japanese and Arab students.  
   Evidently, one major problem area for these students is accent. For example, most Vietnamese and Japanese learners do not articulate words clearly. Vietnamese learners tend to drop word-final sounds. For instance, they will pronounce the italicized words in the following sentence almost identically, as if they were homophones: 
“Mr. Nguyen, why (/wai/) doesn’t your wife (/wai/) try white (/wai/) wine (/wai/)?” 
   Whereas omission is a major problem with Vietnamese learners, substitution is a big problem with Japanese learners. For instance, there is a strong tendency among Japanese learners to replace  /r/ with /l/, /v/ with /b/ and /f/ with /h/. As a result, it is very difficult to distinguish, for example, between “This is a grass house.” and “This is a glass house.” An Arab learner’s problems are substitution and insertion of extra sounds. So, “pill” is articulated as “bill” and “text: is pronounced as “tekist”. The pronunciation problems of the three groups of learners can be summarily illustrated with the help of the following single example: 
“I’m going to dine with six friends. We’ll have a pot of fried rice each.” 
An Arab learner will most probably say:
“I’m going to dine with sikis friends. We’ll have a boat of fried rice each.”
A Vietnamese learner will tend to say:
“I’m going to die with sick friends. We’ll have a pot of rice each.”
A Japanese learner will likely say:
“I’m going to dine with six hriends. We’ll have a pot of flied lice each.” 
   Another area is vocabulary. One case in point is the use of “come” and “go” in Vietnamese variety of English. In standard variety of English, “go” means moving to a place that is far from the speaker and the listener and “come” means moving to a place that is nearer to the hearer. For example, a student may say to his teacher: “May I come in, Sir?” and “Sir, may I go home now?” In the first case, the student is moving nearer to the teacher; in the second case, the student wants to move away from the teacher. This is the normal use in English. But, in Vietnamese variety of English, the use is reversed. The student usually says to the teacher who is in school with him, “Excuse me, Sir, I cannot go to school tomorrow. May I come back home now?” (Patil, 2002, pp. 14-16). Japanese speakers of English also tend to use these two verbs with reverse meanings 
   Let us look at one more example. Like the words “come” and “go” Vietnamese students use the words “bring” and “take” in a reverse way. In British English when I bring something I carry it from another place to the place where the hearer is. Similarly, when I take something, I take it from where the hearer and I are to another place.  But Vietnamese students use the two words in an exactly opposite way. As a teacher I often heard my students say: “Excuse me, teacher, I don’t have this book at home. Can I bring it for a week, please?” and “I’m sorry, teacher, I forgot to take the book that I brought from you last week I’ll take it tomorrow.” Now, the important point here is: how do these readers interpret “come” and “go” and “bring” and “take” when they encounter them in a reading passage? Do they interpret them the English way or the Vietnamese way? My experience is that elementary and intermediate level Vietnamese learners of English interpret these words the Vietnamese way. They need to be told time and again that the usual meanings of “come” and “go” and “bring” and “take” are different.   
   Let us move on to grammar now.  Here, mother tongue interference seems to be a major stumbling block.  For example, Arabic does not have copula verb and so many Arab learners of English produce utterances such as “I student of Sultan Qaboos University Language Center.” Vietnamese does not have relative pronouns; as a result, we encounter sentences such as “There are many children don’t go to school.” Japanese word order is subject + object + verb, and nouns do not have plural forms; consequently, we hear utterances like “I vegetable bought.”  
   However, I think these grammar mistakes do not bother me so much as the pronunciation errors do. From the communication point of view it does not matter much whether the foreign language learner says, “I TV watch.” or “I watch TV”;  “I have two book” or “I have two books.”   “This is a girl beautiful.” or “This is a beautiful girl.” Communication is not affected in any serious way. But, there is certainly a communication problem when a Vietnamese learner wants to say he is going to dine, but says he is going to die; a Japanese learner wants to say he has got just two books, but says he has got just two bucks, and an Arab learner wants to say he bought a pear but says he bought a bear.  

Conclusion: Let me tell you what I have told you
Before I conclude, let me record that the horizontal global spread of English and its vertical societal percolation is significantly altering its cultural composition. The language has been acquiring new formal properties and functional roles to be able to carry the connotations of its new cultural habitats. As a result, this formal proliferation and functional diversification has been spurring scholars to challenge the traditional models and constructs, which have underpinned and informed the teaching of English for several decades. Consequently, the illusion that the English language is a monolithic entity is being interrogated.

The framework that positions the native speaker at the center and the non-native speaker on the periphery is going short of subscribers today. The notions that traditional varieties are donors of norms to the new varieties, and that the latter are parasites of the former, will soon be things of the past. The utility (or futility?) of imported teaching materials is being questioned. The classroom practice that required the learner to emulate the native speaker is no longer in general use. In fact, with an increased understanding of the sociolinguistic realities and resultant reorientation of perspectives, a whole set of paradigms is going out of fashion, because not only are they inappropriate, they are also counter-productive. I agree with Honna and Takeshita’s (1998) view that Japan’s unrealistic goal has resulted into negative attitude to non-native varieties of English, linguistic inferiority complex, slow learning pace, and high failure rate. Evaluated against this background, Asia’s current English teaching goals to transform its learners into speakers of American or British English fly in the face of pragmatism. Such goals are unrealistic unless we are training prospective air traffic controllers, pilots, and candidates for intelligence services. Instead, average learners would be satisfied with comfortable intelligibility of an easily understandable accent.  
   All this implies that the onus of giving added impetus to the process set in motion by journals like World Englishes and Asian Englishes lies with all of us. Admittedly, we need to do something about the still lingering propensity of the non-native speaker for native speaker English, and stop imposing foreign models on our learners, because it is the standard regional variety of English that most people in the region will want to use. Promoting our own respective standardized varieties of English as models for teaching and testing purposes should not be hard for we Asian teachers of English, because (i) many of us are in influential decision-making positions, and (ii) we are responsible for syllabus designing, materials production, teaching and evaluation. We know it better than anyone else that imported teaching materials with alien contexts, characters, cultural values, and assumptions are unsuitable, and traditional varieties of English as teaching and testing models are inappropriate for Asian learners (see Moritoshi 2001). No doubt, Asian speakers must develop a fluency in educated English, but we do not need native–speaker pronunciation as our target.

I would say it is as undesirable as it is unnecessary to expect Asian learners to emulate exact native—speaker accent. In contrast, we should train our learners to be educated speakers of their respective standardized regional variety. For example, I would be the last person to recommend spending large chunks of time on the teaching of aspiration, and weak forms, which characterize Received Pronunciation. Instead, I would suggest we spend more time on eradicating the confusion between /r/ and /l/ (leading to confusion between “room” and “loom”, “grass house” and “glass house”), and /f/ and /h/ (resulting in confusion between “child food” and “childhood”) which characterizes untutored variety of Japanese English and learner inter-language. In fact, adopting this perspective will lighten our learners’ unnecessary burden of emulating the native speaker and will place them in a comfortable position. This view is already corroborated by Honna, et al’s (cited in McMurray 2001) observation that Japanese students are happy with a standard Japanese accent of English.  
   Let me now summarize my views on how I have prioritized the objectives of teaching English as a second/foreign language. My general aim has always been to enable my learners to speak, read and write English fluently. To achieve this goal, I have to take them up the communication ladder. To make the climbing easy and comfortable I have to create opportunities for them to use English in meaningful, realistic, relevant situations. Games, role play activities, information gap tasks, brain storming exercises, riddles, puzzles, cartoons, anecdotes, jokes, songs, and other low-cost and easily available teaching materials come handy. Learners enjoy toying with the language, experimenting with it and gradually but surely feel confident and comfortable with the language. Once they have got rid of fear complex, they try to use English creatively. Since they are not scared of making mistakes, they try to use as much language as they can and in due course of time pick up more vocabulary and structures. Occasionally, I administer certain activities, which sensitize them to situational, social and interpersonal appropriateness and acceptability. I do not mind using examples from their native language. For example, how would they say “good morning” in Japanese to their classmates and to the principal of their school? Will they say, “Ohayo Gozaimasu” to their classmates and “Ohayo” to the principal? Will they say “Domo” (Thanks) to their teachers and “Domo Arigato Gozaimasu” (Thank you very much) to their schoolmates on the occasion of graduation ceremony? I think we should inculcate in our learners this sense of linguistic, paralinguistic and social appropriateness before we burden with doses of grammar. To sum up, we need to set our priorities right: confidence, appropriateness, and correctness, all contributing to general fluency. Of course, this cannot happen unless we change examination patterns and accord priority to confidence and communication skills over grades, marks and grade points.  
  
 
References
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. England: Pearson Education.

Honna, N. and Takeshita, Y. (1998). On Japan’s propensity for native speaker English: A change in sight. Asian Englishes,1(1). Retrieved November 4, 2005 from http://ww.alc.co.jp/asian-e/ honna.html

Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1-14.

McMurray, D. (2001). New Englishes of Asia. The Language Teacher Online. Retrieved October 17, 2005 from
http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2001/11/mcmurray/

Moritoshi, P. (2001). Perspectives on the role of English as an international language.” Retrieved October 17, 2005, from
http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/moritoshi6.pdf

Patil, Z. N. (2002). Spoken English for Vietnamese learners. Hanoi: The World Publishers.