Arguments against teaching English as an International Language in Brazil

Roddy Kay,
North East Brazil

(Editorial note: it might be good to read this article in contrast with Jennifer Jenkins' passionate advocacy of ELF, English as a Lingua Franca, published in HLT, March 05: ELF at the Gate- the position of English as a Lingua Franca Julian uses "EIL" in this article, English as an International Language,Jennifer Jenkins talks about ELF, English as a Lingua Franca. May we assume Julian's EIL= Jennifer's ELF? )

Menu

Introduction
Basic arguments for EIL
Historical background to private language schools which promote the way of life of the UK and the USA
Questions to be faced up to in Brazil
The indirect influence of a strong form of EIL already present in Brazil
The reality of the use of English an other foreign languages outside the classroom in Brazil
Who are the learners in UK/US model schools and why do they choose to attend them?
The business client
Problem of identity in the UK and the marketing strategies of the publishers
Countering the ideology of terrorism
Using EIL as a political platform
Arguments against the artificial creation of a Brazilian variety of English to be taught in class
Have features of Brazilian pedagogy been ignored in ELT in Brazil?
Conclusion
Bibliography

In this paper I argue that a strong form of English as an International Language (EIL) should be resisted in Brazil and indeed that the political imperatives that should drive ELT here, especially in schools that have traditionally modelled themselves on a British or US English model, should ensure that specifically British and US social and cultural values continue to have a substantial role in coursebooks and classroom content. This is because, in my view, engendering positive, while not uncritical, attitudes to the British and US way of life has a role to play in promoting international peace and understanding.
Let me make clear from the start that I agree with an international dimension to ELT in Brazil but see it as unwelcome and unnecessary in Brazil if this means excluding or minimizing the British and American dimensions which is what a strong form of EIL explicitly demands.
At its most extreme, EIL is a very deliberate strategy to negate and exclude examples and discusssion of all British or American thought, attitudes, customs and traditions from the English classroom. More than this, EIL, in its strongest form, wishes to set and model a standard for spoken English (including listenings) and discourse patterns that are not drawn from a native speaker variety of English. In much of the world including China, India, and parts of the Islamic world, this is sometimes not without local justification especially as seen through local eyes. To be fair, it is exactly in such areas of the world that the concept of EIL has been developing. However, we must recognise that EIL is an approach to teaching English that some of its adherents specifically and openly declare to be Neo-Marxist. This may be as a socio-pedagogical outlook and/or to meet political objectives. EIL then is considered to be a strategic weapon in countering what is said to be undue American (and to a lesser extent, British) influence in globalization whether in economic, social, political, military or purely linguistic and pedagogical terms.

The basic arguments for EIL are as follows:
1. 4 out of 5 speakers of English are non-native speakers of English;
2. Globalization has made English a lingua franca, and consequently there is a need for a new standard model of English that is not a native speaker variety;
3. The history of first British and later American influence in the world identifies their varieties of English as the language of an oppressor;
4. Without positive action to the contrary, when English is taught and modelled based on a native speaker variety, the cultural, social, economic, and military baggage of that variety follows;
5. The lingua aspect of EFL/ESL when based on a native speaker variety normally extends the privileges enjoyed by in-country elites and, the corollary is that a lack of access to quality teaching and teachers (i.e. a good English model) marginalises those excluded even more because they are taught a pidgin English which has low social esteem;
6. The use of a native English speaker variety of English from countries such as the UK, USA, Canada and Australia (deemed the centre or inner circle countries) re-inforces such countries´ cultural and political power through the economics of globalization, and by placing a premium on English threatens to marginalize other languages even major languages such as French and German, especially in academic and specialist discourse in the tertiary sector.

Convincing arguments, aren´t they ? Where and how does one begin to answer these charges in the context of Brazil ?
First, we must ask ourselves why, historically, certain major language schools chose to promote the UK or USA. Secondly, whatever their names may have signified in the past, does it make sense to change direction in line with the current of thinking I set out above, not just for ideological reasons but in view of what their clients expect from them.

For example, Cultura Inglesa was founded by Brazilians in the 1930s as a quite conscious response to the cultural and educational activities of Hitler´s Germany, and as an alternative to similar activities by France, French language and culture at that time still enjoying high prestige among the Brazilian elites. In the 30s a determined effort was being made to win over Brazilian hearts and minds to the Fascist cause through German and Italian-medium schools and the spread of these countries´ culture. It must be said this had some limited success. This was expressed in Plínio Salgado´s Açaõ Integralista Brasileira movement, and some flirtation by the Getúlio Vargas government of the 30s with the Axis powers until shortly before it declared war on Germany in 1941.

The British Government was slow to respond to this, the British Council itself not being founded until the mid-30s and not becoming effective until during and immediately after the Second World War. In fact, it was Cultura Inglesa which was instrumental in having the BC founded in Brazil and, ever since then, Culturas and the British Council have been partners in promoting not just the English language but all things British ranging from cultural events through educational opportunities in the UK. The visual images often found in Culturas and through Cultura advertising serve as a constant reminder of this.

A similar history can be traced for the Brazil-US bi-national language schools.

Arising from the base-line of EIL, we have to pose the following pertinent questions:
Do we believe that there is little or no room for cultural content about Britain or North America in such schools in Brazil today?
Do we believe that there is no substantial place in their classrooms for discussions of Anglo-Saxon attitudes on everyday concerns (family and personal relationships, education, work and jobs, food, holidays, sports, etc ) and if and why these are different in Brazil ?
Do we believe that all courses should turn English into an instrument or commodity of communication, with a Brazilian accent, that rejects as far as possible British and American linguistic models, and that all courses in Brazil should promote a variety of English that has Brazilian discourse, metalinguistic and paralinguistic features?
Do we believe that the greater aim of all English courses should be to empower the poor and marginalised in Brazil ?

I am assuming that most Brazilian readers will be saying "don´t be ridiculous" to all of these. Yet, some may bear consideration as objectives in parts of the state educational sector. Note that all of these ideas are currently being proposed, as a package, in many other parts of the world as the current way forward for ELT. Even so, why I am banging on about this? UK and US-model schools in Brazil are not full of crusading lefties with an agenda for changing society or of mindless fascists advocating a dictatorship that will silence voices that dissent from globalization. But it is precisely because an extreme form of EIL is being strongly advocated in a broad range of other countries that we would be very wrong to regard these points of view as marginal to ELT in Brazil. And it is important to recognise that, wittingly or unwittingly, we have already come under the influence of this thinking. Why do I say this ? Because, to some degree, the coursebooks and ELT-designed classroom materials we are using already contain strong elements of it. So I ask: by being eclectic in our approach, have we considered if we have gone too far in excluding our use of content about Britain or America (or are we in real danger of doing so)?

Another current assumption of EIL I challenge in the context of Brazil is that learners outside the classroom are more likely to have to communicate in English with people whose first language is neither English nor Portuguese. In fact, an unusual feature of North East Brazil in comparison to most of the rest of the world is that foreigners are thin on the ground. In the Northeast, there is a seasonal influx of Spanish speakers, especially Argentinians. Even so, the obvious point to make is that the foreign language outside the classroom that surrounds our learners is English in the form of songs, film, cable TV, video games, and, above all, the Internet - especially, American English. And all of these are full of Anglo-Saxon cultural values or express dissent from such values. I argue that we are right to analyse and discuss these. Our coursebooks increasingly ignore this.

Let me now come to a hard reality which some Brazilian readers may be uncomfortable with and others may rightly say has shown some change in recent years. This is to do with the social profile of clients and their children in quality, private language schools.. They are still predominantly, though not as exclusively as in the past, from the elites. Now, an important argument for EIL is that learners in class are from different countries or different communities in a given country. Where this is true, such a classoom therefore represents a microcosm of a multi-cultural, pluralistic society. Is this remotely true of private language school classrooms in Brazil ? Certainly not in the North East. What I believe is true is that the Brazilian elites are studying English because they dream about studying in, living in or doing business with Britain or the USA. Some are in UK-model schools because, rightly or wrongly, they or their parents reject US values and/or hate American English; and vice-versa.

Given this context for Brazil, I also say that adult clients and the parents of child/teen clients at UK- and US-model schools expect they will learn something about the UK and the USA, and their customs and attitudes. Whatever clients may believe these to be, I am sure their regard for the US and British way of life is high. It is also true that many are critical of certain social aspects and of certain UK or US government policies. Yet what they want for themselves is more exposure to British and US thinking to reach a better understanding of it, and they want their children and teenagers to get a taste of this. In general terms, they see this as benevolent and they place their trust in teachers to deal with this responsibly. I am sure the owners of such schools promote this view. This is why it is so important that we do not absent-mindedly allow British and American content (let alone linguistic features) to fade out of our classrooms. This is central both to the greater vision - why study at a UK- or US-model school? - as well as to the equally important matter of their commercial success. In other words, a differential for these schools is their UK or US connection. They need to be careful that they do not break this connection unintentionally.

Similarly when their clients do business internationally, however unfair it may be, the fact is most of the world´s business is with the USA, Britain and other English-speaking countries. At the instrumental level, it therefore must be a positive thing to learn how and why the British and Americans (and nationals of other trading partners) think and behave. To know how your trading partner thinks is good business and good humanism, not subservience to a foreign culture. And the UK- or US-model school´s business is about promoting a critical respect, and perhaps occasionally admiration, for, the UK and US. It is not about wanting to turn Brazilians into clones of British or American citizens.

Having said all this, I recognise the UK is in an unsettled situation. The view of the British Council and the British Government is to emphasize the modernity of the UK. Part of this is to promote Britain as a multi-cultural, pluralistic society and to recognise warts and tensions. A recent example is the growing unease inside, between and towards immigrant communities, complicated on the one hand by new arrivals out of Eastern Europe and an expanded European Union, and, on the other, by longer established groups trying to establish a new form of British identity for themselves, especially where this involves non-Christian beliefs and values.
A second major issue is that ELT is big business for Britain - for schools, ELT publishers and ancillary services. To be attractive to an international market (i.e. to sell courses in the UK and books both in the UK and abroad), the content must reflect what prospective students (and, if appropriate, their governments) want. It would seem that by consensus there has been a move away from EFL (with significant British cultural content) to EIL (which often minimizes British cultural content). There is one important proviso - teaching English as Second Language (ESL). ESL has always had a strong English (or American) content to prepare learners for life in the UK or USA. The tendency is for this content to have become even more central where testing in ESL is linked to applications for citizenship, or permanent residence. In the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, ESL is specifically linked to standards-based teaching. Also some teachers of English, recognising the lack of content in EIL coursebooks have supplemented language classes with British (or US) Cultural Studies courses and events.

I must mention the 11th of September. The destruction of the World Trade Centre, the hit on the Pentagon and the presumed attempt on the White House (like subsequent attacks in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul, London and elsewhere) were an expression of hatred, by some extremists, for America and all that the US and the West stand for. Unhappily there is no doubt that these awful acts delighted fanatics and those irremediably opposed to the West. You will remember that the masses in some parts of the world, spontaneously or otherwise, took to the streets to celebrate 11/9 ( UK version of 9/11). I think we must also recognise that while the killing of people by these terrorist acts was universally condemned, some other nations and substantial numbers of reasonable people only just stopped short of saying this was something the US deserved and the West needed to be reminded of. In other words, the symbolism of 11/9 is that the US - despite their sole superpower status - and the West are vulnerable to such attacks and also attack by biological weapons and, potentially, battlefield nuclear bombs. Now one line of political thinking is to say that the West (especially the US) has brought this on itself by not offering fair trade deals or by not taking major steps to reduce poverty in poor parts of the world or by being excessively supportive to Israel, etc. Some argue that the use of English quite simply emphasises all this economic, political and formal military power, and by such use marginalizes other faiths, cultures and languages.
I do not deny great disparities do exist and one approach to tackling this is for other governments to offer their people alternative visions to globalization. However, to some extent, and not unnaturally, some are envious of the West´s material success because they do not see how their societies can catch up with the West in the short to medium term. Some of these seem to be saying: if we can´t have what you have, we shall destroy what you have. This is terrorism without a positive political agenda but thank God this has no expression in Brazil. What I personally believe the aftermath of 11/9 should lead to is a certain amount of positive, while not uncritical, treatment of the US in UK-model schools. This already is a reality given that some teachers in UK-model schools are American while other colleagues, like some students (almost without exception, Brazilians), have spent time in the US. Of course, I do not want UK-model schools to be agents for the US but I do think this is a time not to emphasise US-UK competition, and that we are adding to world peace and understanding when we have favourable things to say about the US.

Let us now look at some content topics on the world-wide EIL agenda. Some of these are clearly a platform for promoting policies of the New Left. These include feminism, gender, sexual preference (particularly, gay issues now called Queer Theory), host country responses to economic refugees, immigrants and racial equality issues. Others are openly Marxist: the party line in China is that the overall aim of teaching English is to re-enforce Chinese communist party values and Chinese national identity (Pennycook). Then there is a call by some moderate voices for the separate creation of an Islamic geo-political presence with an influence at least the equal to that of the West. Similar voices are making themselves heard in Japan, India and South Africa. Let me mention in passing that there has been some reaction to this, especially from the US and expressed as English for Missionary Purposes. One extreme grouping is using the cover of ELT to enter countries where Christianity is prohibited in order to proselytise while another more moderate grouping (championed by Earl Stevick) sees the overt discussion of Christian values as being a reasonable activity for the ELT classroom.

I now turn to the reality of (and/or desirability for creating) the existence of Brazilian English. Should English teachers be agents for teaching Brazilian English as a model or standard. At present, no serious claims have been made for the de facto existence of Brazilian English. Some wish to create such a variety. The strong side of this argument seems to me to be lexical. This is a question of taking advantage of the Latinate vocabulary of English and possibly also the introduction of Portuguese vocabulary into English for certain descriptions of food, geographical features, customs, etc. In terms of teaching, this makes sense at elementary to upper-intermediate stages but is the argument equally strong for advanced learners ?
In grammar, some argue for allowing a fairly direct transfer of Portuguese syntax into English i.e. sentence construction, or discourse patterns. The more polemical area is whether non-native English speaker grammar norms should be aimed at - things like: no -s on the 3rd person singular of the present simple; making some irregular verbs regular; a different use of prepositions, etc.
I have least sympathy for setting a new norm for pronunciation. Central to this issue, it seems to me, is to know what the opinion of Brazilian learners and teachers is with regard to the standards set by level by the international examination authorities. In the case of Cambridge ESOL Speaking Tests, I do not have the feeling that Brazilian teachers consider these standards are too high either with regard to achieving a pass or getting `A`. I do know however that in some countries where the local language is non-Indo-European, some do indeed argue that the standards set are too high - , especially at beginner and intermediate levels.
The specifics of Brazilian pronunciation include ´th`, problems, the difference between ´ship and sheep`: intrusive schwa, -ed; and word and sentence stress. The important thing to recognise here is that those who argue for the acceptability of alternative pronunciations are not just trying to convince native speakers of English and fellow Brazilians but speakers of 3rd languages. To be fair about this, it is undoubtedly true that as more Brazilians live in other countries where English is spoken, residents of these countries will become more familiar with Brazilian variations on RP or Standard American sounds. However, note that we are talking about minimal intelligibilty norms by beginner and intermediate learners achieving minimal intelligibility norms, not minor variations on NS norms made by advanced learners. The ELT profession, including Cambridge ESOL by the way, has moved away from a concept of near-native speaker comptence to one of international intelligibility. A comparable case is Brazilians listening to NNS from third countries speaking English e.g. Africans, and folks from the Indian sub-continent and Far East. Many Brazilians find beginner and intermediate learners from these countries hard to understand whereas in their own and neighbouring countries and even in countries where English is L1 and these speakers are relatively numerous, there may be much less difficulty or none at all. Who therefore should set of standards for intelligibility at the various levels and how does this get equalized world-wide ?
A different reflection is on the purpose of Listenings. When we talk about Listening, we normally mean Listening comprehension for content (not sounds in themselves). To prepare our learners for the world of English outside the classroom, the range of speakers has extended enormously over the last 10 years. I support this trend. However, notice this also means that the coursebook does not give continual re-enforcement of a single (modified RP) model for speaking. This is now provided by the teacher and, in Brazil, of course, the overwhelming majority of these are Brazilians. In a real sense, it is Brazilian teachers of English who are setting the standard and providing ´live´ models for our learners. What are the implications of setting standards at advanced levels based on a Brazilian variety of English ? How would we define the parity of esteem between Brazilian teachers with (near) NS competences and those of equal communicative competences but with recognizably NNS features ?

On the pedagogy of ELT, I know I am right to say that while, yes, the teaching of English in quality English language schools is very different from that in primary and secondary schools, this is welcomed; in fact, it is precisely why most Brazilians choose to study English privately. A different issue is the philosophy behind the pedagogy e.g. the teachings of someone like Paulo Freire. What others need to answer for me here is whether the educational practice recommended by Freire for the marginalised and excluded is what should also be offered to the elite. I am not sure who is falling into what trap with respect to ELT if we say there should be a difference. Some would argue that this leads to one variety of English for the poor, and another, more prestigious one, for the rich. Is this inevitable in the real world or should steps be taken to ensure this is minimized? Similarly, and I mean to be constructive, how does ELT methodological practice change if implemented under Freire´s principles ?

To sum up my arguments, I believe that UK- and US-model private English Language Schools should continue to promote their respective models for English and for their classrooms to be places where learners can discuss British and US customs and the British and US way of life by comparing and contrasting these to Brazil. At the same time, in a globalized world, it must be right to expose our learners to other cultures, customs and belief systems. This must include a selection of countries where English is L1 and also NNS countries. I also believe that other English courses in Brazil, including those in the state sector, should contain UK and US content. I see no merit in promoting Brazilian English as such. However, as for all other NNS, there are norms of intelligibility in English which are acceptable at beginner and intermediate levels in Brazil and which may be modified over time.. I doubt if we can construct an ideal balance of exposure to different cultures and different varieties of English. We must, however, be careful that in our efforts to reflect an inter-connected and inter-dependent world in our classrooms, we do not allow things British and American to disappear from the classroom or indeed from our course books.

References: (The titles below appear in the literature as among the most significant for the general debate on EIL. I do not claim to have read them all. Crystal, Quirk and Widdowson are among the moderate voices; I interpret Richards as seeing the tide running in favour of strong forms of EIL; most of the rest are or seem to be advocating strong forms of EIL.)