Is Teaching English as an International Language All about Being Politically Correct?

Being Politically Correct ¹

Political correctness, at least in the US context today, typically refers to avoiding language or behaviour that can exclude, marginalize, or offend groups of people that are disadvantaged or discriminated against. In recent years, particularly in public discourse, it has acquired a pejorative connotation, implying that policies are excessive or people are being hypersensitive (Hughes, 2010; Kohl, 1992).

When people say that TEIL is politically correct, they seem to be referring to the fact that it embraces diversity and encourages respect for varieties of English (and their speakers) that may have been positioned as ‘less-than-standard’ in traditional ELT. They may even be implying that TEIL advocates do not actually believe in such diversity and inclusivity but we are pressured to act as if we do in order to avoid offending certain groups of English users and learners. I do not believe the latter is true. Most TEIL advocates truly do believe that English today is pluralistic; that is, there are multiple varieties of English that are being used effectively and considered legitimate and standard in its own context. But there is indeed a parallelism between TEIL and ‘being politically correct’ in the way they recognize and embrace diversity and promote respect and inclusiveness. In TEIL, the diversity in the form, users and uses of English that are found across the world today is acknowledged and accepted rather than challenged, and some recommended pedagogical practices specifically focus on raising awareness about different varieties of English and developing respectful attitudes towards varieties that are different from what students know or are learning (Matsuda and Duran, 2012; Matsuda and Friedrich, 2012; Alsagoff et al., 2012; Marlina and Giri, 2014). After all, even though the term ‘political correctness’ has acquired a negative connotation, it was once used with ‘a spirit of inclusiveness and open-mindedness’ (Gibson, 2016) and thus it is not surprising in that sense that TEIL and political correctness appear similar to each other.

Challenging the US/UK–bias in ELT

One characteristic of TEIL is that it problematizes the exclusive focus on the US and the UK – their English, culture and people – in ELT. It is not to say that there is something wrong or inappropriate about these two countries or Englishes spoken there. The problem, from the perspective of TEIL, is that they represent only a small fraction of the varieties of English, types of speakers, and cultures that English users today encounter, and thus it would be a disservice to students if we do not expose them to other Englishes as well.

This implicit criticism of US–bias in the profession may resemble various Anti-American sentiments, found both in and out of the field (e.g. Tsuda, 1997). There are people and countries in the world who position themselves against the US or do not prefer to align themselves with it, but the learning of English, for its role in global communication, is still attractive to them. In such cases, TEIL, which acknowledges the possibility of using varieties other than American standard English as the instructional model and argues for the inclusion of cultures other than the US, may be perceived as a creative solution to teaching English without embracing or promoting American values.

TEIL’s relationship with the notion of English linguistic imperialism is an interesting case. English linguistic imperialism posits that ‘the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages’ (Phillipson, 1992: 47), and ELT is positioned as a vehicle for the expansion of linguistic imperialism. WE scholarship, however, rejects the way learners of English in the discourse of linguistic imperialism were portrayed as a powerless and agent-less entity that passively and uncritically receives English; empirical studies of Englishes – especially those from former British and American colonies – demonstrated how local English users and learners nativized English and made it their own (e.g. Bhatia, 2008; Canagarajah, 1999; Esseili, 2008; Meierkord, 2008; Saraceni, 2008), rather than passively accepting what was given by the colonizers. TEIL, which heavily draws from WE research (Matsuda, forthcoming a), naturally allows for the room to show the same kind of resistance – resistance to the UK and native English speaker ² (NES) bias that Phillipson (1992; Phillipson, 2010) criticizes as well as the way EIL learners are portrayed in the discourse of linguistic imperialism – through ELT itself. ELT, the very entity that is constructed as the site of linguistic imperialism propaganda, is now turned into a possible site for resistance.

Challenging Native Speakerism

Another language ideology that TEIL challenges is that of native speakerism, which is ‘a pervasive ideology within ELT, characterized by the belief that ‘native-speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’ from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English language teaching methodology’ (Holliday, 2006: 385). It is based on the assumption that NESs have more linguistic and cultural knowledge, which is believed to make them better teachers than their nonnative-English-speaking counterparts. We might assume that students and their parents may also prefer NES teachers because they believe that NESs better represent the type of people they will interact with in future, although research shows that the perception that such a preference exists is not necessarily true (Mahboob, 2003; Mahboob, 2004; Moussu, 2002; Moussu, 2006; Mullock, 2010).

The actual uses and users of English today that TEIL embraces, however, contradict such assumptions directly and deconstruct the concept of NES in general (e.g. Cook, 1999; Kachru, 1992b). For example, the assumption that NES teachers have enough linguistic knowledge merely because of their nativeness does not hold true in TEIL because it recognizes the pluricentric nature of English and the possibility that the variety students need to learn and the variety a teacher happens to know may not match. Furthermore, the proficiency in intercultural communication, which is highly emphasized in TEIL, is not something that all NESs have. Those who have not moved or travelled much and communicate almost exclusively with people from the same, relatively homogeneous community do not have as many opportunities to develop intercultural communication skills or knowledge of other cultures as NESs and NNESs who regularly travel or interact with more diverse populations. When we consider the kind of skills and knowledge needed for the users and teachers of EIL, the nativeness of a teacher becomes less relevant (Matsuda, 2014; Selvi, 2014; Selvi, 2016). Furthermore, given the increased use of English exclusively among NNESs today (Graddol, 1997; Smith, 1983; Widdowson, 1994), NESs do not fully represent students’ future interlocutors.

TEIL was not developed specifically to confront native speakerism in the field of ELT; rather, the native speaker fallacy that is prevalent in traditional ELT simply does not exist in the TEIL perspective because WE and ELF studies that have informed TEIL had redefined the notion of nativeness and its relevance for successful communication (Galloway and Rose, 2015; Jenkins, 2015; Kachru, 1992b; Matsuda, 2014; Matsuda, forthcoming b). But this, in the end, made the paradigm appealing to ELT professionals who had been challenging native speakerism in the field and were in search of a pedagogical approach that was compatible with their own beliefs about language (Alsagoff, 2012; Oda, 2017).

Challenging the English-only Ideology

In TEIL, the respect for diversity and inclusiveness goes beyond English and extends to multilingualism in general. The primary focus of TEIL is on English, because it is a paradigm for teaching English, but it is built on the understanding that the majority of English users today are multilingual (Crystal, 2012). Many of them use their non-English language(s) in tandem with English, which gives birth to kinds of usage that may not be found among monolingual English users. Empirical studies of English use across the world show, for example, the incorporation of other languages into English, from loanwords to code-switching and translanguaging to linguistic hybridity, illustrating how English co-exists with other languages on a day-to-day basis.

How much and in what ways other languages can and should get incorporated into classroom instruction depends on the context, but TEIL at the very least recognizes that English is part of the language ecology in which other languages also exist and influence each other. Some practices within TEIL specifically encourage students to reflect on and take advantage of the linguistics resources they have, drawing from all the languages they know. This empowers English language teachers and other professionals who strive to resist an English-only ideology and practices while still teaching English, through teaching English.

Exposure to and Increased Awareness of Different Varieties

For example, one of the commonly recommended practices of TEIL is to expose learners to varieties of English other than American and British English and to help them develop awareness of Englishes used in the world today. While some people seem to interpret this as being inclusive for the sake of being inclusive, the reason among TEIL advocates is much more practical. As I already stated above, the global spread of English has resulted in multiple varieties of English and the substantial use of the language exclusively among NNESs. What this means is that English users today are likely to encounter English varieties other than American English and British English. This is especially true if one uses English as an international language, but even those who live in the US and the UK and use the language for domestic communication still encounter them in stores, restaurants, or interactions with call centres. English learners who are not exposed to diverse Englishes and are not aware that they exist may be startled, surprised, confused, overwhelmed or feel underprepared for such situations, and they may even experience difficulties understanding them or develop negative attitudes towards such varieties that may interfere with their ability to engage in successful communication (e.g. Matsuura et al., 1999; Smith and Nelson, 2006). Thus, an attempt to incorporate different varieties of English into the English classroom is motivated by a practical need for students to be better prepared for such encounters.

Exposure to and Increased Awareness of Different Users

Similarly, TEIL’s effort to expose learners to different types of English users, including so-called NNESs from the Outer and Expanding Circle, has pragmatic intentions behind it. First, it is an effective way to expose learners to different varieties of English, the significance of which has been already discussed above. Secondly, bringing in a diverse group of English users from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds into a classroom creates more opportunities for the authentic use of EIL, including the uses exclusively among NNESTs that have become increasingly common (Graddol, 1997; Smith, 1983; Widdowson, 1994). This gives English learners a clearer and more true-to-life vision of how they will be using English and with whom. Additionally, so-called NNESs, especially those who share a background similar to learners themselves, can serve as the role model to learners. It allows learners to see themselves as someone who can become a legitimate user of the language and helps them set realistic goals regarding how proficient they can be. In other words, the experience allows them to take ownership of English – which some argue no longer belongs exclusively to NESs (Graddol, 1997; McKay, 2002; Widdowson, 1994) – as well as the ownership of their language learning experience.

There are many different ways to accomplish this in an English language classroom. I have, in the past, argued for a more inclusive, non-stereotypical and non-deficit representation of English speakers in teaching materials as well as a strategic diversification of teaching staff (Matsuda and Friedrich, 2011; Matsuda, 2012a). These ideas do resemble – and support – the efforts that are specifically found in North American contexts to increase diversity in the workplace and to strive for inclusive representations. But in TEIL, diversification of teaching staff is driven by practical and pragmatic reasons that are closely tied to the target knowledge and skills that TEIL tries to facilitate among learners.

Broader Understanding of ‘English-Speaking Cultures’

Likewise, when TEIL argues for a broader definition of ‘English-speaking cultures’, it is not a mere acknowledgement of cultural diversity and richness of what the world has for us for the sake of cultural celebration. The global spread of English and increased diversity among users mean that the cultural frames of reference that English users today bring with them go much beyond the American and British cultures that still dominate ELT (Decke-Cornill, 2003; Matsuda, 2002; Nault, 2006; Wandel, 2003). Even if we focus exclusively on the notion of national and regional cultures for the sake of simplifying the discussion, there are countries other than the UK and the US where English is used as the dominant language (e.g. Australia, New Zealand); multilingual countries where English has achieved official status and is used in tandem with indigenous languages (e.g. Singapore, Philippines); and countries where English is not extensively used for domestic communication but is learned for international communication (e.g. Brazil, Japan). Cultures from all of these countries – including the diversity within each – can be present in any given context in which English is used as an international language, influencing both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of communication. Even though it would be unrealistic to expect learners to know all possible cultural assumptions that future interlocutors may bring to the table, the knowledge that it is diverse and goes beyond the mainstream US/UK culture, combined with the ability to use various intercultural communication strategies, is critical for successful communication through the use of EIL (Friedrich, 2012). Incorporating cultural materials from diverse contexts (Matsuda, 2006; Matsuda, 2012a; Matsuda, 2012b) and encouraging students to engage critically with them (McKay, 2002) is indispensable when helping EIL learners transition to EIL users.

Critical Perspective on EIL

In addition to the inclusive representation of English varieties, users, and cultures, and the emphasis on linguistic and strategic resources that would help learners to become effective EIL users, TEIL encourages the development of a critical perspective on EIL and the development of sensitivity and a sense of responsibility among both English language teachers and students (Alsagoff et al., 2012; Marlina and Giri, 2014; Mckay, 2002; Matsuda, 2012a; Selvi and Yazan, 2013). Here, the terms such as ‘critical’, ‘sensitivity’ and ‘responsibility’ seem to trigger the assumption that TEIL, after all, is politically and ideologically driven. This, however, is also more practically driven, similar to other aspects of TEIL that have been discussed above.

Whether people are aware of it, like it, or agree with it or not, the English-speaking world today is political. As I argue elsewhere,

English users today are part of the linguistic eco system in which English plays a powerful role, and navigating this terrain calls for the awareness of the politics of English, including such issues as language and power, the relationship between English and various indigenous languages, linguistic rights, language policy, linguistic ecology, and linguistic divide (Matsuda and Matsuda, forthcoming).

If English learners are not given an opportunity to think about such political aspects of English, they may be exploited, or unintentionally take advantage of or offend others, all of which in the long run may hinder them from achieving the goals they had hoped to achieve by learning English. One reality of the use of EIL today, for example, is that the variety of English students learn – or even English itself, for that matter – may not always be considered as the most appropriate linguistic choice for international communication. This is so because the appropriateness of language choice lies in the assumptions and expectations of members of the speech community, not in the language itself, and thus the choice needs to be negotiated for each speech community and each situation (Matsuda and Friedrich, 2011). If EIL users are not aware of the political circumstances of English and its varieties in the particular situation and insist on using the English or the English variety they know, simply because they had not considered alternatives, they could inadvertently create situations in which speakers of other Englishes are disadvantaged or they may be perceived to be arrogant and insensitive for demanding the choice they prefer and would benefit from.

As has been argued previously (e.g. Matsuda, 2006; Matsuda, 2012a; Matsuda, 2012c; Matsuda and Matsuda, 2018), to what extent and how explicitly these topics should be addressed varies from one instructional context to another. It is important, however, to empower all English learners with critical lenses ‘that would allow them to use English effectively to meet their own needs and resist any oppression from the dominance of English while respecting the needs of others’ (Matsuda and Matsuda, 2018; see also Canagarajah, 1999), regardless of one’s political or ideological stance.