Opinion and Perspective
Learner Preferences for Fluency inInner Circle English Varieties
Roehl Sybing
Nanzan Junior College
Within EFL education, debates over language ownership and linguistic
imperialism have grown in prominence as global influence gradually shifts awayfrom native-speaking (NS) Western cultures towards new centers of political,
economic and cultural power in non-native-speaking (NNS) contexts. Thisevolving dynamic has fostered a wider variety of opportunities for NNS users tointeract in English among other NNS users. Indeed, now that English has been
established as the lingua franca of business and diplomacy between disparate
cultures and societies, its continued role in NNS contexts is questioned, giving
rise to a debate about the concept of English as an international language (EIL).
As English has undoubtedly grown into an international language, scholars
must also consider to what degree EFL education in NNS contexts should still
focus on English as an Inner Circle (IC) language. A question still relevant toeducators is whether the purpose of EFL education is simply to internationalize
learners, or also to provide access to NS culture and interaction with native
speakers. This article asserts that both purposes are valid in the context oflanguage acquisition, and that neither necessarily conflicts with the goals of
language learners, especially if both their needs and aspirations are taken into
consideration. As a result, a language education policy that accommodates both
EIL-oriented EFL education and EFL education for NS purposes has the greatest
potential to serve all NNS learners.
After outlining the historical context of EFL education with regards to168

Learner Preferences for Fluency, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 168-179

IC and NNS norms, I will highlight the role IC English should still play in
EFL education, as well as the need to balance traditional norms in language
education to accommodate NNS English varieties. Such imperatives can only
compel educators to examine how comprehensively the assumptions andaspirations that learners bring to the classroom should be reflected in decisions
concerning classroom pedagogy and language policy with respect to appropriate
representations of English varieties in curriculum planning, materials writing andteacher influence.

The varieties of English debate
Kachru (1992) was among the first academics to articulate the concept of World
Englishes, in which NS dialects such as American English and British English
are challenged by NNS varieties developing in the so-called Outer Circle
and Expanding Circle countries for language ownership and prestige. These
relatively new English varieties develop in NNS contexts, partially or completely
independent of influence from NS countries (termed by Kachru as the Inner
Circle), and differ from NS varieties in pronunciation, vocabulary, and evenpragmatics, according to the norms in those contexts. As a result, NNS varieties(such as Indian English and Singaporean English) are increasingly considered asvalid and acceptable as more established NS varieties. The proliferation of NNS
varieties has prompted academics to question the appropriateness of conventional
norms in EFL education, which has long focused on NS varieties as models of
instruction, when it is predicted that NNS learners are less likely to encountersuch varieties outside of the classroom.
Conventional EFL education in many NNS contexts is largely seen as a
product of Cold War-era Western foreign policy, as countries like the UnitedStates (but the United States in particular) employed foreign aid as a means to
spread Western culture and, by extension, ideology (Vlahos, 1991). This influence
has since become apparent in language education as English became synonymouswith globalization, or at least modernization. In the mid-twentieth century, forexample, schools in Japan used textbooks whose aims, beyond the teaching ofEnglish, seemed to include reinforcing notions that equated the Western way
169Sybingof life (fluency in English being an implied prerequisite) with prosperity andmodernity (Horibe, 2008). Such materials place prestige on NS varieties, which
Modiano (2001) and Matsuda (2003) assert foster a worldview among learners
that suggests NNS varieties have less value than NS varieties, or that speakers who
do not emulate NS fluency are less capable of international communication.
While globalization has provided NNS users with opportunities to interact
with the rest of the world, it has also given Western powers greater opportunities
to perpetuate their cultures beyond their borders. Pennycook (1994) makes noteof the spread of English-speaking mass media in NNS countries, which in turnhas influenced the spread of English in general and the continued proliferationof NS English in particular. This has been seen in EIL circles as a double-edged
sword; the former has helped to promote a lingua franca in the modern era,
while the latter is said to skew an ostensibly international community of English
speakers toward Western-centric perspectives at the expense of belief systems
held in NNS cultures.
As a result, scholars see the spread of NS English as also affecting NNS
cultures in a potentially adverse manner. Modiano (2001) criticizes NS-oriented
language education as inherently damaging to the cultural integrity of learners.
Such teaching that emphasizes distinctions between cultures, Modiano argues,
is bound to foster negative attitudes among language learners, either about
the culture that is being examined or about their own culture, consequently
encouraging stereotyping. The topic of culture in EFL education remains a delicate
one, as treatment of a culture different to that of the NNS language classroom
has been seen as an avenue through which English-speaking agents of Western
indoctrination can impose their beliefs onto otherwise naive and unsuspecting
learners. A number of scholars have framed the discussion of culture as a debate
on how best to preserve linguistic diversity (Modiano, 2001) or expand learners’
worldviews beyond Western-centric perspectives (Matsuda, 2003). While wellintentioned goals, these aims imply an environment where interest in IC culture
is not a valid rationale for studying English, and where all learners are coercedor subverted into learning about cultures that they would otherwise not wish
to study. Such a worldview may not necessarily fit all NNS contexts and ignores
170

Learner Preferences for Fluency, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 168-179

possibilities of genuine curiosity about IC culture and language that learners may
have.
Conversely, discussion of IC culture as a potentially positive force in thelanguage classroom has been scant, when such research should be able to offer
guidance on the relevance of IC culture in the face of such appeal. Making note of
how using NS varieties of English can serve as beneficial and motivating models
for language learning can provide educators with the means to best facilitate
language acquisition in contexts where English is acknowledged as a lingua
franca, but not necessarily studied for purposes relating to its status as a lingua
franca. Self-serving as Western-centric language education in the mid- and latetwentieth century appears to be, language education policy in NNS contexts
must shift from examining the motives of external policy makers to exploring the
motivations of language learners. In doing so, educators can be made aware of theprospect that IC English may still prove appropriate for the language classroom,
particularly in cases where IC culture arouses significant interest with learners
and can prove useful in fostering language proficiency.

Japan as an NNS context
EFL education in Japan provides sufficient examples of learner preferences
in a discussion of the roles of EIL and IC English. From junior high school(and, because of recent educational reforms, earlier in many cases), students
are required to study English and are exposed to NS English varieties throughtextbooks (Matsuda, 2002) and instruction from both NS and NNS teachers.
This is primarily due to government investment in recruiting NS users from
Western countries through the Ministry of Education’s JET Programme. English
education also occurs outside of formal schooling through a sizable industry oflanguage schools, cram schools and private tutoring, all of which also involve
NS teachers interacting with learners of all ages. Moreover, Japanese culture isinundated with popular English-speaking culture from the West in the form ofmovies, television, music and written media.
Pennycook (1994) characterizes this sort of environment as conducive
to facilitating colonialistic worldviews that foster among NNS users beliefs of171

Sybinginferiority to NS users. Matsuda (2003) asserts that in such an environment
learners are kept ignorant of EIL norms by EFL institutions in Japan, when theyshould be exposed to more interaction with other NNS users and made aware of
the benefits of such interaction.
A number of scholars (Horibe, 2008; Miyagi, Sato, & Crump, 2009;
Miyazato, 2009) all make similar recommendations that EFL education in Japan
shift toward a greater focus on NNS English varieties. This proposed paradigm
shift is supported by the perceived greater number of opportunities Japanese
speakers have in communicating with other non-native speakers than they wouldwith a relatively smaller number of native speakers, and the prospect that NNSrelated cultural content will, in Horibe’s words, “stimulate students to reconsider
raisons d’être of English education, and give them a new incentive to learn thelanguage” (p. 246).

Motivations for studying English
Often neglected in literature focusing on EIL and NNS varieties is theimportance of learner aspirations for studying English. The presence of IC
culture in NNS language education attracts criticism for being superfluous to theneeds of learners (Yuen, 2011), damaging to cultural integrity (Modiano, 2001),
conducive to fostering learner anxiety (Alptekin, 1993), or otherwise irrelevant
to educators (McKay, 2003). In this and in similar literature, English study in
the EIL context is largely seen as instrumental; that is, the needs of learners asperceived by educators and policymakers should largely determine why learners
should pursue English proficiency. This is why the need to raise learner awarenessof EIL, so that learners are more cognizant of the various uses of English that do
not include interaction with NS users, is a powerful narrative within academic
discourse regarding EIL and language ownership.
This narrative, however, tends to overlook that at least some learners study
English, if not merely to meet curricular requirements and to attain fluency, to alsosatisfy an appeal that they find in IC culture. Benson (1991) noted that university
students in Japan expressed a greater preference toward learning English for
integrative purposes, which he defined as uses that related to developing one’s own
172Learner Preferences for Fluency, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 168-179

multiculturalism or multilingualism, as opposed to fulfilling a societal imperative
for linguistic or cultural diversity. Such purposes for using English, in that study,
included making friends from NS cultures and enjoying English-speaking culture
such as movies or music, and may necessitate a learning environment where afocus on EIL may not be the most appropriate approach. In this case, rather
than view the acquisition of English solely as a societal need, learners may tend
to perceive English as a means to fulfill personal motivations, providing themaccess to NS culture as well as interaction with NS users. Benson notes that thesemotivations create tension in an educational system where learners are less likely
to achieve English fluency when their motivations are not acknowledged.
It is not clear in the literature that learners would reconsider such preferences
for studying English because of a greater awareness of EIL. Educators would do wellto acknowledge that, for at least some learners, studying abroad in NS countries or
enjoying NS culture is more appealing or even more relevant than travel to other
NNS countries or communication with other non-native speakers. At the very
least, even if learners are interested in endeavors that involve interaction within
NNS contexts, they may tend not to perceive English proficiency as a means toachieve such ends, and thus may not aspire toward English proficiency becauseof such endeavors. A focus on IC English, in terms of how learners may perceive
English-speaking culture, may prove to better accommodate their aspirations
than would an appreciation of EIL.
In fact, research on learner perceptions has indicated that learners exposed to or
made aware of both NS and NNS varieties of English still demonstrate a personal
inclination toward NS English. Matsuda (2003) referred to her own doctoral
research in which learners continued to express a preference for IC English evenas awareness of NNS English was raised. Miyazato (2009) documented similar
preferences in classrooms that were taught by Japanese English teachers and NS
assistant language teachers. It is interesting to note that, despite these findings,
these scholars still recommend raising awareness of EIL instead of focusing onsuch preferences to better foster language acquisition.
This is not to say that such research conclusively indicates that NS English
should have hegemony in EFL education in NNS contexts, or that EFL educators
173

Sybingshould feed into overgeneralizations suggesting that only NS English should
be considered valid. However, in NNS contexts where learners do exhibit apreference toward NS English, such preferences should not be glossed over tosuit a politically correct solution that may not accommodate the reasons whylearners choose to study English. Educators should strive to achieve a balance
between NS English and NNS English—rather than the dominance of one over
the other—that best accommodates the motivations of language learners and theimperatives of language educators.
Educators have in the past challenged the relevance of personal motivations,
given the historical underpinnings of NS influence in contexts such as Japan.
Miyazato (2009) makes a valid point concerning a causative relationship between
the presence of NS teachers in the classroom and student inclination toward NS
English varieties. That is, students in Japan tend to favor NS English users overJapanese English users only because of constant and abundant exposure to theformer. However, this finding can only demonstrate that IC English is seen as
relevant to language learners, rather than serve as evidence that NS influence in
the Japanese EFL context should be minimized or ignored altogether. If anything,such interest in IC culture should be utilized by educators if the goal of language
education is to facilitate language acquisition.

Pseudoforms of cultural representations
No form of language education should ever be used to place value judgments onany variety of English as less valid or less useful than other varieties. Educatorsneed to be sensitive of the unique circumstances of their learners, especially in
NNS contexts. Imposition of values by one culture onto another, a prospect thatan application of EIL principles seeks to avoid, should always be discouraged in
EFL education.
To this end, great care must be taken in presenting representations of any
culture to language learners. Matsuda (2002) and Yuen (2011) rightly assertthat EFL textbooks justify scrutiny where overgeneralizations of or excessive
focus on NS culture as a mainly white, Anglo-American enterprise is present. In
contrast, Horibe (2008) expresses concern that EFL curricula that focus on NNS
174

Learner Preferences for Fluency, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 168-179

English can tend to treat a multitude of cultures in a superficial manner. Bothfindings should not invalidate use of either approach in the classroom; rather, amore critical examination of both approaches is necessary to avoid intercultural
misunderstanding perpetuated by inaccurate representations of any Englishspeaking culture.
It should also be stated that the debate between EIL and IC English does notnecessarily produce a clear dichotomy between intercultural understanding andcultural stereotyping, and that an approach to EFL education that is oriented
toward interaction with NS users is not necessarily a narrow-minded endeavorthat fosters parochialism or implies a value judgment of NNS English (DogancayAktuna, 2005). EFL education that is oriented toward IC norms, in this respect,should always be careful not to assign greater value onto NS norms than NNS
norms, even as it takes into consideration the greater relevance of the former for
its learners. Conversely, a focus on NNS cultures is not necessarily a panacea forintercultural understanding, as treatment of any culture different from a learner’s
own culture risks stereotyping and negative attitudes if done superficially.

Considerations for language education
Conventional paradigms in education necessitate curriculum planning supported
by an analysis of learner needs. That is, curricular objectives should be defined bywhat learners need to be able to accomplish outside of the classroom. However,learner motivations must also be considered in determining language education
policy as they affect decisions regarding classroom pedagogy. Cheung (2001),
for example, makes note of EFL textbooks that use cultural content as a means
to appeal to language learners and motivate them toward language study. Thatlearners react positively to content that is familiar to them should be considered
important to curriculum planning, regardless of which English variety is given
focus.
This consideration has the potential to affect decisions that determine which
varieties of English should serve as models inside the language classroom. Thesemodels are represented in both instruction (i.e., the variety of English that theteacher uses and promotes) and materials (i.e., the varieties of English that are
175

Sybing

represented in listening and speaking activities, as well as in written materials).
The conventional EIL paradigm advocates an instrumental approach, choosing
models that best match primarily what learners should expect to encounter
outside of the classroom. Horibe (2008), for example, recommends AsianEnglish varieties for the Japanese EFL context solely on the basis that learners are
more likely to experience interaction with other non-native speakers than native
speakers. While this consideration is valid, a paradigm that considers learneraspirations in addition to societal expectations must also be acknowledged byeducators, and such acknowledgement may affect whether NNS varieties ofEnglish are most appropriate in the face of preference toward NS English varieties.
Thematic content for materials is also a point of contention when choosing
between EIL and IC English, and consideration of a balance between the two
extremes should also be applied to this aspect of language learning. For instance,
it is possible in a lesson that focuses on English-speaking movies to also elicit
from students examples and discussion of movies from NNS countries where
English is used, or English-speaking movies where NNS users have Englishspeaking roles. This sort of sequence may satisfy learner interests and, at the sametime, foster awareness of NNS agency in English.
Regardless of whether a NS teacher or a NNS teacher delivers instruction, amore complete understanding of the assumptions, perceptions and aspirations
learners bring to the classroom remains important to this discussion (DogancayAktuna, 2005). Educators are likely to face frustrations when the given curriculum
does not meet the goals of its learners, and when teaching approaches reflect sucha disparity in expectations between teachers and students. Consequently, teacher
education should consider not only the unique circumstances of each language
classroom in each learning context, but also the varied and disparate aspirationsof the learners that are in it.
Where possible, NS varieties of English should be encouraged to foster
language ownership among NNS users. In the classroom, however, if the objective
is to meet the goals that learners have for their own English usage, curriculum
should as much as possible accommodate such preferences. Questions of language
ownership and linguistic diversity are important issues in academic discourse, but
176

Learner Preferences for Fluency, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 168-179

if such issues are not immediately relevant to the goals that learners have, thenthe prospect of whether those issues should have a profound effect on classroom
pedagogy must be challenged.

Conclusion
In this article I have suggested that the academic discourse shift from a discussionof IC norms being imposed on learners to a discussion of learners who, informedby their own goals for attaining language proficiency, choose to satisfy theircuriosity of IC English and culture. Where the former tends to frame IC
English as potentially subversive and damaging to NNS cultures, the latter canbetter foster discussion of providing NNS users with opportunities for language
ownership within the English-speaking international community. It is beneficial
for educators to acknowledge the prospect that learners may pursue English
study for purposes that may not be in line with goals that directly promote NNS
varieties. In this case, EFL curricula should seek a balance between perceptions
and motivations held by both student and teacher, particularly in the case of
conflicting motivations, and accommodate NNS contexts where IC English
would be considered more appropriate.
I have emphasized the Japanese EFL context as it appears indicative of NNS
contexts where the teaching of IC English may prove beneficial over that of EIL.
That is, in contexts such as India and Nigeria (countries with language histories
that tend to favor NNS English), it is likely to be more appropriate to explore
elements of EIL than those of IC English, while educators in contexts such as
Japan should be free to further explore an IC-oriented approach. The central
idea of this article is that a critical examination of language histories across NNS
contexts should include discussion of why learners decide to study English, notmerely why educators believe English should be studied.
If the main goal of language education is to bring learners to fluency in aforeign or second language, education policy should also search for language
models that best facilitate such fluency, even if those models exist within the IC
realm. For many learners, then, it is possible that a curricular focus on IC English
may prove more beneficial than a focus on EIL. Such orientation should not be177

Sybing

perceived as a slight against international or NNS varieties of English, but as an
approach to language teaching that provides the means to best allow learners todevelop their own language identities and build the international community ofEnglish speakers.
Modiano (2001) asserts that where EFL education is not oriented toward
EIL, language learning becomes a process of cultural indoctrination, when theendeavor should provide a means for learners to enter the international community
by acquiring fluency in the lingua franca. However, it is presumptuous to assume
that all learners of English should pursue English simply for its status as a lingua
franca, and consequently dangerous for educators to perpetuate a potentiallysuspect overgeneralization, particularly in contexts where IC culture still holds
influence in how the language is presented. Rather than view this influence as athreat to cultural integrity and internationalism, such an interest in IC culture,and by extension IC English, should be seen by educators as an opportunity tofacilitate language learning required for international communication.

References
Alptekin, C. (1993). Target-language culture in EFL materials. ELT Journal,
47(2), 136-143.
Benson, M. J. (1991). Attitudes and motivation towards English: A survey ofJapanese freshmen. RELC Journal, 22(1), 34-48.
Cheung, C. (2001). The use of popular culture as a stimulus to motivate
secondary students’ English learning in Hong Kong. ELT Journal, 55(1),55-61.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (2005). Intercultural communication in English language
teacher education. ELT Journal, 59(2), 99-107.
Horibe, H. (2008). The place of culture in teaching English as an international
language (EIL). JALT Journal, 30(2), 241-253.
Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other side of English. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The othertongue: English across cultures (pp. 1-15). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Matsuda, A. (2002). Representations of users and uses of English in beginning178

Learner Preferences for Fluency, OnCUE Journal, 7(3), pages 168-179

Japanese EFL textbooks. JALT Journal, 24(2), 182-200.
Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as aninternational language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729.
McKay, S. (2003). Teaching English as an international language: The Chilean
context. ELT Journal, 57(2), 139-148.
Miyagi, K., Sato, M., & Crump, A. (2009). To challenge the unchallenged:
Potential of non-“standard” Englishes for Japanese EFL learners. JALT
Journal, 31(2), 261-273.
Miyazato, K. (2009). Power-sharing between NS and NNS teachers:
Linguistically powerful AETs vs. culturally powerful JTEs. JALT Journal,
31(1), 35-62.
Modiano, M. (2001). Linguistic imperialism, cultural integrity, and EIL. ELT
Journal, 55(4), 339-347.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an International
Language. New York, NY: Pearson Education.
Vlahos, M. (1991). Culture and foreign policy. Foreign Policy, 82(1), 59-78.
Yuen, K. (2011). The representation of foreign cultures in English textbooks.
ELT Journal, 65(4), 458-466.

Author’s bio
Roehl Sybing is an Assistant Instructor at Nanzan Junior College in Nagoya, Japan.
He has been a language teacher in Japan and the United States since 2004. His
current research interests include culture in language education and critical thinking
in language acquisition. roehl.sybing@gmail.com.
Received: March 24, 2014
Accepted: June 15, 2014179