The Role of English in the World and in the University

1. The Role of English in the World and in the University Juliane Housejhouse@uni-hamburg.dehttp://www.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-einrichtungen/sfb538/

2. 1. English as a global linguafranca • Functionalflexibility, global spreadovermanydomainsoflanguageuse, opennessforforeignforms, definingfeature: variation • Decreasinginfluenceof „innercircle“ native speakersasguardiansof a hegemonicvariety • English as a linguafranca (ELF) is not a languageforspecificpurposes, pidginorcreolelanguage, „foreigner talk“ orlearnerlanguage

3. The multilingual individual andits „multicompetence“ asbehavioral norm (Cook 1993) • Oftensimultaneousactivationof L1(s) and ELF (Grosjean 2001) • ELF as a languageforcommunication (House 2003) • Differencebetweenlanguageforcommunicationandlanguage(s) foridentification (L1s)

4. 2. ELF viewed from four perspectives(1) The socio-political and socio-cultural perspective • Why English? David Crystal‘s (1997) explanation: Former British empire, present day US global power, increasing technology-driven need for international communication, preference for a „neutral ground“ in multilingual countries (?) • Preference for a „simple code?“ (Spielmann 2007)

5. ELF as Threat, Killer Language, Agent in the service of Linguistic Imperialism? • Voluntaryuseof ELF aslanguagewithwidestcommunicativerangeand ‚linguisticcapital‘ • Subjectivelyfeltdifferencebetweenlanguageforcommunicationandlanguagesforidentification • ELF=languageforcommunication, L1(s):language(s) foridentification. NO competition, supplementeachother, NOT an Either-Or Situation. • ELF speakersacceptbeing non-native speakersof English (House and Kasper 2000)

6. “Linguistic Human Rights” ? ELF speakers know what they’re doing when they choose to use ELF “Alas, what decides is not the right of human beings to speak whatever language they wish, but the freedom of everybody else to ignore what they say in the language of their choice.” (de Swaan: 2001:52)

7. (2) The Linguistic Perspective • Main argumentagainst ELF: Disadvantageof non-native speakers („reducedpersonality“) • Resultsofempiricaldiscoursestudiesofeverydayandinstitutional ELF interactionscontradictthisclaim (e.g. Firth 1996; 2009; House 2002, 2009; 2010) • Existing power relations in institutional ELF talk not affectedbylow ELF competence (House & Lévy-Tödter 2010)

8. Veryfewmisunderstandingsandrepairs (stark contrastto native/non-native interactions) • Tolerant “Let-it-Pass“ behaviour, „Robustness“ and „Normality“ (Firth 1996) of ELF talk • Strategic useofdiscoursemarkersanddiscoursestrategies (House 2009; 2010)

9. The Hamburg ELF ProjectData Basis • Interactions in L1 English • Interactions between L1 English speakers and ELF speakers • ELF interactions between speakers of different L1s • Retrospective interviews for collaborative interpretation

10. Results: • Confirmationofpreviousfindingsof ELF research • Fourfurther ELF characteristics:

11. 1. Transfer of L1 Discourse Conventions • Examples: Asian ELF speakers‘ tendencytowardscyclicaltopicmanagement. Result: Non-sequiturturns. Thisisignoredbyotherparticipants: Discourseremains „normal“ and „robust“ • German ELF users‘ tendencytowardsdirectness in requesting, suggesting, complainingmoves: discourseparticipantsignorethis,too.

12. 2. Frequency of Multi-functional Gambit „Represent“ • (Parts of) previous speaker‘s moves tend to be “re-presented“ - Why? • Supports working memory in comprehension and production • Creates coherence (construction of lexical-paradigmatic clusters) • Signals receipt, confirms understanding • Functions as meta-communicative procedure, thus strengthening awareness

13. Represents (“echo-, “mirror- or “shadow elements“ ) typical of psycho-therapeutic interviews, instructional- and aircraft control discourse, where information is deliberately restated to create coherence and ensure understanding • ELF speakers‘ imitation of this convention is proof of their well-developed strategic competence

14. 3. Solidarity and consensus via co-con-construction of utterances • Demonstration ofconsensus in thefaceof multiple culturaldifferencesleadstofeelingofcommunityandgroupidentity • ELF asegalitariantool („Weare all in the same boat“). Speakersexplicitlysupporteachother, payeachothercompliments („My English is I thinkverybad“----“Nono, it’smuchbetterthanmine!“.)

15. Data Excerpt Mau: I think it begins erm of course with the colonialism I think too because the history of this development how the language in the very early period erm (3 sec) Joy: Build up this basis Mau: Yes Joy: To be a world language Mau: Yes

16. 4. Strategically modified use of discourse marker "you know" You know used in ELF talk as a routinized self-serving speaker strategy to a. make salient coherence relations b. to “fumble” for words NOT as a polite hedge or a sociocentric expression appealing to knowledge shared with addressees

17. CONCLUSION • ELF users‘ strategiccompetenceisintact: Theycancarry out meaningful, normal discourse. Noreducedpersonalitysyndrom! ELF issimply a usefultoolwhenevernoothercommonlanguageisavailable.

18. Another argument against ELF: It „contaminates“ other languages • This argument can be relativised on the basis of the results of another empirical research project

19. Project “Covert Translation“ German Science Foundation Research Center on Multilingualism (Sonderforschungsbereich Mehrsprachigkeit) • Intitial Hypothesis: Due to ELF‘s global status and massive uni-directional translations from English, ELF influences – over and above lexical invasions – communicative norms in other languages via translations

20. English Indirectness Orientation towards persons Implicitness Verbal routines interactional involved German Directness Orientation towards content Explicitness Ad-hoc-Formulation transactional detached Communicative Styles English – German(House 2006a,b) Imitation Change English Indirectness Orientation towards persons Implicitness Verbal routines interactional involved

21. Corpus • English-German originals and translations (French and Spanish control texts) • Popular Science Texts • Scientific American,New Scientist and their satellite journals • Micro-diachronic: 1978-1982; 1999-2002 • 500 000 Words • Economic Texts • Annual reports by internationally operating companies • Letters to shareholders, Missions, Visions, Corporate statements • Reverse Translation Relation: German-English, French/Spanish-English • 130 000 Words

22. Method • Combination of qualitative and quantitative methods • Qualitative: House Translation Evaluation Model • Quantitative: Frequency Counts • Renewed re-contextualized qualitative analysis

23. Overall results of project: Increased frequency of certain means of realising Subjectivity and Addressee orientation in German translation and original German texts over past 25 years (differently) in popular science and economic texts, e.g. - Speaker-hearer deixis - Modality - Connectivity (Baumgarten et al 2004; House & Rehbein 2004; Becher et al 2009; Kranich et al in press)

24. Interpretation • Did communicative norms change because of direct contact with English in translation? • No mono-causal interpretation of results, in some cases, originals change more than translations. At least three explanations:

25. 1. The Booh-Faktor: Translation as Mediator of the English Take-over Translation EFFECTS change! 2. The X-Faktor: Universal Impact of Globalisation: Translation reflector of change, not instigator thereof Translation REFLECTS change! 3. The Green Factor: Translation as cultural conservation Translation RESISTS change!

26. (3) Psycholinguistic Perspective (Linguistic Relativity) • Claims thatmasssiveongoingimportof English lexisandroutinesinfluencesthinkingandconceptformation in L1 iscompatiblewith strong Humboldt-Sapir-WhorfHypothesis • Accordingly, L1 speakers‘ thinkingisexposedto „actsoforganizedviolence“ because ELF damagestheir L1- mediatedknowledge

27. This strong linguisticrelativityhypothesisisrefutedforat least threereasons: 1. The universal possibility of translation (Jakobson 1966) 2. Languages in use are „anachronisms“: their forms do not normally rise to our consciousness (Ortega y Gasset 1960) 3. Converging evidence suggests that multilinguals possess a „deep“ (partially) common conceptual store to which „lower level“ language-specific systems are attached ( Paradis 2004)

28. Neurolinguistic studies of translation (e.g. Price et al 1999) show that multilinguals move flexibly from L1 to L2, and vice versa: the two systems are distinct but permeable. • No proof of a direct link of only one particular language to thinking and conceptualizing. • Consequence: Increased use of ELF as language at e.g. tertiary levels do not necessarily inhibit knowledge in students‘ indigenous language(s).

29. (4) Pedagogic Perspectives • English as medium of instruction in non-anglophone universities: Dangerous for L1s?  Tendency presently away from “English only” towards increased instruction in national languages alongside or following instruction in English only (Motz 2005; Priegnitz 2007; Soltau 2007)

30. English in German Universities • Presently: 926 international study programs featuring English as sole or predominant medium of instruction • Of these: 84 Bachelor programs • 563 Master programs • 279 Doctoral programs • In all subjects, though fewer in Humanities • More than doubled in the last 4 years; tendency rising!

31. Reasons for Popularity of English • Instrumental relevance: perceived practical future relevance for life outside educational institutions is major motive: broad range of potential applications • Results of analysis of subjective theories (Edmondson and House 2002): generally positive orientation towards English at all levels, often based on own communicative experiences

32. Importance of the ‘Language Factor’ • According to Soltau (2007): for majority of students in international programs English is a Must, only 3.6% of students would have applied if instruction were in German • Perceived importance of English as most important language of science, main medium for international recognition • English language competence of instructors often not sufficient

33. Perceived Usefulness of English • English perceived as culturally neutral: Cultural-irrelevance hypothesis for ELF as medium of instruction in universities • Native English speakers still “admired” but no longer seen as guardians of an intimidatingly superior standard • Not all English or ELF varieties are perceived as equal. Some seen as more equal than others.

34. Suggestions for Quality Assurance in English medium instruction • Development of locally valid entrance tests following critical comprehensive review of TOEFL, IELTS, Cambridge international tests (cf. MuMiS Project Siegen, Kassel, Hamburg) • Need: Improve quality of instructors’ competence in ELF through on-site linguistic assistance (cf. MuMiS) • Need: Intensive German courses tailored to needs of international students in German language environment.

35. Thank you for your attention!