Vietnamese Teachersʼ and Studentsʼ Perceptions of Global English

Recently, recommendations have been made to move beyond the native speaker model as a sole target in English language instruction. However, the orientation for this shift is debatable. Whose English should be the target for instruction in international contexts such as Vietnam? This paper reports a study which documents Vietnamese students’ and teachers’ views about the kind of English they prefer to learn and teach. The findings show that the students and teachers believe students use English more with non-native speakers (NNS) than with native speakers (NS) outside the classroom, but British and American English tend to be the preferred models, at least in the classroom. There is no simple answer to what kind of English will be useful in Vietnam in the future, though focusing on British and American English in the classroom and encouraging learners to explore other varieties of English outside the classroom can be one suggestion. The globalization of English has raised questions concerning a potential change of its ownership: Who actually owns English? Whose English must be adopted as the model for international communication? Does speaking and writing good English necessarily entail espousing the norm of the NS, e.g., the British or the American? Is the NS norm still valid? If not, then what norms should be the primary target for English language instruction such as in Vietnam? For the past decade, recommendations have been made for teachers, learners, and all users of English to move beyond the NS model as the sole target in English language instruction and global communication (Jenkins, 2000, 2006; McKay, 2002; Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001). However, this shift is debatable. Without deep knowledge of learners’ and teachers’ motivations, expectations, and aspirations regarding teaching and learning English in specific contexts, it would be challenging to propose any model of English that learners in specific contexts of the world perceive as useful for themselves. Language Education in Asia, 2010, 1(1), 48-61. http://dx.doi. org/10.5746/LEiA/10/V1/A05/Ton_Pham Language Education in Asia, Volume 1, 2010 Ton and Pham Page 49 This paper first raises the issue of NS norms as a desired goal for instruction in the international context, then gives a glimpse of English language education in Vietnam. The paper continues to report some findings of a larger study which documents Vietnamese students’ and teachers’ views about NS norms. Based on the results of the study, some conclusions and recommendations are offered. Literature Review The challenged native speaker norm. It has been assumed that effective communication in English involves speaking and writing correctly, precisely, and appropriately within a model set by the ideal NS (Quirk, 1985). However, the use of English has now extended beyond NS-NNS interaction to encompass very extensive NNS-NNS interaction in many international contexts. Only one out of every four users of English in the world is a NS of English (Crystal, 2003), and the vast majority of communication in English does not involve any NSs of the language (Graddol, 1997). Kachru (1992) has classified the varieties of English around the world into three categories: those in the “inner circle,” the “outer circle,” and the “expanding circle. ” Studies estimate that both the inner and outer (ESL) circle societies have 375 million users of English and the expanding (EFL) circle has 750 million to one billion (McArthur, 2001). A number of scholars (Jenkins, 2000, 2006; Byram, 1997; Davies, Hamp-Lyons, & Kemp, 2003; McKay, 2002; Brutt-Griffler, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001) have questioned the appropriateness and validity of the NS norm. They argue that while English is spoken as the mother tongue language in only a small number of countries such as the USA, the UK, and Australia, it is unreasonable to expect learners of English in vast areas of the world to speak, write, and be judged according to NS conventions. For example, Byram (1997) and Seidlhofer (2001) find the NS model problematic, arguing that this model implies foreign language learners should ignore their social identities and cultural competence in intercultural interaction. For the past decade, the notions of World Englishes (WE), English as an International Language (EIL), and more recently, English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) have been proposed and discussed in the fields of TESOL and applied linguistics (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2001). While WE and EIL have been generally used as cover terms referring to the use of English in any part of the world, ELF has been recently used to refer to the use of English as a means of communication among people from different language backgrounds (Seidlhofer, 2005). The problem, however, is that EIL, ELF, or WE can be very abstract notions (Tarone, 2004; Matsuda, 2002; Pham, 2006). What is the actual nature of EIL or ELF? What variety of English has truly become international and the preferred model of students, teachers, or those who use it in their specific contexts? It can be argued that conceptions of the nature of EIL, as well as recommendations for the model of teaching EIL, are often based on the political concerns, assumptions, beliefs, and even feelings of a number of scholars, rather than on data-driven notions informing the perceptions of those involved in teaching and learning English in specific geographic and social settings across the world (Maley, 2009; Timmis, 2002). Although some attempts have been made to take into account the attitudes of teachers and students to ELF in many parts of the world (e.g., Jenkins, 2007), it seems that the scholars who promote EIL tend to promote it for all learners of English, while perhaps lacking a deep understanding of the dynamics of the particular contexts in which the language is used. This, as Taylor (2006) points out, could lead to “a patronizing approach towards learners’ and teachers’ motivations, expectations, and aspirations about the models they perceive as useful – whether this relates to ‘standard’ or ‘non-standard’” (p. 51). Therefore, investigation into the motivations, expectations, and aspirations of students and teachers regarding learning and teaching English in specific contexts