Sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in post-1989 Poland

Krzysztof Przygoński

Sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in post-1989 Poland

Praca doktorska napisana w Instytucie Filologii Angielskiej Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza pod kierunkiem prof. dr hab. Romana Kopytko

Poznań, 2010

OŚWIADCZENIE Ja, niŜej podpisany Krzysztof Przygoński student Wydziału Neofilologii Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu oświadczam, Ŝe przedkładaną pracę dyplomową

pt.

Sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in post-1989 Poland napisałem samodzielnie.

Oznacza to, Ŝe przy pisaniu pracy, poza niezbędnymi konsultacjami, nie korzystałem/am z pomocy innych osób, a w szczególności nie zlecałem/am opracowania rozprawy lub jej istotnych części innym osobom, ani nie odpisywałem/am tej rozprawy lub jej istotnych części od innych osób. Jednocześnie przyjmuję do wiadomości, Ŝe gdyby powyŜsze oświadczenie okazało się nieprawdziwe, decyzja o wydaniu mi dyplomu zostanie cofnięta.

(miejscowość, data)

(czytelny podpis)

2

Table of contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... 3 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ 10 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... 12 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 14 CHAPTER 1: THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ENGLISH IN THE GLOCAL CONTEXT AND ITS SPREAD - APPROACHES AND MODELS..…………..…18 1.1. INTRODUCTION…….. ............................................................................................ 18 1.2.

WHAT ENGLISH ARE WE TALKING ABOUT

-

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION OF

ENGLISH………………………………………………………………………………19

1.2.1. Four perspectives of discussing varieties of English(es)……………………..19 1.2.2. Quirk's taxonomy of varieties oEnglish…………………………………………19 1.2.3. EFL, ESL, ENL……………………………………………………………………..21 1.2.4. Institutionalized vs. non-institutionalized varieties of English………………21 1.2.5. Indigenized varieties of English (IVE), localized forms of English (LFE), New varieties of English (NVE), New Englishes………………………………………23 1.2.6. Learner, performance varieties of English……………………………………..24 1.2.7. World Englishes (WEs)……………………………………………………………24 1.2.8. International English, English as an international language (EIL)………...25 1.2.9. English as a lingua franca (ELF)………………………………………………..26 1.2.10. English as a world language (EWL), world English………………………...27 1.2.11. English as a global language (EGL), global English, and global Englishes……………………………………………………………………………………28

3

1.2.12. World Standard (Spoken) English……………………………………………...28 1.2.13. English language complex………………………………………………………30 1.3.GLOBALIZATION AND THE SPREAD OF ENGLISH ...................................................... 30 1.3.1. Globalization……………………………………………………………………….30 1.3.2. The spread of English……………………………………………………………..31 1.3.2.1. Language related factors contributing to the spread of English….…….…34 1.3.2.2. Human/social related factors contributing to the spread of English……..36 1.3.2.3. External factors contributing to the spread of English……………………..39 1.3.2.4. The spread of English across various functional domains…………………45 1.3.2.5. The current spread of English………………………………………………….49 1.3.3. Frameworks and models accounting for the spread of English……………..50 1.3.3.1. Two trajectories and three models of the diffusion of English….….…….…50 1.3.3.2. Linguistic imperialism and the spread of English…………………………..51 1.3.3.3. Widdowson's model of the spread of English as a virtual language…...…53 1.3.3.4. Brutt-Griffler's theory of the development of world language…………….57 1.4.FRAMEWORKS

AND MODELS ATTEMPTING TO CAPTURE AND ACCOUNT FOR THE

COMPLEXITIES OF ENGLISH IN THE GLOCAL CONTEXT.................................................. 67

1.4.1. Approaches to research in World English(es)…………………………………68 1.4.2. Geopolitical frameworks of English………………………………………….…70 1.4.2.1. Kachru's circles of English(es)………………………………………………...70 1.4.2.2. McArthur's circle of World English………………………………………...…72 1.4.2.3. Görlach’s circle model of English…………………………………………….73 1.4.2.4. Strevens’s map-and-branch model…………………………………………….74 1.4.3. Kachruvian paradigm/World Englishes approach………………………….…75 1.4.4. Linguistic imperialism…………………………………………………………….79 1.4.5. A lingua franca approach to English……………………………………………85 1.4.6. The global language system………………………………………………………92 1.4.7. The dynamic model of evolution of New Englishes……………………………95 1.4.8. Sociolinguistics of globalization…………………………………………………98 1.4.9. Glocalization and the English language………………………………………102 1.4.10. The worldliness of English…………………………………………………….103 1.5. THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS

OF

EWL AS

VIEWED BY LIBERATION

(WORLD ENGLISHES

PARADIGM) AND DEFICIT LINGUISTICS ....................................................................... 106

4

1.5.1. Quirk’s concerns over ‘liberation linguistics'……………………………..…108 1.5.2. Kachru’s ‘liberation linguistics’……………………………………………….111 1.5.3. Sacred linguistic cows………………………………………………………...…114 1.5.4. Final notes…………………………………………………………………………120 1.6. CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................... 120 CHAPTER 2: THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF ENGLISH IN THE GLOCAL CONTEXT - AN OUTLINE ...................................................................................... 122 2.1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 122 2.2.THE POWER AND THE POLITICS OF ENGLISH .......................................................... 123 2.2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….123 2.2.2. The hegemony of English and the processes of Englishization…………….126 2.2.2.1. The hegemony of the English language…………………………………..…126 2.2.2.2. Englishization…………………………………………………………………..128 2.2.3. The stratificational function of English………………………………………..137 2.2.4. Final notes…………………………………………………………………………138 2.3.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS AND BELIEFS ABOUT ENGLISH, ITS DOMINANCE AND

SPREAD……………………………………………………………………………...139

2.3.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…139 2.3.2. Positive attitudes and beliefs about English and its role in the world….…141 2.3.3. Negative perception of English and its role in the world……………………145 2.3.4. Attitudes towards varieties of English(es)…………………………………….148 2.3.4.1. Native speakers’ of English perception of varieties and standard models of English…………………………………………………………………………………….149 2.3.4.2. Non-native speakers’ of English perception of varieties and standard models of English………………………………………………………………………...153 2.3.5. Final notes…………………………………………………………………………158 2.4. THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SPREAD AND STATUS OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ... 159 2.4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….159 2.4.2. Linguistic human rights and the English language………………………….161 2.4.3. Local linguistic ecology with English in the back- (or maybe) foreground……………………………………………………………………………………..165

5

2.4.4. Managing the spread and status of English – diminishing the bad sides of its dominance?………………......................................................................................167 2.4.5. Final notes…………………………………………………………………………175 2.5. SOME

SELECTED SOCIOLINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF TEACHING

ENGLISH

TO THE

WORLD.. ..................................................................................................................... 176

2.5.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….176 2.5.2. Conservative approaches concerning models of English and standards…179 2.5.3. The notions of native speaker, intelligibility and its international preservation……………………………………………………………………………....181 2.5.4. ELF as a model…………………………………………………………………...187 2.5.5. English language teaching according to the World Englishes paradigm...197 2.5.6. Final notes………………………………………………………………………...202 2.6. THE INDIGENIZATION, ACCULTURATION OF ENGLISH .......................................... 204 2.6.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….204 2.6.2. Nativization (indigenization) and acculturation of English………………...206 2.6.3. Final notes…………………………………………………………………………213 2.7. CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................... 215 CHAPTER 3: THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS OF ENGLISH IN POST-1989 POLAND – SETTING THE SCENE……………………………………………….217 3.1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………217 3.2. ENGLISH IN POLAND BEFORE 1989 – THE FORMATION OF THE POWER BASES OF THE LANGUAGE ................................................................................................................. 218

3.2.1. Historical background…………………………………………………………...218 3.2.2. Attitudinal issues………………………………………………………………….219 3.2.3. Teaching English…………………………………………………………………220 3.2.4. Language planning and policy………………………………………………….226 3.2.5. The power and politics of English…………………………………………...…228 3.2.5.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..228 3.2.5.2. Englishization and borrowings…………………………………………….…229 3.2.6. The role of the British Council in establishing the power bases in Poland prior to 1989……………………………………………………………………………...231

6

3.3.THE

SOCIOLINGUISTICS

OF

ENGLISH

IN

POLAND

AFTER

1989………………………………………………………………….……………..238 3.3.1. The globalization/europeanization and the Americanization/Englishization of the Polish language and culture………………………………………………….…238 3.3.2. Post-communist (cultural) relations between Poland, the UK and the US.241 3.3.3. Americanization and Englishization in Poland and their linguistic dimensions………………………………………………………………………………...267 3.3.4. Americanization and Englishization in some selected fields and genres.…281 3.3.4.1. Trade, services, and industry…………………………………………………281 3.3.4.2. Advertising………………………………………………………………………283 3.3.4.3. The language of the media……………………………………………………287 3.3.4.4. The language of modern technology…………………………………………290 3.3.4.5. The modification of old genres and the emergence of new ones…………293 3.3.4.6. Topic interview with politicians……………………………………………...296 3.3.4.7. Some further insight into the changes of post-1989 Polish – a special focus on youth language…………………………………………………………………….…297 3.3.5. The stratificational function of English in Poland…………………………...301 3.3.5.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..301 3.3.5.2. The significance of the English language in the job market……………..306 3.3.5.3. Private tutoring in Poland…………………………………………………….312 3.3.6. Language planning and policy in post-1989 Poland……………………...…322 3.3.6.1. General principles of Polish education system…………………………….322 3.3.6.2. The condition of foreign language teaching in the transformational period……………………………………………………………………………………...329 3.3.6.3. Language education reforms of the early 1990s…………………………...331 3.3.6.4. Further reforms of language education in post-1989 Poland……………340 3.3.6.5. Language policy and the EU guidelines…………………………………….342 3.3.6.6. Language policy and external aid……………………………………………346 3.3.6.7. General principles of the functioning of the Polish educational system..349 3.3.6.8. Teaching foreign languages in the structure of Polish public schools….352 3.3.6.9. English for first graders as an example of language policy and its implementation…………………………………………………………………………...354 3.3.6.10. The protection and promotion of the Polish language and culture……356

7

3.3.7. Some sociolinguistic aspects of English language teaching in Poland……360 3.3.7.1. The knowledge of foreign languages among Poles………………………..360 3.3.7.2. Foreign language teaching in Poland…………………………………….…365 3.3.7.3. Teachers of English in Poland……………………………………………..…374 3.3.7.4. The functioning of the system of teaching English in Poland………….…379 3.4. CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................... 382 CHAPTER 4: POLES' PERCEPTION OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE SOCIOLINGUISTIC FUNCTIONING OF ENGLISH IN POLAND…………...383 4.1.INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 383 4.2.AN OUTLINE OF POLES' PERCEPTION OF ENGLISH................................................. 386 4.2.1. General remarks concerning Poles' language attitudes towards and beliefs about English and Polish language policy……………………………………………386 4.2.2. The perception of foreign language teaching in Poland…………………….387 4.2.3. Englishization and Americanization in the eyes of Poles…………………...393 4.2.4. Final notes…………………………………………………………………………402 4.3. PROBING

INTO THE PERCEIVED POWER OF

ENGLISH –

AN ATTEMPT AT

OPERATIONALIZING THE CONSTRUCT ......................................................................... 402

4.3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….402 4.3.2. Theoretical background of the research – operationalizing the concepts..404 4.3.3. Pilot study number one – contextualizing the concept of attitude………….408 4.3.4. Pretesting……………………………………………………………………….…410 4.3.4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..…410 4.3.4.2. Some notes on the issues of validity and reliability…………………..……411 4.3.4.3. Item analysis……………………………………………………………………413 4.4. AN EXAMINATION OF THE PERCEIVED POWER OF ENGLISH AMONG STUDENTS .... 416 4.4.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….…416 4.4.2. Sampling procedure, and the independent variables………………………..417 4.4.3. Results of the research………………………………………………………..…422 4.4.3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………..……422 4.4.3.2. Presentation of results…………………………………………………………423 4.4.3.3. Bias and suggestions for further research………………………………….437 4.4.3.4. Final notes………………………………………………………………………438

8

4.5. CONCLUDING REMARKS ....................................................................................... 442 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 443 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 463 APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..…498 ABSTRAKT………………………………………………………………………….503

9

List of tables

Table 1. Books and pamphlets translated into Polish by language of originals – the number of titles and copies (the latter in thousands)………………………………….247 Table 2. Books and pamphlets by language of publication – titles and number of copies (the latter in thousands)……………………………………………………………….253 Table 3. Newspapers and magazines published by language of origin (titles and copies in thousands)…………………………………………………………………………..256 Table 4. The value of UK books exports to Poland in pound sterling since 1988……258 Table 5. Full-length (new-releases and reruns) films in the cinemas by country of origin – titles and audience…………………………………………………………………..262 Table 6. The number of full-length dubbed films and other adaptations of full- and short-length films……………………………………………………………………...266 Table 7. The frequency of foreign names of shops (adapted from Rzetelska-Feleszko 2000: 144)….………………………………………………………………………….286 Table 8. The number loanwords, semantic, and syntactic borrowings in different corpuses (adapted on the basis of Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 145-146)………...300 Table 9. The participation of Polish students in payable out-of-school activities (adapted from Wciórka 2009: 11)…..…………………………………………………………..317 Table 10. Estimated numbers of all first-year (full-time and part-time) students of English, German, French, and Russian attending both private and public colleges ….338 Table 11. The commonness of compulsory foreign language teaching in Poland after 1989…………………………………………………………………………………...368 Table 12. The population of students taking Matura exams in foreign languages (as both mandatory and additional subjects) and the mean results from the exam………….…372

10

Table 13. Poles’ liking for Americans and Englishmen since 1993 till 2010 (adapted from Wądołowska 2010: 3)…………………………………………………………...385 Table 14. Threshold values of statistical significance for different sample sizes…….423 Table 15. Mean values of the power of English as perceived by various groups of students………………………………………………………………………………..424 Table 16. The values of the power of English and its specific parameters – students as opposed to teachers of English……………………………………………….……….427 Table 17. Mean values of specific parameters as determined by the independent variables (social traits of students)…………………………………………………....429 Table 18. The values of the linear correlation coefficient between dependent and independent variables; statistical significance of the correlations…………….………430 Table 19. The values of the correlation coefficient between individual pairs of dependent variables (the parameters of the power of English)…………………….…434

11

List of figures

Figure 1. Language convergence with World English (adapted form Brutt-Griffler 2002: 178)……………………………………………………………………………………..63 Figure 2. A model of English language spread and change (adapted from Brutt-Griffler 2002: 120)………………………………………………………………………………66 Figure 3. Kachru’s tripartite geopolitical model of World Englishes (adapted from Kachru 1992a: 356)………………………………………………………………….…71 Figure 4. McArthur’s Circle of World English (adapted from McArthur 1998: 97)…..72 Figure 5. Görlach’s circle model of English (adapted from McArthur 1998: 101)…….73 Figure 6. Strevens's map-and-branch model of English (adapted from Strevens 1992: 33). …………………………………………………………………………………….75 Figure 7. Translations of books and pamphlets into Polish by language of originals – the number of new titles………………………………………………………………..…248 Figure 8. Translations of books and pamphlets into Polish by language of originals – the number of copies in thousands………………………………………………………..250 Figure 9. Books and pamphlets by language of publication – titles…………………..254 Figure 10. Books and pamphlets by language of publication – the number of copies..254 Figure 11. The number of newspapers and magazines by language of publication – the number of titles………………………………………………………………………..257 Figure 12. The number of newspapers and magazines by language of publication – the number of copies in thousands………………………………………………………..257 Figure 13. The value of UK books exports to Poland in pound sterling since 1988….259 Figure 14. The number of new film releases in the cinemas in Poland by country of origin…………………………………………………………..……………………....263

12

Figure 15. The number of viewers in the cinema by country of films' origin………...263 Figure 16. Estimated numbers of all students (attending both private and public colleges) of English, German, French, and Russian…………......................................339 Figure 17. Poles’ self-reported ability to communicate in foreign languages (the period 1997 – 2009) (adapted from Wciórka 2009b: 12)………………………………..…..362 Figure 18. Foreign (compulsory) language teaching in Polish public schools (all counted together) since 1992/1993 (on the basis of Zarębska 2006; Zarębska 2009)…………367

13

Introduction1

Fine-grained examinations of sociolinguistic phenomena should be pursued in reference to the wider context in which they occur. In the era of globalization, numerous phenomena have global reach and investigating the sociolinguistics of English, an unsurpassable lingua franca of the present day world, without reference to the broader context of its functioning is like turning a blind eye to an invaluable insight allowing one to gain deeper understanding of the factors contributing to its actual role and status in a specific locale. Accordingly, sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in a given country, even though locally shaped, should be seen as determined by external, more global forces as well. In this light, the present dissertation strives to form solid theoretical and descriptive foundations for the following discussion of the sociolinguistics of English in Poland. A broad state-of-the-art outline gains even greater relevance since this seems to be the first attempt at adopting a holistic integrative approach to elaborate on this subject matter (in Poland). Just as importantly, to do justice to the exploration of the theme one should also take heed of the general, national (synchronic and diachronic) context in which the functioning of English is to be examined. These two perspectives, national and global, seem to be in the case of English of almost equal (profound) importance when pursuing sociolinguistic research concerning its actual role in a given location. Clearly, they allow one to discern, 1

Acknowledgements. I would like to express deep gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. dr hab. Roman Kopytko, whose advice, guidance, as well as humane and warm support made it all possible to complete this large project. Any remaining mistakes, flaws, and imperfections are the sole responsibility of the author of the thesis. I also need to acknowledge the assistance from doctor Artur Bajerski, my dearest friend, in statistical analyses, and Lech Zielony, the principal of Liceum Ogólnokształcące im. Tadeusza Kościuszki w Turku, for enabling me to conduct research in his school. Numerous other people who helped me collect data and participated in the study also deserve hearty and grateful thanks. Additionally, I must acknowledge the invaluable support I received from my closest family. Special thanks go to my wife to whom I dedicate this work. Without her sacrifice, encouragement and faith in me and the project, no part of the thesis would have been completed.

14

problematize, theorize and comprehensively account for a wide range of sociolinguistic phenomena occurring in Poland with English in the back- and frequently in the foreground. In line with global (and, importantly, European) trends, the English language in post-1989 Poland has been steadily growing in its importance. The fall of communism fully opened Poland to the processes and phenomena operating in the ever globalizing world, including the unprecedented international spread of English. The sociolinguistics of English in post-transformational Poland cannot, thus, be analyzed and investigated without referring to relevant global forces determining its dispersion and the formation of its power bases. The selection of the issues recognized as especially worthy of further examination was based on the theoretical and descriptive state-of-the-art knowledge (Chapters 1 and 2) concerning the sociolinguistic functioning and spread of English in global and local contexts. Specifically, some of the most important aspects discussed in the thesis with respect to the sociolinguistics of English in Poland are the following: (1) the formation of the power bases of English, (2) the dispersion of English in post-1989 Poland (globalization, Europeanization, and language learning), (3) Englishization and Americanization of the Polish language and culture, (4) the stratificational function of English, (5) language planning and policy, (6) English language teaching in Poland, (7) attitudes towards and beliefs about English and its role. In addition, the empirical part of the dissertation examines the perceived power of English (i.e. folk perception of the functioning of English in Poland pointing to its power) by adopting and operationalizing the Kachruvian idea of the concept.

Aims, means and methods

The prime aims of this dissertation are to give a comprehensive picture of selected sociolinguistic aspects of English in post-1989 Poland (Chapters 3 and 4) and to strive for their theorization (see Conclusion) in light of recent theories, models and approaches (Chapter 1) as well as general sociolinguistic patterns and principles emerging from analyses of its coming in contact with various communities, cultures, and languages around the world (Chapter 2). Vital secondary aims of the project are to develop a research procedure integrated with the insight from the subject matter and probe into the perceived role played by English in Poland (Chapter 4); a study belonging to the poorly examined research area. All of this may be thought to serve the purpose of pursuing the 15

ultimate goal of skechting the sociolinguistics of English in post-1989 Poland. To specify, in order to achieve the particular aims of the project presented above, a decision was made to employ a holistic integrative approach utilizing relevant theoretical, descriptive, and empirical insights from a variety of sources and disciplines. The stateof-the-art knowledge is supplemented with a variety of relevant data and both are treated as indispensable elements of the delineation of the sociolinguistic functioning of English in post-transformational Poland and its theorization. Accordingly, bearing in mind the extensiveness of the task, it has been necessary to rely heavily on relevant synchronic and diachronic research of numerous investigators as well as the following types of data: (1) state-of-the-art evidence, (2) observational evidence, (3) newspaper data and evidence, (4) research data, (5) statistical data, (6) national survey data, (7) survey research data. To elaborate, the means and methods employed in the dissertation to attain the particular aims encompass the following: (1) presenting a comprehensive theoretical state of the art concerning the relevant subject matter and applying it to theorize about the role of the English language in post-1989 Poland, (2) showing the relevance of global forces for the molding of the sociolinguistics of English in Poland, (3) discussing general trends and patterns resultant from the functioning of English in Outer- and Expanding-Circle countries and juxtaposing them with the situation to be found in Poland, (4) integrating relevant discussions, analyses, surveys, reports etc. to build up a comprehensive picture of the functioning of English in post-transformational Poland, (5) complementing the current research with an original empirical study integrating the current theoretical and descriptive insights to examine the perceived power of English. The order of steps taken to fulfill the aforesaid aims of the project is the following: •

Chapter 1 gives an overview of recent approaches and models concerning English as a world language and, thus, provides a conceptual framework which constitutes the general theoretical background the importance of which is especially great for the theorization of the sociolinguistics of English in Poland;

•

Chapter 2 complements the presentation of the state of the art by providing a broad overview of various sociolinguistic phenomena, issues, and patterns related to the functioning of English as world language in the glocal context; accordingly, the chapter serves as reference point for the complementary discussions concerning

16

English in Poland and facilitates, by enabling comparison, the comprehension and theorization of the role of English in post-transformational Poland; •

Chapter 3 delineates the sociolinguistic developments of English as a world language in post-1989 Poland by means of applying a comprehensive approach utilizing the state-of-the-art knowledge, various reports, surveys, statistics, and other data compiled by the author from a variety of fields to develop a detailed and informative picture of its functioning in the post-transformational period;

•

Chapter 4 completes the picture by sketching and discussing Poles’ beliefs about and attitudes towards English and its functioning in Poland as well as probes into folk perception of the power of English (empirical investigation). In contrast to single surveys (frequently unrelated to or contradictory with the state-of-the-art knowledge) which focus only on tiny segments of the problem, the one devised by the author was designed in such a way as to integrate it with the mainstream research, its objectives, methods and procedures and to obtain an insight into a wide array of issues;

•

In the concluding part (Conclusion) the author strives to juxtapose and compare the phenomena found locally in Poland with more general tendencies and patterns as well as theorize and account for the sociolinguistic functioning of English in posttransformational Poland in light of recent theories about and approaches to English as a world language.

The holistic integrative project is argued by the author to have numerous implications of theoretical, descriptive, applied, and methodological nature.

17

Chapter 1: The conceptualization of English in the glocal context and its spread – approaches and models

1.1. Introduction

No language scholar would deny the importance of theories in accounting for sociolinguistic phenomena. Their significance and value seem to be especially great when dealing with such a broad area as the sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in the global and local (or, perhaps, glocal) context. It is argued that the maturity of a field is well indicated by its theoretical bases or even diversity of approaches and models. In this light, the field of World Englishes seems to be coming of age as the multitude of stands on its dispersion, power relations, educational and pedagogical issues, as well as the conceptualization of the language per se is, in fact, remarkable. From the perspective of this dissertation the import of the theoretical underpinnings of the field presented in this chapter is that they will make it possible to search for interpretation of the sociolinguistic phenomena related to the presence, dispersion and functioning of English in post-transformational Poland. The insight offered by recent approaches to World Englishes will also enable to deepen our understanding of the role that the English language has been playing over the last two decades in the post-communist Poland.

18

1.2. What English are we talking about - the conceptualization of English 1.2.1. Four perspectives of discussing varieties of English(es)

The complexity and multitude of ways of conceptualizing English(es) in the glocal context may be attributed to its outstanding spread throughout the world and its acquiring the range and depth unparalleled in the history of human languages by any other language of wider communication. The varieties of English(es) which arose in the process of its spread and change can be discussed from many perspectives. They can be analyzed through prioritizing their acquisitional characteristics (first, second, foreign language), sociocultural properties (transplanted vs. non-transplanted)2, motivational factors (integrative vs. instrumental motivation) or functional implementations (national vs. international language) (Kachru 2006d: 112-113). Accounting for such a complex phenomenon as English(es) functioning in the econocultural system of the ever globalizing world requires adopting a comprehensive framework within which one can investigate and compare the numerous and miscellaneous varieties of English. The framework proposed by Kachru proves helpful when analyzing and contrasting the many varieties of English(es) around the world.

1.2.2. Quirk’s taxonomy of varieties of English

The abundance of terms referring to the varieties of English can, undoubtedly, be perceived as perplexing. Indeed, as Quirk (2006c: 502) asserts there is “profusion and (I believe) confusion of types of linguistic variety that are freely referred to in educational, linguistic, sociolinguistic, and literary critical discussion.” The chaos caused by such various terms as American English, legal English, working-class English, computer English, BBC English, Black English, South Asian English, Queensland Kanaka English, liturgical English, Ashkenazic English, scientific English, Chicago English, Chicano English is attributed by him to the fact that whereas “these varieties are on 2

A distinction between transplanted (e.g. American English, Indian English) and non-transplanted varieties of English is frequently made in the Kachruvian paradigm (see Kachru 2006d: 113). According to Kachru (2006d:113), this differentiation draws attention to the processes of the acculturation and nativization of the transplanted varieties. When the English language was ‘transplanted’ to a new locale it underwent changes which can be attributed most of all to its adaptation to suit the local environment and the communicative needs of people who used it. Therefore, such varieties of English cannot be regarded as deficient but, simply, different.

19

desperately different taxonomic bases”, they are widely treated as comparable and corresponding (Quirk 2006c: 502). Quirk’s proposal to sort out this disorganization is to distinguish between varieties that are use-related and user-related (2006c: 503): 1. Use related: a. content-marked (scientific English, legal English) b. tone-marked (BBC English, working-class English) 2. User related: a. ethnopolitical (American English, African English) b. linguistic: i. non-native (Nigerian English, Indian English; performance varieties – e.g. German English, Nordic English) ii. native: •

non-institutionalized (South African English, Yorkshire English, Australian English)

•

institutionalized (American English, British English)

As regards use-related varieties, they pertain to the ones that are assumed by an individual together with a certain role that he or she performs; any individual can master a number of such varieties (Quirk 2006c: 503). In contrast, individuals are generally tied to only one user-related variety, for instance, Americans to American English, the British to British English etc. (Quirk 2006c: 503-504). A speaker of American English is, for instance, unlikely to express themselves in Australian English. Any taxonomic categorization is a reflection of a scholar’s views, opinions or a stance on a given issue. Consequently, such categorizations and/or their interpretations are likely to meet with criticism. In the case of Quirk’s taxonomic division, the question of who counts as a native speaker and what country, and on what basis, may be regarded as having an institutionalized variety of English are possible areas of disagreement between language scholars. Nevertheless, despite these two controversial matters, the model can be regarded as a useful tool helping to sort out the chaos related to indiscriminate and inconsiderate applications of diverse terms related to varieties of English(es).

20

1.2.3. EFL, ESL, ENL

The distinction between English as a foreign language (EFL), English as a second language (ESL) and English as a native language (ENL) relates to the differences in the status of English and the functional domains occupied by the language in a given country in which English is spoken by, respectively, foreign-language users, secondlanguage users and native users. In EFL countries English has not acquired any significant or official roles and it is usually learned and used to communicate with either native speakers of English or with other foreigners for whom English is also a nonnative language (see Trudgill 2003: 44). In contrast, it is believed that even though in ESL countries English is not spoken natively, it has achieved an official role and its functional range and depth make it an important internal means of communication in education, the media and/or the government (Trudgill 2003: 44). It is usually assumed that to ESL countries belong former British or American colonies, where English frequently occupies a prominent role in internal affairs. Nowadays, the differentiation between EFL, ESL, ENL is regarded to be getting increasingly inadequate to capture the complexity of the contexts and situations in which English(es) is/are used (see McArthur 2003: 57). Again, the issue of who can count as a native and on what criteria comes to the fore. Communicative competence is unlikely to dispel any doubts in this matter because non-native speakers of English can frequently use the language, at least in certain domains, more fluently and competently than natives of English(es) (see McArthur 2003: 57). Another conundrum is how to distinguish between some ESL and EFL countries. Some countries which have traditionally been ascribed the status of an EFL country may now, due to ever increasing importance of English, be more adequately called an ESL country. It seems that this classification of English may require either abandonment or refurbishment.

1.2.4. Institutionalized vs. non-institutionalized varieties of English

A differentiation between institutionalized and non-institutionalized non-native varieties of English was developed by Kachru who investigated the common characteristics of the former on the basis of variety-specific (e.g. Indian English) or region specific (e.g. English in South Asia) kinds of English. Kachru (1985: 20-21) points out that research 21

points to the importance of the sociolinguistic context in determining innovations and language change and, by extension, the emergence of New Englishes. According to Kachru (1985: 12), institutionalized varieties of Outer Circle countries are the ones which experienced “extended periods of colonization”, and consist of “large speech communities having diverse and distinct characteristics.” These varieties function in bilingual or multilingual communities and play an important role in their language policies (Kachru 1985: 12). More specifically, the characteristics shared by institutionalized non-native varieties of English are as follows (Kachru 2006d: 114):

1. “an extended range of uses in the sociolinguistic context of a nation”; 2. “an extended register and style range”; 3. “a process of nativization of the registers and styles has taken place, both in formal and in contextual terms”; 4. “a body of nativized English literature has developed which has formal and contextual characteristics which mark it localized. On the other hand, such a body of writing is considered a part of the larger body of writing labeled English literature”; 5. “the length of time in use”; 6. “the extension of use”; 7. “the emotional attachment of L 2 users with the variety”; 8. “functional importance”; 9. “sociolinguistic status.” The institutionalized varieties of non-native English exhibit an internal arrangement along a lectal continuum (basilects, mesolects and acrolects) which can be functional but not necessarily developmental (see Kachru 2006d: 116). Furthermore, it is elucidated that: One can claim that, for example, in South Asia, English is used in four functions: the instrumental, the regulative, the interpersonal, and the imaginative/innovative. In each function we have a cline in performance which varies from what may be termed an ‘educated’ or ‘standard’ variety to a pidginized or ‘broken’ variety. The varieties within a variety also seem to perform their functions, as they do in any native variety of English (Kachru 2006d: 116).

22

To elaborate, the instrumental function relates to the usage of English as a medium of learning in the educational system and the regulative function concerns its applications to administer demeanor, for instance, in the legal system or administration (see Kachru 2006d: 117). The interpersonal function entails the use of English as a link language for speakers living in linguistically and culturally pluralistic societies who share no common language or dialect and the imaginative/innovative function of English relates to its creative application in a variety of literary genres (Kachru 2006d: 117). It should be noted that Kachru’s comprehension of institutionalized non-native varieties is not approved of by some language scholars. Quirk’s understanding of the term is different and indicates his less liberal stance and greater concern with standards and models of the English language. Quirk (2006c: 504-505) argues that a variety which can be referred to as institutionalized must be “fully described and with defined standards observed by the institutions of state.” A point is made that there are two such varieties (American and British English) and that Australian English may be regarded as having a rather informal standard. Non-native varieties are argued to be less stable than native ones and to “resemble these to a slight extent in being on a socioeconomic cline” (Quirk 2006c: 505). Even more forcefully, an assertion is made by the scholar that “I am not aware of there being any institutionalised non-native varieties” (Quirk 2006c: 505).

1.2.5. Indigenized varieties of English (IVE), localized forms of English (LFE) New varieties of English (NVE), New Englishes

The terms IVE, LFE, NVE and New Englishes seem to be overlapping to some degree. The concepts roughly refer to the same phenomena, nonetheless, as used by various language scholars, they point to the different centers of gravity that are emphasized by researchers. According to Brutt-Griffler (1998: 386), indigenized varieties of English (IVE) are kinds of English that developed in multilingual contexts in the process of indigenization which for her amounts to social second language acquisition (macroacquisition). As regards a localized form of English (for instance, Singapore English, East African English), it can be recognized by the emergence of a variety “identifiable and definable through its distinctive mixture of features of grammar, lexis, pronunciation, discourse, and style” in places “wherever there is an English-using 23

community, sufficiently large and sufficiently stable as a community” (Strevens 1992: 34). The term New Varieties of English (NVE) refers to the kinds of English which developed in the locales outside of Old Varieties of English (e.g. American or British English) and where there is some form of a local standard arranged along a lectal continuum (see Kam-Mei and Halliday 2002: 16). English in such a milieu can be an official language and one that functions as a language through which the local culture is expressed (see Kam-Mei and Halliday 2002: 15). It seems that this label is sometimes used alternatively with the concept of New Englishes which presumably puts greater emphasis on the pluricentricity of Englishes and their greater independence.

1.2.6. Learner, performance varieties of English

Learner or performance varieties of English designate non-institutionalized kinds of English used as foreign languages and revealing “a highly restricted functional range in specific contexts” (Kachru 2006d: 114). The usage of such pre-modifiers as Japanese English or German English identifies geographical areas and “geographical or national performance characteristics” (Kachru 2006d: 114). Nowadays, it is getting increasingly more popular among researchers to use such pre-modifiers. In the relevant literature, one can find such notions as Euro-English, Nordic English, French English etc. This could be symptomatic of the growing trend to manifest and acclaim one’s identity not simply as a foreign language user indiscriminately parroting native speakers’ models but the language user coming from a specific and unique locale, speaking a world lingua franca with his/her distinctive accent.

1.2.7. World Englishes (WEs)

The concept of World Englishes (WEs) has been widely used in the research and discussions on the functioning of English in the glocal context. Associated though it is mainly with the Kachruvian paradigm, the term World Englishes as used by some scholars goes beyond its original meaning. Kachru himself declares that the question relating to the appropriateness of the usage of the notion World Englishes calls for linguistic, attitudinal, ontological, and pragmatic deliberations: 24

The term ‘Englishes’ is indicative of distinct identities of the language and literature. ‘Englishes’ symbolizes variation in form and function, use in linguistically and culturally distinct contexts, and a range of variety in literary creativity. And, above all, the term stresses the WE-ness among the users of English, as opposed to us vs. them (native ad nonnative). I believe that the traditional concept of us vs. them used in describing language diffusion does not apply to English in the same way as it does to other languages of wider communication (Kachru 2006a: 69).

Bolton notes (2006a: 186) that at present the concept World Englishes has acquired multiple meanings and applications. It can serve as “an umbrella label” designating the field of English in the glocal context with all its differing approaches (Bolton 2006a: 186). Alternatively, some researchers use it to refer to the New Englishes of the Caribbean, West and East African societies. Finally, it denotes the Kachruvian approach to the study of the English language worldwide (a World Englishes paradigm).

1.2.8. International English, English as an international language (EIL)

McArthur (2004: 4, 7-8) points out that the phrase international English has been applied as a technical term from 1980s but its first uses can be traced to 1930s. The concept was popularized by the publication of the book International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English by Peter Trudgill and Jean Hannah (1982). According to McArthur (2004: 9), international English carries the following three-fold connotations: “distribution across nations; standardness; and lingua-franca-hood.” Popularly, international English pertains to the use of English in the multinational context (especially in language teaching) (McArthur 2004: 4). It is a variety that is believed to be internationally acceptable and desired by non-native parents as a model for their children attending international schools (see McArthur 2004: 9). Seidlhofer (2004: 210) adds that the term international English either signifies Outer Circle localized varieties of English fulfilling various intranational functions or points to English when used as a globalized means of international communication.3 Moreover, some researchers by referring to international English mean “the English used in territories where it is a majority first language or an official additional language” (Seidlhofer 2004: 210). In this vein, Widdowson (1998: 399) points out that it is vital to 3

Importantly, a point is made that international communication in English is the domain of speakers coming from all three circles and not only those form the Expanding one (Seidlhofer 2004: 210).

25

distinguish between the two meanings of the notion. First of all, EIL can be said to be “international in that it occurs locally in different dialectal versions within communities all over the world, in Inner and Outer Circle locations” and, second of all, “we might take the term to mean that the language is used internationally across communities as a means of global communication” (Widdowson 1998: 399). Furthermore, his proposal is to understand EIL “as a range of self-regulating register for international use” (Widdowson 1998: 399). Jenkins (2006: 160) asserts that the phrase international English can be regarded as a shorthand for English as an International Language (EIL) and that the latter tends to be used as an alternative to English as a lingua franca (ELF). This results in confusion, yet, while some researchers opt for the systematic usage of English as a lingua franca to avoid unnecessary misconceptions, others still continue to use the terms EIL and ELF interchangeably. Kachru (2006g: 449) also argues that the combination of international with English “is misleading in more than one sense: it signals an international English in terms of acceptance, proficiency, functions, norms, pragmatic utility, and creativity” and ”[t]hat actually is far from true – that is not the current international functional profile of the English language.” Similarly, Seidlhofer (2004: 210) elucidates that the term international English suggests that “there is one clearly distinguishable, codified, and unitary variety called International English, which is certainly not the case.”

1.2.9. English as a lingua franca (ELF)

The origin of the term lingua franca goes back to the Arabic notion lisan-alfarang. It initially referred to a language which was used in communication between speakers of Arabic and travelers from Western Europe and then stood for a rather stable language of commerce (House 2003: 557). According to Firth (1996: 240), English as a lingua franca is “a ‘contact language’ between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication.” A point is made that the concept lingua franca is bereft of the ideological burden of such terms as foreigner talk, interlanguage talk, learner interaction since it “attempts to conceptualize the participant simply as a language user whose real-world interactions are deserving of unprejudiced description, rather (…) than as a person conceived a priori to be the possessor of incomplete or deficient 26

communicative competence, putatively striving for the ‘target’ competence of an idealized ‘native speaker’” (Firth 1996: 241). Firth (1996: 240) distinguishes between English as international and intranational lingua franca. In line with this division, the uses of intranational ELF concern situations when English serves as a contact language for national groups that do not share a common language (India, Nigeria) and international ELF refers to the applications of English as a link language by people from different countries or national groups. Moreover, the term lingua franca is applied by some language scholars to refer to not a limited in its scope and range, “low-level makeshift languages” (traditional meaning of lingua franca); but to designate “Standard English – an haute cuisine lingua franca” (McArthur 2006: 89). Importantly, there are some voices of criticism with respect to the conceptualization of English as ELF. For instance, Kachru (2006f: 467) argues that “I believe that the much-abused term ‘lingua franca’ is also misleading – and functionally inappropriate – when used for the sociolinguistic profile of world Englishes.”

1.2.10. English as a world language (EWL), world English

The history of World English goes back to 1920s; the term designated first standard English and then was used to refer to ‘all English’ (McArthur 2004: 3). Regarding its more contemporary meanings, McArthur (2004: 5) points out that “world English is both shorthand for English as a world language and a superordinate term for Australian English, British English, Irish English, Nigerian English, and the like” and that “[i]t embraces all aspects of the language: dialect, pidgin, creole, variety, standard, speech, writing, paper-based, electronic.” Importantly, Halliday (2003: 416) makes the point that one should discern that “English has become a world language in both senses of the term, international and global: international, as a medium of literary and other forms of cultural life in (mainly) countries of the former British Empire; global, as the co-genitor of the new technological age, the age of information.” Similarly to Halliday’s ‘global’ reference of the concept, Brutt-Griffler (2002: 110) asserts that “[t]he emergence of World English has accompanied the development of the world econocultural system” and that “World language is a product of the sociohistorical development of the world econocultural system, which includes the world market, business community, technology, science and cultural and intellectual life on the global scale.” 27

1.2.11. English as a global language (EGL), global English, and global Englishes

As regards the notion of global English, the term is believed to have its origins in the mid-1990s (McArthur 2004: 9). The concept refers to the extensive (global) use of English and associates the language with the social and economic aspects of globalization (McArthur 2004: 4ff). McArthur (2004: 10) notes that in some dictionary entries world and global English seem to be style variants; this is also how David Crystal seemed to use the two terms in his English as a Global Language (1997). Halliday expounds that:

A global language is a tongue which has moved beyond its nation, to become ‘international’; it is taken over, as second tongue, by speakers of other languages, who retain some features of their national forms of expression. If its range covers the whole world we may choose to call it ‘global’ (Halliday 2003: 408).

In contrast, the concept global Englishes, developed by Pennycook, is indicative of his novel approach to the phenomenon of English in the global context (see 1.4.10.). The term draws on both critical theories of globalization and the world Englishes paradigm (Pennycook 2007: 18). It emphasizes the tension between the destructive forces leading to the homogenization of the world and the appropriation of English which is seen as “a pluralized entity” (Pennycook 2007: 18). Importantly, Pennycook (2007: 18) points out that “[w]hile in some ways this term is intended to capture these two polarities – a critical theory of globalization and a pluralist vision of Englishes – I will also be distancing myself from these two ways of viewing English in the world (imperial or pluralist) since both have considerable shortcomings.”

1.2.12. World Standard (Spoken) English

An argument is advanced that one of the current developments that it is possible to observe in the world of English print around the globe is the emergence of World Standard English4 – “[a] federation of standards seems (…) already to be with us, constituting, as it were, an evolving ‘super-standard’ increasingly comfortable with

4

World Standard Spoken English (WSSE) is regarded as its spoken counterpart.

28

territorial and linguistic diversity” (McArthur 2006: 114). The concept itself is described along the following lines:

Such a World/International Standard English is an ad hoc balancing-out of the practices of publishers, educational institutions, governmental departments, legal institutions, and the like, much as in the past, but apparently with a fuller awareness of social and cultural sensitivities. In addition, there will be enough pushing and shoving to ensure that nobody becomes too blasé about it. One constructive message to be drawn from its existence might be: ‘This is the framework: use it to shape your own kind of consistency and clarity’. Yet a World Standard English is not world English. It is a fuzzy-edged subset drawn from all the Englishes, however prestigious it might be and whatever its relations with the communities and community standards that it pulls together (McArthur 2006: 114).

McArthur (2006: 112-113) maintains that a World Standard English has been a reality for some time now and that it hinges on a dual print standard (American and English). A point is also made that together with the emergence of new international lexicographical and linguistic projects a more federative world standard is likely to be on the way. The reasons for the emergence of a single world standard are perceived to be an ever increasing quantity of prose (especially on the Internet) and the nature of the print word itself which, due to its more permanent character than the fleeting speech, is subject to constant evaluation by present and future generations of speakers of English all over the world (McArthur 2006: 97ff) 5. Importantly, McArthur (2006: 98) points to the influence of print standard on the development of WSSE and, specifically, on the so called ‘spoken prose’ (omnipresent on the radio and TV news) which can be understood as not real speech acts, but acts of reading aloud – “they are print products at one remove, comparably standardized and with conventionalized delivery styles.” Nevertheless, it is admitted that the World Standard Spoken English is “a much less effective and successful dual pronunciation system” (McArthur 2006: 112-113).

5

McArthur (2006: 97) further explicates that “Print has traditionally been public and long-lasting, emerging from writing, typing, or keyboarding through editing and proof-reading into an end-form one of whose primary features is that it will be read and assessed by strangers. (…) When writing is converted into print, however, everything changes, with any actual or perceived textual flaw serving as evidence against a writer and/or a publication for a long time to come. This state of affairs has historically and socially been the cradle and mainstay of standardness, to a far greater extent than writing and speaking, even including the broadcast voice – and, again, it is not nearly so powerful a presence on the Internet and the Web as on traditional paper.”

29

1.2.13. English language complex

It is pointed out that there is a need to introduce a new more comprehensive and broader term referring to English in the global context (McArthur 2003: 56). A suggestion is made to use the term ‘the English language complex’ to cover such issues as English as a lingua franca; British English, American English, New York English; Euro English, Nordic English; and various varieties of the language being at different levels of the continuum of Anglo-hybrids (e.g. Scots, Scottish English and English) (McArthur 2003: 56-57). The English language complex seems to include kinds of English differentiated on the basis of three different criteria: (1) territorially delimited English languages (e.g. American, Indian, Nigerian); (2) historically distinct English languages (including among others “[p]recursors of present-day Englishes (…); [d]ialects or semi-languages with established names, traditions, orthographies, works of reference, literatures (…); [p]idgin-cum-creoles”; (3) anglo-hybrids (“[t]hese include Spanglish in the US, Frenglish in Quebec, Taglish in the Philippines, Hindlish in India, Malenglish in Malaysia, Singlish in Singapore, among many others, few if any of which are stable”) (McArthur 1998: 215-216).

1.3. Globalization and the spread of English 1.3.1. Globalization

The phenomenon of globalization should not be perceived as encompassing only economic processes (Pennycook 2007: 24-25). Equally significant seem to be its technological and cultural aspects. According to Pennycook (2007: 24-25), “[g]lobalization may be better understood as a compression of time and space, an intensification of social, economic, cultural and political relations, a series of global linkages that render events in one location of potential and immediate importance in other, quite distant locations.” It is noted that historical continuity and historical disjuncture are the frames within which one should investigate globalization (Pennycook 2003a: 524). This suggests that globalization is both a result of the history of Euro-American and other designs and a quite new phenomenon in the ever globalizing/corporatizing world (Pennycook 2003a: 524). For Pennycook a critical analysis of the phenomenon (i.e. investigating new forms of power, control and 30

destruction as well as probing into novel forms of resistance, change, appropriation and identity) is of paramount importance (Pennycook 2003a: 524). Furthermore, investigating globalization is argued to require rejecting the old dichotomy of homogeneity/heterogeneity and analyzing it in terms of translocations and transcultural flows (Pennycook 2003a: 524). Arguments are also advanced that since globalization encompasses economic, technological, cultural and linguistic strands scholars should be concerned most of all about the asymmetrical flows of products, ideas and discourses that mark the increasing gulf between the rich countries and the poor ones (Phillipson 1998: 101). In this vein, the essence of globalization consists in the clash between the processes of cultural homogenization and heterogenization. Importantly, cultural homogenization is perceived by some academics as involving McDonaldization6 – a phenomenon believed by many to violate fundamental human rights to preserve and promote cultural diversity (see Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 29).

1.3.2. The spread of English

The importance of and interest in the English language outside Britain began to increase in the eighteenth century together with military victory, colonial expansion, international trade and national political reform (see Wright 2004: 137). These days there are likely to be many more speakers of English than Crystal’s famous estimates based on data from 1981 indicate (Crystal 2006: 21). According to Crystal (2006: 21), there were at least 1 billion, three hundred million people who spoke English as a second language and over three hundred million speakers who used it as a first language (mother tongue). Some language scholars compare the importance of the spread of English and its role for the world as a lingua franca to the significance of the emergence of computers:

6

To elaborate, it is pointed out that “The trend towards creation of the impression of a global culture through production for global markets, so that products and information aim at creating ‘global customers that want global services by global suppliers’ can be termed McDonaldization, which means ‘aggressive round-the-clock marketing, the controlled information flows that do not confront people with the longterm effects of an ecologically detrimental lifestyle, the competitive advantage against local cultural providers, the obstruction of local initiative, all converge into a reduction of local cultural space’” (Hamelink 1994: 112, as quoted in Phillipson 1998: 101).

31

When the amount of information needing to be processed came to exceed human capabilities, the computer appeared on the scene, transforming the processes of planning and calculation. When the need for global communication came to exceed the limits set by language barriers, the spread of English accelerated, transforming existing patterns of international communication (Ferguson 1992: xv-xvi).

Nonetheless, it should be noted that there seems to be nothing much special in the English language itself. As McArthur (2003: 54) states “if it hadn’t been English then another language would presumably have taken on the job, because we need such a language.” Possibly, the emergence of global trade and globalizing economy has contributed more than anything else to the arise of the need for a language that could serve as a global means of communication. Fishman (1996a: 4) notes that the economical power of the United States may in itself support the global diffusion of English because Americans use almost exclusively English in their business deals. Wright aptly expounds further the intricate relations between economic globalization and the spread of English:

In terms of choice of language, this ideological and actual domination [on the part of the US] has meant that economic globalisation has given birth to a growing international scholarly and business literature on the subject in English. The international organisations and institutions, where free market philosophy is translated into policy, use English as the language to express that philosophy and to negotiate and administer compacts among groups. In investment, where information flows must of necessity accompany financial flows, since success depends ultimately on knowledge, the public channels are largely anglophone. The biggest and most prestigious business news networks, such as Dow Jones and Reuters, have headquarters in the United States and United Kingdom respectively and report in English. The IMF and the World Bank put pressure on client states to include English in their education systems as a part of development (Wright 2004: 145-146).

Moreover, Qiang and Wolff (2005: 57) point out that the English language has been acclaimed by globalist economic ideologies as “a key element in creating technical labor forces that meet their investment specifications.” As a result, English has become the prevailing language in the educational systems around the world (Qiang and Wolff 2005: 57). Many countries to attract knowledge industries to their countries strived to improve the command of English among their workforce (Wright 2004: 146). This can be attributed to the fact that new style globalization relies heavily on the manipulation of information which requires a large number of labor force proficiently speaking a language of international currency (Wright 2004: 146). Importantly, it should be noted that the present dominance of English in the globalizing business and economic relations may currently be fostered more by

32

Japanese, German, Gulf State or Southeast Asian economies than by Anglo-American ones (Fishman 1996a: 4). The seems so since the English language already constitutes an effective channel for international communication and the global non-Anglophone business and economy, which is becoming ever more competitive for the UK and the US economy, prefer to use this channel rather than invest effort, time and money to spread and popularize new means of communication (see Fishman 1996a: 4). Accordingly, it is maintained that English may remain an international means of communication even if the might of the US (which made the language a lingua franca for the world) in military, political, economic and technological spheres were to begin to fade:

It might survive because it has become the purveyor of the discourses of the dominating ideologies of Western democracy and neo-liberal free market Capitalism, the common language of the international scientific community, and the main medium of the new audio-visual and info tech networks whether or not these are US dominated (Wright 2004: 155).

In the same vein, Fishman (1996a: 4) asserts that “[u]ltimately, the spread of English – if such spread is documentable – may have more to do with the growing dominance of the richer countries over the poorer ones (and not merely economically or particularly politically, but also culturally) than with the English mother-tongue countries per se.” What is novel and unique about the global spread of English is most of all its magnitude, scale, rate and degree (i.e. its quantitative characteristics) and that the expansion of English is now more dependent on the non-English mother-tongue world (qualitative matter) (Fishman 1992: 19-20). It should also be born in mind that cultural aspects of globalization are also closely tied to economy. Pop culture has become the US most important export product spreading literally all over the world. Wright (2004: 154) points out that “[i]n 1996 language borne cultural products (movies, music, television programmes, books, journals and computer software) became the largest US export sector, surpassing, for the first time, all other traditional industries, including automotive, agriculture, or aerospace and defence.” Essentially, the export of American pop culture can potentially have a more profound influence on the spread of ideology and language than other types of trade and contacts (Wright 2004: 152). People learn English not only because it gives them access to the power and prestige of the rich countries but also because it lets them

33

“transcend their group membership, and this is what people appear to want to do” in the era of “an increasingly postnational system” (Wright 2004: 177). To conclude, in any analysis of English and globalization an emphasis should be put on adopting holistic, comprehensive frameworks that are, indeed global, and capable of accounting for the complexity of the phenomenon. Pennycook (2003a: 521) states that English is not simply an accompanist to globalization or, quite conversely, a key tool in the dissemination and propagation of American culture, lifestyle and liberal economy. But it cannot be regarded as a neutral means of communication either. Such simplistic and narrow views must be regarded as suspicious as they fail to give an account of the multiplicity of relations and influences – “[t]o view culture and language in terms only of reflections of the economic is to miss the point that new technologies and communications are enabling immense and complex flows of people, signs, sounds, images across multiple borders in multiple directions” (Pennycook 2007: 24-25). Finally, one should take heed of the fact that discussing and conceptualizing the spread of English we should not forget that the spread of any language, in fact, involves people and their changing everyday practices. Kachru (2006c: 485) asserts that “it is not languages that spread, but it is the increase in the number of users who acquire the language which marks the spread. In other words, English did not acquire its users, the users acquired English.” This perspective makes one focus on the user and it views language as an activity to be analyzed in a sociolinguistic context (Kachru 2006c: 485).

1.3.2.1. Language related factors contributing to the spread of English

Examining the reasons for the spread of English around the world one can easily get perplexed by the wealth of causes mentioned in the literature on the subject. Coming to grips with this multitude of reasons may be facilitated by developing a framework within which one can analyze various predictor factors of the diffusion. It seems that analyzing them within a framework listing factors according to the characteristics of the language and its learners as well as the ones referring to external (to the code and individuals) causes may prove both helpful and useful. Importantly, one should discern that the three general categories seem, in many ways, interrelated and impacting on each other. They may be regarded as broad categories that should help sort out the variety of

34

factors impacting on the spread. Nonetheless, some causes of the spread appear to defy simple categorization. Undoubtedly, any serious discussion of the causes of the unusual dispersion of English around the world should avoid claims about the superiority of the language over all other codes of communications. Indiscriminate references to its communicative, aesthetic or logic excellence raise doubts as to the scientific grounding of investigations accounting for the spread of the language along such lines. Nevertheless, the internal characteristics of a language may give some clues as to the reasons why a given language manages to become a global lingua franca. Regarding the internal (language specific) characteristics of English, Kachru (2006c: 496) points out that the spread of English can be attributed to the following internal features of the language:

1. “its propensity for acquiring new identities”; 2. “its power of assimilation”; 3. “its adaptability to ‘decolonization’ as a language”; 4. “its manifestation in a range of lects”; 5. “its provision of a flexible medium for literary and other types of creativity across languages and cultures.”

The reasons for the diffusion of English borrowings and their adoption by numerous users of various languages all over the world may be thought to provide insight into the features of English that have the greatest appeal for people and, by extension, the ones contributing also to the spread of the language itself. It is assumed, thus, that the causes of the dispersion of English loanwords may be analogous to some degree to the internal (language related) reasons why English promulgates as an international means of communication. Onysko (2004: 62), after investigating the functioning of English loanwords in German, argues that anglicisms are adopted by Germans because of, among others, their attractiveness and ability to satisfy certain communicative needs. Specifically, reference is made to the following language related factors (Onysko 2004: 62):

1. Semantic motivation (denotation) – English terminology is distributed together with new products and inventions coming from the Anglo-American world; 35

2. Stylistic motivation – adopting English words leads to the emergence of synonymous counterparts, which serves the purpose of increasing the creative potential of a language. This is especially important in journalism and advertising; 3. Euphemistic motivation – English loanwords can be used to talk about issues that are considered taboo as they do not evoke such a strong objection as native vulgarisms. Conceivably, this factor is related to the stylistic motivation, but of a very specific kind.

1.3.2.2. Human/social related factors contributing to the spread of English

It is extremely important to realize that external or language related factors mean nothing much unless individuals decide for some reasons to learn and use a given language. The histories of Polish and Greek nations, for instance, show that even the most adverse conditions for the preservation of one’s culture and language can be overcome by people. From a different perspective, even the most advantageous conditions for the spread and dissemination of a dominant language, a language of oppression, or a language of the elite and prosperity, can be insufficient if people decide to reject the language. Taking heed of the fact that the spread of a language means, in fact, an increase in the number of speakers learning and using a language requires a greater focus on the human/social factor related to the dispersion of English. In this light, the dichotomous division of learner’s motivation according to instrumental and integrative motivations is certainly not sufficiently insightful. In this vein, Wright (2004: 138f) elucidates that a language spreads widely if people believe that the knowledge of it will be of material benefit to them, will give them or facilitate access to new technologies (and they want that access), or help them express philosophies, ideologies, faiths or political beliefs that are of interest and importance to them. Fishman (1977a: 126) also notes that the spread of English has been conditioned by people’s desire to obtain various governmental, technological, industrial, commercial, or cultural rewards. Accordingly, English continues to be spreading as an additional language because of the universal interest in learning the language and thanks to “the more widespread availability of the rewards (real or imaginary) with which it is associated as compared to the availability of rewards 36

associated with its national or international competitors” (Fishman 1977a: 126). In a more evaluative and subjective fashion, it is asserted that:

The global language can be seen to open doors, which fuels a ‘demand’ for English. This demand reflects contemporary power balances and the hope that mastery of English will lead to employment or the prosperity and glamorous hedonism that the privileged have access to and that is projected in Hollywood films, MTV videos, and ads for transnational corporations. English is a key medium for such messages, and it is logical that there should be a demand for access to this medium (Phillipson 1998: 102).

More generally, people want to learn a language if they believe that thanks to its command they will gain access to the power that the language symbolizes and controls (Kachru 2006f: 202). To elaborate, it is pointed out that English in various locales around the world and at different times has been learned and used by its users (Kachru 2006f: 202-203):

1. as a means of enabling enlightenment in a religious sense; in Africa and Asia English was the language through which religious indoctrination took place (the power elite was Christian and English was the language that gave knowledge of the new religion); 2. as a marker of the civilizing process; people want(ed) to learn English because it can (could) help develop their material and intellectual potential; 3. as a prerequisite for the acquisition of various spheres of knowledge; people want to learn English because of its ‘vehicular load’ (thanks to the language they can acquire the knowledge they need); 4. as a means for distancing from native cultures; a vehicle of pragmatic success, a marker of modernization.

It seems that an analysis of reasons for the use of borrowings may also prove insightful in the case of human/social-related factors contributing to the attractiveness and spread of the language. In this vein, English loanwords are argued to be used by people (for instance in Germany) due to emotive, social and aesthetic reasons as well as owing to their shortness (Onysko 2004: 62). According to Onysko (2004: 62), Germans claim that English conveys the image of being modern, educated and fashionable (emotive factor). Importantly, it should be discerned that these days this is the image that a host of people would like to project and anglicisms seem to help achieve this goal.

37

This image of English is taken advantage of in advertising, fashion, modern sports and leisure7. It seems equally important to remember that people usually have a strong need to have a sense of belonging to a group and that language serves as one of the most conspicuous markers of forming and manifesting group solidarity and its identity. The English language and English borrowings have been used by a variety of social groups, frequently quite distinct from each other, to project specific identity and express solidarity with other members of the group. The multitude of groups using English loanwords to express their identity and the variety of different reasons for their usage can be realized and noticed when one thinks of such groups as diverse youth subcultures, politicians, scientists, journalists or TV presenters. Interestingly, Onysko (2004: 62-63) also asserts that anglicisms enjoy popularity with Germans since they seem for them conveniently short and more aesthetic (i.e. ‘they sound better’). However, it seems that these two factors are, in fact, more related to the social perception of a given community rather than to any inherent linguistic qualities of English. This is so because there seems to be little in the language itself that singles it out as more pleasing and nicer than other languages (imposed-norm hypothesis). To my mind, this aesthetic reason is, in fact, a socially influenced perception of what counts as nice and pleasing and what as ugly and unattractive. Moreover, the issue of the shortness of English words in comparison to German ones cannot be only a matter of the need to reduce the effort to pronounce words. Probably, if this were so vital, the German language itself would have evolved in such a way as to develop shorter words or abbreviations. In addition, never having heard any speaker of Polish complaining about the length of native lexemes, it can be assumed that the issue of the shortness concerns more speakers’ attitudes, beliefs or language stereotypes and not real, linguistic causes per se. Fishman (1977a: 128) offers some further insight pertaining to speakers’ motivations to use English loanwords and phrases. It is noted that people who know English, irrespective of their level of proficiency, introduce into mother-tongue conversations English borrowings and phrases for such various reasons as evoking humor, sarcasm, emphasis, status stressing, leg-pulling, or rank-pulling. Clearly, such uses of borrowings cannot be explained by the need to fill a lexical gap because they are mostly connotative and rather not denotative (Fishman 1977a: 128). Speakers use

7

The question whether English conveys such an image because of its use in the advertising (also the advertising of the language itself) and the media, or whether the advertising and the media take advantage of English because it conveys such an image seems to be a chicken-and-egg issue.

38

English-based loanwords to break the usual conventions of speaking and to mark conversation as special in the hope that the hearer will have a similar interpretation (Fishman 1977a: 128).

1.3.2.3. External factors contributing to the spread of English

In the extensive literature on the subject of the diffusion of English around the world its current success is most frequently attributed to a variety of global forces (external factors). First of all, references are made to British colonialism as well as to the economic and political power of the United States (cf. Mauranen 2003: 513). These factors should be regarded as prerequisites for the spread that laid foundations for its present status and role. In addition, war, politics, economics, and opportunity are also recognized as factors essential for the spread of a world language. McArthur (2003: 55) points to the significance of such events as the end of the World War II and removing German and Japanese from the competition as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union and, hence, eliminating Russian from the game. Al-Dabbagh adds that:

The development of the global forces of production, the heightened level of consciousness and the rapid advances in the means of communication all seem to have contributed to the creation of the conditions for the rise of a new international culture. And one of the main pillars of this new culture, it was soon realized, was a universal language (Al-Dabbagh 2005: 5).

Researchers also point out that globalization, the emergence of the Internet and the adoption of English by international organizations were powerful forces in the promotion of English around the world (see Seargeant 2005: 318). More recently, arguments are advanced that the shift from a goods-and-services economy to an information economy should be viewed as an important reason for the continuous popularity of English (Kam-Mei and Halliday 2002: 12). This is so because “information is made of language” and English is a language which has become the major medium for software and information services (Kam-Mei and Halliday 2002: 12). One of the main architects of the World Englishes paradigm points out that the present role and spread of English is most of all due to “the historical role of England as a colonial power” and that English has acquired its depth and range also because of

39

some meaningful strategies that in some cases were consciously planned (Kachru 2006f: 207-208):

1. The camel-in-the-tent strategy: Even though the use of English was at first highly restricted thanks to, for instance, political maneuvering it further developed its range; 2. The linguistic elitism strategy: It is noted that “[t]he political power naturally attributed a ‘power’ to the language of the Raj” (Kachru 2006f: 207); 3. The ‘close-the-ranks’ strategy: A strategy based on language solidarity. Individuals who desired identity with the political power had no option but to acquire a shared code; 4. The information control strategy: English controls access to information in the realms of science and technology. Furthermore, in some locations a lack of knowledge of English is a major impediment to access the language of the legal system, the language of higher education, the language of a administrative network; 5. The marketability strategy: English is a predominant language of trade, commerce, banking and international advertising because some languages fail to adequately cover these domains or because English is regarded as more prestigious or powerful.

The spread of English in Europe is attributed to a host of factors that have contributed to its present role and status (Phillipson 2003: 24-26). First of all, it is maintained that the English language promulgates because it is “an integral dimension” of globalization and because “the Americans and British have invested heavily in promoting their language” (Phillipson 2003: 24-26). The perception of the economic and cultural value of English creates a demand for it and its continued spread. European educational systems trying to meet the demand give priority to the teaching of English. In addition, an argument is advanced that English is spreading because conceptual differences and incompatible levels of language awareness between EU members states hamper the development of a supra-national language strategy acting for the protection of national languages. According to Phillipson (2003: 24ff), equally problematic seem to be variations in the levels of multilingual competence between countries and discrepancies in the status and rights accorded to minority languages. A further 40

impediment to formulating effective language policy (and managing as well as controlling the diffusion of English) are the facts that language policy issues are shared between ministries of foreign affairs, education, culture, research, and commerce and that European universities and research institutes do not invest enough in the analysis of language policy, the political sociology of language, bilingual education, and international law in relation to language and human rights. Consequently, shaping a coordinated language policy concerning national, sub-national or supra-national levels is complex even in a single EU member state. With respect to more scholarly analyses of the factors impacting on the spread of English, there are only a few studies statistically investigating relevant predictors of the diffusion. The investigation by Fishman et al. (1977) is probably the first one so comprehensive. It is argued whereas military imposition, the duration of military authority, linguistic diversity (of a given country) and material benefits (deriving from the knowledge of the hegemonic language) can be regarded as factors encouraging the spread of English as an additional language, they cannot be considered as prerequisites for the expansion (Fishman et al. 1977: 79). In order to assess the importance of factors contributing to the dispersion of English around the world, the researchers developed a complex investigation including as predictor variables the four aforesaid forces as well as the following indicators (Fishman et al. 1977: 80-82):

1.

urbanization – “[t]owns often serve as loci for the spread of an additional language”;

2.

economic development – “[e]ducational language policy, while based on political considerations, is influenced by economic constraints”;

3.

educational development – “[t]o the extent that an additional language is learned primarily in school, the proportion of persons who know that language will be a function of educational opportunity”;

4.

religious composition – “in areas in which universal religions or religions associated with high cultures are not dominant, religious beliefs are likely to be relatively particularistic, reflecting ethnic and linguistic diversity, which in turn promotes the spread of lingua francas”;

5.

political affiliation – “[i]t is possible that a country’s positions vis-à-vis the superpowers will be reflected in the languages taught as subjects and used

41

as media of instruction in their schools and in the languages used when dealing with foreign governments.” These nine predictor factors8 (independent variables) were correlated with 6 criterion variables9 (dependent ones) indicating the status of English in a given country (Fishman et al. 1977: 82-83). Fishman et al. (1977: 82) delineate that they gathered statistics for 102 countries in which English is not spoken by large groups of population as a mother tongue.10 The data pertaining to predictor variables were then correlated with criterion ones to assess the relatedness of the variables, single and combined, to the uses of English (Fishman et al. 1977: 105). As regards the general results of their investigations, the researchers point out that:

Of these nine categories, we found that all but political affiliation showed at least a moderate relationship to the status of English. However, the direction of the relationships depended on the criterion. Urbanization and economic and educational development were positively related to the percentage of the population enrolled in primary and secondary school English classes when former Anglophone colonies were excluded from consideration, but negatively correlated to the other criterion variables. Poorer countries, in other words, were more likely to rely on English as a medium of instruction and to stress English as a subject of instruction than were richer nations, but poorer nations were less likely to provide equal opportunity to learn English through formal schooling (Fishman et al. 1977: 105).

More specifically, as regards countries having no anglophone status, it turned out that linguistic diversity and traditional beliefs were the single most important predictors of the criteria indicating the status of English. Fishman et al. (1977: 97) assert that these factors were “either the best or second best predictors for the use of English as a medium of instruction in secondary and primary schools.” It is also noted that the 8

Fishman et al. (1977: 84-86) state that, in fact, the nine predictor factors were further composed of thirty more specific predictor variables and that, additionally, twenty three other factors were employed. 9 The use of English as a medium of instruction in secondary schools; the use of English as a medium of instruction in primary schools; the use of English as a subject of instruction in secondary schools; the use of English as a subject of instruction in primary schools; the percentage of the population enrolled in English classes in primary and secondary schools; a composite score based on fourteen other (educational and non-educational) items with respect to the status of English (the use of English as an official language; the use of English as a language of governmental administration; the use of English as a lingua franca within the country; the use of English as a technical language; the use of English as the first foreign language for most students; the use of English in universities; the proportion of daily newspapers published in English; the use of English on the radio; the percentage of books published in English). 10 It is noted that 12 countries (the ones in which a significant proportion of speakers claim English to be their mother-tongue) were excluded from the analyses: United Kingdom – 98%; Ireland – 97%; Australia – 91%; New Zealand – 91%; Barbados – 98%; Jamaica – 98%; Trinidad – 97%; United States together with Puerto Rico – 86%; Canada – 58%; Guyana 45%; Granada; the Bahamas (Fishman et al. 1977: 5758).

42

number of years of compulsory education, economic development indicators and exports to English-speaking countries also predicted well the criterion variables. Analyzing all countries together showed that the single best predictor of all criterion variables was former anglophone status. In contrast, political affiliation and the duration of military rule can be regarded as rather insignificant factors in the spread of English as an additional language; conceivably the latter is more meaningful for the spread of English as a mother tongue (Fishman et al. 1977: 106). Importantly, it is also pointed out that:

[C]ountries with greater linguistic diversity, a greater traditional beliefs percentage, fewer years of compulsory education, and relatively less economic development tended to place greater reliance on English both as a medium of instruction and as a subject of instruction. Conversely, countries which were more economically developed tended to have a greater percentage of the population enrolled in primary and secondary school English classes (Fishman et al. 1977: 98).

With respect to the incremental contribution to the prediction of the status of English, it is clarified that, “after former Anglophone colonial status was considered”, religious composition, linguistic diversity as well as material benefits (exports to countries with English as the mother tongue) turned out the most significant factors (Fishman et al. 1977: 105). A comment is also made that:

An individual learns English (…) not because of abstractions such as linguistic diversity or international trade balances but because the knowledge of English helps him to communicate in contexts in which, for economic or educational or emotional reasons, he wants to communicate and because the opportunity to learn English is available to him (Fishman et al. 1977: 106)

Lastly, Fishman (1977c: 330) argues that English spreads around the world thanks to individuals (“internationals”)11 who come to form a speech community (“superimposed upon innumerable smaller networks that are often based on divergent mother tongues”) that uses English as its lingua franca. Another very important statistical investigation examining factors promoting the spread of English is the one by Rubal-Lopez (1996). As an aside, it should be noted that the variables which have been confirmed as major predictors of the spread of English by all statistical studies conducted to date are linguistic heterogeneity (former colonies) and 11

It is explained that these international people are “foreign technological experts, more cosmopolitan local indigenous elites, business representatives of Anglophone commercial enterprises, and expatriate students and residents” (Fishman 1977c: 330).

43

caloric intake (non-colonies) (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 58-59). Religious compositions and literacy rate (colonies and non-colonies) have also been found as meaningful factors, yet with significantly lower predictive power (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 58-59). In addition, the colonial status and facilitation (colonies) as well as a two-party system (colonies and non-colonies) emerged as major factors encouraging the spread of English (RubalLopez 1996: 58-59). Two other important predictor variables having a strong predictive power were the following: “[t]he percentage of tourists from non-English mothertongue countries arriving in English mother-tongue countries (colonies and noncolonies) and soldiers per square kilometer (non-colonies)” (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 58-59). To elaborate, after dividing countries into non-colonies and colonies, it turned out that in the case of non-colonies military presence proved to have the strongest predictive power. Interestingly, military or police presence emerged as a factor contributing to the spread of English irrespective of the fact whether it was imposed or not (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 50). This state of affairs is accounted for by the fact that former anglophone colonizers left after them English-speaking military tradition with a numerous English-speaking civil servant population (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 50-51). The role of the military is also attributed to the dominance of English as the language of aviation and the fact that the training of soldiers is highly influenced by the United States (manuals and instructions in English) which is the leading military training center. In addition, it was established that in the case of non-colonies countries the flow of tourists from non-English mother-tongue countries to English mother-tongue countries is the strongest predictor of all (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 59). Importantly, one should take heed of the fact that economic factors (they play a meaningful role in the diffusion of English) must be understood as consisting of various indices pointing to a country’s development, trade, and economic well-being (Rubal-Lopez 1991: 52). To specify, it has been found out that exports to English mother-tongue countries have doubled the predictive power of the spread for former colonies, but proved insignificant for non-colonies (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 52). With respect to imports, there is a positive relationship only between imports and the spread of English in countries having no former anglophone status (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 53). It has also been revealed that literacy and caloric requirement (measures of the level of the development of a country) can be regarded as significant predictors of the spread of English (see Rubal-Lopez 1996: 54f). Additionally, it was discovered that health-related variables (they point to the level of development of a given country) also emerge as factors having an influence on the 44

dispersion of English; yet their predictive power proved stronger in the case of former colonies (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 56). All in all, a point is made that political and military variables proved of greater importance for former colonies, and economics and development in the case of the spread of English in non-colonies (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 60). With respect to other predictors, it should be noted that whereas political forces, especially the degree of democratization, add up to the spread of English in all contexts, their impact is far more significant in former colonies (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 57, 59). Interestingly, in this study the religious composition of a given country was found to be only slightly related to the spread of English (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 58). As regards former colonies, linguistic heterogeneity proved to be a predictor of the following: the use of English as a medium of instruction in primary and secondary schools; the use of English as a subject of instruction in elementary schools; the spread of Englishlanguage newspapers and the embeddedness of English (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 51). In contrast, linguistic heterogeneity in countries having no former anglophone status was found to be unrelated to the use of English (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 51).

1.3.2.4. The spread of English across various functional domains

That English has dispersed across a wide range of functional domains seems evident to all language scholars. Arguments are advanced that no other language of wider communication can compete with English when it comes to the range and depth of its spread (Kachru 2006g: 453). References are made to thirteen general functional domains frequently occupied by English (with the exception of the one of governmental affairs12) in all three circles of English (access code, advertising, corporate trade, development, government, linguistic impact, literary creativity, literary renaissance,

12

Fishman (1996b: 629) explains that “[s]etting aside governmental use of English for various foreign diplomatic operations and for possible services to indigenous or touring anglophones, the three major clusters recognizable in the governmental domains are (a) countries in which English is official or coofficial [the European Union]; (b) countries in which English has no official status but is, nevertheless, governmentally utilized de facto for certain indigenous operations or services; and finally, (c) countries in which there is no anglification of government operations or services for indigenous non-anglophone populations.” Conrad and Fishman (1977: 7-8) note that in 1975 out of 152 nations they examined English could be regarded as the exclusive official language of around 21 countries (including the twelve English mother-tongue countries) and co-official of some 16 more. With the exception of Ethiopia all of the countries are either former British or American colonies (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 11ff).

45

news broadcasting, newspapers, scientific higher education, scientific research, social interaction) (Kachru 2006g: 453). Similarly, Fishman (1992: 20) points out that “English has become a major medium of indigenous elites (‘native foreigners’), of tourism (‘foreign foreigners’), of popular media, of technical publications, of the metaphor of mastery, of teenage slang, and even of language-planning models and antimodels all over the world.” English is also recognized as a predominant medium in the sciences, education, business, travel, transports and the media (McArthur 2003: 55). Importantly, regarding this last domain, a point is made that English “is pre-eminently the language of the world’s media. Indeed, even where national media do not print or broadcast in English, they still use it behind the scenes as their key channel for gathering and sifting world news and views” (McArthur 2003: 55). Before discussing some of the domains in greater detail, it should be noted that the totality of functional domains dominated by English in a given country points to its actual status and significance for a given nation. In the field of education, a distinction should be made between English as a medium of instruction and English as a subject of instruction. As regards the former, English serves as a medium of instruction at primary and secondary levels mostly in countries having former anglophone colonial status. Yet, this state of affairs may be assumed to be rather temporary due to pressures to introduce local vernaculars as languages through which schooling takes place (see Conrad and Fishman 1977: 13-14, 25). Interestingly, it is reported that “[w]orldwide, 70% of the primary students in English classes in non-English mother-tongue countries study English as a foreign language” and that “[o]nly 30% of the students studying English are in English-medium situations and all of these (more than 14 million students) are in Africa and Asia” (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 17). On the secondary school level, English is the medium through which students study only in the case of 15.8% of the whole secondary student population (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 17). Regarding English as a subject of instruction, one should discern that it is mostly learned in secondary education and that the greatest growth in demand of English is to be found in the developing countries (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 14). The demand for English is also argued to be generated by the fact that increasingly more people are enrolling in the secondary school system. Equally important seems the fact that Francophone countries and Latin America begin to give up their former reliance on French and introduce English as a subject of instruction (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 25). According to Conrad and Fishman (1977: 25), the diffusion of English can also be attributed to the 46

significant role played by the language at the tertiary level of education and its role as a library language. It is predicted that if English retains its global position, the world-wide demand for English instruction is likely to be on the rise especially at the secondary and tertiary levels (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 26). Nonetheless, one should discern that “[s]uch growing demand, however, is in the context of the continued development of local languages as media of elementary, secondary, and tertiary education” (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 26). English has also been recognized as the prime language of diplomacy and international policing. Eighty countries out of 126 which were in 1970 UN member states received basic working documents in English and fifteen other countries requested English versions alongside the ones in other official languages (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 56-57). Regarding international policing, it is reported that the use of English predominates the following fora (Wright 2004: 150):

1. multinational peacekeeping forces; 2. international courts and war crimes tribunals; 3. governmental and non-governmental, international agencies (as an official or customary working language).

Interestingly, it is further pointed out that:

Fewer and fewer key political figures are unable or unwilling to use it. English has become the established lingua franca of the political sphere because it is the language of the most powerful players and of the dominating ideology, and is reinforced in this role because it allows the joint exercise of power within peacekeeping forces and courts (Wright 2004: 150).

As regards the domain of print media, there are a host of newspapers which are published most of all for people for whom English is not a native language. Such newspapers as International Herald Tribune, Time, Newsweek, to name just a few, are read literally all over the world. This fact indicates that large groups of people are sufficiently competent to read English press regularly (cf. Conrad and Fishman 1977: 34f). Importantly, regarding the readership of English-language newspapers in a given non-English-mother-tongue country, one should discern that it is difficult to assess whether circulation figures are reliable indicators (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 34). This can be so because one newspaper or magazine can be read by more than one person. In 47

the period when Conrad and Fishman conducted their investigation, English-language newspapers were published in 25 countries in Asia, 22 in Africa, 4 in Latin America and 3 in Europe (Franca, Malta, and Cyprus) (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 34ff). With respect to books published in English, the researchers note (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 56) that “English continues to be the most viable medium through which ideas may be presented to a worldwide audience.” As for more general patterns, a point is made that “[t]he general rule is that a country’s press will be at least as anglified as or more anglified than its elementary education” and that the print media are anglified to a lesser degree than the non-print media (Fishman 1996b: 626-627). It seems that the current position of English as a major language of science and technology is utterly secure. Its dominance appears to have been steadily rising for quite a few decades. Sano (2002) in his research quantitatively investigated the trends in the use of English and other major languages (Russian, German, French, Japanese and Chinese) in the domain of chemistry (possibly, similar patterns of changes could be observed also in the case of many other branches of science). The results of Sano’s research show that the use of English in chemistry journals soared from 43.3% of shares in published journal papers in 1961 to 82.1% in 2000. All other languages, with the exception of Chinese, reported a drop: Russian from 18.4% in 1961 to 2.9% in 2000; German from 12.3% to 1.0%; French from 5.3% to 0.4%; and Japanese from 6.3% to 4.3% (Sano 2002: 46). It is also noted that English is even more predominant as a language used in conferences (Sano 2002: 46). Interestingly, the rise in the use of English is mainly due to the fact that the number of publications in English increased significantly in non-English-mother-tongue countries (Sano 2002: 46ff). The number of English papers originating from non-English speaking countries rose from 31% in 1970 to 58% in 2000. As regards the former Soviet Union countries, the increase was especially dramatic after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a rise from around 10% in 1991 to over 50% in 2000 (Sano 2002: 48). Importantly, Sano (2002: 49) suggests that the English language enjoys a similar popularity in the whole scientific world. Over three decades ago Conrad and Fishman (1977: 55) noted that the use of English for official purposes was, in general, restricted to those non-English mothertongue countries which were under the political or economic dominance of Englishspeaking states. Such countries also constituted the majority of non-anglophone states in which there was English-medium schooling. More recently, it is reported that:

48

[L]ocal specifics vary somewhat form one country to another, (…) the general picture that emerges is nevertheless quite similar: the world of large scale commerce, industry, technology, and banking, like the world of certain human sciences and professions, is an international world and it is linguistically dominated by English almost everywhere, regardless of how well established and well-promoted local cultures, languages, and identities may otherwise be (Fishman 1996b: 628).

Furthermore, it is pointed out that in each state there are specialized parts of the population that regularly use English at least in interactions within their areas of expertise (Fishman 1996b: 629). As regards former British and American colonies and spheres of influence, they are still the most anglified, especially the upper parts of society which stand in contrast to “the more ethnically imbedded and ‘man in the street’ dimensions of society” (Fishman 1996b: 637).

1.3.2.5. The current spread of English

In the late seventies, it was accurately predicted that English would continue to fulfill its role as “the major link-language” and that local languages would be more frequently used in the domains of official education and literacy (Conrad and Fishman 1977: 56). In the mid-eighties, English was reported to be rapidly expanding especially in nonWestern, developing countries. Its spread was attributed, most of all, to the initiative and control on the part of non-natives for whom English was both an additional language to be used in multilingual and multicultural contexts and a means to satisfy their needs related to modernization, technology and “linguistic, political, and social ‘fissiparous tendencies’” (Kachru 1985: 14). More recently, it is argued that “English is still spreading in various ways and at various rates throughout the non-English mothertongue world” and that “its continued spread in most former British and American colonies and spheres of influence is related more to their engagement in the modern world economy than to any efforts derived from their former colonial masters” (Fishman 1996b: 640). Importantly, it is noted that “English is spreading even in the tertiary education, non-print media, higher level economy, commerce and technology of nearly all highly developed countries due to their collective co-involvement in the multinationally integrated world economy for which English now serves as lingua franca” (Fishman 1996b: 640). Fishman (1996b: 640) emphasizes that in the contemporary world the use of national/local languages and English as a lingua franca

49

complements each other as the two satisfy different needs. One should also take heed of the fact that, as Spolsky (2004: 89) points out, these days the spread of English is out of control of language managers and that the causes of the spread “come from the changing nature of the world and of its reflected language system” (in both of them English emerges as the most precious hypercollective goods enabling international communication).

1.3.3. Frameworks and models accounting for the spread of English 1.3.3.1. Two trajectories and three models of the diffusion of English

When discussing the spread of English, it is important to take account of the fact that the language has been marked by two trajectories of dispersion (see Halliday 2003: 416). It has spread in two ways: as a language that was once more regional (like Arabic, Spanish or Portuguese) but spread to become more widely spoken; and as a second language (Kam-Mei and Halliday 2002: 11). The global and international expansions of English overlap, but global and international English are not really mixed (Halliday 2003: 416). The two trajectories of the development of English involve semogenic strategies, but they are not resembling:

International English has expanded by becoming world Englishes, evolving so as to adapt to the meanings of other cultures. Global English has expanded – has become ‘global’ – by taking over, or being taken over by, the new information technology, which means everything from email and the internet to mass media advertising, news reporting and all the other forms of political and commercial propaganda (Halliday 2003: 416).

The distinction between the global and international trajectories of the spread of English is useful as it draws our attention to the different communicative, identity- and attituderelated needs of users of world Englishes and global English. According to Quirk (2006b: 474), there are three general models of language spread:

1. The demographic model – It relates to situations in which the spread of a language is caused by movements of populations, e.g. the spread of English to the United States or Australia;

50

2. The econocultural model – It pertains to the diffusion of English as caused by the dispersion of ideas; the English language as the medium through which the spread of scientific information, computer technology and pop culture takes place; 3. The imperial model – It concerns contexts where the spread of a language mirrors political domination and where it is accompanied by a movement of people who maintain an administrative system and power structure; e.g. English in Nigeria or India.

Quirk (2006b: 481) argues that the extraordinary dispersion of English in contemporary times can be seen as resultant from the econocultural system. Nonetheless, to understand contextual complexities of English around the world one should remember that the English language has spread in a variety of ways which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

1.3.3.2. Linguistic imperialism and the spread of English

Undoubtedly, the most controversial framework accounting for the spread of English is Phillipson’s linguistic imperialism (see also 1.4.4.). It has provoked heated debates but also drawn scholars’ attention to the relations between language spread, language policy, globalization and politics in general. From the perspective of linguistic imperialism: English has spread as an inevitable accompaniment to American economic, military and political hegemony, and through its entrenchment in international organizations like the UN and the World Bank, and in the scientific community, but policy for its spread was not left to chance. The maintenance of the position of English has been a key aim of foreign ‘aid’ (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 36).

Phillipson (1997b: 201) argues that in the period of the Cold War, Americans spared no effort to spread English and in this way extend their influence (see also R. Alexander 2003: 92). In order to verify the claims of linguistic imperialism, Fishman et al. (1996) undertook an elaborate enterprise aimed at investigating the causes of the spread of English. As mentioned above, the spread of English should rather be viewed as resulting

51

from the characteristics of the world econocultural system and not linguistic imperialism. Moreover, it is pointed out that the gulf between the rich and the poor in terms of their power and living standards bears no resemblance to imperialism or neocolonialism in the sense of the foreign rule or exploitation (Fishman 1996b: 640). Arguments are also advanced that an analysis of export figures indicates that it was rather the former colonized nations which benefited from the mutual relations and not the former colonizer (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 52ff). In addition, it is noted that the material incentives on the part of the states having former-colonial status were only some of the causes why English spread there (Rubal-Lopez 1996: 52ff). Importantly, another flaw of Phillipson’s linguistic imperialism is that it does not take into consideration such issues as individuals’ agency, resistance or appropriation (Pennycook 2003b: 8). This framework is marked by “homogeny position”, which means that linguistic imperialism views the global dispersion of the English language as inevitably and always resulting in “the homogenization of world culture” (Pennycook 2003b: 7). Moreover, linguistic imperialism (also referred to as a conspiracy theory) implies that the spread of English, together with its resultant endangering of other languages and local linguistic ecologies, is not a natural process but an outcome of conscious language management mostly on the part of the governments of the US and the UK (see Spolsky 2004: 79). One of the major errors of the model is, as Spolsky (2004: 80) argues, that “Phillipson collected data on the practices, ideologies and language management of many colonial administrators, their successors and many professionals in the field of English-language teaching, but takes for granted the effectiveness of their management.” To conclude, it is hard to deny that the spread of English around the world is advantageous to English-speaking countries, especially to the US and the UK. It is also widely known that institutions such as the British Council invest heavily13 to “promote an enduring understanding and appreciation of Britain in other countries through cultural, educational and technical cooperation” and “to do all it can to help those who wish to acquire a knowledge of the English language for a variety of purposes” (see Burgh 1985: vii-viii). However, whether this is enough to ensure a global spread of a language is highly doubtful. Attractive though the conspiracy theory may seem, its explanatory power relating to the spread of English is far too weak as it leaves many questions unanswered and issues unexplored. 13

Burgh (1985: vii) states that in the mid 1980s the operations budget of the British Council amounted to over £180 million.

52

1.3.3.3. Widdowson’s model of the spread of English as a virtual language

The conceptualization of the diffusion of English advocated by Widdowson suggests that English is spreading as a virtual language (Widdowson 1997: 139). The notion of spread of a language acquires a special meaning for Widdowson who contrasts this word with its distribution which, according to him, implies that English has been spreading “as a set of established encoded forms, unchanged into different domains of use” (Widdowson 1997: 139). Criticism is leveled at the conspiracy theory which presupposes that English is distributed as an unchanged code and suggests “that the language has powers of suppression, that it is the English language which colonizes, using the English people simply as medium, as means of transmission” (Widdowson 1997: 139). Furthermore, the distinction between the spread of language and its distribution makes it clear that adoption and conformity proceed from the distribution of the actual language and that adaptation and nonconformity ensue from the spread of virtual language – “the virtual spreads through different actualizations, different encodings of the same basic resource” (Widdowson 1997: 140). As regards the concept virtual language, it denotes “resource for making meaning immanent in the language which simply has not hitherto been encoded and so is not, so to speak, given official recognition” (Widdowson 1997: 138). Attention is drawn to the fact that both poets and learners of a second or foreign language exploit the possibilities of the virtual language. The former do it deliberately and the latter do it accidentally, which is taken as a mark of their incompetence. Considering the spread of English as an international language, Widdowson (1997: 144) asserts that “English, the virtual language, has spread as an international language: through the development of autonomous registers which guarantee specialist communication within global expert communities.” Consequently, it is noted that EIL spreads as ESP because if it were not the case, people would not be interested in learning it and, thus, English would not have diffused internationally. The approach is also argued to give insight into the ways in which English can regulate itself to continue to be an effective instrument of communication (Widdowson 1997: 43-44). A point is made that expert and professional communities using specific registers in international communication are themselves interested in keeping their registers an intelligible and effective means of exchanging ideas and thoughts globally. Thanks to this selfregulation and emphasis on communicative intelligibility, ESP has been and will be 53

effectively used for global communication. Moreover, it is argued that in this way EIL consisting of a range of registers can become independent of Inner Circle authority and control. Clarifying the concept of autonomous registers, Widdowson (1998: 399) asserts that the notion autonomous was used to say that the communal use of the registers of English guarantees their endonormative self-regulation.14 The growth of autonomous registers is attributed to the communicative needs of the so called ‘secondary communities’ (academics, business people, engineers etc.) and their evolution to the emergence of novel needs and circumstances (Widdowson 1998: 399). It is noted that specific secondary communities exchange and share among themselves expert knowledge and this makes registers continue to be an effective lingua franca (Widdowson 1998: 399). Accordingly, native speakers of English cannot claim to own the registers and have the decisive say in their development (Widdowson 1998: 399). This is so since specialist registers are used by ‘secondary communities’ that consist of specialist experts having as their mother tongue all kinds of languages. For Widdowson (1998: 399), it is perfectly possible for an ‘English’ register to be influenced and shaped most of all by people coming from beyond the Inner Circle locations. In this way an attempt is made to transform the idea of the native speaker as the custodian or the owner of EIL. Widdowson (1998: 400) acknowledges that his conceptualization of EIL was meant to “establish grounds for maintaining the independent (indeed autonomous) development of EIL (in the global sense).” A point is also made that Brutt-Griffler’s claim that a register is always a register of a language is exactly the kind of belief that makes EIL remain the preserve of the Inner Circle speakers. Furthermore, Widdowson (1998: 400-401) claims that Brutt-Griffler fails to make a distinction between the two meanings of EIL; for her “EIL must be a language which conflates local (dialectal) and global (registerial) functions.” As regards Outer Circle Englishes, an argument is advanced that they represent different virtual languages and as such one cannot talk about “Ghanian or Nigerian English but Ghanian, Nigerian, tout court” (Widdowson 1997: 141-142). Accordingly,

14

Interestingly, it is noted that defining autonomy in terms of a lack of common features would invalidate the concept for the description of linguistic phenomena because even different languages – not to mention registers – have features in common for the obvious reason that they are human languages (Widdowson 1998: 398).

54

the Englishes are not dialects15 but “something less continuous and dependent” and this is implied by the plural form of the noun (Widdowson 1997: 142). Widdowson (1997: 141) further argues that “[t]hey are essentially displaced and discontinuous encodings, motivated in the main by communicative necessity, relatively immediate and expedient, with the slow influence of history replaced by the immensely rapid development of communications technology.” Therefore, the paradox concerning Outer Circle Englishes is thought to consist in the fact that these Englishes claim independence but they are not autonomous and that the development of autonomous Englishes could pose a threat to international communication (Widdowson 1997: 142). To solve the dilemma, Widdowson (1997: 141) again relates to the distinction between dialects and registers. Registers represent a variety of language whose functions consist in serving “uses for language rather than users of it” (Widdowson 1997: 143; italics original). Registers are considered to be “relatively neutral, transactional uses of language which do not get entangled in the kind of social issues (…) The emphasis (…) is on communication and information rather than community and identity” (Widdowson 1997: 143). It is claimed that the paradox can be resolved if English is allowed to evolve into independent dialects but is kept intact as a range of registers – “[s]peciation in the one case is counterbalanced by specialization in the other” (Widdowson 1997: 143). Widdowson (1998: 400) asserts that “I entirely accept that Outer Circle developments of the language should be recognized as having their own (autonomous?) integrity, but part of that recognition might be to give it a different name to mark its status.” This indicates that for Widdowson these varieties have acquired a new identity. Interestingly, a point is made that some people would prefer them to continue to have the English particle in their names because, as they think (consciously or not), thanks to that the varieties maintain higher prestige (Widdowson 1998: 400). They want the varieties to be ‘English’ by name because otherwise they would stop being associated with an international language and would lose some of its renown. Widdowson (1998: 400) notes that “the name is more than a convenient label, (…) it represents some tacit concession that the respectability of these different varieties depends in some degree at least on a continuing association with the Inner Circle language and the retention of its name.”

15

For Widdowson (1997: 141) the term dialect implies dependency and a history of common communal development. Therefore, the notion seems to him inappropriate to refer to Outer Circle Englishes.

55

In a response to Widdowson’s provocative article (1997), Deneire (1998) draws our attention to three problematic issues. First of all, it is argued that Widdowson analyzing language without considering its political context can be just as fallacious as its analysis out of the social realities (Deneire 1998: 394). Both can lead to simplification which, in turn, can obscure the implications resulting from language use and language teaching. Deneire (1998: 393) argues that “a language is always at the center of political alliances and spheres of influence” and notes that as such “it opens the doors to economic exploitation” and that “[j]ust as religion played an essential role in colonization, language serves as a channel for post-colonial relations” – “[i]n certain ways, the teacher has replaced the priest.” In this vein, it is remarked that the US are investing millions of dollars in education in the African countries to extend their influence upon the areas which were once under the French rule. A point is also made that advocating English as a universal means of international communication and disregarding multilingualism as an alternative may lead to “secondarization of all languages other than English” (Deneire 1998: 394). Lastly, while agreeing with Widdowson that teaching English for specific purpose is likely to remain the best option, Deneire (1998: 394) asserts that most teaching materials prepare learners to perform only lower level jobs and that “most learners and users of English are not given the option of adaptation or of non-conformity.” Accordingly, any deviation from the norm presented in dominant, Inner Circle textbooks, dictionaries and grammars make language learners failures and not Caliban-like heroes able to use the master’s language against himself (Deneire 1998: 394). The researcher implies that this state of affairs can imply that English is, in fact, distributed. Commenting on Deneire’s critical response (1998), Widdowson (1998: 398) points out that language by itself cannot exert hegemonic control; there should be a distinction made between linguistic domination and domination through language – “the language is the symptom not the cause.” Claiming otherwise is argued to necessarily imply that some languages have intrinsic superiority over. Interestingly, Widdowson (1998: 398) also holds that all majority languages can be used “for political manipulation and the abuse of power.” Morover, it is admitted that English is often a language through which power is exercised, but one should discern that “English today is as much the language of dissent as of conformity” (Widdowson 1998: 397-398). An illuminating critique of Widdowson’s framework comes from Brutt-Griffler (1998: 381) who argues that Widdowson’s conception of autonomous registers seems to 56

be inconsistent with the framework to which it refers and from which he draws inspiration (i.e. Halliday et al. 1964). Brutt-Griffler (1998: 382) points out that register is a category that subdivides language and, thus, it cannot be claimed to be autonomous of it. Similarly, one would be wrong to say that such registers can serve one purpose only. Language cannot be used solely for one specific purpose since it invariably serves multiple functions at the same time (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 382). Furthermore, a point is made that EIL “has spread for the sum of all specific purposes” (not just as ESP) and that Widdowson’s approach is of questionable explanatory significance as it “simplifies the complex historical and sociolinguistic processes involved in the development of EIL” (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 382-383). Another vital issue concerns the question registers of which language constitute EIL (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 382). Brutt-Griffler (1998: 382f) maintains that even though Widdowson does not claim it himself all facts indicate that Inner Circle English should constitute the basis of EIL. This is so because EIL is not a language in Widdowson’s conception and Outer Circle varieties are called ‘something else.’ Moreover, Widdowson’s (1997: 142) claim that “[t]he very adaptations which make the language suited to local communal requirement disqualify it from service as a global means of communication” means, in fact, that the authority and Englishness of Outer Circle varieties are denied and that Inner Circle English remains to be the only valid point of reference for English around the world. Widdowson’s framework is also thought to imply the existence of a core language that changes as English only in the Inner Circle and that “[w]here English spreads, it changes, but no longer as English; that is, it changes into ‘something else’” (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 384). Accordingly, an argument is advanced that for Widdowson “EIL is not thereby an international language at all, but an imposed language, the external expression of what remains an essentially internal (to the Inner Circle) language” (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 385).

1.3.3.4. Brutt-Griffler’s theory of the development of world language

The emergence of national language and world language are two historical processes of the politico-linguistic development of English (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 124). The first phase concerns the becoming of English a national language as a result of the emergence of the domestic and national culture; and the second relates to the evolution of English into a world language – a process accompanying the rise of world economy 57

and culture (the world econocultural system)16, and some specific sociohistorical circumstances (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 109). In general, the rise of World English is regarded as related to the emergence of European non-migratory colonization in the 18th century, the acquisition of English by whole populations (macroacquisition/social SLA), the development of stable bilingual communities and, most of all, the British supremacy in the world market (Brutt-Griffler 2002: xi, 26). The model proposed by Brutt-Griffler (2002: 108) emphasizes the active role of nations belonging to the so called periphery (especially former British and American colonies in Africa and Asia) in shaping and developing World English. It is argued that “[i]n this conception, World English is not simply made through them but made by them” and that “non-Western nations are not ‘peripheral’ but take equal part in the creation of the world econocultural system and its linguistic expression, World English” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 108). A crucial distinction for Brutt-Griffler is that between the spread of a language by means of speaker migration and macroacquisition (BruttGriffler 2002: 26). The first process concerns the spread of a language (English) as a mother tongue; it can take place either by population movement (the cases of America and Australasia), or by slow supplanting of indigenous mother tongues with the spreading language (the British Isles) (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 117). As regards the latter process, it is perceived as being crucial to the development of world language (World English) and one which encompasses second language acquisition by whole populations. In former British colonies English spread as a world language. It did not become the mother tongue in African and Asian colonies because the English language spread there not due to demographic but political and economic factors; it was used mostly as a language of colonial administration (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 117). In this light, World English will not replace local languages in multilingual settings (even if the language is used by lower socioeconomic classes) as long as it is not adopted as the language employed by the internal economy (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 122). A key element of Brutt-Griffler’s theory of world language is the concept of macroacquisition. The notion refers to the phenomenon of second language acquisition by speech communities and is regarded as essential to the development of World English (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 17, 140). Social SLA is viewed as a dynamic process “in which the language no longer appears as a static category, a fixed target, but alters 16

The world econocultural system is seen as comprising the world market, business community, technology, science and cultural and scientific life (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 110).

58

[language change] as a result of its acquisition by the learning population. The speech community not only acquires the language but also makes the language its own [appropriation]” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 137). The concept of macroacquisition views the bilingual speech community as the locus of language contact and regards it as a “sociohistorically-determined process” and not “a linguistic condition” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 138, 168). Brutt-Griffler (2002: 168) argues that macroacquisition allows “an explanation of processes of language spread with language change.” Furthermore, a distinction is made between two various types of macroacquisition. Type A macroacquisition concerns cases in which English spreads in multilingual nations and serves the functions of both a world language (for international communication) and a national lingua franca (as a link language for multilingual speech communities) (BruttGriffler 2002: 118-119). Because English functions in multilingual countries as “a unifying linguistic resource” for internal affairs, Type A macroacquisition coincides with the emergence of new bilingual speech communities, which finds its expression in the creation of indigenized varieties of English (New Englishes) (Brutt-Griffler 2002: xi, 118-119). As regards Type B macroacquisition, it refers to cases where social SLA occurs in largely monolingual settings with an established national language (BruttGriffler 2002: xi, 119). As a result of Type B macroacquisition, a formerly monolingual mother tongue speech community (or at least some parts of it) is transformed into a bilingual speech community for which English serves as an international lingua franca (Brutt-Griffler 2002: xi). Because the English language does not perform important functions as a means of communication for internal affairs new varieties of English do no emerge (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 119). Another concept crucial to the framework is the one of the English bilingual speech community. It is understood as “any speech community [a community of learners] that begins and carries out to some extent the process of macroacquisition” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 17). The speech community is regarded as a point of departure for investigating language spread and change “because it is the social unit that corresponds to a particular language, and it is also the subject of the process of macroacquisition” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 22). The essence of the framework of world language is that World English has diffused without replacing national or indigenous languages, but led to the emergence of bilingual/multilingual communities which “condition the development of varieties (…) and the evolution of the language” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 121). It is recognized that English bilingual speech communities can emerge in two 59

ways that correspond to the Type A and Type B social SLA. The former concerns the development of English bilingual speech communities in multilingual settings where English becomes a lingua-franca language for internal (but also external) communication (for instance, in Africa and Asia), (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 139). The latter relates to situations in which English bilingual speech communities come into existence in largely monolingual contexts with English being used mostly for international communication (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 139). Of great importance to Brutt-Griffler’s framework (2002: 146) is the fact that Type A speech community shares between themselves only the English language and that Type B speech community shares both the mother tongue and English. To elaborate, Brutt-Griffler (2002: 23) defines the concept of bilingual speech community by referring to the community’s shared subjective knowledge which may be recognized at different levels: subnational, national and supra national. A bilingual speech community is seen as multicompetent in that its members are able to express their shared subjective knowledge by means of all their languages (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 150). These languages do not constitute separate systems but are seen as “a composite reservoir of meaning” from which the bilingual speech community can draw (BruttGriffler 2002: 15). In Type A macroacquisition, English may turn out to be the only language through which the shared subjective knowledge of a bilingual speech community can be expressed and, accordingly, in this case the issue of identity may become important (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 159-160). Consequently, Type A and Type B bilingual speech communities can differ with respect to the degree to which speakers seek identity with the English language (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 159-160). Brutt-Griffler (2002: 170) argues that the concept of macroacquisition implies that agency is invested “in peoples creating languages as the expression of their self-determination and community-formation.” Therefore, the development of new varieties of English is seen as a result of the emergence of bilingual speech communities for which English is a link language. The emergence of a world language is related to two interconnected processes – language spread and change (Brutt-Griffler 2002: ix). The concept macroacquisition provides an explanation of the two processes as an interrelated phenomenon and suggests that language change be envisaged through the process of social second language acquisition (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 135-136). In line with this conception, individual SLA results in the development of interlanguages, but social SLA ensues the 60

rise of new language varieties. Importantly, Brutt-Griffler (2002: 4) argues that “the English language (…) has spread globally not as a finished product but a continually developing language, conceiving its international spread as part of that further development.” Consequently, World English may be regarded as a phase in the longer history of English itself; a phase in which the majority of speakers belong to bilingual speech communities and contribute to the development of multiple new varieties of English (Brutt-Griffler 2002: ix). Non-native, English bilingual speech communities are viewed as having agency in both language spread and language change (Brutt-Griffler 2002: ix). The history of the bilingual speech communities is seen to provide essential context to understand language change (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 24). Extra-linguistic processes are believed to be of great importance because they account for the making, maintenance, and transformation of English bilingual speech communities (BruttGriffler 2002: 24). One should discern that for Brutt-Griffler world language is also a unit of analysis (2002: 124). Extralinguistic circumstances are seen as the driving factors of the two major processes of language change that can be identified in the development of world language: world language divergence (the emergence of new varieties of English) and world language convergence (preserving the unity in the world language). The two simultaneous processes of language change within World English are cognized as being indicative of “the multiple levels of speaker affiliation with the construct of speech communities”; with local/national speech communities leading to divergence and international speech community ensuring the maintenance of the unity of the language (its convergence) (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 177). The divergence of World English (i.e. its indigenization and acculturation) is attributed to the development of English bilingual speech communities in multilingual settings (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 149). Type A speech communities have no other way to express “culture bound knowledge” (shared subjective knowledge) and, thus, they resort to the use of English which serves as a common medium for the whole nation (BruttGriffler 2002: xi-xii). In this case there is every likelihood that language change will stabilize, especially if “the new variety becomes tied to expressing a national identity” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: xi-xii). Furthermore, Brutt-Griffler (2002: 151) asserts that there are two types of multicompetence corresponding to the two types of English bilingual speech communities. A major premise following from this is that “[t]he L2 (in the present study, English) is used differently as between bilingual speech communities that share an L1 and those that do not” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 151). Multicompetence of 61

bilingual speech communities sharing an L1 (Type B) manifests itself by the use of code switching and code mixing. Because in Type A speech communities speakers do not share a common language but English, they are encouraged to verbalize their shared subjective knowledge in the L2 and, thus, they become agents in the language change (“via processes of ‘language transfer’”) which, if stabilized, contributes to the emergence of a new variety of English (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 151). To account for the reasons why English has “maintained its essential unity” Brutt-Griffler (2002: xii) refers to the rise of a world language speech community and “the resultant centripetal force” inducing world language convergence. The basis for the emergence of international community is the fact that the world manifests itself as “a cohesive economic and political unit” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 174). It is noted that the world econocultural system has led to the development of global shared subjective knowledge17 and that “[w]hat used to be viewed as intercultural contact and communication (…) now assumed the form of a composite, a ‘culture’ of its own” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 165ff). Brutt-Griffler (2002: 177) maintains that “[j]ust as in the economic realm there is a definite pull toward the world market, so culturally is there one toward the world econocultural system” and asserts that English as a world language has become a tool satisfying the communicative needs of the system. In this light, international community (comprising at the same time the world speech community) has adopted English as a means of its own linguistic expression (BruttGriffler 2002: 177).

17

Brutt-Griffler (2002: 176) expounds that “[t]his shared subjective knowledge of what is often called the ‘international community’ includes political and organizational expressions, such as the United Nations (UN), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and World Trade Organization (WTO) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) – for instance, Amnesty International – as well. It has moral and legal components, in the form of human rights (and more recently linguistic human rights) and international law. It includes media outlets targeted to a world audience, such as CNN International and BBC World Service (it is important to note that they have been including speakers of numerous varieties of World English).”

62

Figure 1. Language convergence with World English (adapted form Brutt-Griffler 2002: 178).

In the framework offered by Brutt-Griffler the speech community emerges as a concept having the explanatory power needed to account for both world language divergence and convergence. It is assumed that each speech community can exist at the same time on multiple levels, with local/national speech community contributing to divergence and world language speech community to convergence (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 174). Figure 1 depicts a graphic representation of the centripetal forces (marked by arrows) leading to the preservation of the unity of World English. The three ‘kinds’ of Englishes (mother tongue Englishes, Type A and Type B macroacquisition Englishes) maintain their Englishness thanks to the world speech community of speakers who continuously use the language internationally for purposes of performing the functions served by the world econocultural system (business, trade, popular culture, science, technology) (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 177). Importantly, Brutt-Griffler (2002: 177) states that “World English, rather than a variety, constitutes a sort of center of gravity around which the international varieties revolve.” The theoretical model of the development of world language views language planning and policy as a methodological tool to investigate the development of World English and as a phenomenon directed at speech communities and not languages (BruttGriffler 2002: 24). Speech communities are cognized as “active shapers of the language policy environment who at the least codetermine the context and at the most seize the

63

initiative from the institutional planners, thereby forcing the latter into a reactive mode” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 63). Consequently, linguistic imperialism is seen as a framework disregarding the active role of the colonized nations in shaping language policy and, most importantly, overlooking their contribution to the development of World English (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 107). In fact, imperial language policy makers are believed to have been coerced into adjusting their policy to “the active agency of the colonized” (BruttGriffler 2002: 64). Brutt-Griffler (2002: 64) points out that “[i]ndeed, the central thrust of British colonial language policy in Africa and Asia – what I term the containment policy – was not such an ideologically-driven imposition of imperial will, but a makeshift response to the co-opting of English as part of the anticolonial struggle.” In the colonies limiting access to education and language policy were the means of creating and preserving a socioeconomic structure of the colonized nations which, in fact, strove to grasp the opportunity to acquire English and to gain access to “nonindustrial education” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 73). The will to learn the language of the colonizer should be assumed as “a conscious strategy to resist colonial rule built on the exploitation of labor” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 73). Brutt-Griffler (2002: x) asserts that “the formation of British language policy was not necessarily about ideology and ideology was not necessarily about spreading the language. The objectives of the empire involved a complex interplay of ideology and economics.” Imperial language policy was used as a method of maintaining social control over the working classes and, consequently, education in indigenous languages and promotion of local lingua francas were advocated (Brutt-Griffler 2002: x). Regarding recent UK and US language policies, they are perceived as aimed at “dictat[ing] the terms on which that world language exists and spreads” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 182). An argument is also advanced that “linguistic and cultural imperialism comes not in the act of teaching English but in the way the language it taught: in the teaching of a particular variety, which amounts to the attempt to elevate that variety to the status of an international standard” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 182). Brutt-Griffler (2002: 25) accounts for the development of World English by means of fusing the concept of macroacquisition with “an explanatory model of the development of world language, the ‘linguistic’ and the ‘extra-linguistic’ that must be taken in conjunction to form a theory of World Language” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 25). A point is made that the explanatory framework is grounded in three conceptual bases (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 109-110): 64

1. “That language spread must be understood in the context of language change, in a unified conception of language spread and change”; 2. “That the understanding of the development of World English requires a theoretical approach employing a world, rather than a national, scope”; 3. “That there is need of a paradigm shift from monolingualism to bilingualism reflecting an historical shift in language use.”

Of great importance to the framework is a preposition that language spread and language change are “mutually interacting processes” which are not “separate and only incidentally related” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 14). Explaining her theoretical framework Brutt-Griffler (2002: 14) states that "[i]n focusing on questions of language policy, it relates the means of spread to the linguistic outcome, language change, and conceives this as the process of macroacquisition.” The framework singles out four key characteristics in the development of world language (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 110):

1. “Econocultural functions of the language”; 2. “The transcendence of the role of an elite lingua franca”; 3. “The stabilization of bilingualism through the coexistence of world language with other languages in bilingual/multilingual contexts”; 4. “Language change via the processes of world language convergence and world language divergence.”

As mentioned above, English as a world language satisfies the communicative needs of the econocultural system. It is not only a language of trade or science but also of modern technology, culture, politics, media etc. Another important feature of world language and, thus, World English is that it ceases to be a lingua franca of the elite, either socioeconomic or intellectual, and gets co-opted by all people (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 120f). The emergence of a world language is also marked by the fact that it exists next to national/local languages. Because World English tends to be used as a language fulfilling external economic needs and because its spread is currently not accompanied by speaker migration, the result is the development of stabilized societal bilingualism (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 109, 118). Most importantly, world language theory offers an

65

explanation of two parallel processes in World English: language convergence and language divergence. A graphic representation of the model of the spread and change of the English language discussed above is depicted in Figure 2 (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 120). The mmmm

Figure 2. A model of English language spread and change (adapted from Brutt-Griffler 2002: 120).

figure shows three functional contexts of the spread and change of English; the settings in which English spread as a mother tongue (speaker migration), as a foreign language (Type B macroacquisition) and where the spread was accompanied by the emergence of new varieties of English (Type A macroacquisition) (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 119). According to the model, the spread and change can be attributed to two major conditions: econocultural (in contexts where English diffused as a foreign language) as well as both imperial and econocultural (the dispersion of mother tongue English and emergence of new varieties of English). Importantly, Brutt-Griffler (1998: 387) believes 66

the spread of English to be a decentralized process with non-native teachers as “the most active agents of the spread of English” who may also be seen as “unwitting agents of language change.” Consequently, teachers and learners are regarded as contributing to “the decentralized creation of the world language” (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 387). Interestingly, a point is made that anyone employing English to communicate with others is invested with ownership in use and agency in its change (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 387). In this vein, it is also argued that “so soon as a language becomes international in scope, it ceases to be the preserve of a nation. Its ownership in use extends to the world that uses it. Its purely national character disappears in its international use” (BruttGriffler 1998: 387). Brutt-Griffler’s framework is a bidirectional model that postulates that all users of English have “a dual speech community membership or affiliation: the local English speech community and the world English speech community” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 180). The former relates to the national context (but allows for further subdivision) and the latter refers to the global, econocultural context. The two kinds of communities are seen as influencing each other (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 180). An argument is advanced that what follows from this conceptualization of the relations between the speech communities is that any hierarchical considerations of the relations between them are just as groundless and unjustified as differentiating between the core and the periphery in world Englishes (see Brutt-Griffler 2002: 180; Brutt-Griffler 1998: 388). According to the model, the world community – and not native-speaker communities – constitutes “the point of reference or grounding of the language” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 180). Finally, it should be discerned that the framework assumes that “English as a national language is only the source of world language, not the world language itself” and that “World language is the domain in which national distinctions dissolve” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 181).

1.4. Frameworks and models attempting to capture and account for the complexities of English in the glocal context

The presence, spread and role of the English language in the contemporary world constitute such a complex and controversial issue that it seems only natural that there is no consensus between language scholars as to which theoretical frameworks and 67

methodologies are the most appropriate, comprehensive and insightful. As Pennycook (1994: 6) aptly notices, the rhetoric of the discourse of English language research and teaching has evolved together with the historical changes taking place in the world – “it has moved from a rhetoric of colonial expansion, through a rhetoric of development aid to a rhetoric of the international free market.” Referring to the emergence of pluralist models, McArthur (1998: xv) makes a point that they are, in fact, complementary with the oldes ones and that “[t]he subject is in reality too large to fit one model – any model, revered or radical, singular or plural – and benefits from our having a wide and flexible range of descriptions available to us.” In a similar vein, Kachru (2006b: 435) asserts that it is hardly possible to make any general statements about the global spread of English (and its contextual conditioning) and that “each description [of a localized variety] contributes to our understanding of the Englishness of world Englishes, and their specific sociolinguistic contexts.” An important remark is made by Widdowson (1998: 397) who states that it may not be justifiable to try to “reconcile different views on English” because all of them “add their ‘partiality’ to the totality of the complex phenomenon of English in the world (…) the whole is not a sum of the parts but a function of the partialities.” Accordingly, a suggestion is put forward that not all partial views can be as meaningful as others, yet, they all may be regarded as a contribution to the discourse on English in the glocal context. In a more bitter manner, a point is made that it is simply not feasible to account for the total complexity of the phenomenon of English in the global context as all efforts seem to be too “incomplete, indirect and, in the last analysis, fictive. In addition, and paradoxically, each new descriptive and explanatory framework adds to the complexity of what there is to study, and may in due course become an object of investigation in its own right, part of received tradition” (McArthur 1998: 78-79).

1.4.1. Approaches to research in World English(es)

To get a good grasp of such a huge subject as the study of English in the glocal context, it is useful to familiarize oneself with some attempts at sorting out the multitude of approaches and frameworks that have accumulated after decades of research. One such classification takes as its point of departure the subject matter that can be analyzed.

68

From this perspective, four different general themes can be distinguished in the discourse of English, its spread and functioning (Strevens 1992: 35): 1. “the English language and populations who use it”; 2. “the individual and the language or languages he/she is able to use”; 3. “the status of English within a given country”; 4. “the learning and teaching of English.” Other classifications focus more on different attitudes toward standards. The diverse approaches to them are easily discernable in the writings of various English language researchers. Kachru (2006a: 73-74) notes that the field of World Englishes has been traditionally described and analyzed in three paradigms: descriptive (attitudinally neutral), prescriptive (native-speaker norms as the yardstick) and purist (“language as a medium for cultural, religious, and moral refinement and enlightenment”). Similarly, Jenkins (2006: 165) points out that linguists dealing with World Englishes can be divided into anti-imperialists such as Phillipson (who would rather English were not the most widespread language in the world) and Canagarajah or Kachru who would like to resist the dominance of Inner Circle standards and appropriate English for local applications. Importantly, Bolton (2006a: 186ff) provides a useful and comprehensive description of the research in the field of world English(es). Specifically, seven general approaches, to some extent overlapping, are identified within this broad research area (Bolton 2006a: 186ff): 1. The English studies approach (e.g. Sidney Greenbaum, Tom McArthur, Randolph Quirk, John Wells); 2. Sociolinguistic approaches: a. sociology of language (e.g. Joshua Fishman); b. feature-based approach (e.g. Jenny Cheshire); c. Kachruvian paradigm (Braj B. Kachru); d. pidgin and creole studies (Loreto Todd); 3. Applied linguistic approaches; 4. Lexicographical approaches (e.g. The Australian National Dictionary, the Dictionary of New Zealand, a Dictionary of West African English etc.); 5. The popularizers approach (e.g. David Crystal); 69

6. Critical approaches (e.g. Robert Phillipson, Alastair Pennycook); 7. The futurology approach (David Graddol). As an aside, it should be noted that further account of the field provided below should be regarded as a selection corresponding to the author’s interests and aims. Obviously, as a matter of expediency, it does not offer a fully comprehensive and exhaustive presentation of the whole subject matter.

1.4.2. Geopolitical frameworks of English Currently, there are four major models of English based on the geopolitical situation of the language and its users: Strevens’ map-and-branch model, McArthur’s circle of World English, Görlach’s circle of International English and Kachru’s three concentric circles of Englishes (see McArthur 1998: 93-98). They all depart from the tradition of chronological description and aim at systematizing the extraordinary diversity found in the varieties of English around the world. As regards Kachru’s model, McArthur (2006: 100) notes that there are actually as many as two other (corresponding to Kachru’s Inner-, Outer-, and Expanding Circles) tripartite geopolitical models: i.e. Barbara Strang’s A-, B-, C-speakers of English as well as ENL, ESL, and EFL users of English (developed by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, and Geoffrey Leech) (McArthur 2006: 100-101)18. A point is also made that these models generally square with “geopolitical and social reality”, nevertheless, “significant anomalies emerge on closer examination” (McArthur 2006: 101).

1.4.2.1. Kachru’s circles of English(es) Kachru (1985: 12) himself views the three concentric circles of world Englishes as a major model of “stratification of use due to the internationalization of English” outlining “the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages.” Figure 3 constitutes a graphic mm 18

The correspondence between the models is roughly as follows: ENL = Inner Circle = A-speakers; ESL = Outer Circle = B-speakers; EFL = Expanding Circle = C-speakers.

70

m Figure 3. Kachru’s tripartite geopolitical model of World Englishes (adapted from Kachru 1992a: 356).

model of the three circles. As regards the Inner Circle, it comprises ‘the traditional bases of English’, i.e. the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In contrast, the Outer (Extended) Circle encompasses multilingual countries which experienced a period of colonization, and where institutionalized varieties of English emerged acquiring a meaningful position in national language policies (Kachru 1985: 12-13). Regarding the Expanding Circle, English in these countries functions as an international language and its expansion is not necessarily attributed to extended periods of colonization on the part of Inner Circle users of English (Kachru 1985: 13). This is the fastest ‘expanding’ circle and one in which a number of performance (EFL) varieties of English can be recognized (Kachru 1985: 13). Importantly, one should discern that the division between Outer vs. Expanding Circles “cannot be viewed as clearly demarcated from each other; they have several shared characteristics, and the status of English in the language policies of such countries changes from time to time” (Kachru 1985: 1314).19 19

Some cases, for instance South Africa and Jamaica, are more complex and they are hard to be placed within the concentric circles (Kachru 1985: 14)

71

1.4.2.2. McArthur’s circle of World English

The circle of World English is a model (see Figure 4) largely based on the notion of standardness. The center of the model is occupied by World Standard English (see 1.2.12.) which seems to be a function of local standards (however, American and British standards seem to be the most important) allowing for some diversity. World Standard English is encircled by 8 regional standard and standardizing varieties (e.g. Canadian Standard English, American Standard English, British and Irish Standard English etc.) which appear to be a resource from which the World Standard draws. McArthur (1998: 95) also implies the existence of some relationship between World Standard English and “a crowded (even riotous) fringe of subvarieties such as Aboriginal English, Black English Vernacular, Gullah.” Importantly, one should discern that the model proposed by McArthur does not take into consideration the so called Expanding Circle countries in which English is mostly used to communicate with foreigners and is not adopted for a wide range of basic intranational functions.

Figure 4. McArthur’s Circle of World English (adapted from McArthur 1998: 97).

72

1.4.2.3. Görlach’s circle model of English

The circle of International English constitutes a wheel model showing the status and place of English varieties found around the world (see Figure 5). The core of the model is reserved for International English which is surrounded by large regional varieties (Canadian English, British English, African Englishes etc.) and further on by regional/national semi-standards (Australian English, Scottish English, Southern (American) English, Jamaican English, Indian English etc.). The last circle manifesting enough ‘Englishness’ to belong to the model comprises dialects, ethnic varieties and some creoles (Melbourne English, Yorkshire dialect, Native Indian English, Nigerian mmmm

Figure 5. Görlach’s circle model of English (adapted from McArthur 1998: 101).

73

English etc.). These varieties are regarded by Görlach as semi- or non-standard varieties. Pidgins/creoles (e.g. Tok Pisin, Bislama), mixes and related languages (Sranan, Djuka etc.) do no find their place in the circle, thus, their ‘Englishness’ is denied by Görlach. Importantly, one should take heed of the fact that also this model does not account for the uses of English as a foreign language, i.e. in countries belonging to the Expanding Circle of Englishes.

1.4.2.4. Strevens’s map-and-branch model

As regards Strevens’ map-and-branch model (see Figure 6), it consists of an invertedtree diagram having as its background a map of the world. Strevens (1992: 30-31) explains that it is essential to view the dispersion of the English language from the angle of history. In this light, the taxonomy of the model “has both synchronic and diachronic implications” and, as McArthur (1998: 95) argues, the two branches of the general concept English (American English and British English branches) can be regarded as “the mothers of the rest.” In this way, they are considered to be higher in the hierarchy of varieties of English. Importantly, attention is also drawn to two major breakthroughs in the recent spread of English: (1) the end of the era of British colonies (with English losing its imperial connotations and becoming regarded as an access code to the world of science and technology); (2) the adoption of English by international organizations, the world of media, modern technology communication (with the resultant loss of connotations with any nationality or historical facts). An argument is advanced that thanks to adopting such a perspective one can understand the reasons for the emergence of NS and NNS populations of users of English and distinguish between “ethnocentered” vs. “non-ethnocentered” uses of English (Strevens 1992: 30ff). To elaborate, it should be explained that a distinction is made between ethnocentered uses of English “where it is whole nations and communities in which English has an established role even if only as a recognized ‘foreign language’ in the school system” and “‘non-ethnocentered’ uses, where the nationality of the individual and linguistic history of his country are equally irrelevant, and what determines the use of English is his or her job, hobby, or field of study” (Strevens 1992: 30). To account for the functioning of English in the world, Strevens in his model also refers to the following 74

traditional concepts: English as a foreign language and English as a second language, local forms of English; and the distinction between native- and non-native speakers of English (see Strevens 1992: 32).

Figure 6. Strevens’s map-and-branch model of English (adapted from Strevens 1992: 33).

1.4.3. Kachruvian paradigm/World Englishes approach

The World Englishes approach, developed by Braj B. Kachru, has laid foundations for the conceptualization of the modern dispersion of English (Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles of Englishes), the development of Englishes (nativization/indigenization) and the contextual conditioning of the language (Englishization and the acculturation of English). The founding father of the approach expounds his stance on the aforesaid issues along the following lines (Kachru 1985: 29):

My position is that the diffusion of English, its acculturation, its international functional range, and the diverse forms of literary creativity it is accommodating are historically unprecedented. (…) I do not believe that the traditional notions of codification, standardization, models, and methods apply to English any more. The dichotomy of its native and non-native users seems to have become irrelevant (Kachru 1985: 29).

75

The pluricentricity of English and “its cross-cultural reincarnation” are meant to be expressed by the plural form of the concept Englishes – a term which has become ‘a trademark’ of Kachruvian paradigm (see also 1.2.7.). It is explained that the English language is pluricentric in that it has “multilinguistic identities, multiplicity of norms, both endocentric and exocentric, and distinct sociolinguistic histories” (Kachru 2006a: 69). The Kachruvian paradigm is a polymodel approach resting on “pragmatism and functional realism” (Kachru 2006d: 123). World Englishes approach distinguishes between three general patterns of variability regarding teaching English for crosscultural communications, i.e. variability concerning acquisition, function, and the context of situation (Kachru 2006d: 123). Furthermore, an argument is advanced that “[w]e may then have to recognize a cline in terms of the formal characteristics of an L2 variety of English; functional diversity in each English-speaking area; and diversity in proficiency” (Kachru 2006d: 123-124)20. The paradigm is thought to go far beyond simple descriptions of varieties of English(es) as it also probes into topics21 from such disciplines as contact linguistics, creative writing, critical linguistics, discourse analysis, corpus linguistics, lexicography, pedagogy, pidgin and creole studies, and the sociology of language (Bolton 2006a: 186). Moreover, it should be discerned that:

Kachru’s work related the spread of English to issues of multilingualism, language shift and language maintenance, language and nationalism, and language and race, and inspired scholars to begin dealing with the sociopolitical underpinnings of sociolinguistics. In recent years, Kachruvian theory has also influenced a cluster of studies of English as a ‘lingua franca’ within the European context (Bolton 2006b: 284).

World Englishes approach is characterized by its continuous insistence on pluralism and inclusivity and, accordingly, it defends and promotes linguistic and racial diversity, endangered languages and cultures, gender equality and equality of opportunity in education (Bolton 2006b: 290-291). The Kachruvian approach sets as its goal 20

Kachru (2006d: 116) argues that “[t]he sociolinguistic context might show a cline (a graded series) both in terms of proficiency in English and in its functional uses. The English-using community must be seen in a new framework, in which a linguistic activity is under analysis within a specific sociocultural context. Within the framework of user and uses one has to take into consideration cline of participants, cline of roles, and cline of intelligibility.” 21 Bolton (2006a: 195) notes that research in the World Englishes paradigm is subdivided by Kachru (1992b: 2) into “11 related and overlapping issues, identified as: the spread and stratification of English; characteristics of the stratification; interactional contexts of world Englishes; implications of the spread; descriptive and prescriptive concerns; the bilingual’s creativity and the literary canon; multi-canons of English; the two faces of English: nativization and Englishization; fallacies concerning users and uses; the power and politics of English; and teaching world Englishes.”

76

investigating the spread of English around the world and contributing to the further development of linguistic research, literary and cultural studies and education (Bolton 2006b: 291). Furthermore, World Englishes framework is assumed to rest upon three major prepositions (Brown 2006: 423). The first proclaims the existence of a “repertoire of models for English” in Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles with the concepts of a lectal range and a cline of bilingualism serving as analytical tools to describe specific varieties of English(es) and contextual conditioning (see Brown 2006: 423ff). The second assumption is that localized innovations of Englishes have, indeed, pragmatic bases and, thus, cannot be regarded as unjustified deviations from the Inner Circle standard(s) (Brown 2006: 425). The last supposition is of sociopolitical nature, namely, it asserts that “English belongs to those who use it” (Brown 2006: 425). This statement may be regarded as an attempt at liberating non-native speakers of English from a sense of inferiority and their indiscriminate reliance on native-speaker norms. However appreciated and important the World Englishes approach may be, it has also come in for some criticism. Pennycook (2003a: 517) asserts that even though the Kachruvian paradigm has significantly contributed to our comprehension of the sociolinguistics of the global diffusion of English22, the approach “has tended to operate with a limited and limiting conceptualization of globalization, national standards, culture and identity.” One of the charges brought against the Kachruvian approach, representing the so called the heterogeny position, is that it fails to address the political aspects of the diffusion of English and that it emphasizes the neutral character of English (Pennycook 2003b: 8). Moreover, World Englishes approach is blamed for being “far too exclusionary to be able to account for many uses of English around the world” (Pennycook 2003a: 521). Pennycook (2007: 22) argues that creole languages having hybrid lexicons and grammars do not find their place in the paradigm since they cannot be categorized as “emergent national standard[s].” Creoles and various ‘other Englishes’ “destabilize (…) the concept of world Englishes, which by and large relies on a belief in a core, central grammar and lexicon of English (which is what makes new Englishes still English), with new Englishes characterized by various grammatical shifts, new lexical items and different pragmatic and phonological features” (Pennycook 22

Pennycook (2003a: 517) points to the following insights gained thanks to the World Englishes approach “the development of multilingualism, (…) questioning the status of errors and divergent language forms, and (…) focusing on issues of native speaker norms and bilingual creativity, it has indeed done a great deal for our thinking about norms and standards in different Englishes.”

77

2007: 22). For Pennycook (2007: 23), the Kachruvian approach is epistemologically similar to Inner Circle monomodels which exclude certain varieties of English, thereby denying their Englishness. Kachru’s framework accounts for a variety of English as long as it adheres “to the underlying grammar of central English, demonstrate[s] enough variety to make it interestingly different, but [does] not diverge to the extent that it undermines the myth of English” (Pennycook 2007: 23). Criticism has also been leveled at Kachru’s geopolitical model of Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles since it adopts “states-centric models of language analysis” and, thus, falls short of developing adequate comprehension of present-day global conditions (Pennycook 2003a: 524). In response to Pennycook’s criticism, Bolton (2006b: 287) retorts that: 1. The tripartite geopolitical model “was never intended to be monolithic and unchanging”; 2. Anyone familiar with Kachru’s work well knows that his interest is not only in standardized varieties of English; 3. Kachru is far from regarding English as an invariably politically neutral language; 4. The World Englishes approach is not ‘exclusionary’ at all and this is evidenced by the subject matter of the World Englishes journal. There are also some voices suggesting that World Englishes paradigm requires theoretical refurbishment and a turn towards contact linguistics (see Mesthrie 2003). The reasoning behind this is that New Englishes are, in fact, contact varieties and the field can benefit from the insights of creolistics. Greater emphasis should be put on the value of investigating the heterogeneity of the input that served as the basis for New Englishes. Mesthrie (2003: 449) asserts that the superstate was not standard English but typically the language of sailors, artisans, soldiers etc. and that by no means can New Englishes be compared to or judged against the present standard models of American or British English. A point is made that there are four aspects within which the World Englishes paradigm should be refurbished (Mesthrie 2003: 450): 1. studying the foundation of New Englishes vis á vis the input; 2. establishing a truly comparative data base for linguistic analysis; 3. refining our tools for describing and accounting for variation; 4. describing language shift where it is taking place. 78

1.4.4. Linguistic imperialism

The subject matter of linguistic imperialism concerns most of all the spread of English, applied linguistics, language planning and policy, linguistic ecology, linguistic human rights and educational aid. The key notion of the framework – linguistic imperialism – is seen as a complex concept which still “needs to be broken down into its many constituent features, deconstructed and operationalised, so as to avoid the risk of determinism” (Phillipson 1997a: 241). In Phillipson’s application, linguistic imperialism is a theoretical construct developed to elucidate linguistic hierarchization, reveal the structures and ideologies assisting the process and investigate the role of language professionals (see Phillipson 1997a: 238). Linguistic imperialism is regarded as a subtype of linguicism, i.e. hierarchization on the basis of language. Research on linguicism investigates the role of language in restricting access to societal power and the ways in which linguistic hierarchies operate and become legitimated (Phillipson 1997a: 239).23 Linguistic imperialism is also seen by Phillipson as a kind of cultural imperialism24 “involving the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages” (Phillipson 1998: 104). To clarify, Phillipson (1998: 104) elucidates that “[s]tructural refers broadly to material properties (for example institutions, financial allocations), cultural to immaterial or ideological properties (for instance, attitudes, pedagogic principles).” Another important concept in Phillipson’s framework is linguistic hegemony. It is seen by him as “noncoercive, as involving contestation and adaptation, a battle for hearts and minds” (Phillipson 1997a: 242). Moreover, linguistic imperialism also draws on arguments concerning “the political relations between the ‘core English-speaking countries’ (Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and the ‘periphery-English countries’ where English either has the status of a second language (e.g. Nigeria, India, Singapore), or is a foreign and ‘international link language’ (e.g. Scandinavia, Japan)” (Bolton 2006b: 285). Structural and systemic inequality is regarded as underlying the

23

Linguicism can be both intralingual (privileging one dialect over others) or interlingual (privileging one language) (Phillipson 1997a: 239). Phillipson (1997a: 240) also notes that “[l]inguicism may be overt or covert, conscious or unconscious, in that it reflects dominant attitudes, values and hegemonic beliefs about what purposes particular languages should serve, or about the value of certain pedagogic practices.” 24 Imperialism per se is understood by Phillipson as “a structural relationship whereby one society or collectivity dominates another. The key mechanisms are exploitation, penetration, fragmentation and marginalization” (Phillipson 1998: 104).

79

relationship, with Anglophone countries establishing political and economic hegemony over developing ones. Linguistic imperialism can be understood to involve a host of various activities, ideologies and structural relationships (Phillipson 1997a: 239). To empirically validate that linguistic imperialism is at play, researchers are supposed to investigate local linguistic ecology, linguistic hierarchies, the purposes served by particular languages, whose interests are secured by present language policy and the consequences of any new proposals (Phillipson 1997a: 239-240). Importantly, education is argued to be a site which plays a key role in linguistic hierarchization because this is where “social and linguistic reproduction, the inculcation of relevant knowledge, skills and attitudes” take place (Phillipson 1997a: 240). An argument is advanced that the economic dependency of the poor countries highly influences the educational system and that “[m]ost applied linguistics acts in consonance with the dominant aid paradigm” (Phillipson 1997a: 244). Moreover, ethnocentricity and Anglocentricity (“belief that our culture and language is universally relevant”) are thought to accompany the so called language aid (Phillipson 1997a: 245). For Phillipson (1998: 108), TESOL seems to be an agent that opens foreign markets for such American export products as the entertainment industry. TESOL is regarded as “an export item” that is not neutral at all; it is “a major industry (…) reportedly worth over £5 billion per annum to Britain. English for business is business for English, and a vital dimension of English linguistic imperialism” (Phillipson 1998: 108). The processes of globalization and McDonaldization are believed to fortify the triumphalism of English. Similarly, teachers of English and TESOL experts are thought to be, in a sense, contributing to McDonaldization which serves the interests of Anglo-American business and poses a threat to everyone else (Phillipson 1998: 109, 111). Mühlhäusler (1996: 18) regards linguistic imperialism as a tool that can help “dispel the myth that the loss of linguistic diversity is a natural process” and show that it is “a historical ‘accident’ brought about by deliberate human agency.” It is maintained that that the destruction of linguistic ecology can be attributed to “many invisible hand processes” (Mühlhäusler 1996: 18). According to Mühlhäusler (1996: 20), English as a killer language developed in the European enlightenment together with the emergence of European public schools, the central government and the idea that one nation should use only one language. A point is made that “[t]he justifications for the dominance by these languages are variably given as political (how else could a nation be held 80

together), economic (the cost of diversity) and moral (people need languages free from superstition and local antagonisms), but can all be accommodated under the common denominator of ‘development’” (Mühlhäusler 1996: 20). The framework of linguistic imperialism seems to be highly supported by Mühlhäusler (1996: 20-21) who notes that “[l]inguists, for a long time, have argued for the ideological neutrality of their own position, a strategy which has neither benefited their profession nor the speakers of the numerous languages that have been their subject matter.” Similarly, Bolton (2006b: 284-285) regards Phillipson’s Linguistic Imperialism (1992) as “[a] major milestone in the literature” which was less “liberal in political orientation” and “appealed to both dependency theory and a critique of capitalism.” Nevertheless, among most serious language scholars Phillipson’s approach meets with skepticism, to say the least. Canagarajah (1999: 3) regards the work of Phillipson as valuable, yet, a point is made that the “overly global approach” of linguistic imperialism fails to address adequately “the subtle forms of resistance to English”, “appropriation inspired by local needs” and “the day-by-day struggles and negotiations with the language that take place in Third World communities.” Referring to linguistic imperialism and the spread of English, Widdowson (1997: 136) points out that this approach adopts an assumption about the invariability of language approach. Even if one accepted that the spread of English was due to deliberate efforts, it should be borne in mind that language is a very unreliable instrument of imposing colonial control because it has an “intrinsically changeable character” and, when spreading, it adapts itself to suit local environment (Widdowson 1997: 136-137). Pennycook (1994: 56) acknowledges that Phillipson’s work is insightful in some respects but notes that it tends to “reduce human relations to a reflection of the political economy, assuming that culture, language or knowledge can be handled like any other commodity.” Spolsky (2004: 84-85) adds that the cause of the inequality between nations was not colonial language policy and linguistic imperialism but imperialism, tout court. Language management on the part of colonial powers must be viewed as only one out of a multiplicity of factors contributing to the current status and spread of English (Spolsky 2004: 85). Nonetheless, Spolsky (2004: 86) argues that even though the strong form of Phillipson’s theory fails to be sufficiently explanatory, a weaker version could still be insightful in research on language policy and deliberate efforts to spread languages.

81

According to Wright (2004: 165), one of the major contributions of critical theorists25 (Phillipson is regarded as a leading representative of the circle) is the elucidation of “the socially constructed character of society” and unveiling the ways in which ruling social groups promulgate “their world view to justify inequalities in social arrangements.” A point is made that the notion hegemony (the key concept of linguistic imperialism) is based on Gramsci’s understanding of the term as “a process in which a ruling class succeeded in persuading the other classes of society to accept its own moral, political and cultural views” (Wright 2004: 167-168). Thanks to this, Phillipson strives to account for the fact why the spread of English is still increasing without actual coercion – “[t]he acceptance of English in its lingua franca role is consensual” (Wright 2004: 168). An area of disagreement between Wright and Phillipson is the role of language policy and planning in transforming power relations within society (Wright 2004: 169). Namely, Wright (2004: 169) rejects the claim that language policy could serve as an agent in change – “all the evidence to date suggests that governments are unable to legislate top-down about acquisition of lingua francas.” Moreover, an assertion is made that critical linguists are blind to the fact that English as a lingua franca can be regarded as a utilitarian tool, “a public good that permits progress” (Wright 2004: 170). The issue concerning colonial policy is a bone of contention for Brutt-Griffler as well. An argument is put forward that in order to substantiate the theoretical framework of linguistic imperialism, it is necessary to demonstrate that there was a relatively uniform colonial language policy and that it was both ideological and imperial (BruttGriffler 2002: 29). According to Brutt-Griffler (2002: 29), the evidence presented by Phillipson (documents and practices of the British Council and some post-colonial agencies) is “necessary” but not “sufficient” to demonstrate the relation between linguistic imperialism and the emergence of World English. It is pointed out that “no uniform British empire-wide language policy developed” and that this fact “disconfirm[s] the hypothesis of linguistic imperialism as responsible for the spread of English” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 29). Even though imperialism, per se, contributed to forming the basis for the development of world language (by creating the world econocultural system), “it does not constitute by any means the whole of its necessary conditions” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 111). Finally, Brutt-Griffler (2002: 111) argues that 25

As an aside, it is noted that critical theory originated in the Frankfurt School and that “[c]ritical Theorists set out to marry the empiricism of the social sciences with morality” (Wright 2004: 165).

82

“[i]mperialism is only the unwitting, even unwilling instrument of the spread of English.” Importantly, attention is drawn to the fact that the nomenclature of linguistic imperialism is “slippery” in that some terms are “perspectival or judgmental” (Fishman 1996a: 5). Concepts such as imperialism or neo-colonialism, for instance, imply that a colony is exploited by an occupying power or continued so after the end of occupation. A call is also issued for a reconceptualization of English “from being an imperialist tool to being a multinational tool” (Fishman 1996a: 8). According to Fishman (1996a: 8), “English may well be the lingua franca of capitalist exploitation without being the vehicle of imperialism or even neo-imperialism per see.” Furthermore, it is noted that “English may need to be re-examined precisely form the point of view of being postimperial (…) that is in the sense of not directly serving purely Anglo-American territorial, economic, or cultural expansion (…) without being post-capitalist in any way” (Fishman 1996a: 8). Fishman (1996b: 638) also points out that English contributes to social stratification but such terms as imperialism, neo-imperialism, or neo-colonialism may not be the best possible concepts to describe the processes leading to social hierarchization. The status of English in former British and American colonies may be attributed to the developing econocultural system and not to externally imposed hegemony; all countries on account of their own interests want to be a part of the unifying and homogenizing global economy for which English serves as a lingua franca (Fishman 1996b: 639-640). Consequently, the hierarchical order and the differences between the rich and poor cannot be regarded as caused by imperialism or neo-colonialism (Fishman 1996b: 640). Conrad (1996: 23) argues that Phillipson’s framework is based on “anecdotal data” and firmly rooted in “conflict theories” that assume “structural inequality and the imbalances between exploited and exploiter.” Phillipson is thought to take it for granted that the dispersion of English inevitably and invariably results in the degradation of local languages (Conrad 1996: 23). Importantly, an analysis of Phillipson’s linguistic imperialism reveals numerous underlying (false) assumptions:

His [Phillipson’s] argument seems to be as follows: 1) English is spread by linguistic imperialism. (Apparently only by imperialism.) 2) Linguistic imperialism means that English needs to maintain its dominance (as if a language were somehow conscious of its own status), and therefore, ‘interested’ parties, i.e., exploiters, promote inequalities between English and local languages. Therefore, 3) English is spread at the expense of local languages. It seems fairly obvious that if the spread of English is everywhere only

83

imperialistic, it would follow, as day follows night, that such an imperial imposition of a language would be at the expense of local languages. This is a standard logical fallacy; the argument assumes what it sets out to prove. Or perhaps, more understandably if equally objectionable, the theory of social change on which it is built anticipates that explanations will take a form which requires the division of languages, like the societies languages are associated with, into exploited and exploiter (Conrad 1996: 23-24).

Another unsubstantiated and questionable assumption is that the dispersion of English always serves the interests of the UK and the USA (Conrad 1996: 25). Phillipson’s work is also thought to imply that political facts immediately transmute into linguistic ones (Conrad 1996: 25). Moreover, the framework of linguistic imperialism hinges on the center-periphery division of the world which, in the present form, seems too simple to shed light on the complex relation between languages of wider communication and local ones (Conrad 1996: 27). Such relationships must be investigated “contextually, empirically (by a marshaling of evidence) and historically (particularly to specific, changing circumstances)” (Conrad 1996: 27). Davies (1996) in his review article does not mince words to describe Phillipson’s Linguistic Imperialism (1992). Phillipson is charged with promoting “anarchist’s search for absolute political libertarianism” and spreading “the capitalist English Language Teaching (ELT) conspiracy” (Davies 1996: 485). Davies (1996: 485-486) asserts that linguistic imperialism as described by Phillipson is home to “the culture of guilt” in which he feels sorry for colonialism and the imposition of English, and “the culture of romantic despair” in which there is a sense of guilt for what teachers of English are doing. Phillipson regards post-colonial English as a conspiracy and he will never accept an argument that in countries like Zambia or Kenya English was not imposed but chosen freely (Davies 1996: 486). According to Phillipson, the colonial relations remain intact because people have been persuaded that they need English and that they should adopt the same social, moral and cultural values as the donor countries (Davies 1996: 488). For Davies (1996: 487) it is obvious that each and every state does everything to promote its own interests and that foreign policy is accordingly implemented and carried out. Therefore, all donor countries restrict, to varying degrees, their aid for receiving countries to those spheres that lie most of all in their own interests (Davies 1996: 487). Furthermore, Phillipson is thought to ignore the fact that English offers “values of openness, access to and connection with modernism; and (…) the possibility that oppressed groups’ common sense is active enough for them to reject English if they so wish” (Davies 1996: 490). Thus, restricting English

84

schooling in multilingual societies is to the disadvantage of those less privileged because elites can afford private tutoring anyway (Davies 1996: 490). An argument is also advanced that even though Phillipson correctly describes the imbalance in access to language education, he is wrong in claiming that it is imposed externally and not internally by local elites (Davies 1996: 490). According to Davies (1996: 495), the two major flaws of Phillipson’s Linguistic Imperialism are that “[t]he book is insular, looking neither at the interaction of English with other languages nor at the role of other imperial languages” and that “[t]he deterministic insistence of the author means that his judgements are impervious to the facts, thereby trivialising history in favour of myth.” More specifically, Davies (1996: 496) points out that “the book is naive about the way in which political systems impose themselves, and by highlighting the negative aspects of ideology it loses sight of the positive aspects.” The book is also patronizing in the sense that it implies that decisions in the Third World countries are not made independently. In Phillipson’s world people do not make independent choices as regards their language use but their ‘choices’ are imposed externally (Davies 1997: 248). Phillipson is also criticized for adopting “a static, nondynamic interaction” view of language spread and disregarding the fact that languages in contact inevitably influence each other. Moreover, the book is regarded as ahistorical and one viewing English as the major cause of social divisiveness in the Third World countries, which is considered to be absurdity and an overstatement of the role of language – “[l]anguage is indicative, it is not causal of social divisiveness” (Davies 1996: 495). Finally, a point is made that linguicism as well as linguistic imperialism are faulty and cannot be falsified and that he and Phillipson “disagree about the nature of language. For RP [Robert Phillipson] language is essential, like race, sex etc. For me, language is non-essential, like culture, religion” (Davies 1997: 248).

1.4.5. A lingua franca approach to English

Investigating intercultural communication via English from the perspective of lingua franca interactions has been growing in popularity for some time now. The majority of ELF researchers work on large corpuses comprising most of all encodings and transcriptions of interactions in English among people for none of whom the language is a mother tongue. The potential of the framework is believed by those working in it to lie 85

in its possible yielding insight of theoretical, descriptive and applied nature (see Mauranen 2003: 514). Moreover, it is noted that “the theoretical interests in ELF data centre around the possibility of finding manifestations of simplification, evidence for universally unmarked features, and hypothesised universals of communication as well as evidence for self-regulative patterning” (Mauranen 2003: 516). Regarding the descriptive interest, the focus is on finding those features of English that constitute the core of ELF interactions (Mauranen 2003: 517). The importance of the descriptive work also consists in testing hypotheses and developing practical applications (Mauranen 2003: 517). A point is made that the framework of EFL complies with insights from research on IVE, linguistic imperialism, critical discourse analysis, the sociopolitics of language teaching and aims at drawing on the findings from related disciplines, i.e. intercultural communication and language awareness (Seidlhofer 2004: 225-226). In addition, a lingua franca approach refers to the frameworks developed by Widdowson (see 1.3.3.3.) and Brutt-Griffler (see 1.3.3.4.), in that it emphasizes the agency and authority of ELF users and assumes that English as a lingua franca is a result of the spread of the language and not its distribution (Seidlhofer 2001: 138). Arguments are advanced that ELF “developed independently, with a great deal of variation but enough stability to be viable for lingua franca communication” (Seidlhofer 2001: 138). Therefore, ELF cannot be regarded as “a globally distributed, franchised copy of” an ENL variety (Seidlhofer 2001: 138). Importantly, it is noted that one may find it problematic to conceptualize ELF as a true linguistic phenomenon since it is difficult to conceive of a language variety that has no native speakers (Seidlhofer 2004: 212). This conceptual gap in thinking about ELF may be filled by working on the description of ELF as legitimate language variety which can be perceived as an alternative, especially in language teaching, to predominant native speaker models and norms (Seidlhofer 2004: 213). A reconceptualization of English should proceed along the following lines (Seidlhofer 2004: 214):

1. “Questioning of the deference to hegemonic native-speaker norms in all contexts”; 2. “Emphasizing the legitimacy of variation in different communities of use”; 3. “Highlighting the need to pursue the attitudinal an linguistic implications of the global spread of English”; 86

4. “Acknowledging the need for description and codification.”

It is argued that the benefits derived from this conceptualization of ELF may be substantial for both native and non-native speakers of English (Seidlhofer 2004: 229). The former can feel satisfied because native English will be reserved for the functions carried out only by first languages and regarded as a target language only in appropriate circumstances. The conceptualization of ELF can also offer native speakers of English a possibility of code-switching from ENL to EFL and, thus, take “pressure off a monolithic concept of English pulled in different directions by divergent demands and unrealistic expectations, a state of affairs frustrating for speakers of both ENL and ELF.” The latter, especially non-native teachers of English can start to view themselves as “competent and authoritative users of ELF” and not “perennial, error-prone learners of ENL” (Seidlhofer 2004: 229). For House the framework of ELF offers a needed alternative to both linguistic imperialism and the blind glorification of the spread of English. Her proposal (House 2003: 571ff) for the theoretical underpinnings of ELF paradigm comprises the following elements: (1) the conceptualization of English language learning as macroacquisition and the rejection of the interlanguage framework; (2) the adoption of the community of practice approach26; (3) the acceptance of hybridity as a linguistic and cultural norm and, hence, (4) substituting native speakers as models using real and good English for experts in ELF use serving as “[t]he yardstick for measuring ELF speakers’ performance.”

ELF

users

are

regarded

as

multilingual

speakers

having

multicompetence. Thanks to this perception, a focus is shifted from development and acquisition to language use and “the socio-pragmatic functions of language choice” (House 2003: 558). House (2003: 558) advocates an interactional approach which concentrates most of all on social phenomena and language use. Importantly, House (2003: 556) distinguishes between languages for communication and languages for identification and, accordingly, makes the claim that ELF does not pose a serious threat to national languages and multilingualism. The differentiation is based on functional aspects of language use in which language serves “as a means to fulfill certain functions 26

House (2003: 573) points out the community of practice fits the field of ELF because “ELF participants have heterogeneous backgrounds and diverse social and linguistic expectations. Rather than being characterized by fixed social categories and stable identities, ELF users are agentively involved in the construction of event-specific, interactional styles and frameworks.” It is also important to understand ELF interactions as joint and negotiated enterprises in which participants engage in “collaborative meaning negotiations” (House 2003: 572).

87

in human experience” (House 2003: 559). In this vein, local languages remain “the main determinants of identity” and ELF becomes an instrument serving above all communicative purposes in international encounters (House 2003: 559-560). To elaborate it is argued that:

Because ELF is not a national language, but a mere tool bereft of collective cultural capital, it is a language usable neither for identity marking, nor for positive (‘integrative’) disposition toward an L2 group, nor for a desire to become similar to valued members of this L2 group – simply because there is no definable group of ELF speakers (House 2003: 560).

Accordingly, ELF is not believed to pose a threat to national or local languages because they are used for different purposes. Moreover, House (2003: 560) asserts that ELF users speak English because they are driven by a utilitarian motive and this, according to her is, “incompatible with viewing ELF users (…) as ‘pawns’ in an imperialistic game, where formerly militaristic and colonial inroads are now linguistically replayed.” It should be discerned that even though there is a dearth of descriptive literature concerning ELF, some research has been done in the field of phonology (Jenkins and Lingua Franca Core) and the pragmatics of the usage of English in ELF communication (House) (Seidlhofer 2001: 141). Attention should also be paid to a project carried out by the Vienna-Oxford ELF Corpus that aims at “establish[ing] something like an index of communicative redundancy”, i.e. isolating the features of native-speaker English that “might not be operable” in ELF communication (Seidlhofer 2001: 147). The ultimate goal would be codifying ELF and “making it a feasible, acceptable and respected alternative to ENL in appropriate contexts of use” (Seidlhofer 2001: 150). This could offer new ways of appropriating English and teaching the virtual language (Seidlhofer 2001: 151-152). Furthermore, non-native speakers of English could eventually be regarded as “competent and authoritative users of ELF” and the negatively-associated dichotomy – a native vs. non-native teacher – would become obsolete (Seidlhofer 2001: 152). Because ELF is regarded as a natural language, it is expected to “undergo the same processes that affect other natural languages, especially in contact situations” (Seidlhofer 2004: 222). The following statements constitute significant insight offered by the ELF framework:

88

1. ELF undergoes the processes of regularization, structural simplification favoring generally unmarked features (Seidlhofer 2004: 222; Mauranen 2003: 514); 2. Success or failure of ELF communication is a function of both proficiency and such communicative capabilities as “sensitivity to the limits of shared systemic and schematic knowledge, as well as accommodation skills” ( Seidlhofer 2004: 222); 3. ELF is characterized by functional flexibility, spread across many different domains and de-owning of English (House 2003: 557); 4. The characteristics of ELF talk are the following: a reduced repertoire of tokens, shorter turns, much non-verbal communication, dynamic model of topic management (House 2003: 558-559); 5. ELF interactants “‘normalize’ potential trouble sources”27; adopt a Let it pass principle (as long as they regard their talk as satisfactorily communicative); “continuously work out a joint basis for their interactions, locally construing and intersubjectively ratifying meanings” (House 2003: 558-559); 6. Even though ELF talk is marked by “dysfluencies, and by syntactic, morphological, and phonological anomalies and infelicities – at least as such aspects are recognized by native-speaker assessments”, interactants still seem capable of achieving communicative success “through locally-managed interactional, interpretive and linguistic ‘work’”(Firth 1996: 239ff).

The aforesaid descriptions of ELF and ELF talk are indicative of the fact that at least some researchers28 working in this paradigm believe, as Seidlhofer (2004: 212) proclaims, that “ELF has taken on a life of its own, independent to a considerable degree of the norms established by its native speakers.” Since non-native speakers of English make up the majority of people using English, the language “is being shaped at least as much by its non-native speakers as by its native speakers” (Seidlhofer 2005: 339). In order to dismiss native speakers as custodians of English and to become accepted alongside native English, ELF should be systematically studied29, described and the results should be applied to language teaching and learning (Seidlhofer 2005: 27

See also Firth (1996: 237). Mauranen (2003: 516), for instance, seems to be less certain as to the degree to which “fluent ELF communities (…) might be developing their own formulae.” 29 That ELF paradigm seems in desperate need of research can at least partly be attributed to the fact that, as Seidlhofer (2001: 146) notes, one cannot have any kind of native speaker’s intuition with respect to ELF. 28

89

339-340). The insight into the nature of ELF interaction can help to single out those core features of English which are necessary for attaining intelligibility and those which are both needless and/or hard to learn (Seidlhofer 2005: 340). Seidlhofer (2001: 141) argues that most people using English in international communication do not have the objective to speak like native speakers of English, “the central concerns for this domain are efficiency, relevance and economy in language learning and language use.” However, it is noted that written genres are in a greater need of conforming to global standards which are likely to be that of native speakers (Seidlhofer 2004: 223). As regards standards, Jenkins (2006: 161) states that in contrast to WS(S)E researchers, ELF scholars do not suggest that there should be one monolithic standard English for the entire world. Moreover, Jenkins (2006: 161) argues that “that anyone participating in international communication needs to be familiar with, and have in their linguistic repertoire for use, as and when appropriate, certain forms (phonological, lexicogrammatical, etc.) that are widely used and widely intelligible across groups of English speakers from different first language backgrounds.” Critics of the ELF paradigm point to several problems related to the framework. Prodromou (2007), for instance, criticizes Jenkins’s views concerning English as a lingua franca (see Jenkins 2006) on the grounds that:

1. ELF is regarded and discussed as a variety of English analogous to IVE. A point is made that in contrast to IVE, English as a lingua franca is not “a wellestablished variety of English with its own norms and regularities” (Prodromou 2007: 409); 2. ELF researchers seem to imply that identifying core features of ELF is almost tantamount to developing a new model of English for learners. This equates descriptive with pedagogic grammar, which certainly is not appropriate (Prodromou 2007: 410); 3. There is some confusion concerning ‘emerging’ and ‘emergent’ aspects of ELF (Prodromou 2007: 410-411). Prodromou (2007: 410-411) argues that “Jenkins (2006) confusingly refers to ELF both as an ‘emergent phenomenon’ (…) and as comparable to the ‘emerging Englishes of the expanding circle’.” The distinction between ‘emerging’ and ‘emergent’ is vital because whereas the former indicates that ELF is a product which can be at some point captured and codified, the latter refers to the “elusive, ever-evolving, and dialogic” nature of 90

ELF and further points to only faint possibilities of its codification (Prodromou 2007: 410-411); 4. ELF and EFL are claimed to be different varieties (Prodromou 2007: 411). Prodromou (2007: 411) finds it confusing and unusual that Jenkins regards ELF as a distinct from EFL ‘variety’ of English. It is noted that most definitions describe EFL as English learnt by a community for which it does not serve as an official language of communication and, therefore, EFL speakers are also unlikely to learn English to communicate only with native speakers of English (Prodromou 2007: 411). Moreover, Prodromou (2007: 412) argues that “there are no borders as far as ELF is concerned: EFL, ESL, and ELF users will, at some time or another, all need to negotiate encounters with diverse interlocutors”; 5. Linguistic capital is claimed to lie in the codification of forms of English. Prodromou (2007: 412) points out that for Jenkins the diminishing of the linguistic capital of native-speakers can be achieved by exposing learners to a repertoire of ELF varieties. An argument is advanced that such a strategy will make “power structures remain infused with the common core grammar of standard English” and provide ELF speakers with “a broken weapon” and leave them “stuttering onto the world stage” (Prodromou 2007: 412).

In her response to Prodromou (2007), Jenkins complains about the degree of his misconceptions and points out that ELF is an unprecedented phenomenon that “does not fit neatly into pre-existing categories predicated on the tired old dichotomy of native/nonnative Englishes” (Jenkins 2007a: 414). Furthermore, it is argued that:

By its very nature and use, ELF is both emerging as more and more L1 groups learn and use English and emergent as speakers of English from this growing number of L1 groups ‘shuttle between communities’ (…) and increasingly shape their lingua franca English in ways that accommodate the needs of the particular interlocutor of the moment (Jenkins 2007a: 414).

Finally, a point is made that codifying a language can take place at any stage of its development and that this fact does not mean that language is fixed or stable (Jenkins 2007a: 415).

91

1.4.6. The global language system

Swaan’s theoretical framework combines a political sociology of language with a political economy of language (see Swaan 2001: 18ff). The former adopts from political macro-sociology the concept of a world system30 and aims at “identify[ing] the linguistic dimension of this evolving system: the global language constellation” (Swaan 2001: 18). Moreover, it focuses on such issues as “‘language jealousies’ between groups, (…) elite monopolization of the official language, (…) the exclusion of the unschooled, and (…) the uses of language to achieve upward mobility” (Swaan 2001: 2). The latter draws on the rational choice theory and welfare economics to address language preferences and competition between languages which, in themselves, are viewed as hypercollective goods offering their speakers access to the collective cultural capital (Swaan 2001: 18-19). It also examines “how people try to maximize their opportunities for communication, how this confronts them with dilemmas of collective action that may even provoke stampedes towards another language and the abandonment of their native tongue, and what occurs in the unequal relations of exchange between small and large language groups” (Swaan 2001: 2). The central argument of Swaan’s theoretical framework is a contention that the “worldwide constellation of language is an integral part of the ‘world system’” (Swaan 2001: 1). Apart from the language dimension, the world system also encompasses the political dimension (humanity is seen as “organized into almost two hundred states and a network of international organizations”); the economic dimension (the population of the earth is “coordinated through a concatenation of markets and corporations”); the cultural dimension (people are “linked by electronic media in an encompassing, global culture”); and the ecological dimension (humanity “in its ‘metabolism with nature’, it also constitutes an ecological system”) (Swaan 2001: 1). According to Swaan (2001: 23), in the contemporary world any human group should be regarded as being a part of a single and interdependent unit with all the groups’ languages constituting a global constellation which itself is just a single dimension of the world system. Past conquests, domination and continuous “relations of power and exchange” are the factors that have 30

A world system is regarded as consisting of a periphery, semi-periphery and a core. Swaan (2001: 19) explains that “[t]hese levels correspond partly to those of the hypercentral and supercentral languages, of the central languages, and of the peripheral languages. As in the world system in general, the global language system displays strong oligopolistic features. Generally, exchange between language groups proceeds on very unequal terms.”

92

shaped to a large extent the present global language system (Swaan 2001: 18). Moreover, Swaan (2001: 177) notes that “[t]he dynamics of this emerging global system were generated by processes of state-formation, which led to language unification at home, and to transcontinental expansion of the language abroad.” The essence of the language system consists in the emergence of a unique network of connections that unites, either directly or indirectly, all inhabitants of the earth (Swaan 2001: 1). Multilingual speakers are attributed a very special role of connecting people from mutually unintelligible language groups (Swaan 2001: 4). The constellation of languages of the world and multilinguals that link them together emerge as “a strongly ordered, hierarchical pattern” (Swaan 2001: 4). At the core of the global language system – held together by multilingualism – lies “hypercentral English, which is linked to a dozen supercentral languages; each of these in its turn serves a cluster of peripheral languages” (Swaan 2001: 177). The dispersion of supercentral languages (and hypercentral English) serving as international or global tools of communication is believed to be a result of “[i]mproved communications, expanding media entertainment, increasing international trade and travel, and a proliferation of international organizations” (Swaan 2001: 177). Swaan (2001: 177) makes the point that “[t]here are no isolated languages any more, since there are no longer any isolated societies. All human groups on the globe engage in relations of power, trade, migration and cultural exchange. These relations all involve verbal transactions; they are necessarily embedded in language.” Furthermore, it is argued that the development of the world language system was an unintentional process resultant from “a myriad of individual decisions (and non-decisions, resignation and compliance) which completely ignored the aggregate consequences for the larger language constellation” (Swaan 2001: 186). What follows from this is that the global spread of English as a hypercentral language sustaining the whole constellation of languages may have been “a blind process” which happened to lead to a “continuous integration that greatly increased the coherence of the human species in its entirety” (Swaan 2001: 6, 186). The position of English as a hypercentral language of the global language system is both self-perpetuating and selfexpanding (Swaan 2001: 187). The factors conditioning this state of affairs are, inter alia, the perception of target language choices of language learners and competitions between language groups (Swaan 2001: 187). The educational system being inevitably influenced by political, economic and cultural context is also found to determine the patterns of language acquisition (Swaan 2001: 6). 93

The use of a language is free and costless, nevertheless, to acquire a foreign language one must invest not only work, time, attention and memory but frequently also money on books, teachers, learning aids etc. (Swaan 2001: 27). Swaan (2001: 27) notes that learning foreign languages is an activity that requires from people (due to, among others, limits of memory) making decisions as to the choice of a target language and that “[i]f efforts are equal, people will choose to learn the language that they expect will benefit them more than another.” In practice, it boils down to learning a language that is higher (or most likely the highest) in the hierarchy of the world language system (Swaan 2001: 5). It is also pointed out that of all languages in the world there are only about a dozen of supercentral languages31 and one hypercentral (English) used as tools of “long-distance and international communication” (Swaan 2001: 5). Most frequently, people decide to learn such languages just because of their high communicative value (the Q-value of a language). The Q-value of a language can be understood “as a roughand-ready measure” indicating the communicative value of a given language (Swaan 2001: 39). Swaan (2001: 39-40) explicates that the notion of the Q-value is “grounded in the theoretical concept of a world language system with its hierarchically organized pattern of connections between languages.” This indicator points to “‘the value’ that speakers attribute to that language, an evaluation that guides their choices of foreign languages to learn” (Swaan 2001: 39). As Swaan (2001: 39) rightly observes, people do not calculate the Q-value; nonetheless, their choice is a reflection of their impressions, intuitions, advice concerning the usefulness of acquiring a given language, and this is what the Q-value purports to echo. The Q-value is “an approximate quantity” that “agrees with the highly approximate quality of the choices that are made by (…) people” who usually opt for a target language that “adds more than another to the Q-value of their language repertoire” (Swaan 2001: 39, 178). To specify, the Q-value of a given language in the constellation is the product of its prevalence and centrality (Swaan 2001: 34). The former refers to the proportion of speakers of a given tongue in the constellation of all languages (“[t]he larger the number of its speakers, the more attractive the language”) and indicates “the opportunities it has to offer for direct communication with other persons in the constellation” (Swaan 2001: 33-34). The latter points to “the way this

31

Swaan (2001: 5) asserts that supercentral languages were often the ones which were “imposed by a colonial power and after independence continued to be used in politics, administration, law, big business, technology and higher education.”

94

language is connected through multilingual speakers to other language groups in the constellation” and is measured by counting the number of speakers of a given language that can also speak some other language(s) – “the larger the number of [such] speakers (…) the more connected the language is and the higher its centrality” (Swaan 2001: 33). As regards the influence of English on local language ecologies, Swaan (2001: 186) points out that because globalization (with accompanying acceleration of trade, transport and electronic communication) “proceeds in English”, the result is the development of diglossia relations between hypercentral English and local languages. Furthermore, it is argued that the “diglossia between English and the domestic language precludes for the time being a stable equilibrium, a solid separation of domains between the two languages. People will have to live with both English and their domestic language, and seek a feasible accommodation between the two” (Swaan 2001: 186). It appears that even though people want to increase their communicative capital by acquiring a language with a high Q-value, they also wish to preserve their mother tongue (however low its communicative value may be) because it provides them with access to collective cultural capital which may be understood as the entirety of all aggregated texts available in a given language (Swaan 2001: 21). Swaan (2001: 179) asserts that “in many respects, having a ‘national’ or ‘ethnic’ identity means holding a stake in the collective cultural capital that in its totality defines the group and its members. In fact, language has become the most important denominator of national identities in the present world.” Interestingly, a point is made that “[p]eople have every right to use whatever language they please, most of all their mother tongue”, which also means that they can adopt a new language and reject their L1 together with the cultural capital it embodies (Swaan 2001: 188, 193).

1.4.7. The dynamic model of evolution of New Englishes

The theoretical framework developed by Schneider focuses on the appropriation and diversification of English around the world and the resultant development of new dialects of English (Schneider 2006: 126). The birth of dialects is viewed as a principled process32 subject to general sociolinguistic tenets and manifesting common structural 32

Importantly, Schneider (2006: 171) makes the point that “[e]ven if New Englishes are the products of a relatively uniform underlying process, the outcomes of this process are anything but uniform.”

95

and sociolinguistic traits despite dissimilar contextual scenarios of language contact33 (Schneider 2006: 126). In this vein, the rise of New Englishes is regarded as “a process of linguistic convergence, followed by renewed divergence only later, once a certain level of homogeneity has been reached” (Schneider 2006: 126). Schneider (2006: 126) argues that “I propose that New Englishes emerge in characteristic phases that ultimately result in new dialect formation, and that the entire process is driven by identity reconstructions by the parties involved that are to some extent determined by similar parameters of the respective contact situations.” Schneider’s model of the evolution of New Englishes regards linguistic usage as “a highly variable phenomenon, constrained by intralinguistic and extralinguistic parameters” and emphasizes the significance of “sociolinguistic and sociocultural perspectives in language analysis” and “the overriding impact of identity expression as a function of language” (Schneider 2006: 171). The model draws on identity theory, language contact theory and accommodation theory (Schneider 2006: 168-169). The characteristic features of the framework are that it is a holistic, dynamic model which adopts the speech community approach and claims to have predictive power (Schneider 2006: 168-169). Social identity constitutes a key element of the framework as its construction and reconstruction are believed to be displayed by symbolic linguistic means (Schneider 2006: 132). Identifying one’s identity consists in, according to Schneider (2006: 132), answering the question “who one is and, more importantly, who one wishes to be” and delineating a line between “‘us’ (those who share essential parts of (…) history and [value] orientation, those we wish to socialize and be associated with) and ‘others’ (who don’t share these qualities).” The symbolic expression of attitudes, socialization patterns, solidarity and identity can be most readily realized through linguistic variability (Schneider 2006: 132-133). An essential assumption seems to be one pertaining to a contention that identities should not be regarded as stable or clear-cut but as a dynamic continuous process requiring constant “rethinking and repositioning of oneself in the light of changing parameters in one’s surrounding, possibly to be followed by the substitution of one symbolic form of expression by another” (Schneider 2006: 133). Furthermore, since individuals can belong to different social groups and adopt various social roles their identity can be multiple, overlapping, hybrid or even 33

Schneider (2006: 128) notes that “[t]he process of colonial expansion was driven by a variety of motives, among them economic, political, military, and religious ones, and its agents were state, business companies, religious communities, missionary and colonization societies, and also simply individuals. Consequently, different types of contact scenarios arose.”

96

conflicting with each other (Schneider 2006: 133). As regards colonial expansion, the colonized and the colonizer were in a novel contextual situation with new personal, social, cultural and political circumstances which demanded from them a redefinition of themselves, their social roles and identities which, in the course of time, found its linguistic expression and led to the development of New Englishes (Schneider 2006: 133). Schneider (2006: 133) points out that in all colonial contexts there was “a certain degree of uniformity of the sociopsychological as well as linguistic processes.” In addition, it is argued that “[h]ybridity, and hence a broad range of variability and differences, is characteristic of both identity construction and linguistic evolution in the contexts considered here. But at the same time I would argue that these processes have more in common than linguistic scholarship has recognized so far” (Schneider 2006: 133). The emergence of New Englishes is claimed to be determined by a process common to all transplanted varieties and distinguished, in general, by two interrelated factors (Schneider 2006: 134-135):

1. “a characteristic diachronic pattern of progressive stages of identity rewritings and associated linguistic changes”; 2.

“the ecology and ethnography of the socio-political and, consequently, communicative relationship between the parties involved in a colonization process” – the so called strands of communicative perspective.

The central idea of Schneider’s framework is that the two strands, representing the colonized and the colonizer, apart from sharing the territory gradually start to share “a common language experience and communication ethnography” (Schneider 2006: 136). The consequence of this contact is accommodation progressing in both groups with “dialect convergence and increasingly large shared sets of linguistic features and conventions” (Schneider 2006: 136). The final outcome is the rise of a language community sharing common norms; yet, internal variability is still found to appear in smaller coexisting speech communities, characterized by specific social and ethnic features, when important socially or stylistically determined contexts become salient (Schneider 2006: 136). To sump up, Schneider’s dynamic model of the evolution of New Englishes postulates the following:

97

1. New Englishes evolved when the English language was transplanted and underwent an essentially uniform process along five stages entailing: foundation,

exonormative

stabilization,

nativization,

endonormative

stabilization, and differentiation (for detail see Schneider 2006: 138ff); 2. The groups participating in the process (the colonized and the colonizer) gradually approximate each other’s codes due to “an ongoing process of mutual linguistic accommodation over time” (Schneider 2006: 137); 3. The process of the development of New Englishes is ultimately determined by “reconstructions of group identities of all participating communities” (Schneider 2006: 137).

Schneider (2006: 136, 149) argues that his model is likely to be universally applicable and that it introduces a considerable refinement to Kachru’s Circles of Englishes. Nonetheless, as Schneider (2006: 170) admits, this framework suffers from two flaws: the prototypicality of the model and the limitations of predictability. The former relates to the fact that the stages described by Schneider can only be regarded as “characteristic properties of prototypical stages” (Schneider 2006: 170). The latter points to the fact that the model works only “under the default assumption that social history will hold no major surprises” (Schneider 2006: 170).

1.4.8. Sociolinguistics of globalization

Sociolinguists have only recently evinced some theoretical and practical interest in investigating the interrelationship between language and globalization. For reasons of its global reach and significance world English can understandably be expected to constitute the most fertile source of research themes in the area of sociolinguistics of globalization. The insights gained from the analysis of sociolinguistic aspects of globalization can prove to be of immense value to world English(es) researchers. As Coupland (2003: 466) asserts, “[i]t is increasingly true, in researching many domains of social life, that living up to these priorities requires us to attend to global as well as local bases of social organisation.” In this vein, accounting for local sociolinguistic language phenomena may require one to view them from the larger perspective of globalization 98

and the processes that it entails (Coupland 2003: 466). Furthermore, globalization is observed to become “the salient context for” an ever larger number of such local sociolinguistic experiences as “inhabitation of social networks, social identities, senses of intimacy and community, differentials of power and control” (Coupland 2003: 466). Blommaert (2003) in his illuminating paper made a considerable step towards delineating the theoretical underpinnings of a sociolinguistics of globalization. An urgent appeal is made by him for “a holistic and world-systemic view in which local events are read locally as well as translocally, and in which the world system with its structural inequalities is a necessary (but not self-explanatory) context in which language occurs and operates” (Blommaert 2003: 612-613). Blommaert (2003: 612613) attributes sociolinguistic globalization “the niched character” as it is seen to operate in “particular different yet interconnected places and not in others, and this is a structural and systemic matter with deep historical roots, not a coincidental one.” A World System analysis, with its focus on “issues of scale, layering, and differential development” is thought to be more than adequate for a description of sociolinguistics of globalization; a field that should concentrate among others on “the relative value of semiotic resources – value often being connected to translocally realizable functions, the capacity to perform adequately in and through language in a wide variety of social geographical spaces and across economies (something often attributed to English, but also to literacy and internet communication)” (Blommaert 2003: 612-613). Sociolinguistic globalization should be understood as a process in which particular language varieties start to constitute a part of “the repertoires of particular groups” and thereby “creating new semiotic opportunities and commodities for members of such groups and indeed constructing them as groups” (Blommaert 2003: 611). Importantly, researching sociolinguistic aspects of globalization requires (1) a shift of focus from abstract language to language varieties and repertoires (“[w]hat is globalized is not an abstract Language, but specific speech forms, genres, styles, and forms of literary practice”) and (2) a conceptualization of the adoption of globalized varieties by local communities as a process of “a reordering of the locally available repertoires and the relative hierarchical relations between ingredients in the hierarchy” (eventually leading to “a reorganization of the sociolinguistic stratigraphy”) (Blommaert 2003: 608). According to Blommaert (2003: 611), a sociolinguistics of globalization must invariably be considered as a sociolinguistics of mobility which views language varieties, texts and images as moving across time and space. Consequently, an issue of 99

various scales and processes of elevating events from lower local levels to higher ones (and vice verse) must be addressed and accounted for by a sociolinguistic approach to globalization (Blommaert 2003: 608). An equal emphasis should be placed on ethnography, since it can provide insight into the ways in which “language varieties and discourses work for people, what they accomplish (or fail to) in practice, and how this fits into local economies of resources” (Blommaert 2003: 615). Just as important seems to be the following: (1) identifying “the particular niche on which the globalized flows eventually have an impact”34, (2) investigating the reasons for this as well as (3) probing into “the specific role of particular mediating institutions in the new economies that appear to characterize globalized flows” (Blommaert 2003: 609). Some other phenomena and processes constituting significant themes for a sociolinguistics of globalizations are (1) the broadening of the vernacular base (globalization of a vernacular base); (2) the emergence of global communities of readers; (3) and the commodification of language. In this light, in order to account for the fact that New Zealanders simultaneously adopt British and American elements into their speech repertoires, Meyerhoff and Niedzielski (2003) referred to the concept (and process) called a broadening of the vernacular base. It is pointed out that “such a broadening serves to expand the forms that speakers have access to in their most vernacular, unself-conscious, and most importantly, their most local contexts” (Meyerhoff and Niedzielski 2003: 550). An argument is advanced that there is a need for a greater focus on a global vernacular base as it offers a more convincing explanation of the dispersion of elements from one language variety to another and avoids, frequently unsubstantiated, claims that the driving factor is linguistic insecurity and emulation of models with higher prestige. Regarding global communities of readers and viewers, they can be seen as a product of the global media corporations which aim at targeting global communities in the global market (Machin and Leeuwen 2003: 493). Even

though

such

communities

are

“globally

dispersed

and

linguistically

heterogeneous” they share “an involvement with the same modalities and genres of language and the same linguistic constructions of reality and which can signify its 34

Blommaert (2003: 612) points out that “[w]e have to realize that the world is not a uniform space and that consequently, globalization processes need to be understood against the background of the world system. (...) the system is marked by both the existence of separate spaces (e.g. states) and deep interconnectedness of the different spaces, often, precisely, through the existence of worldwide élites. Inequality, not uniformity, organized the flows and the particular nature of such flows across the ‘globe’. Consequently, whenever sociolinguistic items travel across the globe, they travel across structurally different spaces, and will consequently be picked up differently in different places.”

100

allegiance to the values of the magazine through dress, grooming and other behaviours” (Machin and Leeuwen 2003: 493). They can be regarded as “specific global interest groups rather than groups unified by a common language” (Machin and Leeuwen 2003: 493). As for the process of the commodification of language, it is pointed out that this phenomenon, triggered by globalized new economy, “renders language amenable to redefinition as a measurable skill, as opposed to a talent, or an inalienable characteristic of group members” (Heller 2003: 473). In this conception language seems to be more of “a marketable commodity on its own, distinct from identity” rather than “a marker of ethnonational identity” (Heller 2003: 474). Heller (2003: 474) asserts that the commodification of language when combined with the simultaneous marketing of authenticity can “challenge State- and community-based systems of producing and distributing linguistic resources, redefine the relationship between language and identity, and produce new forms of competition and social selection.” Moreover, the process seems to be inseparably related to struggles over legitimacy and authenticity. Specifically, the conflicts pertain to ascertaining who can claim the right to decide “what counts as competence, as authenticity, as excellence, and over who has the right to produce and distribute the resources of language and identity” (Heller 2003: 474). An important point is made by Coupland (2003: 470) who warns that “[t]he continuing spread of consumerism and commodification into more and more domains of life – including (…) the commodification of language itself – can disenfranchise people and undermine their sense of authentic membership in longstanding communities.” As regards the role of English as a global phenomenon, the language is seen as “permeat[ing] speech habits [of various speech communities,], propagat[ing] and organiz[ing] genres, or reorganiz[ing] functional hierarchies for languages” (Blommaert 2003: 607). This seems to be related to the fact that English is the primary language of such mediating institutions (which characterize globalized flows) as the music industry (and rap artists), international English training programs, airlines, tourism and service industries, and the printed press (see Blommaert 2003: 609). One should also take heed of the fact that:

[P]eople create semiotic opportunity in globalization processes which (…) may productively be framed in the larger picture of the new economies. (…) They all manage to assign specific new functions to sociolinguistic items (either ‘global’ items or ‘local’ ones), and accomplish specific, targeted (globalized) goals with them; often these forms of identity work could not be done without the potential offered by globalization (Blommaert 2003: 610).

101

In this light, world English as the primary language of new economies and globalization can be regarded as a commodified tool that offers people the greatest potential for fulfilling these goals. It also has the greatest functional significance for people all over the world. Importantly, it should be born in mind that the global contextualization of English is complex and varied as the language “serves different symbolic functions and fills out different communicative genres” (Coupland 2003: 469). For instance, the use of English in inflight magazines is seen as serving the purpose of “buy[ing] into the status of English as a world language and boost[ing] the airlines’ status as ‘global’” (Thurlow and Jaworski 2003: 593)35. In contrast, the Japanese seem to implement English most of all for ornamental purposes, which renders the language devoid of its original semantic meaning and comes down to the adoption of English as a decorative tool to be creatively entwined into their discourse. To conclude, it goes without saying that research on world English(es) can benefit substantially from insights provided by a sociolinguistics of globalization. As Meyerhoff and Niedzielski (2003: 549) assert “[w]e take it that the role of the sociolinguist in all of this is to illuminate the extent to which speakers’ patterns of language variation and use reify or challenge the interests of globalisation and post-colonialism, and thereby contribute to the mapping of the diffuse workings of power.”

1.4.9. Glocalization and the English language

According to Seargeant (2005), the concept of glocalization can prove useful to describe the relations between the English language, globalization and the role they play in such cultural contexts as Japan. Glocalization refers to the modes of reconciling the global with the local and emphasizes the active capacity of the local culture which is capable of absorbing and reprocessing global forces (Seargeant 2005: 314). It is pointed out that “glocalisation is neither a way denying the influence of global culture nor of insisting 35

Thurlow and Jaworski (2003: 600) state that “it seems that national narratives are nowadays exploited by the stakeholders of global capital, being put into the service of post-modern transitions to global capital and the ideology of world-wide interconnectedness. The discourse of globality thereby becomes a means by which airlines can render themselves both international and national.” In addition, it is noted that “[i]nflight magazines are therefore globalizing genres not only in their format and editorial content, but also in their function. They are, we suggest, instruments for representing the world as elite and global; as already globalized” (Thurlow and Jaworski 2003: 601). According to Thurlow and Jaworski (2003: 602),“[g]lobalization is (...) not just economic reordering, it is also a lifestyle and a marketing brand to be bought into and sold. As such, it is both cultural discourse and identity resource.”

102

on the integrity of indigenous culture. (…) [It is] a phenomenon that will lead to distinctly unique national cultures rooted in tradition but operating within an ever more interconnected world” (Seargeant 2005: 315). It is argued that the framework offered by glocalisation makes it possible to account for the emblematic (ornamental) presence of English in the media, the influx of English loanwords and their impact on the Japanese society (Seargeant 2005: 315). One should discern that what is surprising about the omnipresence of English in the media, advertising and pop culture in Japan is that the English elements are usually devoid of their semantic meaning (Seargeant 2005: 316). Seargeant (2005: 316) elucidates that “[t]his is a use of the language for its general cultural connotations rather than its specific denotation, and splits the language down the signifier/signified fault line to utilize merely the visual shell of the words.” This process seems to be typical of Japanese culture in which language and the meanings are deliberately dissociated from each other (Seargeant 2005: 316). The use of English appears to have little to do with communication but simply serves ornamental, decorative purposes. Similarly, those involved in cultural production in Japan seem to consider English only as particular stylistic devices used to evoke special rhetorical effects. Seargeant (2005: 318) maintains that “by absorbing English into the Japanese language, by managing shift in semantics and co-opting it for purely ornamental purposes, it is in effect made foreign to the global community, and acts as a further boundary between Japan and outside world.” According to the model of glocalization, English in Japan “acts as a resource through which local cultures are able to express their attitude and relations to the global while at the same time reinventing the uniqueness of their own culture” (Seargeant 2005: 318). The image of English as serving as a global tool is tainted by the specificity of the Japanese adaptation of the language to their own needs (Seargeant 2005: 318).

1.4.10. The worldliness of English

The poststructuralist, critical model of English in the global context aims at providing a bottom-up account of the modes of creating meanings through English (Pennycook 1994: 28). It acknowledges that the English language may conceivably be perceived to be “fragmented, struggled over, resisted, rejected, diverse, broken, centrifugal and even incommensurable with itself” (Pennycook 1994: 28). Pennycook (1994: 32) elucidates 103

that “[t]his is not an attempt to focus attentions on parole instead of langue but rather to argue that language as system is only interesting as a by-product of language in use.” This poststructuralist stance presents a challenge to old structural dichotomies (the individual vs. society, langue vs. parole, synchronic vs. diachronic linguistics etc.) and strives for a greater comprehension of language and discourse in the world and the relationship of power and knowledge (Pennycook 1994: 32). The approach posits that the individual, language and society are “inseparably intertwined,” that “the past is ever-present in language” (this preposition goes beyond the dichotomous conception of synchronism and diachronism) and opts for the recognition of “a more fundamental role for language in human life” (Pennycook 1994: 32). A poststructuralist conception of English as an International Language is that EIL constitutes a discursive category that represents a system of power/knowledge relationships leading to particular understandings of both English and English language teaching (Pennycook 1994: 36). The emphasis is put on examining English against the processes of globalization and multidimensional probing into English as a language of threat, desire, destruction and opportunity (Pennycook 2007: 5-6). Frameworks referring to homogeneity, heterogeneity, imperialism or nation states do not provide significant and useful insight and, accordingly, a fundamental shift of focus should be made towards discussing English in terms of translocal and transcultural flows – “English is a translocal language, a language of fluidity and fixity36 that moves across, while becoming embedded in, the materiality of localities and social relations. English is bound up with transcultural flows, a language of imagined communities and refashioning identities” (Pennycook 2007: 5-6). A critical conception of language and globalization should provide the means required to discuss global Englishes in a more complex and flexible fashion than it has hitherto been allowed through focusing on the dichotomy between globalization and localization or by referring to such notions as glocalization (Pennycook 2007: 7, 23-24). Such flexibility is required due to the fact that the modes of globalization (entailing corporatization, capitalization and conceptualization) and of resistance and localization (comprising transculturation, translocalization and transformation) create a “dynamic 36

Pennycook (2007: 7) explicates that “I am interested (…) in looking at language and culture in terms of 'fluidity', which refers to the movement and flows of music [and language] across time and space, and 'fixity', which refers to ways in which music [and language] is about location, tradition, cultural expression (...).” In addition, a points is made that “[c]aught between fluidity and fixity, then, cultural and linguistic forms are always in a state of flux, always changing, always part of a process of the refashioning of identity” (Pennycook 2007: 8).

104

space of flows” which is the locus of “very different linguistic and cultural practices than international domination or national localization” (Pennycook 2007: 24). As regards the concept of transcultural flows, the term refers to cultural forms; the movement, change and use of them as a means of fashioning new identities in miscellaneous contexts (Pennycook 2007: 6). The focus is on the cultural implications of globalizations, such processes as take-up, appropriation, change, refashioning, and, most of all “the processes of borrowing, blending, remaking and returning, to processes of alternative cultural production” (Pennycook 2007: 6). Importantly, as Pennycook notes (2003a: 525), transcultural flows should be viewed as “occurring both within inequitable relations of language, culture, power and money, and at the same time as always potentially reworkable.” The notion of worldliness (another concept central to Pennycook’s framework) is his translation of the term mundialization (see Pennycook 2003b: 15). It conceptualizes the relation between the local and the global as a scene of resistance, change, adaptation and reformulation, and “points both to the global position of English and to English being embedded in the world” (Pennycook 1994: 15, 33). Pennycook (1994: 36; 2007: 30) argues that English should be regarded as constituting a fundamental part of both globalization and worldliness, yet not simply as a mirror image of economic relations but as an agent in the worldly affairs. Its worldly character is attributable to its dispersion around the whole world and the extensive use of the language (Pennycook: 1994: 36). Moreover, English is worldly because of it constantly being changed by its position in the world and because “it is part of the world; to use English is to engage in social action which produces and reproduces social and cultural relations” (Pennycook 1994: 34). The concept of the worldliness of English relates to “its local and to its global position, both to the ways in which it reflects social relations and constitutes social relations and thus the worldliness of English is always a question of cultural politics” (Pennycook 1994: 34). The research interest lies in investigating how acts of using EIL “imply a position within a social order, a cultural politics, a struggle over different representations of the self and other” and how they relate to such issues as language and inequality (Pennycook 1994: 34-35). The worldliness views language as a social practice and suggests that language being enclosed within broader discursive frameworks always constitutes “part of the cultural and political moments of the day” (Pennycook 1994: 34-35). As regards the interconnectedness of the English language to the discourses of the modern world, the following arguments are advanced: 105

There is clearly a complex interweaving here of language acts and both local and global discourses. The relationship between ‘English’ and global discourses of capitalism, democracy, education, development, and so on, is neither a coincidental conjunction – English just happens to be the language in which these discourses are expressed – nor a structural determinism – the nature of English determines what discourses are spoken, or the nature of discourses determines what language they are spoken in. Rather, there is a reciprocal relationship that is both historical and contemporary. Colonial discourses and discourses of contemporary world relations have both facilitated and been facilitated by the spread and construction of English. English and a range of local and international discourses have been constituted by and are constitutive of each other, both through the history of their connections and their present conjunction. Particular global and local discourses create the conditions of possibility for engaging in the social practice of using ‘English’, they produce and constrain what can be said in English. At the same time, English creates the conditions of possibility for taking up a position in these discourses. Clearly, then, language can never be removed from its social, cultural, political and discursive contexts and (…) to speak is to ‘assume a culture’, habits of thinking are ‘infused into the language’ (Pennycook 1994: 33).

The key element of Pennycook’s approach is that language and the context of its use must not be perceived as separate but as inseparably interrelated. The English language is not a passive element reflecting global relations but an active agent having a bearing on global and local discourses with which it is intertwined and which are of immediate importance in the contemporary world. Pennycook emphasizes the impossibility of divorcing any particular language from its social, cultural, political and discursive contexts. Attention is also drawn to the ‘regulatory effect’ that some global and local discourses have on the scope of what can be said in English and to the fact that English is also a language that gives one an opportunity to “tak[e] up a position in these discourses” (Pennycook 1994: 33).

1.5. The sociolinguistic of EWL as viewed by liberation (World Englishes paradigm) and deficit linguistics

The year 1991 was the beginning of the English Today debate; an ideological conflict between Quirk, whose stance was called deficit linguistics, and Kachru, a supporter of the so called liberation linguistics. The disagreement is claimed to have attracted much attention of TESOL professionals. The dispute is believed to reflect the difference in opinions between monocentrists and pluricentrists about the appropriateness of native speaker models (Jenkins 2006: 171). As an aside, it should be noted that the concerns expressed by Quirk are reminiscent of Prator’s (1968: 459) anxiety about “the British 106

heresy in TESL”, i.e. a notion that in ESL countries, where English is used for intranational purposes, it is recommendable to establish localized models of English for educational purposes.37 It seems that the polemic between Quirk and Kachru goes far beyond simple disagreement on standards and norms and reaches to the conceptualization of the sociolinguistic phenomena of English in the glocal context per se. Even before the dispute, Kachru (1985: 17f) admitted that the global dispersion of English may be the subject of much controversy concerning the following: (1) the codification of English and the question of who sets, or should set, the norms; (2) the acceptability (and establishment of the limits) of innovations and creativity originating from non-Inner Circle countries; (3) the pragmatics of selecting a norm – verifying the factors determining norms for a given locale; (4) “the de-Englishization of the cultural context of English in the institutionalized non-native varieties.” According to the Kachruvian paradigm (Kachru 1985: 18), formal deviations on such levels as morphology, syntax, phonology etc. should invariably be analyzed with a particular reference to their (sociolinguistic) functions in a given context. Kachru (1985: 28f) emphasizes the importance of discarding the ‘error analysis’ approach to English in the international context since it “diverted attention from serious sociolinguistic research for at least two decades.” Moreover, he advocates the abandonment of the deviational model used in research on institutionalized varieties of English and propagates the adoption of contextual, interactional and variational models which are indeed more suited to reflect the sociolinguistic realities of World Englishes (Kachru 1985: 28-29). Importantly, the scholar complains that “the current approaches to TESL reveal indifference to the pragmatic context of the present status of English as a world language”, ignore the international ecology of English, and are indicative of “the earlier evangelical and rather ethnocentric approaches” (Kachru 1985: 29). In contrast, Quirk’s point of departure seems to be a belief that standards, in general, are for people natural points of reference which help them orient in the social world and shape their own behavior. In addition, even before the dispute with Kachru (see Quirk 1985: 5-6), he argued

that “the fashion of undermining belief in standard English” is especially

harmful for EFL and ESL countries where the functional range of English is seriously limited. According to Quirk (1985: 6), in these settings, a single monochrome standard would work best and, as good examples of oral and printed models to emulate for ENL, 37

Romaine (2006b: 142ff) elaborates that Prator disapproves of the idea of recognizing indigenized Englishes as models and regards them as unstable varieties which may develop into distinct languages.

107

ESL and EFL countries, he refers to “the BBC World Service, All India Radio of Delhi; the Straits Times of Singapore; and the Japan Times of Tokyo.”

1.5.1. Quirk’s concerns over ‘liberation linguistics’

Quirk’s attitude towards New Englishes, the paradigm of World Englishes (called by him liberation linguistics) and English as a world language stems from his stance on the importance of native standards in English language teaching and, more generally, for international communication. His is the claim that linguists have gone from the extreme of total engrossment in correctness-related issues to the present day inconsiderate and myopic encouragement of “quite extreme permissiveness” and “counter-standard policies” (this being especially so in the context of “political movements towards community identity” – for instance, as he points out, Afro-American in the US) (Quirk 2006a: 218-219). Quirk (2006c: 509) argues for the need to resist “[t]he temptation (…) to accept the situation and even to justify it in euphemistically sociolinguistic terms.” In this vein, he warns that the fixation on varieties of English is uncontrollable and that it continues to blind “both teachers and taught to the central linguistic structure” (Quirk 2006c: 502). His perception is that such trends lead to “the impression that any kind of English was as good as any other, and that in denying this, nothing less was at stake than ‘personal liberty’ itself” (Quirk 2006c: 506). Such unfavorable attitudes to standards are traced by Quirk to “the reasons [which] have been idealistic, humanitarian, democratic and highly reputable, reasons which honourably motivated student teachers” (Quirk 2006c: 506). In Quirk’s view (2006c: 508), liberation linguistics takes an active interest in countries where English is frequently used for intranational communication (former Anglo-American colonies) and regards their functional range as a sufficient reason to argue that New Englishes should be recognized as varieties equal to American or British English. Crucial to Quirk’s stance is his perception that there are no signs of any determined policy in Outer Circle countries to codify and sanction the Englishes spoken there and that “those with authority in education and the media in these countries tend to protest that the so-called national variety of English is an attempt to justify inability to acquire what they persist in seeing as ‘real’ English” (Quirk 2006c: 508).

108

The implications following from over-permissiveness may be, in Quirk’s opinion, devastating in the context of education where “current educational orthodoxy [is], that the individual benefits by seeking community identity through repose in his most local variety of language” (Quirk 2006a: 220). It is also argued that what can actually be observed is “growing despair of the teacher with day-to-day classroom concerns”, especially in countries where English is taught as a foreign and second language (Quirk 2006a: 220). The situation is thought to be certain to further deteriorate if there were an acceptance of Kachru’s call to replace native standards with local nonnative varieties as pedagogical models (Quirk 2006b: 479). That is why, Quirk strives to undermine “the desirability and feasibility of a local standard” (and, in fact, the acknowledgement of the existence of institutionalized Englishes); even if his stance were to be regarded as controversial (Quirk 2006b: 478). He defends this conservative standpoint by pointing out that he is not aware of any signs of initiative from the governments of Outer Circle countries to support non-Inner-Circle norms (Quirk 2006b: 479). This state of affairs is attributed by him to the fact that even in former AngloAmerican colonies there is realization of the current need for native, standard models of English to fulfill the econocultural functions of the language. Interestingly, Quirk believes that even those who approve of regional norms and models are aware of this since they tend to identify a localized acrolectal variety with formal features similar to those of a standard native model (Quirk 2006b: 478-480). Furthermore, a point is made that because of these econocultural functions,“[i]t is neither liberal nor liberating to permit learners to settle for lower standards than the best [i.e. native models], and it is a travesty of liberalism to tolerate low standards which will lock the least fortunate into the least rewarding careers” (Quirk 2006c: 509). It is maintained that even English spoken by teachers from Outer Circle countries “bears the stamp of locally acquired deviation from the standard language“ (Quirk 2006c: 508). As a result, Quirk (2006c: 506) asserts that non-native teachers of English (who are thought to have strikingly different internalization than speakers from the Inner Circle) should constantly improve their skills by contact with native speakers and native English. As regards the Expanding Circle, Quirk (2006c: 509) maintains that “[i]llconsidered reflexes of liberation linguistics and a preoccupation with (…) ‘exposure to varieties of English language’ intrude even here.” Specifically, this is thought to manifest itself by the practice of hiring natives of English who do not speak a standard language as teachers of EFL abroad and by employing British and American academics 109

with hardly any experience in foreign language teaching as EFL advisors. For Quirk (2006c: 507), there are no doubts that the Expanding Circle is another context in which there should be strict reliance on native speakers’ norms of correctness. This being so because only proficiency in standard English is believed to increase students’ freedom and career prospects. As a result, students and their parents demand that only standard English be a model for EFL; and this seems to constitute the policy of the majority of foreign ministries of education. Otherwise, as Quirk (2006c: 510) notes, “[s]tudents, ‘liberally’ permitted to think their ‘new variety’ of English was acceptable, would be defenceless before the harsher but more realistic judgment of those with authority to employ or promote them.” Moreover, a claim is made that foreign students of English could have every reason “to feel cheated by such a tolerant pluralism” since various new Englishes are of no importance to native speakers of English and in international communication (for which it would be ideal if the medium were “a single international language”) (Quirk 2006c: 510; Quirk 2006a: 218). The irrelevance of World Englishes seems to be regarded by Quirk as manifest in all circles of English because the importance of this language lies in his view in the econocultural functions fully fulfilled only by a standard model of English (Quirk 2006b: 481). Another presupposition underlying Quirk’s stance is his perception that “ordinary native-English speakers have never lost their respect for Standard English, and it needs to be understood abroad too (…) that Standard English is alive and well, its existence and its value alike clearly recognised” (Quirk 2006c: 511). Moreover, an assertion is made that one can observe that “powerful centripetal, unifying forces” manage to offset “the fissiparous tendencies that local needs and nationalist susceptibilities are fostering” (Quirk 2006a: 220-221).38 The vitality of standard English as well as the need for it in international communication (for which English is, obviously, the best candidate – cf. Quirk 2006a: 222) are for Quirk sufficient arguments to do away with “once-fashionable educational theories” (Quirk 2006c: 511). This is even more justifiable for him as people, when it comes to a powerful lingua franca language, are ready “to pay the price [for its acquisition and use]–educational, social, cultural, even financial” (Quirk 2006a: 222).

38

The forces that Quirk has in mind are a traditional spelling system and the mass media.

110

1.5.2. Kachru’s ‘liberation linguistics’

The position adopted by Quirk in his conceptualization of English as a world language and especially his attitude towards various Englishes have met with a wholly negative response from Kachru. Kachru (1991: 207) postulates that Quirk’s concerns “are an attack on the positions which linguists (or, should I say sociolinguists?) have taken about the spread of English, its functions and its multi-norms; in other words, on the recognition of pluricentricity and multi-identities of English.” Quirk’s stand is severely censured by him for belonging to the so-called deficit linguistics (an approach to research on purported shortcomings of EFL and ESL learners’ linguistic competence) and leading to a host of unwarranted concerns that are of general importance for research and ELT (Kachru 1991: 207). It is pointed out that deficit linguistics seems to reject all “deviational, contextual, variationist, and interactional approaches” to the study and conceptualization of English and its international spread (Kachru 1991: 218). Crucially, Kachru (1991: 213) elucidates that it is evident from Quirk’s concerns that his “denial model” is against linguistic, sociolinguistic, and educational realities of English in the international context. To elaborate, one of Quirk’s concerns pertains to an accusation that an endorsement of various Englishes is, in fact, ideologically motivated and that institutionalization may be regarded as conscious efforts to achieve some specific (including political) goals (Kachru 1991: 207). According to Kachru (1991: 211), through such implications Quirk denies the fact that variation in Outer Circle Englishes is caused by underlying linguistic forces and suggests that it is driven “by an urge for linguistic emancipation or ‘liberation linguistics’.” Kachru (1991: 220) retorts that diversification of World Englishes is, as was already mentioned, nothing else but an embodiment of diverse kinds of sociolinguistic messages. It is argued that the same unwarranted claims lead Quirk also to reject the view that “institutionalization is a product of linguistic, cultural and sociolinguistic processes over a period of time” (Kachru 1991: 210). Moreover, Kachru (1991: 207; 210) asserts that the fact that variation within English(es) is perceived by Quirk as confusing is again indicative of his “[r]ejection of the sociolinguistic, cultural, and stylistic motivations for innovations and their institutionalization” (Kachru 1991: 207; 210). Still another Quirk’s concern refers to his doubts as to the well-foundedness of the distinction between ESL and EFL. A point is made that he believes that the concepts are of doubtful validity; even though in 111

his earlier works he did see the difference and elaborated upon it (Kachru 1991: 210). His failure to discern any important differences between users of English in the Outer and Expanding Circles is indicative of his denial of the sociolinguistic and pedagogic motives for the distinction, which consequently makes him oppose any proposals for endocentric norms for users of English from the Outer Circle (Kachru 1991: 211). Lastly, Quirk expresses serious anxiety about the consequences of the institutionalization of non-native varieties of English(es) from the Outer Circle. He strives to show that native speakers and proficient users of English who have different internalization of the language (see Kachru 1991: 207ff). As was aforesaid, the implications following from this are for Quirk unambiguous – there is a need for all non-native speakers of English, including teachers, to be constantly exposed to native standard language (see Kachru 1991: 208). For Kachru, in contrast, Quirk’s ‘solution’ seems totally infeasible for a number of reasons:

[F]irst the practical reason; it simply is not possible for a teacher to be in constant touch with the native language given the number of teachers involved, the lack of resources and overwhelming non-native input; the second is a functional reason; the users of institutionalized varieties are expected to conform to the local norms and speech strategies since English is used for interaction primarily within intranational contexts. And, the last reason takes us to the psycholinguistic question of ‘internalization’. The natives may have ‘radically different internalizations’ about their L1 but that point is not vital for a rejection of institutionalization. In fact, the arguments for recognizing institutionalization are that such users of English have internalizations which are linked to their own multilinguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural context. It is for that reason that a paradigm shift is desirable for understanding and describing the linguistic innovations and creativity in such varieties (Kachru 1991: 208).

Expounding on the issue of internalization and a presumed difference between natives and non-natives, Kachru (1991: 210) notes that it is wrong to postulate that there is some kind of “mysterious” or “semi-mystical” difference between native and non-native users of English – “a difference which affects forever the way their minds work when handling the language concerned." According to Kachru (1991: 210), improved language teaching and learning as well as greater effort on the part of the learner may be enough to rewrite the non-native mind so as to make it resemble the native wiring. In addition to Quirk’s concerns, Kachru (1991: 219) points to four false assumptions of his deficit linguistics. Firstly, it is erroneously presumed that people from the Outer and Expanding Circles tend to learn English to communicate merely with anglophone users of the language. In fact, in the Outer Circle of English the language is used mainly for intranational communication among non-natives of the

112

language and it is exactly this state of affairs that makes “[t]he culture bound localized strategies of, for example, politeness, persuasion, and phatic communion transcreated in English (…) more effective and culturally significant than (…) the ‘native’ strategies for interaction.” Secondly, it is wrong to assume that English is acquired mostly as a tool to comprehend and teach Anglo-American, or more generally, Judeo-Christian, cultural values and traditions. Kachru (1991: 219) argues that “[i]n culturally and linguistically pluralistic regions of the Outer Circle, English is an important tool to impart local traditions and cultural values. A large number of localized linguistic innovations and their diffusion is related to local cultural and sociopolitical contexts.” Thirdly, on no account should it be assumed that Outer Circle Englishes are interlanguages on the way to achieve native-like quality as they are varieties of equal standing and not any stages or phases. Lastly, as Kachru (1991: 219) points out, it is true only to some limited extent that teachers, academic administrators and material developers from the Inner Circle are preoccupied with teaching English around the world, formulating local language policies, and “determining the channels for the spread of language.” With respect to global language policies for English, it should be noted that there are no simple solutions and answers since the contexts in which English operates are very complex. This state of affairs is, according to Kachru (1991: 219), indicative of a general necessity for a paradigm shift that would encompass “reconsidering the traditional sacred cows of English which does not necessarily mean, as Quirk (1985: 3) suggests, “the active encouragement of anti-standard ethos.” One should discern that there seem to be increasingly more scholars who recognize the need for a paradigm shift and the acknowledgment of the legitimacy of non-native institutionalized Englishes. A refusal to recognize a possibility that the center of standard English may move one day is for Romaine (2006b: 143) indicative of “chauvinistic and puristic motives.” Furthermore, a point is made that “[t]he argument for maintaining the status quo is about not letting things get out of control or beyond the reach of those few who would like to continue to set standards for the majority of others” (Romaine 2006b: 148). British educators are thought to belong to this minority since adherence to traditional standards and a use of good English are for them a matter of moral standards (Romaine 2006b: 150). Negative attitudes towards Outer Circle Englishes continue to be widespread despite the fact that the work of many scholars indicate that the idiosyncratic features of acrolectal New Englishes are unlikely to be

113

greater than those found in standard varieties of Inner-Circle English (cf. Romaine 2006b: 144). Bearing such attitudes in mind, Romaine avows that:

As long as we try to impose our standards on others under the guise of concern about the unity of the English language, preserving intelligibility, providing access to native speaker norms, and other pseudo-scientific arguments, we will reinforce artificial barriers between an outer circle (…) and an inner circle (…). It’s time simply to have one large circle with everyone inside (Romaine 2006b: 151).

Nevertheless, it may not be easy to change the negative perception of New Englishes. Arguments advanced by such scholars as Prator or Quirk are argued to be analogous to those used in the past by people who opposed the acknowledgement of American English as a legitimate variety being on an equal footing to British English (Romaine 2006b: 142).

1.5.3. Sacred linguistic cows

As mentioned, the field of World Englishes has been traditionally described and analyzed in three paradigms: descriptive (attitudinally neutral), prescriptive (nativespeaker norms as the yardstick) and purist (“language as a medium for cultural, religious, and moral refinement and enlightenment”) (Kachru 2006a: 73-74). It is argued that the mode English is used around the world and the functions fulfilled by the language have both led to undermine some basic linguistic concepts (Kachru 2006c: 485). The phenomenon of the institutionalization of Outer Circle Englishes is especially likely to challenge a host of conceptual and terminological sacred cows concerning theoretical, acquisitional, sociolinguistic, pedagogical, and ideological aspects of the functioning of English in the global context (see Kachru 2006a: 74-75). In the same vein, Cheshire (1991: 2) declares that “[a]nalysing sociolinguistic variation in the English that is used around the world poses an enormous challenge to sociolinguistics” as a host of fundamental concepts used in the field (for instance, the speech community, the mother tongue, the native speaker) become questionable and unreliable39. According to her, it seems equally important to realize the fact that English in the global context 39

Cheshire (1991: 2) elucidates that “[o]ne reason for this is that many fundamental concepts that have long been taken for granted within sociolinguistics become problematic when they are viewed from a multilingual perspective, rather then from the monolingual perspective in which they were originally developed.”

114

undermines current methodology which was developed mainly to investigate English as used in “Western industrial societies” and which may fail to give significant insight into the uses of English in many Outer and Expanding Circle countries (Cheshire 1991: 3). That is why, she asserts that:

[E]xtending the scope of inquiry to a range of very different social settings forces us to look beyond those social categories that our own culture has conditioned us to believe are important, and helps us to formulate the kinds of questions that can lead to a fuller understanding of linguistic variation (Cheshire 1991: 4-5).

What follows is a succinct delineation of Kachru’s critique of various acquisitional, pedagogical, ideological, sociolinguistic, and theoretical concepts and ideas called by him sacred linguistic cows. In regard to acquisitional sacred cows, Kachru (2006a: 75) complains that “[t]he dominant explanatory concepts with reference to the users of English in the Outer Circle are interference, which results in ‘error,’ which, if institutionalized, becomes ‘fossilization’ [and] [t]he user then produces an ‘interlanguage.’” The result, as Kachru (2006c: 486) asserts, is that this “interference paradigm” fails to properly conceptualize the actual forms and functions of nativized Outer Circle Englishes. It is pointed out that this is especially the case when it comes to the assessment of innovations and creativity of New Englishes. Moreover, a frame of reference based on the interference paradigm is contributory to spreading beliefs that native-like proficiency represents the highest quality of speech and the most desirable models for all educational contexts (Kachru 2006a: 75). Importantly, the concepts themselves may not cause problems but rather their inconsiderate applications to non-native institutionalized Englishes, or more generally, contexts where English is regularly used to perform important intranational functions (Kachru 2006c: 486). The field of pedagogy (and, specifically, the development of materials and methods of teaching) is seen as lagging behind recent insights into the complexities and challenges of World Englishes (see Kachru 2006a: 75). Neither pedagogical paradigms, nor educational research perceives, acknowledges, or, the more so, responds to the needs of adjusting ELT to local sociolinguistic contexts (see Kachru 2006c: 488). As a result, there is a continuous adherence to old models – pedagogical sacred cows. This is particularly conspicuous in “the pragmatics of teaching English internationally”, and specifically, in the following areas: “(1) models for teaching English’; (2) methods of

115

teaching; (3) discussions of the motivations for learning English; (4) materials for what is called ‘communicative language teaching’, and for teaching English for specific purposes (…)” as well as in “the conceptualization of, for example, communicative competence, (…) and the construction of tests of international competence in English” (Kachru 2006a: 75; Kachru 2006c: 488). The implications are thought to point to an urgent need for a reassessment of current teaching practices and their refinement to make English language teaching more suited to the sociolinguistic realities of English as a world language. Recent discourse on English in the glocal context appears to rely on some linguistic clichés which in some respects could be regarded as ideological sacred cows. This may be observed in indiscriminate and inconsiderate uses of or references to such ideologically loaded notions and labels as killer English, genocide, inequality, imperialism, Anglo-centricity, cultural nationalism, or neo-colonialism (Kachru 2006a: 75). Importantly, Kachru (2006a: 75) argues that “[t]he symbolization of power depends on how one sees the medium and its message” and points out that “[t]he symbolic label depends on what kind of identity one establishes with the language” (Kachru 2006a: 75). Consequently, what in one context and for one person may be a blessing, in other circumstances and for other people may emerge as a curse. To my mind, English as a world language provides such an extensive range of different or even divergent interrelations between the language, identity, power, and politics that it is a challenge to correctly problematize and conceptualize the realities of the functioning of English in a specific location. It seems that only by avoidance or, if necessary, thoughtful and justified application of such ideological labels and ready-made formulas can one do justice to the adequate, contextualized description of English in the glocal context. With respect to the sociolinguistic sacred cows, Kachru (2006a: 75) asserts that sociolinguistic concerns about the conceptualization of English around the world pertain to the questions of ideology and identity. It is argued that so far language experts have been largely uninterested in investigating the sociolinguistic functioning of English in the glocal context and that the reasons for this state of affairs are generally related to economic, political, and attitudinal matters (Kachru 2006c: 488). One should bear in mind the fact that the sociolinguistic reality of English in the world at large is such that the language has acquired two faces40 – “one face representing ‘Westernness’, the 40

English is argued to have provided in the Outer Circle a perspective that is simultaneously “inwardlooking” and “outward-looking” with the result of acquiring a function “diametrically opposed to the

116

Judeo-Christian tradition; the other face (…) reflecting local identities: African, Asian, and others” (Kachru 2006c: 487). Kachru (2006c: 487) complains that “this second face of English – the face of local cultural revival, nationalism, collective soul-searching, regional and national integration – remained somewhat obscure.” The causes of this neglect are attributed to non-natives’ underplaying its significance and natives’ reluctance to acknowledge it. The recognition of this face would be for native speakers uncomfortable to say the least as it would necessitate their authenticating the diversification of English (Kachru 2006c: 487). It is also argued that the functioning of English in the Outer Circle have led to the establishment of new canons indicative of their own contextualized, literary, linguistic, and cultural identities (Kachru 2006c: 487). The result of this is that no user of English – either native or nonnative – is capable of knowing all “patterns and conventions of cultures which English now encompasses” (Kachru 2006c: 484). In brief, Kachru (2006c: 484) delineates that the sociolinguistic reality of English means that the language “has acquired multiple identities and a broad spectrum of cross-cultural interactional contexts of use – a purists’ and pedagogues’ nightmare and a variationists’ blessing.” Research on Outer Circle Englishes (conducted in contexts of great linguistic and cultural complexity) has made some language scholars cognizant of the inadequacies of some cardinal linguistic concepts that were, in fact, developed to describe largely monolingual settings (cf. Kachru 2006a: 74). Kachru (2006c: 488-489) asserts that three major theoretical concepts widely used in linguistics may require reconceptualization in light of the complexities revealed by the following phenomena: “the ongoing diffusion of English, identity with the language, attitudes toward it, its functions in the repertoire of multilingual societies, and creativity in it.” The first one is that of the speech community – a notion which is itself very controversial and even the more so when applied to speakers of English. It is pointed out that:

Without embarking on an evaluation of the definitions of speech community, one has to recognize now that as the uses of English are institutionalized beyond the Inner Circle, as the multilingual communities consider English as part of their verbal repertoire, as users of English in such societies identify with the language, and as English acquires nonWestern cultural and interactional roles, the concept of ‘speech community’ for English acquires a new meaning (Kachru 2006c: 488-489).

aims and political agenda of the colonizers. English turned into an effective resource for understanding the dialectics of anticolonialism, secularization, and panregional communication for nationalism” (Kachru 2006c: 487).

117

Kachru argues for a recognition of an “extended speech community” whose members have “at least, (a) bilingual competence in languages which have traditionally not been within the linguistic repertoire of the Inner Circle; and (b) multicultural competence, including cultural experiences not shared with the Inner Circle” (Kachru 2006c: 488489). Another concept regarded as problematic if applied to the realities of World Englishes is the notion of the ideal speaker-hearer. Even though the notion itself is an idealization, it is argued to “have some relationship with the real world in that it entails sharing cultural and pragmatic conventions, or, in other words, sharing certain sociolinguistic bonds” (Kachru 2006c: 488-489). The major problem with the concept seems to be considerable difficulty in answering such questions – “[w]hat are the ‘shared conventions’ of the users of English now?” and “[h]ow does one account for the variation that is characteristic of every level of language in each variety, namely, the variation ranging from acrolect to mesolect to basilect” (Kachru 2006c: 489; Kachru 2006a: 75). It seems that the hardship of dealing with such issues is caused by the global dispersion of English and two related tendencies. The first is related to deliberate efforts (on the part of Outer Circle users of English) to reject the shared conventions of the native speaker and put a stop to identification with native English (Kachru 2006c: 489). The second entails the emergence of new linguistic and cultural conventions which reflect socio-cultural realities of the Outer Circle. The native speaker is the last and the most notorious concept to be discussed. Kachru (2006c: 489) makes the point that even though the notion “has been used by linguists, pedagogues, and generations of producers of teaching materials, essentially as an article of faith”, it carries “an immense attitudinal and linguistic burden.” The enormous diffusion of English has revealed that underlying this concept is an assumption that monolingualism constitutes “normal linguistic behavior” and that due to formal problems with defining the term it emerges as hardly insightful and useful in the context of present day World Englishes (Kachru 2006a: 74; Kachru 2006c: 489ff). Some further complications related to the application of the concept to Outer Circle settings are at least threefold: (1) the problem of ascribing the label ‘native of English’ to individuals who live in societies which are traditionally bi- or multilingual; (2) the creativity of multilinguals in their uses of English; (3) native speakers’ and non-native speakers’ attitudes towards English (Kachru 2006c: 490).

118

In addition to sacred linguistic cows, Kachru (2006a: 81-83) refers to six major fallacies concerning the conceptualization of World Englishes. A point is made that their remarkable persistence can be attributed to a variety of reasons – “unverified hypotheses, partially valid hypotheses, (…) Anglo-centricity” as well as “the motive of launching ‘paradigms for profit, primarily for economic gain’” (Kachru 2006a: 81). First of all, the greatest misconception about the language is thought to be a belief that English is essentially learned to communicate with native speakers (Kachru 2006a: 81). While in the Expanding Circle learners strive to acquire English to communicate with people from all over the world, in the Outer Circle countries intranational functions of the language come to the fore (for instance, in Nigeria, India, Kenya, Singapore, or the Philippines). Kachru (2006a: 81) adds that in the Outer Circle “[t]hese interactions take place in localized (nativized) discoursal strategies of, for example, politeness, persuasion, and phatic communion modeled after the speech acts of a dominant local language transcreated into English.” In the same vein, it is wrong to assume that English is learned primarily to familiarize oneself with Anglo-American cultures, values and traditions (Kachru 2006a: 82). As a matter of fact, English is now a language of multicanons and in the context of Outer Circle it “is essentially used to create and embody local cultural values” (Kachru 2006a: 82). The third misapprehension is, as Kachru (2006a: 82) notes, a belief that adopting such exocentric models as RP or GA is the goal of English language teaching. This stance is regarded as “pragmatically counterproductive” and empirically unverified (Kachru 2006a: 82). Still another fallacy discerned by Kachru is a supposition that non-Inner Circle Englishes are interlanguages and that their users’ goal is the acquisition of the native-like control. The last but one fallacy is a claim that native users of English “provide serious input in the teaching, policy formation, and administration of the spread of English around the world” (Kachru 2006a: 82). Actually, it is pointed out that these activities, just as counteractions, are largely determined locally by non-natives. Lastly, Kachru (2006a: 82f) refers to a serious misjudgment of the diversity and variation within Outer Circle Englishes. They are not indicative of the decay of the language but symptomatic of innovative and creative uses of English.

119

1.5.4. Final notes

Quirk’s insistence on native speakers’ standards as educational models suitable for all speakers from all locales may be thought to reflect, in a broader context, his Anglocentricity and reluctance to acknowledge the sociolinguistic realities of World Englishes. Moreover, his approach to the sociolinguistics of English in the glocal context reveals his denial of the right to identify with non-native Englishes and negative attitudes towards institutionalization of Outer Circle Englishes. Quirk’s assumption seems to be that all users of English are invariably career-oriented and driven by the desire to participate in and draw profits from the globalized economy for which only standard English remains the language of power and prestige. In contrast, Kachru’s stance is indicative of his attempt to fully problematize the sociolinguistic contexts of the functioning of Englishes around the world. This task appears to be truly formidable since, as Kachru (2006a: 83) declares, “world Englishes provide a challenging opportunity to relate several areas of academic interest: language, literature, methodology, ideology, power, and identity.” The scholar is especially intent on showing

the

sociolinguistic

foundations

for

the

emergence

of

non-native

institutionalized Englishes and fighting for their acknowledgement as equal varieties of English. Just as importantly, in the process of elaborating on the sociolinguistic realities of Outer Circle Englishes, Kachru strives to undermine some obsolete approaches as well as a variety of concepts applied in the field of linguistics to describe English as a world phenomenon.

1.6. Concluding remarks

The compact overview presented in this chapter indicates that the diffusion of English, its conceptualization and functioning in the contemporary globalized world is a complex matter whose thorough understanding necessitates its examination in the context of relevant historical, social, economic, and sociolinguistic processes. Moreover, the description of the state-of-the-art knowledge makes it clear that there seems to be no allfitting models, approaches and theories concerning its spread, status, and functioning valid in any given location. A comprehensive account of English in a specific context and its analysis should, thus, draw extensively on a variety of approaches and models on 120

the basis of which one should strive to formulate the most insightful and explanatory framework. In this vein, Pennycook (1994: 69f) argues for the rejection of any deterministic theses concerning the spread of English, its influence, relationships and functioning in any specific location:

The global position of English means that it is situated in many contexts that are specific to that globalization: to use English implies relationship to local conditions of social and economic prestige, to certain forms of culture and knowledge, and also to global relations of capitalism and particular global discourses of democracy, economics, the environment, poplar culture, modernity, development, education and so on (Pennycook 1994: 34).

The importance of Chapter 1 lies in its theoretical grounding the discussion of the sociolinguistic functioning of English in the context of post-transformational Poland. Moreover, it shows the significance of global forces for the actual spread, status and role of English in specific locales.

121

Chapter 2: The sociolinguistics of English in the glocal context – an outline

2.1. Introduction

That the English language has grown to become a phenomenon of global range seems to be an incontrovertible fact recognized by both academics and laymen. The profound sociolinguistic implications following from the present status of English are, in contrast, decidedly far less realized and apprehended, even among professionals working in the field of ELT. The discourse problematizing this subject matter is complex, multidisciplinary and far from being homogenous. Depending on one’s interests, scholarly (and even political) orientations as well as research methods English as a world language may well be presented as a blessing or a curse; a language of global communication or of global miscommunication; a monochrome standard in need of protection by Inner-Circle custodians or diversifying (yet maintaining unity and comprehensibility) World Englishes; an access to power, knowledge and information or an impediment to them; a guarantee of international dialogue and peace or a spark triggering riots or even terrorism. Crucially, it is elucidated:

Nor can discussions of language at large, and especially of this [English] language, be hygienically marked off locally or globally from such issues as politics, economics, science, and technology, or indeed such facts of life as wealth and poverty, health and disease, and social change, including indeed terrorism and outright war. It is not simply that all such matters impinge one on another and on language: they saturate language, and language in turn animates them (McArthur 2002: x).

The complexity of the mutual relations between English and other (frequently nonlinguistic per-se) phenomena should be known to all those dealing with English professionally. Furthermore, such knowledge is necessary for a language scholar

122

aspiring to investigate the sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in a given locale or country. The purpose of sketching the sociolinguistics of English as a world language is to provide a reference point for the discussion of corresponding phenomena in the context of Poland, obtain insight into areas worth exploration (as well as more general patterns, developments and principles), and enable a comparison of the role played by English in Poland and other Expanding- and Outer-Circle countries.

2.2.

The power and the politics of English

2.2.1. Introduction

It appears that references to English as a powerful language, a language of power or a language having linguistic power have become so commonplace that they hardly ever induce some deeper considerations. At an abstract and theoretical level, linguistic power may be perceived through symbols, the manipulation of them and as “‘relations of power’ and ‘relations of meaning’” (Kachru 2006f: 195). It may also be argued that the power of English rests in the present multisymbolicity of the language which is used by various political and other ideologically-defined social groups for the achievement of their own diverse ends (see Kachru 2006f: 213). At a practical level, it is almost intuitively felt that knowledge of English can, indeed, give one power, i.e. a power of opportunities and a powerful key to achieving success and prosperity. Kachru (1986: 2) elaborates that “by associating power with language” one “refer[s] to the control of knowledge and to the prestige a language acquires as a result of its use in certain important domains.” Accordingly, the power of a language also hinges on the importance of the domains in which it is used, “the roles its users can play” and the perception of the significance of the language (Kachru 1986: 4). One may, thus, argue that the range and the depth of English are indicative of its power. The following are the parameters of the power of English pointing to its present range and depth (Kachru 2006f: 205):

1.

Demographical and numerical – the dispersion of English literally all over the world;

2.

Functional – an access code to such crucial domains as science, technology and cross-cultural interactions; 123

3.

Attitudinal – English is associated by a host of people as a neutral, liberal, prestigious and progressive language code;

4.

Accessibility – English serves as an intranational link language in Outer Circle countries and enables international mobility;

5.

Pluricentricity – the nativization and acculturation of English and, consequently, its assimilation across cultures;

6.

Material – English as a prerequisite for “mobility, economic gains, and social status.”

All of these individual parameters are indicative of the immense power of English and the sum of all of them clearly points to the significance of the language in the contemporary world. As regards general patterns of the manifestations of linguistic power, it is argued that they may take the form of crude linguistic power (the imposition of a given language upon a certain society/community), indirect psychological pressure (ascribing a language some inherent, frequently spiritual, power), and pragmatic power (Kachru 2006a: 79). The pragmatic power of English, which is perceived by Kachru (2006a: 80) as “abundant (…) across cultures”, relates to the control of the language over critical functional domains (especially, political, caste, class as well as commercial). Kachru (2006a: 81; 2006f: 193, 213) also refers to the economic power of native-speaker English as an export commodity and to ideological transformation (by far the most significant power of English) resulting from the knowledge of the language and literature in English. Regarding the former, Inner-Circle English is thought to preserve this power as long as it holds a strict control over “the paradigms of teaching, the authentication of creativity [innovations], and the guarding of the canon” (Kachru 2006a: 81). Linguistic control, in this context, may be understood as the power to define by means of the use and control of the channels of codification which become vital in the authentication of the uses and users of English in the Outer Circle (Kachru 2006a: 80). With respect to the latter, English is believed to be “the most potent (shall we say powerful?) instrument of social, political and linguistic change” (Kachru 2006f: 213). Regarding a change in language behavior (viewed as a result of the power of English), it may manifest itself in a variety of ways. The change may take the form of enlarging the linguistic repertoire of either a speech community or a speech fellowship by adding a new code through the following power strategies: “(a) persuasion, (b) regulation, (c) 124

inducement and (d) force” (Kachru 2006f: 195). Or, conversely, it may lead to “the suppression of a particular language variety and the elevation of another variety” (Kachru 2006f: 195). In regard to the politics of English, it should be born in mind that “language does not create power for itself” but that the growth of linguistic power stems from the activities of its agents, i.e. its promoters and users whose efforts create a power base for a language (Kachru 2006f: 212). Examining language and power relations demands, therefore, investigating not only linguistic but also historical, sociological, attitudinal, political and economic issues (cf. Kachru 2006f: 194). Kachru (2006f: 214) elucidates that the power bases of English have both material and psychological (for instance, psychological bar) sides. The activities increasing the power base of a language include the following: “assigning ‘powerful’ and significant roles for language, (…) providing an important position to it in language planning, and (…) creating a context in which the user of the language acquires an attitudinal status” (Kachru 2006f: 212). Moreover, the notion of the politics of English itself refers to the implementation of various political strategies41 as a means of gaining and preserving the power of the language (Kachru 2006f: 194). Specifically, it is argued that:

The dimensions of power and resultant politics include: (a) the spread of a language to numerically expand the speech community; (b) the use of language as a vehicle of cultural, religious and other types of ‘enlightenment’ (…) and (c) the use of language with one or more of the following motives: to deculturize people from their own tradition (…); to gain economic advantage; to control various domains of knowledge and information; to use the language for deception (…); and to create a circle of dependency on a country, nation, culture and so forth (Kachru 2006f: 194-195).

Finally, it should be noted that the emergence of language-related politics and political maneuvering coincides with the presence of such contexts (sociolinguistic prerequisites) as the following: the existence of linguistic hierarchy; hierarchy of allocation for either a language or a dialect; attitudinal reactions towards language use; domain control in terms of the roles42 played by a language (Kachru 2006f: 196-197).

41

Some of the strategies were briefly described in Chapter 1 (see 1.3.2.3.). Kachru (2006f: 197) explains that “[t]he dislocational role of English is seen, for example, in Singapore, where English is slowly displacing the other recognized languages (…) from their dominant roles. (…) When the conflictive role is evident, politicians seem to exploit a linguistic situation by playing one language group against another. (…) The situation of parallel roles is rather rare, though traditionally Switzerland is presented as a case of this type.”

42

125

2.2.2. The hegemony of English and the processes of Englishization 2.2.2.1. The hegemony of the English language

The spread and dominance of the English language across various domains are frequently discussed in terms of its hegemony and hegemonic influence. It seems essential to draw a distinction between the notions ‘dominance’ and ‘hegemony.’ The former appears simply to denote the prevalence and prominence of the language. The latter may be viewed as a complex concept of a more ideologically-branded origin (nonetheless, according to Fishman 1996b: 639, hegemony is “no more than a currently fashionable term for sociology’s traditional term ‘stratificational’”). The conception of hegemony as understood by many critical linguists following the lead of Robert Phillipson derives from Gramsci, an Italian Communist, who perceives hegemony as “a process in which a ruling class succeeded in persuading the other classes of society to accept its own moral, political and cultural values” (Wright 2004: 167). If the elites manage to present their own policy as good for all people, they gain consent to dominate others without any actual use of coercion and might (Wright 2004: 167-168). In the same vein, Phillipson (1997a: 242) asserts that for him “hegemony is invariably seen as non-coercive, as involving contestation and adaptation, a battle for hearts and minds.” In the context of the spread of English, the hegemony of the language, may be thought to explain how it managed to disperse across various domains without much actual force –“[t]he acceptance of English in its lingua franca role is consensual” (Wright 2004: 168). Such researchers as Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas seem to regard British and American governments, various anglophone institutions and corporations as the élites responsible for, if not linguistic imperialism per se, the hegemonic dissemination of the image of English as a language of democracy, the free market, and human rights (for example, Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 28). They maintain that such institutions as the British Council are “investing heavily in former communist countries” to make English “the first foreign language throughout eastern and central Europe, the lingua franca of changed times” and assert that such activities may be regarded as hegemonic in nature as they aim at convincing people about the value of English and the need to learn it, which obviously furthers the economic interests of Americans and Englishmen who control the ELT industry (Phillipson and SkutnabbKangas 1997: 28). Similarly, Swales (1997: 377) states that “‘accommodationist’ and 126

‘technocratic’ stance about the value of English as a wider window on the world has paved the way for the enormous resources that, both publicly and privately, have accrued to ESL.” Involved as he is in EAP programmes, Swales (1997: 377) doubts the absolute cultural and political neutrality of the ESL enterprise in general. The English language is perceived as an export commodity which is widely advertised as a necessary tool for personal, social and national advancement, a key element of modernization, internalization, liberation and equalization of human and personal rights. In this way the advertisement of the English language, both through the media and personal/unofficial channels, is contributing to propagating, in hegemonic ways, a belief that English is unmistakably necessary, good and beneficial. Kachru (2006a: 73) draws attention to the fact that the hegemony of English is to be found not only in the domains of education, administration, literary creativity, intraand inter-national interaction, but most of all “in the attitudes towards English and its users.” Moreover, Kachru (2006f: 206-207) notes that its hegemony (understood as a process subordinating people to the belief in its power) is such that people may be emotionally attached to one language but still opt for English for pragmatic considerations. In this way English seems to win the battle for hearts and minds of people and secure its continued use and expansion. The victory of English is likely to be further facilitated by the fact that “[t]he penetration and spread of English is aided by the psychological support given by the omnipresence of the language in the aggressive marketing and publicity to increase the consumption of the products produced by the TNCs [Transnational Corporations]” (Wright 2004: 147). The ubiquity of English in adverts, signs and slogans, for instance, in former Eastern bloc countries may have a particular hegemonic effect of “making English the normal and eventually the acceptable medium for the semiotics of the city” and, in consequence, also impacting on its acquiring the status of the language of regional trading (see Wright 2004: 147). In this light, the spread of English across Europe, for instance, may be viewed from the perspective of hegemony and, thus, regarded as a self-perpetuating, noncoercive yet suasive process resultant, at least partly, from the demand of TNCs for an international means of communication and Europeans’ efforts to meet the demand in the hope of gaining personal advantage (cf. Wright 2004: 146).43 The becoming of English

43

To my mind, the importance of English in the present day Europe may be thought as reminiscent of the role of the language in Africa under British rule, the time when “proficiency in the English language

127

a lingua franca of business may also be regarded as “a bottom-up, organic movement” attributable to the insistence on the part of European citizens on having in their educational systems English as the first foreign language for their children for whom English is starting to be a necessary tool for achieving success in adult life (see Wright 2004: 146). Clearly, instrumental motivation is likely to be the major reason why people decide to learn English, not infrequently despite their “distinct dislike for any incursion of American culture” (Wright 2004: 146). Such hegemonic processes may also be observed in the domains of science and technology:

[I]n the political and economic spheres, the consensual use of English is now so extensive, that it cannot be explained by American dominance in the field on its own. Once again the less powerful in the linguistic equation are willing to pay the opportunity and real costs for language acquisition to gain access to the scientific community of communication, its literature and its ability to confer international recognition. And as new scientists accept that they will read and publish in English, it becomes increasingly difficult for any other group or individual to do otherwise and resist the hegemony (Wright 2004: 152).

Furthermore, an advanced knowledge of English is required from (or recommended to) students all over the world to read textbooks published in English or even, more generally, to pursue their studies. In this way students become dependent on both a command of English and Western forms of knowledge (see Pennycook 1994: 20). Importantly, the hegemony of present1 day English is also clearly noticeable in the EU institutions where English (together with French) is unofficially accepted as being on the top of linguistic hierarchy “[i]n most other international fora in Europe (NATO, scientific writing, commerce, youth culture, media, etc.), English is the sole dominant language” (Phillipson 2003: 21).

2.2.2.2. Englishization44

The notion of Englishization was coined by Kachru who views it as a manifestation of language contact and understands it as a process referring not only “to phonology, came to be seen by would-be men and women of substance as the most important key to social, economic and political success” (cf. N. Alexander 2008: 54). 44 There are some other notions relating to the impact of English and Anglo-American culture on other nations and languages. However, such terms as ‘anglification’ (see Fishman 1996b), “‘the Scotlandization’ of northern Europe” (see McArthur 2003: 58), and, more generally, westernization ‘through English’ (see Mühlhäusler 1996: 337) seem to denote more general processes of making English, anglophone or western in terms of manner, communicative modes and/or ideology.

128

grammar, and lexis but go[ing] beyond these levels into discourse, registers and styles and development of literary genres” (see Kachru 2006e: 257). One should discern that the majority of studies focus on lexical borrowings, far fewer concern the influence of English phonology on other languages and hardly any of them describe other levels. Generally speaking, in all three circles of Englishes local languages emerge as being on the receiving end of the process (Kachru 2006e: 257). With regard to the motivations for the process of Englishization, they are to be analyzed within the historical and political context of a given country (Kachru 2006e: 258). The deficit and the dominance hypotheses are the two major, not mutually exclusive, suppositions concerning the motivational factors for Englishization. Kachru (2006e: 258) points out that the former suggests that “borrowing necessarily entails linguistic ‘gaps’ in the language, the prime motivation for borrowing being to remedy such linguistic ‘deficit’, especially in the lexical resources of a language” and the latter presumes that in a situation of language contact the direction of culture learning and, thus, word-borrowing is channeled from the more powerful and dominant to the less. Some other motives for Englishization may be “establishing distance in a linguistic interaction, maintaining neutrality45 in terms of class, caste, and region, by using English and not using a local language, and for maintaining identity” (Kachru 2006e: 258). In the context of Europe, there seem to be two major periods of the overwhelming influence of the English language and culture on other European languages (see Görlach 2007: 3). The first wave of the impact starts after the Second World War (excluding former satellite countries of the Soviet Union) and the second from around 1990 when central European states gained independence and “western influences came to flood various domains” (Görlach 2007: 3). The earlier periods of the influence cannot compare in terms of its extent and degree, yet in the nineteenth century, Germany and France were highly affected by the influx of English lexis (the fields of sports, clothes, and technology) which was further disseminated by them to neighboring languages (see Görlach 2007: 3). Görlach (2007: 11-12) also notes that even though the current spread of anglicisms is “unprecedented in European history” (and still on the increase), the phenomenon is not on a par with the flood of French words across Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

45

Crucially, it should be noted that “[w]hat is ‘neutrality’ at one level may be a strategy for solidarity and

immense power at another level” (Kachru 2006e: 258).

129

Importantly, it is argued (Bamgbose 2001: 359) that the global use of English is, in fact, tantamount to the spread and use of some specific varieties of English which got popularized by, for instance, pop culture, cable television, Hollywood movies and, generally, American English and American culture. The discrepancies in the kinds of adopted anglicisms (for instance, colloquial, formal, archaic, fashionable, common, technical) are also attributable to “[t]he varying cultural and political history of the communities” (Görlach 2007: 4). Generally, it is pointed out that “modern Anglicisms tend either to be technical (in domains like computing) or to be jargon (in fields like pop music, drugs, etc.)” and that “[i]n contrast to earlier periods of adoption these stylistic features tend to be shared across linguistic and cultural boundaries, increasingly including Eastern Europe” (Görlach 2007: 4). English borrowings usually do not belong to the core vocabulary of a given language. Because they most commonly denote fashionable and novel ideas and terms, they emerge as the most changeable area of national lexis which quickly lose their appeal or usefulness (Görlach 2007: 4). In contrast to past mechanisms of borrowing, contemporary loanwords are adopted most frequently straight from English “whether from BrE or AmE, and from written, spoken, or electronic sources” (Görlach 2007: 5). However, no consistent classification of anglicisms according to their American or British origin seems achievable except for simple categorizations based on such encyclopedic criteria as the appearance of new inventions, concepts etc. (Görlach 2007: 3). Interestingly, because the accessibility of spoken English is much greater than it used to be, borrowings are frequently pronounced close to the etymon and there occur pronunciation refinements of older anglicisms which were diffused by the medium of writing (Görlach 2007: 3). To elaborate on the process of borrowing itself, it should be pointed out that the adoption of a loanword occurs “in a specific situation and linguistic context” and, as a result, “the meaning [of a lexeme] may be further narrowed down semantically (being more specific), referentially (designating a smaller range of objects), stylistically, socially, or connotationally” (Görlach 2007: 10). Differences in the context of borrowing may have a bearing on the accommodation of a loanword, its further meaning restriction or new meaning development (for instance, through “contextual restrictions, metaphorical and metonymic applications, euphemistic or facetious uses, and other developments also visible in native words”) (Görlach 2007: 10). In the common case of a terminological use of a loanword adopted to fill a lexical gap, 130

language planning may be employed to solidify the meaning. Görlach (2007: 3) notes that “[r]enderings (calques) are by contrast, rarer–and this is true even of most purist languages in which the proportion of calques is admittedly higher than in ‘open’ societies.” Sociolinguistically speaking, it is generally felt that “[u]nless usage is strictly terminological (…) the very fact that a loanword is ‘foreign’ determines its special status, thus contrasting with the normal, everyday usage in the source language” (Görlach 2007: 10-11). The feeling of foreignness also lingers in the case of borrowing hip words and expressions into the colloquial registers or slang where these new imports stand in marked contrast to older native lexemes. As already mentioned, the impact of Englishization is not restricted to the level of lexis. There is clear evidence that English affects also other aspects and levels of language. It is reported, for instance, that the language impacts on the phonology and morphology of the German language and popularizes the Latin script in locales where other alphabets were adopted (Görlach 2007: 11-12). With respect to the influence of English on grammar, it is pointed out that there is indeed some evidence but it is “either anecdotal or fragmentary, scattered in various types of studies” (Kachru 2006e: 261). By and large, Englishization of grammar entails two general types of impact: modedependent (“[a] large number of syntactic features transferred from English are restricted to either the spoken or the written modes. In some cases this restriction applies to the frequency of use”), and register-dependent ( “[t]hese features have a high frequency in the registers of law, journalism and news broadcasting (…) The use of impersonal constructions and passives provides interesting examples”) (Kachru 2006e: 261). The process of Englishization beyond the level of sentence is evident, most of all, in the literary traditions of the Outer Circle. Analyzing the influence of English on lexis, syntax and phonology of other languages in a broader functional and textual perspective may provide an insight into understanding the role of English in the development of new registers, styles, codes and literary genres in languages being in contact with English (Kachru 2006e: 258-259). Kachru (2006e: 265) argues that “[t]he immense impact of English, and the conscious effort toward Englishization both in languages and literatures make it difficult to separate the two.” The role of Englishization in countries having no history of literary tradition has been vital in that it served both as a stimulus and a model (see Kachru 2006e: 266). In other countries, Englishization brought the modernization of registers and triggered some stylistic as 131

well as thematic transformations (Kachru 1986: 14). The accumulated evidence points to the following (Kachru 2006e: 266):

1. Under the influence of English new genres developed in some languages; for instance, the lyric – in Indo-Aryan, Dravidian and West African languages; expository short essays – in Indian languages; 2. The process of Englishization contributed to modifying, extending and refining a literary genre, for example, the one-act play, the short story and the novel; 3. Thematic innovations and modifications.

English as a world language and the process of Englishization have a considerable influence not only on language per se but also on literature and, more generally, culture. Discussions concerning the ramifications of the impact of English on national and local languages and cultures point to the following phenomena:

1. giving rise to “functions ‘dormancy’” (Kachru 2006f: 206); 2. inhibiting the development and devastating specialized registers (Swales 1997: 376); 3. impoverishing culture due to “the loss of professional speech differentiation for the purposes of literary characterization, for entertainment and for parody” (Swales 1997: 379)46; 4. causing “linguistic curtailment” of other languages; i.e. “[w]hen English becomes the first choice as a second language, when it is the language in which so much is written and in which so much of the visual media occur, it is constantly pushing other languages out of the way, curtailing their usage in both qualitative and quantitative terms” (Pennycook 1994: 14); 5. leading to “partial diglossic situations” – English as a dominant language of prestige in official use and academic registers (Kachru 2006e: 265); 6. threatening the existence of a variety of languages (Pennycook 1994: 14);

46

Swales (1997: 379) also refers to Mauranen (1993: 172) who argues that “[i]nsofar as rhetorical practices embody cultural thought patterns, we should encourage the maintenance of variety and diversity in academic rhetorical practices – excessive standardization may counteract innovation and creative thought by forcing them into standard forms.”

132

7. the becoming of English a gatekeeper to “increasingly Anglophone academic and technical environments” (Swales 1997: 373).

One should note that scholars adopting the linguistic imperialism framework describe the effects of Englishization, globalizing English and ELT using far harsher words. Qiang and Wolff (2005), for instance, argue that globalizing English and TEFL can pose a serious threat to indigenous religions, cultures, languages and even ethnicity of many nations around the world. They assert that “universal adoption of English as the monolanguage of international commerce” may cause English culture to become “the monoculture of the world” (Qiang and Wolff 2005: 58). English as a world language is regarded as a present day Trojan Horse and the linguistic imperialism of English as well as its Judeo-Christian acculturation are perceived as the greatest threats (Qiang and Wolff 2005: 55f). The linguistic imperialism of English is especially harmful when it becomes a prerequisite to education, employment, business opportunities, popular culture and when indigenous languages are marginalized (in China, for example, the knowledge of English is essential to obtain higher education, employment and achieve economic prosperity and social status). The western acculturation of English may lead to the dissemination of “the Judeo-Christian religious concepts of justice and social order” (Qiang and Wolff 2005: 56). It is noted that the most important international organizations and institutions47 are all dependent on Western legal ideas which evolved from British Common law and which are “vehicles for the implementation of linguistic imperialism on both a regional and a global scale. To fully participate in the new global economy, a country is economically coerced into ‘voluntarily’ accepting economic, political and social reforms that are pleasing to Western democratic principles” (Qiang and Wolff 2005: 56). Despite all the evidence pointing to the profound impact of both English and the process of Englishization there are some voices suggesting that the influence may not be as great as it is trumpeted. In this vein, House (2003: 563) points out that the massive import of English loans into such domains as the media, advertising, lifestyle, youth culture etc. may be annoying for purists, but it is unlikely to affect the structure of a language. She claims that Germans are used to hearing new words and phrases and that the ubiquity of English loans is both transient and innocuous. To confirm that English 47

They refer to the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and even the United Nations.

133

has only a superficial impact on German, references are made to three research projects carried out in Germany in order to investigate:

1. “whether and how ELF influences textual norms in covert translation and parallel text production” (see House 2003: 563-566); 2. the nature of ELF interactions; 3. English as a medium of instruction in German universities.

As regards the first study, it was found out that “German generic conventions are upheld” and that this was, as admitted during interviews by translators and editors, an outcome of a conscious strategy of resisting Englishization (House 2003: 566). The results of the second study imply that non-native – non-native interactions are qualitatively different than native – non-native ones and that the former cause less misunderstanding (this being so despite the fact that ELF interactants bring with them L1 speaking conventions) (House 2003: 566f). Interestingly, on the basis of the results of this investigation a hypothesis is put forward that “ELF users’ native cultureconditioned ways of interacting are ‘alive’ in the medium of the English language” (House 2003: 569). This is thought to be indicating that the influence of English on native communicative strategies and languages are to some degree embellished. The third research project that House (2003: 570) refers to consisted in investigating the functioning of English as a medium of instruction in German universities, and the perception of this increasingly more commonplace, European phenomenon by international students. This emerging trend is thought to be related to the process of anglification, as well as a positive attitude of German intellectual elites towards ELF usage (France could be regarded as a counter-example) and their greater focus on making German universities more international and, hence, more appealing for overseas students. House (2003: 571) concludes that the investigations “cannot be interpreted as indicating that there is a serious encroachment of ELF upon a native language: in translation and parallel text production, native norms are upheld; ELF interactions show phenotypical (and maybe genotypical) L1 presence; and, in English-medium instruction, moves are made to involve local language use.” When the process of Englishization is tantamount to the use of the language itself in a certain sphere we may choose to refer to this phenomenon as anglification or anglicization. Fishman refers to seven socio-functional criteria of anglification which 134

were taken into consideration in a unique collection of case studies analyzing the status of English in former English and American colonies and in the European Union (Fishman 1996b: 635):

1. elementary education; 2. tertiary education; 3. print media; 4. non-print media; 5. the technology/commerce/industry complex; 6. governmental services and operations; 7. indigenous informal usage.

Fishman (1996b: 637) states that the case studies presented in this volume indicate that, in general, tertiary education and supra-local science/commerce/industry are the most anglified domains (both assume scores on the level of 1.5, where 0 points to the greatest and 7 the least anglification), non-print media and internal governmental operations and services are the next (both 3.5), then comes the elementary education (5.0), and the least anglified are print media and extensive informal usage (both 6.5). To elaborate on the context of the European Union (which is of particular interest to the author of this thesis), it should be noted that while the instructions in the elementary education are most of all carried out in national languages, tertiary education (attempting to internationalize itself and entice foreign students) is increasingly turning to Englishbased instructions (see Fishman 1996b: 624f). The English language is also getting ever more dominant among academics (who tend to publish in English), in conferences with English as a co-official language, and in classes where English-written materials are becoming essential readings for students from almost all disciplines (see Fishman 1996b: 625). As regards English press devoted for indigenous readership, the European Union emerges as very little anglified and this is seen as implicationally associated with the little degree of anglification in elementary education (see Fishman 1996b: 626). Another tendency seems to be that the non-print media tend to be more anglified than the print media, and the visual media still more than auditory (see Fishman 1996b:

135

627)48. Nevertheless, looking at the spheres of science, technology, commerce, and industry, the European Union with English as a local lingua franca seems to be quite considerably anglified (see Fishman 1996b: 628). This current role of English in the European Union finds its expression in the legal status of English as a co-official language (see Fishman 1996b: 629). Concluding, it should be remarked that the process of Englishization has left an imprint on almost all languages and that “[t]he difference is one of degrees” (Kachru 2006e: 258-259). In view of the scale of the process, calls are made for further investigating “the significance of the cross-cultural and cross-linguistic Englishization” (Kachru 2006e: 269). Specifically, Kachru refers to typological (“typologies of contact with English”), sociolinguistic (English as used in international settings, the emergence of new speech acts), empirical (examining various registers and language skills) and literary (“the impact of English on the formal and thematic aspects of literary creativity”) research, (Kachru 2006e: 269). The educational system and language teaching settings also emerge as important areas of examination as they have the earmarks of the most intensive sites of language contact, at least in certain locales, and seem to be responsible for the promotion of a large number of anglicisms (cf. Görlach 2007: 5). In this light, investigating the status of English in the educational system, as compared to other foreign languages, seems to provide insight into the processes of borrowing and Englishization themselves. Lastly, one should note that arguments are advanced that Englishization, or even more generally anglification (in the sense of making English- or American-like), may be encouraged by a translated text in case it remains close to the original (see Wright 2004: 154). It is argued that both ideologies and attitudes may be disseminated even through a dubbed English language film and that written as well as audio-visual media may constitute a source of “the cultural connotations associated with certain lexical terms” and promote norms of communication typical of the US (Wright 2004: 154). Finally, one should discern that the methods of investigating Englishization and anglification ought to be sensitive to contextual implications of language contact and the variety of channels through which Englishization and anglification may operate.

48

Fishman (1996b: 627) points out that “[a]uditory media are neither literacy dependent on the one hand, nor dependent on expensive equipment on the other, and therefore they are much more ‘vernacular friendly’: and are more often accessible to the ordinary vernacular speaking resident.”

136

2.2.3. The stratificational function of English

The notion “the Alchemy of English” is an apt metaphor reflecting the widespread attitudes towards the status and the functions of the language and pointing to “an added potential for material and social gain and advantage” obtained thanks to a command of the language (see Kachru 1986: 1). Undoubtedly, English does constitute an access code to the domains of power and knowledge, but it also functions as “a powerful linguistic tool for manipulation and control” (see Kachru 1986: 13-14). Fishman (1996b: 637) points out that there is “a functional division of labor between English and the local vernacular(s)” and that it may be the rule not only in former British and American colonies but also all over the world. Because the knowledge of English, and/or its standard and prestigious forms, is not accessible to everyone, the language has also become “a crucial gatekeeper to social and economic progress”, as well as a must-have tool for all kinds of professionals and specialists who try hard to learn the language to avoid the exclusion from the elites to which they aspire to belong (see also Pennycook 1994: 13). Blommaert (2003: 615) argues that “[p]art of linguistic inequality in any society – and consequently, part of much social inequality – depends on the incapacity of speakers to accurately perform certain discourse functions on the basis of available resources.” In some locations (for instance, in India), owing to its introducing a “language bar” upon vast populations (and, in this way, denying them access to educational, political, and scientific spheres of activity), English has come to be regarded as a language of oppression (Kachru 1986: 14). To my mind, it is quite clear that English may conceivably have serious stratificational functions in any society where there is any kind of unequal distribution of educational opportunities. This is also claimed by Fishman (1996b: 638) who asserts that “English is linked to social stratification and possibly even to social stratification on an intergenerational basis.” That the English language in the context of educational systems has significant stratificational functions is reiterated by numerous scholars. Fishman (1996b: 624) explicates that “[e]arly access to English is, obviously and over and over again, related to and supportive of hierarchical social stratification, and not only (…) in former AngloAmerican colonies and spheres of influence.” Pennycook (1994: 14) states that “[w]ith English taking up such an important position in many educational systems around the world, it has become one of the most powerful means of inclusion into or exclusion from further education, employment, or social positions.” Phillipson (1997b: 205) 137

argues that “[w]orldwide, competence in English is seen as opening doors. This means that ELT in its global and local manifestations is intricately linked to multiple uses of the language and access to power.” It should be noted that the stratificational functions of English can, indeed, be already observed in Scandinavia and the Netherlands where English occupies a prominent role in the school curricula and has become necessary for access to tertiary education (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 35). In my judgment, it is no surprising then that English, as a language which gives one power and possibilities of achieving success, has become for parents all over the world a desirable and precious gift that they would like to give their children to provide them with access to knowledge and offer opportunities that the command of the language promises (cf. Kachru 1986: 8). In this vein, Petzold and Berns (2000: 114; 123) argue that the association of English with elitism is strengthening in Hungary (where all kinds of specialists and professionals rush to learn English) because it “means for people prosperity and access to prestigious jobs.” Consequently, parents urge their sons and daughters to acquire the language despite vast expenses they need to cover in order not to let their children stay behind. In this context, learning world languages and, specifically, learning English may start to be regarded as a question of human rights which should be guaranteed to all people interested in their acquisition (cf. Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 35).

2.2.4. Final notes

English as a world language is thought to have its power bases on all continents (see Kachru 1986: 13). This state of affairs, unparalleled in the history of human languages, calls for careful, and context-sensitive examination since in each and every locale English may potentially serve “as a medium of power, control, authority, and cohesion” and in this mode its linguistic power, if “wielded without sensitivity, without understanding”, may lead it to become what Kachru calls “a language for oppression” (see Kachru 1986: 13). It should be noted that English as a class-based tongue may also be perceived as a language that prevents people from communication. Thus, English may well be thought to be a language of “global miscommunication, or perhaps ‘dis’communication” and lead to “the dichotomization between local, multiple vernacular languages and the monolingualism of the language of power” (Pennycook 138

2003b: 5f). This statement seems to echo Fishman’s (1977a: 126) argument that “[t]he indigenously controlled spread of LWCs among relatively undislocated populations commonly stabilizes in the pattern of domain separation (diglossia) and mother-tongue displacement (rather than replacement) among elitist and relatively favored population segments.” Furthermore, Pennycook (1994: 18) notes that “[i]f English operates as a major means by which social, political and economic inequalities are maintained within many countries, it also plays a significant role as a gatekeeper for movement between countries, especially for refugees hoping to move to the English-speaking countries.” Interestingly, one should discern that there are some voices pointing to a new phenomenon of English serving as the initiator of the “democratisation of a formerly elitist resource” (Fishman 1996a: 7). English language instructions seem to be getting ever more available and the language is being learnt by increasingly more nations, communities, groups, and individuals. The language has become a necessary instrument at work which, at least in some contexts, may be slowly growing into “a banal and unremarkable skill like literacy” (cf. Wright 2004: 178). However, these new tendencies are as yet far from bringing about a situation in which English is no longer a major linguistic means of dividing whole populations of people into financial haves and haves-not. According to McArthur (2002: 441), “English may well be or have been hegemonic, but the risk of not possessing it may be so great that submission to this hegemony has become a fairly small price to pay.” Obviously, the costs of succumbing to English are nothing compared to the danger of being excluded from the domains of power and prestige that the access to goes through English.

2.3.

Attitudes towards and beliefs about English, its dominance, and spread

2.3.1. Introduction

Traditionally, the importance of language attitudes towards a language has been perceived in terms of its impact on language acquisition. Nevertheless, as early as in the 1970s it was noticed and argued that “acquiring, using, and liking English are very imperfectly (if at all) related to each other; and if they are to be appreciably understood, we must turn to more sociolinguistic considerations, attitudinal as well as

139

nonattitudinal” (Fishman 1977b: 308).49 Accordingly, attitudinal factors may be overridden by other, most of all, pragmatic ones, in determining the use and spread of a language. In the same vein, McArthur (2003: 55) asserts that attitudes towards the dominance of a given language “range along much the same social and emotional continuum: They can be (generally or at different times) positive, negative, calm, angry, neutral, mixed or unconcerned, but in the last analysis they are pragmatic.” Possibly, because of these ‘pragmatic concerns’ pertaining to the dispersion of the English language it was argued that: The spread of English is currently apparently accompanied by relatively little affect – whether negative or positive – and by correspondingly meager American and British ethnic or ideological connotations. The staying power of LWCs may derive from ethnic neutrality every bit as much as the staying power of minority languages may derive from ethnic relatedness (Fishman 1977a: 126).

Also in the early 1990s Fishman asserted that:

English gets along without love, without sighs, without tears, and almost without affect of any kind (…) Nor is the non-English mother-tongue world unique in its no-nonsense view of English. Much of the English mother-tongue world is itself quite unemotional about English, viewing it as a medium pure and simple rather than as either a symbol or a message (Fishman 1992: 24).

Nonetheless, one should not get a wrong impression that English as a world language evokes no attitudes at all. These days the full picture of attitudes towards the spread of English and its present status emerges as decidedly more complex than ever and it seems that hardly anyone would maintain that English as a world language is a phenomenon attitudinally neutral. The English language and its spread do, in fact, trigger strong attitudes both highly favorable and extremely negative. Most importantly, in my estimation, the significance of attitudes towards English in specific locations lies in that they may simultaneously be indicative of and conducive to (1) deprivation or provision of various opportunities; (2) promotion or denial of certain rights and equality of opportunity. Unsurprisingly, reactions towards English may be various. Generally speaking, English in the glocal context, as Kachru (2006g: 446) points out, may cause two contrastive

49

To elaborate, Fishman (1977b: 308) pointed out that “nonattitudinal factors are of greatest moment in predicting English acquisition and use, while attitudinal factors are primary in predicting English attitudes.”

140

types of reactions “one of celebration and triumphalism, and the other of the use of the language as part of the arsenal in what have been termed civilizational ‘culture wars.’” Similarly, some linguistic/cultural-cum-political consequences of the spread of English and its functioning in specific contexts (for instance, the process of Englishization) may either evoke negative attitudes (the spread of English described in terms of hegemony and linguistic imperialism) or become regarded as “a valid process for modernization”, a marker of local identity or even a part of literary and linguistic tradition (cf. Kachru 2006e: 268). To my mind, it seems reasonable to posit that evaluative labels referring to English may be revealing in terms of disclosing people’s perception of the language, its spread and functioning. Specifically, language attitudes towards and beliefs about English seem to be reflected by such attributes as English as a tool of colonial exploitation and political consolidation, English as a means of religious or cultural enlightenment, English as a killer language or a Trojan Horse, English as language for all seasons, universal and one on which the sun never sets. English as a language of power is also associated with being a vehicle of various processes and phenomena which are also indicative of attitudes towards the language and the identity established with it: positive (national identity, literary renaissance, cultural mirror for native cultures, modernization, liberalism, universalism, technology, science, mobility, access code) and negative (anti-nationalism, anti-native culture, materialism, westernization, rootlessness, ethnocentrism, permissiveness, divisiveness, alienation) (see Kachru 2006f: 213). In addition, the multisymbolicity of English may be thought as indicated by a variety of processes associated with the language: “[e]nlightenment in a religious sense”, “marker of the ‘civilizing process’”, “[d]istancing form native cultures”, “[a]cquisition of various spheres of knowledge”, “[v]ehicle of pragmactic success”, “[m]arker of modernization”, “[m]aters’ code of control” (see Kachru 2006f: 202-204).

2.3.2. Positive attitudes and beliefs about English and its role in the world

Native speakers’ attitudes towards English as an international means of communication appear to be largely favorable. The global spread and status of English are argued to be for native speakers a source of national self-satisfaction, pride and profit (Widdowson 1997: 135). The positive aspects of the position of English in the world are especially 141

appreciated and trumpeted by anglophone media, politicians, such organizations as the British Council, as well as by business people. Seidlhofer and Jenkins (2003: 140) refer to two extracts illustrating such favorable evaluation of the status of English as viewed by native speakers of the language. The first one concerns the British Council prospectus Conference (ELT conference 1998) from which one can learn that “[t]he incredible success of the English language is Britain’s greatest asset. It enhances Britain’s image as a modern, dynamic country and brings widespread political, economic and cultural advantages, both to Britain and to our partners.” The second one is from the front page of the Observer:

This week the Government will announce that the number of people with English as a second language has overtaken the number who speak it as their native tongue. The British Council statistics have been seized on by Education and Employment Secretary 50 David Blunkett, who will tell a meeting of business leaders on Tuesday to capitalise on their advantage as native speakers. (…) Insiders say the drive to make English the global lingua franca comes directly from Tony Blair (Bright 2000, as quoted in Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003: 140).

In the United States, there seem to be similar attitudes towards the global status of English. R. Smith (2005: 56) points out that conservative Americans tend to regard their language as superior and, in consequence, the spread of English around the world is wholeheartedly approved by them – “a certain sector of American society takes the view that what is good for America is good for the rest of the world, including the English language.” American English-only organizations, which also advocate boosting the pre-eminence of English as a world language, enjoy a great popularity among many sectors of society – “[t]hey are strongly patriotic Christian conservatives who (…) currently form the world’s most powerful political lobby. They are also keen users of the Internet, and their sites contain references to how young volunteers can work abroad and provide their overseas hosts with the ‘gift’ on evangelision missions in the wider world” (R. Smith 2005: 57). As a matter of fact, these days the US may be the dominant force in supporting World English. For vast groups of non-native speakers the knowledge of the English language is associated most of all with the prestige that the language bestows on its users. The belief about the prestige of speaking English seems to derive from the prominence of the functional domains dominated by the language. Importantly, as El-Dash and

50

The then British Education and Employment Secretary.

142

Busnardo (2001: 71) point out referring to their research conducted in Brazil, this may be a belief held mostly by adults who, in contrast to adolescents, are more aware of the demands and forces operating in the international global market for which English functions as an international means of communication par excellence. It should also be noted that less advanced speakers of English tend to associate English with high status more commonly than more proficient ones (Friedrich 2000: 219-220). In some countries (for instance, in Japan) the prestige of the language and favorable attitudes are so strong that English names on products “assure the user of the object’s quality” and, in consequence, boost sales (see Hyde 2002: 13). It is argued that for the Japanese English language teaching has “a decorative function, being included because it looks good and has the right associations: a badge or emblem of prestige” (Hyde 2002: 16).51 Hyde (2002: 13) asserts that according to her Japanese informants “English conveys a fashionable, desirable image, whether it is understood or not.” Also in Hong Kong the prestige of the language seems unquestionable. English is perceived as the most useful language having a general superior status and greatest importance for academic and career development as well as for the general prosperity of Hong Kong (Lai 2001: 123).52 Due to its global spread and occupation of the most significant functional domains, it seems quite reasonable to assume that the prestige related to the knowledge of English is rather a universal phenomenon. Nevertheless, it should be reminded that some new processes seem to be ongoing, at least in some parts of the world, which render the language as an unremarkable, yet, necessary skill. It appears that another widely held belief among non-native speakers of English is that thanks to the knowledge of the language it is easier to find a job, get promotion and, more generally, achieve prosperity. In my judgment, this perception of English may be again related to the functions of English in such spheres as economy, business, and academia. Friedrich (2003: 179f) notes that her Argentine respondents strongly believe that people who can speak English “have greater employment opportunities.”53

51

Hyde (2002: 13) adds that English is also associated with “romantic, environmental and internationalist concerns.” The uses of the language are more emblematic than communicative, English “can be seen as a source of material to convey an image rather than an exact meaning” (Hyde 2002: 15). 52 Lai (2001: 123) also asserts that English is a language that her respondents would like to learn the most and it should be, according to them, a compulsory subject in schools. 53 To elaborate, Friedrich (2003: 179-180) states that “[w]hen asked how they saw people who ‘knew’ English over 90% indicated that ‘they have greater employment opportunities’ by knowing English. In contrast, ‘they have a better social position,’ was chosen by only 2%. When asked how other people saw those who knew English, the responses were almost the same, except this time 10% gave status greater importance. Neither ‘intelligence’ nor ‘superiority’ were attributed to knowing English.”

143

Furthermore, it is pointed out that Argentinians seem to associate the knowledge of English mainly with two things (Friedrich 2003: 180):

1. “the desire of individual social maintenance (rather than social mobility) in face of the continually falling purchasing power of its middle and upper classes”; 2. “geographical mobility, evidenced by the large numbers of Argentines who wish to and do leave the country.”

A similar situation is to be found in Hong Kong where the knowledge of English is regarded as “a ladder to success and a means for upward and outward communication” (Lai 2001: 125). Additionally, the residents of Hong Kong view the knowledge of English as necessary not only for their personal but also for the continued prosperity of the city (Lai 2001 123). It is reported that Macau students’ also “recognize the social values of English and the importance of English to the future development of Macau” (Yee and Young 2006: 489). Such trends and perceptions may conceivably be expected to be noticed throughout the present world at large. The perception of English as a major means for international communication is argued to evoke, by and large, very positive attitudes towards the language and spread a desire to learn it. In the context of Europe such trends have been recognized, for instance, in Belgium, Finland, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and Spain (see Lasagabaster 2005: 299).54 Friedrich (2000: 222) points out that in her research conducted in Argentina almost all respondents agreed on the status of English as an international language and that “their intent to expand their network is most likely connected to a desire for being part of a global society where English is a language of wider communication.” Intriguingly, Friedrich (2003: 179) asserts that around 40% of her Argentine respondents and 60% of Brazilian ones admitted that they would learn English even if it were not a lingua franca language. Her interpretation is that this attitude to English indicates, in fact, that for younger people it is impossible to conceive of the language as anything else but an international means of communication (see Friedrich 2003: 179). In Hong Kong, as Lai (2001: 123) explains, people also wish to acquire English as they believe it “helps them to communicate with foreigners and 54

Lasagabaster (2005: 313) asserts that this state of affairs may have the side effect of spreading indifference towards the learning of languages other than English.

144

understand their cultures.” To my mind, it seems that the reality is such that pragmatic concerns are decisive when it comes to learning foreign languages and people generally opt for a language that has the highest Q-value (see 1.4.6.). Generally speaking, careful examination of the functions served by English as a world language in a given locale and their evaluation by local communities and/or authorities may prove very insightful when investigating attitudes towards the English language. Such an approach may point to general evaluative patterns of EWL and their relations to the pragmatic functions performed by the language in a specific context. One should note that even if viewed favorably English can indeed be used, perceived and evaluated very differently by various nations:

In addition, and also contrary to the accepted gospel of external imposition, are the reports of strong internal efforts and developments on behalf of English. In Cuba the communist regime views English as a valuable resource in its efforts to foster its very precarious links with science and commerce worldwide. In India English benefits from the longstanding local impasse with respect to the integrative role of Hindi. In Israel it is viewed by locals as a vital key to enjoyable tourism during vacations abroad. (…) In Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan English is seen as a splendid medium for the spread of Islam. In several countries the fostering of English, whether for the population as a whole or for specific sectors of governmental employees, is government policy (Fishman 1996b: 632-633).

In addition, Kachru (2006f: 212) elucidates that “[t]he Outer Circle sees the other dimensions of the legacy of English, too: a tool of national identity and political awakening, a window on the world, as a ‘link’ language and so on. The Expanding Circle sees it as a vehicle for entering the twenty-first century.” Importantly, the fact that English as a world language is being learned, appropriated and adopted by increasingly more nations for various ends may contribute to changing attitudes and evaluative reactions with respect to the language. Therefore, favorable evaluation and positive attitudes can be found even in countries and regions which could hardly be suspected of any accommodating perception of anglophone countries and culture.

2.3.3. Negative perception of English and its role in the world In my judgment, unfavorable feelings, attitudes and beliefs about English (especially, its status, influence and teaching) may be especially salient in areas where the language contributes to maintaining inequalities between various communities, social groups

145

and/or when it is perceived as an encroachment or even a direct threat to the sovereignty of one’s culture and national/community identity. As mentioned, in some locations English is perceived as a language of oppression debarring masses from gaining access to essential educational, political, and scientific domains. Kachru (1986: 14) expounds that such reactions may be “reflected in the non-English-language press, political pamphleteering, party manifests, and in uncontrollable language riots that take place in different parts of the world.” Also Fishman (1996b: 633) points out that “it should not be overlooked that there are a few instances of anti-English voluntary activity and governmental action.” To give credence to his words, he lists India, Israel, Quebec, and South Africa as cases in point. It should also be mentioned that there are Africans and Asians for whom English, “its immense functional power, its social prestige, and its ‘spell’ on the people is suspect” (Kachru 1991: 214). Importantly, one should discern that the majority of reasons for the agony caused by the spread of English seem to be related to the domains of power and control (see Kachru 2006a: 79). Some adverse and negative reactions towards English may be observed among many expert communities which tend to perceive the influence of the language as harmful to their culture and/or identity. El-Dash and Busnardo (2001: 58) note that “[a] reaction against English has been building up since the beginning of 1980s. Some Brazilian researchers have devoted themselves in the past decade to attitude studies in an attempt to interpret the Brazilian love of English.” Such responses may be observed especially in communities55 investing heavily in maintaining their local identity and having long puristic traditions (as in the case of many European countries). To give an example, Pulcini (1997: 80) notes that “[t]oday an excessive use of English words [by Italians] is often condemned, for instance in newspaper language and young people’s speech, or when anglicisms are intentionally used for exhibitionism.” Importantly, Fishman (1996b: 634) points out that the perception of English as imperialist is, in fact, much more frequent among those prominent scholars and intellectuals for whom English is a native language. He further argued that:

55

Nevertheless, it should be noted that for some groups the pervasive impact of English may not be regarded as a threat to identity. For instance, Yee and Young (2006: 483) state that their Macao respondents did not regard learning English as a menace to their identity as Chinese or to national languages.

146

Perhaps it is the overwhelmingly utilitarian (‘nstrumental’, ‘social mobility’, and ‘social stratification’), technological (‘soulless’), and low-culture (‘pop-culture’, ‘youth-culture’) symbolism of English that has brought this about. America’s current role as the only superpower may also exacerbate this view, and while the democratic, civil libertarian and humanitarian traditions of the anglophone world should not be trumpeted to cover up its moral shortcomings, neither should they be overlooked (Fishman 1996b: 634).

Among language experts who are native speakers of English one of the best-known, and at same time the most controversial, of all critics of the global spread and status of English is, undoubtedly, Robert Phillipson. He and his numerous followers have extremely unfavorably attitudes towards the language, and describe the expansion of English in terms of linguistic imperialism and its status as a consequence of a hegemonic battle for the hearts and minds of people. Their firm and unshakeable beliefs concern a conviction that the US and UK governments are actively and purposefully involved in promoting the expansion of English to further their own economic and political interests and to promote their cultural achievements, social values and whereby ensure their countries prosperity and dominance in the world affairs (cf. Phillipson 1998: 102; see also 1.4.4.).56 It seems that in comparison to Phillipson’s framework a much more comprehensive and convincing analysis of the global status and influence of English is offered by Alastair Pennycook. His perception of the global English can hardly be seen as favorable, yet, he manages to provide an insightful framework avoiding deterministic claims. In his response to the commonly held beliefs about the spread of English as a phenomenon invariably natural, neutral and beneficial57 (such beliefs seem to be disseminated and presented as obvious and undeniable facts by various pro-anglophone politicians, businessmen and ELT industry), he aptly elucidates how naive and erroneous they might, in fact, be:

56

Pennycook (1994: 22) also argues that there are clear relationships between the English language and economy, yet, he does not view this phenomenon as a conspiracy hatched by the US and the UK against the world at large – [g]iven the connections (…) between English and the export of certain forms of culture and knowledge, and between English and the maintenance of social, economic and political élites, it is evident that the promotion of English around the world may bring very real economic and political advantages to the promoters of that spread.” 57 Pennycook (1994: 9) elaborates that “[b]y and large, the spread of English is considered natural because, although there may be some critical reference to the colonial imposition of English, its subsequent expansion is seen as a result of inevitable global forces. It is seen as neutral because detached from its original cultural contexts (particularly England and America), it is now a neutral and transparent medium of communication. And it is considered beneficial because a rather blandly optimistic view of international communication assumes that this occurs on a cooperative and equitable footing.”

147

[A] view that holds that the spread of English is natural, neutral and beneficial needs to be investigated as a particular discursive construct. To view the spread as natural is to ignore the history of that spread and to turn one’s back on larger global forces and the goals and interests of institutions and governments that have promoted it. To view it as neutral is to take a very particular view of language and also to assume that the apparent international status of English raises it above local social, cultural, political or economic concerns. To view it as beneficial is to take a rather naively optimistic position on global relations and to ignore the relationships between English and inequitable distributions and flows of wealth, resources, culture and knowledge (Pennycook 1994: 23-24).

Pennycook’s perception of the global status and dispersion of English emerges as a middle ground area, a voice criticizing triumphalists and agonizers both equally blind to the arguments of the other side. It should be noted that his evaluation of English in the glocal context may be regarded as illustrative of the many similar, shared by both professional linguists and ordinary folk, who look at the English language from the larger perspective and hold both positive and negative beliefs about the language and its dispersion. To my mind, it is significant to remember that the majority of people’s reactions towards English as a world language are mixed, since their beliefs are frequently conflicting, and attitudes ambivalent.

2.3.4. Attitudes towards varieties of English(es)

In my judgment, any individual is preoccupied with observing, evaluating and comparing other people to his/her life and/or behavior. Certainly, speech behavior and language habits are no exception in this matter. This process may be regarded as a part and parcel of both living in a society/community, which requires from an individual various forms of adaptation and conformity, and determining one’s own personal and unique identity, which may at times require challenging established norms and formulas. Differences in the use of language, i.e. different language varieties and accents, appear to have been of great interest and salience in the anglophone world. Attitudes towards the diversity of English(es) vary from euphoria to the perception of the multitude of varieties as “a sign of decay”, “a marker of divisiveness” or even “a threat to the traditionally perceived Eurocentric, Judeo-Christian ethos of the language” (Kachru 2006c: 485). People’s education, qualifications, manners, and personality are frequently evaluated on the basis of one’s idiolect. In this vein, it is pointed out that:

148

Language functions and the ways in which they are performed by people are constantly assessed and evaluated: function and value are impossible to separate. Consequently, differences in the use of language are quickly, and quite systematically, translated into inequalities between speakers (...). This observation holds for what language does in stratified societies (...) it accounts for almost any dynamics of prestige and stigma in language (Blommaert 2003: 615).

Accordingly, it becomes unsurprising then, as Jenkins (2007b: 70) argues, that “people tend to evaluate language varieties in a hierarchical manner. As might be expected, standard varieties tend to be more highly evaluated than non-standard.” Therefore, attitudes towards various varieties of English may be regarded as intricately related to attitudes towards the norms and models of ‘proper’ English for, generally speaking, educational purposes and international communication. The opposition to the nativespeaker-standard (either RP or GA) establishment seems to be still in its infancy, at least in the context of the Expanding and Inner Circle locations.

2.3.4.1. Native speakers’ of English perception of varieties and standard models of English

It is pointed out that native speakers of English tend to “regularly praise the unparalleled excellence of their language” and that this belief about the superiority of English extends to some specific varieties of the language (Bailey 1991: vii-viii). Bailey (1991: viii) further elucidates that “most of our ideas about English have a long history” and that: Sensitivity to prestige forms and etymological nuance are thought to be sure indicators of aptitude and are (…) employed in tests that determine career choice. Some dialects of English are believed to be especially suited to intellectual or technical pursuits, and those who speak them are given opportunities denied to others (Bailey 1991: viii).

To expound on the issue of native speakers’ attitudes towards varieties of English and language standards, it should be noted that these days one can recognize, at least in Britain, two general, yet conflicting trends (see Strevens 2006: 461). The first, a rather recent phenomenon, concerns “a growing interest in and acceptance of local and regional forms of language” (Strevens 2006: 461). This greater curiosity (and appreciation) manifests itself, among others, by discarding the old practice of singling out only those speakers for the job of a TV or radio announcer who have a command of

149

an RP accent. Strevens (2006: 461) asserts that “[a]t least in theory, more and more people recognise that a person’s language is an expression of his or her identity both as a person and as a member of a particular community.” There is also much greater awareness that “[l]ocal dialects, or at least their accents, are often used as a kind of badge of identity” (Strevens 2006: 461). Nevertheless, as Strevens (1992: 28-29) suggests, the realization of the significance of language as part and parcel of one’s personal, national, and ethnic identity may cause native speakers of English to find it difficult to “come to terms with the variations that occur in NNS use of what the NS feels to be ‘one’s own language.’” Such feelings may be especially strong among those Anglophones who express serious concerns that there is a considerable decline in educational standards and that this may be the most easily observed in language teaching where teachers are far too tolerant of their students errors and their limited ability to use correct English (Strevens 2006: 461). These unfavorable attitudes towards non-standard forms and varieties may also translate into prejudice against non-native English(es). Strevens (1992: 37) points out that “many native speakers–perhaps the majority, even among teachers of English– overtly or unconsciously despise these varieties; these NS attitudes are in turn perceived by the non-native speaker as being arrogant, imperialist, and insulting.” Such unfavorable attitudes on the part of native speakers of English may be attributed to their complete ignorance as to “the existence of flourishing, effective, functional, sometimes elegant and literary non-native varieties of English” and to the fact that native speakers (and even the majority of EFL/ESL teachers) “wrongly equate variations from NS norms with classroom errors and mistakes, or regard NNS varieties as some kind of interlanguage on the path to NS English” (Strevens 1992: 37).58 As regards those few Anglophones who do have some awareness and/or knowledge about World English(es), there may be delineated, according to McArthur (1998: 214-215), five broad types of evaluative responses to the diversity within English(es).59 The first type of reaction – “[t]he strongly authoritarian and traditional response” – points to the following perception:

58

It is well worth noting that this explanation could also hold true of non-native speakers’ negative perception of non-native English(es). 59 It is maintained that evaluative responses seem to correspond to natives’ attitudes towards the standard language (McArthur 1998: 214).

150

Resolutely monolithic, asserting that English is and always has been one thing, despite its diversity, because it is held together by a standard variety (‘good’ or ‘proper’ English) that should be defended at all costs as a key achievement of Anglo-Saxon civilization. Substandard dialects, creoles, and the like may be important in heritage terms and could be good for culture and tourism, but ultimately they are an obstacle to personal and social development, and in any case are fading under the influence of education and the media – or would fade if teachers and journalists did their jobs properly (McArthur 1998: 214).

Even a cursory look at this type of evaluative responses, which may also be quite common among non-native teachers of English and ELT professionals, suffices to notice how deeply emotional some reactions towards language diversity and standard language may be. Beliefs that standard monolithic English may be equated not only with culture, national heritage, and high civilization but also with good education, intelligence and skills that are necessary for personal and social success seem to be, at least for some groups, deeply entrenched. Theirs is a conviction that non-standard and non-native varieties might be interesting but they should not be emulated under any circumstances. Most importantly, it should be realized that such attitudes towards varieties of English(es) may be pervasive, if not overtly then covertly for sure, in educational domains, especially in teaching and examining EFL/ESL. The second in order of its narrowness is “[t]he mildly traditionalist and pragmatic response” (McArthur 1998: 214). It is elaborated that this stance, adopted by other groups of Anglophones, reveals the following beliefs and reactions:

More or less monolithic, considering that the many varieties of English (standard, nearstandard, substandard, non-standard; national, regional, local), while they cannot be called languages as such, should be acknowledged (and respected within the relevant pecking order). The standard language sustains the unity of speech, writing, and print throughout the homeland and the world, throughout which good English is immensely valued and valuable, while substandard, broken, fractured, and hybridized English are not. People gain in social and cultural terms from diversity, but the centre must hold, and the proper aim of education is to inculcate the best and most effective usage possible (McArthur 1998: 214).

This reaction to diversity within English emerges as less uncompromising, yet, still seriously judgmental. The many non-standard varieties may be important for social or cultural reasons but it is the standard language that ensures the unity and intelligibility of English all over the world. People holding such beliefs are more likely to express favorable attitudes towards diversity and non-native varieties, at least overtly, but in the end, the pragmatism of the standard language tends to be regarded as by far more

151

significant. Non-standard varieties of English are believed to be improper for more prestigious purposes and, thus, should be allotted to less significant domains. “The eclectic, liberal, and pragmatic response” constitutes a middle ground area in terms of the toleration of diversity within the English language (McArthur 1998: 214). By and large, people adopting this stance seem to have a favorable attitude towards non-standard English(es):

Both monolithic and pluralistic, depending on circumstance, and maybe with a bias towards pluralism. From one point of view, English does indeed encompass everything that has been identified with it, and from another, certain varieties are (or can be regarded as) languages in their own right: either as legal-cum-political entities or simply because they are unintelligible to outsiders. Standard varieties (national and international) are vital tools in education, the media, law, government, business, science, and technology, tend to be sustained by such activities, and change with time and place, and are best approached descriptively rather than prescriptively (although prescription in certain areas and for certain purposes may be necessary) (McArthur 1998: 214).

Even though this position on the diversity appears unstable and changeable according to various circumstances, it may be regarded as a better alternative to the more extreme stances resulting from much more conservative and myopic views. Even though this response points to some degree of confusion and/or uncertainty, it also reveals a greater awareness of the complexity of the functioning of English as a world language and, in fact, discloses the true naivety of those expressing extreme, inflexible and narrowminded opinions. A still more progressive but rather radical position on the diversity of English(es) is called “[t]he libertarian, egalitarian, and progressive response” (McArthur 1998: 214). This type of reactions is described along the following lines:

Monoliths are part of an out-dated worldview which has been (or ought to be) supplanted by a more multicultural and decentred perspective that accepts diversity as good in itself. The Englishes (whether they are identified as autonomous languages or less radically as a range of variations) are part of a mass of usage which has arisen for a number of reasons, many of which are hegemonic and Eurocentric. Standard forms – local, national, or international – are (or need to be) constantly re-negotiated and should not encourage the prolongation of existing élites or lead to the rise of new ones (McArthur 1998: 214-215).

This response seems to be characterized by beliefs in the intrinsic worth of diversity, the harm done by traditional perspectives as well as the functional and causal bases of the emergence of different varieties of English. Although, in principle, this reaction could be regarded as driven by humanitarian incentives, it may well suffer from the same 152

flaws as all other radical stands – short-sightedness, deafness to the arguments of the other side, and simply naïvety. Lastly, given the complexity of the field of World Englishes, it is unsurprising that a host of people manifest “[t]he uncertain and perhaps confused response” which is understood as follows:

Not sure what the debate is all about but by and large aware of the importance of communication and perhaps intimidated by people who seem to be too fluent about such things. Inclined to change according to situation and company and wishing everybody did speak the same language everywhere (‘Isn’t that what the schools are for’). At times authoritarian, and even libertarian (‘Live and let live’) – theirs is a condition commoner than many hard-core traditionalists might like to admit (McArthur 1998: 215).

Clearly, a host of native and non-native speakers of English have mixed or even contradictory beliefs about World English(es) and seem to remain uncertain about the right ways of managing the diversity within the English language. Their attitude is flexible and inclined to change together with circumstances. It may be argued that such a position on the part of many people clearly points to the need of educating and teaching people about English(es) in the glocal context. Unfortunately, even though teaching about the sociolinguistic implications of World Englishes seems important, it is rarely found in the curricula of English language departments. Obviously, McArthur does not present any empirical data to substantiate and give credence to his observations, yet, this fact does not totally undervalue the worth of his tentative framework. The value of his outline of possible responses lies in that it presents in a coherent and quite convincing manner some possible types of reactions to the diversity; this shown as resulting from the different beliefs held by various groups of people. His observations also point to how emotional and sensitive the issue of diversity and following from it implications may be.

2.3.4.2. Non-native speakers’ of English perception of varieties and standard models of English

In my judgment, when examining the issue of non-native speakers’ attitudes towards varieties of World English(es) and standard models, it seems necessary to distinguish between general patterns of evaluative reactions in the Outer as opposed to the

153

Expanding Circle. Whereas in the former English plays most of all important roles in intranational communication and is usually used in multilingual and multicultural societies which may start to nativize and identify with the language, in the latter English serves, by and large, as a useful tool in international communication and remains to be perceived as a foreign language. It may well be assumed that the special history of English in the Outer Circle and the present-day context of its use should have a profound influence on attitudinal reactions toward English and its numerous varieties. In this vein, it is argued that in locales belonging to the Outer Circle, the issue of language norms and models of English seems to be especially controversial and sensitive as it is connected with the processes of indigenization and the development of endocentric norms of speaking and interactions in English (cf. Cheshire 1991: 8). Importantly, Kachru (2006c: 495) elucidates that “[a]cceptance of an endocentric norm, in a way, implies breaking away from an almost sacrosanct dictum in language pedagogy that the ‘native speaker’ is the norm.” Nevertheless, positive attitudes towards Outer-Circle indigenized varieties of English as an expression of local identity seem to be doing well and, even, spread in certain milieus. In this vein, Strevens points out that:

In most SL countries [Kachru’s Outer Circle of English], by contrast (and I repeat that we are thinking here of Nigeria, Singapore, Malta, Kenya, India, etc.) there usually exists an educationally-acceptable, localised form of English, such as ‘Educated West African’, ‘Educated Singaporean’, ‘Educated Hong Kong’ etc. Increasingly, in these circumstances it is felt desirable and more appropriate to set standards from the outset which relate to the accepted practice or tolerance of educated people from that community (Strevens 2006: 461).

Accordingly, it appears that in the Outer Circle there is, at least among certain groups of Outer Circle non-native speakers, some acceptance of and, thus, favorable attitudes towards localized, endocentric models of English. In such contexts speaking with a native-English accent may be even regarded as affected or even snobbish (Kachru 2006d: 119). It should be born in mind, however, that Outer Circle countries cannot be regarded as uniform for they encompass a wide variety of countries across many differing parts of the world. Frequently, the countries themselves are multicultural, highly stratified and the speakers of English differ from each other with respect to the lectal variety of English used by them. Speakers of more prestigious (and, as it is argued, more native-like) varieties are likely to have more favorable attitudes towards native standard varieties and the users of the Englishes which are on the bottom of a

154

lectal range may be expected to have a more sympathetic perception of nativized varieties which refer to emergent endocentric norms of usage and interaction. In regard to unfavorable attitudes towards varieties of the English language in the Expanding Circle, they usually pertain to the negative perception of alternative-totraditional, non-native models of English. Whereas learners of English perceive NNS norms and models negatively due to their conviction that only adherence to NS standards can satisfy their needs of successful communication, teachers of English and other ELT professionals seem to hold new and unorthodox models (e.g. ELF) in low esteem also because of a variety of other reasons. Jenkins’ analysis of three representative (according to her) texts written by English language experts and spoken comments on the part of teachers of English points to the following possible causes of unfavorable attitudes towards NNS models of English (Jenkins 2007b: 122-123, 141, 147):

1. advocacy of a status quo in ELT; 2. misinterpretation of such new models as ELF and equating them with interlanguage; 3. “a subconscious dislike of, and fear of the spread of, the English of (nonnative-like) NNSs”; 4. a belief in “a link between ‘good’ (native like) English and positive selfimage’” resultant from its use and knowledge60; 5. a belief that “excellence in English equates with near-nativeness”; 6. a belief that correctness means ‘nativeness’; 7. a belief that NS models constitute the only frame of reference for the assessment of intelligibility and acceptability; 8. a belief that ‘standard’ English is more understandable in all contexts61; 9. “a deeply entrenched attachment to NS English (and therefore to traditional EFL, whose ultimate goal is, after all, ENL), and (…) an equally deeply entrenched prejudice against NNS English, represented in this case by EFL”,

60

Jenkins (2007b: 122) argues that “[t]hese authors, like many other who comment on ELF, seem unable to conceive of the possibility of ‘feeling good’ in English that has NNS-led features.” 61 My personal experience seems to disprove such claims. On my holidays in Croatia it turned out that I happened to be much more readily understood when I rejected more standard pronunciation models (I acquired quite successfully GA pronunciation), and used more ‘spelling’ pronunciation which is commonly regarded as incorrect and less intelligible.

155

both leading to negative perception and rejection of non-native models in general and EFL in particular.

To elaborate, Jenkins (2007b: 71) hypothesizes that both native and non-native speakers of English who tend to perceive appropriate English very narrowly are likely to have favorable attitudes only towards standard English and perceive non-standard native English negatively, and non-native English even the more so. Furthermore, teachers may also have serious identity related reasons to oppose NNS models. Arguments are advanced that:

[I]t seems that when standard NS English is called into question, what is being questioned, as far as NNS teachers are concerned, is the value of having invested their lifetime in working towards a goal that they have always understood to represent excellence. This in turn means that their identities as teachers, which have always depended on achieving this goal, are threatened (Jenkins 2007b: 141).

Jenkins (2007b: 122-123) maintains that this state of affairs leads both teachers and many other ELT professionals to concentrate on the search of arguments opposing the introduction of NNS models – “[a]ccepting ELF would involve making a huge psychological shift.” Consequently, it is clear that the issue of norms and standards may be sensitive and controversial also in the Expanding Circle where the question of models seem to be intricately related to teachers’ identity and prestige. The majority of learners and teachers of English in the Expanding Circle seem to express fairly positive attitudes towards the norms and models based on standard native varieties of English. Such positive attitudes seem to be related not only with the learners’ and teachers’ beliefs in the ‘aesthetic values’ of the varieties, but, most of all, with their conviction that only NS models can guarantee them successful communication, appreciation and the achievement of their goals. This is especially so with respect to native-speaker pronunciation models which are commonly perceived by learners and NNS teachers of English as unsurpassable role models for emulation.62 As Jenkins (2007b: 147) rightly explicates, such favorable attitudes towards NS norms are still dominant in the ELT industry because they “continue to represent authentic English and self-evidently to bring with them guarantees of intelligibility and correctness.” 62

However, it should be noted that favorable attitudes towards models and diverse varieties of English, do not necessarily translate into the level of learners’ achievement. Dalton-Puffer et al. (1997: 126), referring to their research, point out that “[t]he greater part of the learners do not seem to be able to attain the standard pronunciation they evaluate so positively.”

156

Moreover, non-native speakers of English adhere to native speaker models and norms since they prefer to invest their time in acquiring the variety which seems to be a mark of their expertise and proficiency (Jenkins 2007b: 97). Svartvik (1985: 33-34) points out that bearing in mind the functional criteria of learning English it should be understood that “for non-native speakers, the acquisition of English is an investment worth the effort and the money only as long as the language functions as a means of international communication for a range of purposes (…) to do business, administer, read text books or detective stories, attend conferences, travel.” One should note that in the Expanding Circle, positive attitudes towards such non-native models as ELF seem to be expressed by learners and teachers of English only, if at all, at a rational level when considering some potential advantages.63 However, at a deeper level they still seem to be totally attached to the native speaker norms and models and can hardly imagine changing their habits of speaking and teaching/learning (see Jenkins 2007b: 141). Consequently, favorable attitudes towards non-native norms and models of English in the Expanding Circle, despite increased interest in academic circles, still appear to constitute a niche of the few researchers devoted to finding alternatives to the present native-speaker-norm status quo. Interestingly, there are some studies which suggest that non-native users and learners of English may be, by and large, unfamiliar with varieties other than standard English and American ones. This is implied by Friedrich (2003: 178) who states that neither his Brazilian nor Argentine respondents could recognize other English varieties but American and British ones. To my mind, the implications following from this state of affairs for the attitudes towards non-standard varieties of English may be considerable since unfamiliarity is likely to have a negative impact on the intelligibility of such varieties and, thus, predispose listeners to manifest unfavorable evaluative reactions towards the English(es) in question. In this vein, Dalton-Puffer et al. (1997: 115) point out that it may be the case that non-native speakers of English perceive most favorably those accents with which they are well acquainted thanks to school or trips abroad.

63

For instance, a belief that ELF as a marker of their identity could become a guarantee of feeling secure and self-confident as proficient speakers of ELF and not constant learners of a native-speaker model.

157

2.3.5. Final notes

For many groups of people and in many regions of the world attitudes towards English reveal what Kachru calls “love-hate relationship with English” (see Kachru 2006e: 270). In my judgment, the immense diversity of English accents and their unequal appreciation and recognition constitute the most important trigger for sparking off all kinds of attitudinal reactions. A hierarchy of prestige starts from standard British and American accents as being the most prestigious, to non-standard native accents ranging from non-stigmatized (or even having some prestige) to stigmatized, and ends in nonnative accents as the most stigmatized (with the exception of those being most nativelike, e.g. Swedish); (see Jenkins 2007b: 71, 81; Dalton-Puffer et al. 1997: 115). Obviously, the process of attributing prestige to accents is, unavoidably, related to the development of attitudes towards the language and the speaker. In this vein, Jenkins (2007b: 72-73) notes that “[a]t present, many speakers of expanding circle Englishes, even some speakers of (some?) outer circle Englishes, express the view that they are not taken seriously by NS English speakers purely on account of their NNS speech patterns (and, often, their accent in particular).” Consequently, non-native speakers of English may experience deprecation of their skills and expertise, ridicule or even prejudice only on account of their foreign accents (cf. Jenkins 2007b: 78, 82). Such unfavorable attitudes towards ‘the foreigner talk’ are also expressed by non-native speakers who at times perceive their own L1 accents particularly negatively (see Jenkins 2007b: 89)64. The awareness of this state of affairs seems to have an ever greater reflection in educational curricula with teaching English pronunciation as becoming a fundamental element of many language courses (see Dalton-Puffer et al. 1997: 115). As a result, nonnative speakers of English being convinced that “[g]ood pronunciation is indeed indispensable for adequate communication in a foreign language and is, moreover, to a large extent responsible for one’s first impression of a learner’s L2 competence” spend much their time trying hard to parrot native speaker accents (Dalton-Puffer et al. 1997: 115). Importantly, it should be noted, as some academics point out (see Seidlhofer 2004: 229), that research on language attitudes towards non-native varieties of English, 64

Jenkins (2007b: 89) asserts that “the NNS judges who shared the speakers’ LI were less tolerant towards non-native speech than were the NS judges” and adds “[a]mbivalence and embarrassment are, perhaps, to be expected given the findings of attitudes research in relation to non-standard and ethnic speech.”

158

in general, and ELF in particular, has in fact only recently started to be addressed and much needs to be done. In this respect, investigating teachers’ attitudes towards NS and NNS varieties seems of greatest importance since they may conceivably be regarded as the starting point of disseminating certain beliefs, stereotypes, and attitudes across the population at large (cf. Jenkins 2007b: 149). Crucially, it should be born in mind that language attitudes appear to be “sensitive to the context” and that the role of identity in determining them should not be disregarded (Jenkins 2007b: 71). El-Dash and Busnardo (2001: 71-72), for instance, point out that adolescents in Brazil feel solidarity with English because it is a vehicle of the international youth culture that they wish to be identified with – “[t]hose who gravitate towards the ‘modernizing’ English-language culture may be thought of as participating in a search for new forms of self-esteem and positive self-identity.”65 Interestingly, El-Dash and Busnardo (2001: 72) note that “these individuals may not always be aware of the socio-political implications of their identification and symbolic use of the dominant foreign language...” In this light, as a final point it may well be reasonable to remind Fishman’s prognoses as they still seem to be valid, at least in some locales, for the long-term development of language attitudes. Fishman (1977b: 308) argues that “[a]ttitudinal resistance to English (…) can be expected to weaken as younger generations successively shed more and more of the puristic end exclusivistic ideologies that their parents and teachers formulated and espoused during the formative struggles for political and cultural independence.”

2.4.

The management of the spread and status of the English language

2.4.1. Introduction

On the one hand, managing the spread and status of the English language within a given state or region seems to be a widely recognized need to respond to its ever-greater hegemony and importance. The necessity to subdue the power of English may be attributed to a host of reasons. The most significant ones relate to its influence on linguistic/cultural diversity and ecology with some resulting implications for the lives of 65

El-Dash and Busnardo (2001: 72) make the point that “[t]his adolescent retreat from the national language and traditional values due to the impact of ‘modernizing’ English-language popular culture has been observed in other contexts.” Hyde (2002: 13), for instance, suggests that the popularity of English names, slogans etc. on T-shirt among the Japanese can be either a fashion or willingness to “identify with some aspect of the culture associated with that language.”

159

people in almost all corners of the world. In the most extreme fashion, it is argued that “EFL is a modern day Trojan Horse, filled with EFL, teachers cum soldiers cum missionaries, and armed with words rather than bullets, but intent nonetheless on recolonizing the world and re-making it in the image of Western democracy” (Qiang and Wolff 2005: 60), or even that:

Ethnic cleansing and terrorism may be natural defence mechanisms against the Trojan Horse that bears the EFL army, with English language and culture as its weapons (…) as long as there are those who value their ethnicity, religions, language or culture more than money, and are willing to fight to protect what they value, the ‘inevitability’ of an English-language-based New World Order is in jeopardy (Qiang and Wolff 2005: 58-59).

Much more frequently, though, scholars advance arguments pertaining to “the preservation of linguistic and conceptual diversity” and consider restraining the power and impact of English as a moral and humanistic obligation to defend the numerous small and endangered languages66 (Mühlhäusler 1996: 338). On the other hand, it is pointed out that these days the knowledge of a global language is a must and that depriving one of a chance to learn it may be regarded as an infringement on the right to the equality of opportunities. In this vein, it is argued that people want to learn a global language because of its “functional complementarity: things can be done with this language – things that they want to do – that cannot be done, or done successfully, without it” (Halliday 2003: 411). Accordingly, many countries have adopted a language policy which aims at teaching children first written language, then standard language and at last world language (see Halliday 2003: 411). In my judgment, a reasonable management of the global language for the needs of a given state/nation should, thus, take into account the two sides of the coin and avoid any extreme policies which could be disadvantageous for both the identity and/or aspirations of a given population or a community.

66

Importantly, one should note that it is argued that even though “[t]he use of linguistic power and politics invariably results in the suffering of language minorities – and not uncommonly in the devouring of the smaller linguistic fish by a powerful language (…) the accusing finger cannot be pointed only at English for causing language death” (Kachru 2006f: 210). Kachru (2006f: 210) points out that language death may be in some cases “inevitable” and relates it to the following causal factors “(a) a demographically insignificant number of speakers (b) the pragmatically highly restricted domains of a language, and (c) economic and societal discrimination against the use of a language.”

160

2.4.2. Linguistic human rights and the English language

The English language emerges as a powerful force seriously affecting the cultural and linguistic environment of innumerous populations and one capable of causing social inequality on the basis of unequal access to the powerful domains that it controls. Because scholars frequently attest that “[l]anguage is for most ethnic groups one of the most important cultural core values” and that “[a] threat to an ethnic group’s language is thus a threat to the cultural and linguistic survival of the group”, it seems essential to ensure that English does not contribute to violating either human or linguistic rights to preserve one’s identity (Phillipson et al. 1995: 7). Skutnabb-Kangas (1997: 64) maintains that it is in the interest of states and governments themselves to advocate the promotion of linguistic rights because “absence or denial of linguistic and cultural rights are today effective ways of promoting the ‘ethnic conflict’ and ‘ethnic tension’ which are seen as the most important possible reasons for unrest, conflict and violence in the world.” More generally, the reason why language may constitute a source of serious conflicts derives from its importance in the life of an individual and for the existence of the community to which he/she belongs. Chen (1998: 46-47) reminds that the significance of language lies, among others, in the following facts:

1. the essence of being human consists to some degree in using language; 2. human identity develops dialogically through contact, relations, interaction and dialogue with others – all of which are accomplished through the medium of language; 3. language facilitates interaction and mutual understanding between human beings; 4. languages as an embodiment of the culture and history of a given people are, like diversity of cultures, good, valuable and enriching to the world.

Accordingly, the necessity of developing and implementing language policy and language planning with respect to English, which is frequently recognized as a threat to the existence of many small languages and the vitality of even the big ones, may be

161

regarded as stemming from the obligation to recognize and respect human rights,67 in general, and linguistic rights, in particular. To elaborate on the notion of language rights, it should be noted that the bases of linguistic rights may be regarded as underpinned by the principle that the equality of all human languages stems from the fact that all of them are believed to be “equally highly developed in the sense that they have the potential to meet the needs of their users adequately” (Chen 1998: 46). Furthermore, it is pointed out that language rights “may be regarded as special cases of the general theory of human rights (…) insofar as human rights are rooted in a moral principle of respect and concern for the dignity, value and worth of each human being and his or her vital needs and interests” (Chen 1998: 49). Drawing on Habermas, Chen (1998: 51) asserts that “[g]iven that the individual’s identity is formed intersubjectively by socialization within a particular culture (…), respect for the individual entails the protection of the integrity of the individual in such cultural context, and hence also the right to existence of the relevant cultural form of life and tradition itself.” Phillipson (1998: 102) seems to maintain that such a right should encompass “the achievement of equality between languages, the right to use a particular language in specific contexts, or the right to an education that validates one’s linguistic and cultural heritage and equips one for contemporary political, technological and cultural landscapes.” As regards the concept of language rights itself, it is argued that:

Language rights are the rights of individuals and collective linguistic groups to noninterference by the State, or to assistance by the State, in the use of their own language, in perpetuating the use of the language and ensuring its future survival, in receiving information and State-provided services in their own language, and in ensuring that their exercise of other lawful rights, particularly fundamental human rights (e.g. the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to receive education, the right to employment), will not be handicapped or subject to discrimination for linguistic reasons (Chen 1998: 49).

Importantly, it should be born in mind that language rights, despite their moral bases, require practical enforcement and protection by legal and political means (see Chen 1998: 48). The recognition and preservation of language rights can be achieved through “a democratically evolved consensus, nationally and supranationally, on the forms that 67

Phillipson et al. (1995: 10) point out that “[a]s the goal of human rights is to maintain and protect humane values, they recognize the right to identity as a cultural characteristic of both minorities and majorities. The right to self-determination is a basic principle in international law, aimed at recognizing the right of peoples (not only states) to determine their own political, economic and cultural destiny, possibly within their own sovereign state, and hence avoid being assimilated.”

162

linguistic hierarchisation takes in any given context, and what measures, political and educational, need to be taken to achieve desired societal goals” (Phillipson 1998: 110). As the diversity of human languages is indicative of and contributory to the diversity of human cultures, for the sake of preserving this richness, it is essential to look into the processes of cultural/linguistic homogenization brought about by English as the major means of communication for the global village of the present day world. It is argued that in the 21st century due to modernization, globalization and assimilation around 90% of all world’s languages may face the danger of extinction (see, for instance, Chen 1998: 45). Phillipson (1998: 102) also explicates that “there is overwhelming evidence of linguicide, with speakers of ‘world languages’ as active agents in the demise of other languages.” To elaborate, the necessity to secure the vitality and existence of many languages seems to derive from the fact that:

Languages are today disappearing at a faster pace than ever before in human history. What happens is linguistic genocide on a massive scale, with formal education and media as the main concrete culprits but with the world’s political, economic and military structures as the more basic causal factors. Big languages turn into killer languages, monsters that gobble up others, when they are learned at the cost of the smaller ones. Instead, they should and could be learned in addition to the various mother tongues (Skutnabb-Kangas 2003: 33).

In this light, Spolsky (2004: 83) points out that “policy of primary education in the mother tongue and secondary and higher education in a major language is accepted nowadays in much of the world as the implementation of basic human rights.” Phillipson et al. (1995: 10) further explicate that there are hierarchies of language rights with the right to mother tongues as the most important followed by the rights to second languages (“a language of national integration, a second language for linguistic minorities, a second variety (in the sociolinguistic sense of particular registers) for linguistic majorities”) and foreign languages. It is also held that educational language rights68 are the most significant for they ensure linguistic and cultural diversity in the world (Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 56). With English as the most commonly learned language all over the world, it has become essential to ensure that its acquisition is not

68

Skutnabb-Kangas (1997: 55) asserts that “[l]anguage rights in education are central for the maintenance of languages and for prevention of linguistic and cultural genocide, regardless of whether this education happens in schools, formally, or in the homes and communities, informally, and regardless of whether and to what extent literacy is involved. Transmission of languages from the parent generation to children is the most vital factor for the maintenance of languages.”

163

to the detriment of mother tongues (subtractive learning) but rather, in addition to them (additive learning) (see Skutnabb-Kangas 2003: 48). It turns out that it is the practical side of ensuring language rights for individuals and communities which constitutes the greatest problems for various governments and organizations. Looking at the history of linguistic human rights in international treaties and charters one may easily notice that language together with race and religion has been regarded as one of the most basic rights that people should be entitled to (Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 55ff). However, much as the importance of language is commonly emphasized in “the non-duty-inducing phrases in the preambles”, the final clauses often fail to encompass language rights or are practically non-binding (e.g. optout clauses) (Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 57). Importantly, it is argued that “[d]enial of linguistic human rights, linguistic and cultural genocide and forced assimilation through education are still characteristic of many states, notably in Europe and Neo-Europes” (Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 60).69 Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1997: 29) note that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, several Council of Europe and OSCE (the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) documents recognize the importance of preserving linguistic rights as a part of general human rights, but they fail to emphasize this need in the educational context.70 Moreover, the documents may be regarded as ambiguous and open to various interpretations (for details see Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 29ff). In addition, the EU’s language policy is regarded as expensive, ostensible multilingualism, “an illusion of equality”, whereby all member states’ languages have equal status (House 2003: 562). The multilingual principle underlying the institutions of the European Union refers to the formal equality which proclaims that national languages of member states are all official and working languages in the supranational institutions of the European Union (see Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 28).71 Nonetheless, in practice French and English enjoy greater rights, with the former being still very important in the internal affairs of the

69

Phillipson et al. (1995: 4) explicate that a reason for this state of affairs may be a myth that “monolingualism is desirable for economic growth” and that “minority rights are a threat to the nation state”, to its unity and integrity. 70 The importance of language rights in education lies in the fact that they, if not ensured, may fail to protect the identity of people and their languages, which, in turn, may lead to the assimilation of minorities (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 29). In fact, Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1997: 30) note that “[m]inorities are allowed to use their languages in private, but not in state-financed schools.” 71 It should be noted that the principle does not apply to such big European languages as Catalan, a tongue which is spoken by over six million speakers.

164

European Commission (yet, English is becoming increasingly more dominant here) and the latter in the external business of the EU (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 28). In light of the unquestionable importance and actual protection of language rights, it seems unsurprising that Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1997: 34) argue that “[t]he need for language policy to contribute to the elaboration of democratic scenarios that acknowledge the fact of ethnolinguistic diversity and contribute to harmonious coexistence between minority, majority and international languages is manifest.” Morever, bearing in mind the global dominance of the English language, the development of wise and context-sensitive language management seems to be ever more required. It seems that language planning and policy with respect to English should concern, at least, the following issues:

1. protecting the vitality and/or survival of those languages which may be endangered by the dominance of the English language; 2. safeguarding the dignity of speakers of smaller languages and the right to dignity of speakers of English as a foreign language; 3. providing, at least, primary and secondary education in national languages; 4. granting everyone the right and equal opportunities to learn English or, if chosen so by students and their parents, some other languages of wider/international currency.

To my mind, given the influence of English on almost all linguistic ecologies and its significance for ever more populations of people, it seems necessary (when seeking a balance between the right to equality of opportunities and the right to dignity and preservation of one’s national, ethnic, and linguistic identity) to take into consideration the arguments advanced in the discourse on linguistic human rights.

2.4.3. Local linguistic ecology with English in the back- (or maybe) fore-ground

As a result of the era of imperialism and colonialism, English has come to constitute an important element of the linguistic ecology of the world at large, with Africa and Asia as the most notable examples (see Kachru 1986: 4). Even after British and American colonies gained independence the position of English in them has not, in most cases, 165

weakened. It is argued that at least in some former colonies the language continues to be used because indigenous elites perceive English as a means of preserving their access to power or because it is frequently the only neutral means of communication in various multilingual and multiethnic settings (Romaine 2006a: 52). More generally speaking, it is pointed out that:

English continues to alter the linguistic behavior of people across the globe, and it is now the major instrument of initiating large-scale bilingualism around the world–being a bilingual now essentially means knowing English and using English as an additional language, as a language of wider communication, with one or more languages from one’s region (Kachru 2006a: 72).

The impact of English on intranational linguistic ecology is often perceived unfavorably and many nations throughout the world are engaged in status and corpus planning – “[i]ntranational bilingual policy is often a very serious and very conscious (even selfconscious) affair” (Fishman 1977c: 331). In fact, actions aimed at protecting the vitality of national/ethnic languages and curbing the dominance of English in various functional domains are recognized as desirable in increasingly more linguistic ecologies (cf. Fishman 1977c: 332). The spread of English is argued by some scholars to be getting increasingly more sociofunctionally controlled in the sense that it is becoming more a co-language of government, commerce, industry and finance rather than a sole language to be used in these domains (see Fishman 1977c: 335). Thus, it is suggested that the role played by English in local linguistic ecologies may be regarded as partnership or complementary. In this vein, it is noted that:

English in most former British and American colonies and spheres of interest is now no longer as much a reflection of externally imposed hegemony (certainly not a hegemony maintained by force, let alone by foreign forces) as it is part of the everyday discourse of various now substantially autonomous societies, all of whom are essentially following their own ‘commonsense needs and desires’ (Fishman 1996b: 639).

In such (but also other) contexts governmental policy may, on the one hand, consist in “the fostering of English, whether for the population as a whole or for specific sectors of governmental employees”, and, on the other, taking action against its hegemony and influence (Fishman 1996b: 633). Importantly, it should be remarked that one direction in policy does not necessarily exclude the other. It may frequently be attested that governments adopt a language policy which aims at both providing English language

166

instructions and protecting national/ethnic languages against its overwhelming impact. To my mind, the language policy of balancing out the negative consequences resulting from the extensive use of English and the common-sense, need-analysis approach of adopting the language, at least in some domains, seems to constitute a reasonable compromise that many countries seek to arrive at. Nevertheless, it is obvious that real-life situations may pose challenges for language planners that are difficult to overcome. The EU language policy, for instance, prides itself on providing all member states equal rights to communicate in their own national languages, yet, in the EU headquarters some languages appear to enjoy greater rights. Phillipson (2003: 27) asserts that the situation in the EU is that “pragmatic considerations, market forces, and a myth of the equality of the official languages ensure that some languages are more equal than others. This represents a continuation of the historical hierarchization processes that have privileged a single language within each state, and languages of conquest and empire internationally.” In the same vein, House (2003: 561) points out that “[i]t is also an open secret that the EU’s supposedly humane multilingualism is but an illusion.” Furthermore, a point is made that:

As has happened in many parts of the world before, a diglossia situation is now developing in Europe – English for various ‘pockets of expertise’ and non-private communication on the one hand, and national and local varieties for affective, identificatory purposes on the other hand. As a language with a high communicative value, ELF has naturally acquired a special status in the European Union (EU) that sets it off from all other EU languages (House 2003: 561).

Importantly, it is maintained that “[l]anguage policy is such a sensitive political issue that serious analysis of how the present system operates in EU institutions and networking has never been undertaken” (Phillipson 2003: 21). Consequently, a laissezfaire language policy continues to shape the linguistic ecology of the EU and pose a threat to the vitality of many national and regional languages in the EU.

2.4.4. Managing the spread and status of English - diminishing the bad sides of its dominance? In my estimation, that the English language in the glocal context requires some forms of control appears to be a quite clear and widely accepted fact. However, a consensus between scholars on the methods, and the degree of necessary language management 167

with respect to English is far from being arrived at. Some linguists point to the difficulty of designing and enforcing language policy and note that a success may be achieved only when, if at all, such management encompasses both “a combination of government power and ideological strength” (Spolsky 2004: 223). Still less optimistically, Wright (2004: 136) adds that the “gigantism” of English is such that “language planners at the national level can only respond to this phenomenon and not direct it.” It is even suggested that:

It may well be the case (…) that the English language has already grown to be independent of any form of social control. There may be a critical number or critical distribution of speakers (analogous to the notion of critical mass in nuclear physics) beyond which it proves impossible for any single group or alliance to stop its growth, or even influence its future. (…) It may be that English, in some shape or form, will find itself in the service of the world community for ever (Crystal 2003: 190-191).

Nonetheless, despite such opinions there are still a host of scholars who advocate language control with respect to English and strive to prevent local linguistic ecologies from being eroded by the impact of this hegemonic language. First of all, one should note that it has been recognized by some scholars that the English language itself may serve as a tool for resisting its own exploitative power. In this vein, Halliday (2003: 417) asserts that “[r]ather than trying to fight off global English, which at present seems to be rather quixotic venture, those who seek to resist its baleful impact might do better to concentrate on transforming it, reshaping its meanings, and its meaning potential.” For the scholar it seems obvious that “if you want to resist the exploitative power of English, you have to use English to do it” and that if people have no opportunity to learn the language, they will be deprived of the power that English bestows on its speakers (Halliday 2003: 416). Similarly, R. Alexander (2003: 93) argues that the opposition to the present global world order, in which English plays a vital role, may come from the language itself since “the formulation of alternatives can and, perhaps in view of the increasing internationalization of the opposition to global institutions, must proceed in part through English.” It is even suggested that English may unwittingly turn out to be “an agent of reform and fairness” since the language may be the medium through which popularizing human rights may be accomplished (Toolan 2003: 53). In fact, as Wright (2004: 147, 174) points out, English is already used by various organizations as a vehicle of expressing protests “against the inequalities of the globalised market systems” and “it can become the

168

means by which regulation and redistribution could be negotiated and a constraining consensus built.” To my mind, English as a world language cannot be neutral in terms of the discourses that it expresses, yet, it should be born in mind that the global reach of the language and its almost universal command may just as well serve for the benefit as to the disadvantage of people all over the world. According to Fishman (1977c: 335), an international sociolinguistic balance of power hinges on three divergent processes: the diffusion of English, its control and the protection of local, regional and national vernaculars. To specify, the spread of English conceived as a process working to the maintenance of the balance should be accompanied by the dispersion of its image as a language of “technological modernity and power” (Fishman 1992: 19). Fishman (1992: 19) explicates that “[t]his image is itself both influenced by and, in turn, contributory to an international sociolinguistic balance of power that characterizes the latter part of the twentieth century.” It is argued that this association seems to be maintained most of all by and for the sake of nonnative speakers of English whose common sense policy leads them to seek integration into a global market system, the lingua franca of which is currently English (Fishman 1992: 19, Fishman 1996b: 639). On the other hand, Fishman (1992: 19-20) points out that the spread of English requires to be controlled, regulated and tamed and that it is manifested in language policies of many local political authorities which engage in functional fostering and regulation of the language. As a matter of fact, the efforts of implementing status and corpus planning with respect to English seem to be far more strenuous, frequent and determined than towards any other languages of wider communication (see Fishman 1992: 20-21). In regard to corpus planning, it is noted that the power of English lexemes seems to be such that the influx of English loanwords tends to oppose any attempts at management quite well (Fishman 1977a: 130). For corpus planners the arduousness of this task is made even more strenuous by the fact that a host of loanwords come from below and lose their English foreign-markedness relatively swiftly (see Fishman 1977a: 130). Nevertheless, Fishman (1996b: 639) elucidates that “a similarly powerful trend is occurring in the opposite direction, in the direction of asserting, recognizing, and protecting more local languages, traditions, and identities – even at the state level – than ever before in world history.” This constitutes the third force sustaining the sociolinguistic balance and one ensuring that “a language of wider communication can be retained for international and intergroup functions without perceived threat to the 169

national language” (Nadel and Fishman 1977: 165). In this way, national languages will continue to hold its position in the domains of education, government and as a medium for everyday conversations (Nadel and Fishman 1977: 164f). For Fishman the uniqueness of the present situation consists in the fact that, these days, multilingualism (especially with English as an additional language) enjoys considerable recognition, sponsorship, as well as planning and goes together with the protection of national and subnational languages on the part of ever more governments (see Fishman 1992: 23). Finally, it should be noted that Fishman’s common-sense stance seems to be expressed by his avowal that “‘[a] little bit of English for almost everyone’ is considered a good thing, as is a lot of English for a select few, provided the language can be confined to its allotted domains” (Fishman 1992: 21). Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas are scholars whose much academic work has been dedicated to issues concerning linguistic human rights, linguistic inequality and the preservation of traditional linguistic ecology. According to their complementary visions, the management of English and other languages of wider communication should be considered a matter of linguistic human rights and subject to language planning efforts. Phillipson (2003: 20) argues that “language policy ought to be central to the study of contemporary English, because of the interlocking of English with the multiple manifestations of globalization” and owing to the fact that “English is a key dimension of globalization and europeanization.” Importantly, Phillipson and SkutnabbKangas (1997: 37) point out that language itself cannot pose a threat to linguistic and human equality, yet, the functions of the language (for instance, “hierarchizing or democratizing access to information, goods and services”) as well as the manner of its acquisition (subtractive vs. additive)72 can and, in fact, according to their linguistic imperialistic framework they do so. It is asserted, for instance, that the present supranational language policy in the EU is dominated by the market forces which contribute to reinforcing linguistic hierarchies with English at the top of the pecking order (Phillipson 2003: 22). For Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1997: 39), the foundations of global language policy aimed at managing the spread and hegemony of such languages of wider communication as English should solidly rest on both the principles of linguistic 72

Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas (1997: 40) explain that an additive type of learning means that “other languages, especially national minority languages, have substantial guaranteed rights anyway” and that subtractive learning can indicate that “the ‘protection’ of the official language encroaches heavily on the rights of other languages in the country.”

170

human rights and the ecology of language. As regards the paradigm of the ecology of language, the researchers refer to a model in which language policy is seen as encompassing the following: a human rights perspective, equality in communication, multilingualism, maintenance of national sovereignties and the promotion of foreign language education (Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 39). In this vein, Phillipson (1998: 110) asserts that “planned languages or polyglot communication” should constitute an alternative to linguistic imperialism. This model of ecology of language is believed to stand in sharp contrast to the diffusion of English paradigm which involves capitalism, science and technology, modernization, monolingualism, ideological globalization and internationalization, transnationalization, Americanization and homogenization of world culture, and finally, linguistic, cultural as well as media imperialism. In view of this, it is argued that supranational legislation, for instance, UN covenants or regional charters can establish appropriate principles and have a bearing on the practice at national and/or subnational levels (Phillipson 1998: 109). Such supranational surveillance is regarded as a needed counterweight to linguistic dominance

and

internationalization

“which

[are]

propelling

forward

certain

technologies, products, practices, and types of communication and discourse–and languages, particularly English” (Phillipson 1998: 110). It is pointed out that the following methods are already applied by some countries to resist the hegemony of English (see Phillipson 1998: 108):

1. allocating a specific minimum amount of time for broadcasting music in a national/local language; 2. ensuring that English and a local language are the mediums through which the Internet operates; 3. making academics publish also in a local/national language; 4. securing that information for consumers on products is provided in a local language.

Such (and probably many other) measures are perceived by Phillipson and SkutnabbKangas as vital in securing the position of vernacular languages in their local linguistic ecology. Moreover, it is argued that “[f]or the principles underlying the abstract global rhetoric of formulations of linguistic human rights to be experienced locally 171

presupposes vigorous and democratic commitment to the local ecology of language” (Phillipson 1998: 111). According to Phillipson (1998: 110), language policy must become “a multidisciplinary scientific activity” which should both encompass a human rights, supranational perspective and involve “the dominant political discourse in each state.” Importantly, a point is made that a greater focus on the local political, social, technological and cultural agendas will not lead to an exclusion from involvement in global affairs (Phillipson 1998: 111). Kachru’s stance on the issue of the management of the diffusion and status of English is based on his conviction that every state is to determine both “its own evolving linguistic destiny” and “the dose and intensity of English in its language policies” (Kachru 2006e: 270). Because of the large number of non-native speakers of English, the management of its spread is perceived to be increasingly less controlled by native users of the language (Kachru 2006b: 452). Furthermore, an argument is put forward that even though “[a]ttitudes may (…) be important exponents of an underlying motive for language policies”, they “cannot provide a sound base for developing a policy” (Kachru 1991: 218). These days language choice and language hierarchy are most of all influenced by “the wider political, ethnic and religious considerations” and due to the role of English for the world and international relations, the language is likely to impact on global language policies (Kachru 2006e: 270). As regards the major issues to be considered by language policy makers, they concern the choice of linguistic resource for corpus planning and the place of English in a (multilingual) educational system (Kachru 2006e: 271). As Kachru (2006e: 256) asserts, the task of resisting the impact of English may be impossible to achieve because the language and its overwhelming influence may come “through the channels which bypass the strategies devised by language planners and these are often ‘invisible’ (…) or ‘unplanned’.” Kachru (1991: 215) distinguishes between visible and invisible (unplanned) language planning and explicates that the former pertains to “the organized efforts to formulate language policies by recognized agencies” and the latter, frequently contradictory, refers to “the efforts of generally unorganized, non-governmental agencies for acquiring and using a language.” Invisible language planning is believed to be shaped by the following factors: parents’ attitudinal reactions towards a language, the significance of the (international) media, the role of the peers, various societal pressures as well as “the models of creativity”, and “processes of translation” (Kachru 1991: 215; Kachru 2006e: 256). A point is made that thanks to the spread of English it is now clear that language 172

policies can be directed by various pressure groups and adjusted (even against language planners’ agendas) to “meet the real political demands or to project an ideological image” (e.g. India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh) (Kachru 1991: 215). Consequently, the invisible channels and strategies (they are difficult to control) may be considered to be determining the spread and functional range of English to a greater extent than the planned efforts (see Kachru 2006e: 272). To conclude, it seems that even though Kachru recognizes the need to manage English as a world language (its spread and status), he believes that the task may be too hard to be successful since ‘language managers’ may have too poor tools to control both the invisible and visible channels of the dispersion of English. The problem of the management of English as a world language is one that seems to be of concern for a host of language scholars. Their contribution to the discussion on the subject is indicative of their varied stances on a wide array of issues (language planning, language and power, ecology of language, linguistic human rights etc.), and their major areas of interests. Pennycook’s point of departure, for instance, are arguments that global relations are not “reducible to the political economy”, that “diverse cultural practices [including those language-related] may be the site of cultural imposition, struggle, resistance and appropriation” and, following Luke et al. (1990: 39), that “[w]hile language, in the sterile sense linguistics has attached to it, can be ‘planned’, discourse cannot’” (Pennycook 1994: 66, 69). Pennycook (1994: 69) acknowledges that it is important to protect languages the vitality or existence of which may be endangered, yet, his focus is rather not on language planning but on critical pedagogy which “could intervene between English and the discourses with which it is linked.” It should be noted that Pennycook’s critical standpoint entails “a view that on the one hand makes language more central to global relations (more worldly) but on the other allows for struggle, resistance and different appropriations of language, opening up a space for many different meaning-making practices in English” (Pennycook 1994: 69). This resistance and appropriation perspective seems to be a special interest of Canagarajah who investigates the daily practices of teaching and using English in postcolonial Sri Lanka (Canagarajah 1999). Canagarajah (1999: 2) concentrates on the agency of people “to think critically and work out ideological alternatives that favor their own empowerment” and argues that “while language may have a repressive effect, it also has the liberatory potential of facilitating critical thinking, and enabling subjects 173

to rise above domination: each language is sufficiently heterogeneous for marginalized groups to make it serve their own purpose.” Accordingly, his stance is not against English; he does not advocate renouncing the language. In his view, the management of the English language should consist in its reconstitution “in more inclusive, ethical and democratic terms” (Canagarajah 1999: 2). At the same time, one should reject any deterministic perspectives on power which view languages “as monolithic, abstract structures that come with a homogeneous set of ideologies, and function to spread and sustain the interests of dominant groups” (Canagarajah 1999: 2). Swales’ contribution to the discussion is his postulate that the management of English should also take place in the academic world and become an important concern for EAP teachers who could help resist the triumphalism of English leading to the erosion of a host of specialized registers73 (Swales 1997). It is noted that while in some countries the major concern is with the development of indigenous scholarly genres, in others the preservation of them is at stake (this is so since scholars prefer to publish their best works in English) (Swales 1997: 378f). An argument is also advanced that despite some attempts at fostering scientific genres, linguists and applied linguists are largely unconcerned with them (Swales 1997: 378). The Unites States still remain “the global academic gate-keeper” – in 1994 around 31% of all papers which appeared in major journals came from the USA (Swales 1997: 376). It is pointed out that this situation could be remedied by undertaking at least the following steps (Swales 1997: 373, 379, 380):

1. “further research into the academic registers of languages other than English”; 2. “support for local-language scholarly publications”; 3. “using the current controversies as consciousness-raising exercises in EAP classes”; 4. “‘fostering academic intergenerational register transmission’ whereby older scholars, as practiced and fluent users of threatened registers, undertake greater responsibility in helping younger ones acquire these special registers”; 73

Swales (1997: 378) notes that the genres of religious practice and the law (they reflect “a history of national development divorced from international engagements”) can be regarded as quite secure. Nonetheless, the genres of the media (film, theater, television, pop music, radio, print journalism) and of science can be thought to be at risk.

174

5. maintaining indigenous, cultural-specific rhetorical practices on the part of non-anglophone scholars writing in English.

An interesting argument is also put forward by House (2003: 562) who postulates an official adoption of ELF as the language for international communication within the European Union. According to her, the advantages of such a language policy would be numerous because “[o]nce the position of English as the vehicular language were recognized, resources would be freed for supporting all other European languages. ELF would need to be taught intensively and early on as a true second language” (House 2003: 562). Furthermore, thanks to this kind of policy and management, “[m]ore money and time could then be allotted for teaching and otherwise supporting other European languages (especially minority languages) in a flexible fashion, tailor-made to regionally and locally differing needs” (House 2003: 562).

2.4.5. Final notes

In my estimation, the management of English, a language generally perceived as the only global lingua franca of the present day world, should aim at balancing out two, sometimes conflicting, policy lines of providing access to English language instructions (as a means of ensuring equal educational opportunities) and, most of all, restraining its undesirable impact on numerous native societies, cultures, and languages. Regarding the latter aspect, developing a reasonable and humane language policy with respect to a world language is of paramount importance. Therefore, it should be born in mind, as AlDabbagh (2005: 6) points out, that the bases of “a single international language” should lie “in the transformation of the very conditions that gave rise to the oppressive domination of those languages” and that extirpating cultural imperialism must, at least partly, consist in overthrowing linguistic dominations. Importantly, one should discern that “[t]he linguistic situation can be no more than the reflection of the social and political situation (…) The linguistic and cultural subordination of the peoples of the

175

world is a reflection of their economic and political subordination” (Al-Dabbagh 2005: 5).74 Generally speaking, as regards resistance to the cultural-cum-linguistic hegemony of English, an important point is made by Bolton (2006b: 288-289) who notes that there is no comparison between the severity of consequences ensuing from engagement in the resistance in “first-world setting[s]”, where it is mainly rhetorical, and in contexts (especially developing countries) where such activism may result in hazarding personal or family safety either financial or otherways. One should also realize that calls for opposition to English are issued at a hard time for many scholars. Increasingly more academics working in the humanities struggle themselves with the phenomenon of “the redeployment of resources away from the humanities to the natural sciences or business schools as part of a culture of educational corporatization that has gained momentum in the last two decades or so” (Bolton 2006b: 288-289). In this light, it seems even more possible that despite the fact that the critical approach to the global dominance of English (followed by ideas concerning the management of the language) is being adopted by a host of researchers, their work is likely to remain essentially undervalued or even unnoticed by scholarly and laymen populations at large (cf. Swales 1997: 377).

2.5.

Some selected sociolinguistic aspects of teaching English to the world

2.5.1. Introduction

The knowledge of English has got indispensable not only for global trade, business and politics but also increasingly so for everyday participation in the ever more globalized world. Unsurprisingly, the English language and English teaching industry have come to become a global phenomenon having a bearing on the spheres of international, intranational and individual activities (cf. Pennycook 1994: 5). The English language enterprise should be understood is a large industry encompassing “all the teachers, administrators, agents, publishers, academics, and others involved in selling a 74

Similarly, Wright (2004: 174) argues “[a] language will always have ideological associations, but these derive from the way it is employed by its speakers. To think otherwise would be very deterministic and would misunderstand the very nature of language. We should not reify language in this debate. It is only a medium for its speakers. In this argument, a common language is a public good form which all benefit.”

176

distinctive ‘product’ on a global scale” (McArthur 2006: 90). The magnitude of the practice is indicated by the facts alone that in 1989 British Council itself had schools in 87 overseas countries with around half a million students boosting its annual turnover to 25.3 million; the UK played host to 550,000 foreign students who spent around 325 million; and finally, that annual income from English language teaching was estimated for the UK at 1 billion pounds (Greaves 1989: 14). The United States of America, in turn, were already mentioned as a country the income of which is the greatest from language-dependent products. In my judgment, it seems quite reasonable to assume that these days, due to a constant increase in the number of students and teachers of English, profits from English teaching industry are still on the increase. Nonetheless, it should be remarked that the profits do not only accrue to the UK and the US, as some scholars tend to argue, but ever more to Outer-, Expanding and other Inner-Circle countries which establish their own teaching schools and publishing houses based on the expertise of local academics and teachers.75 The English language has become a profitable source of income for both those involved in the teaching industry and those who make profits or gain other benefits from the knowledge of the language. To my mind, one could claim that the world could soon be getting divided into those teaching and learning English, with people who have no command of the language as constituting an ever smaller margin. Because of the great success of English as a product to sell and the relations between the language and business as well as British and American international policies, the enterprise of English language teaching has become, as some scholars suggest, a controversial or even suspicious activity (see, for instance, Canagarajah 1999: 3). The debate concerning the ethical and pedagogical aspects of teaching English to the world has concerned, among others, the spread of Western, anglophone and consumerist ideas across the globe by means of the English language and the American and British media popularizing certain images (cf. Skutnabb-Kangas 1997: 61). Moreover, arguments have been advanced that both individuals and countries may not, as it is maintained, opt for English of their own accord, but as a result of serious economic, political and ideological pressures (see Pennycook 1994: 12). Consequently, scholars start to pose questions if “English offer[s] Third World countries a resource that will 75

Kachru (1985: 28) argues that “[t]he teaching of English has, therefore, become everybody’s business: it has developed into an international commercial enterprise and every English-using country is capitalizing on it in its own way.”

177

help them in their development, as Western governments and development agencies would claim? Or is it a Trojan horse, whose effect is to perpetuate their dependence?” (see Canagarajah 1999: 3). It has been noted, for instance, that numerous developing and third-world countries instead of investing resources into linguistic and cultural selfdevelopment, spend time and money on intensive English language instructions in the hope of yielding profits from preparing their markets and labor force for the challenges and demands of the globalized economy and information society utilizing English as its prime means of communication (cf. R. Alexander 2003: 89-90). R. Alexander argues that:

[T]here is considerable personal, human cost entailed by English dominating the globe. It is channeling energies away from other meaning potentials and discourse systems. This is not only true for students. How do teachers cope with knowing that their teaching of a global language objectively and patently subordinates learners and users to a global framework of order with which they hold little sympathy (R. Alexander 2003: 88).

Consequently, recent critical discourse on teaching English as a foreign/second language has ceased to view EWL as a solely utilitarian language invariably contributing to peace, dialogue and development of all nations and communities throughout the world. At present, the implications resultant from teaching English and teaching English industry are understood more fully and the evaluation of the existent paradigms and models of teaching is getting ever more critical. In my estimation, it seems that these days the harshest criticism is leveled at the dogged persistence in applying native-speaker-based teaching approaches entrenched in a monolingual-cum-monocultural perception of the world and neglecting the necessity for the adjustment of teaching methods and materials to suit the sociolinguistic realities and the diverse needs of miscellaneous English language learners. In this vein, Phillipson (1997b: 203) argues that the principles underlying English teaching industry “are rooted in a monolingual world view and are therefore highly functional in making the ‘world’ dependent on native speakers norms, expertise, textbooks and methodologies, even though these are unlikely to be culturally, linguistically or pedagogically appropriate.”76 Importantly, it should be noted, as Kachru (2006f: 210) points out, that the USA, the UK and Australia compete with each other “to sell a 76

Phillipson (1997b: 203) maintains that the ELT profession is dominated by the following tenets: “English is best taught monolingually”; “the ideal teacher of English is a native speaker”; “the earlier English is introduced, the better the results”; “the more English is taught”; the better the results”; “if other languages are used much, standards of English will drop.”

178

particular model of English, to make a market for teachers (or ‘experts’) from one’s own country, to seek foreign students from a particular region of the world, and so on.” Because of all this marketing, the prestige is accorded to native speaker norms and models (especially standard British and American varieties) taught formally in schools rather than the varieties of English developed as a result of contact situations (cf. Wright 2004: 147). In this way even educational varieties from Outer Circle countries tend to be regarded as inferior and ENL countries remain to be presented as the centers unrestricted in their power to decide on what is proper and good English for all learners and users.

2.5.2. Conservative approaches concerning models of English and standards

The majority of conservative views pertaining to English language teaching and usage are rooted in standard language ideology viewing standard varieties and models as superior and appropriate for emulation in most situations and for most people. The arguments advanced to advocate a strict reliance on standard models most frequently refer to the claim that the use of a standard variety is the only reliable guarantee of intelligible and comprehensible communication both at national and international levels. In the context of international communication via English there is an emphasis on a rigid attachment to Inner Circle native-speaker norms. The recognition of endonormative Outer Circle institutionalized varieties of English and ELF is regarded as a threat to successful international communication (for instance, Greenbaum 1985: 32).77 It is language purists who spread the myth of the presumed decay in the proficiency of English around the world (including complaints over the English as spoken by native speakers of the language) (Kachru 2006c: 494-495).78 Another reason, of a more concealed nature, for the espousal of native-speaker models (with Received Pronunciation and General American as still uncontested players) may be the huge profits that accrue to the US and the UK from the English language industry and the 77

Greenbaum (1985: 32) argues that to make emerging national standards intelligible in the international context, Outer Circle countries may need to “establish language planning agencies to control the development of the national standards, to monitor the printed language, to influence public attitudes, and to promote competence in the English language in public institutions and teacher-training colleges.” 78 Kachru (2006c: 494-495) elucidates that “it is natural that thanks to widespread education there is an increase in the number of not only very proficient learners of English but also those who know English only quite well or hardly at all.”

179

English language media which in themselves are, as McArthur (2006: 90) points out, “among the many interest groups with far more to gain from the fact or concept of a single (or at most dual) world standard than a growing medley of territorial ‘brands’, regardless of the patriotic or other positions that individuals within those varied groups might support.” What follows below is a brief presentation of the arguments put forward by Randolph Quirk – a distinguished scholar and an ardent advocate of adherence to native speaker norms who engaged with Braj Kachru in the well-known English Today debate on, among others, standards, models and institutionalized varieties of English (for details see 2.7). In his lament for the dangerously spreading fashion of undermining the value of standard language, Quirk (1985: 2-3) scolds “[r]ecent emphasis (…) on multiple and variable standards (…) different standards for different occasions for different people – and each as ‘correct’ as any other.” The scholar ironically notes that “[d]isdain of élitism is a comfortable exercise for those who are themselves securely among the élite” (Quirk1985: 5-6). Quirk’s point of departure for his defense of traditional norms and models seems to be an argument that the existence and observance of standards in language, just as in dress, taste or moral and sexual behavior, is “an endemic feature of our mortal condition and that people feel alienated and disoriented if a standard seems to be missing in any of these areas” (Quirk 1985: 5-6). Much as he agrees that a heavy standard may in some very specific (and, hence, unlikely) cases affect learners’ selfrespect and local pride and contribute to developing a snobbish self-contempt, his partiality to Inner Circle models and standards remains unshakable (Quirk 1985: 5). Renouncing native speaker standards is regarded as harmful, especially for EFL and ESL countries, where English is used, according to Quirk (1985: 6), for “relatively narrow range of purposes” and where a single monochrome standard would work best. That is why he emphasizes the indispensability on the part of non-native teachers of English to be constantly preoccupied with seeking contact with the native language and support from native teachers (Quirk 2006c: 506). As regards the level of pronunciation, there are two meaningful models, RP (BBC English) and General American (network English), which were singled out as the accents “assumed to be admired by or at any rate acceptable to the greatest number of the most critical section of the public” (Quirk 1985: 3-4). Quirk (1985: 4) points out that RP was recognized as “appropriate to teach to non-native learners” and “[t]extbooks rapidly disseminated this standard, together with the congruently hieratic lexicon and 180

grammar, on a world-wide basis.” It is suggested that wherever the use of English is determined by econocultural factors and the need for successful international communication, the default choice should be standard English, a model which seems desirable, understandable and prestigious in the majority, if not all, communicative contexts (Quirk 2006b: 478ff). In this light, the development, codification, use and teaching of local standards emerging in the Outer Circle appear as a task too great and too unreasonable to be worth the work, effort and money required for their establishment (Quirk 2006b: 478ff). To conclude, a conservative stance on the models and standards of English would most readily see native speaker norms as the ones accepted and conformed by both native- and non-native users of English. A standard model of English emerges as the best means of ensuring intelligibility and comprehensibility and, what is not less meaningful, one which endows its users with the prestige and superiority that it is associated with. Conservatives maintain that in order to avoid communication breakdowns in international encounters the world should stick to a single monochrome standard model of English. Their argumentation is that people need English for international communication and that they are willing to learn the language despite the costs involved (Quirk 2006a: 222).

2.5.3. The notions of native speaker, intelligibility and its international preservation

One of the early alternatives to traditional TESL and TEFL methodologies was the TEIL approach79 developed by Smith in the 1980s. It focused on interactions via English between people (both native and non-native speakers) coming from different nations. According to the approach, native-like proficiency in English is, in itself, unlikely to be a sufficient factor ensuring successful communication and in international encounters all interactants must strive to understand each other (cf. McArthur 2004: 8). Nowadays, it is well recognized that culturally dependent differences in communicative patterns should be taught to all users of English as they seem to be one of the major impediments

79

TEIL – Teaching English as an International Language – was promoted by Peter Strevens in the UK and Larry E. Smith in the US but it did not have any significant impact on English Language Teaching practice.

181

to mutual comprehension. Contemporary, more liberal approaches tend to recognize EWL to be property of all its users. This perception contributes to undermining the idea of the native speaker as a custodian of the language. Intelligibility and norms of speaking are regarded as not so much dependent on native-speaker models and nativelike proficiency as on an expert knowledge of the principles governing communication between people coming from different nations and cultural backgrounds. The concept of native speaker80 and the idea of native-like command of English have come to be used in ELT industry as a kind of clichés referring to the most desirable model of English for learners and the only valid yardstick of their actual achievements. It is argued that the notions themselves have been far too often overused and manipulated to imply, for instance, that any native speaker is an ideal speakerhearer who has acquired a perfect knowledge and command of the same invariable standard language (cf. Mey 2006: 100ff). In this way, by identifying native speakers of English with the notion of the standard language, Inner Circle (mostly British and American) speakers of English got endowed with the power to establish the norms of proper usage of English. In many new critical approaches to teaching English to the world some criticism is leveled exactly at this native speakers’ presumed ownership of and actual control over the language. At a sociolinguistic level, some of the undesirable ramifications of this state of affairs pertain to attitudinal and identity-related issues. By indiscriminate adherence to native speaker models and regarding any deviation from them as an error, ESL and EFL users of English are far too frequently lacking in self-confidence, and linguistic selfesteem. The attitudes towards their own variety of English and those of their compatriots are excessively, and frequently groundlessly, unfavorable, which may be regarded as indicative of the impact of the standard language ideology represented in ELT industry, among others, by the concept of native speaker competence. Moreover, this situation seems to contribute to a denial of the right and possibility to develop an identity of a competent, communicative and self-assured user of English as a lingua franca. It is argued that the present status of English as a global language and its importance for the world make the language eligible to become increasingly less 80

For some time now, the notion of the native speaker has been criticized on a number of counts and scholars have made an attempt at its reconceptualization. Older, structural understandings of the concept have come to be replaced by more sociolinguistic descriptions. Davies (2006: 144-145), for instance, asserts that “[i]n my view being a native speaker is only partly about naïve naturalness [being born to be a native speaker], that is about not being able to help what you are; it is also, and in my view more importantly, about groups and identity.”

182

controlled and ‘owned’ by native speakers. Ferguson (1992: xvi) asserts that the control over the future structure, usage and beliefs of English as a world language is passing to non-native speakers of English and that EWL may “take on a life of its own, diverging from its source”, just as it was the case with a standard variety of English severing with its source dialect. This scenario may happen the more so as native speakers’ selfassurance may become affected due to differences in the formal characteristics of the dialects (and accents) used by native speakers from various locales and an increase in importance of non-native norms. A belief that a native speaker has a perfect command of the standard language with his/her speech being perfectly intelligible to others seems to have become something of a truism in the mainstream ELT industry. The issue of intelligibility is the major argument advanced in conservative approaches to ELT against teaching any other pronunciation models but standard native ones (especially RP and GA). Nevertheless, increasingly more scholars point out that international intelligibility requires the effort of all participants since a speech act is not “a one-way process in which non-native speakers are striving to make themselves understood by native speakers whose prerogative it was to decide what is intelligible and what is not” (cf. Bamgbose 1998: 10). It is also argued that a decontextualized assessment of the pronunciation differences between varieties of English contributes hardly at all to understanding intelligibility, for in real-life situations communication involves “making allowance for the accent and peculiarities of the other person’s speech” (Bamgbose 1998: 11). Intelligibility has been shown to be a multifaceted process which encompasses “recognizing an expression, knowing its meaning, and knowing what that meaning signifies in the sociocultural context” (Bamgbose 1998: 11). To elaborate, L. Smith (2006: 69) explicates that mutual understanding between two interactants is neither speaker-centered nor listener-centered but interactional and should be viewed as a continuum comprising three levels with the first being at the lowest and the third at the highest level of comprehension:

1. intelligibility – word/utterance recognition; 2. comprehensibility – word/utterance meaning (locutionary force); 3. interpretability – meaning behind word/utterance (illocutionary force).

183

Empirical research suggests that both interlocutors’ proficiency and familiarity with topics and different speech varieties facilitate successful cross-cultural communication in English (L. Smith 2006: 75f). To specify, it is pointed out that:

Evidence supports the position that there are major differences between intelligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability as defined in the study. Intelligibility (word/utterance recognition) is easier than comprehensibility (word/utterance meaning) or interpretability (meaning behind word/utterance). Being able to do well with one does not ensure that one will do well with the others. Having familiarity with the information presented did not seem to affect any of the three groups, but those subjects having a greater familiarity with different varieties of English performed better on the tests of interpretability than did those who lacked such familiarity. Being familiar with topic and speech variety did affect the subjects’ perceptions of how well they had understood. Language proficiency does influence intelligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability, but it seems to be most important for comprehensibility (L. Smith 2006: 79).

Importantly, it was recognized that fluency in English and familiarity with various varieties of English were more important than the fact of being a native. Consequently, native speakers are not, invariably, more readily understood than non-native, fluent users of English as a second or foreign language. In view of this, L. Smith (2006: 79) argues that “[t]he results indicate that the increasing number of varieties of English need not increase the problems of understanding across cultures, if users of English develop some familiarity with them.” Therefore, the notions that the native speaker’s speech is the most intelligible and that he/she is the only eligible person for passing judgments about the intelligibility of others should be regarded as a myth, complete but powerful. Interestingly, L. Smith (2006: 79) points out that it is an important and positive finding that non-native speakers of English can pass as users of a standard variety of English even despite their sounding different. A final remark about successful communication, as viewed by L. Smith, is his comment that “[o]ur speech/writing in English needs to be intelligible only to those with whom we wish to communicate in English” and that for more than two centuries there have been English-speaking people in the world who might not be readily intelligible to other users of the language (L. Smith 2006: 68). To reiterate, succeeding in international communication in English, just as in any other language when used as a lingua franca, depends only partly on the command of the linguistic code. It seems that the following are at least equally important: interpretability, “understanding and adjusting to the different discourse strategies which were used for interaction by different groups of people” as well as “an understanding of norms of social behaviour” (Quirk and Widdowson 1985: 35). Importantly,

184

miscommunication in cross-cultural encounters is argued to be more attributable to interpretability than intelligibility and that this state of affairs is not only typical of a world language, but also of any multicultural tongues (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 389). Indeed, problems of interpretability also occur in interactions among native speakers coming from different generations, backgrounds, classes, cultures or subcultures. It is aptly noticed that such problems must be surmountable because otherwise “language would not extend beyond the barriers of a particular culture” (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 389). Furthermore, a point is made that “a world language no more needs explicit regulation than a national language. The very sociohistorical processes, the econocultural functions, that called it into being serve to ensure the mutual intelligibility of the language” (Brutt-Griffler 1998: 388). Similarly, Widdowson (1997: 144) argues that English as an international language may be able to regulate itself to continue to be an effective instrument of cross-cultural communication. More generally speaking, Widdowson (1997: 143) suggests that “resolving our dilemma is to let English diversify into kinds of independent dialect, but keep it in place as a range of registers. Speciation in the one case is counterbalanced by specialization in the other.” Furthermore, a point is made that “English, the virtual language, has spread as an international language: through the development of autonomous registers which guarantee specialist communication within global expert communities” (Widdowson 1997: 144). It is claimed that expert and professional communities using specific registers in international communication are themselves interested in keeping their register an intelligible and effective means of exchanging ideas and thoughts globally. Thanks to this self-regulation and emphasis on communicative intelligibility, ESP has been and will be effectively used for global communication. Specific registers will change and develop but as a response to the changing needs of the community of global users. It is argued that as a result of this endonormative self-control through which specific registers remain intelligible without “native-speaker custodians”, EIL (consisting of a range of registers) can become independent of Inner Circle authority and control (Widdowson 1997: 143-144). Some language scholars believe that language planning with respect to English and the global ELT industry may themselves serve to ensure successful international communication via the language. It is further elucidated that:

185

[F]or English to fulfil its functions as both a local and global medium of communication its users would need to acknowledge and acquire, where appropriate, norms for both domestic intranational and wider international communication and learn to make discriminating reference to them as occasion required. Such a suggestion places the issue of the English language in its global context within the control of educational policy and practice (Quirk and Widdowson 1985: 36).

Also Fishman (1977b: 331) points out that language planning with respect to global English contributes to counteracting “its vernacularization (and fragmentation) at the very time that it is being fostered for selected uses and users.” In the same vein, Strevens (1992: 39) claims that the ELT industry, by its unified reliance on teaching Inner Circle grammar and core vocabulary, contributes to “preserving the unity of English in spite of its great diversity.” It is argued that the influence of English teaching industry can be observed in all circles of English irrespective of the fact whether a native or non-native variety is regarded as the norm. Strevens (1992: 40) points out that “[a]s long as teachers of English continue to teach the lexicogrammar of ‘educated/educational English,’ the unity of the language will transcend its immense diversity.” The diversity that Strevens has in mind seems to relate to the development of local vocabulary and, most of all, pronunciation peculiarities. In this way, teaching English industry is regarded as one of the primary forces working to preserve international intelligibility of the English language. Nonetheless, it is rightly noticed that the conflicting centrifugal and centripetal forces found to be working in English as a world language will continue to ensure its linguistic diversity (Romaine 2006a: 46). It is argued that, on the one hand, there are strong pressures for the maintenance of intelligibility and the unity of the English language and, on the other, there is a tendency to develop novel, variety-specific structural norms and communicative styles (for instance, Indian English). McArthur (2006: 104) elaborates that “[a]n increase in variety and in local prestige seems likely to be matched by powerful pressure towards a world standard, but inherently any such standard will be a ‘federation of unequals’ that might well be compared to a pecking order.” In fact, an argument is put forward that a world federative standard, which is claimed to have been developing since 1960s, may not be “totally uniform, regionally neutral, and unarguably prestigious”, yet, it could be regarded as evolving “a manageable ‘standard’ core and a further range of negotiable comprehension” (see McArthur 2004: 11ff; McArthur 2006: 104). For the time being, though, McArthur

186

(2004: 11ff) believes that the BBC and CNN play the role of virtual global standards that seem to be universally comprehensible and accepted. According to a pluricentric view of English, the preservation of international intelligibility in communication via English may be perceived as dependent on the formation of interacting centers in which different varieties of English incorporate some nativized and codified language norms but still have “common origin, and in the case of non-native varieties, universal language learning strategies, and institutional context of language acquisition” (Bamgbose 1998: 11). Bamgbose (1998: 11) argues that nativized varieties of English should be most of all intelligible in intranational uses and speakers who would like to use English for international purposes should familiarize themselves with international norms of communication. Moreover, it is pointed out that English as a lingua franca language should remain intelligible internationally but the closeness between varieties cannot be “imposed or ensured, since the emergence of separate national norms presupposes a certain degree of divergence between varieties” (Bamgbose 1998: 11). Accordingly, one should realize that even if an international standard model emerges, it is unlikely to be indistinguishable from any native or nonnative variety because all varieties of English would have some influence upon it (Bamgbose 1998: 11).

2.5.4. ELF as a model

According to the ELF approach, the shape of English as an international language is being, or at least should be, determined more by nonnative speakers of English than native ones (cf. Seidlhofer 2004: 211). Traditional standards and models are severely criticized and it is argued that TESOL should eventually abandon its reliance on Selinker’s interlanguage theory (the perception of learners’ competence as placed on interlanguage continuum) and the view that any deviation from native-speaker standards is an error caused by transfer (Jenkins 2006: 166f). Importantly, it is pointed out that a host of speakers, especially those from the Outer Circle, neither want to reproduce the norms of Inner Circle varieties nor want to identify with native speakers. Following Brutt-Griffler’s suggestions, it is postulated that due to the current status and spread of English a focus should be shifted from individual to macro-acquisition. For ELF scholars the development of new teaching agendas should be in line with the insight 187

obtained from research on the role of identity in language learning and transformative agency of L2 learners (Jenkins 2006: 167ff). Targeting at Inner Circle English is seen as counterproductive because native standards and models are for most learners unachievable (Mauranen 2003: 517). Seidlhofer (2004: 226-227) advocates the rejection of “the notions of achieving perfect communication through ‘native-like’ proficiency in English” and the development of curricula helping to teach the skills which seem to be essential in ELF interactions, i.e. “drawing on extralinguistic cues, identifying and building on shared knowledge, gauging and adjusting to interlocutors’ linguistic repertoires, supportive listening, signaling noncomprehension in a face-saving way, asking for repetition, paraphrasing, and the like.” ELF scholars argue that rich though the theoretical literature concerning teaching EIL and intercultural communication is, this has had hardly any bearing on the unquestioned prevalence of native English models and standards in English teaching industry (Seidlhofer 2001: 140). Also Jenkins (2006: 171-172) mentions that there is a mismatch between meta level discussions, the acceptance of pluricentric models and practice. The dearth of coherent and comprehensive ELF models allows for “the economic, social and symbolic power of ‘native speaker English’ to be reproduced (…) throughout ELT institutions and practices worldwide” (Seidlhofer 2001: 135). Consequently, as Seidlhofer (2001: 134) asserts, an everyday teaching practice of millions of English instructors around the world has remained remarkably untouched by the development of theoretical issues in English language teaching. This state of affairs is regarded to be further caused by a lack of interest in describing the actual use of English in international communication as well as the market forces which favor increasingly more detailed descriptions of native varieties of English. In this light, the work on the Vienna-Oxford ELF Corpus is argued to be a first step to close the conceptual gap between theory and empirical research. Seidlhofer (2001: 133) claims that empirical research on ELF should eventually proclaim ELF users as speakers in their own right and give rise to an alternative to native-speaker norms. These days, as it is noted by Seidlhofer (2004: 228), English language teaching may be seen as “going through a truly postmodern phase in which old forms and assumptions are being rejected while no new orthodoxy can be offered in their place.” The trends seem to be that there is a noticeable shift in the field of ELT from correctness, norms, mistakes and authority to appropriateness, transformative pedagogy, learner-centredness, awareness and (self)-reflection. One should also discern a recent 188

emphasis

in

language

planning

and

education

policy on

multiculturalism,

multilingualism, polymodels and pluricentrism (Seidlhofer 2001: 134). English as an international language is viewed by ELF researchers as “a discursive construct in need of deconstruction” (Seidlhofer 2001: 135). It is maintained that scholars should work on developing a theory of learning and teaching English as an international language and that “[t]his theory needs to take into account the crosscultural nature of the use of English in multilingual communities, the questioning of native-speaker models, and the recognition of the equality of the varieties of English that have resulted from the global spread of the language” (Seidlhofer 2004: 225). Similarly, Mauranen (2003: 518) points out that there is a need to abandon native speaker norms and adapt ELT according to the changed role of English. In this vein, in bilingual contexts (where English is used as an adopted L2 language for intranational purposes) local standards should be developed and ELF should be described as a legitimate language variety which, thanks to selfregulatory

mechanisms,

may

develop

its

own

standards

of

acceptance,

comprehensibility and adequacy (Mauranen 2003: 513ff). Importantly, as regards English language teaching, the agenda of ELF researchers seems to give priority to the issues of language awareness and identity. Jenkins (2006: 173), for instance, emphasizes the need for a pluricentric approach enabling “each learner’s and speaker’s English to reflect his or her own sociolinguistic reality.” It is maintained that the significance of applying theoretical and descriptive work on ELF to ELT consists in a possibility of developing “reasonable and achievable targets”81 (Mauranen 2003: 517). Because cultural contexts in which ELF interactions take place are varied and variable people aiming at ELF target should be taught “interpersonal aspects of language and intercultural competence” (Mauranen 2003: 517). Learners should acquire those aspects of language which are easy (they are likely to correspond to core elements) and most useful for ELF interactions. The choice of core elements should be based on empirical research made possible thanks to corpus analysis. Moreover, accommodation skills are getting recognized as an ever more important element of successful communication since they enable speakers “to adjust their English for the purposes of showing solidarity with, or promoting intelligibility for, an interlocutor, without the risk of being penalized because their resulting speech 81

Importantly, it is argued that even then it must be remembered that a description of lingua franca interactions should not directly determine school curricula – “[l]anguage pedagogy should thus refer to, but not defer to, linguistic descriptions” (Seidlhofer 2004: 225). In this light, it is implied that contextual factors will determine whether ELF or native models are desirable in a given locale.

189

does not defer to native speaker norms” (Jenkins 2006: 174). Nonetheless, even scholars working in the ELF paradigm point out that the possibility of teaching ELF can start no sooner than the moment when the following conditions are satisfied (see Seidlhofer 2004: 209, 215):

1. “a conceptualization of speakers of lingua franca English as language users in their own right”; 2. “the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of, and indeed the need for, a description of salient features of English as a lingua franca”; 3. “comprehensive and reliable descriptions of salient features of ELF are available.”

Additionally, for the successful adoption of ELF as a teaching model it seems equally meaningful to develop appropriate testing methods of ELF interactions and “establish empirically some other [opposing native standards and models] means of defining an expert (and less expert) speaker of English, regardless of whether they happen to be a native or nonnative speaker” (Jenkins 2006: 174-175). It is argued that some possible problems with respect to implementing, for example, Jenkins Lingua Franca Core to school curriculum may pertain to students’ and teachers’ evaluation of this variety of English (Seidlhofer 2004: 229). In my judgment, this may be regarded as a peculiar paradox when bearing in mind the fact that one of the major objectives of ELF scholars is to satisfy non-native speakers’ of English attitudinal and identity related needs to develop a positive identity as a speaker of ELF. To elaborate, learners should be provided with a model that could satisfy them in terms of the ease of learning, self-confidence and self-esteem, as well as freedom to express identity. In this vein, it is pointed out that users of ELF should:

…feel comfortable and appreciated when speaking a foreign language. Speakers should feel they can express their identities and be themselves in L2 contexts without being marginalised on account of features like foreign accents, lack of idiom, or culturespecific communicative styles as long as they can negotiate and manage communicative situations successfully and fluently. An international language can be seen as a legitimate learning target, a variety belonging to its speakers (Mauranen 2003: 517).

190

Attitudinal consequences of and reactions to the emergence of ELF norms and models are, nevertheless, hard to predict even, as it turns out, for leading ELF scholars. It is acknowledged that:

In this regard, two questions need answering. Firstly, will the emergence of ELF norms and expanding circle varieties lead ultimately to a situation in which ELF speakers are judged on what they say rather than the (NNS) way they say it? Secondly, if and when ELF speakers’ message content is no longer evaluated in relation to NS speech styles (rather than to NS message content), will new attitudes-based (ELF) speech-style criteria emerge to replace the old NS criteria? In fact it is difficult to imagine any alternative to the latter. (…). We need to know, for example: whether acceptance of ELF norms (if and when codified) and of individual ELF varieties will be widespread and mutual among expanding circle groups (in Europe, East Asia, Latin America), or whether new hierarchies of ‘correctness’ will emerge across these groups; whether outer circle groups will also accept ELF norms and varieties; and what position inner circle speakers engaged in lingua franca communication will adopt (Jenkins 2007b: 72).

It is also maintained that the only way to help English teachers and users from the Expanding Circle are not talks about linguistic human rights or giving them access to a large native-speaker corpora but providing them with “a reconceptualization and concomitant description of ‘the language they are supposed to teach’ in terms of what it predominantly is in the world at large, namely English as a lingua franca, not English as a native language” (Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003: 145). Moreover, this boost of selfconfidence and a loss of a sense of inferiority resulting from being a non-native speaker may be achieved thanks to endowing teachers with a lingua franca corpus comprising instances of successful interactions between non-natives of English (Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003: 143). Setting the example of Outer Circle varieties of English, which are regarded as victorious in their fight for the acknowledgement of their own sociopolitical identities, it is postulated that “the legitimacy which has already been accorded to Outer Circle Englishes should be extended to the Expanding Circle (…) [as] it is anachronistic to deny that widespread developments in these contexts of use also constitute legitimate change which needs to be described and taken into pedagogic account” (Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003: 152). Non-native speakers are thought as eligible for the development and observance of their own norms and standards since “English constitutes an important part of their lived experience and personal identity” (Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003: 141142). The basis of the acceptance of ELF as a model is regarded to lie in the codification, which itself is believed to be “a crucial prerequisite for the emergence of

191

endonormative standards” (Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003: 141-142). Accordingly, Seidlhofer and Jenkins (2003: 145) mention that native speaker norms will persist as a default standard for non-native learners of English as long as there is no empiricallybased description of English as a lingua franca. Interestingly, it is pointed out that even linguists fighting with the dominance of native speakers’ norms have in their discourse some traits which imply that English as an international language is implicitly for them English from the Inner Circle – “ELF as a use in its own rights, and ELF speakers as language users in their own right, have not yet entered peoples’ consciousness, not even in the case of colleagues who have dedicated their working lives to protecting human language rights” (Seidlhofer 2001: 137). Unsurprising then is the fact that far more serious criticism of the concept of ELF, and ELF paradigm in general, is leveled by language scholars of other research interests and from other paradigms. Sobkowiak (2005), for instance, questions the ELF paradigm and ELF as a model for learners of English on a number of counts. First of all, he undermines the idea (seeming to form the rationale for the research effort on the part of ELF scholars) that the facts that non-native speakers of English constitute the majority of all users of English and that non-native-to-non-native interactions are more numerous than all other types of interactions can be used as sufficient arguments to oppose native-speaker models and standards and introduce such which would be entirely based on the competence of non-native experts at ELF communication (Sobkowiak 2005: 133). Sobkowiak’s argument is that “axiology does not follow from ontology” and that statistics on their own do not suffice to determine the preferability or superiority of a given model to another (Sobkowiak 2005: 133). This, as such, requires further probing since it is a function of many factors of both factual and normative nature. In this same vein, Sobkowiak (2005: 134f) points out that rejecting RP because of its sociolinguistically restricted scope does not emerge as a logical cause–effect situation. It is noted that in order to show that some behavior (linguistic or otherwise) is wrong, statistical data should necessarily be supplemented with additional normative research corroborating such a state of affairs (Sobkowiak 2005: 134f). Only then can one draw any practical conclusions to be used, in this case, in language teaching pedagogy. Furthermore, it is argued that the ELF paradigm, by its reference to unscholarly arguments of the political-correctness type, bases its argumentation on ideological pleas which do not necessarily have much linguistic or educational relevance (see Sobkowiak 192

2005: 136ff). In addition, ELF scholars’ spreading beliefs in the unteachability and unlearnability of English pronunciation are contributing to nothing else but the demotivation of students and teachers (Sobkowiak 2005: 140). This seems to run counter to the attitudes of the majority of teachers and learners who are shown to have a very favorable perception of native accents and native models of pronunciation (Sobkowiak 2005: 138). A command of native-like pronunciation is a part of the learner’s self-image, which may be related to the tendency of the listener to judge the speaker according to their pronunciation. Moreover, it is argued that: [R]esearch shows that correct pronunciation is regarded by many learners as an asset all by itself, regardless of its facilitating role in communication with foreigners (…) The inherent value of model pronunciation for learners of foreign languages, which has been confirmed by research a number of times, seems to predominate over resentments due to the fear of losing one’s identity, which some authors have raised (in methodologically less-than-quite rigorous contexts) (Sobkowiak 2005: 143).

Remiszewski’s analysis of ELF from the perspective of the feasibility and desirability of its implementation to education settings hinges on socio-psychological aspects of learning and using a language. His is an important point that sheer statistics informing about the patterns of global use of English cannot be used to conjecture about learners’ and users’ of English motivations, attitudes and needs (Remiszewski 2005: 297). His central argument seems to be that:

The language classroom is not isolated in a political context nor does it merely constitute a source of interesting linguistic event. It also consists of various human emotions, attitudes, types of motivation and levels of aptitude. It would seem obvious that once a reform is to be introduced in the classroom, all these factors should be taken into account (Remiszewski 2005: 294).

Drawing on this perspective he strives to show that traditional native-speaker models of English seem to be far more adequate, and in fact desired by users, in the majority of contexts.82 Moreover, an attempt is made at reductio ad absurdum of what he believes to be the notion of a typical ELF learner who, as Remiszewski points out: …has a well-developed sense of ethnic/national ego, which at the conscious or subconscious level, prevents him from attaining the native-like accent of a foreign language. Moreover, this learner’s articulatory motor skills are reduced to the point where learning certain English sounds becomes simply impossible. At best, it takes such a learner a significant amount of time to master them. Also, this learner neither wants nor needs to pursue authentic English accents (Remiszewski 2005: 304). 82

It is noted that users of English from South Africa, Pakistan and India differ in this respect (Remiszewski 2005: 298).

193

It is argued that only in some highly isolated circumstances native speaker pronunciation may be for learners of English a threat to their language egos (Remiszewski 2005: 294ff). There seems to be no evidence pointing to situations in which the acquisition of a native-like accent could evoke a sensation of threatened identity or make one feel uncomfortable. To corroborate such a relation, it would be necessary to find and examine speakers of English who actually have a good command of L2 accent but reject it for the sake of manifesting their L1 identity when speaking an L2 language. Meanwhile, one can refer only to numerous situations pointing to a strong feeling of discomfort or even embarrassment when one’s pronunciation is far from native-like pronunciation. In fact, it is pointed out that “many learners do want to pursue authentic accents and they are not necessarily concerned about their own language egos in pursuing this goal” (Remiszewski 2005: 305). They are willing to do so even despite the fact that they realize that they are likely to fall short of their goal of achieving a native like accent and that they will use English most of all in interactions with non-native speakers. It is maintained that their motivation to command a native like accent may be accounted for their willingness to “strive for the best” (which still for the majority of learners means following native models and standards), and their intention and hope for communicating with native speakers of English in the future (Remiszewski 2005: 300).83 Accordingly, Remiszewski (2005: 297) emphasizes the need on the part of reformers and applied linguists to probe into the attitudes, opinions and beliefs of those who would be most of all touched by any attempts at reformation, i.e. learners of English and, generally, people for whom it is not a native language. In this vein, the introduction-cum-imposition of ELF as a model to school could lead, according to a pessimistic (but rather more probable) scenario, to putting ELF learners at a disadvantage in many respects and undermining their achievements (Remiszewski 2005: 306f). In comparison to those aiming at traditional native models, ELF learners could be not only regarded as lazier, less gifted and unambitious but also discriminated against in the educational system, both public and private, and, most importantly, in the job market. Remiszewski (2005: 307) asserts that “[m]astery in a foreign language [mastery of a native model] is a sign of excellence. I am afraid that 83

Similarly, Wells (2005: 102) points out that even though the native speaker proficiency in a foreign language may be an unattainable ideal, some people – including himself – may well want to strive at it.

194

officially convincing learners that they can slack a bit and things will be fine is doing them disservice.” This may not be so if, as a positive scenario assumes, ELF learners were perceived on an equal basis with traditional learners: appreciated in the academic and social context, approved by teachers and other learners, accepted and valued in the school and workplace (Remiszewski 2005: 307). Nevertheless, to my mind, it seems that such a possibility is highly unlikely since people constantly and automatically engage in evaluating people for purposes of social comparison. Such practice, even if attempted to be value-neutral and unemotional, is probably almost never devoid of evaluative judgments. It is pointed out that as long as people tend to conflate EIL/ELF with English as spoken by native speakers “native pronunciation is bound to enjoy prestige unrivalled by any LFC model to come” (Scheuer 2005: 126f). In this light, Scheuer (2005: 126) argues that such reductionists approaches to teaching English as ELF may be enough to let people exchange information and messages but are unlikely to ensure that such learners and users of English will start to be “taken seriously in professional exchanges” and stop “com[ing] across as unintelligent, as revealed in the experiments.” Moreover, it is maintained that native speaker models are relevant in EIL interactions as “they seem to determine if – and to what extent – the foreigner’s speech is irritating to the fellow non-native listener” (Scheuer 2005: 125). In fact, Scheuer’s major point in the discussion is that “native speakers will always remain, if not the owners of the language itself, at least the keepers of the key to what is irritating and what is acceptable in interactional exchanges all around the globe, whether they actively participate in them or not” (Scheuer 2005: 127-128). The importance of the native speaker is thought to continue as long as people, especially learners of English, keep associating the English language (a global lingua franca) as used in international communication (notably, science, trade etc.) with native speakers’ English (Scheuer 2005: 126f). Scheuer (2005: 127) asserts that ELF will not become independent of native English “as long as its nonnative speakers fail to ignore the special bond between the language they struggle to master and its L1 users.” Consequently, it seems unsound and disadvantageous to advise learners of English to take no notice of ridicule and scorn and aim at models which are looked down on and treated with distance. In her response to the critique presented above, Jenkins strives to dispel some misconceptions concerning ELF and the English lingua franca core. First of all, Jenkins (2005: 204f) explicates that the major motive behind all the work on LFC was the 195

promotion “of mutual intelligibility in NNS-NNS communication” and not any political/ideological concerns. Furthermore, the choice of the core items was not determined by the aim of making the teaching an easier task84 but more sensible in the sense of “removing (…) a range of items which were not necessary for such intelligibility” (Jenkins 2005: 2004f).85 It is explicated that the LFC is not in fact a model of a variety of English but an offer of a pronunciation syllabus for those who want to use English, most of all, as a lingua franca (Jenkins 2005: 200). Jenkins further elucidates that:

This leads to a second misinterpretation of the LFC, namely that it is a model for imitation, whereas it is in fact a core of pronunciation features which occur in successful ELF (NNS-NNS) communication and whose absence lead to miscommunication. (…) The model, then, is not the LFC as such, but the local teacher whose accent incorporates both the core features and the local version of the non-core items. Another misinterpretation is that those who promote the LFC are prescribing it for all L2 learners of English. This is emphatically not the case, and yet the claim is frequently made that according to the LFC proposals, learners are no longer to be offered a choice between the LFC and RP, GA, or some other NS accent (Jenkins 2005: 202-203).

One should discern that it is acknowledged by Jenkins that the LFC may require some further fine-tuning as work on interactions between non-native speakers progresses (Jenkins 2005: 202). It is noted that another serious misinterpretation of the LFC is a belief that English teaching syllabuses based on it lead to the promotion of errors in pronunciation (Jenkins 2005: 202f). According to Jenkins (2005: 202f), the LFC does not promote pronunciation errors as its features are developed in relation to ELF norms and not to ENL – “[t]his is because in ELF communication, the correct pronunciation forms are not those of an RP or GA speaker, but those used by a proficient NNS of English who shares the learner’s mother tongue.” In this way English as a native language remains the preserve in the hands of native speakers and ELF becomes property “belonging to all who use it internationally” (Jenkins 2005: 204).

84

However, Jenkins (2005: 204f) admits that “I anticipated (correctly as it turned out), that the effect would be to reduce the complexity of pronunciation syllabuses (…) What the LFC does, then, is reduce the number of pronunciation features to be learnt for those who opt for an ELF/EIL pronunciation syllabus, and thus it reduces the size of the task, while increasing teachability.” 85 It is argued that from a perceptual perspective at least some features of the LFC emerge as a sound alternative based on thoughtful and thorough observations of interactions in the EIL classroom (Schwartz 2005: 189ff).

196

2.5.5. English language teaching according to the World Englishes paradigm

It is argued that the development of ethical conduct in language teaching would involve maintaining a consistency between theory, practice and context. First of all, this would necessitate curbing the tendency for applying “Inner Circle theories and practices in language pedagogy” to the context of ELT in Outer and Expanding Circles and treating them “as if they were constants” (Baumgardner and Brown 2003: 245-246). Furthermore, preparing and educating native speakers to teach English should include promoting a World Englishes perspective (Baumgardner and Brown 2003: 246). Thanks to this, ELT could become more ethical and better adjusted to suit the various contexts of Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles. Baumgardner and Brown (2003: 246) note that Portland State University has already adopted in its curriculum a policy of “comprehensive internationalization”; in which internationalization entails “the incorporation of international contents, materials, activities, and understandings into the teaching, research, and public service functions of universities to enhance their relevance in the interdependent world.” Sensitizing students to the differences in varieties of English and the different ideologies related to using Inner, Outer or Expanding varieties of English is a vital component of ELT and one commensurate with Kachru’s notion of the polymodels (Baumgardner and Brown 2003: 248). Baumgardner and Brown (2003: 248) further point out that “the pluricentrality of English should be part of my students’ linguistic knowledge, and they should know when to use one variety versus the other.” With respect to the Expanding Circle contexts, Baumgardner and Brown (2003: 249) make the point that people from this milieu should be allowed to make decisions on their own as to the variety of English that they learn. Any imposition would be unethical and could stand in contradiction to their interests. Expanding Circle speakers are viewed as ‘clients’ that “have the right to pick the variety of English they want for their programs” (Baumgardner and Brown 2003: 249). Importantly, it is maintained that “[t]eachers designing materials for this and indeed all pedagogical contexts must understand that it is the needs of the local context and not the alleged superiority of the model that should inform their pedagogical choices” (Baumgardner and Brown 2003: 249). Indeed, the choice of appropriate teaching materials for a given cultural context (especially in the Outer Circle) is regarded as one of the most important issues. An

197

emphasis should be placed on preparing glocal course books that would be both globally relevant and locally adjusted (Baumgardner and Brown 2003: 247). Kachru himself asserts that the selection of a model of English for a given locale must take into consideration sociocultural, educational and political factors determining the spread of English into this particular setting (Kachru 2006d: 109). To specify, it is explicated that:

What is needed, then, is to move from linguistic authoritarianism of the ‘native-speaker says’ variety to a speech fellowship-specific realism. In such an approach, pedagogical prescriptivism is valid; so is the concern for acquisitional deficiencies, but with the realization that the functional and sociocultural distinctiveness of each speech fellowship cannot be arrested. In other words, the need is for an attitudinal change and linguistic pragmatism (Kachru 1985: 25)

In this light, the Expanding Circle is perceived as a speech fellowship comprising normdependent varieties which are basically exonormative (Kachru 1985: 16). The Outer Circle is argued to encompass norm-developing varieties which are both endo- and exonormative. This dualism is especially seen in the discrepancy between the actual linguistic behavior and the perception of the prestigious linguistic norms. Finally, there comes the norm-providing speech fellowship of the Inner Circle. Kachru (1985: 16) notes that “these varieties have traditionally been recognized as models since they are used by the ‘native speakers’.” It is elucidated that rigid adherence to traditional, native models of English in the context of English teaching may have its roots most of all in social and attitudinal factors; and as English is unlikely to succumb to authoritative codification, it “will continue to rely on subtle psychological, attitudinal, and sociological codification” (Kachru 1985: 23-24; Kachru 2006d: 109). Kachru explicates that one can distinguish four general ways of linguistic codification that are applied to implement language policies:

[1] Authoritative or mandated codification. This includes policies generally adopted by the academics. A good example of this is the French Academy established in 1635. As is well-known, there were two attempts to set-up such academies for English: the first in England in 1712, and the second in the USA in 1780. And both failed. Perhaps history has a lesson for us. [2] Sociological or attitudinal codification. This is reflected in social or attitudinal preference of certain varieties. Abercombie (1951: 14) has called it the ‘accent bar’. However, this bar does not apply to ‘accent’ only but is often extended to other levels too: grammatical, lexical, discoursal and stylistic. [3] Educational codification. This refers to codification determined by the dictionaries, the media, teacher’s attitudes and so on. [4] Psychological codification. A good example of this is the psychological constraints put on the ritualistic use of Sanskrit. The correct use was a precondition for effective use of the language and incorrect use could result in the wrath of gods (Kachru 1991: 218).

198

The role of authority, or rather elitism, is perceived to be in the case of English far less meaningful in the maintenance of native speaker norms. To elaborate, a point is made that: The imposed norms for English lack any overt sanction or authority; whatever norms there are have acquired preference for social reasons. These are indirectly, or sometimes directly, suggested in dictionaries of English, in pedagogical manuals, in preferred models on television and radio, and in job preferences when a particular variety of language is attitudinally considered desirable by an employer, whether it is a government agency, private employer, or a teaching institution. Through such imagined or real societal advantages of a norm, parents develop their preferences for the type of instruction their children should get in the school system (Kachru 2006b: 435).

Accordingly, English learning continues to hold to, broadly speaking, two educational models of English86 the descriptions of which are argued to have been driven, among others, by pragmatic and pedagogical reasons to meet “a demand from the non-native learners of English for materials on learning and teaching pronunciation, for standards of usage and correctness, and for linguistic ‘table manners’ for identifying with native speakers” (Kachru 2006b: 439; Kachru 2006d: 109). In view of this, as Kachru (2006b: 437) points out, “[i]t is not so easy to fight against the subtle and psychologically effective means of codification that were used for establishing a norm for English.” Even though the scholar does admit that the notion of the native-like control may be regarded as adequate for the majority of language learning contexts, the norm should be always made relevant to “the context of situation” – that is “the historical context, and the educational setting” (Kachru 2006d: 111f). This seems especially important bearing in mind the diversity of contexts into which the English language has spread and the differing roles that it plays in them. What Kachru seems to have in mind is that in the Outer Circle a non-native model may be regarded as a good alternative if the majority of L2 speakers “identify themselves with the modifying label which marks the non-nativeness of a model: for example, Indian English speakers, Lankan English speakers, Ghanaian English speakers” (Kachru 2006d: 114). The significance of this identification it explained by Kachru (2006d: 115) along these lines – “[a] variety may exist, but unless it is recognized and accepted as a model it does not acquire a status. A large majority of the non-native speakers of institutionalized varieties of English use a local variety of English, but when told so, they are hesitant to accept the fact.” 86

British English (mostly in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean) and American English (especially in Mexico, Cuba, or other parts of Latin America).

199

As regards the intelligibility of non-native models of English, Kachru argues that “[i]ntelligibility is functionally determined with reference to the sub-regions, the nation, political areas within the region (e.g. South Asia, Southeast Asia), and internationally” (Kachru 2006b: 448). Importantly, Kachru (1985: 24) also refers to “the argument of ‘convenience of expediency’” which suggests that users of English who communicate only with people from their own districts may have no need to use any other but their own regional dialect or accent. It is noted that educated varieties of, for instance, Indian English, Nigerian, or Kenyan English are dissimilar to RP or GA; but this is natural and should not cause greater problems with communication than the ones occurring in interactions between speakers having different native accents. As a matter of fact, the scholar argues that there is, indeed, developing an educated variety of English across both native and non-native English-using speech fellowships and that it remains intelligible for speakers from all the regions (Kachru 1985: 24). In the same vein, Bamgbose (1998: 8) asserts that, usually, the advocated model for EFL is that of a native variety and for ESL a non-native, indigenized variety of English. One should acknowledge that various communities may, indeed, have different goals and aspirations; ranging from striving to acquire a variety as close to a native model of English as possible to appropriating the language and adopting it for local needs. However, the problem related to adopting nativized Englishes is that non-native varieties are unlikely to get acceptance and their own endonormative norms are not tolerated as models for teaching and respected in the context of examinations. It is maintained that the English language enterprise should undergo the greatest change in the direction towards accepting local norms of indigenized varieties (including significant changes in textbooks, school examination syllabuses, and teacher training) (Bamgbose 1998: 9). Bamgbose (1998: 9-10) admits that even though the content of some textbooks has been adopted to suit the local cultural context, the problem of the native speaker norms pervading the majority of textbooks is, as yet, unresolved. Moreover, schools and examination syllabuses still advocate standard native norms and regard nativized standard norms as errors. Bamgbose further elucidates that:

200

A major factor militating against the adoption of non-native norms is the ambivalence between recognition and acceptance of such [innovative] norms. This, in turn, is linked to the question of attitudes. On the one hand, non-native norms are seen as an expression of identity and solidarity, while, on the other, there continues to be great admiration87 for native norms (Bamgbose 1998: 5).

Importantly, it is argued that these days “it is no longer sufficient to import native speakers and expect them to teach English in any way they know” (Bamgbose 1998: 10). They should be required to have awareness of the divergence between native and indigenized Englishes and be sensitized to local, indigenized norms. Similarly, Bolton (2006a: 208) asserts that language awareness courses including a variety of topics concerning New Englishes should be taught to “teachers, teacher trainers, and other educators” in all three circles of World Englishes. The scholar further argues that “[t]he expanded accessibility of programmes of this kind may help to clear the space for new and creative approaches to language education and the teaching of English, in a range of contexts worldwide” (Bolton 2006a: 208). This could mark a highly important change since in the context of the Outer Circle Englishes “the maintenance of traditional target norms of English proficiency may not only lack realism but may also contribute to the stigmatization of the norms of local users (including teachers and learners)” (Bolton 2006a: 208). More generally speaking, Bolton (2006a: 210f) asserts that “[f]rom the perspective of applied linguistics, perhaps the major challenge from world Englishes is how the center-periphery balance might be best redressed, or ‘re-centered’ and ‘pluricentered.’” The domination of the center over the periphery is argued to be especially conspicuous in the English language industry. Bolton (2006a: 209-210) makes the point that “[a]cademic publishing and textbook publishing in both applied linguistics and English language teaching is largely controlled by a small number of publishing houses based in the UK and USA, who rely on a relatively small number of experts for their expertise and professionalism.” This state of affairs may contribute to the ambivalence in the sphere of attitudes towards local norms in the Outer Circle (see Bolton 2006a: 208). It is pointed out that in the regions of Hong Kong or the Philippines, for instance, some educationalists may well have recognized a local educated accent but official attitudes are still much more reserved. Even with the official support for the acknowledgement of indigenized educated Englishes, the recognition of nativized 87

This fascination may be attributed to the fact that RP is a well-codified variety of English that serves as a yardstick against which the quality of other varieties is measured (Bamgbose 1998: 9).

201

norms may not be so easy a task – “especially when one considers that varieties are typically caught not taught, and questions of norms and standards are invariably embedded in the particular language cultures and traditions of such societies” (Bolton 2006a: 208). In this light, some fresh hope to change the existing status quo in the ELT as to the recognition of Outer Circle norms and the development of more grassroots teaching methods may lie, as noted, in the provision of language awareness courses and some subsequent changes of attitudes toward non-native Englishes.

2.5.6. Final notes

A lion’s share of the current disputes over teaching English to the world concerns issues of models and standards. Generally, whilst there seems to be a consensus over the fact that there is a need for a model of English to be taught to those interested in acquiring the language, problems arise when trying to sort out what model or models should be chosen as suitable for a specific context or situation. Some scholars point out that in non-Inner-Circle countries where there is no any recognized, local variety of English, users of the language should have a native variety as a model (see Kam-Mei and Halliday 2002: 13). According to Halliday (Kam-Mei and Halliday 2002: 13f), the importance of devoting some effort to acquire a native model of English consist in achieving the goal of preserving mutual intelligibility – “your pronunciation obviously has to be above a certain threshold; otherwise it doesn’t matter how good your sentence structure is, you won’t be understood.” Similarly, McArthur (2006: 106) asserts that “there must be some kind of programme for speech production and listening comprehension” even if the question “[h]ow standardizable can pronunciation be” remains largely unanswered. Furthermore, a remark is made that “[i]t might be argued that having a specific model for the pronunciation of a language (however artificial) is better than having no model at all” (McArthur 2006: 108). To give validity to this claim, McArthur (2006: 108) refers to the following notes concerning RP:

1. “RP has been in use for a long time and retains considerable prestige”; 2. “teachers and publishers are used to it”; 3. “the accents of younger people educated to university level in south-eastern England still more or less resemble it”; 202

4. “phasing out such models [RP or GA] would be tiresome and pointless, especially as there is no obvious replacement for them.”

In my estimation, even though there are a host of sound arguments advanced in support of the native speaker status quo, there are probably just as many pointing to the need to look for alternatives which would be more suitable, as some suggest, for the demands of the present day world and the contemporary, global status of the English language. Most frequently, arguments are put forward in support of “the recognition of a multiplicity of standards [esp. World Englishes paradigm]; [and] greater concern than hitherto for other aspects of communicative behaviour than linguistic norms in isolation” (Quirk and Widdowson 1985: 36). Importantly, it is postulated that a sociolinguistic perspective on the language is crucial but “we still have a long way to go before we will be ready to meet the practical challenges of English-language teaching in a world context, or to decide whether it is really necessary to attempt to engineer the use of a planned variety of international English” (Cheshire 1991: 8). Moreover, some scholars complain that World Englishes researchers tend to work solely for the sake of advancing knowledge and gaining recognition, and not for the benefit of school children learning English (Bamgbose 2001: 361). In this vein, Seidlhofer and Jenkins (2003: 139) make the point that there are no empirical bases which could help sort out conflicting claims in language pedagogy and establish new standards for daily practices of language teachers. Therefore, empirical work is necessary to resist language imposition and transform the present daily practices of language teaching. The scholars argue that the essence of the field should be investigating “the nature of the language itself as an international means of communication in the Expanding Circle, and in what respects English as a lingua franca (ELF) may differ form ‘English as native language’ (ENL)” (Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003: 141). To my mind, it is most important that anyone arguing for the introduction of changes in the ELT industry should bear in mind the learner, her/his demands, interests, needs and attitudes. After all, one should remember, as Halliday (2003: 412) asserts, that one of the objectives of education is to fight with social inequalities. From the perspective of the learner, the important questions to be asked before setting the ambitious goal of learning a foreign language are the following (McArthur 2003: 55):

203

1. “‘Will knowing and using this language make my life easier and/or richer?’ (in any sense of the word rich)”; 2. “‘Will my children need this language to get on in the world?’”; 3. “‘[H]ow soon should they start acquiring it?’”

One should also draw attention to the fact that students, even from the same class, may have varied personal aims and may be satisfied with different levels of proficiency; and that teachers should strive to cater for all such needs (Wells 2005: 102). Clearly, what ensues from these remarks is that “[c]ultural interest and linguistic curiosity are all very well, but they are minority pursuits. Pragmatism tends to win the day” (McArthur 2003: 55). In this context it seems unsurprising that Bamgbose (2001: 360) asserts that “[g]lobalization of English necessarily increases the scope and opportunities for the ELT enterprise” and argues that “the opportunity offered by globalization must not be allowed to degenerate into opportunism.” In my judgment, the enterprise of English language teaching is well aware of the demand for English and at times it exceeds its role of satisfying the simple need of its clients to learn the language. By taking advantage of the mass media, language stereotypes and prejudices, it jumps at each and every opportunity to capitalize on the myth of native (standard) language. Throughout the world, it is possible to find numerous references to courses as well as materials devoted to teach real, authentic or, simply native-like, English. Accordingly, what is implied is that users of English, even those having an excellent competence in the language, with a recognizable foreign accent are just error-prone beginners and, thus, their English may be ridiculed, underappreciated and prejudiced against. Moreover, because of such images language stereotypes get spread and reinforced, even though there are arguments that while learners should not be discouraged from aiming at native-like standards they should not “be chastised for falling short of native-like standards” either (see Remiszewski 2005: 300).

2.6. The indigenization, acculturation of English 2.6.1. Introduction

Scholars argue that a positive aspect of English being a world language is that, bearing in mind its history of development, it may be regarded as a hybrid which is capable of 204

further hybridization (McArthur 2002: 15). In this vein, Bailey and Görlach (1984: 3) point out that “[t]he history of English around the world, its various functions, and its means of dissemination have given rise to innumerable forms of the language, some stable and others ephemeral. Indeed, whether a variety can be said to be English at all is sometimes open to debate.” An indication of this propensity of English for nativization/acculturation is the emergence of what Fishman (1992: 20-21) calls “English-speaking ‘false foreigners’” throughout the world in locales where English is not a mother tongue. This phenomenon is interpreted as evidence that “a non-native variety of English may succeed not only in stabilizing cross-generationally (i.e. in nativizing itself), but also in becoming a mother tongue in certain speech networks” (Fishman 1992: 20-21). Accordingly, Bamgbose (2001: 359) asserts that “[t]he in-built mechanisms for adaptation and change are a sure guarantee against the emergence of a homogenized variety of English, by whatever name called” and reminds that “[t]he reality of the form and function of English, particularly in the Outer Circle, is that it is certainly much more than ESP” (Bamgbose 2001: 359). This remarkable variation in the Englishes is explained by Kachru (1986: 10) as caused by the vastness of the range and depth of the language, its functioning in so many diverse settings in the world as well as a wide variety of situational contexts (which understandably may be in stark contrast to those in traditional bastions of English) of actual use of the language. To elaborate, it should be explained that:

[T]he non-native English-using speech fellowships are using Englishes of the world in their divergent situations and contexts and with various linguistic and ethnic attitudes. (…) situation includes the linguistic, political and sociocultural, and economic ecology in which the English language is used. Context refers to the roles of participants in these situations and to the appropriateness of varieties of language used in these roles. And attitude is specifically used here for the overt and covert attitudes toward a language, its varieties, and the uses and users of these varieties (Kachru 1985: 16).

The use of English on everyday basis for intranational purposes in new lingua-cultural contexts must, thus, invariably cause the language to nativize itself to suit the linguistic habits, thinking patterns and the cultural reality of those who use the language in such milieux. Accordingly, as Kachru (2006b: 447) explicates, “[t]he nativized lexical spread and the rhetorical and stylistic features [of World Englishes] are distinctly different from those of the native speaker.” One should also bear in mind the fact that while the dispersion of English around the world has naturally led to greater variation in the language “both in its functions and in terms of proficiency”, the displacement of

205

English from its traditional locales brought about new forms of its acculturation (Kachru 1985: 22). With the spread of English and its adoption into one’s verbal repertoire it “absorb[s] – and unfold[s] – ‘meanings’ and ‘values’ from diverse cultures, both as an international and intranational language” (Kachru 2006c: 485). Importantly, it is further elucidated that:

[W]ith its diffusion, English ceases to be an exponent of only one culture – the Western Judaeo-Christian culture; it is now perhaps the world’s most multicultural language, a fact which is, unfortunately, not well recognized. The present multicultural character of English is clearly revealed in its uses around the globe, especially in creative writing. (…) In other words, English is now the language of those who use it; the users give it a distinct identity of their own in each region (Kachru 1985: 20).

Generally speaking, that World Englishes are worthy of recognition varieties of English, changed in the process of nativization but intelligible enough (at least their educated varieties) to make international communication possible seems to be a major premise of the World Englishes (Kachruvian) paradigm.

2.6.2. Nativization (indigenization) and acculturation of English

The emergence of New Englishes is, unarguably, related to historical and social factors of the expansion of the language to new lingua-cultural locations (cf. Bailey and Görlach 1984: 4). The degree of their nativization depends on the range and depth of the functions of English, as well as duration of the exposure to bilingualism in English (Kachru 2006d: 117). Linguistically speaking, when a given language is employed to express the realities of new to it settings, it will unavoidably create novel meanings by means of either linguistic borrowing or transforming the meaning of old words (Halliday 2003: 412). Cheshire (1991: 7) points out that “[l]earner, or performance varieties, may sometimes be nativised to the extent that they have some characteristic features reflecting the culture in which they are used.” According to her, the major difference between learner variation and variation in World Englishes is that the latter manifest greater stability and that New Englishes “exhibit patterns of sociolinguistic variation which reflect the social organisation of the society in which they are used. These patterns do not come into existence until the variety is used as part of everyday social interaction between members of that society” (Cheshire 1991: 7). In this light,

206

nativization may, on the one hand, be understood as a phenomenon that “refers to the linguistic processes – conscious or unconscious – by which a transplanted language, in this case English, is localized” (Kachru 2006a: 88). Frequently, indigenization is given a specific name which pertains to the region or a language that takes part in the process, for instance, Africanization or Indianization. On the other hand, it should be noted that nativization of English is a process going far beyond the linguistic level as it is also impacting on the creativity and pragmatics of communication (Bamgbose 1998: 2). Also Kachru (2006d: 117) asserts that since nativization clearly encompasses acculturation of English to the new “context of situation” it is a process of not only linguistic but also cultural transformation and adaptation. The causes of diversification of English in the process of indigenization are argued to relate to deep sociological, linguistic, and cultural reasons. The diversification, whether conscious or unconscious, and extended uses of English are thought to carry some “subtle sociolinguistic messages”, i.e. (1) exponent of distance; (2) marker of ‘creativity potential’; (3) expression of the ‘Caliban syndrome’ (Kachru 2006c: 491ff). Diversification as an exponent of distance is supposed to signify the following – “‘I am distinct from you – culturally, socially, attitudinally – and let my variety of English (linguistic creativity) say it.’ (…) ‘I will use English as tool for my culture, my identity, my conventions.’” With respect to human’s creativity potential, it is regarded as a feature of human communication to adapt linguistic codes to meet the communicative requirements of their users. Kachru (2006c: 493) argues that “[t]his ‘humanness’ of language, emanating from multiple cultures from all the continents, is a major underlying motivation for the diversification of English.” Regarding the Caliban syndrome, it may be thought as a linguistic reaction to “the ‘cultural bomb’ effect of the colonial powers” whereby nativization and local identity of English serve, to some degree, the purpose of diffusing ‘the bomb’ (Kachru 1991: 220). In this light, the discourse on English must take cognizance of three implications of the diffusion of English: “the change in the traditional linguistic periphery of English, extension of underlying shared and nonshared sociocultural conventions, and new norms for text organization and ‘interlocutor expectancy’” (Kachru 2006c: 491). The first entails a change in “its main and expected sources of syntactic, lexical, stylistic, and other borrowings and innovations” and leads to both the indigenization of English and a transfer of linguistic innovations (also from new, nativized varieties of English to traditional native speaker varieties) (Kachru 2006c: 491). The second is culturally207

related to the users of these Englishes and indicates such linguistic adaptation and development of linguistic resources which reflect the new cultural and sociolinguistic context of the use of English (Kachru 2006c: 491f). Changes in interlocutor expectancy entail the emergence of new features in “shared knowledge of culturally appropriate conventions, and awareness of identities which participants in a linguistic interaction desire to establish” (Kachru 2006c: 492). Moreover, it is noted that even the choice of a specific, non-native type of text organization may, in fact, point to the irrelevance of the native speaker (Kachru 2006c: 492). As regards acculturation, it is seen as consisting in “the deculturation of English” and “its acculturation to the new context” and; in effect, its endowment with a new identity indicative of its specific socio-cultural background (Kachru 2006b: 446). One should also discern that the identities of English are multicultural88 and that “the spread of English has resulted in a multiplicity of semiotic systems, several nonshared linguistic conventions, and numerous underlying cultural traditions” (Kachru 2006c: 484). By adapting itself to new socio-cultural contexts English has stopped to symbolize solely the Western Judaeo-Christian culture and become “the world’s most multicultural language”; a language which is argued to belong to all those people who use it and who bestow it with a new identity emblematic of their specific region (Kachru 1985: 20). Thus, English may be thought as signifying not only the image of Westernness but also the tradition and local identities of those using the language in Africa, Asia etc. (Kachru 2006c: 487). To elaborate, it is pointed out that:

Formation of pluralism is a shift, then, from the Judeo-Christian and Western identities of the English language toward its African, Asian, and African American visions. In these multiple identities of the language, the pluralism of world Englishes – the mādhyama, the medium – is shared by us, all of us, as members of the world Englishes community. The mantras [messages], are diverse, cross-cultural, and represent a wide range of conventions. It is precisely in this sense that the medium has indeed gained international diffusion; it has broken the traditional boundaries associated with the language. When we use epithets such as global, international, and universal with English, we are not talking of homogeneity and uniformity. We should not. The messages have to be learnt, acquired, absorbed, and appreciated within the appropriate cultural contexts of the mantras. The medium provides a variety of shifting cultural ‘grids’ through which users gain access to the multiple canons of the language: American, British, West African, East African, South Asian, East Asian, and so on (Kachru 2006g: 455).

88

Kachru (1985: 20) maintains that “[t]he present multicultural character of English is clearly revealed in its uses around the globe, especially in creative writing.”

208

Importantly, Kachru does not maintain that the British or American identities are eradicated from the language but that English “has succeeded in gaining other identities: cultural, social and linguistic” (Kachru 2006c: 488). One should discern that such sociolinguistic realities of English are argued to have been largely ignored by language specialists on account of a variety of economic, political or attitudinal reasons (Kachru 2006c: 488). In fact, attitudes seem to have shaped to a great deal the discourse on New Englishes, nativization and, most of all, non-native norms and models (Kachru 1985: 19). Traditionally, both the nativization of English and emergence of World Englishes have been perceived by native speakers unfavorably and they have not earned natives’ “acceptance or ontological recognition” (Kachru 2006d: 118). Indigenized Englishes have been regarded as “deficient models of language acquisition” because for ethnocentric anglophones the use of English (even on everyday basis for intranational communication) in different lingua-cultural contexts from theirs does not qualify as a sufficient condition for diverging from native speakers’ models and standards (Kachru 2006d: 118). It is pointed out such native speakers’ attitudes towards localized norms of English may be reflected in handbooks prepared for non-native learners of English (Kachru 2006b: 450). Most frequently, such handbooks aim only at familiarizing the learner to the anglophone culture (they disregard non-native English literatures and cultures), and teaching native standards and models. Possibly, it is mainly this situation that contributes to the low status of World Englishes: [E]ven when the non-native models of English are linguistically identifiable, geographically definable, and functionally valuable, they are still not necessarily attitudinally acceptable. There is an ‘accent bar’ which continues to segregate the nonnative users. The acceptance of a model depends on its users: the users must demonstrate a solidarity, identity, and loyalty toward a language variety (Kachru 2006d: 124).

It should be clarified that pragmatic and cultural elements of nativization enjoy greater tolerance because they are culture-based and it is generally acknowledged that English should express the cultural realities of those communities which appropriated it for intranational purposes (Bamgbose 1998: 9). Interestingly, also Kachru (2006b: 452) notes that he can observe a change of attitude from one viewing nativized Englishes as invariably deficient to one perceiving them as different.

209

As regards the nations and communities which indigenized the English language, their attitudes towards native English and nativized varieties seem to be complex and ambivalent. This seems to be testified by Canagarajah’s account:

[M]illions of people in post-colonial communities (…) find themselves torn between the claims of Western values and their indigenous cultures, between English and the vernacular. Ironically, however, with the passing of time, the possibility of choosing one or the other may no longer be open to them: the English language has become too deeply rooted in their soil, and in their consciousness, to be considered ‘alien’ (Canagarajah 1999: 1).

Individuals who did opt for either the nativized English or the vernacular found themselves in a situation emotionally and/or pragmatically uncomfortable. In the former case they could be deprived of the advantages accruing from the use of English and in the latter the betrayal of the vernacular could make them feel like “outsiders in both Western and local communities” (Canagarajah 1999: 1). According to Canagarajah (1999: 2), there are, in fact, methods of “transcending this painful linguistic conflict” because “our consciousness is able to accommodate more than one language or culture, just as our languages can accommodate alien grammars and discourses.” As mentioned, the importance of nativization also consits in that it may contribute to diffusing the linguistic and cultural bomb in the form of English in the un-English and non-European settings (Kachru 2006c: 493). Thanks to indigenization, people from such locales are thought to find it easier to reconcile the history of imposition of English and colonial times with the present-day necessity to know and use the language for both inter- and intra-national purposes. As Kachru (2006g: 452) points out “[i]n terms of functional and pragmatic uses of the English language, what actually happens is that English is used effectively for ‘thinking globally,’ and used, by choice, ‘to live locally’ – thus establishing a pragmatic link between the two identities – global and local” (Kachru 2006g: 452). The development of nativized Englishes is invariably connected with the emergence of all kinds of innovations. It may be held that the next step in coming to terms with the period of colonization and the imposition of English would be formal recognition and acknowledgement of the processes of nativization and acceptance of resultant innovations in the language. Nonetheless, prescriptive concerns referring to innovations in nativized varieties – specifically “formal (lexical, phonological, syntactic), contextual, and discoursal deviations” – are still commonplace (Kachru

210

1985: 21). They are especially widespread in the anglophone world which continues to hold to the idea of prescriptivism and demand that the learner should “acquire norms of behaviour appropriate to the users of the inner circle” (Kachru 1985: 21)89. Such an attitudinal context is not conducive to recognizing nativized varieties of English and innovations, yet, there may be some hope in the near future for, as Bailey and Görlach (1984: iv) point out, – “[l]ocal norms arise in speech and then in writing when the forces of standardization are weakened, and when a more localized English becomes the birthright of those who use it.” According to scholars, one of the major controversies over innovations in indigenized varieties seems to be that it may be problematic to decide when a given new language form is indeed an innovation and when it is an error resulting from an uneducated usage (Bamgbose 1998: 1f). Bamgbose (1998: 3-4) distinguishes five major internal factors that may help decide on the status of an innovation:

1. demographic factor – a larger number of users in the acrolect variety increases the probability that a new form (an innovation) will be accepted; 2. geographical factor – with a greater geographical range of a diffusing innovation increases its acceptance and perception as a standard form; 3. authoritative factor – using (and approving) an innovation by “writers, teachers, media practitioners, examination bodies, publishing houses, and influential opinion leaders” increases its favorable perception; 4. codification factor – the availability of a reference manual (a grammar, a lexical or pronouncing dictionary, course books etc.) is vital and “its influence is pervasive and does not depend on attitudes and persuasion”; 5. acceptability factor – the final prerequisite for admitting an innovation.

Of all these factors codification and acceptance are thought as the most significant since but for them a given innovative language form continues to be perceived as an error (Bamgbose 1998: 4f; Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003: 142).90 More generally, these two 89

Such thinking seems to be grounded in a claim that “language spread entails spread of cultural and social norms, or what has been termed in pedagogical literature an ‘integrative motivation’ for language learning” (Kachru 1985: 21). 90 Seidlhofer and Jenkins (2003: 142) would like the Expanding Circle to receive similar attention and recognition as Outer Circle Englishes – “Expanding Circle English is not deemed worthy of (…) attention: users of English who have learned the language as a foreign language are expected to conform to Inner Circle norms.”

211

conditions may be regarded as the most meaningful prerequisites for the acknowledgement and appreciation of endonormative standards. Bamgbose (1998: 4-5) maintains that only if non-native English norms get codified can they become for people a point of reference for correct usage and a prerequisite of common acceptance. Lack of such codified norms makes Outer Circle users of Englishes depend on native norms as a yardstick of proper usage; this being so even in cases of favorable attitudes towards institutionalization of nativized Englishes. Traditionally, norms have been seen as a guarantee of preserving intelligibility among varieties of the same language and as a counterbalance to the process of language change. It is argued that while in the context of international communication native speaker norms could be regarded as a model, in nativized Englishes the norm should be determined by localized uses as the actual interactions are between non-native speakers and for intranational purposes (Kachru 2006b: 447). Both native English and indigenized Englishes have their own, separate norms and speakers of the former should not claim the right to pronounce what can and what cannot be regarded as correct in the latter variety (Bamgbose 1998: 3). To expound on the issue of Outer-Circle norms, it should be pointed out that Bamgbose (1998: 2) recognizes three types of them:

1.

“Code norm: A standard variety of a language or a language selected from a group of languages and allocated for official or national purposes”;

2.

“Feature norm: Any typical property of spoken or written language at whatever level (e.g., phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, orthographic, etc.) and the rules that go with its production or use”;

3.

“Behavioral norm: The set of conventions that go with speaking including expected patterns of behavior while interacting with others, the mode of interpreting what is said and attitudes in general to others’ manner of speaking.”

Bamgbose (1998: 3) explicates that the process of linguistic nativization involves the development of new feature norms and, thus, “an appeal to an external standard, though possible, is (…) inappropriate because it presupposes the transfer of a code norm.” Furthermore, it is argued that an insistence on adhering to native English feature norms may be equated with denying the reality of indigenized varieties of English as “many of the linguistic features likely to be stigmatized by comparison with native English are indexical markers of the non-native varieties.” Crucially, it is held that native English 212

behavioral norms cannot at all serve as models for nativized Englishes “since the very existence of non-native behavioral norms is one of the defining characteristics of a nonnative variety of English” (Bamgbose 1998: 2). The indigenization and acculturation of English are argued to be invariably related to the internationalization of the language (Kachru 2006c: 495). Nevertheless, whereas international uses of English are perceived favorably, its internationalization (allegedly, for the sake of intelligibility) is seen as a problem. In this light, Kachru (2006c: 495) postulates that the maintenance of international intelligibility should be “a shared undertaking” with education acting as an institution that should teach variety tolerance (Kachru 2006c: 495). Importantly, one should realize that “the degree of linguistic pessimism about the failure of intelligibility in international communication in English is rather exaggerated” (Kachru 2006c: 495). More forcefully, Kachru (2006g: 452) asserts that “[t]hat English has been ‘indigenized’ is certainly true; but that ‘these Englishes’ have, therefore, become functionally ‘almost unintelligible one to the other’ is certainly empirically doubtful.” Strevens (2006: 461f) also maintains that despite the emergence of a variety of nativized Englishes, the language “retains the essential underlying unity.” The mechanism of this self-regulation is believed by some to be ensured thanks to “a single, non-localised dialect, Standard English, which all educated English-users, without external imposed authority, maintain virtually free from variation worldwide” (Strevens 2006: 461f). Interestingly, according to Strevens (2006: 462), for the sake of preserving intelligibility among varieties of English, the area reserved for nativization of English should be only phonetics and phonology – “given the unity which this shared grammar and core vocabulary produce, the diversity of English can be exercised through a free choice of accent, and the use of local embellishments.”

2.6.3. Final notes

The discourse on World Englishes is thought to have succeeded in establishing the following: (1) nativized Englishes are used in a broad spectrum of functional domains; (2) they are not “transitional and unstable code[s] striving for perfection”; (3) their recognition would not necessarily entail the disintegration of the English language or a loss of mutual intelligibility; and, finally, (4) native English models are not invariably suitable for all contexts and locales (Bamgbose 1998: 1). Nonetheless, the nativization 213

and acculturation of English still present a serious challenge for both pedagogues and language scholars. This continues to be so despite the fact that the processes are perceived as a characteristic feature of the language, and one which, according to Kachru, contributed to its gaining its current power and status:

One reason for this dominance of English is its propensity for acquiring new identities, its power of assimilation, its adaptability to ‘decolonization’ as a language, its manifestation in a range of lects, and above all, its provision of a flexible medium for literary and other types of creativity across languages and cultures (Kachru 2006c: 496).

Interestingly, even Quirk (before he became more conservative and puristic about the standards of English) elucidated that:

[T]he emergence of new forms of English is not subject to external control since it is of the very nature of language to adapt itself to the varying sociocultural needs of its users. Different norms of usage will inevitably arise, therefore, as a function of normal social use. Furthermore, language is not only used instrumentally as a means of communication but also as an expression of social identity, as an emblem of group membership. People who use English as a language for communication and selfexpression within their own sociocultural environment will naturally develop their own norms of appropriateness (Quirk and Widdowson 1985: 35).

One should discern that however positively or negatively the nativization and acculturation of English may be evaluated, one thing is conceivable to remain true for all – “[t]he pluricentricity of English, both in literature and language, has created a complexity which was not faced earlier” (Kachru 1985: 19). This state of affairs leads scholars to ask many intriguing questions concerning language, culture, identity and the relations among them (see, for instance, Kachru 1985: 19).91 Importantly, it is pointed out that the intricacy of the present role of English “puts a burden on those who use it as their first language, as well as on those who use it as their second language” (Kachru 2006d: 124). What is needed to remedy this problematic situation, as Kachru (2006d: 124f) asserts, is “attitudinal readjustment” comprising the following elements:

91

Also Halliday (2003: 408; 415) points out that by expanding and adopting novel cultural, economic and political roles English changes itself significantly and it is important to investigate what happens “if a whole culture comes to be represented in a language other than its own (that is, other than that with which it coevolved), has this now become a different language? Not just different from what it was (so much is clear), but different from either of its progenitors?”

214

1. “non-native users must now dissociate English from the colonial past, and not treat it as a colonizer’s linguistic tool”; 2. “they must avoid regarding English as an evil influence which necessarily leads to Westernization”; 3. “non-native users should accept the large body of English literature written by local creative writers as part of the native literary tradition”; 4. “it is important to distinguish between the national and the international uses of English. It is primarily the national uses of the institutionalized varieties which contribute toward the nativization of these varieties”; 5. “non-native users ought to develop an identity with the local model of English without feeling that it is a ‘deficient’ model.”

Furthermore, it is pointed out that the following problems, caused by a “constant pull between native and non-native norms” also require to be eventually resolved (Bamgbose 1998: 1):

1. “the status of innovations in the nativization process”; 2. “the continued use of native norms as a point of reference”; 3. “the ambivalence between recognition and acceptance of non-native norms”; 4. “the adequacy of pedagogical models”; 5. “the overriding need for codification.”

It seems that the final issue concerning the spread of English and nativization may be solely judged individually and subjectively. This is so because it is rather impossible to settle definitively and conclusively whether “the global power and hegemony of English” makes “cultures and other languages of the world richer or poorer?” (Kachru 2006c: 496).

2.7. Concluding remarks

The scope of discourse and research conducted in sociolinguistics and, more generally, the sociology of language is invaluable in that it offers profound insight into linguistic and sociolinguistic processes as well as principles underlying the functioning of English 215

in the global and local contexts. The state-of-the-art knowledge presented in Chapter 2 suggests that the major research areas and aspects that seem necessary to provide a general picture of the (macro-)sociolinguistics of English in a given context seem to be the following: (1) the power of English; (2) language planning and policy; (3) sociolinguistic aspects of teaching English; (4) attitudinal aspects concerning English, its status, diffusion, and impact; (5) nativization and Englishization as the two faces of English. Bearing this in mind, in the following chapters an attempt is made to delineate the aforesaid facets with a view to offering a comprehensive insight into general (macro-)sociolinguistic principles of the functioning of English in post-transformational Poland. Importantly, an overview of the field presented in Chapter 2 makes it quite clear that such (macro-)sociolinguistic endeavors require attendance to examining the spread and status of English in a given location within the wider framework of various relevant economic, political, sociological, and cultural developments taking place in a given context, frequently in response to more general tendencies occurring in the globalizing world.

216

Chapter 3: The sociolinguistics of English in post-1989 Poland – setting the scene

Introduction

The prime aim of this dissertation is to present a comprehensive picture of major sociolinguistic phenomena and processes taking place in post-1989 Poland as a result of the spread and rising importance of English in former satellite countries of the Soviet Union. The portrayal of the sociolinguistics of English in Poland is focused on the last two decades, the time when our country gained true independence and got fully exposed to the Western capitalist world and the processes of globalization invariably accompanied by English serving as a global lingua franca. Nevertheless, it would not be possible to adequately understand the functioning of English in post-communist times without investigating the importance, role, and status of the language in Poland prior to 1989. Accordingly, the chapter begins with a brief overview of some general sociolinguistically relevant issues in the period preceding the last two decades. It is followed by a comprehensive discussion of various most salient (in the context of Poland) sociolinguistic phenomena selected on the basis of the overview of general patterns and trends observable around the world (Chapter 2). One should discern that the issue of Poles’ perception (attitudes and beliefs) of the English language and its role in Poland will be elaborated in a separate chapter (Chapter 4), where in addition to a general delineation of ‘attitudinal’ patterns found among various groups of Poles, the author will refer to his empirical research undertaken to explore this least examined (especially in the context of Poland) area of the sociolinguistic enterprise. Crucially, the material collected in Chapter 3 and 4 is subject to further scrutiny in the concluding part of the dissertation where an attempt is made at gaining additional insight from

217

examining the sociolinguistic functioning of English in post-transformational Poland in light of relevant recent theories and models (discussed in Chapter 1) and the general patterns and principles found in the world (described in Chapter 2).

3.2. English in Poland before 1989 – the formation of the power bases of the ulanguage

3.2.1. Historical background

It seems obvious that the history of early English-Polish language contacts corresponds to the history of relations between Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States. From the 15th century onwards to the maintenance of Polish-English cultural relations contributed most of all Polish MPs who went to England on diplomatic missions and students who went there to educate themselves (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 23f; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2007: 213f). The 16th century is marked by an increase in the number of visits to England, the settlement of Scottish catholic refugees in Poland, and the arrival of troupes of English actors as well as members of other professions. In the 17th century Poles began to emigrate to the US and settle in Virginia. The major events in the next century, indicative of the cultural (and, hence, linguistic) relations between Poland, the UK and the US, were the following: a boost in trade between England and the city of Gdańsk, travels of the Polish elite to England in the period of partitions, the Czartoryskis’ appeals to develop political relations with England (culminating in the establishment of English faction in 1759 with Stanisław August Poniatowski and Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski as its leaders) and the emergence of Polish political emigration in the US at the end of the century. It is noteworthy that in the second half of the 18th century English culture and literature was popularized in Poland by means of French (Fisiak 1983: 9). The 19th century witnessed events of by far greater significance for English-Polish linguistic contacts. Most of all one should take heed of the following: (1) an increase in cultural relations through the growing political emigration; (2) the first translations of all Shakespeare’s works into Polish (by Stanisław E. Koźmian and Leon Ulrich); (3) ever more translations of other English and American authors; (4) staging Shakespeare’s plays (translated from original works) in Polish theaters; (5) the establishment of the first magazine on English matters (Pustelnik Londyński z ulicy Pikadilli – 1822-1823); (6) a rise of interest in the English language and culture 218

(especially the influence of English Romanticism) in the aristocratic circles (also as a result of the more common use of French by bourgeoisie); (7) as well as the role of Joseph Conrad, Bronisław Malinowski, Bolesław Prus and Henryk Sienkiewicz (Fisiak 1983: 9; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 23). In terms of cultural and linguistic contacts with anglophone countries, the twentieth century was complex and witnessed an ever greater impact of external factors on our mutual relations. In the interwar period, due to the development of the navy, merchant shipping, sport and travel, there was an intensification of Polish-British and Polish-American contacts (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 24). After World War II Poland was a state behind the Iron Curtain and found itself under an overwhelming influence of the Soviet Union and its political and cultural propaganda. Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons it turned out quite impossible to keep Poland totally out of the increasing international influence of the anglophone countries. After World War II a Polish émigré government was established in London and a host of Poles found their homes in Great Britain. It also seems that throughout the Cold War era the role of the British Council in maintaining cultural and educational relations with Poland was of the utmost importance. The events following the round-table talks opened Poland and its citizens in the early nineties to the West and the unrestrained influence of anglophones and their lingua-cultural dominance already well established in the non-communist world.

3.2.2. Attitudinal issues

A survey of literature by Remiszewski (2001: 131) makes it quite clear that anglophone culture, and especially the American strand, has always been highly regarded by Poles. What was especially appealing and admired in the post-World War II period about the US was its freedom of speech, affluence, and unlimited opportunities to achieve success. It is noteworthy that despite heavy propaganda on the part of the socialist government against the ‘corruption’ of the Western world, a host of Poles regarded anglophone culture and the English language as an emblem of freedom and a symbolic means of resisting the ideology of communism. As Johnston expounds, English was a language which had a special charm for many Poles:

219

It was the language of the BBC World Service and the Voice of America, sources of information that countered the disinformation of the regime. It was the language of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, both of whom were widely admired in Poland for ‘standing up to communism.’ Furthermore, it was the language of forbidden fruits: pop music, film and video, pornography, advertising, business, computers, and travel. In a word, it was the language of the accumulation of wealth, of consumerism and materialism, perhaps the most persuasive counterdiscourses to those of communism (Johnston 2004: 132).

Similarly, it is pointed out that for many Poles learning English was a manifestation of disloyalty and resistance to the Soviet Union as well as an expression of goodwill towards and identification with the West and the Western culture (Muchisky 1985: 34).92 It is reported that in the seventies 60 percent of Polish secondary students preferred to learn English rather than German or French (Reichelt 2005a: 220). An argument is also advanced that an interest in the language in the seventies was, among others, indicated by the spread of English words in various notices in big cities (Reichelt 2005a: 220). A decade later the enthusiasm about learning English was still on the increase, which was best proved by long queues formed up to four days before the enrolment on prestigious English courses at the Methodist Centre in Warsaw (Varney 1984, as quoted by Reichelt 2005a: 220). In the teaching profile published by the British Council in 1986 the English language was described as “the most important Western foreign language in Poland” and one which would like to be learned by around 50% of secondary students (Reichelt 2005a: 221). Another fact worthy of remark is that this favorable attitude was also manifested to the citizens of the UK. According to an account of a British emissary from a visit to post-war Poland, there was “an intense desire for our friendship. Whatever we may think about ourselves the Polish people still regard us as a great nation, and look up to us as capable of giving them a lead in many directions” (Silkin 1947: 3).

3.2.3. Teaching English

Teaching English as a school language is reported to have been introduced for the first time in Poland in the Knights School in Warsaw in 1767-1772 by John Lind (MańczakWohlfeld 2007: 217). The first English grammar book – Gramatyka dla Polaków 92

Conversely, some authors argue that in the early sixties of the twentieth century Polish pupils were rather not interested in learning English since the school syllabus was unfunctional and programs were dull and overloaded (Ehrenhalt 1990: 8, as quoted by Reichelt 2005a: 219).

220

chcących się uczyć angielskiego języka – was written by Julian Antonowicz and published in 1788 (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2007: 217). Nonetheless, it was only at the end of the nineteenth century when learning English became more fashionable amongst the elite and gradually started to replace French from its prestigious role. In the interwar period, English gained in popularity amid the Polish intelligentsia and it was taught, together with French and German, in schools (Reichelt 2005a: 217). After World War II English language instructions were progressively introduced into secondary schools and some universities (especially since 1956) and their popularity was on the increase (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2007: 217). Nevertheless, one should bear in mind that for various political and ideological reasons it was the Russian language which dominated in the Polish educational system. It became the only foreign compulsory language taught in primary and secondary schools. Altogether, there were up to eight years of Russian language instructions in primary and secondary schools (Johnston 2004: 127). Prior to 1989, all pupils from the fifth grade of primary school took a four-year course of Russian (320 hours in the period of four years) (Fisiak 1992: 7). After the events of Polish October (1956) there were serious discussions concerning the shape of public life, the educational system, and, by extension, the condition of foreign language teaching in Poland (Komorowska 2007a: 16). After October 1956, Western foreign languages were made equal in terms of their status to Latin (it was until then the second most important language in post-primary schools). A point is made that the interest in English was at that time great and still growing; it was comparable to the one in German, the language spoken by the inhabitants of the only Western country (the German Democratic Republic) that Poles could visit (Komorowska 2007a: 17). In the early 1960s, in addition to Russian, instructions in a Western language were made obligatory at the secondary and tertiary levels of education (Reichelt 2005a: 219). At that time the majority of students opted for English as a second foreign language and some of them attended private courses (see MańczakWohlfeld 2007: 218). Since 1982 primary-school pupils from the seventh grade could attend a two-year course (130 hours) in a Western language (English, German, or French) (Fisiak 1992: 7; Komorowska 1991: 501). With respect to English, owing to a dearth of teachers of English only 25% of pupils could take advantage of this opportunity (Fisiak 1992: 7; Komorowska 1991: 501). Interestingly, a country profile published by the British Council in 1975 reveals that there was serious official advocacy of English-language teaching and a great 221

demand for it in such fields as trade, tourism, science, and technology (Reichelt 2005: 219-220). The personnel of the Warsaw airport and major hotels are reported to have had a sufficient knowledge of English to carry out their duties, yet, there were serious shortcomings in its command among taxi drivers, customs officials, police officers, shopkeepers, as well as telephone operators (Reichelt 2005a: 220). It is also mentioned that there was a noticeable lack of native English speakers for the practice of conversations. According to the 1986 teaching profile prepared by the British Council, this problem still persisted in the late eighties along with such difficulties as “shortages of teachers, textbooks, and audiovisual materials; inadequate in-service teacher education; and economic barriers for teachers and students wishing to visit Britain” (Reichelt 2005a: 221). Furthermore, in accordance with the ideology and policy of the time, the government curtailed access to university English Departments and closed all but two of them (Reichelt 2005a: 217; see also below). This state of affairs translated into a huge disproportion between the number of teachers of Russian and English. Griffin (1997: 35) notes that just before the political transformations of the year 1989 the number of the former amounted to 18 thousand and the latter to one thousand two hundred. Much indicates thus that English language teaching in Polish schools, even though greatly demanded, was highly limited by a dearth of teachers and ideological restrictions. Nonetheless, it seems that the knowledge of English may have been higher in the Polish society than the statistics referring to its teaching in public schools suggest. This could be so because of private tutoring. It is noteworthy, as Reichelt (2005a: 219) reports, that in the 1960s “inexpensive evening English classes were also offered to all ages by various cultural and educational societies; however, a variety of constraints, such as large class size, mixed-ability groups, and lack of good instructional materials resulted in less than desirable results.” Also Johnston (2004: 128) points out that private courses were popular prior to 1989 and that from mid-1980s there was a growth of private schools offering English language classes. Research by Komorowska (1991: 502) launched in 1978 reveals that in that period as many as two thirds of general secondary school leavers (no more than one fifth of the age cohort attended them) from urban areas participated for at least two years in private English language classes. Moreover, it is noted that “[t]he phenomenon grew more and more conspicuous in the eighties when hundreds of private language schools mushroomed all over the country advertising courses of various types and levels” (Komorowska 1991: 502). According to 222

a report prepared by Komorowska for the Ministry of Education, out of approximately 130 thousand participants in foreign language courses (for instance, the ones organized by a cooperative Lingwista) over 60% of them learned English (Komorowska 1989: 405). As regards the knowledge of English among the Polish society, it is a must to refer to two highly interesting opinion polls conducted in 1961 and 1985 by OBOP (Siciński 1963; Znajomość 1985). The survey from 1963 makes it clear that at that time in Poland English was less known than Russian, German, and French (Siciński 1963: 4). Generally speaking, 34% of respondents claimed to have some command of Russian (7% - a good one, and 9% - an average one), 33% of German (6% - a good one, and 9% - an average one), 8% of French, and 7% of English (only 1% - a good one). It is noted that in the case of English there was a significant relation between a command of English and respondents’ level education (it was more popular with better educated Poles) (Siciński 1963: 7). The knowledge of English among respondents from urban areas who had primary education was very unusual; it was 4.9% for those aged 18-24, and 1.7% for the ones aged 25-49 (Siciński 1963: 8). Regarding respondents having a secondary or tertiary education, the knowledge was far more popular. The knowledge of English among respondents aged 18-24 was reported by 26.5% of those with secondary education and by as many as 51% of those with tertiary one. Two decades later the position of Russian as the leader strengthened (50% of Poles knew it then) and the number of Poles with a command of German and French dropped (to 20% in the case of German, and 3% in the case of French) (Znajomość 1985: 2). The knowledge of English remained at the same level – around 7% of all respondents (a representative sample of Poles) claimed to know it. Again, among younger and better educated Poles as well as the ones living in urban areas the command of English was more widespread (Znajomość 1985: 3-5). Nevertheless, the most significant differences were caused by respondents’ level of education. Whereas only 1% of Poles with primary education knew English, as many as 30% of college graduates had a command of it (Znajomość 1985: 4). What should also be touched upon when discussing teaching English in Poland prior to the political transformation of Poland is the functioning of English language departments. There seems to be no need to mention that one of the major functions of the departments of English in Poland before 1989 was popularizing the English language, anglophone culture and educating prospective teachers. At the beginning of 223

the twentieth century, on account of increasing interest in anglophone literature and culture, the demand for English language instructions increased and there emerged favorable circumstances for opening the first department of English in Poland (Fisiak 1983: 10). Cracow was the place where in 1908 the first chair of English philology was established. After World War I such departments were also set up in Poznań (1921), Warsaw (1922), and Lwów. It is reported that the number of students in the departments in the interwar period was rather inconsiderable (approximately 30 per department and 120 for Poland at large), just as the number of professors (four for the whole country) and junior staff members (up to ten) (Fisiak 1983: 17).93 Fisiak (1983: 19) states that years 1945-1950 was the period of reconstruction and notes that “[t]he academic world entered the first months of freedom decimated, with buildings and libraries often completely destroyed.” However, despite such obstacles the Jagiellonian University in Cracow reopened its English department in the spring of 1945. With a great rise of interest in the studies (the number of students rose several times), there was a significant increase in the number of junior staff members. The Kosciuszko Foundation helped to recruit lecturers on American literature (Fisiak 1983: 20). In the same year the English departments at universities in Warsaw and Poznań resumed their work and they also enjoyed far greater popularity than before World War II. Fisiak (1983: 20-21) emphasizes the role of the British Council, which provided books and lecturers, in the reconstruction of the department in Warsaw. It should also be noted that in addition to old departments, several new ones were established at the University of Łódź (autumn 1945 – over 100 students), the University of Wrocław (October 1945 – between 1945 and 1950 the number of students was from 300 to 350), Nicolaus Copernicus University (December 1945 – only 37 students graduated from it with the M.A. degree before it was closed in 1952), the Catholic University of Lublin (1946 – around 20 students per year) (Fisiak 1983: 21-22). Fisiak describes teaching in the universities after the war along the following lines:

The course of studies followed the pre-war pattern until the reform of higher education in 1950. (…) There was no language requirement on admission; indeed, most of the students in 1945 and even two years later would start with no knowledge of English at all and could have as few as two hours of English language instruction in a group of 100 students or more. This, of course, may have differed from one department to another and from year to year, but it does not change the general picture (Fisiak 1983: 22). 93

Fisiak (1983: 17) notes that “[a]ll this did not create a broad enough base to guarantee a dynamic development of the discipline and, with one or two exceptions, an international recognition.”

224

In 1949 the Ministry of Education decided to close all but one public department of English. As a result, by 1952 there were only two – at Warsaw University and the Catholic University of Lublin. It is noted that in 1955 there were over 150 students of English at the two existent departments (Fisiak 1983: 26). The staff made redundant after the closure of the departments found employment as teachers of English in other university departments, secondary schools or went to lecture at the English department in Warsaw (Fisiak 1983: 22). As a result of new political atmosphere in Poland in 1957, the Ministry of Higher Education deemed it appropriate to reopen other departments of English (Fisiak 1983: 25). A year later the Jagiellonian University managed to restore the Department of English and admitted 24 students. It is noteworthy, as Fisiak explicates, that:

The development of English studies witnessed during the late fifties would not have been possible without the active involvement of the British Council and the United States Embassy in Warsaw which provided lecturers, books and periodicals, and long and short term scholarships for Polish Anglicists. This aid programme was continued and even increased in the years to come and constituted a strong foundation for the further expansion of English studies in Poland (Fisiak 1983: 28).

Since the 1960s some new departments of English were set up and, aside from the university in Toruń, all old ones were re-established. The Poznań School of English was reopened in 1965 (over 750 students in 1977), the Department of English at the University of Wrocław in 1965, at the M. Curie-Skłodowska University in 1963, at the University of Silesia in 1973, at the University of Gdańsk in 1973, in the School of Education in Bydgoszcz in 1975, and in Opole in 1978 (Fisiak 1983 37-44). Fisiak further elucidates that:

The development of English studies since 1960 has been characterized by an unprecedented dynamism. (…) The number of full-time staff members has increased several times in comparison with the previous period, e.g., in 1982 there were 71 staff members in Poznań (including 10 native speakers), 36 in Cracow and 58 in Warsaw. The departments of English together employed as many as 402 staff members in 1982. (…) The number of students also rose to over 2500 in 1977, slightly decreasing since then. The number of graduates in 1981 was 455 (Fisiak 1983: 29).

It is reported that in 1984 the number of students at the departments of English amounted to 480 and two years later, due to an increasing demand, the Ministry of Education decided to raise admission to universities by 15% (Reichelt 2005a: 221).

225

3.2.4. Language planning and policy

As Mostowik and śukowska (2001: 9) point out it is difficult to talk about any language legislation per se in the pre-partition period. At that time the dominant position of Latin in public life was slowly giving way to Polish. During the partitions of Poland the status of the Polish language differed with respect to the rule under which a given region found itself. It is pointed out that in conformity with the rulings of the Congress of Vienna the partitioners were to respect the Polish language, maintain its status in public and private life, and refrain from assimilation policy (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 9). No need to mention it, there were numerous breaches of these regulations and Poles were forced to use Russian and German in public, or even, private communication. After Poland gained independence in 1918 the language legislation system was complex and the major goal of the then language policy was to strive for the unification of Polish and to fight against illiteracy (Bugajski 2005: 76; Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 1213). The legislative regulation of language issues changed after World War II. In place of a complex system respecting ethnic and minority rights a new decree was passed in 1945 which concerned the national language and the language used by governmental and self-governmental authorities (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 18). Generally speaking, as regards language planning and policy in the period between 1945 and 1989, they seem to have been first and foremost dependent on the general politics of Poland and its anti-Western orientation. Soon after World War II the Polish government decided to close all but one department of English to purportedly create a single good school of English. In the following years language planning and policy with respect to English in Poland were also largely conditioned by the political climate in the country. In periods of relative thaw in East-West tensions there was a restoration of old departments of English and an opening of some new ones. Fisiak describes the condition of foreign language teaching (and especially the status of English) in the early years of communist Poland along the following lines:

The 1948 school reform by the communist government established Russian as the only language in primary schools and replaced Latin with Russian as the obligatory language in secondary schools. This decision was purely ideological and political. In the face of intensifying cold war and the Stalinization of Poland, further moves were soon made to reduce the availability of English, language of the arch-enemy of socialism, in Polish education. Wherever possible, English teaching was eliminated from secondary education, often on the pretence of a lack of qualified teachers (Fisiak 1992: 6-7).

226

A couple of years after the death of Stalin (1953) a new more liberal government came to power and the condition of foreign language teaching temporarily improved. Together with relaxing censorship, translating numerous foreign publications, improving the situation of artists and the educational system came the establishment of the first magazine Języki Obce w Szkole (‘Foreign Languages in School’) dedicated to teaching foreign (Western) languages (Komorowska 2007a: 9). As an aside, Komorowska (2007a: 10) mentions that the organization of the International Youth Festival in Warsaw in 1955, or rather the realization that young people in Poland could not speak foreign languages and successfully communicate with foreign visitors, was also a strong motivational factor in the decision to set up a magazine which could become one of the key elements in improving the conditions of foreign (Western) language teaching in Poland. For years the magazine was for teachers the only source of information about the culture and literature of the languages which they taught as well as about recent teaching methods. Some other changes included the reform of teaching curricula (freeing it, to some degree, of ideological content) in 1958 and the switching on of the green light for teaching Western (also English) languages (Komorowska 2007a: 10; Fisiak 1992: 7). Nevertheless, as Fisiak (1992: 7) points out, “[t]he language policy for primary schools (…) remained unchanged until the early eighties, and the position of Russian in secondary schools was left unaltered until 1989.” The 1960s turned out to be a decade of disappointment for the Polish society and a period of dramatic events. Obviously, the condition of foreign language teaching in Poland did not improve then (Komorowska 2007b: 71). In contrast, in the new decade there was some liberalization of life and some change in the attitude of the state authorities toward the cultural and scholarly contacts with the West and, especially, toward Western language teaching (Komorowska 2007b: 71-72). The role of teaching foreign languages was commonly recognized as vital. This found its reflection in foreign language teaching in post-primary schools and in the popularity of private language (especially English) teaching (Komorowska 2007b: 72-73; 82). Also in the 1980s the educational system in Poland, despite serious economic and political problems of the state, functioned better than in earlier periods (Komorowska 2007c: 125). At the end of the decade Professor Jacek Fisiak (an Anglicist) became the Minister of Education and his actions commenced radical reforms in foreign language teaching in Poland (Komorowska 2007c: 127). Even before the political transformation 227

of Poland Fisiak managed to introduce Western language teaching to primary schools from the sixth grade on (a three-year course of two hours a week) and abolish in some voivodeships mandatory teaching of Russian (Komorowska 2007c: 138). Moreover, Fisiak commissioned Komorowska writing a report on the condition of foreign language teaching together with some proposals of changes (Komorowska 2007c: 138-139). The report became a basis for the reformation of language education and language teacher training in post-transformational Poland.

3.2.5. The power and politics of English 3.2.5.1. Introduction

As regards the power of English, one may argue that before the changes of 1989 it was its symbolic power as an emblem of anticommunist ideology, freedom, and the Western spirit that was of greatest significance. This symbolicity of English must have led many people to acquire the language, read anglophone literature, and familiarize themselves with American pop culture. Western discourses transmitted by the medium of English were likely to act as powerful counter-communist discourses and they may have inspired many among the intelligentsia to seek alternatives to the communist ideology. Nevertheless, one should discern that a command of English in the period between 1945 and 1989 did have some practical dimensions as well. It is pointed out that graduates from departments of English, thanks to knowledge of the language, used to have careers outside of teaching (Reichelt 2005a: 220). Frequently, they could find more prestigious and better-paid jobs as workers in national tourist agencies or airline (Reichelt 2005a: 220). One should also note that well before 1989 people knowing English could make extra money as private tutors. Accordingly, until the opening of Poland to the West one can refer most of all to the pragmatic power of English and to ideological transformation resultant from its knowledge and concomitant exposure to Western discourses. As regards the actions aimed at creating the power bases of English in communist Poland, it seems that the role of the British Council was pivotal.

228

3.2.5.2. Englishization and borrowings

Looking from the larger perspective, the history of borrowings from the English language into Polish may give considerable insight into some sociolinguistic aspects of English-Polish language contacts. Fisiak distinguished three periods of the influence of English upon Polish: from the end of 18th century until 1850; form 1850 until 1900; and from 1900 until the early sixties (the time of the completion of his thesis) (Fisiak 1961, as quoted by Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 26). It may well be reasonable to recognize that this third period lasted until the political changes of 1989. The fourth period, continuing until the present time, may be thought to have begun in 1990 when Poland opened to the West and when all unnatural barriers of the Iron Curtain disappeared letting the Western culture and the English language exert their overwhelming and largely unconstrained (at least in the early days after the political transformation) influence upon our culture and language. With respect to the oldest borrowings from the English language, they were adopted through the medium of other languages, for instance, French, German or Russian (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 26)94. The earliest English loanwords to be found in Polish (the 17th and the first half of 18th century) denoted most of all the realities of life in England and marine terminology (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 18). Importantly, there was a significant cultural influence of English Romanticism on Polish writers of the period. This had its linguistic ramifications in the form of an increase in the number of English loanwords in Polish.95 It is reported that the relatively significant number of English borrowings used at the end of the 19th century points to their adoption in the earlier periods and may well be traced to the rise of the British Empire and English industrial revolution (both marked this country’s increasing importance in the international arena) (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 36). An analysis of two dictionaries96

94

To my mind, one should discern that the classification of such indirect borrowings may cause considerable controversy concerning the key question the borrowing of which language a given lexeme is. On the one hand, it may be reasonable to assert that it is the direct donor which should be regarded as the source language. One could believe so since without this language the process of borrowing could not occur at all; and the more so if a given lexeme underwent, in the intermediary language, some significant forms of adaptations. On the other hand, looking from a broader perspective a given lexeme is an expression of the realities of a given culture and nation, and its diffusion, either direct or indirect, marks the spread of the ideas conceptualized first in no other but the original donor language. 95 Mańczak-Wohlfeld (2006b: 29) refers to the influence of Byron, Scott, and Shelley on Mickiewicz and on Polish Romanticism at large. 96 The so called Vilnius Dictionary from 1861, and Dictionary Containing Words and Phrases Assimilated in Polish published in 1859.

229

from the second half of 19th century shows that English loanwords used in Polish of the time belonged most of all to the following lexical fields (they point to the type of influence of English on Polish): political, social, legal, economic, as well as culinary, marine, sports and technical (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 33). Crucially, romantic interest in the English culture found its followers also in positivism. Notably, Bolesław Prus and Henryk Sienkiewicz played an active role in familiarizing Poles with English and American realities, as well as in introducing and popularizing English borrowings (the latter introduced over 100 loanwords some of which are still in use) (MańczakWohlfeld 2006b: 36). It is noteworthy that at the beginning of the 20th century Dictionary of the Polish Language (1900-1923) included approximately 250 English loanwords comprising the following semantic fields: sport and plays, socio-political life, cuisine, clothes and textiles, economy, geology, transports, American realities, sailing, science, social life, literature, coins and measures, religions (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 36-37). Even though a more considerable influx of anglicisms did not occur until the second half of the 20th century (together with a growing popularity of and interest in anglophone mass culture and the English language per se), in the preceding 50 years one could discern their gradual expansion into Polish (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2004: 177; see also Johnston 2004: 128). In the twenties and thirties of the twentieth century, English loanwords were popularized especially by American films, jazz, and mass culture (Walczak 1994, as quoted by Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 34). Koneczna (1936-1937), in her widely quoted study, collected 531 anglicisms and categorized them into 21 semantic classes; the most numerous of them were the following: sport (121 items), marine terminology (110), cultural life (53), trade, industry and banking (36), clothes and textiles (35), dishes and beverages (34), communication (17), weights and measures (15). Importantly, Mańczak-Wohlfeld (2006b: 37ff) argues that in the interwar period there were, in fact, considerably more English borrowings. Her analysis of a dictionary of foreign words by Michał Arct published in 1936 shows that there were approximately 1301 anglicisms used in the thirties by Poles (only 35% of them are still in use today). A point is made that the number could even rise, were it possible to analyze both the spoken and written language and not only lexicons (MańczakWohlfeld 2006b: 41-42). After World War II the first research on English loanwords in Polish was conducted by Fisiak (Fisiak 1961). Out of 721 anglicisms collected by him around three hundred were found to be introduced after 1945. In a paper from 1970 230

Fisiak differentiated 11 semantic classes to which anglicisms of the time belonged: sports and games; maritime terms; economy and trade; science and technique; transport, motoring, voyage; man and society; food, drinks and meals; dress, fashion, cosmetics and jewelry; arts and culture; political life and institutions; agriculture. Until 1985 Fisiak gathered over 1000 English borrowings (Fisiak 1986). Interestingly, it is pointed out that in the post-World War II period, anglicisms were used most of all in the unofficial variety of Polish since “the governments and administration made efforts to forbid or to ridicule the use of English words which penetrated from behind the iron curtain” (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 34).

3.2.6. The role of the British Council in establishing the power bases in Poland iiprior to

1989

The British Council is an institution established in November 1934 as an independent body of the government (though financed to a large extent from public funds) (Hill 1957a: 6). It emerges as a complex organization which both builds on voluntary support of non-official British institutions and collaborates with the Ministry of Education, the Home Office, the Scottish Office as well as civic authorities (Eden 1952: 33). One should discern that “[a]ll these interests are worked into the Council’s organisation and at some point represented in it” (Eden 1952: 33). Its major goal was formulated as follows: “the spreading of a knowledge of the English language abroad, on the ground that with a knowledge of the language there would come a desire to learn more about the British point of view and the British way of life” (Halifax 1939: 1). This institution postulates that its work must be beneficial to both the UK and “the receiving country” and has aimed at developing “closer cultural relations with other countries” through educational, scientific, professional and cultural contacts (Hill 1957a: 6; Eden 1952: 33). It is assumed that much as its activities are largely restricted to such spheres, they produce “political and commercial effects in the broadest sense” (Hill 1957a: 6). Conceivably, this may be one of the reasons why the documents had the status ‘secret’ or ‘confidential’ until quite recently. It seems of paramount importance to realize that the activities of the British Council, for better or worse, go far above and beyond the limits of ordinary maintenance of cultural relations. Its actions should be regarded as an important part of 231

general British foreign policy, anglophone and anticommunist propaganda, and a means of achieving specific political and economic goals. An analysis of governmental documents concerning the functioning of the British Council after World War II points clearly to both the realization of the UK political and economic dissolution and their desire to upkeep its significant role in the international arena (Hill 1957a: 2, Hill 1957b: 1). The British Council was meant to become a vital part of the UK information services trumpeting their high standards of democracy, justice, tolerance, truth, scientific knowledge, skills and inventiveness (Hill 1957a: 2). This specific kind of propaganda of the information services was (and still is?) regarded as a priority for the British government:

We can exercise our full influence only if we are prepared to devote enough effort and resources to ensuring that the peoples of other countries have every opportunity to understand our ideas, our policies and our objectives. Furthermore we shall strengthen our economic position only if our efforts include vigorous salesmanship overseas. (…) Through the information services policy is promoted and public opinion influenced. They are a means by which men's minds are drawn towards the acceptance of the values, the political and economic objectives and the social standards for which this country stands. We must apply to their organisation the principles and practices proved to be effective in other fields of public communication. (…) Our information services must reflect the interests and prestige of Great Britain as the centre of a unique Commonwealth of free nations. (…) They must create understanding of our economic prospects and trade policies, foster goodwill towards British products, and inform the world of our technological and scientific progress (Hill 1957a: 2).

In another governmental document published in the same year it is noted that the Information Services should be treated as part and parcel of “the normal apparatus of diplomacy of a Great Power” (Hill 1957b: 1). Furthermore, it is pointed out that:

Military and economic strength are not the whole story. Ideas are weapons in their own right. In our own day they have perhaps acquired a greater political importance than at any time since the religious wars of three hundred years ago. In the modern conflict of ideologies they offer, to those who command them—and use them with skill—an instrument of great and subtle power. (…) For example, we are witnessing to-day the expansion of technology on a scale, and at a speed, inconceivable only a few years ago. More countries are moving towards independence, while lacking the political maturity and experience to withstand the insidious corruption of Communism. In both respects we can offer a distinctive contribution to the shaping of world society in the years ahead (Hill 1957b: 1).

Attention is also drawn to the fact that in the modern times national policy is increasingly more influenced by public opinion and that foreign affairs, in their diplomatic efforts, should take into consideration the appeal to peoples of a given country (Trend 1964: 11). Therefore, it is noted that “[i]nformation and cultural

232

activities are now a regular part of the work of the overseas Services and occupy the undivided attention of a sizeable number of the staff” (Trend 1964: 11). Crucially, it is also reported that the British Council’s work overseas in educational and cultural spheres should remain their domain and that the work carried out by them is for the British government vital (Trend 1964: 58). To elaborate on the role of the British Council in the British foreign policy, one should realize its great importance for the UK government. A governmental document from 1939 reveals that “[a]ny paper on our propaganda (…) should begin with a brief survey of what the British Council has attempted and so far achieved” (Halifax 1939: 1). Its role, consisting in, among others, educating foreigners in the British spirit, was perceived as an element of Britain’s long-term propaganda, an antidote for Communist indoctrination and a means of maintaining political and economic supremacy in the world. The guiding principle of the British Council was “to bring the greatest number of influential or potentially influential people abroad into direct and if possible personal contact with British thought and British life” (Eden 1952: 34). Such individuals encompass “teachers, students, scientists, doctors, lawyers, government officials, Army officers or trade union officials” (Eden 1952: 34). Therefore, as the document explains “[t]he Council tries to influence people who can influence other people” (Eden 1952: 34). As governmental documents indicate, the work of the British Council and its results were perceived highly favorably:

The Government is greatly impressed by the high quality of material which it produces and the valuable work which it does in fostering contacts with influential individuals, particularly in the professional classes and with students who are likely to be leaders of opinion in their own countries. A large part of its resources is devoted to the care of students who come to this country from the Commonwealth and from foreign countries, and to the teaching of English (Hill 1957a: 6).

Generally speaking, the accomplishment of such aims has been pursued by means of education, teaching English language, literature as well as sciences and professions (Hill 1957b: 5f). It was also regarded as crucial to influence individuals by bringing them to the UK and immersing them in the British lifestyle. Accordingly, the work abroad was accompanied by supplementary activities in home divisions with the London division of the Council dealing with the grants for postgraduate scholarships and short-term trainings and courses. The significant role of the British Council is also evidenced by the fact that it was “an officially-recognised agent of the United Kingdom Government

233

for the purposes of the various cultural agreements between the United Kingdom and foreign States” (Eden 1952: 34). There has been a wide array of specific activities employed by the British Council.97 It is noted that they should be finely adjusted to the specificity of a given country and its level of development (Eden 1952: 35). While in the poor countries it may be necessary to directly teach adults, in the rich and developed ones the Council may rely more on cooperation with local institutions. To elaborate, poor countries were recognized as being in need of assistance in “the direct teaching of English: advice to Government on British practice in education, administration, and the training of teachers of English; British examinations; scientific and medical information and various forms of technical assistance, e.g. (…) the training of future experts and

97

Eden (1952: 36) lists the following very specific activities supervised by the Council’s representative: “(i) Running his Institute or Centre with perhaps two or three branches outside the capital (…) Centre activities include: teaching of English to adult fee-paying students if that is undertaken in the country in question; library with block loans to local libraries; study groups and talks on British subjects by Staff and visiting lecturers (the groups may comprise teachers, doctors, lawyers, welfare workers, &c.); dramatic ‘groups, concerts; small exhibitions. Whether there is a ‘Centre’ in the technical sense or not, library work will almost always play a prominent part. (ii) Contact with heads of universities, cultural, learned and adult education organisations, ministries and leading cultural figures. Acting as a link between British and foreign universities, professional, learned and occupational bodies. Thus the showing of medical films in Italy to specialist audiences, and other contacts with Italian officials and doctors, led to the introduction of British methods of anaesthesia in Italy, with British lecturers visiting Italian hospitals, Italians coming to England for training and ultimately to initial purchases of British anaesthesia equipment worth £500,000. (iii) Arrangements for recommended visitors to the United Kingdom; selection, with local Ministry of Education and universities, of British Council scholars and bursars; publicity and choice of delegates for British Council courses in the United Kingdom; information for specialists going to United Kingdom at their own or their Governments' expense. (iv) Extramural teaching of English, &c., in local institutions (this may vary from lectures in universities to classes for the armed forces, e.g., for the Turkish Air Force); training of teachers of English: vacation courses held locally: general links with local schools, training and technical colleges, &c, including film shows, talks and loans of periodicals and books, music, &c.: co-operation with the local Ministry of Education in regard to these matters. (V) Centre for British examinations (Cambridge University English examinations and others; some professional examinations); general arrangements, invigilation, return of papers, &c. (vi) British schools, where existing; membership of Boards of Governors, general advice, supervision of expenditure of subsidy if granted, help with recruitment of staff. (vii) Supervision of British holders of Councilsubsidised university posts, if any. (viii) Tours and contacts for visiting lecturers and experts sent by the Council from the United Kingdom. Dealing with other visiting British who may help by lecturing, &c, or ask for local contacts or merely examine the Council’s work; visits from members of Parliament and visiting British Delegations. (ix) Enquiries from persons wishing to produce British plays at their own expense (e.g., the management of the local national theatre) or translate or publish British books, verify references to the United Kingdom in books or perform British music; advice to these on royalties, performing rights, methods of production, &c; arranging reviews of British books, local publications of translations, sale of Council publications, exchanges of British and local learned journals. (x) Replies to miscellaneous enquiries for advice on educational matters and British practice generally; local government, science, medicine, administration of justice, industrial welfare, &c. Acting as a link between foreign specialists and their British opposite numbers, e.g., advising enquirers who are the leading British experts on some particular question. Less of the same service for British experts. (xi) Relations with local anglophile societies; sustaining them with talks, films, periodicals, &c. (In some countries, these are numerous, e,g. up to 80 in Sweden-35 in Italy.) (xii) Efforts to enlist help of members of local British community. (xiii) Arrangements for occasional British Council dramatic tours, exhibitions concerts.”

234

administrators in the United Kingdom” (Eden 1952: 35). In contrast, in developed countries an emphasis should be placed on “co-operation with universities, adult education, professions and occupations (…) highly-developed library work and much contact with leaders in all cultural fields, including science and medicine” and vacation courses (Eden 1952: 35). In addition, the British Council devoted some effort to develop appreciation of their art, music, films and press by numerous exhibitions, concerts, shows, writing articles for the foreign press98 etc. (Halifax 1939: 2f). Moreover, it is pointed out that “[t]he Council has (…) assisted existing British schools and institutes abroad either by a financial subvention or by provision of books and teachers and has also established British schools and institutes and University Chairs of English in those centres where the need was most urgent” (Halifax 1939: 2). Importantly, the document reveals that “[t]he enthusiasm which has attended the establishment of these institutes is remarkable” (Halifax 1939: 2). Regarding the provision of British education to foreigners, it was provided through two methods: establishment of British schools and institutes in foreign countries or scholarships for foreign students to educate themselves in the UK (Halifax 1939: 1). It is noteworthy that there were rather specific principles of distributing grants to foreigners – “[i]n the selection of candidates special attention has been given to teachers of English in foreign schools, on the ground that they would be continuing their work when they returned home and would be useful propagandists of British ideas” (Halifax 1939: 2). The work of the British Council also encompassed teaching English to fee-paying foreigners either in the UK or abroad as well as organizing summer schools, courses for teachers of English and granting scholarships (Eden 1952: 34). In fact, it was postulated that there was a need for vigorous promotion of teaching English and establishment of cooperation with local education authorities and the Education Ministers (Hill 1957b: 19). Organized efforts to accomplish these goals were seen necessary as the expansion of English overseas until that time was regarded as chaotic and disorganized (Hill 1957b: 5). The demand for English was perceived as enormous and much of the work of the Council should be devoted to the following: the recruitment of native teachers of English from the UK; encouragement of the teaching of English abroad; training native 98

The document reveals that in 1939 the British Council had contacts with a host of foreign editors covering as many as 400 newspapers (Halifax 1939: 3). It is also noted that inviting foreign editors to the UK was an important part of the activities of the British Council and that in 1939 there were guests also from Poland – “[t]hese visits not only produce very wide publicity in the countries concerned, but also influence favourably men of some importance in their own country who are often glad to continue the contacts once made” (Halifax 1939: 3).

235

teachers of English from other English-speaking countries; granting scholarships to EFL students to train themselves for the teacher of English in British universities; assisting “in strengthening existing arrangements for the training of oversea teachers of English in their own countries” (Hill 1957b: 7). The economic dimension of the work of the British Council was recognized as an important long-term goal of its various activities. One should discern that there was a full awareness that teaching English could generate substantial profits for the UK and, generally, its economy:

The English language is a commodity in great demand all over the world. It is a key to our literature and so to our culture. It is a valuable and coveted export for which many nations are prepared to pay. English is an export likely to attract other exports-British advisers and technicians, British technological or university education and British plant and equipment. There are clear commercial advantages to be gained from increasing the number of potential customers who can read technical and trade publicity material written in English (Hill 1957a: 6-7).

Accordingly, the British private industry was to be supported in their efforts to find new markets by the information services whose value consisted in “inspiring confidence in our economic prospects and trade policies, in fostering goodwill towards British products, in informing the world of our technological and scientific progress, and in extending the teaching of the English language, one of the most valuable of our invisible exports” (Hill 1957b: 2). Some other expected results of the activities of the British Council and the information services was increasing “the demand for British goods” by boosting prestige in such fields as economy, science and culture and promoting some specific products and classes of products (Eden 1952: 4). In addition, it was noted that some other significant “tangible advantages” was “the adoption of British methods, equipment and material” (Eden 1952: 34). It may be argued that the effects of this situation could easily be observed in the field of teaching English where there continues to be a clear dominance of British teaching materials and native-speaker models. The role of the British Council in Poland before 1989 was immense and consisted, most of all, in establishing the power bases of English in our country. Since earliest days Poland was a country of special importance and interest to the British Council (Hill 1957b: 4-5, Eden 1952: 35). This may be attributed to its strategic location in the centre of Europe and, after World War II, its status as a country behind the Iron Curtain. The Polish department of the British Council was opened as early as in

236

1938 and it was the second institute established in the world at large (British Council 2009a). In 1939 invitations to visit England as the guests of the British Council were extended to prominent and influential Poles. Since its opening the Council has offered exams in the English language to Poles and in the last 70 years a quarter of a million of Poles passed various Cambridge exams (British Council 2009a). The British Council established its library in Warsaw in 1946 and it was the third library to be opened in Europe (British Council 2009a). In 1971-72 the Council’s mail-order library lent almost 9000 books and in 1984 it lent to its four thousand members 500 books a day (British Council 2009a). One should also discern that since the beginning of the sixties of the twentieth century there was a screening room in the Warsaw department which showed British films (it happened that after such shows viewers were interrogated by Citizen’s Militia) (British Council 2009a). It is reported that after World War II the British Council, by providing books and lecturers, helped a great deal with the reestablishment of the Department of English at the University of Warsaw (Fisiak 1983: 20). Moreover, thanks to its great commitment (and the help of the US Embassy in Warsaw) in the fifties and the years to come, English studies in Poland could develop themselves (Fisiak 1983: 28). Fisiak (1983: 28) points out that “[t]his aid programme was continued and even increased in the years to come and constituted a strong foundation for the further expansion of English studies in Poland.” Interestingly, since 1983 Polish scholars and researchers got a chance to get access to a database DIALOG (the only such place in Poland) thanks to an installation of a computer with a telecommunications system by the British Council in its headquarters (British Council 2009a). In 1978 the British government (represented by the British Council) signed with the government of Poland a formal Convention regulating mutual cooperation in the fields of science, education and culture (British Council 2009b). From that time till today every three years there are meetings of the Mixed Commission (consisting of members from each country) devoted to discussing the directions of bi-lateral relations. In conclusion of this part of discussion, I would like to refer to a point by Johnston (2004: 128) which well illustrates the relation between the British Council, teaching English, and business in post-transformational Poland (possibly, it would not have worked so smoothly without earlier activities of the British Council in communist times) – “[i]n 1990, the British Council set up a special center to promote the teaching of English for business purposes, a program which went hand in

237

hand with the British government’s Know-How Fund, which sought to encourage links between the Polish and British business worlds.”

3.3. The sociolinguistics of English in Poland after 1989 3.3.1. The globalization/europeanization and the Americanization/Englishization of ithe Polish language and culture

Tracing the roots of Poles’ post-communist fixation on everything that is Western (and especially of English or American origin), one should remember that cold-war Poland, in comparison to other Soviet satellite countries, used to maintain stronger cultural relations with the West (cf. KsięŜopolski 1995: 35) and was an important focus of attention of the British Council. Poles also enjoyed greater freedom of speech and travel and were at the forefront of the anti-communist movement. This may be partly contributed to the existence of a several-million Polish community in the US and other Western-European countries. Poles tended to mythologize the prosperity and affluence of the Western world, despite the communist propaganda of the day, and envied their citizens accessibility to a wide variety of products – both everyday ones and luxurious (Kula 2005: 19). American dollar, thanks to its great value in communist Poland, became a symbol of wealth and the better world. Many products, such as Coca-Cola, jeans, Marlboro or Old Spice, could practically be bought only with dollar and in special shops controlled by authorities (Pewex). Pewexes were the symbolic oasis of the Western world, a place where it was possible to get a taste of American culture and consumptionist lifestyle. What is important for the present discussion is the point that the USSR had never managed to totally hinder the process of progressive proliferation of American mass culture in Poland (see below for relevant statistics). In this vein, Miłosz (1999) argues that “[m]ass culture emerges as the victory of America (its inventor) and the defeat of Russia which in the name of its ideology tried to resist the invasion of Western films and music [translation mine, KP].” Furthermore, it is pointed out that each and every national culture of the present-day world is under an influence of the English language, American mass and highbrow culture. The influence is argued to be planetary as it encompasses the dimensions of mores, morality, dress and a hierarchy of values (Miłosz 1999).

238

It goes without saying that the political and economic transformation of the communist Poland impacted not only on the society at large but also on the cultural life of Poles (see Rzeszutek 2000: 171). Rzeszutek (2000: 171) argues that “[t]he collapse of centralized economy, political pluralism, changes in the legal system together with the opening of Poland to the influence of western Europe and America profoundly reshaped the nature of Polish culture and redefined the traditional values of Poles [my translation, KP].” Changes in the society must invariably lead to changes in its language and communicative modes. One of the most significant transitions (in the context of the present discussion) was a gradual evolution of the intelligentsia into the so called middle class resembling the western model of the petit bourgeois (Lubaś 1996: 157). The class (encompassing private entrepreneurs, industrialists, directors, managers, salesmen and craftsmen) is thought to be characterized by its own working ethics, a sense of duty, deliberate utilitarianism, individualism, self-reliance as well as the ideology approving of mass culture (Lubaś 1996: 157). In this light, the causes of Americanization and Englishization of the Polish language (just as its brutalization, vulgarization and preference for colloquialism in the public discourse – see Rzeszutek 2000: 171) should be thought to lie also in the societal changes of the post-communist Poland and especially, as Lubaś (1996: 157) elucidates, in the dominance of utilitarian values over the spiritual and patriotic ones and in the practicalism of the new middle class. Lubaś (1996: 157) reminds that English loanwords carry out nominative functions only to some (in his opinion – quite limited) extent and in many domains anglicisms tend to double Polish equivalents as a language of prestige. Also Miodek (see an interview by Pawluczuk 1998) draws attention to the fact that elements of American mass culture are easily assimilated by Poles and that this may be easily observed by the massive adoption of English loanwords (also vulgarisms and such exclamations as WOW!); even by Polish football hooligans who started writing on walls Wisła King or Cracovia King99 instead of more traditional Wisła Pany or Cracovia Pany. In order to comprehend the sociolinguistics of English in Poland more fully, it is necessary to heed the second phenomenon which has also contributed to the present status and role of the language in our country, namely, Europeanization. Joining the European Union by Poles meant adopting its major goal – European integration – which

99

Such phrases as Legia rules or Widzew hooligans are also commonplace among Polish football hooligans and they may point to their patterning behavior, ‘culture’ and some language elements after the notorious British hooligans.

239

invariably required following its recommendations in the areas of education and language policy. This process is argued to pose a great challenge to the multiculturalism and multilingualism of Europe where the current language policy simultaneously endorses the use of English as a pan-European link language and attempts to safeguard national and ethnic languages (see Winiarska 2002: 11-12). Grucza (2002: 48) notes that the acceptance of the fact that European integration is a historical necessity entails reconciliation with the integration in the sphere of language: its use, knowledge and the language-determined perception and comprehension of the world. It is pointed out that the establishment of a single common language for all EU members is of utmost importance for the integration of Europe and the development of European identity – “[h]umans’ language identity undoubtedly constitutes the most significant element of the total identity of people”; “[w]ithout a common language there is not possibility of mutual communication and without it no group of subjects can become a real community since no collective identity can be adequately developed [translation mine, KP]” (Grucza 2002: 38; 45-46). Such aspects of European integration as common currency, symbols, values, or the past do play a role, yet, without a common language the integration is unlikely to rise to a higher level of identity development. As an aside, it should be reminded that a given individual does not have to feel tied to only one nation or ethnic community since people may indeed simultaneously (and to varying degrees, also in response to salient contextual factors) identify themselves with a variety of languages, nations or ethnic minorities (cf. Grucza 2002: 47). It is rightly argued that the so called “Poland’s ‘return to Europe’ coincides with the growing dominance of English in Europe across a wide range of domains, from scientific research through technology to entertainment” and that “the spread of English [in Poland as well] is (…) – perhaps primarily – to be found in the macrostructures of business, politics, and commerce” (Johnston 2004: 127). Johnston (2004: 127) reminds that the establishment of joint ventures (which enjoyed great popularity after 1989) and representations of Western companies usually necessitated from Poles a perfect knowledge of English. The importance of English for Poles’ business contacts in the European and international arena found its way into the legal jargon. It is noted that these days legal theory adopts terms which directly come from English (e.g. leasing, holding, sponsoring, forfeiting, franchising etc.) and that the scale of the phenomenon is huge (Zieliński 1999: 69). More generally, Komorowska (2007f: 22) points out that English is still gaining in popularity among new EU members and that European 240

training programs, as well as the opening of European job markets, have played a considerable role in boosting the demand for the language. Furthermore, competence in English is also thought to improve the attractiveness of Poland for foreign (especially, European) tourists and companies and, therefore, there are various campaigns aimed at spreading the knowledge of English in various institutions and companies. In Cracow, for instance, firms and institutions (as well as train stations and offices) which employ personnel having a command of English will have their advertisement placed on the official website of the Municipal Council and in various materials promoting the city (Romanowski 2008). Some other ideas to attract and help foreigners coming to Poland is the broadcasting of TV and radio news in English (for instance, TVN24, Radio PiN, and TOK FM) (Szczęśniak 2005). Polish colleges have also started to recognize the potential of English (as the language of instruction) in attracting both Polish and European students to come to study at their departments (Iwanciw 2006). This role of English as a lingua franca for Europeans is also easily discernible during scientific conferences where, as Komorowska (2007f: 23) notes, one can even here Poles talking to Czechs and Slovaks in English.

3.3.2. Post-communist (cultural) relations between Poland, the UK and the US

Visits abroad are the most direct type of contact with the culture of a foreign country. In this respect the political transformation of Poland literally opened Poles to the world at large. Since 1989 the number of Poles who traveled abroad has been systematically rising and now it is reported to get stabilized on the level of around 61% (Wciórka 2009b: 1-2). The majority of Poles who go abroad are rather young, well-off and welleducated (Wciórka 2009b: 1-2). They most often travel as tourists (65%) but as many as 22% declare that their visits abroad are related to seeking a job (Wciórka 2009b: 9). Of all anglophone countries Great Britain enjoys the greatest popularity with Poles. In 2009 it was also the seventh most commonly visited foreign country by Poles (Wciórka 2009b: 6). The number of Poles who visited Great Britain increased form 1% in 1993 to 7% in 2009. Far fewer Poles have been to the US – in the last two decades the number remained on the stable level of 2% of the whole society. One should also remember, as it is rightly pointed out, that “[t]he process of constant improvement in the level of knowledge of English among Poles is without doubt a fact that contributes to the 241

strengthening of Polish/British contacts. The fading language barrier brings the two societies closer together not only on the socio-cultural level but also in a business sense” (Gołębiewska 2003). To elaborate on the latter, one should take heed of the following facts:

Polish-British trade relations have never been better. Over the past decade, the value of Polish exports to Britain has increased fourfold, and British firms have become increasingly eager to enter the Polish market. Britain is the second largest investor globally, following closely behind the United States. In Poland, Britain ranks sixth. Major British firms have been investing in Poland for some time, but medium-sized firms are lagging behind. (…) Britain is one of three countries that opened up their labor markets to Poles following EU enlargement. With one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU, British employers have reported labor shortages and are solving the problem by recruiting Poles. According to estimates, over the past three years, about a million Poles have left the country to work in Britain. Many economists believe a lot of them will return to Poland having improved their qualifications and professional experience, which will make them even more attractive to foreign investors (Jeziorski 2007).

Regarding Polish-British top-down cultural relations, they seem to be more intense and comprehensive than the cultural cooperation between the governments of Poland and the US. The former are carefully supervised by the British Council and the Polish government. Since the first Convention between the Government of the Polish People’s Republic and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on cooperation in the field of culture, education and science in 1978, every three years there are regular bilateral discussions (Mixed Commission) concerning the evolution and strategic development of the mutual collaboration in the aforesaid fields. However, it should be noted that prior to 1978 cultural relations between Poland and Great Britain, largely thanks to the activities of the British Council, were also quite close. Examining the protocol of the tenth Mixed Commission one can notice how various the types of activities between the two countries are (British Council 2009c). Numerous organization, institutions and artistic communities are engaged in developing good Polish-British cultural relations by supporting various activities (meetings, projects, contests, overseas visits, lectures, exhibitions etc.) in such spheres as: theater, dance, music, the visual arts, literature, translation, the protection of monuments and cultural heritage, architecture, museums, film, photography etc. One should also mention an exchange of specialists from the two countries as well as a wide educational (especially English language teaching) and scientific cooperation. It is worth noting that looking into the protocol one cannot help but get the impression that

242

the UK represented by the British Council is at least two steps ahead of Poland in the promotion of its successes, expertise and culture. Even though the situation seems to be changing, Poland is largely on the receiving end of the cultural, scientific and educational transfer between the two countries. With respect to Polish-American official relations on the governmental level, it seems that since their beginning in 1919, they have tended to refer more to political and military rather than cultural concerns. Poles have always regarded the US as a superpower, a land flowing with milk and honey. As early as in the 19th century a host of Poles emigrated to the US and formed there numerous Polish communities. Even in the communist times Poles were more likely to view the US as an ally and the USSR as a foe rather than the other way round (Lotczyk 2009). Polish-American diplomatic relations after 1989 were stable and each Polish government supported the US in their military policy (and activities) and attempts to strengthen its role in Europe (Lotczyk 2009). In connection, it should be noted that Poland incurred considerable national debt to the government of the US in the communist times. Each Polish Minister of the Foreign Affairs announced support for the continuation of the military and political collaboration with the US and expressed hope for the development of good mutual relations. As regards economic relations, the US is a significant investor100 in the Polish economy and an important exporter of high-tech goods to Poland (see PolskoAmerykańskie stosunki 2009). It is noted that the US remain a key partner in the economy of Poland because of their huge economic potential, and their special role in the international arena (e.g. NATO101) and such economic organizations as WTO, OECD, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. Despite this top-down dominance of mutual relations in non-cultural spheres, one should not neglect the role of the US Embassy in Warsaw, the US Consulate General in Cracow, the Fulbright Commission, American Peace Corps, as well as the significance of the Kosciuszko Foundation in the promotion of cultural and educational cooperation between the two countries in post-communist Poland. As regards the 100 The following American companies are reported to have invested in the Polish economy the most (see Polsko-Amerykańskie stosunki 2009): Citigroup; General Motors Corp., Enterprise Investors, International Paper Company, Philip Morris, General Electric Corporation, Pepsico, Epstein, Procter and Gamble, MARS Inc, AIG, McDonald’s, D. Chase Enerprises. 101 Interestingly, one should take heed of the fact that, as press reports reveale (gp 1998; jak 1998), a command of English by Polish soldiers was considered to be a crucial and basic requirement, even more important than a well-equipped army, for our membership in NATO. Also more recently, a report by NIK (the Supreme Chamber of Control) (Sprawozdanie 2006: 322) draws attention to the fact that it is necessary to improve soldiers’ command of English.

243

American embassy, its cultural section aims at developing common understanding and strengthening Polish-American ties through engaging in the cooperation with Polish universities, academics (academic exchange, conferences on American studies and the English language) and cultural institutions (popularizing American culture and support for joint Polish-American projects); as well as by supporting various projects enabling Polish

specialists

to

get

in

touch

with

American

counterparts

(see

http://polish.poland.usembassy.gov). Moreover, the embassy offers its assistance in English language teaching in Poland by providing teachers with access to a variety of publications on methodology of teaching, American culture and American studies. Another goal is to familiarize wider audiences (students, journalists, English teachers and academics) with American culture and expertise; for instance, “America Presents” program offers lectures and discussions with American scholars, artists, athletes, and experts. These days the activities of the US Consulate General in Cracow consist in supervising contacts with the media from the five, southern Polish voivodeshps and organizing cultural and educational cooperation between Poland and the US on a more local

level

Fulbright

(see

Program

http://polish.krakow.usconsulate.gov/krakow-pl/pas.html). commenced

its

activity

in

Poland

in

1959

The (see

http://fulbright.edu.pl/en/about_us/420197792.html). At first it was administered by American Embassy and Polish Ministry of Higher Education. In 1990 the governments of Poland and the United States signed a treaty on the establishment of the Office of U.S. Educational Exchanges which soon adopted the name Polish-U.S. Fulbright Commission. Its major goal is to organize educational and cultural cooperation between Poland and the US and, in this way, increase mutual understanding of the two countries (its people and countries) and facilitate an exchange of knowledge, ideas and expertise. Specifically, it supervises a variety of exchange programs, and “supports studies, research, instruction, and other educational activities of American and Polish educators, scholars, and institutions; it also administers visits and exchanges between the United States and Poland of students, trainees, scholars, teachers, instructors, and professors” (http://fulbright.edu.pl/en/about_us/420197792.html date of access 21.01.2010.). As regards American Peace Corps, their activities in Poland began in 1990 largely thanks to the help of Mr. Edward J. Piszek’s Liberty Bell Foundation and the government of Poland which “provided the English teaching volunteers with an unprecedented amount of support in the form of housing and other cash or in-kind 244

contributions” (Admin1 1998). It seems that teaching English to Poles was an important element in the attainment of their major goals: to help Poland in its transformation, prepare it for the new century, train experts in a variety of fields and ensure a good understanding of the US and its nation (Admin1 1998). In addition to language teaching and training teachers of English in colleges, Peace Corps volunteers also carried out the following programs: the Small Business Program and the Environmental Program. Finally, one should also appreciate the role of the Kosciuszko Foundation – a charitable organization founded in 1925. It sets its sights on “promoting and strengthening understanding and friendship between the peoples of Poland and the United States through educational, scientific, and cultural exchanges and other related programs and activities” (http://www.kosciuszkofoundation.org/ABMission.html date of access 21.01.2010). Since the beginning of its existence it offered grants and fellowships to graduate students, scholars, scientists, professionals and artists from Poland. Its main emphasis is placed on increasing “the visibility and prestige of Polish culture (…) by sponsoring exhibits, publications, film festivals, performing arts such as concerts and recitals,

and

assists

other

institutions

with

similar

goals”

(http://www.kosciuszkofoundation.org/ABMission.html date of access 21.01.2010). What is important in the context of the present discussion is the fact that since 1991 the Kosciuszko Foundation has also been actively engaged in spreading teaching English in Poland (The past and the future 2007: 36). It is reported that since 1991, the TEIP program has managed to recruit 1,600 volunteers who have taught English to almost 10 thousand Polish students. Moreover, the foundation claims to play “a key role in recruiting, and supervising the American volunteers, as well as their travel logistics to and from Poland” (in cooperation with the Polish Ministry of National Education, and the Polish National Commission for UNESCO) (The past and the future 2007: 36). In addition to top-down organization of cultural relations between Poland, the US and the UK, bottom-up (and ‘middle-ground’, i.e. not supervised but encouraged by the authorities) cultural contacts seem to have played at least just as significant a role in the processes of Americanization and Englishization of the Polish culture and language. Bottom-up processes regulating cultural relations between Poland and Anglo-American cultures may be understood as determined by the interest of individuals in the culture102

102

The notion culture is used here in a broad sense including not also the so called high culture but also the totality of attitudes, values, knowledge and practices attributed to a certain nation or a group of people.

245

of the other country. The interest may be independent of or even counter to top-down regulations and may lead individuals to familiarize themselves with or even adopt the same, or similar, practices, goals, values and beliefs. The linguistic dimension of this interest may encompass, for instance, using borrowings and/or learning the language spoken by the admired nation or community. It seems that the attractiveness of American pop culture and consumptionist lifestyle (presented to us and popularized – almost mythologized – by means of anglophone films and books already in communist times) was a significant factor paving the way for the post-communist explosion of interest in Anglo-American cultures and the English language. What follows is a short description of some important indicators of Poles’ past and present interest in the cultures of the US and the UK as compared to their most meaningful (at least in the context of Poland) rivals. The relevance of the data presented below for the present discussion should be understood as their pointing to important foundations for the processes of Englishization of the Polish language and Americanization of our culture and producing insight into the degree, scale and type of lingua-cultural contacts. In order to better comprehend the significance of the English language and culture, it is necessary to analyze them against the background of other (the most) popular ones. The first indicator of Polish–Anglo-American cultural contacts to be discussed concerns translations of books and pamphlets into the Polish language (see Table 1). This indicator may be thought to point to the demand for English and American literary and scholarly publications as well as the interest in the offer of the Anglo-American literary culture and (scientific) knowledge. It should be noted that only after 1989 the demand may regarded as regulated by the laws of free market and that prior to that date efforts at the governmental level were taken to minimize the impact of Anglo-American culture, ideology and expertise. In fact, it is noted that due to governmental activities a host of private publishing houses were closed and all publishing industry became state-owned and state-regulated (Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 5). In the communist Poland there was heavy censorship and the number of titles published was subject to severe limitations which, in turn, depended on the general political and social atmosphere in the country. In the post-war Poland (especially in years 1944-1955), there was a dramatic increase in the circulation of propagandist publications and translation from the Russian language (Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 93). Disregarding some yearly fluctuations it may be generalized that from 1966 till 1988 the number of titles translated from French oscillated almost each year around 246

100; German achieved a relatively small increase of 58% in the eighties, and English enjoyed a 61% increase (see Figure 7 and Table 1). It seems that translations from English were subject to the greatest fluctuations from year to year. Interestingly, as early as in the 1960s, despite the communist regime, the number of titles translated from English started to catch up with those from Russian and soon translations from English were to take the first place and remain it ever since. Table 1. Books and pamphlets translated into Polish by language of originals – the number of titles and icopies (the latter in thousands). Years

English Titles

Copies

French Titles

Copies

Russian103

German Titles

206 3142 102 1464 97 1966 4276 117 1692 110 237104 1967 212 3505.1 91 1448.3 82 1970 105 248 5305 93 1785 101 1973 192 4176.1 85 1687.6 132 1980 201 9264,5 77 2498.7 90 1984 274 11719 91 4547 146 1987 106 332 15878.5 110 5082.6 153 1988 741107 20544 175 4871 173 1991 1803 31131,9 288 2337 420 1995 2434 20652.6 315 1452.9 507 1999 3023 21804 310 1555 611 2003 2696 21498.4 413 1864.2 599 2005 4306 23269 481 1592.8 885 2008 Own compilation on the basis of GUS cultural yearbooks.108 (* no data)

Copies 1030 1436 1102.5 1449 2140.2 2631.9 5505 3932.6 3441.6 3119 2619.5 2378.9 2616 2889.8

Titles 229 241 191 206 207 145 192 217 82 74 59 100 128 156

Copies 3943 3209.6 3044.4 3860 2554 4090.4 6504 7391 1524.7 311 235 303 352.5 517.6

103

Russian and other USSR languages – after 1991 only Russian. This included: belles lettres (96 titles and 3332 copies in thousands); natural sciences (46 tiles and 240.5 copies in thousands); engineering, technology, industries, construction (16 titles and 62.9 copies in thousands); mathematics (13 titles and 72 copies in thousands); medicine (13 titles and 96 copies in thousands). 105 This included: belles lettres (117 titles and 4228.6 copies in thousands); scientific publications (66 titles and 245.8 copies in thousands); scientific-for-the-general-public publications (41 titles and 657 copies in thousands ); textbooks for tertiary education (20 titles and 151 copies in thousands). 106 This included: sciences (69 titles and 345.7 copies in thousands); textbooks for tertiary education (4 titles and 15.5 copies in thousands); popular-general publications (104 titles and 2510.4 copies in thousands); school textbooks (3 titles and 620.3 copies in thousands); belles lettres (152 titles and 12386.6 copies in thousands). 107 This included: scientific publications (56 titles and 171 copies in thousands); textbooks for tertiary education (15 titles and 81 copies in thousands); popular-general publications (159 titles and 4039 copies in thousands); school textbooks (0); belles lettres (511 titles and 16251.8 copies in thousands). 108 The GUS (Główny Urząd Statystyczny – Central Statistical Office) cultural yearbooks used in the compilation of the following data included the following: Rocznik 1969; Kultura 1970; Rocznik 1971; Kultura 1973; Rocznik 1975; Podstawowe informacje 1993; Kultura 1997; Kultura 1998; Kultura 1999; Kultura 2000; Kultura 2001; Kultura 2004; Kultura 2006; Kultura 2009. 104

247

Th e n u m b er o f n ew titles

5000 4500

English

4000

French

3500

German

3000

Russian

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1966

1970

1973

1980

1984

1988

1991

1995

1999

2003

2005

Years

Figure 7. Translations of books and pamphlets into Polish by language of originals – the number of new ititles.

were to take the first place and remain it ever since. The rate of increase in the number of translated titles from the four languages changed dramatically after the political transformation of Poland. Nevertheless, it is argued that, as for the publishing industry, statistically significant manifestations of the post-1989 changes (abolishment of censorship, rise of private publishing houses, free market regulations) could be observed with a lag of about two years (Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 5). Generally speaking, it should be noted that while in years 1944-1990 the number of titles translated from Russian constituted 28.5% of all titles and from English 18.4%, in 1991-2004 the proportions changed dramatically and the titles translated from English constituted 55.2% of all (translations from German were the second largest – 11.7% of the total number of titles) (Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 8-9). The number of titles translated from French increased since 1988 till 2008 by 337%, from German by 478%, and translations from English skyrocketed by 1197% (see Table 1 and Figure 7). The number of titles translated from Russian saw a gradual decrease until 1988; after the political transformation of Poland there was a dramatic decline in translations from the language; and now, in the new millennium, one can notice a systematic increase in such translations. Importantly, it should be noted that figures (see Table 1 and footnotes)

248

2008

indicate that belles lettres were translated the most frequently from English and only then came translations of scientific publications. In 1991 one can notice another interesting change, namely, translations of popular-general publications became the second most numerous109, just after belles lettres. Over a decade later, in 2004 this tendency still continues to show, which may be regarded as a general trend. Out of 3180 translated titles of books from English in 2004 (translations from all other foreign languages amounted altogether to 2026 titles), 1221 were belles-lettres for adults, 999 – popular science, 452 scientific publications, and 381 belles-lettres for children (see Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 40). Analyzing figures concerning the number of titles published in 2004, one can say that every 17th scientific publication (of all titles, including translations and the ones produced originally in Polish) was a translation from English (TFE), just as every 27th textbook for tertiary education, every 19th professional publication, every fifth popular-general and every third belles lettres publication (Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 26, 40). As regards circulation, every 8.19th scientific book was a TFE, just as every 10.4th textbook for tertiary education, every 24.9th professional book, every 4.2th populargeneral book, and every 1.3th belles lettres. Altogether in 2004, of all copies of all types of books (altogether 83974.2 copies in thousands), there were 22735.6 copies of books translated from English, which means that every 3.69th book was a translation from English. As for the titles, there were altogether in 2004, 22475 titles, of which 3180 were translations from English (all types of translations), which means that every 7th title published in Poland was translated from the language. Taking into consideration similar figures published by GUS, one can see that of all 28248 titles of books and pamphlets published in 2008, 4306 were translated from English and 526 were published in English. This means that every 6.5th book was a TFE and that every 5.8th was either a TFE or a publication in English. As regards the number of copies of all books and pamphlets brought out in the same year, one can see that of all 84983 copies (in thousands), 23269.2 were translated from English, which means that every 3.65th book was a translation from English (in all probability the large circulation of them is determined by translations of belles lettres). 109

There is no evidence corroborating the following claim but it is possibile that with a gradual decline (or a decrease in the dynamics of the demand for such publications) in the number of translations of scientific publications, there could be an increase in the demand for the scientific publications published in English. The increase in the value of books export may be thought as significant in this respect (see Table 4).

249

While titles indicate more the kind of cultural contacts and their intensity in specific areas (they point to the domains where there is demand for Anglo-American publications), the number of copies relates to the scope of the spread throughout the Polish society (see Figure 8 and Table 1). Altogether they may be argued to give a significant insight into the social penetration of Anglo-American literary culture and scholarly expertise across the Polish society at large. All in all, in years 1944-1990 the circulation of translations from Russian constituted 28.8% of all, and from English as many as 25.5% (Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 9). In years 1991-2004 the circulation of translations from English made up 68.5% of all translations and from German (the second largest circulation) 8.5%. mmmm

35000 English 30000 The number of copies

French 25000

German

20000

Russian

15000 10000 5000 0 1966

1970

1973

1980

1984

1988

1991

1995

1999

2003

2005

Years

Figure 8. Translations of books and pamphlets into Polish by language of originals – the number of icopies iin thousands.

second largest circulation) 8.5%. To specify, as regards the number of copies of books and pamphlets translated from French, there was quite a systematic increase until the late ninety eighties (an increase by 247% from 1966 till 1988), and after 1989 there was a rapid decrease by 69% (from 1988 till 2008) (see Table 1 and Figure 8). Similar tendencies can be observed in the case of the circulation of books translated from German. Until 1988 there was a big increase in the number of copies (by 434% from 1966 till 1987); it was followed by a rapid decline (by 56.8%) until 2003, and at present

250

2008

there seem to be again some upward tendencies. Since the 1960s until the second half of the 1980s the copies of books translated from Russian, despite some fluctuations, remained at a moderately stable level of around 3000,000 copies a year. The late 1980s saw the second peak increase in translation from Russian (the first, over three times greater, was in the years 1944-1955 – 108,090,000 copies in the period) which was followed by a drastic decline in the fist years of 1990s. Since that time, with the exception of 2008, the number of copies oscillated around 300,000 a year. Interestingly, since mid-1960s, the number of copies of books translated from Russian (and, in fact, any other foreign language) has never been greater than the one of Anglo-American publications (see Table 1 and Figure 8). To elaborate on the number of copies of books and pamphlets translated from English, it should be noted that until mid-1980s, despite some minor fluctuations, the circulation of books translated from English was at least two times higher than the ones from French and German – not to mention other languages (with the exception of Russian). Since mid-1980s until now the circulation of translations from English has been at least several times higher than those from the other three analyzed languages. Importantly, it should be discerned that figures indicate (see Table 1) that the greatest circulation of translations from English has always had belles lettres, followed by popular-general publications, and scientific ones. According to recent statistics, such trends continue to remain the same. In 2004 the circulation of belles lettres for adults was 13509.5 copies in thousands (of belles lettres for children – 4265.6); of populargeneral publications – 3935; and of scientific ones – 733.7 (see Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 41). Generally speaking, in 2004 the circulation of all translations from English was almost twice as great as those from all other languages (22735.6 from English and 12015 from all other languages; copies in thousands); and in 2003 almost thrice as high (21804.1 to 7275.7) (see Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 41). To elaborate on the importance of translations from English in comparison to other languages (in 2004), it should be noted that: (1) the circulation of translations of belles lettres for adults from English was over three times larger than the ones from all other languages (20171.3 to 6661.8); (2) the circulation of belles lettres for children translated from English were over two times larger (4265.6 to 1892); (3) the circulation of scholarly publications was almost twice as large (733.7 to 394.4); (4) the circulation of textbooks for tertiary education was over seven times larger (129.2 to 20.8); (5) the circulation of professional books was almost twice as large (129.5 to 66.4); (6) and the circulation of popular-general publications 251

was also significantly higher (3935 to 2905.1) (Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 41)110. The only type of translation from English whose circulation was smaller than from all other languages counted together were school handbooks (33.1 to 74.5; yet, translations from no other single language was larger than the ones from English). Finally, it should be pointed out that after 1989 political transformation, general publishing trends are that an increase in the number of published titles – both translations and original publications in Polish – (from 1991 till 2004 by 210%) is accompanied by a decrease in the overall circulation (the circulation of books in 2004 made up only 67% of the one in 1991) (see Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 5). Moreover, it should be elucidated that while scholarly publications constitute over 30% of all titles, their circulation oscillates from 3% to 7% of all copies; one can also notice similar tendencies in the publications of textbooks for tertiary education. Interestingly, school handbooks show the opposite trends, with the number of titles constituting around 5-7%, their circulation makes up from 28% to 34% of all publications. Regarding the publications of books in a foreign language brought out in Poland, it is important to remember about some quite obvious, yet meaningful things (see Table 2 and Figures 9 and 10). There must be some people who have a sufficiently perfect command of a given foreign language to write a book (most probably in the majority of cases such authors are Poles, but not necessarily always so). There must also be some interest on the part of Polish publishing houses in such publications, which is in turn determined to some extent by the next factor. There must be some readership – not only other Poles having a command of a given language but also, or maybe most of all, foreigners (both natives and nonnatives of the language in which a book is published). It is reported that in 2004 there were 299 publications in English111 (159 of which were written by Polish authors); this included 223 scholarly publications with a circulation of 61.9 (copies in thousands), 27 school textbooks (346.8 – copies in thousands), 23 textbooks for tertiary education (15 – copies in thousands), and 18 popular-general publications (45 – copies in thousands) (Ruch Wydawniczy 2004: 38-39). Given the statistics published by Ruch Wydawniczy (2004: 38) and the figures presented in the 110

The magnitute of the circulation of publications translated from languages other than English was in the following order: the first were translations from German, then French, Italian, Spanish and Russian. 111 For comparison, in the same year there were only 17 scientific books published in German (6.1 copies in thousands), 14 in French (4.4 – copies in thousands), and 11 in Russian (3.5 – copies in thousands); 7 textbooks for university students in Russian (2.5 – copies in thousands), 6 in German (2.5 – copies in thousands) and 3 in French (1.1 – copies in thousands); 19 school textbooks in German (262.6 – copies in thousands), 5 in Russian (137 – copies in thousands) and 0 in French; 14 popular-general publications in German (34.3 copies in thousands), 2 in French (2.5 – copies in thousands) and 0 in Russian.

252

footnotes below Table 2, it may be generalized that since the post-World-War-II period the majority of publications (especially the number of titles) brought out in Poland in the English language have encompassed first and foremost scholarly books, and textbooks for tertiary education. More recently, school textbooks and popular-general publications have significantly grown in importance (particularly the former in terms of circulation). Table 2. Books and pamphlets by language of publication – titles and number of copies (the latter in ithousands).

Years

Polish Titles

Copies

English Titles

Copies

French Titles

Russian112

German

Copies

Titles

Copies

Titles

Copies

1965

6616

77326.8

339

930.8

59

263.7

64

269.9

97

2081.8

1967

7825

85895.8

220113

861.5

41

163.8

50

449

76

2091

95228.1

114

634.1

52

206.7

39

453.7

103

1707.2

115

1970

8423

303

1973 1980 1983

8551 9877 7294

111880 124929.4 65590.9

476 244 196

1029.8 916.6 458.7

45 35 25

148.9 139.8 48.1

59 63 22

403 475.2 54.5

106 105 32

1630 1152 41.9

1986

8121

208732.4

269

1988

8767

188745

197.1

18

124

29

208

52

129

116

822.7

27

110

37

356

79

3077.6

117

18

32,3

41

645.7

82

1524.7

265

1991

8126

80956.7

327

854.5

1995

7834

65927.5

266

516.6

26

106

2000

13870

63412.9

376

424.7

21

151.2

76

644.9

26

68.8

2003

14181

50686

235

532

21

42.5

74

254.5

22

229.9

2005 2008

13370 17812

46202.7 42346.9

249 526

497.7 215.2

15 17

14.6 6

53 80

173.5 81.6

21 28

102.6 10.6

*

*

*

*

Own compilation – on the basis of GUS cultural yearbooks. (* no data)

112

Russian and other USSR languages – after 1991 only Russian. This included: natural sciences (107 titles and 105 copies in thousands); linguistics (35 titles and 638.5 copies in thousands); engineering, technology, industries, construction (30 titles and 22.7 copies in thousands); mathematics (11 titles and 9.7 copies in thousands), domestic/rural science (10 titles and 10.9 copies in thousands). 114 This included: natural sciences (151 titles and 124.5 copies in thousands); engineering, technology, industries, construction (55 titles and 32.3 copies in thousands); linguistics – (35 titles and 419.5 copies in thousands); domestic/rural science (15 titles and 13.9 copies in thousands). 115 This included: natural sciences (168 titles and 110.8 copies in thousands); engineering, technology, industries, construction (152 titles and 84.9 copies in thousands); linguistics (63 titles and 743.6 copies in thousands); mathematics (26 titles and 9.5 copies in thousands); organization and technology of trades and industries (22 titles and 12.9 copies in thousands). 116 This included: scientific publications (228 titles and 70.2 copies in thousands); textbooks for tertiary education (12 titles and 60.2 copies in thousands); popular-general publications (14 titles and 402.3 copies in thousands); school textbooks (11 titles and 290 copies in thousands). 117 This included: scientific publications (289 titles and 74.7 copies in thousands); popular-general publications (22 titles and 710.2 copies in thousands); textbooks for tertiary education (13 titles and 19.6 copies in thousands); schools textbooks (2 titles and 30 copies in thousands). 113

253

600 English The number of new titles

500

French German

400 Russian 300 200 100 0 1965

1970

1973

1980

1983

1986

1991

1995

2000

2003

2005

2008

Years

Figure 9. Books and pamphlets by language of publication – titles.

2500 English The number of copies

2000

French German

1500 Russian 1000

500

0 1965

1970

1973

1980

1983

1986

1991

1995

2000

2003

2005

Years

Figure 10. Books and pamphlets by language of publication – the number of copies.

It is noteworthy that regarding the position of English in terms of the number of titles (see Figure 9), one can easily notice that since the 1960s the English language has overwhelmingly dominated foreign-language publications in Poland. With an average

254

2008

number of 307 titles per year (calculated on the basis of Table 2)118, no other foreign language publications have managed to compete with English. Specifically, publications in English tended to outnumber the French ones: by over 5 to 1 in 1965, 1967, and 1970; by over 7 to 1 in 1983, 1986 and 1988; and by over 16 to 1 in 2000, 2005 and 2008 (in the last year the proportion was 30.9 to 1). The differences between English and German in the number of titles are not as great as in the case of French. Calculations made on the basis of Table 2 reveal that the number of publications in English did not tend to outnumber the German ones by more than 10 to 1 and that the average was around 6 to 1 in favor of English. With respect to publications in Russian, there seems to be a distinct contrast between publications before and after the political transformations of Poland in 1989. Whereas in communist Poland there were usually no more than 5 times as many titles published in English as in Russian, since 1990s the former has tended to outnumber the latter by more than 10 to 1. Even sharper contrasts between the two languages in these different periods can be noticed in the case of changes in the proportions of circulation. Until 1980s the number of copies of publications in Russian was on average higher than the ones in English; but from 1983 till 1986 the circulation of titles published in English was larger (see Table 2 and Figure 10). After 1986, for a short period of time, publications in Russian became again more numerous, but since 1990s onwards they have lost their position in favor of English. The annual circulations of publications in English have also tended to outnumber the ones in French and German. While the former got dramatically outnumbered by English only most recently (see Table 2, years 2003-2008; and Figure 10), the latter has on average remained at a rather stable and quite close position to English (the ratio has usually been around 2 to 1 in favor of English). Importantly, one should discern (see Table 2) that publications in Polish, both in terms of the number of titles and copies, have never been close to be caught up, or the more so dominated, by the English language. As regards newspapers and magazines published in a foreign language, the majority of such publications brought out in Poland are most likely to be scientific ones. The figures presented in Table 3 indicate that since 1970 the number of titles published in English has outnumbered the ones in French, German and Russian. Looking at Figure 11 and Table 3 it can easily be noticed that until 1989 the number of titles published in 118

In the case of English it is quite reasonable to make such calculations as the number of titles has tended to be amazingly even throughout the years since the post-war period (for details see Table 2).

255

German and Russian was on a relatively stable level (the former oscillated around 25 and the latter ranged from 25 to 35); publications in French saw a gradual decrease from 28 in 1970 to 19 in 1989, and the ones in English a systematic increase from 86 in 1970 to 146 in 1989. As regards circulation, the magazines and newspapers published in French saw a steady decrease in the number of copies from 114 in 1970 to 31,8 in 1989 (copies in thousands), the ones published in German dropped (but not so systematically) from 150.8 copies in 1970 to 102.9 in 1989, and the ones published in English from 281 in 1970 to 177 in 1989. In contrast, the circulation of newspapers and magazines published in Russian enjoyed an increase from 286.6 in 1970 to 628.9 in 1989. After the political transformation of Poland in 1989 one can observe a marked change in trends both in terms of the number of titles and their circulation. Since 1989 there has been a general decrease in the number of titles and copies of newspapers and magazines published in French and Russian (see Table 3 and Figures 11 and 12). Interestingly, the number of titles brought out in German, after a decline to 10 in 1991, increased to 21 in 2004.119 As regards publications of magazines and newspapers in English, they enjoyed a considerable increase both in the number of titles (from 146 in 1990 to 240 in 2004) and circulation (from 177.1 in 1989 to 255.6 in 1991).

Table 3. Newspapers and magazines published by language of origin (titles and copies in thousands). 120

English

French

German

Russian

Years

Titles

Copies

Titles

Copies

Titles

Copies

Titles

Copies

1970

86

281

28

114

27

150.8

33

286.6

1980

129

239

25

59.6

29

192.6

35

484.7

1985

106

142.7

26

48.8

22

96.7

25

643.1

1989

146

177.1

19

31.8

25

102.9

28

628.9

1990

133

237.3

12

22.3

15

48.6

23

507.8

1991

154

255.6

10

14.3

10

34

17

101.3

2004

240

no data

10

no data

21

no data

11

no data

119

Unfortunately, similar statistics on circulation, just as information for the period between 1991 and 2004, were not accessible to the author of the dissertation. 120 Own compilation on the basis of GUS cultural yearbooks and Ruch Wydawniczy (2004).

256

300 English The nu mber o f titles

250

French German

200

Russian 150 100 50 0 1970

1980

1985

1989

1990

2004

Years

Th e n u m b er o f co p ies (in th o u san d s)

Figure 11. The number of newspapers and magazines by language of publication – the number of titles.

700

English

600

French

500

German Russian

400 300 200 100 0 1970

1980

1985

1989

1990

1991

Years

Figure 12. The number of newspapers and magazines by language of publication – the number of copies in thousands.

257

Another indicator of the recent rise in the influence of English written word on the Polish language and culture is a great boost in imports of English books to Poland. Thanks to the aid of Mandy Knight (Manager for Market Information & Statistics from the Publishers Association Ltd 29B Montague Street London) in collecting relevant data the author of this dissertation managed to draw up a compilation of the value of UK books exports to Poland pointing to the scale of the phenomenon in the 1988-2008 period (see Table 4 and Figure 13). Unfortunately, it was impossible to ascertain reliably the type of books that was shipped to Poland in greatest numbers. mmmmmmmm Table 4. The value of UK books exports to Poland in pound sterling since 1988.

Year

The value of UK book export to Poland in pound sterling

2008

22,717,800

2007

22,868,980

2005

18,100,000

2004

15,400,000

2003

14,200,000

2002

8,700,000

2001

11,200,000

2000

11,200,000

1995

9,800,000

1994

9,261,000

1993

10,920,000

1992

10,678,000

1991

6,431,933

1990

2,400,776

1989

743,774

1988

746,948

In all probability, the lion’s share of the export were TEFL handbooks and dictionaries (see also below). Looking at Figure 13 and Table 4 one can notice a trend easily observed in the statistics discussed aforesaid. The first years following the political transformation of Poland saw a huge change in the hitherto state of affairs. In the case of the UK books shipped to Poland, it was a huge increase in the overall value of the export. In the first year after the transformation (1990) it was over threefold, in the second over eightfold and the third fourteenfold (see Table 4). From 1993 till 2002 the

258

annual value of UK books exports to Poland oscillated between 8,700,000 million pounds. Year 2003 marked the second wave of increase in the value of UK books exported to Poland. While the first boost may be explained by the opening of borders and Poles’ desire to learn English, the second one should rather be accounted for by the consolidation and strengthening of the position of English in Poland caused, among others, by educational reforms121 and advanced preparations for the EU membership and then the joining of the EU in 2005. Specifically, by comparison with year 2002 the next one saw a rise by 63% (from 8.7 million to 14.2 million) and 2008 by 161%.

The value of UK book exports to Poland in pound sterling

25 000 000

20 000 000

15 000 000

10 000 000

5 000 000

0 1988

1989

1990

1991

1992 1993

1994

1995

2000

2001

2002 2003

2004

2005

Years

Figure 13. The value of UK books exports to Poland in pound sterling since 1988.

Another important element of the description of the sociolinguistic functioning of English in Poland is the market of textbooks for teaching English language in Polish schools. By way of introduction, it should be clarified that “[a]ccording to the ordinance from April 2002, in order to become a school textbook, a book has to obtain four

121

At first their announcement (failed attempts of early implementation), and finally, the actual introduction of new secondary school-leaving exam in 2005 with obligatory written and oral exams in a foreign language; which bearing in mind the structure of language teaching in Poland boiled down to taking an exam in English.

259

2007

2008

positive qualified reviews-two reviews concerning content, one didactic and a fourth concerning the book’s language” (Lekki 2003). These days reviews are prepared by specialists selected from the ministry’s list of experts and applicants (usually publishing companies) are to cover all the costs related to the review process. Importantly, it should be pointed out that all the biggest publishing houses recognized posttransformational Poland as “an extremely lucrative market” or even, as Johnston (2004: 127) quotes the words of “[o]ne highly placed representative of a leading British publishing company”, a “gold mine.” This profitability of the textbook market seems unsurprising bearing in mind the demand for teaching materials and their high costs. As for the latter, even MEN (Ministry of National Education) takes notice of the fact that school textbooks for teaching foreign languages are the most expensive of all others (according to NIK around 30% of pupils and students do not have their own language textbooks) (Debaene 2007: 147). Another thing that one should realize is that the list of textbooks accepted by MEN that can be used in schools is largely dominated by foreign (British) titles. It is reported, for instance, that in 2000 out of 50 titles of English textbooks only two were published by WSiP and all the others were by foreign publishing houses (e.g. Longman, Oxford, Cambridge) (Papuzińska 2001: 25). Komorowska (see an interview by Papuzińska 2001: 25) explains that these huge companies have unrivalled experience and can afford to hire the best experts dealing only with writing textbooks. This is noted to stand in sharp contrast to the situation of Polish writers (most often teachers) who are forced to work too much and find hardly any time (even those the most dedicated) to writing textbooks. Moreover, one should also take heed of the distribution process of English school textbooks. It is reported that such publishing companies as Oxford University Press search for in summer (before the school year begins) English teachers whose job will be to “maintain close contacts with local educational authorities and monitor the competition [translation mine, KP]” (Papuzińska 2001: 25). What is also required from such sales representatives is “familiarity with the local teaching staff [translation mine, KP]” (Papuzińska 2001: 25). In light of this, it seems only natural that teachers usually opt for textbooks published in Britain (Reichelt 2005b: 221). This is the more so as they provide teachers with free instructor copies and the schools (the ones which order enough sets for their pupils and students) with additional teaching materials. According to a recent study (Debaene 2007: 146), almost half of all teachers rely on sales representatives for their choice of textbooks. Moreover, it is reported that over 74% of 260

respondents (teachers of foreign languages) admitted that they participated in methodological trainings organized by such publishers (as an aside it should be noted that even though such trainings do not end with any tests, they count as teachers’ contribution to their obtaining additional qualifications, which is necessary in their further career advancement122) (Debaene 2007: 146). Concluding it would be good to refer to an argument advanced by Debaene:

[S]uch a dominant role of publishers may be a cause for concern. This being so since there is risk that teaching materials are selected inappropriately; the choice may be based more on the marketing of materials rather than its factual value. Lack of topdown control over the market of educational materials may lead to an unequal distribution of power with smaller publishing houses (especially the local ones) being unable to compete with the bigger international ones [translation mine, KP] (Debaene 2007: 147).

Cinema and the movies are another important factor of the Englishization and Americanization of the Polish language and culture. Unfortunately, it was impossible for the author of this dissertation to gather data from GUS cultural yearbooks for the years 1990-1999. There is only some fragmentary information presenting a general picture of the period obtained from Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Filmowców Polskich. An analysis of figures presented in Table 5 (see also Figure 14 for a general overview) reveals that in terms of the number of new titles shown in Polish cinemas (until 1989) there was a steady rise of Polish film releases (from 24 in 1960 to 47 in 1989), a gradual decline in the number of those coming form the USSR (from 51 in 1960 to 33 in 1989), as well as those from the UK (from 15 in 1960 to 3 in 1989), France (from 29 in 1960 to 4 in 1989) and Germany (from 15 in 1960 to 7 in 1989). In the same period the releases of new films from the US oscillated around 20 titles per year. It should be noted that Figures 14 and 15 show the combined number of audience and titles from the UK and the US to reveal the overall significance of the films in the English language. Obviously enough, the lion’s share of the titles and the audience was contributed by American films. Interestingly, one should bear in mind that before 1989 new film releases made up only a small part of all films shown in the cinemas. Looking at the releases of all (old and new) films, one can notice that there was a systematic rise in the number of titles offered by the cinemas: in the case of Polish films there was a rise from 118 in 1960 to 122

To elaborate, it should be explained that “A teacher starting his/her first ever job undertakes a yearlong staŜ in order to obtain a promotion to contract teacher, and then embarks on another staŜ of 2 years and 9 months leading to promotion to appointed teacher. The appointment does not lose its validity if a break in service has not lasted longer than 5 years” (Structures of Education 2010: 27).

261

724 in 1989, American – a rise form 58 in 1960 to 144 in 1989; and Russian – a rise form 245 in 1960 to 489 in 1989. The number of all film titles from the UK and France gradually declined (the former from 55 in 1960 to 32 in 1989 and the latter from 172 in 1960 to 32 in 1989) and the ones from Germany oscillated in the period at the level of around 90.

Table 5. Full-length (new-releases and reruns) films in the cinemas by country of origin – titles and audience. 123

Years

Poland

The US

The UK

France

Germany (until 1990 Both GDR and FRG)

Russian Federation (USSR until 1991)

Titles

Aud.

Titles

Aud.

Titles

Aud.

Titles

Aud.

Titles

Aud.

Titles

Aud.

2000

118 (24) 297 (20) 455 (28) 564 (42) 724 (47) 24

34074 (17.4) 26183 (16.3) 40275 (29.7) 21596 (24.2) 23398 (28.5) 3548.2

58 (23) 120 (30) 96 (23) 111 (16) 144 (19) 116

32888 (16.8) 41145 (25.6) 26388 (19.5) 25295 (28.4) 35712 (43.6) 13300

55 (15) 72 (10) 75 (12) 36 (7) 32 (3) 19

16

128

13

2008

36

9553 (4.8) 5723 (3.5) 6822 (5.1) 3362 (3.8) 1872 (2.3) No info 244.9 (0.75) 792.9 (2.5) 788.4 (2.4)

245 (51) 472 (37) 431 (32) 505 (36) 489 (33) No info 3

26

26606.7 (82) 19419.5 (61) 16508.5 (50)

92 (15) 71 (12) 89 (9) 101 (11) 93 (7) No info 2

2007

2816.7 (8.7) 8001.2 (25) 8293.5 (25)

172 (29) 131 (25) 116 (21) 90 (6) 44 (4) No info 22

32867 (16.8) 29504 (18.4) 18917 (14) 6362 (7.1) 2416 (2.9) 50

2004

14991 (7.6) 12175 (7.6) 10331 (7.6) 9246 (10.4) 4074 (5) less than 50 1270,8 (3.9) 976.112 (3) 3565.6 (10.9)

30041 (15.3) 19106 (11.9) 8705 (6.4) 6812 (7.6) 3560 (4.3) No info 65.7 (0.2) 26.2 0.08 101.5 (0.3)

1960 1967 1973 1980 1989

124 117

21 19

18 19

660.6 (2) 1506.1 (4.7) 1599.1 (4.8)

13 11

4 7

Own compilation on the basis of GUS cultural yearbooks (see footnote 108).

123

In communist Poland new-released films constituted only a part (in the sixties only a very small one) of all films shown in the cinemas. Until 1989 the number of new releases is shown in brackets below the number of all titles (new releases plus reruns) shown in the cinemas in a given year. The number of audience is given in thousands and in brackets below the number shows (in percent) how big a part of all viewers of all films in a given year constituted those who went to films produced by this given country.

262

160 Poland 140 The US and the UK

Th e n u m b er o f film titles

120

France

100

Germany

80

Russian

60 40 20 0 1967

1973

1980

1989

2000

2004

2007

Years

Figure 14. The number of new film releases in the cinemas in Poland by country of origin. 60000 C in em a au d ien ce (in th o u san d s)

Poland 50000

The US and the UK France

40000

Germany 30000

Russian

20000

10000 0 1967

1973

1980

1989

2000

2004

2007

Years

Figure 15. The number of viewers in the cinema by country of films’ origin.

As regards the number of audience (see Table 5 and Figure 15) before 1989, it seems to be a better indicator of the actual role (and, in fact, influence on the society) of film industry than the number of titles offered by cinemas. This is so because in communist Poland censorship was imposed on the film industry (the types of films shown and its number) and not the audience. Interestingly, even before 1989 the cinema audience of both American and English films tended to significantly outnumber the

263

audience of all other films (see also Table 5). In 1960 the percentage of viewers of American and English films made up 24.4% of all, in 1980 – 38.8% and in 1989 – 48.6%. It should be discerned that in the same period there was a systematic increase in the number of cinemagoers attending Polish films (from 17.4% in 1960 to 28.5% in 1989). The audience of films originating from the UK, France, Germany and the USSR steadily decreased in the period. The greatest decline was suffered by the French cinema (a fall from 16.8% of all cinema viewers in 1960 to 2.9% in 1989), the Russian (15.3% in 1960 and 4.3% in 1989) and English (7.6% in 1960 and 5% in 1989) ones. The audience of German films dropped from 4.8% in 1960 to 2.3% in 1989. Therefore, it may be said that at the turn of the political transformation of Poland American films were already the most popular and the US film industry had strong bases for further expansion in free-market-economy Poland. As mentioned above, no statistics of the type presented in Table 5 were accessible for the 1990s. Nonetheless, a point is made that in the first year after the political transformation of Poland there was a great rush of Poles to the cinema to see uncensored American productions (Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Filmowców Polskich 2005). It is reported that in 1990 the attendance at films in the cinema amounted to 38 million film viewers; yet in 1991 it dropped to 18 million and in 1992 to as little as 10.5 million. The reasons for this state of affairs are argued to be numerous: rising unemployment, Poles’ sinking into depression and an easy access to video cassettes with (American) films. An introduction of film premieres to Poland, just after the ones in the world at large, was an important change in the cinema industry. In the 1990s there were around 150-160 film premieres in Poland. In the second half of the 1990s the number of cinema audience started to rise: from 22 million viewers in 1995 to 26 million in 1999. The new millennium saw the continued dominance of American films in the cinema (both in terms of titles and audience). Nevertheless, a quite steady number of American film releases in the first years of the millennium was accompanied with a systematic decline in the number of film viewers of the productions from the US. In 2004 the attendance at films originating from America made up 82% of the overall attendance and in 2008 it was ‘only’ 50%. Interestingly, it seems that the newest trends are that Poles are starting to choose Polish productions increasingly more frequently (a rise from 8.7% of the total attendance in 2004 to 25% in 2008). Another interesting tendency is a growing interest in film productions from the UK. In 2004 the audience at English films made up only 3.9% of the overall number of audience, and in 2008 it rose 264

to 10.9%. With respect to the number of titles, one should note that there are increasingly more Polish, German and Russian productions. However, in these two latter cases the rise was accompanied by a relatively slight increase in the number of audience. It should also be noted that the number of American and English film releases oscillates at a relatively stable level of around 120 in the case of the former and 18 in the latter. Finally, the last comment on the film industry in Poland is that the specificity of our country is that films with dubbing do not enjoy huge popularity (see Table 6). As one can see in Table 6 after some failed attempts in 1990 to adapt foreign films to include dubbing on a larger scale there have been no more numerous productions with dubbing ever since. What is important for the present discussion is that Anglo-American films shown in the cinema are predominantly subtitled and not dubbed (the ones shown on television usually have a voice-over). Therefore, the linguistic influence of English should be expected to be greater than in the case of dubbed films. Interestingly, it is also possible to observe an ever increasing number of foreign-film adaptations124 shown both in the cinema and television (see Table 6). This tendency testifies to the important role of foreign film productions in Polish television and the popularization of foreign images, cultures, discourses, and languages. It is pointed out, for instance, that one of the most popular TV channels in Poland (TVN) imports from the US around 77% of its film repertoire (Romanowska 2003: 2). Moreover, while in public television 27% of the time intended for films is occupied by Polish productions, in private channels it makes up only 7% (Waniek 2003: 6). It is further noted that American series and films are overwhelmingly dominant in Polish television. This hegemony of anglophone film productions must have had considerable influence on the spread of anglicisms in the Polish language and the popularization of the American culture among the Polish society. In this vein, it is argued that inaccurate translations of dialogues from American and English films (popularized thanks to the cinema, television, and video) contributed significantly to the spread of English loanwords in the Polish language (Dunaj et al. 1999: 241). A point is also made that poor translations of Anglo-American advertizing texts, and their constant appearance in the media (especially, in commercials), may even lead to non-lexical (e.g. syntactic) borrowing from English (Markowski 1992b: 237).

124

In the form of overdubbing voiceover or adding subtitles to full- and short-length films shown in the cinemas and on television.

265

Table 6. The number of full-length dubbed films and other adaptations of full- and short-length films. Years Productions Full-length films with dubbing Adaptations of foreign films

1960

1965

1970

1976

1980

1983

1988 1990

37

44

43

21

20

10

68

25

55

14

16

77

150

318

1995

1999

2003

2005

2007

331

27

12

no data

5

22

349

1703

1850

1403

2882

5876

Own compilation on the basis of GUS statistics (see footnote 108).

The dominance of anglophone movies is exactly what is disquieting the artistic, intellectual, and political circles in Poland and Europe. It is pointed out that the danger of a situation in which all films and TV programs come from one country consists in the unification of the world cultures, the dissemination and universal adoption of American perception of the world, their ideology, conceptions and visions of humanity (Dąbrowski 2002). In this vein, Miłosz (1999) argued that “[g]reat homogenization is embracing all continents and, paradoxically, Hollywood is becoming the capital of the world [translation mine, KP].” Because of this, a way must be found by the intelligentsia to defend national identity and to creatively transform and adapt the influence exerted by America and the English language (Miłosz 1999). What is especially disturbing in this context is an analysis of films earmarked for children. Polish producers of children’s films deplore the bombardment of Polish children with foreign films, ideas and languages – “[a] Polish child does not hear the Polish language in the cinema, and does not see traditional and historical Polish heroes in children’s films [translation mine, KP]” (Oldak and Bromski 2002). Therefore, the preservation of Polish identity in future generations is regarded as endangered. It is noted that the reasons for the hegemony of American movies in Europe and Poland are that for Americans films are invariably an investment intended to bring profit (it is the second largest American industry) (Dąbrowski 2002). That is one of the major reasons why there is no way in which European and Polish artistic and ambitious movies (but also the commercial ones produced in the spirit of American-like commercialism) can be on a par in terms of technological standards, financing distribution and marketing with American commercial productions. Importantly, it should be discerned that even though there is currently a greater interest in and a growing number of Polish and European productions, the US continues to rule with absolute power in the Polish and European movies markets. 266

3.3.3. Americanization and Englishization in Poland and their linguistic uidimensions

The opening of borders in 1989 fully exposed Poland to the processes of globalization, Americanization, Englishization and Europeanization. Since the beginning of the political transformation, the Polish language (its development and status) has been significantly influenced by these four major processes which – in addition to political, economic, social and cultural – has also had linguistic ramifications. More specifically, scholars mention the following factors contributing to the shaping of the post-1989 Polish language: the English language (Englishization), American pop culture, show business and manner, compensation for the communist times, television, the cinema, music, technological development and innovations, the Internet, rejection of language authorities (see, for instance, Chłopicki 2002: 63; Smółkowska 2000: 51; Orliński 2003; Mazur 2000: 8).125 One should take heed of the fact that “[t]he transference of culture occurs typically in language contact situations” and that “[i]t is the culture which is transferred, language structures being part of it” (Arabski 2006: 15). In this light, much indicates, as Łyda (2006: 60) points out, that Polish-English contact is one representing “a situation of linguistic contact between a ‘minor’ culture and the shaping power of a dominant one” which, in fact, “filled the sociolinguistic vacuum [e.g. the need for various genres], the existence of which started to be realised only with the transformation of the socioeconomic system and the system of goals and values.” One should also notice that the English language and culture (as well as their influence) enjoy widespread approbation of the whole society and, accordingly, their impact can easily be discernible across all generations, mielieux and spheres of life (from science, pop culture, and hobbies to secular holidays) (Grybysiowa 2005: 38). Grybysiowa (2005: 38) asserts that “one can talk about the presence of English in the totality of Polish culture [translation mine, KP].” Fashion for the language and borrowings seems to go hand in hand with the fascination for the American culture and manner as well as the cult of youth and consumerism (cf. Mosiołek-Kłosińska 2000: 78). It is rightly argued that “post-1989 Polish seems to reflect the need of Polish society to dissociate itself from the past epoch and create new reality [translation mine, 125

Some scholars make the point that the political, social, and economic transformation of Poland led merely to the intensification of the linguistic processes (especially, the flood of vocabulary related to technology and development) which have been actually operating since the post-World War II period (Waszakowa 1995: 2).

267

KP]” (Mosiołek-Kłosińska 2000: 78). The desire to live in a new Poland could best be observed by the emergence of Polish yuppies (or at least those young Poles who aspired to become ones) and their highly Americanized and Englishized manners and language practices (Chłopicki 2005: 111). Especially in the 1990s the use of such words as business, dealer, leasing, lobby or some English lexical elements (e.g. –ing, -ex, -land) grew into a symbol of the new reality since they first heralded and then touted the coming of new times and Poles’ rush to the Westernized world (Waszakowa 1995: 3). Such words enjoyed great popularity in the media which highly contributed to their popularization. The Americanization of the communicative practices of Poles has also led to the adoption of increasingly more colloquialisms, borrowings and lexemes from (specialist) registers into general Polish, as well as greater ease of manner in communication and the commodification of the language of the media (cf. MosiołekKłosińska 2000: 78; Mazur 2000: 8; Waszakowa 1995: 4). It is maintained that “loans are introduced by bilingual speakers and are first used only by them and then gradually spread around. Therefore, we can speak of a dynamic process which ends in the introduction of the loanword to the language system” (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006a: 47). Importantly, one must notice that after 1989 there was a general rush to learn English and that anglicisms were introduced and commonly used also by Poles having a basic command of English. Motivations for learning must have been varied, but in addition to more practical reasons many people (especially the young ones) are believed to have decided to master English because of pure interest in the culture of Great Britain and the United States (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2004: 177). In this way, using foreign lexical items may in some situations be regarded as a manifestation of identification with a foreign culture (especially in cases where there are native counterparts) (Arabski 2006: 20). To my mind, it should also be noted that the so called integrative motivation with respect to acquiring English may not really be related to identifying with Americans or Englishmen per se but, generally, with the globalized, westernized culture for which English is the medium and the symbol. It is probably this kind of integrative motivation that people in Poland have considered more important. Be that as it may, because of increasingly more Americanized media and an ever greater number of learners of English, more and more Poles got heavily exposed to English, and acquired some knowledge of it (or at least of some English words and phrases). In this light, foreign language learning may be seen as a language contact situation highly conducive to the borrowing of lexical items from the target language 268

and, more generally, a culture contact situation leading to the adoption of concepts, ideas and other cultural elements from the more dominant and expansive culture (cf. Arabski 2006: 20). A point is made that since over 94% of English loanwords are nouns one may say that “it is a contact of concept, ideas, gadgets and institutions (Arabski 2006: 20). A question arises as to why the English language is so attractive to Poles. The attractiveness of Anglo-American culture itself is not a sufficient reason since it is perfectly possible to think of a situation in which heavy drawing on and fascination with foreign culture is not accompanied by language borrowing but by creation of novel, counterpart concepts in the native language. Reasons for massive borrowing from English are undoubtedly numerous, yet, it seems that sociolinguistic causes are dominant, for instance, (1) the use of anglicisms to express group solidarity (especially among youth cohorts), (2) to express solidarity with the culture and the world which English borrowings seem to embody, (3) to acquire the prestige that the use of anglicisms carries, (4) to create new reality through the use of words and phrases associated with the world and culture to which one aspires.126 In addition to reasons of sociolinguistic nature, there are also linguistic and cultural ones. Chłopicki and Świątek (2000: 558) point out that English is a far more metaphoric language (a feature typical of high context culture) than Polish and that this appears highly advantageous in the context of technical jargon and the language of advertising. In the latter case, the metaphoricity of English seems appealing to advertisers not only thanks to Poles’ associating it with the Westerness and prestige but also thanks to its shortness in comparison to the prolixity of the Polish language. This succinctness of metaphors in English is in the context of advertising simply profitable. In the context of technical jargons, the figurativeness of English greatly facilitates naming new devices and concepts. Therefore, instead of inventing lengthy Polish counterparts, it is easier for translators to borrow a lexeme from the English language. This is made still more

126

Polish sociologists explain the use of anglicisms along these lines: “I want use the word chips since I want to become a better citizen of this world. The world that I aspire to, because everybody knows that everything here was and still is crummy. We want foreign standards to become ours [my translation]” (Krzemiński – as quoted by Szczygieł 1995); “People look for terms which will elevate them in their own eyes. These days, the word ‘zakład’ [Polish traditional word for firm] is downgrading for the owner, while the word ‘firm’ is elevating [my translation]” (Czapiński – as quoted by Szczygieł 1995); “When one hears on the radio ‘muzyka ludowa’ [Polish traditional word for folk music], no one is interested in it since it is associated with boredom and a jerkwater town... But when one hears ‘muzyka folk’ or ‘folkowa’, which basically mean exactly the same, everybody knows then that it sounds different and it may well be worth listening to for a while [my translation]” (Głowacki – as quoted by Szczygieł 1995).

269

comfortable due to the ease of making derivatives in the borrowed words (Waszakowa 1995: 3). Moreover, it is implied that on numerous occasions advertisers decide not to use Polish lexemes as English counterparts are devoid of negative associations (Chłopicki and Świątek 2000: 556).127 This is especially the case with many everyday articles and devices which may seem to many Poles as improper to be advertised or even talked about. Moreover, the fact that Anglo-Saxon culture (especially the American variant) is characterized by greater assertiveness and audacity may be appealing to more Americanized younger generations of Poles who seem to be more tolerant of touting one’s products, services and skills (Chłopicki and Świątek 2000: 560). It is only natural for them to adopt such English intensifiers as super, extra, absolutely both in their everyday language and at work when designing the advertising and marketing of their products. Importantly, before going on to discuss specific examples and types of English loanwords in the Polish language as well as their functioning in different fields and genres, it should be noted that the transformational changes in post-1989 Poland should be understood as having an accumulative influence on the Polish language of the present day. In the same way, the impact of English on post-transformational Polish is exerted not only on some specific unrelated semantic fields or sociolects but on the entirety of the Polish language. There are numerous examples of a more cultural dimension of changes undergone by the Polish language as a result of Americanization and Englishization. One of their many manifestations concerns the emergence of new patterns of forms of 127

To my mind, another significant reason for Poles’ readiness to adopt anglicisms is their peculiar impotance in creating novel designates. It would be both unreasonable and improper to point the accusing finger at Polish itself since it is a healthy and vital language capable of forming numerous derivates and neologisms. It seems to me that Poles are largely unused to creating, or maybe rather using, new words (Polish neologisms) in their everyday lives. There seems to be a strange tendency in the society to mock any new words which are composed of only Polish elements. They find it very difficult to focus on the designation/reference of a new word (i.e. the concept or the object to which it refers) and cannot help finding various associations they have with the elements out of which the new word is composed. To give an example, the Polish word długopis is one which nobody would ridicule these days. The lexeme is quite old and no one thinks about its components (i.e. długo – ‘long’ and pisać – ‘write’) and children learn it as ordinary designates. Nevertheless, if one wanted to coin a new word on the basis of the first elment – długo and a following verb (one should note that there are other words formed in the similar way e.g. samolot, samochód, sokowirówka) the result would be to most Poles hilarious. Poles seem almost incapable of moving from the level of associations they have with the word (connotation) to its simple denotation (linking the word with its referent); and this is what foreign words offer to us painlessly. They just refer to new designates; there is no need to put in mental effort to pass through the stage of connotation to denotation. Surprisingly, one should also take heed of the fact that creating novel words in Polish seems to consist in, most of all, creating them by combining elements of some older words rather than using all possible morphosyntactic combinations of Polish to creatively form new nominates. The point I presented is, in my opinion, a highly neglected (or, actually, unnoticed) area of research concerning reasons for the flood of English lexemes which should be of interest to sociolinguistics and psycholinguists.

270

address. It is noted that there is a growing tendency to use first names and their shortened variants; even in more formal situations where the context traditionally requires the use of full names (Chłopicki 2005: 78; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 85). Mosiołek-Kłosińksa (2000: 78) attributes this tendency to the cult of youth typical of the American culture and consumerism. Another change in forms of address in the Polish language is an increasing trend to use you and your (the latter is argued to be especially widespread in advertising) in both formal and informal contexts (Chłopicki 2005: 118; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 86)128. Moreover, it has been noticed that the patterns of compliment responses in Polish, especially among younger generations, start to resemble the ones found in American English (Arabski 2006: 17). From the point of view of older Poles, one of the most striking examples of language-cum-culture transfer is likely to be the fact that nowadays people more and more often accept compliments rather than reject them to show modesty. Interestingly, it is pointed out that many people have adopted from English (especially the omnipresent in films American variety) a host of emotive words to manifest their identification with American culture (Chłopicki 2005: 114; Arabski 2006: 16). These days even older people seem no longer surprised by the common use of such words as wow, oops, hi, hello, O.K. or sorry. Another example of the influence of English on Polish communicative patterns is quite surprising. While in the majority of cases one can notice a turn towards the use of a more colloquial and everyday language, there are some interesting counterexamples (Chłopicki 2005: 114). Chłopicki (2005: 114) notes that in private telephone conversations the replacement of more traditional and familiar Cześć, mówi XYZ (‘Hi, XYZ speaking’) with Cześć, XYZ z tej strony (‘Hi, it’s XYZ at this end’) is a “transfer of polite but foreign telephone manners which are required from employees in many international companies based in Poland” and that this indicates that a host of Poles may not have adequate linguistic sensitivity to differentiate between official and unofficial styles in their native language. Finally, it should be remarked that English also has a non-lexical influence on the Polish language 128 Chłopicki (2005: 118) elucidated that, traditionally, Poles tended to use different forms of address depending on the context – “Polish has a range of forms of address, including the impersonal (for example trzeba, naleŜy; ‘one should’) and the third person singular (Pan/Pani) and plural (Państwo) for official, public contexts, and the second person singular (ty) and plural (wy) for unofficial, private contexts, although mixed forms exist as well, especially in print, including the first person plural (my) referring to you, the second person, the third person Pan/i and Państwo used with the second person verb forms, and Państwo and wy forms combined in one text (most of the mixed forms are used to reduce the distance typical of official forms, at the same time avoiding the very direct second person singular form) (…).”

271

of a different kind; for instance, “reduction of inflections, copying the English use of capitalisation and possessive pronouns, of English structures and idioms, as well as expansion of English metaphors and personification” (Chłopicki 2005: 118). It is argued that the lexis of Polish is the level of language which best reflects the transformation of both the political system in Poland and the Polish society itself (Mazur 2000: 7; Smółkowska 2000: 51). Mazur (2000: 7) points out that “[t]ransformation of the reality is always related to a change in the linguistic way of its expression and interpretation [translation mine, KP].” More specifically, with the opening of borders lexis of the Polish language experienced an overwhelming need to name new social, economic and cultural realities and underwent a significant change in the existent lexical fields (Mazur 2000: 7). The type of loanwords adopted by Poles after 1989 is thought to give a clue to the characteristics of the cultural contacts between Poland, Great Britain, and the United States (Arabski 2006: 16). Popular Polish is influenced by English borrowings coming from the following sources: the official language used in the anglophone media (e.g. electorate); professional sociolects (e.g. economic or computer terminology); various jargons (especially youth language) (Dunaj et al. 1999: 241). Moreover, it is pointed out that popular Polish abounds with English scientific terms, American interjections, and various semantic borrowings (Czamara 1996: 23; Waszakowa 1995: 8). In addition, it is argued that even though anglicisms can be found in forty-five semantic fields129, they seem to abound most of all in the domains of technology and communication and in two registers130 – technical and colloquial (Arabski 2006: 16; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2007: 216, 225). As regards an approximate number of all anglicisms adopted by Poles, it is maintained that in 1994 there were around 1600 and in 2004 about 2000 loanwords used by various groups of Poles (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2004: 177). In fact, some scholars maintain that the influence of English on contemporary Polish seems to be considerable, yet significantly smaller than the one of classical languages (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2004: 181)131. A point is made that it is the frequency of use of English borrowings (400 of 129

Importantly, it is rightly noted that the number of anglicisms in given semantic fields keeps changing all the time, especially in such areas as fashion, clothes and music the use of particular anglicisms tends to end together with the passing of certain trends and phenomena (Sękowska 2007: 45). 130 The former encompasses such fields as sport, fashion, music, food, biology, sea words, economy, transport, computer terminology, politics, physics, chemistry, trade, medicine, military expressions, mining and metallurgy, minerals, geology, religion, arts, agriculture and gardening, tourism, electricity and the latter can be mostly found in journalese, and the youth language (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2007: 216). 131 Mańczak-Wohlfeld (2004: 181) refers to her calculations of “the number of anglicisms present in Polish versus other languages.” For this purpose, she investigated the number of anglicisms listed in A

272

them are believed to be used by Poles on everyday basis) which is considered to be of greatest importance in creating an impression of the omnipresence of anglicisms in the contemporary Polish language (Serejska-Olszer 2001: 192). In this light, it seems very interesting that according to a public opinion poll carried out by CBOS132 on a representative sample of population (Wciórka 1999: 2-3) as many as 40% of Poles believed that foreign loanwords were rarely used by people from their surrounding and 30% of them stated that they practically did not notice any usage of them at all.133 In contrast, only 22% of Poles regarded the use of foreign loanwords as quite common and as little as 6% as very common. Of great importance for the present discussion is the information concerning the relation between the responses and the social characteristics of the respondents. The opinion that in their surrounding the use of foreign loanwords was quite common or very common was positively correlated with a variety of variables: (1) pupils and students produced 67% of such responses; (2) representatives of senior management and the intelligentsia – 65%; (3) all people at the age of 18-24 – 58%; (4) higher education – 56%; (5) and people with the highest family income per person – 45% (Wciórka 1999: 3). Conversely, 54% of the oldest respondents, 53% of farmers and 48% of those with elementary education declared that foreign words were practically not used by people from their surrounding. In addition, people living in the city noticed greater frequency of use of foreign vocabulary than those living in the country. The issue of the actual impact of English on the Polish language is well worth deeper deliberation especially when one considers Poles’ comprehension of anglicisms. It is noted that in many cases the knowledge and comprehension of anglicisms, which generally tend to be most numerous in specialist registers, is very limited among average speakers of Polish (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2004: 178). This seems to be confirmed by a study on the comprehension of 50 well-adapted anglicisms among first year students attending both public and private English teacher training colleges (MańczakDictionary of European Anglicisms (the ones beginning with letters A, D, and J; the choice was random), compared them to the number of all anglicisms beginning with these letters (in the case of letter A – Polish had 27% of all loanwords, J – 46%, and D – 33%) and concluded that “Polish in the context of other languages certainly does not belong to the group of languages abundant in English borrowings.” Unfortunately, it is not stated if the conclusion is drawn on the basis of similar calculations made for other European languages or on the sole reference to the total pool of all anglicisms (i.e. the ones beginning with the aforesaid letters) found in all languages described in the dictionary. This information is significant since it seems that only the former case would allow one to make such assertions valid. 132 CBOS – Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej – Public Opinion Research Centre. 133 Importantly, it should be noted that reading the introduction to this opinion poll one may easily figure out that the use of foreign loanwords was almost unequivocally identified with the use of anglicisms.

273

Wohlfeld 2004: 178). Students from the public school provided 22.16% of wrong responses and those from the private one 29.5%; there is every possibility that lesseducated people and students attending different departments would have had even worse rates of correct responses (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2004: 178). Therefore, the knowledge of anglicisms from certain semantic fields may be most of all restrained to experts in given disciplines who are also expert users of their specialist registers (cf. Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006a: 52). This state of affairs seems to be confirmed by a study revealing that as many as 76% of Poles admitted that they did have, at least a couple of times, some problems with understanding some messages because they were presented only in a foreign language134 (37% of respondents stated that they were frequently in such situations) (Wciórka 1999: 3). It is explained that respondents who had the greatest problems with the comprehension of such texts were unqualified workers and pensioners (both produced 47% of such responses), people whose living standards were the lowest (44%), who were the least educated (42%), and the ones over 45 years of age (42%). In contrast, the greatest understanding was among students and pupils; people who were young, well-educated, as well as those who belonged to the so called intelligentsia and held posts reserved for senior management. Interestingly, the opinion poll also included a comprehension test of 10 anglicisms used by Poles most frequently. The word supermarket was understood correctly by 91% of respondents, weekend by 89%, business by 82%, talk show by 75%, dealer by 70%, fast food by 50%, and meeting by 49%. As noted, the impact of English is the most noticeable at the level of lexis. On the one hand, changes in the lexis of the post-1989 Polish encompass the introduction of new lexical elements and loan words but, on the other hand, the modification in the usage and status of old words (Chłopicki 2005: 113). The motives behind these transformations were most of all a conceptual gap in the Polish language and a need “to expand on their [Poles’] expressive vocabulary in order to be able to convey their attitudes towards the physical or mental aspects of the world135 (Chłopicki 2005: 113). An analysis of several hundred neologisms by Majkowska (1996: 92) seems to confirm this claim. A lion’s share of them fulfills the function of describing the changing reality 134

Specifically, the question was formulated in the following way: “[h]as it every happened to you that you had difficulties with understanding the contents of some documents, advertising, or information, for instance, on some packaging etc., because they were written only in a foreign language? [my translation, KP].” 135 The latter is argued to be especially conspicuous in the area of word formation and, specifically, in the functioning of new expressive affixes.

274

(new devices, institutions, and groups). Language is, therefore, viewed here as a mirror attempting to reflect changes in the reality. Together with the development of various spheres of life and scientific disciplines there is a follow-up development in the expressive potential of language. It is argued that for a language the adoption of loanwords is the easiest and fastest way of following changes in the reality (Cudak and Tambor 1995: 199). This is especially the case if changes are rapid and dramatic (for instance, the field of computer technology, advertising) and there seems to be hardly any time at all to coin native counterparts of foreign words and phrases (cf. Cudak and Tambor 1995: 197). Importantly, it is not the number of loanwords that is argued to be of greatest significance but the dynamics of changes at the level of semantics; this being so since the latter may affect the quality of communication (Sękowska 2007: 51). Turning to a more linguistic analysis of the influence of English upon Polish, it should be noted that there are four major types of lexical borrowings to be recognized in the context of Poland (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 15). First of all, one can easily recognize the occurrence136 of loanwords (for instance, the word biznes deriving from the English business); that is terms which are adopted by a recipient language by means of a direct transference of single lexemes. Secondly, there are loan translations (also called calques); such words as nastolatek are usually compound lexical borrowings in which foreign elements are calqued by semantic counterparts of the recipient language. Thirdly, it is possible to observe numerous loanblends (hybrids) – especially in the field of advertising and the names of companies – which are special coinages combining both native and foreign elements. Finally, there are semantic loans (like mysz komputerowa – ‘a computer mouse’) the emergence of which is indicated by the attribution of novel meanings to old words by means of patterning on foreign formulas. Furthermore, one may differentiate three general categories of loanwords in terms of their assimilation to the Polish language: citations, unadapted borrowings, and well-assimilated loans (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2007: 226). Citations encompass phrases like jilted generation which are employed especially frequently by journalists to draw readers’ attention. Even though they are unlikely to be understood by many people, they are intended to evoke

curiosity

(Mańczak-Wohlfeld

2006b:

50)137.

Despite

their

apparent

136

It is pointed out that in comparison to loanwords calques and hybrids are relatively rare (MańczakWohlfeld 2007: 226). 137 The analysis carried out by Majkowska (1996: 92) indicates that citations constitute a relatively small part of all neologisms and that borrowings which may easily be adopted to Polish patterns of declension and conjugation have the greatest chance of being included in the system of Polish.

275

(morphological) similarity to citations (for instance, hobby or science fiction) unadapted borrowings are widely used and understood by the society. It is pointed out that lack of adaptation to the system of the Polish language may in their case stem from either difficulties of morphological nature or their relative newness (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 50). The last category constitutes such well-assimilated borrowings as dŜinsy (‘jeans’). The characteristic feature of them is their morphological assimilation. Interestingly, Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2000: 29; 33) makes the point that the adaptation of English loanwords is argued to be decreasing since manifesting their origin has become fashionable; just as the graphic styling of the names of shops and companies to look English-like (the replacement k with s, e.g. Cororex; ks with x, e.g., Xero, and f with ph, e.g., Poly-Graph). Interestingly, graphic styling may also encompass the use of such elements from the English language as &, ‘s, N°, by, h, OK, $, (Chłopicki and Świątek 2000: 231f). In addition, it should be pointed out that even though the knowledge of English is increasingly more widespread among Poles, the general mechanisms of assimilation on the level of phonology are argued to remain quite similar to those of the past (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 60). Because of significant differences between the phonological systems of Polish and English and a quite unsatisfactory command of English by Poles, there is still a general tendency to adapt the pronunciation of anglicisms to the phonological system of the Polish language. A point is made that the only discernible difference in this respect is that it happens decidedly more rarely that Poles adopt spelling pronunciation of English loanwords. Moreover, Mańczak-Wohlfeld (2006b: 60) elucidates that there seems to be no correlation between assimilation on the level of phonology and the graphic one. Even though the latter remains currently largely unadapted (a result of the omnipresence of English in the media), the former continues to be significantly assimilated to suit the Polish phonological system. To elaborate, Czamara (1996: 27) points out that the first years of the 1990s saw the borrowing of English words with hardly any changes at all and that this lack of graphic and syntactic assimilation may be attributed to the fact that the knowledge of Western language was limited and that people at first learned to recognize them visually and only later (thanks to their popularity in the media) how to pronounce them. When Poles became more selfconfident they started to pronounce English words more and more often and then the number of hybrids increased just as the influence of the Polish phonetic system on the

276

spelling of English words.138 Finally, it should also be mentioned that the process of borrowing is also related to the emergence of new means of word formation (Sękowska 2007: 48). When borrowing lexical items such elements as euro-, cyber-, porno-, -gate, -biznes, top-, -man/-men, -land, -hold, e-, -ing, -er – may be isolated and then combined with native elements to form new hybridized words. Cudak and Tambor (1995: 198) even note that the influence of English terminology (in the field of computer technology, for instance) is so profound that it actually makes some components of English words become functional elements of the Polish word-formation system. To elaborate on semantic loans, it should be noted that they are thought to be relatively rarely discerned by average native speakers of Polish (OtwinowskaKasztelanic 2000: 34). Nevertheless, they may become so fashionable and commonplace as to displace traditional words and phrases, cause text monotony, or lead to some misunderstanding (Markowski 1992a: 160). There are at least a couple of semantic borrowings which have received special attention by scholars (see Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 35; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 67; Waszakowa 1995; Markowski 1992a; Grybysiowa 1994). It is pointed out, for instance, that the Polish word definiować has been influenced by the English counterpart ‘to define’ and, as a result, its meaning has extended to include określać (‘to determine’, ‘to describe’) and nazywać (‘to call’). An extension is also argued to occur in the case of the adverb absolutnie (‘absolutely’) which, next to its traditional meanings, has started to be used to express approval; similarly, the adverb dokładnie (or its variant dokładnie tak), patterned after the English ‘exactly’ and ‘exactly so’, came to be used to show agreement or to confirm the words of our interlocutor; the noun opcja (‘option’) is now frequently used in the meaning ‘preferred choice’; promocja as ‘advertising’; and edycja as ‘regularly held events’. Another type of change stemming from the impact of the English language may be found in the Polish word kreować (‘to create’). In the past the word was used mainly in formal contexts and more recently it has acquired a decidedly more neutral character and a greater range of contexts of use and meanings (tworzyć, stwarzać, wprowadzać). Interestingly, another calque from English – this time a phrase W czym mogę pomóc? (‘How can I help you?’) – may be thought as a confirmation of the possibility that American films may impact on the Polish language,

138

Czamara (1996: 27) notes that in the seventies Poles wrote biznesmen and dŜyn, in the late eighties biznesmen and dŜyn, and in the early nineties businessman and gin.

277

even if there is a voiceover.139 Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2000: 35) maintains that the phrase appeared in the late 1990s as a result of numerous badly-translated American films and that the expression itself is a hybrid of Can I help you? and the more traditional Czym mogę słuŜyć? Some other calques of phraseological expressions are the following: nie ma problemu (‘no problem’), zero tolerancji (‘zero tolerance’), lekarz rodzinny (‘family doctor’), professor wizytujący (‘visiting professor’) (Sękowska 2007: 47). Moreover, it is pointed out that Poles tend to wish each other a nice day, weekend, etc. more frequently than ever before and that this change in communicative behavior results from the distinctiveness of the contemporary influence of English and AngloAmerican culture on Polish and Poles’ mores (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 68). Regarding Polish counterparts of such expressions as Have a nice day! Have a nice weekend!, they may be regarded as calques patterned after English originals. As regards the borrowing of non-lexical structures, the phenomenon is far rarer since this level of language is much more resistant to the influence of other languages (Arabski 2006: 19). After lexis, which is argued to be quite freely adopted from other languages, then comes pragmatics, syntax, morphology and, finally, phonology as the least likely to be influenced by foreign systems. In this light, it seems natural that it is the lexis of the Polish language which is affected by English the most. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence demonstrating that other levels of Polish also change as a result of recent intensive contacts with English (Arabski 2006: 15-16). A careful observer may easily recognize, for example, many instances in which a noun preceding another noun adopts the function of a modifier; a feature commonly found in English (MańczakWohlfeld 1995: 86). Such constructions as auto alarm, auto szkoła (‘auto school’) or hydro-shop were extremely rare in the past and their usage was limited to poetical or metaphorical usages (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 38). It is also pointed out that English appears to impact on the word order of Polish in a yet another way. MańczakWohlfeld (1995: 86) refers to occurrences of constructions in which adjectives precede the noun (like in formalna analiza ‘formal analysis’) in cases where they traditionally tented to follow it. Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2000: 38) adds that the attributive position of the adjective is more justifiable in spontaneous speech than in writing since in the former word order is quite free and some possible misunderstanding may be corrected by means of stress. Still another instance of a non-lexical influence of English is the use 139

Grybysiowa (1994) points out that the phrase dokładnie tak was also introduced under the influence of the mass media; specifically American quizzes which enjoyed great popularity among Poles.

278

of the adverb generalnie by both young Poles (especially in colloquial speech) and journalists (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 38). The word in its new usage as a discourse marker is argued to be a lexico-syntactic loan patterning the meaning of English ‘generally’ and ‘in general’. Lastly, there are rare occurrences (highly limited by the context of their usage; for instance advertising, trade) of creating the plural form of nouns by adding –s (e.g. Magdalenas – a name of small biscuits) and instances of using the Saxon genitive in the names of Polish companies (e.g. Witek’s) (MańczakWohlfeld 1995: 84). To conclude, one should take heed of the fact that the usage of syntactic and semantic borrowings among Poles seems to be dependent on one’s idiolect and the genre of text (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 151). Whereas informal speech and the written language of press are both little influenced by semantic and syntactic borrowings, advertising is the field where semantic and syntactic innovations abound the most. The reasons for this state of affairs are thought to be the preciseness and economy of English as well as its appeal; the latter being especially important for the creators of the names of products and companies. Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2000: 153) makes the point that the number and the general acceptance of English borrowings may have far-reaching consequences. First of all, it is maintained that one may expect that the morphosyntactic system of Polish will change in such a way as to allow greater freedom in the use of nouns in the attributive position. Second of all, it is argued that “[i]n the area of syntax the marked, postpositive adjectival constructions may disappear” (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 153). Interestingly, a point is also made that language awareness questionnaires completed by teenagers suggest that the language intuition of young generations of Poles (formed in the period of intense Polish-English language contact) may already be different for they are frequently unable to distinguish between native and borrowed syntactic constructions. Additionally, one should discern that the Americanization and Englishization of the Polish culture, just as the popularity of the English language, may also be interpreted in terms language fashions (also called linguistic snobbery, or mannerism; cf. OŜóg 2000: 87ff). The phenomenon of language fashion is argued to be on the borderline of social psychology and linguistics (OŜóg 2000: 88). More specifically, it is pointed out that: The indicators of language fashion and its conditioning are to be found in the behavioral patterns of a linguistic community and their mutual relations contingent on

279

the use of specific (fashionable) language forms. Therefore, these are group relations of sociological and psychological nature, just as the issue of prestige, emulation and linguistic relations. (…) …language fashion may also be understood as a commonplace manner of speaking, typical of a specific linguistic community, whose characteristic feature is a frequent use of certain language forms (and their importunate repetition) which stand in marked contrast to forms used earlier [translation mine, KP] (OŜóg 2000: 88).

Moreover, one should note that the range of language fashions tends to differ as they are always used by a specific language community which itself determines their scope and exerts pressure on its members to follow the new trends (OŜóg 2000: 88). Factors contributing to the usage of fashionable language forms are the following: group identification, fostering solidarity, group ties and prestige in the community (OŜóg 2000: 89). What is important for the present discussion is the fact that language fashions must be seen as dependent on general cultural trends and preferences (OŜóg 2000: 90). When Poles after 1989 got exposed to the consumptionist lifestyle of the Western world; they passionately embraced new cultural and linguistic fashions popularized especially strongly by the private media patterning themselves on the Western standards. The new fashionable cultural models are argued to greatly depend on Englishness (esp. Americannes), the media, vulgarity, and the world of business (Pisarek 1993: 60). The fashion for Westerness is also believed to result from the frustrations of Poles living in the communist times, the still common stereotype that ‘the Western is better’ and our ambitions to become EU members (OŜóg 2000: 91). To specify, one should refer to the following ‘linguistic-relevant’ types of fashion in posttransformational Poland: fashion for modernity and technological innovations, fashion for youth, and fashion for the communicative ease of manner. All of this is reinforced by the media and manifested, among others, by significant changes in communicative patterns of Poles as well as numerous borrowings (most of all from the English language).

3.3.4. Americanization and Englishization in some selected fields and genres 3.3.4.1. Trade, services, and industry

280

To complete the picture of the influence of English on the Polish language, it is necessary to investigate its impact on specific language fields and genres. As mentioned, the post-1989 transformation exposed Poland to the Western world, intensified mutual contacts, and accelerated the development of Polish. Since there was a significant nominative need to name new professions, products and services, the first language area to experience profound changes was the one of trade, services and industry. The massive import of goods from the West after 1989 further led to the adoption of numerous English loanwords (such as hamburger, chips, pizza, keczup) which were also popular in many non-English speaking European countries (Smółkowska 2000: 54-55). Importantly, it is pointed out that non-nominative factors are also important in popularizing the borrowing from English. The symbolicity of English as a language of the Western world has been an important factor in this respect. Especially in the 1990s almost everything that was ‘Made in Europe’ seemed to have the attractiveness of forbidden fruit and many Poles started to ostentatiously use English names from the field of trade and services (Czamara 1996: 23-24). Czamara (1996: 2930) asserts that her quantitative and qualitative analysis of loanwords from the field of trade and services points to three major reasons for their use: to make profit (English names of goods are associated with Western high-quality products), to ensure language economy (English lexemes are shorter, catchy and, hence, more attractive to the world of advertising), to draw attention (of both foreigners and Poles). Chłopicki and Świątek (2000: 85) further note that the adoption of English loanwords in this field was also frequently due to fashions, whims and sheer coincidence. An interesting situation is to be found in the case of job offers and, specifically, the names of such new professions as dealers, sales representatives, merchandisers or managers. Ociepa (2001: 49-50) analyzed 21 consecutive supplements to Gazeta Wyborcza (from the 5th May 1998 to 22th February 1999) containing 3469 job offers written in the Polish language. The number of job offers comprising English elements amounted to 481 cases (they included 296 different names of jobs and posts derived from English). Out of 296 names of professions, 132 were made up of at least one English word (for instance, Branch Manager, Field Underwriter, Merchandiser, Product Manager, Unit Manager) which could be thought to belong to the category of citations (they remained graphically, morphologically, and semantically like the originals). The majority of the remainder consisted of both English and Polish elements.

281

Ociepa (2001: 54) notes that most names of jobs and posts are adopted by Poles without any adaptations since this is how international companies use them. Interestingly, there is some evidence pointing also to a serious clash of communicative patterns between the Western world and post-communist Poland. A study by Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak and Pawelczyk (2004) focused on the service sector and, specifically, the adaptation of Poles’ communicative patterns to Western (notably, as it seems, American) standards in interactions between call center workers and customers. As the service sector was in communist Poland’s economy seriously neglected, its workers enjoyed considerable prestige and power. The political transformation of Poland brought with itself market economy with a quickly expanding service sector and a gradual rise of importance of the customer. A point is made that “invasion of the market economy ideology has been accompanied by the changing of communicative patterns from the Polish (local) to the western (global) [American] ones” (Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak and Pawelczyk 2004: 227). This also involved attempts at the modification of the patterns of communicative exchanges between service-sector workers and customers. The endeavor is based on the idea that effective and agreeable communication is thought to constitute “a valuable commodity” having the potential to significantly increase the prosperity of companies and that communicative skills as such are learnable by all (Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak and Pawelczyk 2004: 225). Accordingly, communication training has become for many companies an important part of their strategy to attract new and keep old customers. It is argued that communicative training seems to be of greatest importance in the context of call center (CC) interactions between clients and workers. As an aside, it is pointed out that “[t]he Polish CC emerges as an institution in which the global, imposed communicative norms are constantly confronted with the local Polish mentality and communicative preferences in service encounters” (Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak and Pawelczyk 2004: 227). An argument is put forward that the adoption of new communicative patterns by call center workers is only partially successful and that, generally speaking, “the old, local ways of ‘handling’ the customer prevail” (for details see Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak and Pawelczyk 2004: 236237). This is attributed to the fact that “customers bring into their CC [call center] interaction the communist ‘tag alone’ idea that his/her position in a service encounter is subordinate” (Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak and Pawelczyk 2004: 236).

282

3.3.4.2. Advertising

Obviously, the semantic field of trade, services and industry is highly interrelated with the language of advertising. Just as Polish economy has become a part of the global market, the advertising is argued to have become a part of international industry (just as the media industry) largely dominated by global concerns (cf. Bralczyk 1999: 218). The language of Polish advertisement is, therefore, subject to international trends; all the more so as many commercials and other types of advertising found in Poland are simply translations from other languages (especially English). A point is made that the language of advertising has become a new international jargon which, in many instances, addresses its audience with hardly any adaptations to suit the cultural specificity of its local target (Majkowska 1994: 317). Accordingly, one can come across numerous cases in which commercial catchwords are English words or expressions as well as advertisements where at least part of information about the product is given in English (Majkowska 1994: 318). To illustrate the tendencies, Bralczyk (1999: 219) refers to such popular borrowings as no more tears, the freshmaker and the followings hybrids: kinder-niespodzianka, zostań cool. Importantly, it is pointed out that the effect of such commercials is accustoming Poles to language heterogeneity. The reasons for the use of such English elements or messages in advertising (or even pronouncing words in an English fashion) is to attract the customer by appealing to a variety of desires, ambitions and stereotypes (see Majkowska 1994: 318; Chłopicki and Świątek 2000: 159; Smółkowska 2000: 55; Griffin 1997: 38): 1. by buying a product advertised in English one feels like becoming a man of the world; 2. English elements in advertising are associated with Western (high) quality of products; 3. English messages refer to the dream and ambition of many Poles to know the English language; 4. they give the impression of referring to a specific, limited group of people; the chosen ones who have a command of the language; 5. buying such prestigious products accords their owners with prestige; 6. appealing to the snobbery of Poles who want to follow the latest worldly trends and fashions.

283

Examining the influence of English on the language of advertising, it seems necessary to mention, in addition to some general comments, some more qualitative data. Quite informative in this respect is a content analysis of display advertisements carried out by Griffin (Griffin 1997). As many as 12 Polish magazines from different genres (including 346 display advertisements; a mean of 28.8 adverts per magazine) were taken into consideration (Griffin 1997: 35-36). It is noted that even though at least 70.5% of the ads were ordered by a Polish company (or institutions), 40.8% of the advertised products were of foreign origin. Interestingly, over 88% of all adverts contained at least one English loanword, and a mean of English words per advertisement amounted to 8.5. The names of companies and products made up 69% of all English words and the rest (31%) constituted a category called ‘arbitrary use of English.’ To elaborate, the number of English lexemes per single advertisement differed considerably depending on the type of magazine:

1. Chip (a computer magazine) – 25.7; 2. Poznaj Świat (a travel magazine) – 10.6; 3. Tylko Rock (a music magazine) – 10.3; 4. Dziewczyna (a teen magazine) – 9.1; 5. Poradnik Domowy (a home magazine) – 8.0; 6. Playboy (a men’s magazine) – 6.9; 7. TV-Sat (a television magazine) – 6.9; 8. Kobieta i Styl (a women’s magazine) – 5.9; 9. Przekrój (a culture magazine) – 4.5; 10. Wprost (a news magazine) – 4.0; 11. Business Forum (a business magazine) – 3.8; 12. Piłka NoŜna (a sports magazine) – 2.0. Moreover, it is pointed out that the number of English words per ad differed just as markedly according to the type of advertised products (Griffin 1997: 37):

1. alcoholic products (19.2); 2. household and yard (16.5); 3. camera, computer and electronics (14.8); 4. tobacco (10.4); 284

5. jewelry and watches (9.6); 6. shops and restaurants (4.7); 7. clothing and shoes (4.2); 8. food and non-alcoholic drink (3.0); 9. appliances (2.6); 10. health care (2.5); 11. vehicle sale (2.3); 12. furnishing (2.0).

Griffin (1997: 37) adds that while in many cases the use of English seemed to be justifiable (English lexemes are product and company names, or addresses found in the pictures depicting product packaging), in around half of all instances their usage could not be accounted for in this way. Moreover, the number of English was more common when foreign products were promoted and when the advertising was ordered by foreign companies (Griffin 1997: 38). Advertising products the manufacture of which is dominated by anglophone countries (especially high-tech industry devices) also contributes to a higher percentage of English words in adverts. This is so since many names were originally developed in the US and they seem to stick to the products they refer to. Different reasons are given to explain the incidence of English words in youthoriented advertising, as well as those targeted at men and travelers (Griffin 1997: 38). In the case of the first group advertisers seem to take advantage of the boom on and fashion for English among young Poles, the second group is thought to desire expensive foreign products and English names assure them of high quality, and for the group of travelers English serves as a symbol of cosmopolitanism and worldliness with which they want to be associated. To my mind, the reasons for which English lexemes are adopted in the field of advertising are clearly indicative of its multisymbolicity. Another interesting study which appears to be on the borderline of trade, industry and advertising is the one conducted by Rzetelska-Feleszko (2000). After 1990 there was a considerable increase in the number of new shops and companies whose owners could coin for them all kinds of names. It is pointed out that the names of shops and companies which emerged after the political transformation of 1989 testify to the cultural and economic changes which Poland underwent as a result of its participation in the globalized Western world (Rzetelska-Feleszko 2000: 142). In her analysis, mmmmm

referrefersm

285

Table 7. The frequency of foreign names of shops (adapted from Rzetelska-Feleszko 2000: 144). Foreign names English French Italian ‘Classic’ German

Łódź Number 59 18 23 11 -

Warsaw % 47 14 18 9 -

Number 74 29 29 39 11

% 38 15 15 20 6

Rzetelska-Feleszko refers to 496 different names of shops collected in Warsaw in 1992 and to 373 names of shops gathered in Łódź in 1994 (see Table 7). Interestingly, the material accumulated points to the fact that Polish names are the most numerous. Both in Łódź and Warsaw English names are the second most frequent (respectively 47% and 38%). Foreign names in all other languages are decidedly rarer than the ones in English (see Table 7). One may think of the genre of advertising as an experimental field which frequently serves as a gateway for its novel linguistic forms to a more popular Polish. In this vein, it is argued that the language of advertising is responsible for popularizing the following (Sękowska 2007: 48; Chłopicki and Świątek 2000: 362-373; Majkowska 1994: 319; Chłopicki 2005: 119):

1. syntactic constructions in which there are two nouns next to each other and the first one serves the function of an adjective (e.g. park hotel, kredyt bank, seks symbol, sport telegram, biznes plan, Ford samochód, opony serwis etc.); 2. combinations of two verbs in the imperative mood (e.g. idź i zamów, ćwicz i spalaj); 3. calques of English phrases and semi-hybrid constructions (e.g. wydaje się być, być na topie, przyglądać się bezczynnie); 4. calques of adjectival expressions – (e.g. opcjonalny podajnik papieru na 50 arkusz instead of podajnik papieru na 50 arkuszy montowany na Ŝyczenie; rozwiązania informatycznie instead of rozwiązania z zakresu informatyki; wanny masaŜowe instead of wanny do masaŜu; długopisowy tusz instead of tusz do długopisów); 5. an extensive use of prefixes (e.g. superwykładzina, supernowoczesne, ultracienkie, multiwieszak);

286

6. the dominance of the pronoun you patterned on Anglo-American trends and the second singular form of the verb; 7. the spread of capitalization (e.g. RozwiąŜemy KaŜdy Fotograficzny Problem – We will solve all your photographic problems); 8. calques of English nominal structures (e.g. zakaz min przeciwpiechotnych instead of zakaz stosowania min przeciwpiechotnych).

It should be noted that changes in the language of advertising are argued to be one of the most conspicuous linguistic manifestations of the political and social transformation of Poland (Świątek 2002: 65). An analysis of the language of advertising (and, in fact, the changes it underwent) is thought to give a significant insight into our values, stereotypes, ideals as well as our overt and covert desires, goals, aspirations and phobias (Świątek 2002: 65). Moreover, it is maintained that advertising, just as television and the media at large, take part in the creation of the reality; in the sense that they impact on the ways of presenting our thoughts, the use of vocabulary, or even the topics of everyday conversation (Świątek 2002: 66; Mosiołek-Kłosińska 2000: 84). Bearing this in mind and the role of English in the Polish advertising industry, one should discern that English actively participates in the shaping of everyday reality of the Polish society.

3.3.4.3. The language of the media

In post-transformational Poland the media and its language are argued to have had a profound influence on both the shaping of Polish language and society at large– “[t]he role of the mass media in the life of the Polish society is one of the most conspicuous cultural phenomenon of the last decade [my translation, KP]” (Mosiołek-Kłosińska 2000: 75). After the collapse of the communist system in Poland, several dozen TV channels and several hundred new newspapers and magazines (many of which were purely commercial) were founded and (frequently) patterned after the American models. The greatest change in the media language was the introduction of greater informality of communication and greater ease of manner (e.g. changes in the use of traditional forms of address) (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 46-47). Informality, in turn, resulted in a far more frequent use of anglicisms, greater popularity of colloquialisms, the use of expressive and effusive phrasing, as well as vulgarisms (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 47). 287

The major aim of all types of media, both public and commercial, has become reaching as wide audience as possible. Accordingly, new types of genres were adopted from the Western (and, especially, American) media and promoted by means of innovative marketing strategies.140 Unsurprisingly, the Polish language and, in fact, communicative patterns of Poles have been profoundly shaped by the Americanization of culture as well as related postmodernism, pragmatism, the technologizing and medialization of the society (Mosiołek-Kłosińska 2000: 77, 83). Their influence is argued to be discernible in the emergence of a consumerist society abundantly using expressions (many of which are English borrowings) from such fields as the mass media, pop culture, shopping, earning money, fashion and appearance, or technology (Mosiołek-Kłosińska 2000: 75). Moreover, the Americanization of Polish culture and the Englishization of the Polish language (especially the import of numerous loanwords) are argued to be further caused by the fast pace of life and the adoption of the postmodernist attitude which both lead to the superficiality of perception and the description of the world (MosiołekKłosińska 2000: 75). This, in turn, is also thought to result in the acceptance of the mediocrity of the work of many journalists who neglect their role of setting an example of correct and pure language to the Polish society that traditionally regards the media language as a role model (Mosiołek-Kłosińska 2000: 75). Arguments are advanced that journalists contribute substantially to the adoption of English borrowings and their popularization (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006: 48). This is thought to grow from the precipitance accompanying their job, i.e. when sifting through anglophone materials for information and various media coverage, they often prefer to adopt some English lexemes and terms rather than expend more effort and translate them properly (or coin some neologisms). One should bear in mind that the language of the media, because of its diversity (commercial vs. non-commercial; private vs. public etc.), is difficult to describe in general terms (see Majkowska and Satkiewicz 1999: 181). Nevertheless, it is pointed out that due to the compactness of the English language, the media find it very attractive to calque various English phrases (for instance, pogotowie bezpieczeństwa – a calque from ‘safety alert’ – instead of stan pogotowia) (Chłopicki 2005: 116). Moreover, people working in the media frequently cannot resist the temptation to use those English borrowings which are considered to point to one’s professionalism and competence in 140

A most noticeable change was the emergence of such interactive genres as a talk-show, an interview, a debate, or a reality show (Majkowska and Satkiewicz 1999: 193).

288

such specialist fields as architecture, fashion141, art etc. (Majkowska and Satkiewicz 1999: 188; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1997: 86). Just as important for them is everything that is new, innovative, and fresh – language being no exception in this. Therefore, the media are currently the major source of neologisms, and language borrowings, especially from English (cf. Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1997: 85; Majkowska and Satkiewicz 1999: 189). Moreover, journalists adopt numerous English loanwords which, in the past, were restricted to a more scholarly discourse (for instance, elektorat – ‘electorate’; klasa średnia – ‘middle classs’; szara strefa – ‘grey area’; polityczna poprawność – ‘political correctness’) (Sękowska 2007: 47). Majkowska and Satkiewicz (1999: 191) generalize a principle that the language of the media in Poland after the 1989 transformation is characterized by certain unification in the sense of a tendency to adopt words and phrases of a formerly limited scope to a broader context of use. To give an example, they note that such English loanwords as fan, hit, być na topie, lider are adopted not only by standard Polish but also used to describe highbrow culture (Majkowska and Satkiewicz 1999: 191). One of the reasons for this seems to be a desire to achieve the effect of originality, inventiveness, and conspicuousness. Another is an intention to compensate for linguistic insecurity by a fashion for linguistic ease of manner typical of the young (Majkowska and Satkiewicz 1999: 192). This fashion, patterned after the American model, may also be thought to lead to the filtering of colloquialisms to other registers (and, in fact, general Polish) and the promotion of new trends to address each other (even in rather official contexts) informally (cf. Mosiołek-Kłosińska 2000: 80; Chłopicki 2005: 118). Another type of modification of the media language after 1989 can be noticed when analyzing the headlines and headings of magazines and newspapers. There are thought to be four general types of headlines which employ English borrowings (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 48-49):

1. assimilated English borrowings (e.g. Wielicki underground, Show bez biznesu); 2. non-assimilated (or partly-assimilated) English borrowings (e.g. Last minute samolotem, To nie city);

141

An analysis of the language of fashion conducted on the material of popular Polish women’s magazines indicate that the most recent borrowings in this field are English loandwords and that they gradually displace older Gallicisms (Koziarska 1997: 72).

289

3. the use of English citations (e.g. No Hope for Times; Gorbaczow: mission impossible); 4. syntactic borrowing from English (e.g. Putin TV show, Cool wizerunek).

It is elucidated that, quantitatively speaking, the number of those which contain English borrowings is relatively infrequent when compared to the number of all headlines (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2005: 61). To my mind, what is of far greater importance than the linguistic dimension of the Englishization of the language used in Polish headlines is their acculturation to the American type of the media language whose major function is to rivet the attention of a mass audience and gain new consumers. This element of Americanization seems to be omnipresent in the Polish language of media at large. Information has become commodified and nothing draws the attention of readers more than shocking (either in its form or contents) headlines and headings (cf. Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 46). With a view to achieving this goal, journalese employs a variety of techniques including the use of English borrowings (for details see Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 46). Bearing in mind the fact that not all people may understand headlines with English loanwords and that in the majority of cases there is a possibility to rewrite them in a way devoid of them, one should interpret their usage as serving a specific decorative function. Moreover, English words and phrases should be regarded here as an additional source which enhances the creativity potential of journalists (as an aside, it seems to be similar in the case of young people and their youth argot) and helps them to creatively use and manipulate language for their own ends.

3.3.4.4. The language of modern technology

The opening of Poland to the influence of the West after 1989 also meant a dramatic increase in the exposure to the technological innovations already widespread in the Western world. The unquestionable dominance of the US in the development of hightech devices boiled down to their supremacy in the creation of names for their new appliances and technologies. This combined with a blistering pace of progress in computer, telecommunications, and digital technology left hardly any time at all for those interested in coining native, Polish vocabulary. Moreover, advances in technology 290

are currently so rapid, especially in the computer science, that writing (most often translating from English) all kinds of handbooks, manuals, and textbooks brooks no delay at all; otherwise they are simply useless (cf. Dzikiewicz and Miodek 1991: 376). In addition, the popularization of the use of all types of computer software (games including) led to an enormous increase in the demand for translation from English and intensified the processes of linguistic borrowing (Cudak and Tambor 1995: 203). The language of the computer science and the Internet constitutes, thus, an area which abounds in all types of borrowings from English (cf. Matusiak 1997: 24). Some scholars (Dąbrowska 2004, see also below) maintain that the saturation of Polish in this semantic field is so great that in some cases one can even talk of code-mixing. The popularity of English on the Internet among (young) Poles is argued to verge on sheer fascination (Kwiecień 2006). One can easily notice there numerous anglicisms, acronyms derived from English (e.g. THX for thanks), and Polish words written with English phonetic spelling (e.g. jush, znoof) (Kwiecień 2006). Importantly, a point is made that the computer terminology started to penetrate also other specialist terminologies (Matusiak 1997: 25). As regards the semantic field of the Internet and the computer, it is pointed out that linguists acknowledge that the phenomenon of borrowing is unavoidable and that past attempts by Poles at translation frequently ended up in a complete failure (Kwiecień 2006; Dzikiewicz and Miodek 1991: 376). Interestingly, one should discern cases in which English lexemes get adopted by Poles even though there are Polish counterparts (e.g. italika – kursywa; font – czcionka; kompatybilny – zgodny) (Cudak and Tambor 1995: 202). The majority of English loanwords in this field make up the so called citations which may undergo some slight adaptations in terms of their spelling and pronunciation (Matusiak 1997: 25). A host of English borrowings are also abbreviations, multiword expressions, and calques (Matusiak 1997: 25, 27). More generally speaking, it is argued that the characteristics of the Polish computer terminology are the following: (1) it lacks any clear-cut distinctions between official and professional vocabulary; (2) it frequently encompasses various synonyms (the alternative variants are usually either Polish or English lexemes); (3) the usage of specific lexemes is multifunctional; (4) it abounds in all types of English borrowings; (5) there is a dearth of Polish neologisms (Matusiak 1997: 28). A related field to the language describing contemporary technology, the computer, and the Internet is the language used in communication enabled by them. A 291

study conducted by Dąbrowska (2004) emerges as a very interesting and illuminating investigation of the language used by Poles in informal (written) communication via emails (electronic mail) and SMS (short text messages) in friend – friend dyads.142 Dąbrowska (2004: 265, 273) argues that because of high prestige of English in Poland and its popularity, a host of people utilize English in electronic communication to such an extent that one may even talk of the phenomenon of code-mixing. Such sentences as To nie jest Ŝaden top secret; Miłej drogi back Hugs; Dorzucam kilka rzeczy, just for fun are argued to be typical at least of the group under investigation (Dąbrowska 2004: 264). Moreover, it is noted that in addition to such intertwining Polish with English, the studied material also points to use of emoticons, acronyms, abbreviations and graphic representations patterned after English models (Dąbrowska 2004: 271). Importantly, an argument is put forward that there may be a variety of reasons for the use of English in this type of communication (Dąbrowska 2004: 271-272). First of all, this may be regarded as a strategic time- and space-saving device, especially in the case of SMS. Secondly, using English elements may seem to many people natural since they came across or learned English words and expressions first and frequently do not know any (even if such are existent) Polish counterparts. Thirdly, English is thought to serve as a means of manifesting in-group feeling and expressing solidarity with a friend – “[t]he ability to juggle words, meanings and added undertones (…) stresses this bond of friendship if the speaker knows that the addressee will understand them, and it moves the friendship onto another level. The stress on relationship is particularly detectable in cases when the message assumes a somewhat jocular character” (Dąbrowska 2004: 271). Finally, the use of English words and expressions is argued to serve the function of distancing oneself from message; especially in the context of making an apology “the sender may not attach the same emotional value to the foreign words as to their native counterparts” (Dąbrowska 2004: 272). To my mind, the use of English sorry instead of Polish przepraszam is convenient to the speaker as it requires from him/her less emotional cost. Saying English sorry is easier since it does not carry the same value, importance, and seriousness as przepraszam; and, hence, is not equal to admitting to one’s guilt in the same degree.

142

It is explained that the sample used for this study amounted to 60 e-mail messages and 60 short text messages exchanged between men and women aged 18-50 who had some knowledge of English (Dąbrowska 2004: 262).

292

3.3.4.5. The modification of old genres and the emergence of new ones

Another kind of change brought about by the exposure to English and Anglo-American culture after 1989 is the modification of old genres and the emergence of new ones. It is argued that “[t]he value and ideologies of contemporary Poland have been constantly changing for the lat 15 years. It is also its social constructs, its modes of communication, and its genres that have assumed a different shape” (Łyda 2006: 60). Łyda (2006: 60) further delineates that “if the description of the outcomes of EnglishPolish language contact is ever to be complete, it is essential to include the phenomenon of importation of larger and more abstract communicative entities of genre.” Importantly, it is pointed out that the new or modified genres, in addition to layout and names, frequently impose new types of contents (Malinowska 1999: 85). One should also note that in some cases the appearance of new types of genres coincided with the elimination of old ones, for instance, the substitution of Polish Ŝyciorys with an English type of CV, the evolution of podanie into motivational letter, and the advent of the era of job interviews (see Łyda 2006: 60). One should also draw attention to the fact that the internationalization of Polish economy was related to the internationalization (and, in light of Polish aspirations, Europeanization) of many administrative documents and forms, which in practice boiled down to the Englishization of many administrative (especially the area of economy) genres (e.g. SAD and SAD BIS forms, PIT forms, VAT forms, leasing and holding contracts etc.) (Malinowska 1999: 92). Moreover, Łyda (2006: 60) makes an important point that “[s]ometimes the modification of an existing genre is subtler and does not affect the structural characteristics of its textualisation but is related to its function.” Horoscopes published in Polish magazines provide a representative example of this type of change. It is pointed out that following the patterns of such English magazines as Cosmopolitan or Vogue Polish editions started to combine the genre of horoscope with a special type of advertising. This process of “transformation of the basic phatic function into a conative one” is achieved by linking a horoscope (through a special choice of lexis and contents) to the advertising placed next to it (Łyda 2006: 60). Further examining the subject of the modification of genres according to AngloAmerican patterns seems to require a closer look at the phenomenon of discourse derivation. To begin with, it should be stated that in order to understand this process better it may well be reasonable to analyze discourse derivation against the background 293

of the system of global governance. In this light, it should be reminded that the system of global governance is frequently thought to be based on the asymmetrical relationship between the center of power and influence (dominated by powerful states, the most important international institutions and organization) and the periphery (cf. Konik 2004: 275). Konik (2004: 275) makes the point that “[t]he discourse aspects of the influence wielded by the key players on the ‘global’ scene could be studied through an analysis of those fairly tangible cases where the dominant and secondary discourse seem to be related in an incontrovertible way.” The framework adopted in his analysis is based on the concept of derivational relationship between texts. To elaborate, it is pointed out that: As originally envisaged in Askehave and Katsberg’s formulation of the concept, the criteria used to establish that a relationship of derivation holds between original and derived texts across genres involve (i) shared subject matter, (ii) explicit intertextuality (i.e. ‘a situation in which the text in question explicitly signals that it originates from another text’ Askehave and Katsberg 2001: 492), and (iii) chronological sequencing (Konik 2004: 276).

It is noteworthy that according to Konik’s extended operationalization of the concept, “a derivational relationship may be postulated to hold also across culture, language, medium etc.” and to occur in the process of translation “where the derivation would be across, inter alia, the language code, in addition to any generic convention specific for a particular culture” (Konik 2004: 276). In the context of his study, derivational relationship is applied to investigate the phenomenon of interlingual and/or intercultural adaptation/modification in which it is perfectly possible to trace the subject matter of the derived text to the original. To specify, Konik focused on the derivation of discourse in the field of macroeconomic forecasting. It is pointed out that this type of reports prepared by such institutions as OECD (the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) or the EC (European Commission) play an important role “in the discourse of the entities that make up the system of global governance” (Konik 2004: 275). The derivation analyzed by Konik was between English-language specialist discourse (the OECD and the EC country reports) and Polish-language press discourse (Prawo i Gospodarka – a Polish quality newspaper) (Konik 2004: 275-276). A comparison of the original and derived texts points to the following:

294

[T]he press reports reflect quite closely the originals’ recommendations in both the subject matter and the form in which these are phrased. What differences there are may be due to the distinct functions and formats of the original and derived texts, the differences between the target audiences, and possibly also the cultural differences connected with the fact that the original discourse is in English and the derived in Polish (Konik 2004: 286).

Such derived discourses prepared by Polish journalists may unwittingly contribute to strengthening the position and role of this kind of international institutions and other global players which themselves are largely dominated by the English language and Anglo-America traditions (Konik 2004: 286). Importantly, Konik (2004: 277) rightly notes that “[i]t is indeed largely through the media that many of the phenomena that could be described as resulting from the globalisation of discourse make themselves manifest. It is also the discourse of the media that ultimately seems to affect other kinds of discourses, public or private (…).” Consequently, English emerges as a language which functions as a primary medium of the most influential discourses and an original source for derived discourses created in other languages whose status is frequently more local (e.g. Polish) (cf. Konik 2004: 277). Looking at translation from the perspective of discourse derivation makes one alert to both linguistic and more cultural influence of the original texts on the derived ones. In this light, translations of specialist textbooks and scholarly titles may not only leave its mark on the derived texts in the form of linguistic calques and loanwords but also (or, maybe, most of all) in the form of popularizing certain communicative patterns and modes of describing and perceiving the reality. It may be argued that all such aspects of influence should be discernible when analyzing the dependence of Polish specialist discourse on English role models. Considering an analysis of the Polish language of marketing by Dąbrowska (2000: 139), one may easily come to the conclusion that Polish terminology in this field is largely reliant on the English one and, by extension, English expertise. Linguistically speaking, an analysis of written and spoken language of marketing reveals that there are three substyles: one spoken (managers’ jargon) and two written ones (the language of textbooks and press publications) (Dąbrowska 2000: 139). Generally speaking, a point is made that there is much hesitation as to the choice of either English terms or Polish counterparts, a general lack of graphic adaptation of English borrowings, and an endeavour to coin Polish terminology. Attempts to create Polish marketing terminology are most discernible in the language of written handbooks where there are relatively few English terms and

295

many of the ones which are used are calques of English expressions. This striving for avoidance of English borrowings is argued to result from translators’ obligation to do their job carefully. In order to receive a positive evaluation, a translated book should be written in pure and clear Polish. It is noted that the use of English loanwords from the field of marketing is far more widespread in press publications and still the more so in the spoken language of marketing specialists. The reasons for this is a belief that the knowledge of English terms and concepts is tantamount to expertise in this field. Therefore, the use of them is thought to give one prestige, respect, and recognition (cf. Dąbrowska 2000: 139). To my mind, one should discern that the influence of English in this area (just as in other fields) is purely linguistic only on the surface level (borrowing lexemes from English); it should be realized that behind purely lexical items there stand concepts making up larger frameworks representing certain conceptualizations of the world.

3.3.4.6. Topic interview with politicians

One type of the media genre – a political interview – seems to be especially illustrative of the direction of change in the Polish media language. After the political transformation of Poland this genre was subject to an overwhelming influence of westernized, and specifically, Anglo-Saxon discursive practices. By extension, it is maintained that exposure to these new (more attractive) communicative patterns has resulted (and will result) in absorption of foreign discourse structures into Poles’ verbal repertoires (Okulska 2004: 258). Generally speaking, Okulska (2004: 258) points out that the changes in the language of media (and, obviously, this particular genre) may be attributed to “the general tendency towards the so-called domestication of public life that has become accessible for common people at the hand’s stretch, via a booming progress in telecommunications and information technologies.”143 Attention should be drawn to the fact that both political interviews and topic interviews with politicians (but also with journalists and celebrities) have considerably gained in importance after winning full independence. In communist Poland, due to strict censorship, such live 143

Okulska (2004) draws her conclusions from an analysis of a corpus of 61 interviews recorded from January 2000 to September 2002.

296

interviews were carefully planned “fake interaction game[s] that enforced artificial behaviours both on the interviewer and interviewee” (Okulska 2004: 238). As regards political interviews, it should be noted that in addition to such obvious (progressing from new political realties) changes as abolishment of censorship, conversations about a variety of topics, requests for information, and the pivotal role of journalists, there are argued to be innovations which can be traced to the influence of Anglo-American culture and communicative practices:

What we observe in contemporary Polish political interviews are similar processes to those operating within English interviews (…) resulting in their hybridisation towards a heterogeneous genre involving an admixture of different and often distant discourse domains. The adaptation of the Western patterns in the composition of political interviews in the Polish context has been evident in the majority of the radio sessions that I have examined. The generic blends in the corpus entail a configuration of not only the political and the public, but also the private discourse orders. (…) Such a shift towards the conversational style in the Polish political interviews decomposes the traditional genre in its staging, restructures it into an interdiscursive or intergeneric hybrid, and introduces new forms of dynamism into the interview session (Okulska 2004: 240-241).

Moreover, Okulska (2004: 240, 251) points out that following Anglo-Saxon conversation practices, the rules of turn-taking in this type of media genre have changed; just as “the traditional rules of the interview game in terms of its staging, intergeneric homogenization, dynamism, and power relations.”

3.3.4.7. Some further insight into the changes of post-1989 Polish – a special focus on youth language

The investigation by Fabiszak (2004) provides an interesting insight as to the channels of the Englishization of the Polish language as spoken by younger generations of Poles, the possible influence of children’s magazines on language development, and the construction of national identity. The material analyzed encompassed six, the most popular magazines targeted at children aged 3 to 10. It was hypothesized that the language used in the magazines (due to the prestige that the written language in Poland enjoys and the inclusion of new linguistic forms) may have a significant bearing on transforming the speech of new generations of children (Fabiszak 2004: 214). Even though Fabiszak (2004: 218-221) does not rule out a possibility that the linguistic change discernible in the language of these magazines may result from either a natural 297

independent development or the impact of translations from non-English children’s magazines, the results of her analysis seem to point to heavy linguistic borrowing from English. To elaborate, it is elucidated that:

When it comes to an investigation of the effects of the dominant language on the local culture, it seems that the use of some linguistic structures in Polish develops towards the English model. The premodification instead of postmodification of NPs, increase in the use of passive constructions and PPs where the relationship between words can be inflectionally marked and change in pragmatic patterns in the forms of address, all point in this direction (Fabiszak 2004: 220-221).

Moreover, attention is drawn to morphosyntactic borrowings, specifically, the adoption of the prefixes super- and extra- as well as to the attributive use of nouns (Fabiszak 2004: 218). As regards the construction of national identity, it is noted that children at this age are in “a sensitive period for culture acquisition” (Fabiszak 2004: 214). In terms of contents, the examined children’s magazines may be categorized according to the differences in providing information about Poland and the world (for details see Fabiszak 2004: 216-217). It is argued that some magazines, especially those translated from other languages, do not contain enough input to allow children to develop Polish national identity. Furthermore, a point is made that “[c]ontemporary translations of the dominant popular culture texts present the recipients with the dominant culture views, which may, at best, be not adapted, and at worst contradictory, to local values” (Fabiszak 2004: 220). It is almost common knowledge that the language of young generations of Poles is heavily influenced by the English language and American culture. Because of the universality of English language instructions in schools and the popularity of American pop culture among adolescents, many groups of young Poles are likely to be predisposed to borrow from the English language and anglophone culture uncritically. The Americanization of younger generation of Poles is manifested by the popularity of American series (e.g. Beverly Hills 90210), various sitcoms, American (or patterned after American models) channels (e.g. VIVA, MTV) and magazines (Popcorn, Girl, Bravo), as well as adoption of certain behavioral and linguistic habits (exchanging kisses by girls when greeting each other, saying Hi!, Hello!, Thanks!, or Sorry! to each other, or using such prefixes as arcy, hiper, mega, ekstra, super etc.) (Rzeszutek 2000: 174, 176). Americanization is argued to be contributory to the use of vulgarisms, curses, and colloquialisms (even during school lessons) and to a general tendency to defy and

298

undermine all types of authority. Young people are thought to have a high level of awareness of the specificity of their language and this seems to further increase their motivation to show, by means of their language, that they are young and different than adults who must stick to certain norms (cf. Rzeszutek 2000: 171-172; Zgółkowa 1999: 260). It is pointed out that sometimes adolescents admit to feeling even compelled to use the youth jargon so as not to risk exclusion from the group (Zgółkowa 1999: 260). Importantly, one should discern that the language of adolescents is by no means uniform. The lexical level seems to vary the most according to adolescents’ favorite pastime activities, hobbies, and the preferred type of music, or even addictions (drug users’ slang) (cf. Rzeszutek 2000: 177; Zgółkowa 1999: 252; Bartłomiejczyk 2006: 106). As regards the causes of the use of anglicisms by younger generations of Poles, it should be noted that in addition to the usual motivation to fill lexical gaps in technical and specialist genres, adolescents frequently use words and phrases of English origin for a variety of expressive reasons (McGovern 1992). Most of all, adolescents seem to use English counterparts of Polish words to find new and original means of expressing emotions and moods as well as to add specific stylistic coloring, both of which are to manifest their youth identity and solidarity with a specific group of teenagers (McGovern 1992: 32, 39). To elaborate, one can discern expressions marked stylistically giving the following coloring: neutral (e.g. end), pejorative (e.g. playboy), colloquial (e.g. cents), hypocoristic (e.g. baby), humorous (e.g. shocking), ironic (e.g. VIP), vulgar (e.g. fuck off) (McGovern 1992: 34). An important study providing additional insight into the Englishization of the language of young generations of Poles is a study conducted by OtwinowskaKasztelanic (2000). Her major focus was on the spoken language of Poles aged 19-35. For this purpose she analyzed a corpus of informal conversations (70 000 running words produced in fifteen interactions between forty-one people) on general (non-specialist) topics between young, educated (completed at least secondary education) Poles who in the majority of cases had some knowledge of English (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 66, 98). Generally speaking, the analysis reveals that the corpus includes English borrowings (many of which were not recorded earlier) and that a substantial part of them belonged to the field of computer science (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 83). Unsurprisingly, it was confirmed that the use of borrowings was highly dependent on the topic of conversations (e.g. the area of computers, and the Internet are associated with high occurrence of anglicisms) as well as the idiolect of the speaker. 299

As regards semantic loans, it is noted that only thirteen different borrowings of this kind were discovered and that most of them could be considered to be semantic extensions (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 98). With the exception of dokładnie, which was quite widely used in all but two recordings, the occurrence of the remainder was heavily dependent on the topic of conversation and the speaker (OtwinowskaKasztelanic 2000: 98).144 Regarding syntactic borrowings from English, the analysis shows that the influence of English on this level of spoken Polish is inconsiderable (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 100). Interestingly, it is argued that the use of syntactic borrowings from English is rather not contingent on the topic of conversation (except for some propositional constructions from the field of computer science and the Internet) but on the idiolect of the speaker (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 114). In order to get additional insight into her corpus analysis of the spoken language, Otwinowska-Kasztelanic conducted complementary analyses of other corpora to juxtapose thempose them against the major study. Table 8. The number loanwords, semantic, and syntactic borrowings in different corpuses (adapted on the basis of Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 145-146). Types of corpus

Total number of Number of loanwords and words unanalyzed phrases

Number of semantic borrowings

Number of syntactic borrowings

Corpus of spoken Polish

70178

288 (0.410%)

197 (0.28%)

78 (0.11%)

Corpus of TV commercials

1785

93 (5.21%)

3 (0.16%)

31 (1.73%)

Corpus of radio commercials

975

38 (3.89%)

0

14 (1.43%)

Corpus of press articles and ads

7194

73 (1.01%)

17 (0.23%)

67 (0.93%)

juxtapose them against the one from the major study (see Table 8). The data reveals that the language of commercials is by far the most packed with English loanwords. It is pointed out that:

144

The following is a list of the instances of the syntactic influence of English upon Polish detected in the corpus “the adverb generalnie used as a discourse marker, attributive adjectival constructions used instead of postpositive ones, the attributive use of nouns (noun + noun clusters), the multifunctional use of the morpheme super, and finally, a group of new prepositional constructions in the field of computer science and the Internet which can be regarded as calques from English” (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 100).

300

Both the high frequency and the type of loanwords used are most probably connected with the financial aspect of advertising and the psychological considerations underlying the advertising policy. When introducing a new product, companies insist on the use of original, English names. What is more, the name of the new product has to be repeated many times, so as to be remembered by the listeners or viewers. Hence, television and radio commercials contain numerous unassimilated loans repeated with high frequencies. On the other hand, use of lexical borrowings in speech and writing depends on the idiolect of the speaker, or the author of the press article. It also depends on the topic the conversation or text deals with. Thus, with some topics and some authors the frequencies are higher. However, they never reach the level of frequency found in commercials (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 145).

In addition, whereas semantic borrowings are the most numerous in the corpus of the spoken language, and the language of the press, syntactic borrowings abound the most in the corpora of TV commercials (especially, the attributive use of nouns) and the press (most frequently the misuse of attributive adjectival constructions145) (see Table 8). To conclude, the analyses of the corpora show that there are considerable differences in the occurrence of loanwords, as well as syntactic and semantic borrowings, according to the type of corpora investigated, formality, and the idiolect of speakers (OtwinowskaKasztelanic 2000: 148). To my mind, at first sight it could seem that the usage of anglicisms by young generations of Poles is governed by rules thoroughly different than the ones applicable in the case of adults. Looking superficially one may indeed argue that by using English loanwords the former simply want to make their language become ‘cool’ (and different form the adult one) and the latter to maintain or improve their social status. However, it may be argued that both groups use language for the same general reason – to maintain prestige among the members with whom they interact and identify with.

3.3.5. The stratificational function of English in Poland 3.3.5.1. Introduction

Making a comprehensive and critical analysis of the stratificational function of English in post-1989 Poland is quite impossible without obtaining a considerable insight into the socio-cultural, educational, and economic context of the post-transformational era. In addition to the aforesaid cultural strands of changes, there was a radical reformation of the educational system and the principles of the functioning of the society, both of 145

A point is made that in many cases this was caused by the carelessness on the part of translators (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 146).

301

which could be seen as interrelated and resultant from the introduction of the new political system and the free market economy. A great need for educated Poles and various specialists was accompanied by the emergence of a new, decentralized, educational system and different private schools (see Golinowska and Rumińska-Zimny 1998: 21). Furthermore, it should also be noted that “[e]ducation has become perceived as a crucial asset, transferable into occupational or professional positions, higher living standards, or raised prestige” (Sztompka 2001: 46). Unsurprisingly, what followed the political transformation of Poland was a great boom in education.146 This new situation provoked a lively public discussion about the equality of educational opportunities in the Polish society. Underpinning this debate is a broad framework of human development and human rights as situated in the context of the globalization, the development of new technologies and the information society (Golinowska and Rumińska-Zimny 1998: 21). Human development being closely related to basic human rights is argued to hinge on education which, if public and unrestricted in terms of access to it, is seen as a significant factor in giving equal life opportunities to all people regardless of their social and material status.147 Furthermore, contemporary theories of social development stress the importance of social (and intellectual) capital of the society in its ability to deal with the problems of poverty, unemployment, social exclusion and isolationism (Hrynkiewicz et al. 1996: 35). Effective functioning of a democratic state and its economy is regarded as possible only thanks to heavy investment in education and the educational development of the society. Hrynkiewicz et al. (1996: 35) argue that “[i]n Poland in the period of transformation education and qualifications turned out to be a factor which impacted on the formation of the structure of the Polish society [translation mine, KP].” The new reality is thought to have enlarged the social stratification and polarization of the Polish society by the emergence of the so called “winners” and “losers” – “[t]he earlier category has been able to take advantage of new income generation opportunities and has managed to improve their standards of living and their future life prospects. The latter group consists of those who have experienced the previously unknown 146

It is reported that “[t]he numbers of students at the university level have more than doubled from 403,824 in 1990 to 927,480 in 1997, accompanied by similar expansion of the schools providing higher education, from 112 in 1990 to 213 in 1997 (…) Apart from state-run schools, where education is in principle free, new private institutions of higher education are cropping up, and in spite of high tuition they draw great numbers of students. There were 18 such schools in 1992 and 114 in 1997” (see Sztompka 2001: 46). 147 It is noted that according to Polish law education rights, just as other civil liberties, are guaranteed and protected by the Polish state and its institutions (Golinowska and Rumińska-Zimny 1998: 24).

302

phenomenon of unemployment as well as high levels of poverty” (Śliwa 2008: 238). It is further elucidated that research indicates that there is a close relation between education and the prosperity of Polish households and, specifically, between such traditional social divisions as the rich vs. the poor, those with access to power and information vs. those without it (Hrynkiewicz et al. 1996: 35). Additionally, low income families and poor education are also argued to be highly interrelated with low expenditures on education and culture. The situation in which educational opportunities are not equally distributed among members of the society is seen as further aggravated by insufficient budgetary funding of the educational system (Hrynkiewicz et al. 1996: 36). Importantly, it is pointed out that “[t]he above changes in the socio-economic structure in Poland are reflected in and reinforced by the way in which the English language spreads in the society, contributing to formation and reproduction of a new set of divisions within it” (Śliwa 2008: 238). Therefore, even though the spread of English is generally regarded by Poles as a positive and desirable phenomenon, its dispersion in fact contributes to increasing the gap between the urban – rural, the educated – noneducated, and the rich – poor (Śliwa 2008: 239). This is caused by the fact that not everyone has an equal chance to gain a good command of English (and in this way increase their linguistic capital); a language whose mastery is well known to improve one’s prosperity and chances in the job market in Poland and abroad (Śliwa 2008: 238). This perception of English as a ladder to career and success in the job market made a large number of Poles start learning the language (at least those who could afford it and were determined enough). A command of the language was regarded by them as especially important because of high unemployment rate and Poland’s preparations for the accession to the European Union (Reichelt 2005a: 222). Obviously, this practical appeal of English was nothing else but an extension of its international image of a language opening doors to career and wealth (or rather, more appropriately expressed, closing them to those who do not know it). An argument is advanced that these days a lack of knowledge of English is tantamount not only to a lack of understanding of the language of show business but, more generally, “incomprehension of the world around us, the Internet, and other media – isolation from information and a possibility to evaluate it [my translation, KP]” (Cieśla and Rybak 2004). This is maintained to directly translate into the differences in the quality of life between those with and without a command of English. Interestingly, the soundness of this argument seems to 303

be corroborated by an opinion poll by OBOP revealing the reasons why Poles learn foreign languages (Jak Polacy 2000: 4). The survey shows that 33% of Poles learn foreign languages to increase their chances of finding a job, 32% do so because their knowledge is useful when traveling, 31% note that it is generally a necessary skill in the contemporary world; and 23% learn foreign languages because they need it in their education and studies (Jak Polacy 2000: 4). Foreign language teaching has become recognized so important by the Polish society as to be subject to an investigation by NajwyŜsza Izba Kontrolii (NIK – the Supreme Chamber of Control) in 2005. It is noted that the key aim of the educational strategy of Poland for the years 2001-2006 was to guarantee equal educational opportunities to all school children (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 208). In order to achieve this goal, the educational system was to ensure a comparable quality of education in all schools by providing them with highly qualified teachers, modern teaching materials and educational facilities. Moreover, the document stated clearly that compulsory teaching of two foreign languages (with English as the preferred one ) was to be introduced (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 208). Moreover, school children were to have a possibility to continue learning English at higher levels of education. The next strategy (for the years 2007-2013) established the objective to enable school children to acquire one language at an advanced and another at an intermediate level (Sprawozdanie z działolności 2006: 207). Bearing in mind the aforementioned privileged position of English, it is difficult not to draw a conclusion that English was to become a language known by all the best and one chosen by the majority of students in school leaving exams. The control by NIK carried out in 67 public schools of different types shows clearly that the realities of foreign language teaching bear no relation to the goals set in national educational strategies (see Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 207208). Serious anomalies were discovered in as many as 85% of all investigated schools. The most significant ones concerned poor qualifications of teachers, teaching materials and facilities, the number of compulsory lessons and students in a group, teaching curricula and inappropriate handbooks. All of this is thought as detrimental to providing students with quality education and equal educational opportunities. Even though the study did not focus specifically on teachers of English and English lessons, one should remember that the former constitute the majority of teachers of all foreign language and the latter make up the lion’s share of all foreign language lessons taught in public schools. For instance, regarding all 18 primary schools, English 304

was learned by 72.8% of all pupils, and German by 27.2% (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 16). To elaborate on some of the improprieties, it should be noted that teaching languages in overcrowded classes was a chronic problem. In as many as 36 schools there were more than 24 students during a lesson (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 318). Furthermore, the qualifications of teachers, both linguistic and pedagogical, left much to be desired. It is reported that in 33 schools lessons were taught by unqualified teachers who made up 10% of the whole foreign language teaching staff (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 318).148 Another problem was that in some cases headmasters were forced, due to lack of teaching personnel, to employ lecturers from private languageschool companies, which was not only against the principles of the functioning of public schools but also meant no formal supervision of headmasters over such teachers. Importantly, in 14 primary schools students could not choose on their own a foreign language to be taught as a compulsory subject and in three schools students had no opportunity to continue their education in the foreign language they learnt at a lower school level (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 318). This is argued to result from the fact that (as headmasters explain) there was a dearth of teachers, no interest on their part in teaching in their schools (e.g. too few hours to have a full-time job), and no interest in other languages than the most popular ones (English and German) (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 16). The investigation also shows that students from vocational schools were disadvantaged, in the sense that they had no chance of choosing the two most popular languages – English and German. This is noted to seriously affect their competitiveness in the European job market (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 318). NIK concludes that much indicates that giving equal educational opportunities to all school children is still an unattained goal (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 207). This is argued to be proved by the results of the first, new high-school-leaving exams (evaluated outside of the school in which they were carried out) which showed serious differences between diverse types of schools, and schools located in the city vs. the ones in the village. Crucially, it is argued that “according to NIK the conditions of teaching foreign languages in public schools should be perceived as a serious social and economic problem. Teaching foreign languages to adolescents is an undertaking the realization of which will heavily impact on their participation in the economic and 148

Importantly, one should discern that a fact that a teacher does have an MA or BA diploma is not always tantamount to his/her great competence in the language. It is an open secret that a host of teachers employed by public schools obtained their diplomas from private schools where the quality of education is often very low, to say the least.

305

social life of Poland and Europe [my translation, KP]” (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 207). One should also take heed of the fact that serious criticism is leveled at the status of foreign language education in the Polish school system. Komorowska (2004: 36) argues that in terms of the number of hours per week, teaching foreign languages is treated like biology and this runs counter to the policy of countries with national languages having only local relevance. In this light, teaching foreign languages should be in the center of the educational system of Poland, at least 900 hours of the first foreign language and 500 hours of the second (Komorowska 2004: 36). Interestingly, Komorowska (2004: 36) makes a point that this state of affairs is advantageous to a host of teachers, language schools, and publishers, all of whom are believed to be uninterested in improving the conditions of teaching foreign languages.

3.3.5.2. The significance of the English language in the job market

Arguments are advanced that these days the school system should strive to both prepare students for a given job and teach them a range of general and basic skills (for instance, computer skills, a command of foreign languages) without which it is difficult to either find or keep a job (Sztanderska 2007b: 193-194; Bąba 2007: 156). Even though there is some progress in the acquisition of these skills, their continued search on the part of employers as well as their readiness to offer higher salaries for candidates with such abilities point to a dearth of such qualified workers in the Polish job market (Sztanderska 2007b: 194). A decade earlier it was also noted that the chances of a graduate to find a job were determined, first of all, by his/her level and kind of education (those having tertiary-education diplomas had the greatest chances), and then, as graduates themselves maintained, the knowledge of foreign languages and computer skills (Wykształcenie i rynek pracy 1998: 67). Interestingly, it is argued that these days some companies consider a fluent command of English to be a sign that their employers achieved a certain (good) level of education and that they may not, in fact, need so skilled workers on everyday basis (Zieliński 2003). There are increasingly more voices attesting that knowledge of foreign languages (especially English) is growing to become such an obvious and crucial requirement in the job market in Poland as education or experience (Bednar 2001). Some scholars suggest that fluency in English is already regarded by some employers as more important than either professional qualifications 306

or even experience (Śliwa 2008: 236). The inability to meet the demand seems to be caused by the generally poor quality of education; modern programs should endow students not only with knowledge but also with various basic, more practical skills (such as knowledge of foreign languages, communicative skills, analytical thinking etc.) (W trosce o pracę 2004: 41). Sadly, it is noted that many young people and graduates start to fully realize this only when looking for a (good) job. The great market demand, especially for the knowledge of English, makes increasingly more adult Poles enroll in all types of language courses (ROCH 1999). As aforesaid, some people decide to learn English (either on their own or on courses sponsored and organized by their firms) to find a job, get promotion, but for many this is a matter of keeping their job (especially if they work in foreign companies or ones with foreign investors) (ROCH 1999). The trends are also that the number of firms, both big and small, which have language courses organized for their employees is constantly on the increase (ROCH 1999). It seems that requirements are also growing stricter and stricter. The latest press reports show that in addition to an excellent command of English more and more firms obligate their employees to know also other languages (e.g. Śniegułka 2006; AS and PG 2000). All facts indicate, thus, that learning foreign languages is no longer a matter of fashion but a must for those who want to find an (attractive) job. Employers are noted to be getting more and more often overdemanding and they have even stopped considering English to be a foreign language; in fact there are fewer jobs in which English is not needed than the ones in which it is necessary or helpful (professor ElŜbieta Kryńska as quoted in Cieśla and Rybak 2004). These days, education itself is hardly ever enough to find a job and employers require from their workers a variety of additional skills and qualifications (Czop-Śliwińska 2003).149 For those who already hold a job companies organize language courses in English and German (other languages are far less popular) (Language education policy 2005: 14). This state of affairs is confirmed by both young people who want to find a job and senior officers from Polish job centers (JIM 2000). It is reported that job centers in Poland organize up to 5000 training courses in foreign languages and that it also happens that they sponsor the unemployed international language exams (Boni 2007a: 167; Kondratowicz 2004). International certificates are frequently required to be shortlisted for a job interview since they save the time needed

149

Importantly, Ustrzycki (2007: 45, 50) points out that linguistic requirements from candidates (i.e. the ones specified in job offers advertised in the press) are believed to frequently exceed the real expectations of employers.

307

for the recruitment process (Zieliński 2003). A host of young Poles are aware of this; they also know that in order to be competitive in the job market they need to further improve their linguistic qualifications and take more advanced (e.g. CAE, CPE) or specialist (BEC) exams (Jurga 2007). 150 To elaborate on the demand for English and, generally, knowledge of foreign languages, one should note that there are a few studies pointing to their role in the Polish job market. One of the earliest (from 1992) surveys indicates that already in the first years after the political transformation of Poland English was indicated by employers as the most desirable language – English 46%, German – 26%, French – 7%, Spanish – 1% (see Glück 1992 as quoted in Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 11). It is also reported that a couple of years later as many as 93% of Polish academicians recommended learning English and that according to an analysis of job advertisements (from various newspapers), 46% of them required from candidates a command of English (Griffin 1997: 35). At the same time, Instytut Spraw Publicznych conducted a study on employers’ expectations from tertiary-education graduates (see Bąba 2007: 154). The research reveals that, as regards additional requirements, the knowledge of foreign languages was perceived as the most important (69%); it surpassed experience (68%), communicative skills, and the ability to work in a team (31%), as well as such traits of character as dynamism, self-reliance, and resilience (28%). Bąba (2007: 154) asserts that looking at research from 2004 and 2000 one can observe a constant and significant increase in the requirements with respect to experience (demanded by 88% of employers) and linguistic competence (80%); a point is also made that education is an important but not the only asset of candidates.151 One should also discern that a study on the necessity of a command of English from 1999 indicates that over three fourths of the 150 companies surveyed (companies from Wrocław) acknowledged that it is impossible to find a work in them without knowing English (importantly, 72% of them claimed that for bosses English is a must) and that as many as 92% predicted that English will become more and more necessary in the job market (jow 1999). It is also reported that in a randomly chosen supplement of Gazeta Wyborcza (Gazeta Praca) from 2001, 65% of job offers required good, fluent, 150

Jurga (2007) notes that in Poland FCE, CAE, and CPE exams are acknowledged by over 120 colleges and 50 companies (e.g. Coca-Cola, Panasonic, Vattenfall, PKP, FSO). 151 Interestingly, it is noted that a survey conducted by GUS in 2001 on 60 000 companies show that over 23% of them mentioned shortages in personnel in general; out of which almost a half needed qualified workers, then (around 20%) workers knowing foreign languages and, finally, managers (18,2%) (see W trosce o pracę 2004: 85).

308

proficient, or perfect knowledge of English (Papuzińska 2001: 25). In contrast, only 5% of employers required competence in other languages. It is also pointed out that there is a need not only for translators and managers with a command of English but also for secretaries. A more recent study (from 2003) – aimed at investigating the expectations set down on future graduates of technical colleges by prospective employers – shows that a command of English is an important additional skill desired more than any other foreign languages (Czop-Śliwińska 2003). To elaborate, of all employers as many as 59.46% required a fluent command of English, 44.59% of them mentioned also German, and 21.62% – French. Moreover, only 8 employers did not regard language skills as necessary and as many as 114 (out of 148) would like their employees to speak more than one foreign language. It is also pointed out that whereas in 2003 every third job offer advertised on the Internet web portal pracuj.pl required a command of English, in 2004 the number of such offers increased to 80% (Cieśla and Rybak 2004). Another important recent study giving considerable insight into the present discussion is the one by Ustrzycki (2007). The survey was carried out in 2007 on 350 small and mediumsized companies (the large ones make up only 5% of all located in Poland) in Opole. According to the study, employers hold a strong belief that graduates should know two other European languages (Ustrzycki 2007: 46). Furthermore, almost half of them require from their workers a command of English and as many as one third knowledge of German (Russian and French were mentioned by around 7% of companies). Importantly, a point is made that it happens rarely that a knowledge of English (or German) is required from all employees working for a given company and that it usually depends on one’s post. The significance of English in finding a job should also be discussed from the perspective of those who want to work abroad. The latest economic emigration of Poles gained especially great momentum after our accession to the European Union.152 It is reported that in the first three years after Poland became a member of the EU, there was a huge influx of Polish economic emigrants to Great Britain who found there employment in a variety of trades across the whole country (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 1). 152

After the Second World War there was a large number of Poles who did not return to Poland and decided to settle down abroad (for instance, 160 thousand Polish refugees decided to stay in the UK) (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 7). Interestingly, from 1951 to 1989 only a dozen thousand or so Polish immigrants came to Great Britain; at the beginning of the 1990s there lived only 73.7 thousand Poles and in 2001 – 60.7 thousand (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 9). It is also elucidated that in the period 1990-2000 some Poles went to GB for economic reasons, nevertheless, the scale of this (usually) short-term emigration is hard to estimate since many Poles stayed and worked there illegally (in 2003 around 34 thousand new immigrants from Poland may have stayed in GB) (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 10).

309

The desire to find a better-paid job abroad was especially great among young Poles; and generally speaking, almost everyone talked about 500 thousand vacancies waiting for Polish workers in the land of Shakespeare (Bernaś et al. 2004). Unsurprisingly, one of the major requirements to find a job in the UK (but also in the majority of other EU member states) is at least a basic command of English (Niedziela 2002; Kryścińska 2005). Importantly, one should pay attention to the fact that, as workers of job centers admit, in many cases with a better command of English there comes a better post (Bełza 2008). On the other hand, one should also note other tendencies: a host of Poles going to the UK are students and young graduates (e.g. lawyers, teachers of various subjects) who, despite a good knowledge of English, cannot offer British employers much more than that (there is no demand for their professions in the UK job market). In contrast, Poles with more practical professions (which are found far more appealing) are frequently unable to communicate with their employers (Bernaś et al. 2004). This is usually so since they are often graduates of basic vocational schools in which teaching foreign languages is notorious for its ineffectiveness. In order to understand better some possible sociolinguistic implications stemming from Poland’s accession to the EU and the emigration of Poles, one should elaborate on its scale and the demographical profile of emigrants. First of all, it should be discerned that even though the 1st May 2004 could be regarded as a symbolic data pointing to the beginning of a recent wave of emigration to the UK, some studies point to the fact that even some years before 2004 there was an increased mobility of Poles (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 10). The number of Poles going to GB grew from 278 thousand in 2003 to 646 thousand in 2004, and continued so in 2005 (1127 thousand arrivals of Poles) (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 11). It is also reported that only in 2006 1.7 million Poles visited Great Britain and that this number reflects the general mobility of Poles, and specifically, short- and long-term as well as economic and non-economic migration. There was also a great increase in the long term migration to Great Britain from 17 thousand in 2004 to 49 thousand in 2005. According to some indices, by 2007 there were over 390 thousand emigrants from Poland going to GB for purely economic reasons (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 13). Importantly, this number includes only new emigrants and not the total population of the migration. Generally speaking, it is difficult to estimate accurately the actual number of Poles staying in GB, but some figures point to 254 thousand in 2006, out of which 162 thousand arrived to the UK after 2004 (the latter number is argued to be most probably two times higher than the 310

index suggest) (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 13). As regards the age of Polish emigrants going to the UK after 2004, the majority of them are young Poles: 45.4% of them are between 16-24 years of age and 25.3% between 25-29 (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 15). Most of them are well educated: 19.5% have a master’s degree (22.2% of all women and 17.3% of all men emigrants) and as many as 44.6% have a bachelor’s degree (46.2% of all women and 43.3% of all men); only 18% of emigrants have vocational education and 12.7% secondary (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 19). Statistics reveal that most men find employment in the construction industry (19.1% of them), hotels and restaurants (10.9%), travel agencies and as transport assistants (9.6%), as well as in the production of food and beverage (8.2%) (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 26). Women, in contrast, find employment most of all in hotels and restaurant (14.1%), other business activity (13.2%), as well as health service and social work (12.6%). As regards the posts occupied by Poles after 2004, the majority of them work as unqualified workers (41.6%), and semi-qualified workers (33.2%) (Fidel and Piętka 2007: 26). Only 10.4% of Poles hold high-ranking and managerial posts and 14.9% are junior staff workers. In contrast, before 2000 as many as 39.4% of all Poles were junior staff workers and 34.8% of all held high-ranking and managerial posts. Due to its magnitude, Ireland is another highly important direction of economic migration from Poland.153 According to some figures, in comparison with 2003 the number of legal workers in 2006 (almost three years after the accessesion to the EU) increased sevenfold and amounted to around 80 thousand Poles (Radiukiewicz et al. 2006: 13). In the period 2003-2005 Polish emigrants made up 47.4% of all migrants from the European Union and in years from May 2004 to February 2006 almost 105 thousand Poles worked legally in Ireland (Radiukiewicz et al. 2006: 13; Wiśniewski and Duszczyk 2006: 13). The last to be mentioned anglophone country which remains quite a popular destination (mostly among Polish students) are the United States. Generally speaking, one must acknowledge that owing to the necessity to apply for visas it has been difficult for Poles to either emigrate to the US or find employment there (for detail see Wiśniewski and Duszczyk 2006: 24-25). Accordingly, the US are argued to be becoming less attractive for economic emigrants. Nonetheless, because numerous Polish students take part in such programs as Work & Travel, the number of Poles going to the

153

Importantly, one should remember that Germany has been traditionally the most important destination for Polish economic emigration; yet it will not be discussed here (see Wiśniewski and Duszczyk 2006: 14).

311

US is worth mentioning. It is reported that this type of ‘programs’ for young people is so popular that students from Poland (in 2004 there 22.5 thousand of them) constitute the biggest group of all who decide to go on such ‘holidays’ to the US (Sidor 2005). Students who participate in such projects are allowed to work for four months and after the completion of their job commitments to travel for up to 30 days (Sidor 2005). It is also reported that rejections happen very rarely and mainly stem from poor language skills. In order to complete the presentation of the new economic migration of Poles to anglophone countries, it should be elucidated that this migration does not have a permanent character. It is reported that 46% of Poles who went to GB did not stay there longer than half a year; every fourth migrant stayed there from 7 to 12 months, and only 13% percent worked in GB longer than that (cf. Frelak and Rogulska 2008: 6). Moreover, some research reveals that even though Polish economic emigrants do not intend to leave Poland permanently, in many cases (33%) they do not rule out the possibility to seek employment abroad again (Frelak and Rogulska 2008: 3). To elaborate on Poles’ reasons to leave for Great Britain, it should be pointed out that 51% of emigrants acknowledged that they had wanted to take up a job, 42% mentioned willingness to search for it, and the same number admitted to a desire to earn money (Frelak and Rogulska 2008: 7). Interestingly, 20% of emigrants said that they also wanted to improve their language skills and 17% of them wished to have an adventure and experience the life in a different culture and society (Frelak and Rogulska 2008: 7). Of considerable relevance to the present discussion is the fact that a host of Polish emigrants (22%) leave for Great Britain in groups and that the majority of them (92%) when staying there have friends from Poland and socialize mainly with them (Frelak and Rogulska 2008: 3).

3.3.5.3. Private tutoring in Poland

Obviously, the phenomenon of private tutoring (including private tuition in English) did not emerge together with post-transformational Poland but existed long before 1989 (see Johnston 2004: 128; Silova and Bray 2006b: 44). An argument is advanced that because in communist Poland private tutoring was against the image of socialist public schools as ideal institutions which were to rest on egalitarian bases and provide free 312

uniform flawless education, non-mainstream private education, being associated with elitism and the intelligentsia, was not a proper subject for public discussion (Silova and Bray 2006b: 44). The political transformation of Poland may well be argued to have had a revolutionary impact on the functioning of the Polish society and, what is important for the present discussion, the educational system. It is argued that “[i]n some respects, the former socialist states became a huge social, economic, and political laboratory in which far-reaching experiments were undertaken with unpredictable consequences” (Silova and Bray 2006a: 17). A free market economy has led to the commodification of the educational system and created an insatiable demand for a wide range of skills and expertise which were not effectively taught in public schools. Possibly, nothing reflects this process better than the commodification of the knowledge of English. Because after 1989 a prime focus of the Polish government and lower level authorities was on public universal education, out-of-school private educational sector (with the exception of adult education and skill training) was not of their primary concern – “[t]his tutoring operated in a marketplace, alongside many other goods and services; but it was to a large extent a hidden marketplace” (Silova and Bray 2006a: 17-18). Nonetheless, it is argued that private tutoring is a serious matter as it affects the public educational system, equal learning opportunities, or even impacts on the access to tertiary education (Būdin÷ 2006: 7). In this vein, Būdin÷ (2006: 7) further elucidates that "[q]uality public education is essential for building an open, democratic society, for maintaining social cohesion in any country, and for improving the quality of life of citizens and residents.” An important point to bear in mind when discussing private tutoring is that it is a complex phenomenon having both advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, one should obviously mention a rather high quality of instruction and an increase in students’ competitiveness in the educational and job market (Putkiewicz 2005: 2; Būdin÷ 2006: 13).154 In the transformational period non-mainstream education, due to its greater flexibility, was far more effective in helping adapt children and young adults to the new realities (Silova and Bray 2006a: 19). Moreover, private tuition has served in post-communist countries as an important source of income for frequently underpaid educators, and constitutes both a positive and practical out-of-school activity for 154

Nevertheless, one should discern that it is frequently the case that teachers working in public schools also teach in private ones. This is thought to indicate that the higher quality of teaching may not always be related to private teachers having better qualifications but rather with the fact that the conditions of teaching in private schools are more favorable (e.g. smaller classes, more motivated teachers, and hence, students etc.) (Language education policy 2005: 25).

313

adolescents and a real investment in their human capital (Būdin÷ 2006: 13; Silova and Bray 2006a: 17). Far more negatively, tutoring is thought to have numerous pedagogical, social, ethical as well as economic repercussions and to signify a failure of the public educational system (Būdin÷ 2006: 13; Putkiewicz 2005: 2). Even more seriously, it is accused of “exacerbating social inequities, distorting curricula and teacher performance in mainstream schools, fostering corruption, skewing the university admissions process, and depriving the state of tax revenues” (Būdin÷ 2006: 13; Silova and Bray 2006a: 19). Tutoring is, in fact, argued to be “both a symptom of corruption in societies and an instrument through which corruption becomes more deeply entrenched” (Silova and Bray 2006a: 17). In addition, private tuition frequently imposes a heavy burden on household’s income (especially for the lower-income families), puts damaging pressure on students, and constitutes a great hindrance to “smooth operation of classroom interactions” (Silova and Bray 2006a: 17). Moreover, taking private lessons is considered to increase the heterogeneity of the class (greater differences in proficiency levels between students), and promote students who develop their competences also in the out-of-school context (Language education policy 2005: 25). To elaborate on the reasons for the thriving shadow education in Poland, one should refer first of all to the political, economic, and social transformation of Poland which drove the demand for private tuition “as an effective mechanism to adapt to new sociocultural realities of new democracies and market economies” (Bray and Silova 2006: 31). According to a study, over 80% of Poles have strived to adapt themselves (and their children) to the new system by “a strategy of capital accumulation through education” and that “[p]rivate tutoring, preparatory courses, private lessons, and sending children abroad were treated as primary strategies for building”, developing, maintaining, and/or multiplying the economic, social, and cultural capital of their families (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 258). It is reported that in Poland the number of higher education enrolments tripled in the period from 1989 to 2002 (Silova and Bray 2006b: 50). Many families that can afford private tuition for their children do so since they realize that good education is a profitable investment in their future. This has been perceived as especially important bearing in mind high unemployment in years following the transformation and the belief that education and private tutoring are likely to give access to public higher education and better-paid jobs (Bray and Silova 2006: 32). Poles are also argued to consider foreign language learning as a must for those people who want to pursue careers; especially in light of the increasing number of 314

foreign companies that invest in Poland (Language education policy 2005: 14, 38). The importance of education and private tuition cannot have diminished in the eyes of Poles also in the second decade after the collapse of the old system in Poland which saw our intensified and strenuous efforts to join both the European Union and the integrating European labor markets (Silova and Bray 2006b: 51). Importantly, it is also argued that the large supply of private tutoring may itself be an important factor in creating demand for it – “[i]n these circumstances, tutoring exists because the producers make it available and recommend students to take advantage of the availability on the private tutoring market” (Silova and Bray 2006c: 80).155 This state of affairs seems to be confirmed by press coverage that private language schools in order to recruit as many students as possible launch massive advertising campaigns (in the press, on television, the radio, as well as on the streets of towns and cities) offering their students discounts, free lessons, as well as other bonuses (see Celińska and Barański 2006). Some other highly important factors contributing to the promotion of private tutoring in Poland are related to the educational system per se. It is argued that “extensive private tutoring exists in countries with intense competition for future educational opportunities, which are usually accompanied by a ‘tight linkage’ between academic performance and later opportunities in higher education and labor market” (Bray and Silova 2006: 32). The demand for private tuition also increases together with low expenditures on education, and “less-than-full education enrollment”, (Bray and Silova 2006: 33). It is noteworthy that, as Murawska and Putkiewicz (2006: 262-263) point out, the reform from 1999 (introducing external final tests in lower secondary schools which determine access to upper secondary schools) as well as the introduction of new secondary-school-leaving exams in 2005 (they in most cases replaced university entrance exams and became decisive in terms of students’ admission to tertiary education) shaped the demand for private tutors preparing students for these vital tests (see also Silova and Bray 2006b: 52). Moreover, it is widely believed (also among teachers themselves) that Polish schools (i.e. teachers), rather than teach, tend to limit themselves to require and test knowledge and skills from students and pupils 155

In the same vein, it is argued “parents are stimulating the demand for private language tuition for young children as well as teenagers. Already from kindergarten, parents invest in language tuition for their children, and about a third have had private lessons in English. This can be a problem in schools as classes become very heterogeneous, and there is concern in some quarters that the extent of private tuition challenges the idea of equal opportunities for education. This concern has been voiced by the teachers’ union which points out that provision for language learning is not equally distributed throughout Poland and that in some regions, access to language education is a big problem” (Language education policy 2005: 16).

315

(Putkiewicz 2005: 2-3). This is argued to be caused by the fact that “secondary schools [are] striving to stay in the market” and that this goal can be achieved by their keeping a high position in school rankings, which are mostly measures of students’ performance in external exams (in this way disregarding value added skills and knowledge), and subject contests (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 263). Therefore, what matters to schools and teachers far too often are results and not the quality of teaching (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 263). Parents and/or students dissatisfied with the quality of teaching seek help in non-mainstream education which serves in this case as a “remedial strategy” compensating for the shortcomings of public schools (see Bray and Silova 2006: 33; Language education policy 2005: 38-39). Importantly, one should take heed of the fact that public schools are especially frequently considered to be falling short of their responsibility for well preparing their students for external (e.g. Matura) exams. Moreover, private teaching is thought to make up for the facts that curricula are often fragmented and detached from the reality of the contemporary world, and that schools do not prepare students for real life, future jobs, and careers (Silova and Bray 2006b: 50). One should also acknowledge that teachers themselves add up to the scale of the phenomenon of private tuition. Because after the political transformation of Poland teachers’ salaries were low (especially in the first years following the year 1989), many of them started to treat private lessons as their major source of income (Bray and Silova 2006: 33). The decreasing salary coincided with teachers’ deteriorating social status as well as a decline in their authority and respect (Silova and Bray 2006b: 48). This state of affairs is argued to have led teachers to lose their enthusiasm for teaching (together with it went the worsening of the teaching quality) and search for additional income (Silova and Bray 2006b: 48).156 Importantly, one should realize that not only poor students and the ones from the last grades decide on private tuition (Bray and Silova 2006: 30; Putkiewicz 2005: 2-3). Taking private lessons is becoming increasingly more commonplace also among high achievers and younger pupils who want to get admitted to a good high school or a prestigious lower-secondary school (Putkiewicz 2005: 2-3). Putkiewicz (2005: 3) 156

On the other hand, it is pointed out that “private tutoring has become an effective solution to the problems teachers faced during the transformation period, counterbalancing their economic hardships and restoring their professional legitimacy. Furthermore, private tutoring has helped many teachers to secure advantages that were otherwise denied to them during the transformation process—a relatively respectable social status, economic rewards, and even political influence. It is as private tutors, not as teachers, that they can secure and enjoy economic advantages and professional legitimacy in the field of education” (Silova and Bray 2006b: 48-49).

316

elucidates that 92% of respondents (first-year students) reject the claim that only poor students take private lessons. One should also discern that the subjects taken most frequently in school-leaving exams enjoy the greatest popularity among tutees (Bray and Silova 2006: 30). The preference for English in the Polish school system has led to its becoming the most readily chosen foreign language in all types of final and entrance exams. This combined with a widespread perception of the importance of English and the ineffectiveness of foreign language teaching in Polish public schools make a host of parents enroll their children in specialist language schools whose offer ranges from courses preparing students for entrance, final as well as international exams to specialist courses for doctors, nurses, lawyers etc. (especially after our accession to the EU) (Poszytek et al. 2005: 42). It is noted that following the introduction of a school-leaving exam in a foreign language in junior secondary schools, private language schools, expecting a considerable interest in preparatory courses, prepared a wide offer for pupils (Romaniuk 2008). Table 9. The participation of Polish students in payable out-of-school activities (adapted from Wciórka 2009a: 11). Respondents’ social characteristics

Do your children participate (or intend to) in any additional payable out-of-school activities this school year? Positive response Altogether

Foreign mlanguages

Sports activities

Tuition, preparatory courses

Artistic classes

Computer classes

Others

Negative response

Altogether

32

20

16

In percent 12 10

1

2

68

Education Primary Basic vocational

9 16

7 6

3 8

5 8

3 3

3 3

3 0

91 84

Secondary 47 Tertiary 59 Financial situation of a household Bad 21 Average 30 Good 41 Dwelling place Rural areas 23 City up to 20 thousand 27 residents 20 – 100 thousand 35

30 41

18 46

13 22

16 18

0 0

0 8

53 41

7 17 30

4 14 24

15 10 12

7 6 16

3 0 2

3 2 1

79 70 59

14 19

6 16

7 16

7 3

0 0

0 0

77 73

20

15

12

13

6

3

65

101 – 500 thousand

45

22

24

14

15

0

4

55

over 501 thousand

54

43

42

19

16

5

4

46

317

In order to understand properly the implications of private tuition, it is necessary to obtain a considerable insight into the scale of the problem in Poland. It is reported, for instance, that in the 2004/2005 school year there were around 7 thousand private schools (many of which were branches of international language schools) with almost 800 000 participants in courses (Language education policy 2005: 25, 38). As an aside, it should be noted that in Poland educational authorities have no supervision over language schools which are solely subject to general principles regulating economic activities (Language education policy 2005: 25). An opinion poll by OBOP from 2000 indicates that out of all Poles learning foreign languages 67% learn English and 38% German (Jak Polacy 2000: 3). 23% of them participate in language courses organized by private companies or language schools, and 11% opt for private individual tuition (Jak Polacy 2000: 3-4). Interestingly, the survey reveals that as many as 20% are selftaught persons (Jak Polacy 2000: 3). The annual survey conducted by CBOS since 1997 provide important statistical data concerning out-of-school private classes attended by Poles (see Wciórka 2009a). The statistics indicate that the number of parents who provided at least one of their children with extra classes ranged from 42% in 1999 to 30% in 2005 and that since that time it has oscillated on the level of around 36% (Wciórka 2009a: 8). Average (monthly) family expenditures on extra classes amounted to 234 PLN in 2009 and it was 11% less than the previous year (Wciórka 2009a: 9). Importantly, the survey makes it clear that extra classes in foreign languages are generally the most popular type of out-of-school activities paid by parents irrespective of their education, family income, and the place of living (for details see Table 9; adapted from Wciórka 2009a: 11). One should discern that additional educational opportunities for students and pupils increase together with parents’ level of education, income, and the number of the residents in one’s abode (see Table 9). What is important for the present discussion is that learning foreign languages in out-of-school classes has continued to be the most popular since 1997 (most likely it was also so prior to that time), the time when CBOS started to carry out this survey. Despite the fact that last year (2009) the number of parents sending children to foreign language courses dropped to 20% (it was 30% in 1998 and 2000; and 28% in 1997 and 2007), it was still the most frequently mentioned type of additional classes (Wciórka 2009a: 8). The average number of parents who sent at least one child to such courses throughout the years in which the research was undertaken was almost 26%.

318

Another insightful study was conducted by the Institute of Public Affairs in December 2004 (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 259-260). The investigation consisted of two parts: a quantitative analysis of information obtained from 849 students of law (high-demand programs) and pedagogy (low-demand programs) studying in the Universities of Warsaw and Białystok; and a more qualitative part which encompassed “document analysis of pedagogical students’ seminar papers and studies by the Center for Civic Education on educational problems in Poland, (…) phone interviews with 65 private tutors (…) a web-based opinion poll on private tutoring (…) and a series of four group interviews with students and teachers on private tutoring” (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 259-260). The quantitative study shows that as many as 49.8% of first-year students took private lessons in secondary schools; the largest number of them were law students from Warsaw and Białystok universities as well as students of early childhood education in Warsaw (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 264). It is noted that the latter took private lessons hoping to be admitted to other faculties and that exams in English are likely to require more tutoring. Moreover, almost 40% of students attended preparatory courses (almost two-thirds of them took part in courses organized by foundations affiliated with universities, and 26% in courses run by private firms) (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 269-270). Putkiewicz (2005: 3) points out that on average over 80% of students who took private lessons believe that they helped them pass final exams and get admission to tertiary education. Importantly, statistics indicate that 35.1% of students with low socioeconomic status (SES) took private lessons (it is noteworthy that only 8.7% of all students reported low socioeconomic status), 46.7% of the ones with medium SES, and 58.7% of students with high SES (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 265). The financial standing of a family proved to be the most important factor determining students’ taking private lessons. One fourth of the students who did not take private lessons explained that private tutoring was for them too expensive (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 267). Parents’ expenditures on private tuition were estimated on the basis of both the telephone survey and information from students – as well as “on the assumption that private lessons were taken throughout the school year (i.e., over 38 weeks), for two hours per week, at the hourly rate of PLN 30 (US$8.83, €7.21)” (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 268).157 The total annual cost of private tuition was around 2,280 PLN 157

In fact, the costs of private lessons vary considerably across the regions in Poland, as well as the qualifications and reputation of tutors (see Papuzińska 2001: 25; Kama 1999).

319

(around US $ 670.73, € 548.34) and the sum amounted to 12% of an average gross yearly salary in the enterprise sector – “[t]his was the annual cost of private tutoring for 50 percent of the students surveyed” (for as many as 20.5% of students the cost was twice as high) (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 268). Regarding private tutors, teachers are the largest group of private instructors (one in ten teaches their own students and 8% of them other pupils from the same school), the second place is occupied by university lecturers (almost 31%), and the third (21%) by students and others (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 267). This situation is argued to be prone to corruption. The subjects most frequently taken in private lessons by the students were foreign languages (50.7% of all students who had private tutors), history (50%), and Polish (17.7%) (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 268). More than half of students (52%) acknowledged that preparation for examinations was the reason for taking private lessons, and a quarter of them wanted to “fill gaps in what they learned at school” (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 268). Only 1.9% of students mentioned social pressure and 2.2% parents’ wishes. A country report on language education prepared for the Ministry of National Education is a yet another valuable source of information on private language schooling in Poland (Poszytek et al. 2005). It is reported that in 2005 there were around 6845 private languages schools in Poland, the majority of which (72.3%) specialized in teaching more than one language (Poszytek et al. 2005: 25). To elaborate, the lion’s share of all language schools (6328 out of 6845) had in their offer courses in the English language, the second most popular was Russian (3852 language schools taught that language), the third German (3477 schools offered courses in it), and the fourth – French (1692 schools had such courses) (Poszytek et al. 2005: 26; Legierska 2002). Another important source reveals that 67.9% of students attending various forms of outof-school language tuition learn English, 20.5% learn German, and the number of students learning all other languages ranges from 1.3% to 3.8% (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 24). Importantly, as many as 80% of students learn in out-of-school language courses the language which they also learn in their (public) schools. Many language schools prepare students for various certificates. By far the most popular are examinations in the English language (the number of students attending special courses preparing for various exams in English was in 2005: FCE 6213, CAE 3987, CPE 654, TOEFL 1293, LCCI 4258); students attending courses aimed to prepare students for exams in all other languages constitute only a fraction of the former (Poszytek et al. 2005: 26). As regards the social profile of students of language schools, women make 320

up 86.7% of all participants in language courses; the average age of participants is 22 (54.2% of students are up to 25 years of age, 25.1% are between 26-30 years of age, and 19.2% of them are between 31-40 years of age); graduates of colleges constitute as many as 38% of people attending language courses, 16.1% of all language-school students are from lower secondary schools, and 13.1% from primary schools, 32.8% are students, upper secondary school students (and graduates) as well as students of postlower secondary high schools and students of post-high schools158; the majority of participants in language courses are residents of big cities159 (over 100 thousand residents) (Poszytek et al. 2005: 26-27). Much indicates that private tutoring in Poland is a common phenomenon which enjoys tacit social consent. It is noted that even Polish Minister of Education and Sport acknowledged that only pupils from rural schools do not attend private lessons. No surprise then that ministerial contest “School Without Private Tutoring” launched in 2004 ended in a failure (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 263). Even though out-ofschool education has some obvious advantages (for instance, additional schooling for dropouts, increasing one’s social and cultural capital, giving adolescents beneficial extra activities, giving one a chance for upward social mobility), there seem to be many potential drawbacks which, generally speaking, point to the inefficiency of the educational system (cf. Sztanderska 2007c: 199; Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 258; Bray and Silova 2006: 36). First of all, private tutoring impacts on the educational opportunities of students as well as their future social rank and affects significantly family budgets (Wciórka 2009a: 7). Families with greater income can hire private tutors; and the ones with enough financial resources can choose the best ones available (Putkiewicz 2005: 5). Second of all, private tuition is contributory to maintaining or even increasing the gap between the rich and the poor and spreading corruption-prone activities160 (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 273; Bray and Silova 2006: 36). It is

158

According to a different source, the number of students from general upper secondary schools participating in language courses is the highest (36.8%) and the lowest for those from vocational schools (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 24). 159 It is noted that only 10% of pupils living in the country attended out-of-school language courses and that their peers from big cities participate in such course thrice as frequently (Sprawozdanie z działalności 2006: 207). 160 Murawska and Putkiewicz (2006: 273) point out that “About 10 percent of respondents were provided private lessons by their own school teachers. Nearly as many respondents took private lessons from teachers who did not teach their classes but who were employed at the same school. In total, 30 percent of the respondents took private lessons from university college teachers, usually employed by universities into which the student was trying to enroll. This made nearly half of those taking private lessons that, in our estimation, were involved in a situation susceptible to corruption. Nearly two-thirds of preparatory

321

argued that schools and teachers frequently, either explicitly or implicitly, leave students with no option but to take private lessons from teachers who during out-ofschool private classes teach better (Putkiewicz 2005: 3).161 Nonetheless, one should take heed of the fact that there are some attempts by MEN at equalizing educational opportunities in respect of language teaching. It is reported that in 2000 thanks to the funds of MEN it was possible to organize for children whose families had a bad financial situation (especially the ones from rural areas and small towns) as many as 29 English language camps, as well as 4 French, 3 German, 2 Russian, and 1 Spanish ones (Dybowska 2000: 31).

3.3.6. Language planning and policy in post-1989 Poland 3.3.6.1. General principles of Polish education system

In the majority of the most significant contemporary national strategies for the development of the Polish state and the promotion of welfare of all citizens education is recognized as one of the most vital factors determining their successful achievement. It is also noted that people are regarded as the most important value of a country and that they all, irrespective of their age, sex, religion etc., should be granted an equal right to educate themselves in accordance with their needs, aspirations, and skills (Sztanderska et al. 2007: 7). One should discern that language education policy is in this respect “high on the political agenda” (Language education policy 2005: 11). Education is perceived not only as a must for human (and economic) development, and improvement of life quality (both individual and social), but also a means of shaping certain attitudes necessary to function in a given society (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 26). Its effectiveness, modernization, and development, thus, are key elements in ensuring the competitiveness of a national economy in the globalized market. Moreover, the evolution of education is required to be proceeding in response to demographical, technological, political (the welfare of the state seen as determined by the expertise of its citizens), and economical changes as well as the necessity to compete in the international arena in terms of the

courses were run by foundations affiliated with universities. According to our respondents, a large majority of lecturers teaching preparatory courses were academic teachers (presumably from the same university). While not being directly conducted by universities, these courses can also lead to corruption.” 161 Now and then, the media reported that, due to a dearth of lessons, sometimes college students in order to pass an exam in a foreign language had to take private lessons (Bujara 1998).

322

quality of education and training of experts of various kinds (cf. Koseła 2007: 15). In this light, the Polish educational system had to undergo far-reaching changes to face up to the educational boom of post-transformational Poland and live up to the aspirations and expectations of Poles. It is reported that while in 1989 40% of Poles at the age of secondary school education attended full secondary schools ending in Matura final exams and 13% of all Poles at the age 19-24 attended colleges, in 2004 the numbers were respectively 80% and 47% (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 26). This great increase in the number of secondary and tertiary students is argued to have led to serious problems with the quality of education and a growing gap in this respect between various schools (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 26). Similarly, it was universally recognized that language education had to go through a radical reform so that young generations could “extensively draw on the cultural and scientific heritage of Europe as well as contribute to Europe all that is valuable in our science, culture, history [translation mine, KP]” (Poszytek et al. 2005: 09). Furthermore, it is noted that even though the political, economic, social, and civilizational transformation of Poland affected both learners and teachers, there was no systemic strategy for adjusting the educational system to the new realities in a systematic fashion (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 26). Arguments are advanced that one of the principal objectives to attain in contemporary Poland is granting all Poles equal educational opportunities, which in themselves are recognized in international declarations as basic human rights (Bogaj et al. 2001: 201). It is noteworthy that such inequalities of opportunity are contingent on the social standing of Poles, and the provinces they live in and not any formal barriers. More generally, they grow from the historical legacy, the conditions of social development, political transformation, and cultural as well as civilizational developments taking place in contemporary Europe (Bogaj et al. 2001: 201). An important means of overcoming the educational crisis in Poland was the development of a national educational strategy (Strategia rozwoju 2005). Among many objectives specified in the document (e.g. promotion of tertiary education, ensuring equal educational and life opportunities, adjusting education to the challenges of the contemporary world) the knowledge of foreign languages was recognized as one of key basic skills necessary for Poles to be competitive in the job market (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 26, 38). Interestingly, much as foreign language teaching is universally considered to be vital, scholarly discussions on Polish language policy are unpopular due to their 323

perception as a controversial politicized matter (Komorowska 2004: 40). Since Polish linguists prefer to deal with more linguistic (purely academic) issues, they tend to neglect language planning and policy matters which are viewed by them to lie in the domain of sociology and politics (Komorowska 2004: 40). Nevertheless, over two decades ago Komorowska (1989: 411) formulated useful guidelines pertaining to the development of Polish foreign language policy. Specifically, it was elucidated that national educational strategy should above all take into consideration the educational aspirations of Poles. That competence in foreign languages was (and still is) regarded by Poles as a basis for their economical, political and cultural functioning in the contemporary world was clearly indicated by their massive participation in a variety of out-of-public-school forms of foreign language training (Komorowska 1989: 411). The relevance of these basic assumptions is confirmed by a recent public opinion poll, according to which 70% of Poles either totally agree or agree that teaching languages in schools should be a political priority (Europeans and their languages 2006: 138). In this vein, it is declared that training young Poles in foreign languages is “an important public assignment whose quality completion will largely determine graduates participation in economic and social life of Poland, Europe, and the world [translation mine, KP]” (Informacje o wynikach 2005: 6). Therefore, the conditions of foreign language teaching in Poland should be seen as an urgent social and economic problem of Poland as well as a high educational priority (cf. Informacja o wynikach 2005: 6; Language education policy 2005: 13). In fact, there has been indeed a lively interest on the part of the Polish governments in providing Poles with easy access to foreign language (especially English) instructions. This has been seen as especially vital in light of “the increasing internationalisation of the labour market and Poland’s present and future role in Europe” (Language education policy 2005: 15). Moreover, a need was recognized to enable adults who had no opportunity in their school days to learn Western languages to acquire the ones which are of their interest and this, as the prosperity of private tutoring shows, is enormous. It seems that such governmental acknowledgements of the importance of foreign languages in young Poles’ professional careers found their way into the Polish educational core curriculum which says that secondary-school graduates should have a sufficient command of a foreign language to be able to adequately function in the job market (cf. Fituch 2007: 160). Also Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2007: 118) refers to this formal ‘political’ recognition of the role of foreign languages and asserts that Ministry 324

of National Education in its Wykształcenie i kompetencje: Narodowy Plan Rozwoju 2007-2013 (‘Education and competence: A national strategy for development 20072013’) declares that foreign language teaching is to give Poles both communicative skills and the ability to function in the social life. Specifically, post-lower-secondaryschool students are supposed to acquire one foreign language at an advanced- and a second one at an intermediate level (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 38). Such linguistic competences are also recognized to be becoming ever more important for vocational school graduates who are increasingly more frequently seeking employment abroad (Language education policy 2005: 7) and who, one must admit that, find it often much easier to work in accordance with their education. It is also postulated that foreign language teaching should start as early as in kindergarten for children 5 and 6 year old (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 39). Importantly, Komorowska (2007f: 33) advances an interesting argument suggesting that even though foreign language training is declared by the Polish government to be vital and finds its place in many crucial governmental documents and strategies, too little is done to try to implement this language policy. Moreover, strong but justifiable criticisms is voiced over the fact that important aspects of foreign language teaching are attempted to be changed under political pressure (or pledged to be changed as part of election promises162) or without much appreciation of the general context of the functioning of foreign language teaching and education in Poland. Just as serious seemed to be a lack of general strategy concerning the start of learning the first foreign language (Komorowska 2007f: 33). Usually, not much more was offered than empty words of encouragement to start learning foreign languages as early as possible. It is pointed out that for many primary schools providing pupils with an opportunity to learn a foreign language (especially English) from the first grade was a significant part of schools’ strategy to attract as many pupils as possible (in view of population decline this was even a matter of school’s survival)163. It is rightly pointed out that the development of language education policy requires investigating both the contextualized needs of Poles (e.g. seeking employment in other EU countries) to know specific foreign languages and the present as well as past sociolinguistic conditions of foreign language teaching (Language education policy 2005: 13-14). A number of subjects of discussion have been recognized as especially

162

For instance, in 2005 Polish Prime Minister delivering a policy statement promised to introduce mandatory English language classes from the first grade of primary school (Komorowska 2007: 33). 163 Such lessons were usually financed by parents themselves or, more rarely, by local authorities.

325

important in the context of Poland. These topics include the following: an early start for foreign language learning as a priority, the rationale behind automatic choice of English, the interrelations between private and public education (the notion of equality of educational opportunities and the ability of the public education system to meet the social demand for language learning), low salaries in the teaching profession, the adequacy of the current language teaching curricula and methodology, regular changes in textbooks (they are thought to “lead to constant expense as new editions appear”), popularization of bilingual education as well as the choice of languages in vocational schools (Language education policy 2005: 5-6, 12-13). In addition, some other identified reasons for concern are as follows: teachers’ retention after their graduation; a dearth of training opportunities; the teaching of the second foreign language (its noncompulsory status in lower secondary schools and the intensity of its teaching in upper secondary schools); the teaching of languages in adult education (Language education policy 2005: 12). More generally speaking, it has been recognized in the two latest educational strategies (for the years 2001-2006 and 2007-2013) that the provision of equal educational opportunities to all school children is one of the key tasks of Polish educational policy (Informacja o wynikach kontroli 2005: 14). In order to accomplish these and other vital objectives (relating most of all to the quality of education) it is seen as necessary to (Informacja o wynikach kontroli 2005: 14-15): 1. ensure a comparable quality of language education in every school; 2. provide schools with comparable educational and pedagogic resources; 3. employ expert language teachers; 4. support teaching English at all levels of education; 5. popularize teaching Western-European languages; 6. make the teaching of the second foreign language obligatory; 7. improve the quality of teaching foreign languages; 8. introduce foreign language teaching in kindergarten (for five- and six-year olds); 9. ensure that secondary school graduates know one foreign language at an advanced and the second at an intermediate level; 10. promote international cooperation.

326

Importantly, it should be noted that many of the aims were set a long time ago and pursued without much success ever since. An explanation of this state of affairs should be sought in the sphere of funding – “[t]he question of the funding of education has, as elsewhere, a major impact on policy and on the implementation of policy” (Language education policy 2005: 14). In this respect, the devolution of financial decisions to local bodies leads to a variety of inequalities (especially when one compares rural and big urban areas): “disparities in the equipment for schools”, teachers’ salaries (they differ as a result of differences in “opportunities to earn bonus payments, which are decided locally”); early foreign language education (“a local authority can introduce language learning for younger pupils without waiting for a national policy”) (Language education policy 2005: 14). Of great significance for the present dissertation is the issue of the place of English in the discourse on Polish educational strategies. It should be made clear that even though the dominance and importance of English in the Polish educational system is not formally acknowledged by any legal regulations, its supremacy is proclaimed in various specialist (scholarly and educational), governmental and non-governmental analyses, reports, and strategies. In this vein, it is pointed out that the educational strategy for the years 2001-2006 views teaching English in schools as an important element of granting pupils and students equal educational opportunities (see Informacja o wynikach kontroli 2005: 14). Furthermore, a point is made that it is just as vital to make it possible for students to continue learning English at higher levels of education. As an aside, it should be noted that the document in which these postulates were formulated was probably the most important analysis of the condition of foreign language teaching in Poland. It was conducted by the Supreme Chamber of Control. In a recent publication by The Institute of Public Affairs it is also recognized as vital to ensure that each lower secondary school graduate can communicate in English (Dolata 2005: 5). A Human Development Report from 2002 concerning Poland and its aspiration to become a part of global information society also recognized the significance of the English language (Abramowicz 2002: 125). It is acknowledged in the report that a good knowledge of English is essential for Poles to be able to interact with people all over the world. Poles are argued to be widely aware of the importance of English, yet, the quality of English language teaching in schools is thought to be far from adequate. The importance of the knowledge of English was also recognized during a conference organized by the Polish Senate (Abramowicz 2003: 31) and in a scholarly 327

publication (Bogaj et al. 2001: 211) published by Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych (Institute of Educational Research). In this light, it seems unsurprising that the pressure to provide all pupils and students with English language teaching has been high ever since the political transformation of Poland (cf. Language education policy 2005: 14). Nevertheless, despite some sporadic proposals to introduce English as a mandatory subject in public schools, there were numerous arguments advanced against this formal recognition of English as the dominant first foreign language (even if the number of teachers allowed that). First of all, it is pointed out that in Poland, just as in other former Soviet satellite countries, obligatory foreign language learning carries pejorative connotations and as such could contribute to lowering students’ motivation (Komorowska 2007f: 22). Fears were also expressed that making English a mandatory subject could be regarded as a symbol of succumbing to another world power and that interest in learning other foreign languages would most likely wane considerably. In addition, in some regions (especially in Western and Eastern regions of Poland) there are strong economic and cultural reasons for learning other than English languages as the first, dominant ones (Komorowska 2007f: 22; Komorowska 2004: 37). The choice of a language to be taught to students and pupils as the first one should, therefore, be left to the decision of parents, students, and schools (Komorowska 2004: 37; Poszytek et al. 2005: 44). More generally speaking, it is pointed out that any decision about mandatory teaching of a given foreign language should take into consideration the general objectives of language education formulated in documents by the Council of Europe, i.e. the pragmatic objective (effective communication and exchange of thought); the intercultural objective (the spread of tolerance); the socio-political objective (support of linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe) (Komorowska 2007f: 21). Importantly, it is rightly noted that “the de facto dominance of English” in Polish schools should be born in mind when developing language education strategy and that linguistic diversity (the schools’ offer of languages in their teaching programs), because of the English language supremacy, is possible only on the level of the second foreign language teaching (Language education policy 2005: 17). This dominance of English is argued to be caused by parents demand for it, the advocacy and recommendation of continuity of learning foreign languages (when moving on to higher levels of education), and general external (economic) factors favoring no other but this very same language (Language education policy 2005: 19). That this state of affairs is perceived as unlikely to change 328

in the nearest future is indicated by the acknowledgement that this linguistic (educational) diversity may only develop when as many pupils as possible are given access to a second foreign language (Language education policy 2005: 17).

3.3.6.2. The condition of foreign language teaching in the transformational period

In order to comprehend the principles of the Polish language policy and planning after 1989, it is useful to start with a short description of the condition of foreign language teaching on the eve of the political transformation of Poland. Crucial, in this respect, is a report on foreign language teaching in primary and post-primary schools prepared by Komorowska (1989) for the then Minister of Education (Jacek Fisiak). The report, aimed at becoming a point of departure for a new foreign language teaching strategy, revealed that as little as 23% of all students had a possibility to attend a two-year (130 hours), additional course in a foreign language (12.5% of students learned German, 8% - English, and 2% - French) in primary schools (Komorowska 1989: 404). Moreover, whereas Russian was obligatory for all students in all types of schools, no more than one third of students over 15 was given a chance to learn a Western-European language in general secondary schools (a 380-hour course) or in secondary vocational schools (a 260-hour course) (Komorowska 1989: 405). In view of such a poor state of foreign language teaching (accompanied by the realization of the significance of the knowledge of Western European languages for the functioning in the contemporary world), the last pre-transformational government decided to introduce some reforms aspiring to improve this highly unfavorably situation. Accordingly, in the 1989/1990 school year mandatory teaching of Russian was abolished in 13 provinces and students were allowed to opt for western European languages (Fisiak 1992: 8). The regulation was extended by a new government to include all schools in Poland and in the following school year the whole population of pupils and students had a formal possibility to learn Western European languages. The first non-communist government made it possible to follow the guidelines developed by the Expert Committee for Foreign language Education on the basis of the aforesaid report (Komorowska 1991: 505; Komorowska 2007d: 178). This blueprint for the language planning and policy of the 1990s with respect to foreign language teaching encompassed the following (Komorowska 1991: 505): 329

1.

promoting one foreign language in primary schools;

2.

promoting two foreign languages in secondary schools;

3.

granting English a favorable status;

4.

encouraging intensive teacher training in foreign languages;

5.

encouraging early language learning.

To elaborate, this early reform enabled all pupils from primary schools to attend a four-year language course right from the fifth grade (at that time there were 8 years of learning in primary schools and four in general secondary ones) (Komorowska 2007d: 179). The minimum number of hours of mandatory language learning in primary schools in the four-year cycle was 3+3+2+2 and it was possible to combine the hours from both compulsory and additional learning (in other cases pupils could choose, if such an option was available, to learn a second foreign language from the sixth grade with the number of hours as following: 2+2+2; the weekly number of teaching hours could amount then to 4+4+4+4 (Komorowska 2007d: 179). Importantly, it is rightly noted that the freedom of choice in the early years of the 1990s was in most cases nothing more but an illusion (cf. Fisiak 1992: 8). The reason for this state of affairs was such a down-to-earth thing as a dearth of an adequate number of qualified teachers of foreign languages (obviously, other than the ones of Russian). It is reported that just after the fall of communism in Poland (1990/1991) there were as many as 18 thousand teachers of Russian and only 4.5 thousand teachers of all other foreign languages (Komorowska 2007d: 180). There were only 1.2 thousand teachers of English and the demand at that time for them was tentatively estimated at around 20 thousand (Komorowska 2007d: 180). It is noteworthy that in the first year after the political transformation around 400 teachers of English decided to drop out of teaching in public schools and that at that time each year around 300 English graduates (studying at 11 Polish universities) completed their studies (Komorowska 2007d: 180). Despite such obstacles in the first school year after the reform 32% of pupils learned English, 22% – German, 5% – French, and 40% – Russian; in urban areas the percentage of pupils learning languages other than Russian was much higher (Komorowska 1991: 505-506). Obviously, the most important immediate goal of Polish language policy was training a sufficiently large number of teachers of foreign languages.

330

3.3.6.3. Language education reforms of the early 1990s

In the early days after the political transformation of Poland the training of an adequate number of foreign language teachers turned out to be one of the major goals of the Polish educational system and the national language policy. Therefore, early governmental attempts to solve the problems with foreign language teaching in Polish schools included most of all a host of various methods aimed at providing schools with qualified teachers. Komorowska (2007d: 182-183) points out that the major challenges of the period were in-service teachers lacking in necessary qualifications, a large excess of teachers of Russian (in order to obtain qualifications to teach other foreign languages they had to graduate from Foreign Language Colleges), and a need for in-service teacher training. One of the earliest and unsuccessful ideas to cope with in-service teachers having no formal qualifications and training (it is noted that the lion’s share of them were teachers of English) was to organize a teacher’s state exam which would certify their teaching competence (yet, even with such certificates they were to participate in intensive training programs) (Fisiak 1992: 12; Komorowska 2007d: 182). The first such exam was held in 1991 and out of 800 candidates only 30 passed the twopart examination testing both language proficiency and knowledge of "methods of teaching and English and American life and institutions, literature, and culture” (Fisiak 1992: 12; Komorowska 2007d: 182). It was also attempted to retrain teachers of Russian. It is pointed out that “this programme was especially important as a means of providing primary schools with teachers and giving as many pupils as possible an opportunity to learn the language(s) they or their parents wanted” (Language education policy 2005: 29). In 1990 another solution was proposed. The idea was to legitimize teaching foreign languages by all kinds of graduates who would obtain additional pedagogical, methodical, and linguistic (e.g. a pass in Cambridge certificates) qualifications (Poszytek et al. 2005: 33).164 Importantly, regarding the aforementioned methods one should take heed of the fact that:

164

These days, an MA graduate in a department of foreign languages (or a graduate in applied linguistics) can teach their major language in all types of schools, a graduate of teacher colleges in any field of study after obtaining language certificates can teach in kindergartens, primary schools, and vocational schools (Dąbrowska 2007: 206).

331

It was a conscious decision first to cope with the demand for teachers and then, in a second step, to pay attention to quality, because Poland wanted to respond to the pressures of parents and economic needs after 1990 and give the public as a whole an opportunity to learn other languages. Inevitably this resulted in uneven quality in the programmes and in unequal qualifications of teachers. Principals and others are aware of the different levels of teachers’ linguistic competence as well as methodological weaknesses. The Country Report suggests that innovative methods are not very popular and that teachers still prefer traditional methods. This contradicts some other evidence mentioned earlier that modern methods are well known, but the explanation may be that teachers who are unsure of their linguistic competence are the ones who prefer more traditional methods. Lack of teacher quality seems to be a particular problem for English, whereas teachers of French are highly qualified, as are most German teachers, though not always in smaller towns and rural areas. The ministry is establishing standards in order to raise the qualification of teachers, although it has to be recognised that the still existing shortage of teachers results in temporary solutions (Language education policy 2005: 29).

The demand for Western languages in public schools, and by extension the demand for teachers of foreign languages (especially of English and German), was so great that it was recognized that teacher training of the time could not provide enough teaching staff.165 It was rightly pointed out that in order to meet the demand there was no better solution but to train large numbers of teachers faster than the then universities. Importantly, there was full realization that it would result in lowering the level of linguistic competence of teachers and, consequently, the standards of teaching in public schools (Komorowska 1989: 411). Accordingly, the second major step (the first one was to make teaching all foreign languages in public schools equal in terms of their status) was to reform tertiary level of education so that it was possible to train more teachers. In fact, it seems that the establishment of Foreign Language Teacher Training Colleges (Nauczycielskie Kolegia Języków Obcych – NKJO), the State Schools of Higher Professional Education (Państwowe WyŜsze Szkoły Zawodowe – PWSZ), and a reform of tertiary education introducing a division into BA and MA studies were the best and most effective reforms introduced after 1989 (Dąbrowska 2007: 202). Educating teachers of foreign languages takes place, therefore, in the systems operating under the higher education act and one which operates under the school act within the structure of Local Educational Authorities (Dąbrowska 2007: 201). It is possible to become qualified as a teacher of foreign language as a part of teaching specialization at universities, the State Schools of Higher Professional Education, pedagogical colleges and other, also non-public, colleges of higher education.

165

Interestingly, it is pointed out that the demand was further multiplied by the fact that at that time there was a significantly higher number of pupils (baby boom) attaining the school age (Poszytek et al. 2005: 32).

332

Regarding NKJO, it should be pointed out that they are believed to have been the most effective in educating large numbers of teachers of foreign languages (Komorowska 2007d: 181; Language education policy 2005: 28; Fisiak 1992: 10). The need for such new teaching institutions grew from the necessity to educate teachers of foreign languages quickly (NKJO studies lasted shorter than university ones), to focus on developing teachers’ skills (to ensure adequate teaching standards all of them have been supervised by universities)166, and to situate such institutions locally so as to make it possible that graduates seek employment in the local area (the place where teachers from bigger cities were unlikely to move in) (Komorowska 2007d: 181). Komorowska (1991: 507) reports that there was actually pressure from various communities to establish such colleges in regions. According to original plans, around 30 such colleges were to be set up (their establishment was supported by the Ministry of National Education and local authorities), yet, in 2005 there were as many as 82 of them (mostly educating teachers of English and German, but also of French, Spanish, Italian, and Russian) all over Poland (Komorowska 2007d: 181; Language education policy 2005: 28; Fisiak 1992: 10). To elaborate, as a result of the language reform, in October 1990 fifty teacher training colleges (3-year B.A. courses) were opened offering places for 1.5 thousand students of English (41 tracks for English in all colleges), 400 students of French (19 tracks for French), 400 students of German (13 tracks for German) (Komorowska 1991: 505-506). Unfortunately, due to starvation wages few graduates of English departments decided to teach in public schools and, unsurprisingly, they found employment out of teaching which “guaranteed an income several times higher than that of a teacher’s, right from the start” (Fisiak 1992: 8).167 According to an anonymous questionnaire, not even 50% of students from teacher training colleges wanted, at that time, to become teachers (Fisiak 1992: 11). It is also pointed out that two thirds of those graduates who decided to become teachers started to work most of all either in social or private schools (Komorowska 2007d: 182). Press reports from early 1990s reveal that it was so difficult then to attract teachers of English to public schools that parents frequently decided to 166

Importantly, it should be discerned that there were significant differences in the teaching standards between teacher training in universities (in foreign language departments) and in foreign language colleges. The major causes of this state of affairs was, first of all, that in contrast to colleges, universities were attended by students who already were quite competent in their major language when they were admitted to university language departments (they only further developed their competence), and that the teaching staff in university departments was better qualified. 167 Fisiak (1992: 8) also notes that in 1988 out of 420 graduates from English departments as little as 10% started to teach.

333

pay them additional money for teaching their children, which was in fact against the law and the principles of the functioning of mainstream schools (ed 1994). Moreover, it is an open secret that due to a dearth of English language teachers, and the pressure from parents and pupils, schools often felt forced to employ teachers without adequate qualifications or training (Fisiak 1992: 12). In more recent times, there seem to have been two major causes of this state of affairs: continued unwillingness of graduates to become teachers (too low salary) and introducing foreign language teaching to ever younger classes and making it more intensive (cf. Language education policy 2005: 39). Therefore, even until quite recently there were great problems, (especially in small towns and rural areas) with finding teachers having adequate qualifications and training (but not necessarily sufficient competence) (Language education policy 2005: 29). According to press reports, in 1998 heads of schools, for instance, from Lublin were kissing the ground on which teachers of English walked so as to convince them to teach in their schools (jpp 1998). Reporters reveal that it was especially difficult to attract teachers of English to small village schools and that even if they decided to teach there, they stayed there for a short time (Kajzer 2006). Therefore, it is pointed out that teachers of English belonged to school aristocracy and they had hardly any additional duties and that school schedule was designed so as to make it the most convenient to them (Czeladko 2006). In response to this situation, in podkarpackie voivodeship, for instance, a decision was made to establish four new foreign language colleges to meet the demand (Kulczycka 2004). Importantly, one should take heed of the fact that in post-transformational Poland numerous concessions were offered by educational authorities to teachers of English in terms of their formal qualifications. As mentioned, for instance, any people having an MA diploma could teach English in primary schools if they completed certain courses and had language certificates recognized by the Ministry of Education (jpp 1998). It is also noted that in 2000 the ministry launched a new program aimed at underqualified language teachers from areas with fewer than 5 thousand residents who would like to become fully qualified teachers (Papuzińska 2001: 25). They obtained a possibility to participate in a language course for a year which was to prepare them well enough to be admitted to foreign language colleges or to universities. Alternatively, they could take an exam and obtain a permit to teach in the lower grades of primary school. It is reported that in 2000 as many as 1500 in-service teachers took advantage of such courses. Moreover, it is also pointed out that in accordance with an amendment to 334

the Act on Education from August 2001 (approved of by Minister KsiąŜek) principals could employ any person as a teacher of foreign languages who, in their subjective opinion, was qualified enough to do so (Papuzińska 2001: 25). In light of this ordinance, the earlier idea of Polish educational authorities to let people having Cambridge Certificates in English (as well as any MA diplomas and completed pedagogical courses) teach in schools, even though controversial, seems less surprising and harmful. It is noted that the popular now FCE certificate qualified people to teach in primary schools, while CPE holders could teach in upper secondary schools (Johnston 2004: 127; Papuzińska 2001: 25). As an aside, one should take heed of the fact that secondary school students with FCE and then CAE certificates were exempted from taking a school-leaving exam (Matura) in a foreign language and they automatically obtained the highest score from this exam (Papuzińska 2001: 25; Zieliński 2003). Importantly, one should discern that this idea came in for bitter criticisms from English scholars, e.g. Professor Komorowska (Papuzińska 2001: 25; Komorowska 2004: 39). In view of what has been said above, it may be concluded that language planners were well aware of the shortcomings of their strategies, i.e. the production of large numbers of underqualified teachers. National in-service-teacher training programs were established also to try to remedy this unfavorable situation. Attempts were made by CODN (the Central Teacher Training Center, as of 2010 ORE – Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji) to offer their support to as many teachers as possible (Poszytek et al. 2005: 44). It should be made clear that even though in-service training is not compulsory, most teachers participate in various in-service courses since it is for them the only way to obtain a rise in salary – such courses are related to achieving higher levels of professional advancement (Language education policy 2005: 29). Sometimes such courses are sponsored by principals (0.5% of the school budget can be spent on it) but most often teachers themselves cover all or most of the costs. It should also be explained that such national in-service courses have been frequently organized by CODN (now ORE) in cooperation with foreign partners (in the case of English it is mostly the British Council). Thanks to the British Council’s support and funds from the Ministry of Education (now it is fully financed by the Polish side), the first such a program – the INSETT (In-Service Teacher Training) – was set up in 1994; another similar program (Young Learners) aimed at preparing teaching staff for the younger children was established in 1999 (Lekki 2003). According to reports, these days approximately 9000 thousand teachers of foreign languages (including around 4000 335

teachers of English, and 3000 teachers of German) participate every year in in-service training (Poszytek et al. 2005: 45). Bearing in mind the fact that in the 2002-2003 school year there were 36 289 teachers of English168 (and in the following years the figure could not have dropped since teaching English in public schools was getting every more widespread), it is easy to calculate that every year at most one teacher of English out of 9 underwent some form of in-service training. Taking heed of all the attempts at coping with the quality of teaching in public schools, a question should be posed why it is so bad if it is so good. As I argued elsewhere (Przygoński 2009/2010: 20), one of the reasons is that far too frequently teachers of English (the situation seems to concern mostly them) who were employed by public schools, graduated from private colleges where the quality of teaching was poor, to say the least. This pertains especially to teachers of English who decided to study in private colleges from which they could relatively effortlessly obtain diplomas certifying that they qualify as teachers of English. Such institutions, despite some notable exceptions, seemed to have competed with each other in the race to attract as many students as possible. Sadly, the most effective way of attracting students were often not high teaching standards, but a possibility of obtaining a diploma at a minimum effort. Even more sadly, it appears that a group which was most interested in obtaining such diplomas were in-service teachers of other subjects (not only teachers of Russian, but also chemistry, math, biology etc.). Moreover, this combined with a negative selection for the job of a teacher (Bogaj et al. 2001: 216) resulted in a situation in which only few expert and devoted teachers decided to work in public schools. Arguments are advanced that it is especially difficult to find good teachers of English in primary and lower-secondary schools (not to mention the notorious basic vocational ones). Importantly, one should wonder if in-service teacher training may be of any help in this respect. Even though at first it seems that it can indeed, the daily reality is such that in-service training may fall short of its major goal – increase the quality of teaching. From informal interviews with teachers of English I learned that it is perfectly possible to obtain even the highest degree of teacher advancement without much language skills. This is so since many in-service teachers who have poor language competence participate in numerous methodological and pedagogical trainings and, paradoxically, avoid at all costs (so as not to feel embarrassed) linguistic ones. 168

In the same school year there were 20 181 teachers of German, 6 914 teachers of Russian, and 2 929 teachers of French (Language education policy 2005: 28).

336

Moreover, it should be unearthed that many such trainings (especially the ones organized by publishers whose major goal is, in fact, to trumpet the advantages of their textbooks and teaching materials) do not end in any exams or tests checking trainees’ acquisition of new knowledge and skills. In this light, it seems more than reasonable to introduce to all types of public schools language competence tests for teachers. I believe that making teachers take such tests even every two or three years would immediately and considerably improve their linguistic competence and ensure higher teaching standards. Unfortunately, much indicates that even though some serious reforms were implemented and some new ones are already under way (Komorowska 2004: 39; Dąbrowska 2007: 202; Language education policy 2005: 29, 40-41), their major aim, i.e. to further improve the quality of teaching in schools and adapt it to the EU standards, may eventually fail (especially in the case of teachers of English). This is so since these reforms will not encompass in-service teachers and bearing in mind the fact that an average age of teachers of English is thirty-some, it will take decades before significant numbers of new generations of teachers trained in the new reformed fashion will be employed in public schools. Therefore, it is possible that little will change in the nearest future, there will still be a heavy demand for private tuition and sharp differences between regions and schools in the teaching standards of foreign languages. Within the last two decades the general picture of modern language studies in universities and various colleges underwent significant changes. Unsurprisingly, as a result of abolishing mandatory teaching of Russian in post-transformational Poland, the role of Western languages increased considerably. This rise in importance, caused by both the demand and Polish national educational strategy, was accompanied by a substantial rise of interest in Western language departments. This is well indicated by the changes in the number of young people studying in language departments of four (as it seems the most important for Poles) international languages: English, German, French, and Russian. As Figure 16 shows, the rise was especially dramatic after 1996 and it concerned most of all two languages: English and German. Interestingly, it should be noted that most recently Russian has also enjoyed greater popularity with students. To specify, one can easily discern that until 1998 the number of first-year students of English and German in public schools was roughly comparable (see Table 10). From that time on, there was only a slight rise in admission to departments of German studies and a further boost in popularity of English ones (from 2489 students in 1998 to 5840 in 2006). As regards French, the number of students reached a relatively stable level as 337

early as in 1993 when it amounted almost to 800. In 1998 admission to Romance departments increased considerably to over 1100 students and since that time until 2006 it has oscillated around that number. Interestingly, with the exception of early 1990s (when the number of students admitted to Russian departments was rather unstable), since the mid-1990s the number of students of Russian has been increasing.

Table 10. Estimated numbers of all first-year (full-time and part-time) students of English, German, 169 iuFrench, and Russian attending both private and public colleges .

Language

English

German

French

Russian

Private

Public

Private

Public

Private

Public

Private

2006

5840

3763

2788

640

1087

27

1502

77

2004

4871

3290

2651

785

1051

1727

20

2002

4648

3792

2921

632

1157

1660

8

327

1210

5

Year

Public

2000 171

3378

2359

2259

533

170

1998

2489

2142

1117

1172

1996

1960

1623

841

985

1994

1604

1389

829

426

1993

1548

1158

797

899

1990

1155

928

448

757

1988

615

606

301

989

169

Own compilation on the basis of Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 1989, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 1990, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 1991, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 1993, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 1994, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 1995, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 1997, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 1999, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 2001, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 2003, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 2005, Szkolnictwo wyŜsze 2007. 170 The actual number of students of French must have been higher, yet, the statistics from this year did not specify the number of students from Romance studies. 171 Because until 1998 there was no information available concerning the number of NKJ students according to the language studied, it was assumed (basing on information provided in Komorowska 1991: 506) that the number of students of English was around four times higher (made up around half of all students) than the one of those reading French or German (the number of whose was more or less equal). The (approximate) total number of students at NKJ – in 1998 (1930); 1996 (1674); 1994 (1558); 1993 (1417).

338

12000 10000 8000

English German French Russian

6000 4000 2000 0 1988

1990

1993

1996

2000

2004

2006

Figure 16. Estimated numbers of all students (attending both private and public colleges) of English, German, French, and Russian.

Regarding the popularity of modern language studies in private schools, the data appear to point well to the demand for individual languages and the greatest profitability of language studies in given specializations. In this respect, the data (unfortunately, available only since 2000 onwards) show clearly that students of English from private colleges heavily outnumber the ones studying all other foreign languages counted together (see Table 10). The number of young Poles studying English in private colleges is such huge that it oscillated around 40% of all students of English in both public and private institutions (for instance, in 2006 it was 39%, and in 2002 – 44.9%). Importantly, one should bear in mind the fact that the aforesaid statistics relate only to first-year students, accordingly, they do not correspond directly to the number of graduates. Even though it is hard to make any valid assumptions about the drop-out rate, it seems unlikely to be greater than one tenth. If such an assumption were made, it would mean that around 5163 first-year students of English admitted in 2000 became graduates who could embark on teaching career, 7596 from 2002, 7345 from 2004 and 8642 from 2006. It is well worth noting that bearing in mind the aforesaid negative selection for the job of a teacher (especially a teacher in a public school), graduates of private schools would be the first to consider taking the job of a teacher in the public sector. Unfortunately, there seems to be no available data confirming this assumption. Lastly, it should also be noted that data prior to 2000 may actually be higher to some

339

degree since statistics published by Szkolnictwo WyŜsze made it impossible to calculate the number of students attending modern language departments in private schools. Were it possible, the increase in the population of first-year students until 2000 would most likely be less sharp.

3.3.6.4. Further reforms of language education in post-1989 Poland

An analysis of the functioning of English in the context of post-transformational Poland requires one to take heed of the educational reforms which impacted on the general picture of teaching foreign language in Polish schools. As mentioned, the most important reforms from the last decade relevant to the present discussion were the following (cf. Poszytek et al. 2005: 37; Komorowska 2004: 37):

1. the abolishment of mandatory teaching of Russian in public schools and the introduction of a free choice of learning two foreign languages (since 1990); 2. the reform of tertiary education and the establishment of Foreign Language Teacher Training Colleges (in 1990); 3. the reform of tertiary education introducing three- and four-year BA studies at universities and in State Schools of Higher Professional Education (it popularized teachers’ training in years 1992-1996); 4. lowering the age of compulsory teaching of foreign languages till the fourth grade of primary school (see below for the latest reforms) and preparing changes in the evaluation system (esp. school leaving exam in uppersecondary schools).

It should be pointed out that the 1999 reform was intended to modernize the Polish educational system more generally. All in all, the major goals were to popularize secondary and tertiary education, “equalize educational opportunities, and improve the quality of teaching and education”; the means for achieving this were changing the educational system (e.g. the establishment of lower secondary schools and shortening the learning time in primary school by 2 years and in secondary schools by 1, the school network, curriculum as well as introducing external school-leaving exams (after primary, lower secondary and upper secondary levels of education), a new evaluation 340

system, and personnel reforms (Murawska and Putkiewicz 2006: 261-262; Sztanderska 2007a: 21; Komorowska 2007d: 174; ). In addition, the new secondary school-leaving exam (it was conducted for the first time in 2005) was to replace entrance exams to universities and colleges. What is also very important for the present discussion is that since 1999 principals have had a possibility to introduce additional lessons of foreign languages even from the first grade of primary schools (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2007: 120; Dybowska 2001: 5; Poszytek et al. 2005: 9). After consultations with the teaching staff and parents’ council, principals can introduce extra lessons of foreign languages (the attendance at which is compulsory but a final grade in it neither contributes to the average score of all grades, nor influences pupils’ promotion to the next class). Moreover, various educational initiatives aimed at giving children a chance to learn foreign languages at an earlier age were wholeheartedly endorsed by schools which frequently themselves sought financial support. It is also noteworthy that the number of foreign language lessons can be increased thanks to the so called “principal’s hours”, i.e. additional hours of classes that principals can allocate for teaching a particular subject. Importantly, as Komorowska (2007e: 246) rightly points out, for the full enforcement of the reform one had to wait a couple of years as the 2000-2007 period is actually the time when the 1999 reform was being gradually implemented. More than vital for the functioning of English in Poland was the launching (as from September 2006) of a pilot programme of English language teaching for the first graders of primary schools (see also a discussion below). To elaborate, it consisted in providing pupils with two lessons of English a week with no division into groups and run by a teacher “holding qualifications in foreign language teaching at the level of integrated teaching” (Language education policy 2005: 24). It is reported that in the school year 2006-2007 around 65% of all primary schools took advantage of this programme (Language education policy 2005: 24). At least just as important was the work done at that time on drafting amendments to the regulations on “the Core Curriculum For Pre-Primary And General Education In Specific Types Of Schools (No 51, item 458 amend. O.J. 03/210/2041 and 05/19/165)” (Language education policy 2005: 24). Specifically, it is pointed out that “[t]he planned changes concern, among other things, the development of a core curriculum for foreign language teaching following the introduction of compulsory foreign language teaching into integrated teaching, i.e. from grade I of primary school (for 7- year-old children) from the school year 2008/2009” (Language education policy 2005: 24). With a year’s delay, both the 341

introduction of compulsory foreign language teaching into the first grade of primary schools and the adoption of a new core curriculum were enforced in the 2009/2010 school year.172 Importantly, the new core curriculum recommends that one of the two languages taught in lower secondary schools should be English and if a pupil did not learn English in primary schools he/she should begin learning it at this level (Podstawa programowa 2009: 14). Moreover, students from upper-secondary schools are to learn two foreign languages, one of which must be a continuation from the lower levels of education. This latter tenet is considered to be one of the priorities of learning foreign languages at higher levels; just as a placement into appropriate groups in terms of students’ advancement (Podstawa programowa 2009: 14-15). Therefore, if a pupil starts learning English in primary school, in light of the present regulations he/she will continue doing so till the completion of secondary education. Another change worth noticing is that teachers from the 2009-2010 school year have to, in addition to their obligatory teaching load, devote for students or pupils at least one hour a week additionally to addressing their specific needs (Podstawa programowa 2009: 13). As an aside, one should discern that what seems to be still a matter of future is satisfying the social need for “‘bilingual education’ in which a foreign language is used as the medium of instruction for other subjects” (Language education policy 2005: 25).

3.3.6.5. Language policy and the EU guidelines

Poland’s accession to the European Union required from us not only legal, political, and economic adaptations to its structures but also numerous educational transformations. As regards language education, it should be made clear that even though the EU does not impose any one system on its member states, it aims at ensuring comparability of teaching methods and levels of competence, and developing common core curriculum (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2007: 121). The EU’s general attitude towards foreign language teaching as well as its various guidelines and recommendations had, in fact, a significant influence on Polish language policy. Crucially, one should discern that teaching foreign languages is a high 172

To specify, “[s]tarting from September 2009 in the first grades of primary school a new core curriculum has been implemented based on the Regulation by the Minister of National Education of 23 December 2008 on Core Curricula for Pre-school and General Education in particular types of schools” (Structures of Education 2010: 22).

342

priority in EU educational and economic policy. To give an example, at a summit in Barcelona in 2002, heads of states and governments called for constant efforts to improve basic skills including early language learning at a very young age (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 6). A command of foreign languages is considered to be a value in itself, “the path to understanding other ways of living, which in turn opens up the space for intercultural tolerance”, a tool facilitating “working, studying and travelling across Europe, and a means of fostering “the key European values of democracy, equality, transparency and competitiveness” (Europeans and their languages 2006: 3). The European Union may thus be perceived as “a truly multilingual institution that fosters the ideal of a single Community with a diversity of cultures and languages” (Europeans and their languages 2006: 3). Moreover, the EU language policy seems to be designed in line with the “[t]he core objective of the Council of Europe” which is “to preserve and promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law” as well as “respect for shared fundamental values and respect for a common heritage and cultural diversity” (Language education policy 2005: 9). Accordingly, EU multilingual policy strives to “encourage language learning, (…) promote a healthy multilingual economy, and (…) give all EU citizens access to legislation, procedures and information of the Union in their own language” (Europeans and their languages 2006: 3). In addition, it should be explained that language policy, as understood by the Council of Europe and the European Union, is a collection of guidelines and educational objectives in such areas as the selection of languages in foreign language teaching (i.e. the number and diversity), the status of languages taught in public education (mandatory vs. non-compulsory), the principles and procedures of teaching (aims, curricula and methods), exams and certification, and teacher training (Komorowska 2004: 34). Of great significance for EU member states’ educational and language policy was the adoption of the Lisbon strategy in 2000. The major goals of the EU states were formulated as following: to promote human rights in education, achieve greater social cohesion of the member states, and develop societies based on knowledge and expertise (cf. Koseła 2007: 16; Language education policy 2005: 8). Education and training were recognized as important means to achieve these goals and to improve greater economic competitiveness and prosperity. In 2002, in Barcelona a new educational strategy was developed. With a view to making education more effective and attractive to students all over the world, EU member states were to accomplish specific aims by 2010 (Koseła 2007: 16-17). One should discern that EU language 343

policy173 adopted in Lisbon in 2002 (it aimed, among others, at promoting lifelong language learning, ensuring better teaching quality, and creating a more favorable teaching conditions) became an important element of the general EU educational strategy (Otwinowska-Ksztelanic 2007: 117). It is noteworthy that general documents and recommendations of the European Union referring to teaching foreign languages do impact on the actual shape of language education in Poland. For instance, the shape of the new Core Curriculum (including the one concerning teaching foreign languages) introduced in the 2009/2010 school year was influenced by several EU documents (for details see Szpotowicz 2009/2010: 93; Podstawa programowa 2009: 15). It is clear that the period when Poland was preparing itself for the accession to the EU and when it actually became a member state was a time when crucial educational strategies (the so called Lisbon Process) were designed and essential steps taken to make education of the EU states ready for the challenges of the new millennium. This was recognized by Polish language education planners as a chance for a national debate on language policy and the changes that should be introduced to improve language teaching in Poland (see Language education policy 2005: 41; Strategia rozwoju 2005: 4). A suggestion was put forward that an action plan for Poland should be developed to follow the guidelines of the EU Lisbon Process. The role of education in the implementation of this strategy was recognized as crucial and the Polish government responded with the formulation of National Development Plan 20072013 (Narodowy Plan Rozwoju na lata 2007-2013) a significant part of which encompassed Operational Program “Education and Competence” (Program Operacyjny „Wykształcenie i Kompetencje”) (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 4). The objectives of the Polish educational strategy comply with the general goals of the Lisbon Process, i.e. making European economy one of the most competitive and dynamic economies in the world and one which is based on expertise and knowledge of its citizens (Strategia rozwoju 2005: 5). It should be noted that foreign language teaching is one of the priorities of both EU and Polish educational strategies – “[l]anguage education has an important role in social inclusion and participation in democratic processes for all European citizens. (…) Equality of opportunity of access to languages and the possibility of developing appropriate competences is therefore a matter of social policy, and the Polish authorities are aware of this” (Language education policy 2005: 6). In

173

Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Poland 2004-2006.

344

addition, (early) foreign language training is acknowledged to constitute a key element of preparing Poles for active participation in integrating Europe and globalizing social and economic life (Oświata i wychowanie 2008: 58). Moreover, language teaching and learning as well as the promotion of plurilingualism are recognized as matters going far beyond simple educational issues. They are thought to form the basis for “successful interaction with and understanding of people of other cultural and linguistic groups” (Language education policy 2005: 9). In this vein, an argument is advanced that “[l]anguage education policy is therefore social policy” and that it “becomes part of the discussion of ‘national interest’” (Language education policy 2005: 9). It is noteworthy that the idea of plurilingualism in the Polish educational system is regarded as a general aim of language education the achievement of which is still in its infancy (Language education policy profile 2005: 12). As regards the scope of Poland’s involvement (also before our accession to the EU) in various European language programs (mainly the ones by the EU and the Council of Europe), it is pointed out that “[a]ccording to experts, Poland makes the best use possible of European Union programs devoted to foreign language learning” (Lekki 2003).174 Of all programs supporting foreign language teaching Socrates is argued to be one of the most important projects targeted at students and teachers who, thanks to it, can spend a semester in foreign schools gaining experience and improving language skills. Some other important programs which support foreign language learning are the Lingua (provision of language teaching materials, modern multimedia publications and websites), Leonardo da Vinci (business language training), Youth (teaching foreign languages to volunteers as well as youth associations and organizations) (Lekki 2003). It should be remarked that Poland has participated in these programs (except for the Lingua) since 1st March 1998 (Dybowska 2000: 30-31). There are also other EU initiatives aiming at improving competence in foreign languages. Lifelong learning action plan is, for instance, a new initiative (especially important for adults’ language learning) constituting an inherent element of the EU Lisbon process (Language education policy 2005: 41). One should also discern that there was for some time pressure to follow the EU trends to introduce foreign language teaching as a mandatory subject to the first grade of the primary school, and to popularize in the educational

174

This is so even if, as it is noted, they fall short of meeting the actual needs of teachers and students alike.

345

system the teaching of some less widespread foreign languages175 (e.g. Hungarian, Czech) (Language education policy 2005: 7; Komorowska 2004: 37). Lastly, suggestions are made to reform teacher training (for instance, Content and Language Integrated Learning) so as to “respond to the demands for teachers in bilingual education” and to make teachers (both pre-service and in-service) “become teachers for plurilingualism” and activate them to “improve their skills and knowledge” (Language education policy 2005: 7).

3.3.6.6. Language policy and external aid

Since the very first days of post-transformational Poland attempts were made to reform foreign language education and find foreign support for that (cf. Drury 1994). Komorowska (2007d: 173) elucidates that in 1990 Poland became a member of CDCC (Council for Cultural Cooperation), OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), and established contacts with the language unit of EEC (European Economic Community). Thanks to this, Poland developed active international cooperation which further facilitated obtaining help and support from foreign social and cultural institutions (as well as embassies and governments) promoting foreign language teaching (Komorowska 2007d: 173). It is noted that this help encompassed the provision of handbooks, teaching staff, and students’ exchange. Moreover, Poland obtained European funds; before our accession as part of the program PHARE (PolandHungary Assistance for Restructuring of their Economies) and then after its accession the structural ones (Wiśniewski 2007: 71). The funds are argued to have played an important role in formulating our educational reform and policy, an important part of which was reforming foreign language teaching and establishing Foreign Language Teacher Training Colleges (Wiśniewski 2007: 71). In fact, it is noted that the establishment of teacher training colleges was also facilitated thanks to the help obtained from British, Canadian, and American governmental and non-governmental institutions as well as the means from the Know How Fund which enabled the purchase of teaching materials, “the employment of a few trainers and advisers, and for training

175

Komorowska (2004: 37) suggests that in the context of Poland it is hard to imagine parents’ enthusiasm about teaching their children languages other than the ones which would improve their job opportunities the most (i.e. English or German).

346

of the Polish staff under the Polish Access to English Project (PACE) administration by the British Council” (Fisiak 1992: 10). Furthermore, the British Council set up an initiative supporting teacher training and trainer training – SPRITE (Support for Polish Reform in Teacher Education) and supported the INSETT program (set up in 1994); the Kosciuszko Foundation sponsors (in cooperation with UNESCO) a summer TeachingEnglish-in-Poland program (since 1991 over 103 immersion camps have been attended by more than 10 thousand students); and the Polish-American Freedom Foundation (established in 1999) aims at sponsoring English language projects for children and teachers (over 13 thousand participants) from rural areas (Radwańska-Williams and Piasecka 2005: 119-120; Lekki 2003; Kosciuszko Foundation 2010). Out of many projects, programs and undertakings organized by various governmental and non-governmental institutions I will describe two major organizations and their activities which contributed most substantially to spreading the knowledge of English among Poles. The description of the first one – Peace Corps – will be a brief retrospective draft of their role in teaching English to Poles and the second one will be a short presentation of a recent report on the educational cooperation between the British Council and their Polish partners. As regards Peace Corps, they started their service in Poland thanks to the efforts of Edward Piszek who, convinced of the necessity to spread the competence in English among Poles, not only managed to persuade Polish authorities (as a result the Polish Government requested the US to send Peace Corps to Poland) of the need, but also encouraged the president of the US (George Bush) to send American volunteers to Poland (thanks to him, the US government decided to send 60 PC volunteers) (Admin1 2001; Strybel 2003). Moreover, he donated over 1 million dollars and collected 10 thousand from American Polonia to finance the work of another 60 volunteers (Admin1 2001; Strybel 2003). One should discern that even though Peace Corps volunteers concentrated on teaching English, many of them were also involved in various projects (e.g. the Small Business Program, various environmental and privatization programs and others) (Admin1 2003; Strybel 2003). To elaborate, for eleven years of their stay in Poland (until 2001) Peace Corps volunteers (720 out of 900 were TEFL teachers) taught English to over 120 thousand high school students and to more than 9 thousand students from teacher training colleges (Hunger 2001; Admin1 2003). It is argued that they considerably contributed to educating large numbers of native Polish teachers of English (Strybel 2003; Admin1 2003). But their EFL teaching program encompassed also regular classes with high schools students (“to raise the 347

overall standard of English language ability and cross cultural awareness”) (Admin1 2003). As an aside, it should also be noted that Peace Corps teachers were “known to the entire school, and in small towns – to the entire community” and that Poland, as a host country, was praised by volunteers to be very cooperative and supportive (Strybel 2003; Hunger 2001). With respect to the most recent educational and cultural cooperation between Polish institutions and the British Council, it seems that the many years of mutual partnership resulted in working out efficient methods of collaboration. A report by the British Council (2009c) from the latest Mixed Commission session is especially insightful in this respect. In addition, it makes it perfectly clear which party is on the receiving end of the cooperation (at least in the area of foreign language teaching), i.e. in which country there are more projects launched aimed at promoting the culture and the language of the other party. According to the report, both parties are satisfied that after the completion of the INSETT and Young Learners projects (respectively in 2004 and 2002) the Polish Ministry of Education continues to finance teacher training (organized by both CODN and the British Council) (British Council 2009c: 8-9). To elaborate, the array of projects aimed at popularizing and spreading the knowledge of English among Poles is broad and diverse. Most recently, it encompasses among others, the following activities (British Council 2009c: 9-12):

1. Launching a project – Bilingual Education English in Poland (in cooperation with CODN); 2. Organizing a seminar “English for Young Learners Policy” (in cooperation with the Ministry of Education); 3. Popularizing the latest trends in ELT in Poland and, as part of it, supporting IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language) conference in Poland; 4. Promoting a report “English Next” (written by David Graddol) by experts from the British Council and representatives from Warsaw University, the Ministry of Education, Ośrodek Badań Społecznych, and Daimler Chrysler Fleet Management. It is reported that the promotion enjoyed great popularity with the media; 5. Launching a large scale project (British Council Regional English Language Outreach Project) by the British Council aimed at popularizing learning English 348

by the Internet (in cooperation with Onet.pl, TVN Lingua and Polska the Times); 6. Launching and supporting a variety of projects aimed at enlivening contacts between Polish and English schools and universities.

In addition, members of the Mixed Commission took note of the fact that the number of people taking ESP (English for Special Purposes) and IELTS (International English Language Testing System, an exam for those who want to study in English abroad) exams is on the increase and that the Polish Government continues to recognize Cambridge ESOL exams as reliable certificates of teachers’ and officials’ qualifications (British Council 2009c: 10). Moreover, the committee found it gratifying that the number of English Teaching Centers in Poland run by the British Council is steadily on the increase and that the British Council remains to be a leader in organizing highquality specialist courses (British Council 2009c: 11). A similar attitude was expressed towards the fact that ESP courses and trainings are getting more and more popular in international companies (e.g. World Bank or Ernst & Young), in Polish ministries, and, individually, among Polish politicians and other parties (British Council 2009c: 11).

3.3.6.7. General principles of the functioning of the Polish educational system

With a view to obtaining a greater insight into the sociolinguistics of English in Poland, it is also necessary to be acquainted with the general principles underlying the functioning of the Polish educational system. Generally speaking, one should discern that the system is, in fact, “a combination of central and local/ regional responsibilities which allows for a flexible reaction to differing conditions and local circumstances. Within a given framework schools and local authorities are free to decide as far as methods, materials, the employment of teachers and also certain subjects are concerned” (Language education policy 2005: 16). To elaborate, “the national educational policy will be developed and carried out centrally, while the administration of education and the running of schools, pre-school institutions and other educational establishments are decentralized” (Structures of education 2010: 7). The Ministry of National Education is responsible for the whole system of education (aside from higher education which is supervised by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education), the totality of educational 349

(including language) policy of the state, as well as its implementation (in cooperation with local governments and other educational bodies) (Poszytek et al. 2005: 37; Structures of education 2010: 7). With respect to the external evaluation system (the introduction of which was intended to serve as a guarantee of maintaining national standards), it is supervised by the Central Examination Commission which deals with the administration of school-leaving exams at the end of primary school (it has no selection function), lower-secondary school (mandatory examination determining admission to upper-secondary schools), upper-secondary schools of various types (noncompulsory exam determining admission to tertiary education) (Structures of education 2010: 16). It should also be noted that “[a]dministrative and pedagogical supervision have been separated. Pedagogical supervision over the school is exercised by regional education

authorities:

kurator

(superintendents),

while

general

supervision

(organizational, administrative and financial) is carried out by the school running bodies (commune, district or regional self-government authorities)” (Structures of education 2010: 16). Moreover, “[o]n behalf of the Head of Region the superintendent is responsible for the implementation of tasks defined in the Education System Act and in the regulation relevant to the given region” (Structures of education 2010: 10). More locally, the authorities from the district level (powiaty; there are 379 of them in Poland) “exercise

administrative

control

over

upper

secondary

general

(liceum

ogólnokształcące, liceum profilowane) and vocational (technikum, zasadnicza szkoła zawodowa) schools, as well as over post-secondary schools (szkoła policealna) and public special schools.” The most local level – the level of commune (gmina – there are 2478 such, mostly rural, units) – is in charge of “running of the pre-school institutions (including those with integration classes and special kindergartens), primary schools and lower secondary schools called gymnasia” (Structures of education 2010: 10). Some crucial consequences for the present discussion growing from the organization of the Polish educational system concern, first of all, the relations between central and local levels of financing schools. It should be explained that even though all schools are “financed within the framework of a general subsidy from the State Budget” (Structures of education 2010: 14), there tend to be some sharp regional differences in the amount of money allocated to school (especially in the case of primary schools which are supervised by the most local self-governments) since local authorities are coresponsible for financing schools. As a result, rich communes, for instance, can 350

contribute significantly larger sums to, among others, teaching foreign languages to pupils from lower grades or even introduce their own language policy. In this light, it is argued that “[t]he high degree of local autonomy raises the question of equal opportunities” since “access to foreign languages varies according to regions and depends on the wealth of the local community (…) in some regions children in kindergarten have access to language teaching whereas in others they do not and the standards are lower” (cf. Language education policy 2005: 16). Moreover, the organization of classes according to the level competence may, in fact, bring about consequences which were not anticipated by educational policy makers (general directives on the organization of classes allow to organize them by age, subject, and level of competence – esp. foreign languages – see Structures of Education 2010: 23). What I managed to establish from informal interviews with teachers and school children is that it is not an unusual practice in lower secondary schools to allocate children to specific classes and teachers on quite unfair principles. It was a common practice in one lower secondary school, for instance, to allocate children with a more advanced knowledge of English, to separate classes and to give them better teachers of all subjects. This state of affairs could be regarded as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the knowledge of English; especially in areas where teaching English was only available to those children whose parents could afford private tutoring. Yet another issue of relevance to the present discussion is the Core Curriculum for General Education in Specific Types of Schools. Its role, among others, is to delineate “the teaching aims and content of language education” (Language education policy 2005: 22). To expound on its significance, it should be pointed out that “[t]he Polish Core Curriculum is not a teaching curriculum, but sets out general guidelines, which constitute the basis for the development of curricula for specific educational contexts” (Language education policy 2005: 22). All specific teaching curricula must be constructed in accordance with the Core Curriculum and its general teaching objectives and contents (cf. Fituch 2007: 165).176 Even though the majority of teaching curricula is prepared by experts, it is possible for teachers to develop their own teaching curricula (it must be approved of the Ministry of Education) (Fituch 2007: 165; Poszytek et al. 2005: 9; Language education policy 2005: 22). Out of several available teaching curricula 176

The Polish Core Curriculum does not impose any specific teaching methods but only recommends a communicative approach with some eclectic leanings (taking advantage of a variety of other approaches) (Fituch 2007: 170). It is reported that communicative approaches are the most popular both in public and private education in Poland (Language education policy 2005: 25).

351

teachers can choose the one that they favor the most and then find a textbook, from a list accepted by the Ministry of Education, which covers the relevant material. To elaborate on the list, it is a selection of textbooks pronounced by a group of independent experts to be in conformity with the Core Curriculum (workbooks do not need such approval) (Fituch 2007: 172; Lekki 2003). In accordance with the amended act on the education system, experts who are to evaluate a given textbook are appointed by the minister (in the past it was otherwise) (Lekki 2003).

3.3.6.8. Teaching foreign languages in the structure of Polish public schools

To complete the picture of language education in Poland, it is necessary to delineate its organization in the structure of Polish public schools. Regarding pre-primary (noncompulsory) education (a child aged 3 to 5), foreign language teaching may be organized if parents grant their consent and decide to pay for such additional activities (at times local self-governments pay for them) (Structures of education 2010: 20). As of the 1999-2000 school year, children aged 7 to 13 attend a six-class primary school which is divided into two stages – grades 1 to 3 (the first stage with integrated learning) and grades 4 to 6 (ordinary subject teaching) (Structures of education 2010: 7). This primary stage of education concludes with an external examination which does not serve any selective purposes. In conformity with the new regulations (since the 2009/2010 school year), teaching foreign languages starts from the first grade of primary schools and the number of teaching hours per week within the period of 3 years amounts to 6 (it is most likely to be evenly divided into 2 hours a week each year; the subject can be taught by a different, specialist teacher) (Structures of education 2010: 24). In the second stage, there are 8 hours of foreign language teaching per week in a period of 3 years (Structures of education 2010: 25). In primary schools pupils learn obligatorily one foreign language. As from the 1999-2000 school year, all graduates of primary schools are obliged to continue their education in a lower secondary school (a three-year gymnasium) and take a mandatory external exam at the end of it (Structures of education 2010: 7; 30). Public lower secondary schools do not charge fees and they are funded by local-government authorities. From this stage, pupils learn two foreign languages. The number of teaching hours per week devoted to them in a period of three years is nine (Structures of education 2010: 31). As an aside, one should discern that the 352

minimum qualifications of teachers employed in lower secondary schools is a BA degree (Structures of education 2010: 33). Importantly, one should discern that the “[i]ntroduction of the lower secondary level resulted in the reform of the upper secondary school system” (Structures of education 2010: 29). Graduates of gymnasium can subsequently attend the following types of schools: a 3-year general upper secondary schools (liceum ogólnokształcące), a 3-year specialized secondary school (liceum profilowane), a 4-year technical secondary school (technikum), a 2 to 3-year basic vocational school (zasadnicza szkoła zawodowa) (Structures of education 2010: 29). Graduates of all the previous types of schools, aside from the lattest, can take the Matura exam. In order to do so, graduates of basic vocational schools need to attend a 2-year supplementary general secondary school. At this level of education teachers are required to hold M.A. degrees or equivalent, with the exception of teaching in a basic vocational school where BA degrees suffice (Structures of education 2010: 37). As regards foreign language teaching in general and specialized upper secondary schools as well as in technical secondary schools, the basic number of lessons devoted to teaching foreign languages (at least two of them) is 15 (the minimum number of hours per week over a period of 3 years) (Structures of education 2010: 35). In contrast, basic-vocational-school students attend only 3 hours of teaching a week in a period of two years (Structures of education 2010: 39). To elaborate on language teaching in vocational schools, it is argued that:

The meagre allocation of hours to languages in this sector is a matter of wide concern and needs to be given careful consideration in the course of developing a language education policy appropriate to Poland’s present and future needs. Here it is appropriate to make three points. First, students in vocational education are just as likely to travel abroad as students in any other sector; in some cases, indeed, they may be more likely to travel because they have practical skills that are urgently needed in other countries. Secondly, and arising from this last consideration, students in vocational education do not necessarily need English; other languages may be more appropriate for them; in relation to their particular vocational needs, language courses should pay particular attention to learning how to learn and intercultural issues. Thirdly, CLIL offers itself as an obvious way of consolidating more general language learning while preparing learners for work placements abroad (Language education policy 2005: 38).

These days there still seems to be a considerable need to ensure higher quality of language education in basic vocational schools. This is the more so, since this type of school is especially notorious for poor teaching standards and problems with qualified and committed teachers. Regarding tertiary education in Poland, it is pointed out that

353

their considerable autonomy causes difficulty to generalize about it, yet, “[t]here is a language requirement for students of all disciplines (Language education policy 2005: 31)177. The University of Warsaw, for instance, has developed a language teaching programme that uses the Common European Framework of References for Languages as a general guideline of its syllabus design and examination system (Language education policy 2005: 31). It is noted that on average 50% of students at Warsaw University opt for learning English but that there are also many students interested in less popular languages (Language education policy 2005: 32).

3.3.6.9. English for first graders as an example of language policy and its implementation

For a sociolinguist it seems especially interesting and valuable to investigate the intersection of language policy and its enforcement. In this respect, examining the implementation of the pilot program – English for first graders – is especially insightful. As mentioned above, in 2006 (the time when foreign language teaching was compulsory from the fourth grade) politicians put forward a plan to introduce English language teaching from the first grade of primary schools. There are three important remarks to be made straightaway at the beginning. First of all, the program was of highly political nature, aimed at achieving certain political goals, i.e. winning popularity with the society by ‘giving them what they want’ for their children. Second of all, the decision was to provide pupils with foreign language classes and the chosen language was English. Lastly, the implementation of the program aroused a considerable interest of the media (see below). Both of these facts should be deemed indicative of the importance of English language teaching in the perception of the Polish society. To elaborate on the program and its enforcement, it should be pointed out that the idea itself is attributed to the former prime minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz who promised to give additional money for teaching English in the first grade of primary schools (if principals manage to find teaching staff) so that young Poles could acquire a prefect 177

It is argued that “universities play a very important part in language policy as well as in practical matters: it is universities which support small languages taught nowhere else; they do research in linguistics, language learning and teaching methodology; and they award qualifications to language experts including teachers. (…) Polish universities play an active role in promoting plurilingualism (Language education policy 2005: 31).

354

knowledge of English enabling to find a job anywhere in Europe (Kajzer 2006; Burda 2006). Moreover, Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość – PiS), a Polish political party, pressurized Akademia Świętokrzyska to raise the limit of places in the department of English studies and educate “hundreds or even thousands of English teachers” and do it “as fast as possible” [translation mine, KP] (Burda 2006). As mentioned around 60% of primary schools managed to take advantage of the program (62.9% of all primary schools applied for special subsidies – over 22.5 million PLN from the budget reserves) (Czaja 2006). The major problems of many schools, especially the ones from rural areas, was finding qualified teachers fast enough (applications were considered on a first come first served basis) (Czeladko 2006). This problem was reported in numerous press articles (for instance, Czaja 2006; Czeladko 2006; Kajzer 2006; Katarzyńska and Krawiec 2006; Jałowiec 2006). Importantly, one should discern that there were also significant regional differences relating to the percentage of pupils who could benefit from the program; from 33.5% in zachodniopomorskie voivodeship, 56.7% in kujawsko-pomorskie voivodeship to 81.6% in podkarpackie (Czaja 2006). It was rightly pointed out that the program was likely to further enlarge the then already considerable differences in educational opportunities of pupils attending various primary schools (Czeladko 2006). This was so because schools which used to teach English from the first grade prior to the introduction of the pilot program (thanks to the hours left to the principal’s discretion), could easily take advantage of it (they already met the only condition – having qualified teaching staff) and apply for the subsidies (cf. ASK 2006a; ASK 2006b). This would allow the heads of schools to allocate additional hours for other subjects or still increase the number of English language classes. Interestingly, it is also reported that principals from rural and urban schools fiercely competed with each other in their search of qualified English teachers (Piotrowiak 2006). Yet, the former were often in a hopeless situation since teaching in cities is usually more attractive to teachers; also because they can find there a full-time job in one school much easier (this frequently poses a problem in rural schools where there are often not enough classes and one school can offer a teacher only a part-time job).

355

3.3.6.10. The protection and promotion of the Polish language and culture

The second strand of language policy pursued in Poland that is of considerable relevance to the present discussion is the one pertaining to the protection and the promotion of the Polish language. Its significance consists in providing another important framework within which the sociolinguistics of English in Poland should be analyzed. Since the early 1990s specialists in Polish studies have been lamenting over the decay of the Polish language caused by the flood of anglicisms, and the Americanization of its manner. Moreover, the present status of English as a lingua franca is considered to represent a threat to the adequate position of Polish (Bugajski 2005: 74). Bugajski (2005: 81) argues that neither appeals nor proclamations can support the purity of Polish in the media, which, due to its powerful influence on other genres, should be regarded as the major target of Polish language policy.178 The best method for protecting the Polish language in the media is thought to consist in the adequate application of the Act on the Polish language by the Council of the Polish Language (Rada Języka Polskiego) (Bugajski 2005: 81). In the same vein, Mrózek (2005: 116) points out that it is important, in the world where international communication is dominated by English, to promote the Polish language which, in fact, should be perceived as the foundation of the Polish culture and speech community. Gajda (1999: 2) delineates the general goals of the Polish language policy and the means for achieving them:

178

To elaborate on the media in Poland, it should be mentioned that the two most popular radio stations are commercial ones (RMF FM and Radio ZET) and that together their auditorium constitutes around 40% of all radio listeners (Raport otwarcia 2006: 6). One should also discern that recent trends are that the role of music in national radio stations is increasing and that the importance of other types of programs is steadily decreasing (Raport otwarcia 2006: 21). It is also noteworthy that national radio stations are obliged to include a certain amount of the spoken word in their broadcasting (for instance, it is at least 20% for RMF FM and Radio Zet) (Raport otwarcia 2006: 28). As mentioned, another type of restriction imposed upon radio stations is the promotion of original Polish and European production by stipulating specific amount of time devoted for their emission. To specify, it is required from radio stations to devote at least 33% of their broadcasting time (within the period of a quarter of a year) for pieces originally created in the Polish language and at least 50% of the ones of European origin (Raport otwarcia 2006: 35; Radio i telewizja 2006: 70-71). Similar requirements are laid down on TV channels, both public and private (Radio i telewizja 2006: 70-71). Importantly, it should be pointed out that the electronic media are regarded by the Polish state as an important sector of national economy and a meaningful factor of culture production which contribute to the economic and cultural development of the state (Strategia państwa 2005: 58). In this vein, it is recognized as essential to support the domestic production, Polish production and the Polish language (Strategia państwa 2005: 63).

356

1.

protecting the system of Polish, preserving its autonomy, vitality, and functionality in all walks of social life;

2.

shaping Poles’ personality by developing their skills to participate in the act of communication;

3.

“developing a socio-national speech community (including national and ethnic minorities) capable of peaceful coexistence and development [translation mine, KP]”;

4.

“shaping Poles’ desirable language attitudes towards Polish and developing their language skills [translation mine, KP]”;

5.

“taking rational actions of legal, standardizing, and codificational nature [translation mine, KP]”;

6.

“promoting Polish in the world and the knowledge of foreign languages in Poland [translation mine, KP].”

Arguments are also advanced that efforts should be made to strengthen the position of Polish so that it could counteract the hegemony of English and to resist the process of globalization (Lubaś 2005: 70). Achieving this goal is argued to be dependent not so much on legal regulations but on spreading and strengthening language norms as well as their inclusion of other levels of language, e.g. stylistics or rhetoric (not only grammar) (Lubaś 2005: 70-71). Polish language policy should, thus, be both improved and modified so that it would prevent Polish from being marginalized (Lubaś 2005: 71). Importantly, one should draw attention to the fact that some specific actions are already taken to promote Polish abroad. This seems especially vital in such countries as the UK and the USA where there are numerous Polish communities. The aforesaid protocol from the Mixed Commission discusses the actions taken by the Polish side which aim at promoting the Polish language in the UK. It is reported that the British party is actively involved in supporting the development of Polish studies and Polish language courses in British universities (British Council 2009c: 7). Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education also provides British universities with teachers of Polish and the latest textbooks, dictionaries, as well as other publications promoting the Polish language and culture. Moreover, it is reported that some actions are going to be taken in order to introduce more commonly teaching Polish as a foreign language in schools in the UK (British Council 2009c: 8). Teaching Polish is also organized at Polish universities during summer courses. 357

The major method aimed at securing the position of Polish in Poland (especially in international trade and public life) and safeguarding it against the influence of other languages (esp. English) was the introduction of the Act on the Polish Language. The legal protection of Polish was recognized as crucial in light of the fact that in 1990s (the time of economic revolution and establishment of regular business contacts with foreign companies) a decree from 1945 was still applicable and that gross procedural improprieties (e.g. making contracts and signing trade agreements in foreign languages without translating them into Polish; keeping records of clerical activities in foreign languages; see also below) were committed in the 1992-1996 period (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 19-20). Lack of novel legal regulations in this area also complicated the processes of privatization and various investments with foreign capital (Pisarek 2005: 46). Despite all these, the Act on the Polish Language was enacted as late as in October 1999 and it took effect in May 2000 (Pisarek 2005: 45). To touch upon the act, it should be noted that the key articles of the law state that Polish is national good of Polish culture, a basic element of national identity and that it should be protected from the processes of globalization (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 23). In order to achieve this, it is required from radio and television broadcasters to set aside at least 30% of time in the period of three months for programs produced originally in Polish and at least 30% of the monthly broadcasting time for programs which are aired in Polish (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 48). Furthermore, offices and public utility companies are obliged to formulate notices and information (to the general public) in the Polish language (but there can be their foreign translations) (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 1666). More generally, notices and information which are found in the public space should be written in Polish; this being so with the exception of proper names, trademarks, brand names (for instance, in the advertising), and the like (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 167). It is also noteworthy that the act set up the Council of the Polish Language as an organ passing opinions on the usage of Polish, orthography, and punctuation (Pisarek 2005: 48). Interestingly, it is also required to regularly submit to the Polish Sejm and Senate a report on the protection of the Polish language (Pisarek 2005: 48). One should discern that, as Mostowik and śukowski (2001: 47) point out, “[t]he idea of passing an act safeguarding the Polish language met with negative criticism in the initial phase of the project [translation mine, KP].” Moreover, arguments were advanced that what the Polish government should be more concerned about was the 358

command of foreign languages amidst the Polish society. The authors of the commentary on the act criticize its poor legislative quality on the grounds that it abounds with numerous wrong assumptions, mistakes, inconsistencies, and ambiguity caused by imprecise formulations (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 202). Attention is also drawn to its restrictiveness which affects the legal situation of the parties of a contract (Mostowik and śukowski 2001: 201, 204). Even more harshly, Mostowik and śukowski (2001: 202, 203, 205) refer to the potential harmfulness of the act (which, in their opinion, should be rescinded as soon as possible), talk about unfounded fears and lack of imagination on the part of people involved in shaping it, and doubt the need to introduce regulations concerning language in the public life. All this must have contributed to the fact that the law was amended in the 1999-2004 period four times (not including the changes brought about by the passing of other laws) (cf. Pisarek 2005: 48). It is noted that the amendments (intended among others to adjust Polish law to the European standards) concerned most of all weakening the hegemonic position of Polish in public life (e.g. various governmental and non-governmental institutions as well as administrative offices) (Pisarek 2005: 48, 52). Interestingly, in 2003 the Supreme Chamber of Control (NIK) commissioned the Trading Standards Department to examine the observance of the Act on the Polish Language in the period 2001-2003 (see Informacja o wynikach 2004). For this purpose 29 various governmental and non-governmental establishments were investigated as well as 48 large retail outlets (Informacja o wynikach 2004: 1-2). All in all, the NIK evaluates positively the compliance with the aforesaid act on the part of governmental administration and public broadcasting companies (Informacja o wynikach 2004: 3). Nonetheless, whereas in public administration and other public institutions there were only some minor improprieties, in the majority of retail outlets there were significant and mounting irregularities in terms of the observance of the Act on the Polish Language (especially lack of information about products in Polish) (Informacja o wynikach 2004: 3). It is argued that the law concerning the protection of Polish does not fully serve its purpose since the act is too imprecise (Informacja o wynikach 2004: 3). Importantly, one should take heed of the fact that before the introduction of the act far more serious problems were caused because various contracts were made solely in English (Informacja o wynikach 2004: 20-22). 179 179

Among others the following abnormalities were found to happen in the Polish governments and ministries (especially in the first years of the 1990s): making contracts of national (e.g. privatization)

359

3.3.7. Some sociolinguistic aspects of English language teaching in Poland 3.3.7.1. The knowledge of foreign languages among Poles

The political, economic, and social transformation of Poland together with the series of aforesaid reforms in the educational sector (especially the ones concerning foreign language teaching) significantly impacted on the practice of EFL teaching. A personal impressionistic account by Griffin (1997: 34-35) reveals that whereas in 1989 and 1990 “[i]n public life there was virtually no English presence” and foreign visitors to Poland had severe difficulty in communicating with Poles as hardly any of them – “even among the educated elite” – had a sufficiently good command of the language, by late 1993 the situation changed dramatically. A host of Poles studied English and English names and advertising abounded almost everywhere in big cities. A free market economy and increased trade with the West made it easier for Poles to obtain EFL books and other materials, to get exposed to English through satellite TV, English-language channels, and travel to anglophone countries (Johnston 1997: 689). Due to the opening of numerous private language schools and many public teacher training colleges, the availability of English language instructions started to increase rapidly; yet at first mostly the rich and people living in cities could take advantage of them. It is claimed that the gap between the educated elite and the poor has been widening since 1989 and that the knowledge of English has been the easiest way to bridge it (Papuzińska 2001).180 Even though after the political transformation the most important role of English has been the one of a tool used for work related needs, increasingly more Poles started to use it on travel and to gain access to various forms of entertainment, scientific and academic research as well as to interact (e.g. e-mail, Skype) with peers from other countries (Reichelt 2005a: 221-222). These days, English is argued to be used by as many as 9% of Poles on everyday basis (the second German – by 3%); 10% of Poles use it frequently (the second was again German with the score of 6%), and 10% use it on trips abroad (German is used just as often, which seems unsurprising bearing in mind the fact that Germany is the most popular destination among Poles) (Europeans and their languages 2006: 160, 163,

importance only in English; obtaining various essential analyses concerning Polish economy (commissioned from foreign agencies) only in English (this made it difficult and costly to embark on various programmes and perform certain actions) (Informacja o wynikach 2004: 20-22). 180 In fact, Papuzińska (2001) notes that surveys show that almost 60% of those who do not know English admitted that they have had a change to regret.

360

167). Interestingly, Poles’ interest in learning English and the actual need for it were recognized by the Polish media and companies (Gazeta Wyborcza, BBC, Idea, portal Gazeta.pl, radio and 2TVP) which organized a huge campaign (the biggest in the history of Poland) aiming at improving the knowledge of English among Poles (Mitraszewska 2004). One should also take heed of the fact that while in the early 1990s the majority of English courses (both in- and out-of-school) were for beginners, the new millennium saw an increase in Poles’ interest in more advanced and specialized courses (Komorowska 2007e: 251-252). This general rush to learn English and its perceived multifunctionality made numerous students become ever more motivated to learn it. Because of the fast growing demand for English, there arose a desperate need to train as many teachers of English as possible. Nevertheless, for over a decade beggar’s pays in the public education sector forced many old and newly-trained EFL teachers either to leave their job or to concentrate more on giving private lessons. It seems that these days in many regions of Poland the demand for English teachers is becoming finally met and, accordingly, the job of a teacher of English is slowly getting neither more prestigious nor more profitable than the one of teachers of other school subjects. The knowledge of English seems to be one of the most important elements of the general picture reflecting the sociolinguistic functioning of English in Poland. This is so since it directly points to the range and depth of English. Importantly, when discussing the results of surveys on the knowledge of foreign languages among Poles, it is crucial to bear in mind the fact that they rely on self-reports of respondents. Some meaningful and quite obvious implications following from this are that they may not adequately relate to the real state of affairs. First of all, it seems that people tend to overestimate, for a variety of reasons, their language skills. Second of all, they may not, in fact, know or realize what it means to know a language, not to mention ascribing oneself to a specific level of proficiency. As an aside, it should also be noted that talking about the commonness of the knowledge of English and other languages in terms of their popularity and respondents’ free choice may not be appropriate since it suggests an ideal, non-existent situation in which all people learn the language they really want irrespective of such external factors as the availability of teachers, materials, market needs, and their compulsoriness at schools. The earliest

accessible,

post-transformational

statistics

concerning

the

commonness of the knowledge of foreign languages by Poles are the ones by OBOP (OBOP 1995). It is reported that in 1995 Russian was spoken by 35% of Poles, German 361

by 19%, English by 13%, and French by 5% (OBOP 1995: 4-5). Russian was the most commonly known by people in their thirties and forties, German by people over 60, and English by the youngest Poles (teenagers and twenty-year olds) (OBOP 1995: 5). More than half of the respondents who claimed to know English admitted that they knew it either rather poorly or very poorly. Quite a similar question (specifically, one concerning the ability to communicate in a foreign language) was asked in a series of surveys conducted by CBOS in the period 1997–2009 (Wciórka 2009b). Statistics reveal that whereas the ability to communicate in English increased almost threefold since 1997 (in 2009 24% of population claimed some communicative skills in the language), the ability to do so in other foreign languages in Poland did not change greatly (see Figure 17). To specify, there was a slight decrease of the knowledge of Russian (from 24% in 1997 to 20% in 2009), an increase in the command of German (from 9% in 1997 to 12% in 2009) and other languages (2% in 1997 and 4% in 2009), the proficiency in French remained on the level of 2% (see Figure 17). It is noted that among people aged 18-34 the ability to communicate in English is declared the most frequently, then comes German, and Russian (Wciórka 2009b: 12-13). Communicative skills in English are declared as frequently as the ones in Russian by Poles aged 35-44 (German takes the third place). People over 45 know Russian by far the most frequently.

1997

2001

2004

2006

2009 63 585655 54

70 60 50 40

24 20 1617

30 20

24232322 20

9

9

14141412

10

2 2 2 2 2

2 1 4 4 4

N on e

th er la ng ua ge s

O

Fr en ch

G er m an

Ru ss ia n

En gl ish

0

Figure 17. Poles’ self-reported ability to communicate in foreign languages (the period 1997 – 2009) mmmmmu(adapted from Wciórka 2009b: 12).

362

Interestingly, a different survey (conducted in 2005 at the request of European Commission) points to a significantly higher level of knowledge of English among Poles (see Europeans and their languages 2006: Tables). As many as 29% of Poles stated that English was the language that they “speak well enough in order to be able to have a conversation” (26% of respondents pointed to Russian, 19% to German, 3% to French, and 1% to Spanish and Italian). In the group of respondents who indicated English, 15% claimed to have a very good command of English, 50% declared a good knowledge of English, and 33% a basic one. In 2005 there was also another interesting study carried out by OBOP concerning communicative skills of Poles. This time Poles were asked if they knew any language well enough to be able to read magazines, listen to the radio, or watch TV (OBOP 2005: 2)181. Surprisingly, in this study Russian was the language mentioned the most frequently by respondents (28%), then came English (23%), and German (14%). Another indicator of the changes in the knowledge of English by Poles (and, in fact, the profitability of ELT for the British economy) is the number of them taking exams certifying their skills. Bearing in mind the growing number of Poles learning English and its importance in finding a job, it seems unsurprising that there are increasingly more people taking international exams to prove their competence in the language. It is reported that in 1992 there were only 2376 Poles who took FCE exams (the most popular exam organized by Cambridge University) and that the number rose to as many as 25 thousand in 2000 (Papuzińska 2001). In the following years there was also a dramatic increase in the number of people taking Cambridge exams (mostly, FCE, CAE, and CPE) in the English language: in 2000 – there were 26 thousand examinees, in 2001 – 33 thousand; in 2002 – 41 thousand, and in 2003 – 43 thousand (Cieśla and Rybak 2004). A point is also made that in 2001 there were around 70 thousand Poles who had FCE certificates and that each year the number of Poles taking the exam increases by around 8-14% (Domagała-Pękalska 2001). Importantly, the aforesaid study conducted by CBOS reveals a strong sociostratificational division between Poles who know English and those who do not (Wciórka 2009b: 13). It is reported that younger, and better educated respondents, just as the ones from bigger cities and with higher professional and financial standing, know English the most frequently (cf. also OBOP 2000: 2; Iwańczyk 2009: 80). Wciórka (2009b: 13) states that “[t]he degree of this diversification points to significant 181

Even though for linguists such questions may seem to be framed ambiguously, they still point at least to respondents’ beliefs about their language skills.

363

differences in life opportunities in Poland [translation mine, KP].” The results of surveys by OBOP also show that competence in English is strongly dependent on social characteristics of Poles. Generally speaking, the knowledge of foreign languages (and, specifically, the comprehension of messages in them) – not only English – increases proportionally to Poles’ education, financial standing, and the size of the town in which they live (OBOP 2005: 4). Interestingly, the statistics indicate that there are hardly any differences in the knowledge of foreign languages between men and women (OBOP 2005: 6). In contrast, there are significant differences in the comprehension of foreign messages according to age differences. English is known especially commonly by younger generations of Poles (66% of 15-19 year-olds, 49% of 20-29 year-olds, and 18% of 30-39 year-olds), just as German (33% of 15-19 year-olds, 19% of 20-29 yearolds, and 11% of 30-39 year-olds). Russian is understood mostly by older generations (8% of 15-19 year-olds, 16% of 20-29 year-olds, 33% of 30-39 year-olds, 35% of 40-49 year-olds, and 41% of 50-59 year-olds). Regarding education, 50% of college graduates understand messages in English, 30% of high school graduates, and only 4% of graduates of vocational schools. As many as 34% of the residents of the biggest cities (over 500 thousand residents) understand messages in English, and only 16% of the inhabitants of villages. With respect to the socio-professional characteristics of Poles, they turned out to be significantly related to the knowledge of English. 50% of managers, directors, and various specialists understand English (38% of them know Russian and 23% German), 29% of private entrepreneurs, workers of the service industry, and of the administration claim to have a command of English. The comprehension of English is the worst among blue-collar workers (10% of them understand English, 7% German but 30% know Russian), pensioners (5% English, 9% German and 29% Russian), and farmers (3% comprehend English, 4% German and 25% Russian). Understanding English and German (but not Russian) turns out also to be highly related to one’s financial situation (specifically, the perception of it). As many as 45% of Poles who declare to have a good financial situation comprehend English (25% of them know also German, and 23% Russian). 22% of Poles having an average financial situation understand English, 29% of them know also Russian and 14% German). Only 12% of Poles who have a bad financial situation comprehend messages in English. In comparison, 9% of them know German and 28% Russian. A survey by OBOP (OBOP 2000) gives also some insight into the social groups that know English the best (again the study should be viewed as 364

concerning respondents’ beliefs). The statistics reveal that there are hardly any differences in the self-evaluated competence in English between men and women (OBOP 2000: 12). Poles who know English the best (very well and well) are the younger generations (up to 29 years of age, and especially teenagers), people with higher education, as well as the ones living in the biggest cities and having the best financial situation. The most proficient in English are also those Poles who are either businessmen or various specialists as well as the ones holding managerial posts. As regards the knowledge of foreign languages among Polish authorities, politicians, and soldiers, one should note that even though it is far from being satisfactory, it is gradually increasing, especially together with new generations taking up the posts. Cieśla and Rybak (2004) report that Poland’s preparation for the accession to NATO also required soldiers of higher rank to learn English. A host of soldiers participated in very intensive courses (500-600 hours in 5 months) to pass an exam certifying their knowledge of English. Interestingly, a command of foreign languages is ever more useful for the police (due to their cooperation with Interpol and Europol) and it is argued to smooth their path to a career (out of 100 thousand police officers 20 thousand declare to know English). A command of foreign languages seems to be the most widespread in Polish Foreign Office – in 2004 out of 700 workers 430 knew some foreign languages. In other departments the situation was not so good, especially among workers over 50. In central administration the knowledge of foreign languages is regarded as crucial since workers on both regional and more central levels will need to communicate and cooperate with foreign investors and partners from the EU. Cieśla and Rybak (2004) note that in 2004 only 1.5 thousand workers out of over 100 thousand could communicate with foreigners and that the further from big cities, the fewer administrative employees could speak foreign languages. Unfortunately, few politicians can speak foreign languages fluently, even those who are to represent Poland in the European parliament in Strasbourg.

3.3.7.2. Foreign language teaching in Poland

Because competence in foreign languages increases Poles’ chances in the (European) job market and allows them to better function in the globalizing world, teaching international languages (and especially English) is considered to be a key element of 365

Polish educational system (cf. Oświata i wychowanie 2007; Oświata i wychowanie 2009). Information concerning the universality of teaching various foreign languages in public schools is a significant predictor of the future knowledge of them by the society at large and an important indicator of the importance of specific languages in the school system (and, in fact, their role in the lives of pupils and students). Moreover, the universality of teaching gives insight into the equality of educational opportunities. Again, it is necessary to mention that the commonness of learning certain foreign languages in public education is only partly influenced by its popularity and usefulness, equally important are factors concerning the availability of teachers, and money. In the Polish educational system teaching foreign languages may be either compulsory (the starting age of learning foreign languages was increasingly being lowered since the early 1990s) or additional (Zarębska 2009: 2). The compulsory teaching of foreign languages results from its being included in the basic school curricula which is centrally supervised and locally implemented. Additional classes (including extracurricular teaching of foreign languages) in the public educational system are organized by a principal who consults the allocation of the additional (principals’) hours with both the teaching staff and parents’ council. It should be noted that additional classes have no influence on students’ promotion to the next grade. The political transformation of Poland and the abolition of mandatory learning of Russian gave Polish students and pupils a possibility to learn foreign (Western) languages without any formal obstacles. Nevertheless, the first years of the 1990s did not see a dramatic increase in the number of students learning English, German, and French. This state of affairs obviously grew from a lack of teachers, and financial problems of the Polish educational system. Accordingly, in the first school year in noncommunist Poland (1990/1991) English, as a compulsory subject, was learned by 5% of pupils from primary schools (40.6% learned Russian), 2.4% of students from vocational schools (82.6% learned Russian), and 52.6% of students from general secondary schools (85.6% of them also learned Russian) (Rocznik statystyczny szkolnictwa 1994: 22; Szkolnictwo 1991). In the next school year (1991/1992), English was learned by 9.3% of the pupils from primary school (33.8% studied Russian), 4.4% of students from vocational schools (74.4% had compulsory Russian classes), and 58.6% of general secondary school students (71.1% learned Russian) (Rocznik statystyczny szkolnictwa 1994: 22). Clearly, the early days of foreign language education in ‘new’ Poland were hard and highly unequally in terms of access to instructions in the most desired 366

“English” language. In the following years, accompanied by educational reforms aimed at increasing educational (language) opportunities of school children, one can see some interesting trends (see Figure 18). The most dramatic, yet, unsurprising change concerned a steady huge increase in the number of students learning English as a mandatory subject (a rise from 18.2% in the 1992/1993 school year to 83% in the 2008/2009 school year). The second clearly visible tendency is a gradual decline in the number of students having compulsory instructions in Russian (a drop from 34% in the 1992/1993 school year to 4.3% in the 2008/2009 schools year). The last trend to be mentioned is the establishment of German as the second most commonly taught language as an obligatory subject in Polish schools (an increase from 16% in the 1992/1993 school year to 30.7 in the 1999/2000) (see Table 11). Moreover, one can clearly see that since 1999 until now the position of German as the second language has been secured and each year at least 30% of students learn it as an obligatory subject. As regards the population of students learning French, statistics show that even though its position is rather stable, only a fraction of students learn it as an obligatory subject (Tamble X).).

English

French

German

Russian

90

83

80

66,3

70 60

53,6

50 40

34

33,4

30,2

30 20 10

34,2

31,2

22,421,6

18,2

16

3,2

13,4 4

4,3

3,4

6,7

2,6

4,3

0 1992/1993

1996/1997

2000/2001

2004/2005

2008/2009

Figure 18. Foreign (compulsory) language teaching in Polish public schools (all counted together) since ii 1992/1993 (on the basis of Zarębska 2006; Zarębska 2009). i

367

(Table 11).).It is also easily noticeable that since 1992 to 1999 an increase in the population of students learning English is accompanied by a comparable drop in the number of those who study Russian. Most recently, the decline in obligatory classes of Russian is less spectacular and, possibly, the population of Polish students learning it is reaching a level in which it will stabilize. With respect to English, its further expansion since 2000 has not been steady (look at years 2005-2007, Table 11), nonetheless, it is still strengthening its position. Importantly, it should be mentioned that additional classes may contribute to increasing students’ access to learning foreign languages. To give an example, statistics from years 2004 and 2005 point to a significant increase in the number of students having access to English language instructions (Zarębska 2006). Including students who learned English as an additional subject made an increase from 66.3% (the population of students learning English only as a mandatory subject) in 2004 to 77.1% (all students) and in the next year from 65.9% to 80%). Regarding other languages, a significant change can also be observed in the case of German – a rise from 34.2% in 2004 to 43.4%, and in the following year from 33.6% to 44.3%. Table 11. The commonness of compulsory foreign language teaching in Poland after 1989.182 School year

English

Russian

German

French

1992/1993

18.2

34.0

16.0

3.2

1993/1994

23.1

27.6

18.8

3.7

1994/1995

No data

No data

No data

No data

1995/1996

No data

No data

No data

No data

1996/1997

30.2

21.6

22.4

4.0

1997/1998

32.5

19.7

23.9

4.0

1998/1999

34.5

18.1

25.2

4.0

1999/2000

46.9

16.0

30.7

4.2

2000/2001

53.6

13.4

33.4

4.3

2001/2002

58.2

11.4

33.7

3.8

2002/2003

62.4

9.7

34.8

3.8

2003/2004

64.9

7.6

34.2

3.4

2004/2005

66.3

6.7

34.2

3.4

2005/2006

65.9

6.1

33.6

3.3

2006/2007

63.7

5.5

32.2

3.1

2007/2008

72.4

4.6

30.4

2.6

2008/2009

83.0

4.3

31.2

2.6

182

The percentage of all students learning a given language in all types of schools (compiled on the basis of data from Zarębska 2006, Zarębska 2009).

368

Importantly, it should be noted that most recent trends are that the becoming of English the dominant language taught as a compulsory subject reduced the need for its teaching in supplementary classes (see Oświata i wychowanie 2009: 94). Accordingly, there is an increase in the commonness of teaching other foreign languages and other subjects (especially, computer classes). As was aforesaid, in the early days of the 1990s there were huge differences in the population of students learning English as a compulsory subject according to the type of school. The general rule was that students from general secondary schools made up the largest group having compulsory classes of the English language. In the course of the last two decades the gap has been gradually narrowing but in the 1998/1999 school year (the last one before the school reform introducing lower secondary schools) English was taught to 25% of pupils from primary schools, 11.4% of students from vocational schools, 35.5% of students from technical secondary schools, and 86.2% of students from general secondary schools (Oświata i wychowanie 1999: 237). Next year, compulsory English classes encompassed 38% of pupils from primary schools, 68.7% of pupils from lower-secondary schools, 11.5% of students from vocational schools, 37.4% students from technical secondary schools, and 88.6% of students from general secondary schools (Oświata i wychowanie 2000: 121). In the 2007/2008 school year, compulsory English classes were available to 67.4% of pupils from primary schools, 77.3% of pupils from lower secondary schools, 39.1% students from vocational schools, 94% of students from technical secondary schools, and 96.6% of students from general secondary schools (Oświata i wychowanie 2008: 59). In the last school year for which there are available statistics (2008/2009) the number of students taught English as a mandatory language was 83.3% in primary schools, 79% in lower secondary schools, 41.5% in vocational schools, 94.7% in technical secondary schools, and 97.1% in general secondary schools (Oświata i wychowanie 2009: 92). Importantly, there was a significant increase in the availability of English classes to pupils attending primary schools located in rural areas. Even though there was no data available to the author for the years preceding 1998, it used to be widely noted in various types of publications, both scholarly and journalistic, that in the past finding a teacher of English willing to work in rural areas was bordering on the miraculous. In the 1998/1999 school year English as a compulsory subject was taught to 31.2% of pupils attending primary schools in urban areas and to 15.1% of pupils learning in rural primary schools (Oświata i wychowanie 1999: 237). In the next school years the differences were still 369

considerable: English was taught to 43.1% pupils from urban areas in the 1999/2000 school year, to 46.7% in the following school year, and to 53.6% in 2004/2005; in rural areas the number of pupils was respectively 30.1%, 38%, and 46.7% (Oświata i wychowanie 2000: LIII; Oświata i wychowanie 2001: LIII; Oświata i wychowanie 2005: 45). The differences between urban and rural areas amounted to as little as 3.5% in the 2005/2006 school year (urban areas – 43%; rural ones – 39.5%), and 4.1% in the 2008/2009 school year when teaching English as a compulsory subject reached the level of 85% in urban areas and 80.9% in rural ones (Oświata i wychowanie 2006: 56; Oświata i wychowanie 2009: 386). Since the universality of teaching various foreign languages is finally being dictated most of all by the market needs (due to a much greater number of teachers of foreign languages), one can analyze the spatial distribution of foreign language teaching with an assumption that it more or less reflects the real needs of people living in different provinces of Poland. In this vein, it may be argued that the facts that in Eastern voivodeships Russian is decidedly more popular than in other provinces of Poland and that in Western regions it is German point the actual demand of the inhabitants of these regions to interact with the citizens of the neighboring countries. Even though English is the most commonly taught language throughout Poland (except for lubuskie voivodeship), it is the most prevalent in podlaskie voivodeship (76.3% in 2005), śląskie voivodeship (73.3% in 2006; 83.7% in 2007; ), podlaskie voivodeship (90% in 2008), and the least in lubuskie voivodeship (46.4% in 2005; 43.9% in 2006; 52.3% in 2007; 56.9% in 2008) (Oświata i wychowanie 2006: 56; Oświata i wychowanie 2007: 57; Oświata i wychowanie 2008: 60; Oświata i wychowanie 2009: 92). With respect to German, its teaching is the most widespread in lubuskie voivodeship (58.4% in 2005; 53.8% in 2006; 54.6% in 2007; 57.7% in 2008) and the least in mazowieckie (21.4% in 2005; 20.9% in 2006) and lubelskie voivodeships (19.5% in 2007; 19.2% in 2008). Regarding Russian, it is taught as a compulsory subject the most commonly in lubelskie voivodeship (14% in 2005; 13% in 2006; 12.3% in 2007; 11.4% in 2008) and the least in opolskie voivodeship (1.2% in 2005; 0.9% in 2006; 0.5% in 2007; 0.7% in 2008). Interestingly, there are also data giving some insight into the methods used by Poles to learn foreign languages (Europeans and their languages 2006: 108). Unsurprisingly, the majority of people (83%) pointed out that they learned foreign languages most of all at school. Quite many respondents (14%) also mentioned group language lessons with a teacher, or private individual lessons with a tutor (10%). Some 370

other important ways of learning were long or frequent visits to a country where the language is spoken natively (11%), teaching oneself by means of reading books (13%), using such audiovisual materials as music or TV (10%), watching films (8%), using the Internet and the computer (7%). It is noteworthy that the most effective teaching method was considered to be language lessons at school (50%), followed by watching films in original (9%), or teaching oneself by watching TV and listening to the radio (7%) (Europeans and their languages 2006: 112). However, almost one respondent in five would like to have individual private lessons with a tutor believing that it would be the most effective for them (Europeans and their languages 2006: 116). Unsurprisingly, learning foreign languages among adults is far less widespread than among pupils and students who learn them at schools and colleges. It is reported that only 20% of thirty-year olds learn foreign languages, 11% of forty-year olds, and as little as 5% of fifty-year olds (Jak Polacy 2000: 2). Moreover, the percentage of adult Poles learning English increases together with their perception of their financial status, education level, and the size of the town they live in. As regards adult workers attending in-service training, it is noted that as many as 66.5% of adult workers over 30 and 71.9% under 30 participated within the last year in some kind of training (ŚcieŜki edukacyjne 2005: 23). The most popular among the youngest group was foreign language learning (69.2% of them took part in language courses). The survey indicates that 87.8% of adult workers covered the full costs of such courses and 7.9% shared the costs with their employers (ŚcieŜki edukacyjne 2005: 24). Interestingly, the basic reason for learning foreign languages that was mentioned by respondents was pursuing one’s personal interests (47% of them). It is noteworthy that almost three fourths of those who expressed willingness to work abroad took such courses. One should also bear in mind that in-service training is getting ever more commonplace (in 2002 it was provided in Poland by 78% of big companies, 59% of medium, 36% of small ones) since it is considered to be an important investment in the capital of the firm (Boni 2007b: 63). A point is made that the training needs of companies are most of all related to specific knowledge and expertise (Boni 2007b: 63). A command of foreign languages turns out less important, though 37% of companies did mention foreign languages as the area in which their employees should be trained. Having delineated the universality of teaching foreign languages in Polish public schools, it will be interesting to analyze the data compiled in Table 12 which relate to the number of students taking the final secondary school-leaving exams in the four most 371

popular foreign languages. It should be reminded that Matura is a must for young Poles who want to be admitted to colleges (it also replaces entrance exams in most colleges and departments). In the Polish educational system students sitting a Matura examination have to take an exam in a foreign language but they are not explicitly obliged to choose any particular ones. In this same vein of equality, the majority of departments at tertiary level do not require secondary school graduates to get a pass in any specific foreign language, for instance English, but in any modern foreign language. Secondary school students can enter for an exam in more than one foreign language and both of them may be chosen to be at an advanced or a basic level. As Table 12 shows, English has been by far the most commonly chosen foreign language by secondary school students sitting a Matura exam; on average only 2 out of 10 students opt for other languages. This is also the only foreign language which is being chosen by ever more students (see Table 12). With the exception of Russian, the popularity of which is prone to fluctuations, the percentage of students opting for German and French seems to be decreasing.

Table 12. The population of students taking Matura exam in foreign languages (as both mandatory and additional subjects) and the mean results from the exam. 183

80 14* 82.7 14*

61 67 59.5 67.1

70 80 74.3 80.9

17

17.8 17

15.7

72 62.1 60 60.3 56 59

60.3 80.5 50.1 79.8 67 83

1.62

54 61 56.4 61

72 84 74.4 83.2

1

1.3 1

0.8

68.7 68.9 77.5 70 64 69

56,3 80.5 61.1 79.2 71 82

5.42

65 71 61.1 72

69 83 72.7 84.1

7

5.9 6

5.7

Average score in % Advanced

17.31

% of all students taking the subject

Basic

65.5 78.6 50.6 78.1 65 80

Average score in % Advanced

2009

76.4 68.9 66.7 67.2 53 67

% of all students taking the subject

Russian

Basic

2008

77.1 43* 76.1 36.6* 77 16*

Average score in % Advanced

2007

% of all students taking the subject

French

Basic

2006

Average score in % Advanced

2005

% of all students taking the subject

German

Basic

Languages

Year

English

72.9 61.4 63.5 58.1 54 56

65.2 80.6 50.1 79.2 71 82

60 56 59 56.2

74 84 78.3 84.7

183

My own compilation on the basis of Matura 2005; Matura 2006; Osiągnięcia maturzystów 2007; Osiągnięcia maturzystów 2008; Osiągnięcia maturzystów 2009. Figures marked with an asterisk point to the number of students taking an advanced written exam in English; the number of students taking an advanced oral exam is usually far lower (since it is not compulsory and hardly any tertiary colleges require this level of oral exams, only the best students opt for it). Figures written in italics point to average scores in the oral part of Matura exam. As an aside, taking into account only the subjects taken as compulsory exams would modify the numbers only slightly – up to 1.6% in the case of English, and far less in the case of other languages.

372

be decreasing. Nevertheless, while the percentage of students taking French is rather insignificant (in 2009 it was less than 1%), German continues to be the second most popular foreign language (in 2009 over 15% of students entered for it). It is noteworthy that the number of students taking Matura in English at an advanced level has been decreasing since 2005 – from 43% in 2005 to 14% in 2009. As regards students’ scores, one can see that the general trends (concerning all languages discussed here) are that average scores in the written exam at a basic level are decreasing and the ones in the advanced exam are slightly increasing. In contrast, results form the oral exams in all the languages analyzed here has remained quite stable (at both levels) over the last 5 years. Interestingly, for the last five years students opting for different languages have achieved quite similar results from the advanced oral exam, but from the basic one the scores were higher in case of exams in English and French. Generally speaking, with the exception of 2006 when students of French achieved better results, the average scores in written exams (both at basic and advanced levels) were quite similar among students taking exams in these four languages. Another fact worthy of notice is that there are considerable differences in the scores achieved by students from different types of schools and different places of living (the location of school in big cities vs. other places). For instance, in the case of written exams in English in 2009 students from general upper secondary schools (licea ogólnokształcące) achieved quite high average scores in a test at a basic level (68%) and students from supplementary general secondary school (licea uzupełniające) as well as the ones from supplementary vocational schools (technika uzupełniające) had much worse results – 32% (similar discrepancies occur in the case of exams in other languages as well) (Osiągnięcia maturzystów 2009: 310). In the case of the advanced level the differences are also considerable – the mean score for students from general upper secondary schools was 75%, and for those from general supplementary schools – 52%. With respect to the location of secondary schools, in 2006 the mean results were the highest among students attending schools in cities with more than 100 thousand residents (71.8% at a basic and 54.7% at an advanced level) and the lowest among students attending schools located in rural areas (respectively 50.8% and 37%) (Matura 2006: 20). As an aside, it should be noted that the indisputable dominance of English as the most popular subject of all foreign languages taken in Matura exam should be seen to directly result from its prevalence as the most commonly taught foreign language at all educational levels. This is usually the language that is learnt the longest and one 373

which students are most likely to know the best. Thus, for the overwhelming majority of students taking English in the exam is the most rational choice.

3.3.7.3. Teachers of English in Poland

Since the political transformation the number of teachers of English in Poland has been steadily rising. It is reported that in the 2006/2007 school year there were around 14 thousand teachers of English in primary schools (as compared to around 4.5 thousand teachers of German – the second largest group, and 1400 teachers of Russian – the third largest group), 8.77 thousand teachers of English in lower secondary school (4.85 thousand teachers of German), and 25.78 thousand teachers of English (the largest group) in post-lower secondary schools (all counted together) (Zarębska 2008: 81-86). Interestingly, while in the period 2002-2006 the number of teachers of English increased by 3300, the number of teachers of German (the second most commonly taught foreign language in Poland) decreased by around 2000. It is noteworthy that in Poland the job of a teacher is performed most of all by women; in 2006 women working as either full-time or part-time teachers made up 80.1% of all (Zarębska 2008: 10). When it comes to teachers of foreign languages, women constitute 87.8%. Of all teachers of foreign languages the ones teaching English hold the most frequently fulltime jobs (79.8% of them; as compared to teachers of German – 77.1%; Russian – 66.7%; French – 61.2%, Spanish 45.1%, and Italian 34.1%) (Zarębska 2008. 3). Teachers of English also make up the youngest group of all teachers of foreign languages. The average age of a teacher of English was in the 2006/2007 school year 32.9; the average age of teachers of all subjects (counted together) in Poland was 41.6 (Zarębska 2008: 78). An interesting and significant issue to be discussed is the one of the expertise of teachers of English. This problem unavoidably relates to and affects the totality of the sociolinguistic functioning of English in the Polish context (especially, the competence of Poles, the private educational market, the differences in the educational opportunities etc.). An important point to bear in mind is that there seem to be no necessarily a direct relationship between teachers’ formal qualifications, their competence in the language taught, as well as their pedagogical and methodological know-how. Even though the quality of teaching English in Polish schools is on the increase, there still seems to be a 374

considerable need for in-service training of numerous teachers, especially in the area of their communicative skills.184 As I argued elsewhere (Przygoński 2009/2010: 20), the insatiable demand for teachers of English caused many schools to employ at first any people knowing some English (especially in the 1990s), and then any which could submit some formal qualifications allowing one to work as a teacher. It is noteworthy that many teachers who had to retrain themselves to teach English as well as numerous non-teachers thinking of taking up a job in school decided to study in (private) colleges which would award them necessary diplomas to work as teachers of English at a minimum effort. All this combined with the commonly held opinion that at least a part of those working in schools became teachers “in the long process of negative selection for the profession”185 may well make one think that the best candidates for the job of a teacher find employment either in non-public education or in other areas of economy (cf. Bogaj et al. 2001: 216). Such a gloomy state of affairs seems to be admitted by Professor Hanna Komorowska (one of the major figures impacting on the educational reforms in the sphere of teaching foreign languages in post-transformational Poland) who stated that many of those who teach English are specialists in other subjects and that, despite training, they have no necessary qualifications and skills (see an interview by Papuzińska 2001: 25). Because of this, far too many teachers avoid speaking and focus on teaching grammar and vocabulary. As a result, many students are forced to look for private lessons to compensate for the shortcomings of the public educational system. With respect to the formal qualifications of teachers of English, it should be discerned that statistics show that they are increasing (just as the ones of all other teachers). To elaborate, Zarębska (2008: 21) reports that while in 2002 there were as many as 90.1% of teachers of English who had MA diplomas (5.9% of them had only secondary school diplomas), in 2006 they made up 93% of all (the number of those with only secondary education dropped to 1.7%). Interestingly, the level of formal qualifications is the lowest among teachers of English (see Zarębska 2008: 21). There has also been a steady decrease in the number of teachers of English without pedagogical training (in the 2002/2003 school year 6.75% of all teachers of English had 184

Importantly, an argument is advanced that “[i]t is increasinly more difficult to actually assess the role of schools in the development of students’ language proficiency since parallel non-mainstream education is constantly supporting, supplementing, or even replacing language education in public schools” [my translation, KP] (Komorowska 2007e: 251). 185 This is argued to be caused by starvation wages (especially at the beginning of career) and relatively low requirements (Bogaj et al. 2001: 216).

375

no formal pedagogical qualifications) (Zarębska 2008: 31). Teachers of English seem to participate in various forms of in-service training (training which gives teachers new qualifications and skills or a higher level education, e.g. MA studies) more than any other teachers of foreign languages. In the 2006/2007 school year 11.5% of teachers of English participated in various forms of in-service training; the most popular among them were BA studies (post-graduate and graduate studies enjoyed the greatest popularity among teachers of other foreign languages) (Zarębska 2008: 60). Possibly, this points to the fact that the greatest need to obtain at least basic formal qualifications is among teachers of English. It may be argued that one of the reasons for the rise in formal qualifications of teachers of English is that there seems to be greater competition for the decreasing number of available vacancies (this, obviously, concerns most of all new candidates for the job). The competition is caused by the following factors: (1) at least in some parts of the country the demand is already being met or it is systematically decreasing186, (2) increasingly more Poles have a command of English (teachers of English are less needed in non-educational sectors of economy), (3) a considerable number of English graduates leaves colleges every year, (4) the decreasing demand for teachers of English in public education is accompanied by greater competitiveness in private educational sector. As an aside, it is very important to realize that old teachers can feel quite secure however low their qualifications and skills may be. Considering the sociolinguistic aspects of English in post-transformational Poland it also seems necessary (in order to gain a deeper insight into the power and the politics of the language) to investigate the lives of teachers of English and the role that the language has played in them in the last two decades. Of great relevance to this issue is a study conducted by Johnston (in the autumn of 1994) which consisted of a series of interviews with 17 teachers of English representing “a cross-section of the English teaching community” (Johnston 1997: 690). A point is made that it is important to discuss teachers’ lives as contextualized in Poland undergoing serious economic and social reforms which (even though acclaimed by economists as largely successful) were a source of enduring social tensions and difficulties (Johnston 1997: 688). In this light, it seems unsurprising to learn that almost all teachers held down at least two jobs (not always related to teaching, yet the majority gave private lessons) and led very busy lives

186

Some evidence in corroboration of this could be the fact that employment prospects of graduates from foreign language colleges has been recognized as worsening and that colleges “are trying to open up employment possibilities beside teaching” (Language education policy 2005: 29).

376

(Johnston 1997: 691-692). While the major reasons for this state of affairs were high costs of living and low teachers’ salary, one should also remember that another general cause, pointing to the power of English, was simply an opportunity (provided by a command of English) to take some additional jobs and make extra money. To elaborate, Johnston points out that:

These ‘multiple careers’ were motivated almost exclusively by the need to make enough money to survive and prosper in the new Poland. As was seen above, many of the teachers accepted the dominance of economic factors as ‘natural.’ It is clear too that teachers had internalized the inevitability of their position as foot soldiers in the army of the English language. There was no mention of the fact that as they were busy promoting the interests of the most powerful language on the planet, little or none of that power trickled down to them. Rather, in panoptic fashion, they were accomplices in the preservation of existing power relations (Johnston 2004: 139).

This focus on survival and prosperity made the interviewees admit to considering leaving teaching, the more so as their taking up teaching was often acknowledged to be accidental (“a response to external circumstances”), or a second choice (notions of vocation were absent in their accounts) (Johnston 1997: 691, 694-695). A point is made that “[i]n a context where teaching is poorly paid, it is entirely reasonable to be flexible and to consider utilizing the skills one has to enter a better-paid occupation” (Johnston 1997: 699). In fact, it is elucidated that graduates in English studies become not only teachers (it should be noted that even until quite recently they were frequently tempted by offers of tied accommodation)187 or private tutors, but also translators, journalists, travel agency workers (mart 1994). Even though English itself was not, in some cases, enough for employers, additional courses or studies made it possible for would-be teachers to become managers or work in the advertising business. Another important matter requiring at least preliminary examination is the identity of Polish teachers of English. Johnston (1997: 706) argues that “[t]eachers’ identities are frail in comparison with competing economic and other discourses. To put it at its simplest, for many teachers in Poland, it is not in their own interests to remain teachers.” The results of his interviews point to the fact that teachers would rather regard themselves not as teachers of English but as expert speakers of the language. In this light, it is reported that “[a] discourse of professionalism was absent from the

187

As an aside, in my college days (years 2000-2005) I remember adverts on a noticeboard targeted at students saying that a teacher of English was needed (in various areas of Poland) and that tied accommodation was offered. One of them even said that there were “unlimited opportunities for private tuition.” Similar reports could be found in the press (for instance, mart 1994).

377

teachers’ discursive construction of their working lives; altruism was in some cases ironized whereas commitment was seen only in day-to-day terms” (Johnston 1997: 691). Even though such attitude may be regarded as advantageous to teachers since it helped them prosper in the difficult socioeconomic context of post-1989 Poland (it was easier for them to drop out of teaching), it prevented them from making a long-term commitment to teaching and “perpetuate[d] systemic problems of rapid teacher turnover and lack of qualified teachers for many posts, especially in public education and especially for younger learners” (Johnston 1997: 706). This, of course, has numerous implications for the quality of teaching English in public schools in Poland. Startlingly, teachers themselves openly acknowledged that the exigency to take on extra work (in addition to working in public schools) made it difficult for them to properly prepare themselves for lessons in schools (Johnston 1997: 693). Furthermore, it pointed out that “the notion of altruism – that is, the professional’s devotion to service – is ironized (…) by the competing discourses of making money and looking after one’s own interests” (Johnston 1997: 704).188 To give an example, there is an interesting quote from a young graduate of the teacher-training college:

But I’m not going to do more because first of all I don’t have time, and secondly it’s not paid enough to work more, I think; and then I’m not going to do something, as I said, I’m not an altruist, and it’s a cheat-off, actually, what we’re doing, with the, well, the Ministry of Education, and what’s going on in this country, I mean the work you have and the money you get for it, I think it’s a huge misunderstanding and I’m not going to put up with it (Johnston 2004: 140).

Importantly, it should be noted that Johnston advances a plausible argument that “[t]hese discourses (…) are not merely individual ones but are socially shared discourses rooted in the economic realities of post-1989 Poland” (Johnston 1997: 704). There is no denying that teachers’ lives, identity, and their commitment to their profession is of utmost importance in determining such general aspects of the functioning of EFL teaching in Poland as the quality of teaching, students’ educational opportunities, and the stratificational function of English in Poland.

188

That this state of affairs could also be true in more recent times is indicated, among others, by teachers’ unwillingness to evaluate written Matura examination. The scale of this problem was so huge that it was even noticed and trumpeted in the media (for instance, Jopkiewiecz 2006). It was reported that the greatest problems were with English exams since teachers did not feel like checking an examination sheet for 6.5 zlotych if they could earn 50 zl for an hour of private lessons.

378

3.3.7.4. The functioning of the system of teaching English in Poland Before entering into further discussion of the functioning of EFL teaching in the Polish educational system, one should discern that public attitudes to it seem to be rather unfavorable and critical. What is essential is that it is not only parents and students who complain about various aspects of teaching foreign languages in public schools, but also employers. According to Ustrzycki (2007: 47), his survey clearly points to the fact that employers believe that schools and colleges are rather not too good at teaching foreign languages. Only every fifth employer stated that they teach foreign languages well or very well.189 As suggested above, part of the blame could be seen to lie with teachers’ questionable competence in the language (caused by the necessity to hastily train and hire a large number of teachers) and, at times, their lack of commitment (mostly due to a beggars’ pay190). As for the former, the scale of the problem was especially monumental in the first years after the political transformation of Poland (see Sokulska 1993). Nevertheless, in the early days of the new millennium it was still common. Interestingly, the improprieties concerning teaching foreign languages in schools were of such salience to the society that they attracted the attention of the media. It was even publicized then by the press that parents’ pressure to provide their children with English lessons sometimes led to the hiring of teachers lacking in even basic skills (every twentieth teacher of English in primary schools had a university diploma). A proposal was even put forward by the Ministry of Education (at the beginning of the millennium) to make it possible for principals to hire any people (even those without pedagogical training) who knew a foreign (Western) language (preferably English). That this problem was not solved for over a decade can be attributed to the fact that English was becoming increasingly more popular and there, until quite recently, continued to be a considerable demand for teachers of English. Regarding the latter, Johnston (2004: 139) argues that the fact that EFL teachers lack in commitment is “very damaging for Polish education” and that it may “lead to instability across the system” (Johnston 2004: 139). In fact, a high dropout rate of English teachers is another good example of the malfunctioning of the system which, in

189

Importantly, a language which was the most frequently singled out as the one which should be taught in schools was English, then came German and other languages were hardly mentioned at all (Ustrzycki 2007: 48). 190 It was also reported that in some situations either parents themselves or local governments paid teachers additional money to motivate them to stay in schools (Pendel 2001; Sokulska 1993).

379

this case, has made it very difficult for students and pupils to maintain continuity in their progress. Remarks were also made that it frequently happened that pupils had a new teacher every year and that each of them started from the same beginner’s level (Johnston 1997: 703). Obviously, it should be made clear that the problems of EFL teaching in Polish public schools are not the sole responsibility of teachers. Komorowska (2007f: 33) notes that lack of clear language educational strategy, coupled with massive participation in out-of-school courses, negatively impacted on the teaching conditions in schools, especially the homogeneity of classes at a higher level of education (Komorowska 2007f: 33-34). Specifically, because until recently learning foreign languages was mandatory from the fourth grade of primary school onwards, pupils who had additional classes from the first grades (or attended private lessons) frequently had to cover the material for complete beginners; a similar adjustment to the level of the less advanced students is argued to have taken place in lower secondary schools or even in upper secondary ones. Moreover, the covering of the material for beginners was very often superficial and hasty, which was obviously to the disadvantage of the beginners who often had to hire private tutors to catch up with the rest of the class. One of the most important descriptions of the actual functioning of foreign language teaching in Poland was provided by NIK (Informacja o wynikach 2005). The inspection by NIK was carried out in 2005 as a result of “the significance of the knowledge of foreign languages for the development of an information society and the participation of Poles in social and economic life as well as a widespread interest of the public opinion in this matter [my translation, KP]” (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 1). As many as 67 public schools were inspected (specifically 17 primary schools, 17 lower secondary schools, 12 general upper secondary schools, 12 vocational schools, and 9 clusters of schools of various types) (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 1). To begin with teachers, the inspection revealed that the most competent and experienced teachers worked in general upper secondary schools and that the number of such teachers was dramatically lower in junior secondary and primary schools (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 30). It was also found out that less qualified and experienced teachers tended to work in smaller towns and in rural areas. In as many as 33 schools there was a dearth of adequately qualified teachers both in terms of their linguistic competence and pedagogical preparation (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 5). It is noteworthy that such teachers made up 11.3% of all teachers of foreign languages (most of them were 380

teachers of English – 13.3% of all, and German – 8.7%) and that this problem concerned above all smaller towns and rural areas (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 5, 3233). In three schools (4.5% of all), principals entrusted private entrepreneurs with teaching foreign languages (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 33). Another commonplace impropriety was the number of students attending language lessons. In more than half of all schools (54%) there were more than 24 students in a class (Polish educational regulations allow up to 24 students to attend a language lesson) (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 4). Importantly, it should be noted that kuratoria oświaty (boards of education, organs supervising Polish schools) were found to tolerate and accept such improprieties. By way of explanation, principals admitted that there was serious pressure from parents to provide all school children with additional hours of foreign languages (it would be impossible if classes were divided into groups) or that there were not enough teachers to allow them to divide classes into two groups (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 25). In addition to these two major problems, the NIK inspection revealed a host of other improprieties. Interestingly, the inspection showed that on average as many as 11% of all classes were cancelled on account of teachers’ absence (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 17). Bearing in mind that the figure points to an average, it should be realized that at least in some schools there could be serious problems with following school curricula. Some other serious handicaps of the system to be revealed were that students had a limited choice of languages that could be taught as an obligatory subject and that they sometimes could not continue learning the languages which were taught at lower levels of education (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 2-3). This was especially conspicuous in primary schools where 77.8% of pupils could choose only one language (English or German) and vocational ones where as many as 67.9% of all learners had no option but to study Russian. Furthermore, the inspection revealed that in the majority of schools there were many students and pupils who could not afford to buy language textbooks (as mentioned they are the most expensive of all). There were over 20 schools in which over 30% of students did not buy required textbooks; only in 32.8% of all inspected schools there were no students who did not own textbooks (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 28). In as many as 22.4% of all schools students used textbooks which were not found in the governmental list of acceptable teaching materials. In addition, only in 29.9% of schools there were additional after-school classes for students expressing a keen interest in learning foreign languages (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 23). Moreover, despite the fact that 31 schools participated in international programs of 381

students’ exchanges, only few students had actually took advantage of the possibility to learn in schools abroad and interact with peers from other lingua-cultural locales. Generally speaking, the NIK inspection negatively evaluated the conditions of foreign language teaching in Polish public schools (Informacja o wynikach 2005: 2). Their overall evaluation was based on the fact that in 85.1% of all inspected schools there were gross improprieties.

3.4. Concluding remarks

The political transformation of Poland marked a new era in the spread of English in our country and Polish-English language and cultural contacts. The functioning of English in post-1989 Poland has been inseparably related to its prominent status as a lingua franca of the contemporary world. Its vital role in the econocultural system led to its becoming an important element of Polish strategy to catch up with the West economically, culturally, ideologically, and mentally. Throughout the last two decades the power bases of English in Poland have been steadily increasing to achieve its present privileged and influential position. These days no other foreign language can compare to English in terms of its status in the educational system, universality of teaching, command and importance in the Polish job market. The governmental efforts to spread the knowledge of English across the whole society helped to reduce its (rather minor) stratificational function observable especially in the first years of the 1990s and enabled to offer to school children more equal educational, employment and career opportunities (the ones obtainable thanks to the language). The rising role of English and its knowledge has been accompanied by its ever greater influence on the Polish language, culture and mentality. Its impact has been perceived so negatively by some influential circles of the Polish society that a law was enacted which was to secure the position of the Polish language (and culture) and protect it against Englishization. A further (more theoretical) analysis of the major aspects of the sociolinguistics of English in Poland (on the basis of the material presented in both Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 – ‘attitudinal’ issues) will be carried out in Conclusion where an attempt will be made at presenting its sociolinguistic functioning within the larger framework of more general patterns and examining it in light of recent models and approaches conceptualizing the diffusion and functioning of English in the contemporary world. 382

Chapter 4: Poles’ perception of various aspects of the isociolinguistic functioning of English in Poland

4.1. Introduction

So far the examination of the sociolinguistics of English in post-1989 Poland has focused on the description of various aspects of the actual functioning of the language (especially, Englishization, Americanization, stratificational functions, and its role in Polish language policy and the educational system). The present chapter is an attempt to complete the discussion by probing into Poles’ attitudes and beliefs pertaining to the aforesaid phenomena. Specifically, the first section of the chapter refers to the few investigations of particular relevance to this aim, provides an overview of the literature on the topic, and presents some personal reflections of the author of the thesis. The second one reports on the empirical part of the dissertation, i.e. an investigation of the perception of the power of English in Poland (specifically, the perceived importance and role of the language in the eyes of upper secondary school students). Importantly, discussions, both scholarly and non-scholarly, pertaining to the issue of perception and, notably, attitudes are commonly characterized by a considerable lack of terminological clarity, not to say confusion. Most likely, part of the blame rests with the widespread popularity of the issues of ‘perception’ both among laymen and academics from various backgrounds with some leanings towards the social dimension of their disciplines. The major problem of ‘attitudinal research’, thus, seems to lie not in methodological concerns or research tools but in conceptual lucidity (for details see Przygoński 2005: 18-19). Frequently, there seems to be much indistinctness as to the actual subject matter under investigation, i.e. typically, it remains rather unclear whether beliefs, stereotypes or attitudes are under investigation. Needless to

383

say, the importance of conceptual matters consist in that they explicitly determine (or at least should do so) research methods. The conceptual framework concerning the issue of perception which was adopted by the author of this thesis refers to the one advocated by Ajzen and Fishbein (the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior), distinguished researchers and theoreticians in the field of perception (particularly attitudes and attitude-behavior relations). It is suggested that cognition, evaluation and conation should be perceived as three related, yet, largely independent concepts (Ajzen 1988: 32). A belief is considered to lie on the cognitive and attitude on the evaluative/affective dimension. Arguments are advanced that “attitudes follow reasonably from the beliefs people hold about the object of the attitude, just as [behavioral] intentions and actions follow reasonably from attitudes” (Ajzen 1988: 32).191 One should discern that in line with this reasoning such notions as opinion, knowledge, information, or stereotype are seen to belong more to the category of belief; whereas attraction, value, valence or utility to the one of attitude (overall evaluative reaction) (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975: 13). The significance of these remarks for the ‘attitudinal’ discussion presented in this chapter is that they will both help to conduct a survey of relevant literature and lay the conceptual foundations for the research undertaken by the author of this thesis to complete, at least partly, the discussion concerning the sociolinguistics of English in post-transformational Poland. First of all, with a view to avoiding conceptual confusion in the overview of literature, it was decided to apply the label ‘perception’ in reference to much of the ‘attitudinal’ discussion presented below. The reason for this was that in many instances it was difficult to establish what was in fact discussed. Second of all, the conceptual framework would place the research on the perceived power of English in the category of studies on beliefs with the construct of the power of English as the highest-order concept indicating the importance/role of English and one being composed, on the lowest-order level, of individual beliefs relating to the specific

191

It should be clarified that “a belief links an object to some attribute” (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975: 12) and that this object-attribute association may, in fact, differ from individual to individual, with the result that “beliefs may be of different strength, i.e. of different perceived likelihood that an object actually has a given attribute” (Przygoński 2005: 18-19). It should be noted that attitude, in turn, is understood in terms of overall evaluative responses with respect to the object of attitude and “affect or feelings concerning the object are a relatively independent class of responses that may be one of the factors influencing the behavior” (Ajzen and Sexton 1999: 120). Importantly, general attitude towards a particular attitude object is considered to impact on the overall behavioral patterns but not necessarily on any specific decision, individual behaviors, or, the more so, goal attainment (they are subject to many other contextual factors which may be of greater salience in determining specific behaviors).

384

parameters of the construct. Lastly, it should be pointed out that the importance of beliefs (and belonging to this category stereotypes, opinions etc.) and attitudes (which are formed on their basis) consists in that they are shown to heavily impact on broad behavioral patterns of individuals and, by extension, (in case of generally held beliefs and common attitudes) societies and nations. In this vein, it is also argued that attitudes and beliefs held by Poles in general (especially, general public opinion, the opinions popularized by the media, and peer-group pressure) are shown to impact on the perception of individuals (see ŚcieŜki edukacyjne 2005: 22). By way of introduction it seems also worth noting Poles’ general liking for the two most significant (in terms of cultural and linguistic impact) anglophone nations: Americans and Englishmen. As an aside, it should be pointed out that arguments are put forward that stereotypes play an important role in determining Poles’ favorableness of perception of given nations. What is deemed as especially meaningful for Poles’ ‘liking’ for other nationalities is the stereotype of the rich West (to which we aspire) and the poor East (from which we would like to dissociate ourselves) (Wądołowska 2010: 8). Importantly, such information may, at least implicitly, point to the general appreciation and evaluation of the two nations, their culture, language and achievements. Nevertheless, one should realize that such favorableness may, in fact, change in response to the national policy and political decisions undertaken by the government of

Table. 13. Poles’ liking for Americans and Englishmen since 1993 till 2010 (adapted from Wądołowska 2010: 3). Results in the 1993-2010 period Nations 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 ‘Liking’ expressed in %

Americans

62

58

63

59

64

61

54

50

58

56

45

46

49

44

47

45

Englishmen

47

41

51

51

55

50

45

44

51

49

46

50

50

53

51

50

a given nation. As data form Table 13 shows, Poles have demonstrated considerable liking for both Americans and Englishmen ever since the early years of 1990s (the overview in Chapter 3 suggests that this was unlikely to be different in the period prior

385

to the political transformation of Poland). With the values oscillating around 50%, they have always been high on the list of nations most liked by Poles. Nonetheless, one should discern a considerable drop (by 17% when surveys in 1993 and 2010 are compared) of liking for Americans in the last decade (it is pointed out that this process was not accompanied by an increase of aversion but of indifference – Skrzeszewski 2005: 9). It is argued that reasons for this state of affairs may, in fact, be of political nature, i.e. Poles’ disapproval of the war in Iraq, and the problem of visas (especially after our joining the EU Poles started to feel discriminated in comparison to old member states that do not need to apply for visas) (Skrzeszewski 2005: 8-9).

4.2. An outline of Poles’ perception of English 4.2.1. General remarks concerning Poles’ language attitudes towards and beliefs iabout

I

English and Polish language policy

It should be mentioned that there is relatively little nationwide research done in the context of Poland which could cast light on Poles’ language attitudes towards and beliefs about English. Accordingly, the following presentation, in addition to referring to some relevant studies, will be based on the opinions of various language experts and linguists as well as my own observations and knowledge. This means that an attempt is made at inferring attitudes and beliefs from Poles’ public and more personal utterances and behavioral patterns. At the very beginning, it should be pointed out that in the early years after the political transformation of Poland English was likely to be still widely perceived as a particular symbol of “the wealth and power of United States, the Cold War victory, and more broadly the West” (Griffin 1997: 34). Even today, in addition to the eminently practical appeal of English, the language appears to bear some symbolic meaning and associations. Nonetheless, in the eyes of younger generations English seems to be a particular symbol of the present day times, and the Western (especially American) better world and culture. The language has also started to be regarded by many Poles as an indicator of the level and quality of one’s education (Komorowska 2007f: 23) or even as a chief attribute of a man of the world. Importantly, it should be noted that Poles’ perception of English may actually be evolving (possibly, in the direction of viewing it in an ever more utilitarian manner) as a result of its importance in the job market, increased business contacts (especially after 386

the accession to the EU), and a huge recent emigration for economic reasons to Englishspeaking countries (cf. Komorowska 2007e: 245; see also Chapter 3). Thanks to a survey requested by Directorate General for Education and Culture, it is possible to gain valuable insight into Poles’ recent beliefs about a variety of language issues. Generally speaking, an overwhelming majority of Poles (69%) is believed to agree that language teaching should be a political priority and that the diversity of languages taught in Polish schools is sufficiently large (52%) (Europeans 2006: 138-139). Another interesting finding is that whereas as many as 90% of Poles admit that all languages spoken in the EU deserve to be treated equally, 69% of them believe that EU institutions “should adopt one single language to communicate with European citizens” (Europeans 2006: 129, 137). Furthermore, 75% of Poles state that everyone in the EU should be able to speak a common language and 89% of the whole population agree with a statement that in addition to one’s mother tongue all residents of the EU should be able to speak one foreign language (Europeans 2006: 130-131). In all these cases, it seems, the obvious choice for the majority of Poles would be no other language but English.

4.2.2. The perception of foreign language teaching in Poland

It is rightly noted that knowledge of the English language, even a basic one, makes it possible for an average Pole to feel comfortable in the contemporary world (Grybysiowa 2005: 38). This perception of English should, at least in principle, translate into Poles’ eagerness to learn the language. Nevertheless, it seems that attitudes towards learning and knowing a language refer to two quite different attitude objects. While the latter concerns simply having a command of the language, i.e. evaluating the command itself in terms of its experiential and instrumental characteristics, the former concerns more the process of learning, i.e. the perception of general conditions/context in which the learning takes place (for instance, objectives, teachers, pressure, or even the school system). Therefore, it is perfectly possible to have a very favorable attitude to knowing a given language and to perceive the actual learning of it highly negatively. Obviously, the knowledge of English, just as a command of any other language (or, in fact, almost any other skills or expertise), is likely to be regarded positively by most Poles, rather neutrally by few, and negatively by hardly any at all. This seems to result from the fact 387

that in the contemporary world any skills, and knowledge are in themselves perceived favorably. In this respect, there seems to be nothing special about the English language. Possibly, what is more interesting is the exceptional intensity of this perception and the strength of this belief which, actually, seems to have become common knowledge passed down from parents and teachers to children. Nowadays, every school child is likely to know that English is useful or that it is a must. As regards Poles’ attitudes and beliefs concerning learning English, they appear to be far more negative. In some cases parents and students develop unfavorable reactions towards learning English, at least to doing so in public schools, because of considerable dissatisfaction with the conditions of foreign language teaching in the Polish educational system. Specifically, they seem to be frequently dissatisfied about the following:

1.

bad teaching conditions (for instance, teachers’ incompetence or lack of commitment, overcrowded and mixed ability classes) and a resultant necessity to spend extra money on tutors or private language schools, which is, obviously, affordable only for the few and conducive to the emergence of unequal learning and, consequently, life opportunities;

2.

unrealistic demands on the part of teachers (for instance, requiring from the youngest pupils developing writing skills in situations when they are not yet able to write adequately in their mother tongue), their concern about test results not teaching;

3.

a narrow focus on vocabulary acquisition and grammar, avoidance of teaching communicative skills (a situation being a consequence of overcrowded

classes

and

teachers

themselves

having

mediocre

communicative abilities). One may also find it very useful to refer to the aforementioned opinion poll to obtain some insight into Poles’ general perception of their own knowledge of foreign languages as well as their beliefs about learning them (see Europeans 2006). The survey reveals that as many as 55% of respondents tend to believe that Poles are rather not good at speaking foreign languages and that the major reason why they are discouraged from learning them is the high cost of language tuition (Europeans 2006: 121, 133). What seems especially important from the perspective of this thesis are the findings that

388

72% of Poles view English as “the most useful to know for [their] (…) personal development and career” (German was recognized by Poles as the second most useful language – 46%; and Russian as the third – 9%) and that as many as 90% of them think that English is the language that children should learn in school (German was mentioned by 69% of respondents and Russian, the third, by 10%) (Europeans 2006: 32-33). Furthermore, the study revealed that, according to Poles, the major reasons why young people should learn foreign languages are the following: improving job opportunities (75% of respondents), feeling more comfortable when going on holidays abroad (40%), knowing the language that is spoken widely around the world (32%), knowing the language that is widely spoken in Europe (26%) (Europeans 2006: 103). It is quite clear therefore that learning foreign languages is perceived most of all as a human capital investment and a tool facilitating interaction and communication with people around the world. This seems to be further confirmed by respondents’ admission that for them personally the main reasons for learning a foreign language would be a possibility to work abroad (38% of respondents), a greater chance to get a better job (28%), or its usefulness on holidays abroad (29%), or at work (28%) (Europeans 2006: 106). Interestingly, there is also some evidence showing that English, i.e. the learning of it, may be for many Poles a real nightmare (cf. Rędzińska 2003). This would point to the justifiability of the distinction between attitudes towards knowing as opposed to learning a language. Press reports reveal that for many adult people learning English is a highly stressful and unpleasant activity (WAW 2001). This is so because its quick acquisition is a matter of many Poles’ professional life and death. Moreover, it is noted that adults study English with a considerable amount of personal, economic, and emotional sacrifice, since learning the language, which is a must to find a job (or protect it), takes a lot of their time, energy, and money (ROCH 1999). This combined with time pressure, overwork, and the need to find time for family may result, in numerous cases, in developing highly unfavorable attitudes towards (learning) English. Adult Poles studying English for pleasure or due to sheer snobbery are argued to make up a fraction of all (see also Olechino 2007). Some mention must also be made of accent preferences of Poles, specifically, the ones of students of English at university departments. One needs to discern that even though it is hard to deduce how far they correlate to Poles’ general accent preferences, it seems unlikely that they diverge widely from each other. An interesting place to 389

conduct such research on students is the English department at Adam Mickiewicz University, a place where students are relatively free to choose either RP or General American accent. ‘Relatively free’ means that the great majority of students can indeed learn the accent they prefer, yet, due to a lack of enough places in RP groups, a fraction of students has no option but to attend a General American accent course (cf. Przygoński 2005). This fact may be interpreted as indicating a greater demand for and interest in the RP accent among Polish learners of English. To elaborate on the reasons for choosing a given accent, reference will be made to two studies conducted in the aforementioned department. The first one was conducted by Janicka et al. in 2005 on a population of 240 students. Responses to the question concerning their accent choices were grouped into six general categories (Janicka et al. 2005: 254): 1. personal preferences; a. the aesthetics of sound; b. personal interests; c. the people (native speakers of the accent); 2. first teachers; 3. previous contact; 4. level of difficulty; 5. usefulness; 6. geographical location. Importantly, it is pointed out that “emotional and aesthetic criteria were listed as absolute priorities” and that the questions “generated an outpour of genuine feelings towards the two varieties” (Janicka et al. 2005: 254). In addition to such numerous, highly stereotypical beliefs192 concerning these two accents, students also mentioned other factors impacting on their choice, i.e. interest in “the culture, lifestyle and traditions of the country associated with the respective accent”; their attitude towards native speakers of the two accents; the accents spoken by their teachers; perceived difficulty of learning the two accents (American English was usually considered to be 192

The associations that students had with the two accents seem to bear some resemblance to the stereotypes about the two nations and cultures that are popular among Poles. Specifically, American English was thought to be dynamic, business-like, neutral, relaxed, more appealing, primitive, careless, and British English – prestigious, unspoiled, academic, scholarly, clear, tender, posh, ridiculous, proper, noble, more English, aesthetic, old-fashioned, a sign of higher education, charismatic, more authentic, more real, more European, prettier, classy, stiff, serious, beautiful, classical, aristocratic, pure (Janicka et al. 2005: 254-255).

390

easier); “access to teaching/listening materials”; proximity to the country in which the accent is used (Janicka et al. 2005: 254-255). In addition, three other general findings are reported (Janicka et al. 2005: 258):

1. “IFA students are strongly in favour a native-like model of pronunciation”; 2. “Achieving a native-like accent is extremely high on the respondents’ priority list (nearly all the subjects claimed to aspire to a near-native accent)”; 3. “The respondents would impose an American or British standard on their prospective students.”

Interestingly, a supplementary study conducted by Janicka et al. (2005: 263-281) shows that General American was considered by the majority of students to be easier in comparison with Received Pronunciation and that even students from prestigious English departments may largely be unable to distinguish between other accents of English than RP (and, possibly General American). This most probably means that the majority of Poles have at most a very vague idea as to the characteristics of accents of the English language. Another relevant study was conducted in the same department and roughly the same period of time (Przygoński 2005). This time in order to account for students’ choice of accent an attempt was made at implementing the theory of planned behavior. Some of the most important assumption of the theory are the following (see Przygoński 2005: 26-27):

1. general attitudes impact most of all on a broad behavioral disposition rather than any specific action (e.g. the act of choosing a given accent); 2. attitude is potentially an important predictor of behavior but to serve its purpose it must be seen as a contextualized concept (i.e. not a general evaluation, but a specific evaluation of a specific behavior performed in a clearly defined context, e.g. place, time etc.) based on a set of beliefs out of which some become more salient than others in response to the external context; 3. the performance of a given action is also influenced by social pressure as well as perceived and actual behavioral control over (including the ability) the behavior.

391

Each of the three predictors is considered to be composed of two qualitatively different components representing two different facets of the single concept (Przygoński 2005: 74-75). Accordingly, attitude encompasses both experiential and instrumental elements; subjective norm consists of injunctive (what one feels as obligation) and descriptive (the perception of what is customary behavior) ones; and behavioral control includes perceived controllability (envisaged control over behavior – ‘how much it depends on me’) and self-efficacy (perceived skills) with respect to the performance of a given action. Moreover, the concept of past behavior was included as a factor influencing (but not explaining the causes of the original decision to do something) the choice of one of the two accents. Since the theory of planned behavior is applied to predict people’s behavior, it was assumed that it may as well be used to give insight into such past (planned most of all) behavior as the choice of a specific group in which students learn one of the two accents. Moreover, it was postulated that differences in the perception of the three concepts (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) determining this action (the choice) would point to the factors of greatest salience in students’ decision to enroll in a specific accent course. The results of the study indicate the following (for details see Przygoński 2005: 76-95):

1. The determinants of the decision of students who opted for enrolling in General American accent training: a. Students’ attitude and, especially, its experiential component (specifically, speaking with American accent was perceived by these students as highly pleasant, satisfying, interesting, natural, and attractive);

yet, the

instrumental dimension (i.e. perceiving the command of the accent as helpful, useful, and advantageous) was also markedly more favorably evaluated in the case of General American; b. Perceived behavioral control and, most of all students’ belief about having much greater skills to acquire General American, rather than RP (yet, control over the behavior proved also a statistically significant factor); c. Past behavior; 2. The determinants of the decision of students who enrolled in RP accent training: a. Students’ attitude (both experiential and instrumental components), and above all, the perception of speaking RP as something very pleasant, satisfying and attractive; 392

b. Subjective norm (particularly the injunctive facet of the concept); c. Perceived behavioral control (in contrast, in this group controllability proved more important); d. Past behavior.

Consequently, it seems that despite some common reasons for the choice of accent between the two groups (especially, past behavior and attitude), there are some notable differences. First of all, it is especially interesting that students opting for RP felt, in fact, some social pressure to learn this accent, while the ones favoring GA were not guided by this factor when choosing their target accent. This may indicate that RP enjoys greater popularity and prestige in Poland and that GA is frequently chosen by people who are less likely to succumb to social pressure. Similarly to the study by Janicka et al. (2005), GA was considered to be easier to acquire than RP, especially by the students who decided to learn this accent. The study also showed that attitude was an important factor determining the choice and that the overall evaluation of the accents was, in the case of the two groups of students, determined by different beliefs.

4.2.3. Englishization and Americanization in the eyes of Poles

Basing one’s knowledge on the observation of Poles’ post-1989 changes in language and behavioral practices, it may well be argued, as Grybysiowa (2005: 38) points out, that it is a characteristic feature of Poles to thoroughly approve of American culture in almost all its manifestations. The approval is accompanied, especially in the case of the middle class, by the emulation of mass culture and the adoption of English elements into one’s speaking practices (Grybysiowa 2005: 38-39). In contrast, a host of specialists in Polish studies as well as a part of the Polish society, perceives the influence of the English language upon Polish in terms of a threat to the sovereignty of our culture, language, or even statehood. Arguments are advanced that the subject of (English) borrowings provokes more heated disputes and discussions than any other language topics and that the reason for this is simply that they are treated by many as an issue going far beyond linguistic matters into social, moral, and patriotic ones (Walczak 1987: 5). Expert opinions of a more positive or neutral kind are few and far between. Lubaś (2005: 60), for instance, points out that “[c]omplaining about the excessive role 393

of this language (…) in the Polish realities is pointless since our country is also exposed to other types of influences (civilizational, cultural, and, obviously, political and military) of the super power [the US], and these as such are invariably accompanied with the English language [translation mine, KP].” In contrast to many other Polish linguists, he views the impact of English upon Polish as forced by external factors (mostly of economic or cultural nature) which require, for instance, the adoption of English borrowings (“indispensable in practical communication”) (Lubaś 2005: 60). Interestingly, Mrozowski (see an interview by Kwiecień 2000) makes the point that these days language is not only an element of national identity but also of the developing, European one and, accordingly, Polish cannot be protected the way it was in the past. This seems to mean for him tolerance and acceptance of anglicisms which are part of international vocabulary coined, in many instances, to name new products and concepts. Similarly, Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2000: 153) argues that lexical borrowings should not be a reason for concern as they will “either be replaced by their Polish equivalents, or become assimilated.” Chłopicki (2002: 63), who is rather not afraid of Polish vulnerability to “recent English and American influences” (caused, among others, by cultural asymmetry), also claims that “Polish will survive as it has already shown its vitality and is becoming richer as it gradually assimilates new meanings and new structural patterns." Yet, he makes an appeal for “an intensive, public language awareness campaign, the appeal to campaign against the use of unwarranted foreign patterns (those which have comparable or even superior native equivalents), and the appeal not to yield to the craze for foreign terminology)” (Chłopicki 2002: 63). In the same way, Bralczyk (see an interview by Kwiecień 2000) asserts that even though there is no need to alarm about the presence of anglicisms in the Polish language, it may in fact be desirable to stimulate such processes as condemning ridiculous fashions, mocking unnecessary borrowings, and word-formation mechanisms incompatible to the Polish custom. Interestingly, Bralczyk argues that borrowing and adapting new linguistic elements to the system of Polish is the most appropriate way of introducing the concepts coined in foreign languages and adds that “[w]e should use words and terms which are more precise and the translation of which into Polish would not be recommended [translation mine, KP]” (see an interview by Kwiecień 2000). Nonetheless, what he perceives as a threat to Polish (i.e. reducing its vitality) is discarding the use of the language altogether when talking about certain disciplines (e.g. 394

medicine) in favor of foreign (esp. English) languages (see an interview by BończaSzabłowski 1998). In contrast, Saloni (1996: 82) asserts that there is no need to protect the Polish language in any specific way and that it is totally unreal that either the Polish society as a whole or even the cultural elites will switch from Polish to English. Also Miodek (see interviews by Pawluczuk 1998 and Bończa-Szabłowski 1998) seems to claim that the condition of Polish is, generally speaking, not poor and that the changes of Polish caused by the English language are natural and mark another stage in its development and not its being on the path to extinction. Nevertheless, Miodek disapproves of the overuse of anglicisms if caused by Poles’ snobbery and admits to reacting to it with mocking laughter or even anger. It seems that quite a numerous group of specialists in the Polish studies is made up by linguists who are neither uncompromisingly accepting and approving of the influence of English nor hypersensitive to the slightest manifestations of Englishization of the Polish language. To elaborate, Mańczak-Wohlfeld (2007: 216) elucidates that attitudes to borrowings in the Polish language have traditionally been unfavorable and that this aversion among language purists may well have its early origins in the period of the partitioned Poland when attempts were made to replace Polish with German and Russian. Furthermore, it is argued that “[t]his tendency to eliminate loan became particularly strong when Poland gained its independence” and that “[n]owadays scholars are only worried by supposed overuse of Anglicisms (…)” (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2007: 216). In this vein, Mańczak-Wohlfeld does not seem to consider Polish to be threatened by English (possibly, with the exception of the influence of English upon Polish syntax) but views many anglicisms as unnecessary (especially the ones used in the advertising, and the media), since they have Polish counterparts (Mańczak-Wohlfeld 1995: 87; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2004: 181; Mańczak-Wohlfeld 2006b: 50; MańczakWohlfeld 2007: 181). Along similar lines, Doroszewski (1996: 254; 1999: 36) asserts that whereas there are numerous instances in which English loanwords seem necessary (due to a lack of our native counterparts), there are many cases in which Polish is simply “cluttered with” anglicisms. Nonetheless, he makes an optimistic point that despite the fact that English has become a must in the world of science, increasingly more specialist journals and publications, as a result of greater care and awareness of translators and editorial staff, are written in ever better Polish (Doroszewski 1999: 36). Similarly, Gotteri (2002: 56) argues that “the Polish linguistic community is going to be demanding better and better Polish-language radio and television programmes, better 395

Polish translations of foreign literature, better Polish versions of computer software, etc., not to mention better and better Polish advertisements, which are so important in a market economy.” Regarding this last aspect, a remark is made that “[m]any manufacturers have already been made to look foolish by their wrong or inappropriate use of English or by the failure or their supposedly Polish advertisements to address a genuinely Polish-minded market. And they have learned to their cost that it is not good business” (Gotteri 2002: 56). The largest, it seems, is a group of Polish language experts who are either more or less critical of the influence of English upon Polish (for instance, Polański; see Polański 1996: 9). A negative perception of the impact may well be caused by a belief that it is a social responsibility on the part of experts in the Polish studies to care for proper language standards among Poles (Walczak 1987: 84). Even if they say that there are cases in which the adoption of loanwords is justifiable, they seem to discern a clear need to formulate principles applying to their correct usage (for instance, Walczak 1987: 52, 59; Sękowska 1993: 243; Sawicka 1995b: 84). Moreover, there are linguists who point out that borrowing causes problems with communication and undesirable confusion in the language system (especially on the lexico-semantic level) which may even be dangerous for the Polish language (Walczak 1987: 47; Sawicka 1995a: 38; Lewicki 1996: 115; Markowski as quoted by Kwiecień 2000). Even more harshly, there are voices that Poles’ knowledge of proper language standards is “pathetic” and that Polish is truly in danger of extinction, also because of the impact of English (Wróblewski 1996: 258; but see Wróblewski 2000).193 Puzynina also expresses serious concerns over the future of Polish as caused by lack of refinement of the society exposed to Western commercial mass culture affecting our language and manners (see an interview by Bończa-Szabłowski 1998). This apprehension on the part of many linguists (esp. Pisarek; see Wróblewski 2000) for the future of Polish seems to have formed a basis for the idea to formulate the Act on the Polish language. Nevertheless, one must discern that a host of language scholars point out that this legislation is either unnecessary or too restrictive in its form. Mańczak-Wohlfeld (2000: 95-96), for instance, approves of at least some legislative regulations found in the act but asserts that it seems quite impossible to enforce this law

193

It should be noted that some journalists (e.g. Pisowicz 2000) seem to share such opinions and find the subject interesting enough to the readership to write articles on the topic in popular non-specialist magazines.

396

in everyday life and that it would be far more appropriate to fight with loanwords by means of advice and ridicule. Interestingly, the act was passed by a majority of only 11 votes and a host of members of parliament poked fun at the act and treated it almost like a joke (Wolny 1999). More recently, grave concern was voiced over an act from October 2000 which gave Polish Committee for Standardization (Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny) the right to introduce EU standards in Poland in the language of the original (i.e. English) (Pisarek 2005: 49; Bralczyk – see an interview by Walewska 2002). To elaborate, a decision was made that it is enough in the case of some standards to be translated only partly (i.e. to translate only the name of the norm and its synopsis). In practice, it meant that standards which are to be in effect in Poland do not need to be formulated in the Polish language. Pisarek (2005: 49) referred to this regulation as “the act of the first partition of the Polish language [translation mine, KP].” As regards folk perception of English and its influence, it seems that Poles, by and large, share quite similar to specialists in the Polish studies beliefs about and attitude towards anglicisms and the role of English (see, for instance, Co Polacy 2005). Possibly, it may be a result of education, i.e. conservative beliefs on the part of teachers of Polish, or even a belief that the maintenance of purity and correctness of Polish is a responsibility of every true Pole. In this vein, Markowski and Satkiewicz (1996: 23) refer to Poles’ fear that Polish is declining or even degenerating (obviously, due to a massive exposure to English) and emphasize the generally perceived need to defend our language. Nonetheless, one may well wonder if the majority of Poles disapprove of using English borrowings, why their use is so common. It seems highly likely that even though Poles’ overt beliefs point to a negative perception of loanwords, they, in fact, realize that their use is sometimes necessary, either because there are no Polish counterparts or because their use is socially desirable (i.e. to express solidarity, prove one’s expertise etc.), contextually justifiable, or simply more appealing and attractive. Interestingly, an argument is advanced that unfavorable perception of English and related to it consumerism is most frequently found among Poles of lower economic status for whom the advertized goods and Western lifestyle remain largely inaccessible (Kot 1999). One thing remains quite certain the issue of English borrowings in Polish is probably, next to the topic of vulgarisms, one enjoying considerable media and social interest, even among Polish cybernauts (see, for instance, Kowalczyk 2010). To elaborate on Poles’ folk perception, one should refer to Markowski (2006: 126) who distinguishes several various types of attitudes towards (native) language 397

(understood by him as “rather stable positions on linguistic issues including opinions and judgments justified along rational and emotional lines [translation mine, KP]”) adopted by Poles. The types of attitudes include the following: language purism, perfectionism, logicizing about language, language liberalism, indifference, abnegation and the ‘natural approach’ to language. Regarding language purism, it is argued to involve excessive (very emotional) concern for the language and specifically its lexical purity. Such attitude, frequently very radical and uncompromising, is believed to have its roots in a conviction that language is a value which needs to be defended against degeneration (Markowski 2006: 127). Markowski (2006: 128) points out that most recently one can notice quite a widespread (and still spreading) moderate type of nationalistic attitude that is directed most of all against the recent (post-1990) spread of anglicisms in the Polish language. The commonness of such attitude is argued to be so great that even some Polish media decided to attempt to involve the society in their fight to purify the Polish language (Markowski 2006: 128). Interestingly, it is noted that purists are frequently unaware of the phraseological and semantic influence of English on Polish (Markowski 2006: 129). As for perfectionism, Markowski (2006: 132) elucidates that this attitude has rational foundations and is adopted by people who aim at precision, economy, and unambiguity of Polish. Therefore, perfectionists are rather not in principle against the use of anglicisms. Language liberalism, in turn, involves attitude that is considered to be well manifested by (great) tolerance and acceptance (not necessarily approval) of both language changes occurring in the system of the Polish language and recent borrowings (lexical, semantic, and other) from English (Markowski 2006: 137-138). Language indifference and abnegation involve extreme unconcern (in the case of the former rather unintentional and the latter deliberate) about language issues. Lastly, a natural approach (attitude) is thought to be adopted by people who are also largely uninterested in linguistic issues but who consider language as “natural good” that is used in accordance with the custom of a given social milieu. By extension, such stands on language issues suggest unconcern about English borrowings in Polish. Interestingly, Markowski (2006: 139) argues that liberal attitudes characterized by tolerance towards various language processes are especially widespread among the humanistic intelligentsia and its more extreme version – laisser-faireism – among adolescents and ‘technical’ intelligentsia. In order to gain further insight into Poles’ general folk perception of issues relevant to the present discussion, it seems crucial to refer to the few available 398

nationwide surveys conducted on a representative number of the citizens of Poland. One of them was commissioned by the Council for the Polish Language (Rada Języka Polskiego) in 2005 on the occasion of the International Mother Language Day. Even though the methodology of this study leaves much to be desired (see Co Polacy 2005), especially in terms of suggesting some specific responses, it still casts some light into Poles’ language beliefs. The first question was framed in the following way: “Why is it important, in your opinion, to care for the language that we use? [translation mine, KP].” It is reported that 35.4% of respondents answered that “because Polish is a value that bonds the nation together and one that should be cared for”; 19.5% of them asserted that “because cultured people should speak correctly”; 19.4% admitted that they were taught at home that one should care for the mother tongue; and 12.3% expressed the opinion that speaking correctly helps in communication [translations mine, KP] (Co Polacy 2005). Another biased query read as follows: “What do you find the most offensive about contemporary Polish as used in public? [translation mine, KP]” (Co Polacy 2005). The majority of respondents complained about the use of vulgarisms (86.3%), “massive adoption of loanwords from foreign languages” (51.4%), and the carelessness of speech (44.7%). Interestingly, the last question asked respondents if they think it possible to judge one’s intelligence and cultivation by the way he/she speaks and writes. According to as many as 37.8% of respondents, it is possible to do so since language is “the basic factor reflecting one’s intelligence and cultivation [translation mine, KP]”; another 24.3% also agreed and asserted that a person who has got class speaks fluently and correctly (Co Polacy 2005). This seems to give weight to the aforementioned claim that Poles’ overt language beliefs are rather conservative and corresponding to socially desirable responses. Another survey worth reporting concerned solely the issue of borrowings (Wciórka 1999; see also Chapter 3). It was conducted in 1999 on a representative sample of Poles. The results reveal that the number of Poles tolerating the use of borrowings (47%) is almost equal to the one of those who find it disturbing (either because they feel that Poles use them too often – 26% or because they find them incomprehensible – 22%) (Wciórka 1999: 6). Importantly, tolerance towards the use of loanwords is the greatest among the younger generations (61% of Poles up to 34 years of age), pupils and students (65% of them) as well as those Poles in whose milieux they are frequently in use (73%). Moreover, expansion of borrowings is tolerated the most among the youngest members of the society (45% of them), Poles with higher education 399

(41%), as well as senior staff and the intelligentsia (43%) (Wciórka 1999: 10). Intolerance, in contrast, is the most widespread among Poles who claim that people from their social circles do not use loanwords and those who have problems with understanding them (Wciórka 1999: 6-7). It is also noteworthy that as many as 61% of Poles believe that borrowings should be replaced with Polish lexemes and that only 28% of respondents regard the use and spread of loanwords as a natural process that should not be counteracted (Wciórka 1999: 8). One should discern that with the exception of the youngest Poles (18 – 24 years of age), who have mixed opinions, all socio-demographic groups would rather borrowings were replaced with Polish counterparts (Wciórka 1999: 8). Generally speaking, acceptance of loanwords is greater among better-educated Poles, men, and younger generations. Conversely, the greatest number of advocates of replacing borrowings with Polish lexemes is among Poles who think that people use them too often (89% of them believe so), among those who regard them as incomprehensible (85%) and the ones claiming that in their milieux people do not use loanwords (69%) (Wciórka 1999: 10). Crucially, it should be noted that all recent discussions concerning ‘the problem of borrowings’ are in fact (even if this is not directly acknowledged) understood as referring to the latest spread of anglicisms (this is also evident in the poll described above). The last study to be reported here is one conducted by Otwinowska-Kasztelanic in 1997 (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000). The investigation aimed at probing into the ability to discern lexical, semantic, and syntactic changes in Polish (caused by the influence of English) among younger (19-35 years of age), and well-educated generations of Poles (150 respondents) differing with respect to their knowledge of English (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 123). The research consisted in respondents’ editing of a text which contained a host of popular lexical, semantic, and syntactic borrowings from English. Specifically, the task was framed in such a way as to make respondents “correct all the words and expressions which struck them as inadequate or used in the wrong context” (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 123). The results of the study seem quite interesting, even though such a framing of a task, to my mind, seems somewhat biased since it possibly made respondents hypersensitive due to its being too suggestive that there was something wrong with the text. Moreover, the choice of popular borrowings was likely to bias the results since respondents may have already been accustomed to such expressions and constructions and, thus, less inclined to regard them as strange or incorrect. 400

To elaborate on the analysis of the results, it should be noted that, quite unsurprisingly, lexical borrowings were the easiest to notice (but more difficult for those with worse or no knowledge of English) and, as Otwinowska-Kasztelanic (2000: 126-128) points out, the most criticized since they are by far most conspicuous. As regards syntactic and semantic borrowings, they were discerned mostly by the advanced group (and people trained in analyzing language) and overlooked (especially the semantic ones) by respondents from intermediate and beginner ones who, in fact, focused most of all on loanwords (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 126-130). This is explained by lack of “a sufficient feel for grammaticality” and insensitivity to the changes undergone by Polish under the influence of English, which suggests that the majority of Poles remain largely unaware of the actual impact of English upon Polish (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 127; 131). Importantly, a point is made that respondents (mostly young adult Poles) were deeply concerned about “the purity of Polish” and that they had confidence that “the influence of English was far too strong, and as such – unacceptable” (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 130). The second investigation was conducted in 1998 with the aim of determining “the degree to which Poles notice and accept two types of syntactic changes” (i.e. the abuse of “the attributive position of adjectives, and the use of nouns in the attributive function”) resultant from the influence of English (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 131). Interestingly, it was found out that the acceptance of phrases patterned after English schemas rose together with their frequency of incidence in the media. Moreover, the ability to discern and “reflect on the new syntactic constructions” was positively correlated with respondents’ age (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 139). The youngest respondents did not succeed in reflecting on the latest grammatical changes of the Polish language. This was interpreted as indicating that “their critical skills are not yet fully developed” or that their linguistic intuition (specifically, their grammar system) as native speakers differs as a result of its formation in the period of extensive exposure to English and English borrowings (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic 2000: 139-140).

401

4.2.4. Final notes

Bearing in mind socio-psychological theories (for instance, the theory of balance and the theory of dissonance) holding that there is “a motivation for people to maintain consistency among their beliefs, feelings, and actions” (Ajzen 1988: 27), it seems reasonable to postulate that on the basis of general behavioral patterns of individuals, communities and nations one may seek insight into their general attitudes towards various attitude objects (i.e. anything that one can have an attitude to). Accordingly, taking heed of an overview presented in Chapters 3 and 4 one may venture the following statements:

1. Poles are largely in favor of American culture (and Americanization) in most its manifestations, even if (or possibly still the more so, since most recently it seems fashionable, at least in certain circles, to criticize it) they frequently may not realize the origin of the cultural products they are fond of; 2. Poles’ overt attitudes towards Englishization are ambivalent (the context determines if they endorse or condemn it) and there seem to be two general groups of Poles: the ones more on the supporting and the others on the criticizing end of the continuum; 3. English is a language whose command is desired more than knowledge of any other foreign language; 4. An overall evaluation of English by Poles is influenced most of all by the perception of its utilitarian values.

4.3.

Probing into the perceived power of English – an attempt at operationalizing the construct

4.3.1. Introduction

The above survey of literature makes it clear that there are numerous research areas which remain still unfathomable. The majority of investigations carried out in Poland to date aim at gaining insight into such rather narrow topics as the influence of English on Polish (language awareness and the evaluation of the phenomenon), language learning, or accent preferences and recognition. Since the goal of the dissertation is, among 402

others, to provide a comprehensive description of the sociolinguistics of English in post1989 Poland, the empirical part was carefully designed with a view to completing this general picture by investigating the least researched area, i.e. the one of Poles’ folk perception of the functioning of the language in Poland. To specify, the study was devised in such a way as to examine the perception of various phenomena described in Chapter 3, i.e. the role/importance of English in the contemporary Poland. In order to ascertain some comparability of the results obtained from the study to the actual state of affairs which emerges from the presented in Chapter 3 discussion, a decision was made to operationalize and investigate the concept of the (perceived) power of English; specifically, secondary school students’ perception of some chosen aspects of the sociolinguistic functioning of English in Poland (i.e. the range and depth of the language). One should, thus, discern that the focus of the research was not on students’ perceived role/importance of English in their own lives. This, in fact, would have necessitated conducting in the first place a more ethnographic oriented preliminary investigation. In order to make the wide variety of topics coming under the rubric of the sociolinguistics of English more manageable and relatively easy to examine in a systematic fashion, the author employed the construct of the power of English, specifically its Kachruvian conception referring to the notions of the depth and the range of the language. This conceptualization serves perfectly the purpose of probing into the perceived significance of English in Poland and does not give rise to any major difficulties with its operationalization. Lastly, it should be pointed out that a decision was made to investigate the perception of upper secondary school students’ since adolescents are argued to be a group which seems only partially aware of the sociolinguistic realities of the functioning of English in the (adult) world (see 2.3.2.; ElDash and Busnardo 2001: 71). Accordingly, adolescents in comparison with adults, who seem largely convinced of the power of English, appeared to constitute a far more interesting group to examine (the results of research seemed less obvious and predictable).

403

4.3.2. Theoretical background of the research – operationalizing the concepts194

Language power is a complex construct which may be approached in a variety of ways. Generally speaking, in this study the power of English is considered to be “intimately connected with societal power of various types” and to go beyond purely linguistic issues into “the realms of history, sociology, attitude studies, politics, and into very mundane economic considerations” as well as language planning (providing the language an important position in language policy) (Kachru 2006f: 194, 212). To elaborate, further operationalization of the concept was based on the supposition that “[t]he power of English (…) resides in the domains of its use, the roles its users can play, and–attitudinally–above all, how others view its importance” (Kachru 1986: 4). Still more specifically, the power of English was assumed to be indicated by its range (“the functions for which English is used by people in a society or contexts”) and depth (“the penetration of a language, in this case English, through socioeconomic/educational strata of a society”) in a given context195 (Kachru and Nelson 2006: 335, 342; Kachru 2006f: 204f). These, in turn, are argued to hinge on the following specific parameters indicative of the power of English (Kachru 2006f: 205): 1. “Demographical and numerical: unprecedented spread across cultures and languages; on practically every continent”; 2. “Functional: provides access to most important scientific, technological, and cross-cultural domains of knowledge and interaction”; 3. “Attitudinal: symbolizes (…) one or more of the following: neutrality, liberalism, status and progressivism”; 4. “Accessibility: provides intranational accessibility in the Outer Circle and international mobility across regions (cf. ‘link language,’ and ‘complementary language’)”; 194

The following research, its theoretical background, design, construction, and implementation owes a great deal to the following sources: Hutchinson 2004; Cohen et al. 2005; Perry 2005; Colton and Covert 2007; Marczyk et al. 2005. 195 Importantly, Kachru and Nelson (2006: 29) further expound that “Depth of societal penetration refers to the uses of English that are available to people with varying degrees of education who are at different socio-economic levels, with different jobs and professions. (…) A cline of proficiency may be associated with societal penetration, so that people with less contact with users of ‘fuller’ varieties of English may speak a basilectal form, with gradations up the economic and social scales to an acrolect.” It is also pointed out that “Range in this context of analysis and discussion refers to all the functions which English has in a given community context, e.g., in education at all levels, business, legal system, administration, [but also science, technology] etc., as well as in more intimate domains of family and other social networks whose members may or may not share another language” (Kachru and Nelson 2006: 29).

404

5.

Englishization as the other face of nativization; the more salient one in the context of the Expanding Circle of Englishes;

6. “Material: a tool for mobility, economic gains, and social status.” Accordingly, the assessment of Poles’ perception of the power of English was assumed to be indicated by the six parameters as well as the perceived role that English should play in Polish language planning and policy. All of the parameters were to become treated as dependent subvariables of the major dependent variable – the power of English. It should be noted that Kachru (2006f: 205) did not include Englishization but nativization in his list of the major parameters of the power of English (the list itself was considered open to further inclusion). Nonetheless, Kachru regards nativization and Englishization as two simultaneous and complementary processes which make up the two faces of English as a world language. In the context of Poland, a country which belongs to the Expanding Circle of Englishes, it is undoubtedly Englishization and not indigenization (as in Kachru’s native India) which is of far greater salience. Moreover, in line with the aforementioned importance of language planning in determining the power of English, it was decided that questions concerning the role of English in Polish language policy were absolutely necessary. Therefore, queries about language policy were included in the questionnaire as a yet another parameter of the power of English. The final number of measures of the construct amounted to seven parameters (dependent variables) which were further operationalized as follows:

1. Demographical and numerical aspects – the perception of the overall number of people who have a command of English, the number of those who are learning the language; the demographic structure (according to job, education, the place of living) of those who know and do not know English in Poland; 2. Functional aspects – the perception of the need to know English in Poland to fulfill certain general and more specific functions in everyday situations and more circumscribed (e.g. professional) contexts; 3. Material aspects – the perceived importance of English in the Polish job market (finding a job); the importance of English in finding employment abroad, the social prestige stemming from a command of English; 4. Attitude – general attitude towards English; attitude is understood here as “a person’s degree of favorableness or unfavorableness with respect to a

405

psychological object” (Ajzen and Fishbein 2000: 2); i.e. “an overall evaluative response that takes account of various reactions to the object of the attitude” (Ajzen and Sexton 1999: 120). This conceptualization of attitude is in line with the theory of reasoned action (see above); 5. Accessibility – the perceived importance of English as an international link language; its importance in comparison to other international languages; 6. Englishization – the perception of influence of English on the Polish language – (especially the perception of anglicisms); and the perceived impact of the American culture on the Polish language; 7. Language planning and policy – the perception of the position that English should hold (as compared to other languages and school subjects) in the Polish educational system. The selection of questions (for details see below) relevant to given parameters and the construct of the power of English was based on a comprehensive analysis of the most salient sociolinguistic aspects (described in Chapter 3) of the functioning of English in Poland. Importantly, it should be pointed out that some parameters are made up of more scales than others. This is caused by the fact that some of the indicators seem to encompass in the context of Poland more dimensions than the others; also in the eyes of students, which was found out during the pretesting of the instrument. However, this state of affairs does not necessarily mean that they are of greater importance in determining the power of English in Poland than other parameters. Because any hypothesis suggesting greater salience of any of the parameters requires testing and confirmation it was decided that it is best to consider each of them to be equally contributing to the overall perception of the power of English. This necessitated calculating a mean of all the scales constituting a given parameter (for details see below). Moreover, any greater relevance of individual parameters would anyway be shown by its more extreme evaluation towards the positive end of continuum. Regarding the method of investigating the concept of the power of English, a decision was taken to conduct survey research. The reasons for this choice were multiple. Since the nature of my investigation is largely exploratory, rather than confirmatory (see Perry 2005: 73), this correlational method was recognized as more than adequate to probe into this uncharted research area, i.e. the perceived power of English. Furthermore, the correlational quality of surveys (for details see Hutchinson

406

2004: 285) is conducive to investigating the influence of the independent variables upon the dependent ones, and in their totality, upon the construct of the power of English. In addition, a survey, as Cohen et al. (2005: 171) admit, has certain undeniable “attractions”:

1. “it is used to scan a wide field of issues, populations, programmes etc. in order to measure or describe any generalized features”; 2. “provides descriptive, inferential and explanatory information”; 3. “supports or refutes hypotheses about the target population”; 4. “makes generalizations about, and observes patterns of response in, the targets of focus”; 5. “gathers data which can be processed statistically.”

It should also be noted that surveys seem to be a good choice for such descriptive investigations as this, i.e. ones “describing the nature of existing conditions (…) or determining the relationships” (Cohen et al. 2005: 80). To reiterate, the general purpose of the study was to probe into the perceived role/significance of English in Poland among upper secondary school students. The research problems were formulated as follows:

1. How do secondary school students perceive the power of English?; 2..How is the perception of the construct dependent on students’ icharacteristics?; 3. How do students perceive the specific parameters of the construct?

Since, as mentioned, the nature of this research was rather exploratory only general hypotheses were formulated. First of all, it was hypothesized that secondary school students would perceive English to have considerable power. Second of all, a hypothesis was put forward that the power of English would be perceived higher by female students, school-leavers, students having better grades (both grade point average – GPA, and a semester grade in English), attending more advanced courses, coming from the urban areas, as well as the ones whose fathers have higher education diplomas.

407

Pilot study number one – contextualizing the concept of attitude

Because the focus of the research was on students’ own perception of the power of English (and not, for instance, how they believe it is perceived by the majority of Poles), it was necessary to examine their own attitudes towards the language. Therefore, the goal of the first study (conducted in January 2010) was to gain insight into students’ overall evaluation of English. Moreover, the necessity of undertaking this study resulted from the aforementioned conceptualization of attitude (seen as determined by salient beliefs of experiential and instrumental nature) requiring the contextualization of the concept. Since various groups may have different salient beliefs about English, and in consequence different attitudes to it, it was recognized as necessary to probe into the target population’s beliefs and on their basis construct a fine-grained instrument measuring secondary school students’ attitude toward English in general. To specify, out of a pool of responses referring to students’ beliefs about English (mostly adjectives describing English) five Likert-scales were produced. In order to make the selection of items a standardized procedure, a host of guidelines were laid down and adhered to when performing a qualitative analysis of students’ responses. First of all, it should be noted that a pool of beliefs was derived from a highly comparable to the target population group of 50 students, all of whom were asked the same question196 which aimed at producing written, quite standardized responses (adjectives describing their beliefs about English). To elaborate, in addition to the general aim of selecting adjectives which were either instrumental or experiential, the items were to meet the following criteria (formulated, among others, on the basis of a survey of relevant literature on the topic by Przygoński 2005: 67-68):

1. being unambiguous and perfectly understandable to all respondents; 2. having an evaluative quality (referring to such concepts as attraction, value, sentiment, valence, and utility); both descriptive (e.g. describing the phonetic quality of the language) and neutral in this respect items were rejected; 3. being written in a language common to all respondents (avoiding highbrow and colloquial expressions which may be confusing);

196

Specifically, students were to provide responses (finish the sentence with adjectives they found most appropriate) to the question “I believe that the English language is…”

408

4. having a high frequency of occurrence in the responses of the investigated population; 5. having no affective quality, i.e. items referring to emotions, for instance, sad, cheerful, were assumed to relate to a separate type of responses.

Regarding answers to the question, fifty students provided 109 different types of items, the lion’s share of which were adjectives (see Appendix B). No respondent provided fewer than three responses. Thirteen adjectives had a quite high frequency of incidence. All of them were mentioned by at least five respondents (10% of all); and four were written down by at least fifteen students. Specifically, the most commonly held beliefs about English were that the language is useful (przydatny) – 25 such responses, interesting (ciekawy) – 18; needed (potrzebny) – 17; difficult (trudny) – 15; easy (łatwy) – 10; interesting (interesujący) – 9; indispensable (niezbędny) – 9; nice (fajny) – 8; popular (popularny) – 6; commonly known (powszechnie znany) – 6; pleasant (przyjemny) – 6; fashionable (modny) – 5; omnipresent (wszechobecny) – 5. Basing on the aforesaid principles of item selection, six adjectival Likert scales were constructed:

1. useful – useless; 2. interesting – uninteresting; 3. easy – difficult; 4. needed – unneeded; 5. nice – not nice.

Importantly, it should be explained that in cases where a lexeme passed all the principles of item selection but it lacked an antonymous pair (no student provided such responses), the procedure was to juxtapose it with a derived item of the opposite meaning. These five Likert scales were further examined in the pilot study assessing, among others, their suitability for the main research.

409

Pretesting Introduction

The piloting of the questionnaire took place in March 2010. The number of respondents amounted to 58 secondary school students comparable in terms of their social characteristics to the target population. The chief purpose of the pilot study was testing the procedure of conducting this research and obtaining evidence for the reliability and validity of the instrument measuring the power of English. Thanks to performing an item-remainder analysis, it was possible to decide on the final set of scales measuring particular parameters of the power of English. Importantly, it should be noted that pretesting was a three-stage process. Firstly, a questionnaire came under close scrutiny on the part of three reviewers whose feedback helped to revise the questionnaire in terms of its bias, clarity, and layout. Secondly, a questionnaire was distributed among secondary school students for completion. Thirdly, there was a follow-up discussion with respondents concerning a wide array of topics relating to the questionnaire and the study itself. Pretesting helped to obtain valuable information about the following: the time needed to perform the task, the clarity of instructions, the layout of the questionnaire, students’ comprehension of questions, the ambiguity of some words and phrasing. All of these proved immensely helpful when amending the questionnaire and conducting the major study. To elaborate on the questionnaire design and its pretesting, it should be noted that a host of guidelines were followed to ensure greater reliability and validity of the instrument. Some of the most important principles that were born in mind when writing the questionnaire were the following (mostly on the basis of Cohen et al. 2005: 248261; Colton and Covert 2007: 67):

1. striving for unambiguity and clarity of the questions and instructions; 2. avoiding leading questions; 3. keeping questions simple, brief, and understandable to the target group; 4. making the layout of the instrument clear and attractive; 5. avoiding complex questions and ones that use negatives and double negatives; 6. asking more sensitive questions later in the instrument; 7. ensuring that respondents interpret questions and items in the same way.

410

As regards the procedure of the pretesting, it must be mentioned in the first place that attempts were made to conduct it in similar conditions to the ones of the main research (for details on the procedure see Colton and Covert 2007: 139-140). This helped to observe some possible problems arising when performing the procedure in the class, specifically, the ones relating to the organization of the survey, the distribution of questionnaires, and the maintenance of discipline. The follow-up discussion helped to make certain that it was easy for students to complete the questionnaire accurately and that the great majority of questions were recognized by respondents as totally clear, comprehensible, and logical (this is argued as important in terms of validity of the research – see Cohen et al. 2005: 128). Moreover, it was established that the task was not likely to make students provide dishonest responses since the survey was not considered to touch on any sensitive or controversial issues.

4.3.4.2. Some notes on the issues of validity and reliability

Since social research frequently deals with measuring concepts which are not directly observable (e.g. patriotism, a feeling of safety), but which describe the social realities of a certain population, it is frequently a must to measure such abstractions by means of various corresponding constructs (see Colton and Covert 2007: 66). Accordingly, a rather obvious concern is related to the question if our instrument measures accurately what it was intended to and, more specifically, if the operationalization of the construct (i.e. “find[ing] tangible ways to measure it”) was grounded on some solid theoretical foundations (Colton and Covert 2007: 66). The feature of an instrument referring to its capacity to “measure what we purport to measure” is called its validity (Colton and Covert 2007: 65). Importantly, it is argued that “[a]n instrument is or is not intrinsically valid, as validity is a characteristic of responses” and that “[i]t is an attribute that exists along a continuum, from high to low, in varying degrees. It is inferred, or judged from existing evidence, not measured or calculated directly” (Colton and Covert 2007: 65, Worthen et al. 1993: 180). Therefore, it should be reminded that “[a]bsolute validity or reliability can never be demonstrated in the social sciences” (Colton and Covert 2007: 85-86). To elaborate, even though researchers distinguish among a variety of types of validity (for instance, construct, content, or face validity), they are all believed to be 411

“facets of the same concept” (Colton and Covert 2007: 85-86, see also Perry 2005: 137; Marczyk et al. 2005: 67). Since, as mentioned, the nature of this research was largely exploratory especially great care was taken to ensure construct and content validity. The former is thought to relate to “the extent to which the test or measurement strategy measures a theoretical construct or trait” (Marczyk et al. 2005: 110). To this end, an indepth analysis of the survey of literature described in Chapters 1 and 2 was performed to select a theoretical construct which, in the opinion of the author of the thesis, was the most suitable to investigate comprehensively the perceived role/importance of English. It was recognized that Kachru’s notion of the power of English was more than adequate to probe into the topic. Moreover, its considerable amenability to operationalization was found very attractive since it allowed for a structured approach (see above) to perform this vital stage of research design. Regarding content validity, it refers to “the degree to which an instrument is representative of the topic and processes being investigated” (Colton and Covert 2007: 68). In order to single out the most relevant processes and phenomena operating in Poland which point to the power of English, an extensive examination of Chapter 3 was conducted. This allowed to distinguish as many as 40 general factors contributing to the power of English in Poland. On the basis of them 40 questions were formulated and subjected to pretesting to further examine their validity and reliability. In light of this, it was assumed that thanks to the comprehensive survey of relevant literature both construct and content validity was likely to be high. Nevertheless, in addition to this qualitative approach to maintaining validity (for details see Colton and Covert 2007: 70-71), a more quantitative procedure was undertaken to further examine these matters (see below). Another vital issue to remember when constructing a questionnaire is ensuring the reliability of the instrument. This seems especially important bearing in mind the fact that in the social sciences the measurement procedure is “subject to a wide variety of influences” (Colton and Covert 2007: 73-74). To expound on the notion of reliability, it should be elucidated that: Reliability refers to the consistency or dependability of a measurement technique, and it is concerned with the consistency or stability of the score obtained from a measure or assessment over time and across settings or conditions. If the measurement is reliable, then there is less chance that the obtained score is due to random factors and measurement error. (…) In its simplest form, reliability is concerned with the relationship between independently derived sets of scores, such as the scores on an assessment instrument on two separate occasions (Marczyk et al. 2005: 103).

412

Importantly, it is pointed out that “[w]e ascertain instrument reliability (…) from the results obtained by administering a particular instrument” and that there are numerous factors, both random and systematic, which may affect reliability (Colton and Covert 2007: 74-75). Some of the most important measures to increase the reliability that were taken into account when pretesting and conducting the main research were the following (Colton and Covert 2007: 74, 188-189; Perry 2005: 135-136; Marczyk et al. 2005: 104):

1. ensuring the clarity and ease of interpretation of items and instructions; 2. standardizing the conditions and procedures when administering the survey; 3. ensuring adequate length of a test (neither too long nor too short, around two pages); 4. ensuring that “data are recorded, compiled, and analyzed accurately”; 5. cross-checking the accuracy of the process of data coding (in the case of this research the coding of every tenth questionnaire was checked again); 6. ensuring that the test (especially, the phrasing) and the procedure do not make respondents believe that some responses are more preferred than others; 7. writing items in the same direction (positive and negative poles should be situated in the same places throughout the test) so as not to risk that respondents select items which they did not intend to197.

4.3.4.3. Item analysis

As mentioned, this survey research was a multi-stage process involving in the first place formulating on the basis of relevant literature and theories 40 scales referring to 7 basic parameters of the power of English in Poland. These 40 questions were included in a

197

To elaborate, Colton and Covert (2007: 189) argue that “Our recommendation to write all items in the same order is our most controversial guideline, because many researchers argue that by having all positive or negative poles similarly situated on the page, you run the risk of patterned responses. We have found that mixing the order of items is rarely necessary when an instrument is designed for a specific audience that has an interest in the topic, as they tend to read each item carefully and are thoughtful about their responses. Our guidance is to use positively worded stems whenever possible and to maintain the direction of the stems and response sets within the instrument. In particular, if you must have both positive and negative stems, the response set should remain in the same direction throughout to reduce the risk that respondents will select a rating that does not actually reflect their choice and/or will become fatigued and not complete the instrument.

413

questionnaire which was pretested in order to evaluate and ascertain the reliability and validity of the instrument. Pretesting involved a statistical analysis aiming at verifying which of the 40 items may be regarded as good measures of the power of English. It was decided that items which were not strongly related to the construct would not be included in the main research (in this way it contributed to increasing the validity of the instrument). The analysis of relations between specific questions and the power of English (the mean value of them) was conducted on the basis of item-analysis, specifically, by calculating the item-remainder coefficient and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Crucially, one should discern that: Item analysis is the primary quantitative approach for demonstrating validity198. A valid item should be a good measure of what it is intended to measure and not of something else. Item analysis is based on the assumption that the items are “essentially equivalent measures” of an underlying construct. (…) We can (…) compare the correlation between individual items and the total correlation for all of the items. The stronger the correlations, the more likely it is that the items are measuring the underlying construct. (…). Item analysis is also used to estimate the reliability of responses within an instrument; when used for that purpose it is referred to as internal consistency reliability (Colton and Covert 2007: 72-73).

The aim of the first phase of the analysis was to examine and improve the validity of the instrument. To this end, the item-remainder coefficient (IRC) was calculated to serve as a measure of a statistical correlation between mean values of responses to particular questions and mean values of responses to all other items counted together (see, for instance, Colton and Covert 2007: 265). IRC was calculated by means of a linear correlation coefficient which enabled to determine for each of the query the so called item-total correlations (their values are included in the range between -1 to +1, with 0 signifying no statistical correlation, -1 the highest inversely proportional correlation, and +1 the highest proportional correlation). It was estimated that the values of particular item-total correlations for the forty questions were within the range of -0.46 to 0.98. In light of the values, a decision was made to discard 6 items which were the 198

As an aside, it should be explicated that “The relationship between validity and reliability is unidirectional. There are two aspects to this: (a) reliability does not depend on validity, but (b) validity depends on reliability. Regarding the first, reliability does not require or depend on validity. An instrument or observational procedure can be reliable (i.e., consistent) when measuring something, but not necessarily consistently measuring the right thing. In other words, a measurement procedure can be reliable, but not valid. However, the opposite is not true. We cannot have a valid instrument that is not reliable (…) In fact the validity of an instrument can never exceed its reliability. If a measurement procedure has low reliability, its validity will be low as well, regardless of how valid the developer wishes it might be. On the other hand, a high reliability coefficient does not automatically mean that the instrument is also highly valid. Therefore, reliability is necessary, but not sufficient for defining validity” (Perry 2005: 141).

414

least correlated with the total value and the ones whose statistical significance of correlation with the whole test was not on the level of p=0.01. Their low values meant that, statistically speaking, they were relatively poor measures of the construct of the power of English. This procedure is commonly assumed to ensure an instrument which is consistent and which accurately measures the variable (in this case, the power of English) in question. The next stage consisted in the evaluation of the internal consistency of the instrument after discarding the six items with the lowest IRC values. The analysis was performed by one of the most popular methods, i.e. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Cronbach 1951; Schmitt 1996). Reliability is here “expressed as a correlation coefficient, which is a statistical analysis that tells us something about the relationship between two sets of scores or variables” (Marczyk et al. 2005: 103). The coefficient alpha points to “a measure of internal consistency, or how well items correlate with each other” (Colton and Covert 2007: 265).199 It assumes values from 0 to 1, with one signifying a total lack of consistency and 1 a perfect one. To elaborate, it should be explicated that “[c]oefficient alpha involves comparison of the variance of a total scale score (sum of all items) with the variances of the individual items” and that an alpha score of 0.70 and higher points to internal consistency of an instrument (Spector 1992: 32). The coefficient is calculated on the basis of the following formula:

where K signifies the number of items in the test; sum of all items; and

the variance of responses to the

the variance of responses to particular items. One should also

discern that the coefficient “provides an alpha score for the entire scale and not just individual items” (Colton and Covert 2007: 265). It must also be admitted that an undeniable attraction of examining internal consistency reliability is a possibility to “compare results across and among items within a single instrument and to do so with 199

It should also be further explained that “The most common indicator used for reporting the reliability of an observational or instrumental procedure is the correlation coefficient. A coefficient is simply a number that represents the amount of attribute. A correlation coefficient is a number that quantifies the degree to which two variables relate to one another. Correlation coefficients used to indicate reliability are referred to as reliability coefficients. (…) Reliability coefficients range between 0.00 and +1.00. A coefficient of 0.00 means there is no reliability in the observation or measurement” Perry (2005: 130131).

415

only one administration” (Colton and Covert 2007: 79). Regarding the results of the analysis, after discarding the six questions, it was calculated that the internal consistency for the 34 items was on the level of 0.94 (for the majority of instruments values 0.8 are regarded as sufficient evidence of internal consistency – see, for instance, Marczyk et al. 2005: 103). Such a high value indicates that this 34-item questionnaire is highly consistent and that it well measures the construct of the power of English. Moreover, this may be thought as indicating that the operationalization of both the construct and its particular parameters was performed accurately.

4.4.

An examination of the perceived power of English among students

4.4.1. Introduction

The major part of the research was carried out on the 30th of March 2010 in Liceum Ogólnokształcące (a general upper secondary school) im. Tadeusza Kościuszki in Turek. The sample of students participating in the research amounted to 229 students (a response rate was 100%); the number of questionnaires accepted for the analysis was 221. With a view to making the conduct of the survey a standardized unbiased procedure, the following steps were taken:

1. research was conducted on the same day; 2. it was conducted by one researcher (the author of the thesis) who followed the same procedure (explanation, distribution etc.) in all classes; 3. the researcher was a person unknown to students who strived in no way to influence responses by suggesting what kind of results are expected or desirable (only very general unbiased explanation was provided as to the aim of the survey); 4. the survey was conducted during classes which could not make language issues more salient than they usually were for the students, at least, in the context of school (in this way Polish and foreign language classes were regarded as likely to produce biased responses).

It is noteworthy that the fact that the researcher did not teach in the school attended by the students must have contributed to greater honesty on the part of the respondents,

416

which itself is conducive to ensuring greater validity. Furthermore, in order to obtain additional insight, the same questionnaire was distributed among teachers of English. Nonetheless, the number of teachers of English who completed the questionnaire (seven; half of all teachers) did not allow for a statistical analysis.

4.4.2. Sampling procedure, and the independent variables

With respect to the sampling procedure, a decision was made to apply a non-probability sampling method belonging to the category of purposive sampling strategies. Specifically, bearing in mind the exploratory character of the research, it was recognized as adequate to apply maximum variation sampling. This method is believed to be especially useful in various types of exploratory investigations the aim of which is to probe into the ways in which various variables are related to each other and to find patterns emerging within groups exhibiting considerable variation (cf. Patton 1990: 172). Researchers opting for this method are argued to aspire “to find exemplars of a wide range of characteristics. The purpose of finding and studying these exemplars is to build a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon. It is not as important if the number of exemplars does not match their actual distribution in the population” (Lindlof and Taylor 2002: 123). Maximum variation sampling is considered to be helpful in “understanding how a phenomenon is seen and understood among different people” and in situation when for a variety of reason (time, cost, feasibility) probability sampling may be difficult or impossible to apply. As regards its representativeness, it is pointed out that:

Instead of seeking representativeness through equal probabilities, maximum variation sampling seeks it by including a wide range of extremes. The principle is that if you deliberately try to interview a very different selection of people, their aggregate answers can be close to the whole population's. (…) This is an extension of the statistical principle of regression towards the mean - in other words, if a group of people is extreme in several different ways, it will contain people who are average in other ways (List 2004).

Moreover, it is noted that “[i]n purposive sampling, researchers handpick the cases to be included in the sample on the basis of their judgement of their typicality” (Cohen et al. 2005:102). Accordingly, even though from the statistical point of view, it is quite impossible to prove the representativeness of such a sample and validly generalize

417

about the population as a whole, careful and standardized procedure of maximum variation sampling produces data that can at least point to the patterns occurring within specific groups of people. It may be argued that a sample obtained in this way is largely representative of itself, but if the research is a carefully chosen case study and variation of respondents in the sample represents largely the one found in the whole population, one may attempt to make some cautious broader generalizations. Therefore, having information about specific groups that make up a larger population, one may venture, after analyzing their contribution (e.g. size, importance) to the whole, to make some more generalized statements. To elaborate, it should be noted that the sampling procedure applied in this research essentially corresponded to the maximum variation sampling. An important refinement, aimed at obtaining results amenable to applying statistical analysis and making generalizations, was the choice of a sample significantly larger than usually researchers do in this type of investigations (this fact would place the study somewhere between the extremes of qualitative and quantitative research). It should be explained that the major interest on the part of the researcher was in the differences in perception of students who belonged to groups characterized by the following extremes: first-year vs. third year students, students attending advanced vs. basic courses in English, students from urban vs. rural areas, males vs. females, students having good grades (both grade point average – GPA – and, specifically, a semester grade in English) vs. those with poor ones, and finally, students whose fathers are well- vs. poorlyeducated200. The choice of such various groups (independent variables) was assumed to help find patterns in perception of the power of English among students attending upper secondary schools. Bearing in mind the obvious difficulty of finding, in an objective and standardized manner, an adequate number of students having grades (both in English and the mean of all) from the two extremes, an advantage was taken of the school statistics concerning an average GPA of whole classes. The simple logic behind this was that classes with high GPA have more students with very high GPA, and classes with very low GPA more students with very low GPA. Accordingly, a decision was made to investigate students from the first grades attending: two classes with the highest GPA, two classes with the lowest GPA, and two classes with the most average GPA (this was dictated by an endeavor to obtain greater representativeness of the whole 200

The education of father is assumed to significantly correspond to children’s prospective education and, thus, to their attitude to learning and education.

418

school, which would make it more justifiable to generalize about the population of all students). The same procedure was followed in the case of students from the third grades. It is noteworthy that a correct assumption was made that investigating such a large sample of students from first and third classes differing in terms of grades would also make it possible to obtain an adequate number of students differing also with respect to all the other independent variables of interest. These seven criteria according to which students were selected became independent variables to be correlated with the dependent ones (the specific parameters of the power of English, and the construct as whole). To elaborate on the items forming specific parameters, it should be reminded that each of them was composed of a different number of queries (for details see Appendix A):

1. seven demographical and numerical items concerning the following: the perception of the knowledge English by Poles in general (item 1); its command in comparison to other international languages (item 2); its command in big cities vs. small towns and rural areas (item 3); the perception of the number of learners of English as opposed to the one of other languages (item 4); the perception of the correlation between a command of English (item 5) (and a lack of it – item 7) and Poles’ education (good vs. poor one); the perception of the knowledge of English among Poles holding important posts (item 6); 2. three functional items referring to: the perceived usefulness of a command of English in most Poles’ everyday life (item 8); necessity on the part of many white-collar workers to know English to do their job (item 9); the perception of English as a tool for gaining access to knowledge and information that may be hard to obtain in Polish (item 10); 3. three items referring to the accessibility: the perception of English as a language more useful than others: in communication with foreigners coming to Poland (item 11), on trips abroad (item 12), in situations when Poles want to settle down abroad (item 14); 4. seven items referring to the material aspects: the perception of the usefulness of a command of English when seeking a job (item 13) and a lack of it as a factor preventing Poles from finding employment (item 16); the perceived commonness of knowledge of English among well-educated Poles (item 15); the usefulness of English (as opposed to other languages) when searching for a job 419

abroad (item 17); the perception of the opportunity to earn more money thanks to a command of English (item 18); the perceived prestige deriving from a knowledge of English (item 20) and a stigma resultant from a lack of it (item 19); 5. four items concerning language planning and policy: the perception of the role that English should play in the Polish educational system (item 21), the perception of the importance that English should have (in comparison to other foreign languages) in Polish schools (item 22); the perceived need to introduce English as a mandatory school-leaving exam in upper-secondary schools (item 23) and lower-secondary ones (item 24); 6. five items describing the phenomenon of Englishization: the perception of the influence of English (item 27) and American pop-culture (item 28) on the Polish language; the perceived influence of English on Polish culture (item 29); the perception of the commonness of use of anglicisms by Poles in general (item 30) and by younger generations (item 31); 7. three items referring to the attitude towards English: the perception of English as a useful (32a), nice (32b), and interesting (33c) language.

Importantly, it should be noted that the dependent variables and the power of English were measured by means of Likert-type summative scaling consisting of 5-point bivalent scales with 5 pointing to the positive and 1 to the negative extreme. Moreover, two additional questions were included in the questionnaire the aim of which was to probe into the perception of the quality of English language teaching in Polish schools (item 25) and the sufficiency of school classes to prepare students for the Matura exam (item 26). Because no random sampling procedure was implemented and because the research belongs to the category of case studies, a discussion concerning the mean value of the power of English and its particular parameters could be regarded as most valid only when applied to the sample of students and not its whole population. Nevertheless, to my mind, an argument may well be advanced that there is likely to be great similarity of the sample to the population of all students from the school and, by extension, to the majority of general upper-secondary schools in Poland. At least, it may be postulated that divergences between the population of all students’ from the school and other similar schools of the type are more than likely to be far less marked than the 420

similarities. One may assume so because of a couple of reasons. First of all, the sample encompasses first- and third-grade students not only from the best and the worst classes (in terms of grade point averages of whole classes) but also from the most average ones. Moreover, this focus on grades in sampling seemed to ensure a great diversity of students not only in terms of their sexes, the advancement of English courses attended by them, place of living, father’s education, but also other factors (which were not subject to direct examination and control); for instance, students’ GPA is undeniably related to their ambitions, aspirations, extracurricular activities, pastime activities, interests, or even social milieu. Another reason why the results may be generalized is that the differences between the extreme groups were found to be rather slight. That means that even the most perfectly sampled population in a random fashion (i.e. a sample reflecting the real numerical distribution of students belonging to particular groups and having certain social traits) would have provided results at most only slightly different, and probably flatter. All this suggests that the sample is rather well represented by students; this seems the more so taking account of the size of the sample. The number of students attending the school was 1292 and the number of questionnaires analyzed amounted to as many as 221 (more than every sixth student from the school participated in the research; and almost every third student from the first grades and every fourth from the third ones). With respect to the higher order generalization, i.e. the comparability of the students from the school in Turek to others found in Poland, there are also some reasons to think that one can venture to draw some more general conclusions based on the findings from the research. Accordingly, it should be noted that even though the secondary school in Turek finds itself quite regularly in the national ranking of best schools (but rather at the end of the list) by Perspektywy (usually places from the range 208 – 356 out of around 2000 schools of the type in Poland), it still may be regarded as a quite typical, and thus representative, one. This seems so since the school itself is the only one of this kind in the region and it accepts both very good and average students, as well as students from urban and rural areas. Furthermore, since the ranking is prepared on the basis of students’ results in national contests in school subjects, it does not say much about the general achievements of most students, which, in fact, may be regarded as rather average in the case of the school in Turek (for instance, in the first semester of the 2009/2010 school year the mean GPA of all first classes was 3.67, all second ones – 3.57, and all third ones 3.36). Lastly, like most students in Poland they 421

have in the majority of cases English as an obligatory language (they can learn it either at advanced or basic courses) and the lion’s share of them takes it as the obligatory foreign language in the Matura exam.

4.4.3. Results of the research 4.4.3.1. Introduction Regarding the statistical analysis applied in the research, a decision was made to use the linear correlation coefficient – the most popular measure of the correlation between a pair of variables. To elaborate, values assumed by the coefficient are found within the range -1 to +1; the ones which are close to integers point to the greatest statistical relation: rxy = 1 indicates a complete positive linear relation between variables (i.e. together with an increase of the values of variable x, the values of variable y increase as well; and the other way round); rxy = – 1 a complete negative linear relation (a decrease of values in one of the variables is accompanied by a drop of values in the other one), and rxy = 0 signifies no correlation at all. Using the correlation coefficient one should pay careful attention to the interpretation of its values. Above all, one should remember about the statistical significance of the results of research as dependent on the size of the sample (i.e. the number of observations). The threshold values of statistical significance on the level of p=0.1, p=0.05, p=0.01, and p=0.001 for specific sample sizes are compiled in Table 14. One can easily notice, for instance, that whereas the relatively high value of r=0.5 is not statistically significant, even on the level of p=0.01, for a sample of 10 observations, as low a value as r=0.074 is statistically significant with a sample of 500 observations. Therefore, when the sample size is relatively large even relatively low r values (e.g. r=0.2 or 0.3) may point to a statistically significant correlation. Importantly, one should bear in mind that the correlation coefficient does not inform about a causal relationship but about a statistical correlation between two variables. As an aside, it should be reminded that statistical significance symbolized by various p levels points to the probability of making an error by a researcher in his/her assumptions about relations between variables. In this way, the level of p=0.05 means that we agree to make 5 errors out of 100 measures, the level of p=0.01 that we agree to be wrong only once out of 100 cases.

422

Table 14. Threshold values of statistical significance for different sample sizes.201 The level of statistical significance The number of observations (the sample size)

p=0,1 p=0,05

p=0,01

p=0,001

r values assumed by the coefficient

10

0.549

0.632

0.765

0.872

20

0.378

0.444

0.561

0.679

50

0.235

0.279

0.361

0.451

100

0.165

0.197

0.256

0.324

200

0.117

0.139

0.182

0.231

500

0.074

0.088

0.115

0.147

4.4.3.2. Presentation of results

Importantly, the research clearly showed that all secondary school students, irrespective of their social characteristics, do perceive English to have a considerable power in Poland. This is indicated by the fact that an arithmetic mean value of the construct of the power of English calculated for the whole sample of students amounts to 3.95 on a five-point scale (a median is on the level of 3.94). Furthermore, a compilation of the mean values of the construct according to all independent variables points only to some minor differences among the groups of students (see Table 14). All mean values are within the range of 3.73 to 4.07, which suggests that the power of English as perceived by various groups of students is highly corresponding in terms of its strength. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that a positive correlation (r=0.27; statistically significant on the level of p=0.001) was found between the perception of the power of

201

On the basis of http://www.jeremymiles.co.uk/misc/tables/pearson.html

423

English and a semester grade in English (see also Table 4). The statistical analysis also showed significant correlations (on the levels of p=0.01) between the perceived power of English and respondents’ sex (r=-0.21) as well as the advancement of the English course attended by students (r=0.20). Additional calculations were made to establish the actual strength of the influence of these variables upon the power of English. To this end, the coefficient of determination (a squared value of the correlation one multiplied by 100%) was used to explain the degree to which the values or the variance of a given dependent variable (the power of English) can be accounted for by the values of the mmmm Table 15. Mean values of the power of English as perceived by various groups of students.

Independent variables (groups of students)

Fathers’ education

Class

Grade point average

Semester grade in English

Level of advancement

Place of living

Sex

Specific categories mmmm

The mean value of the power of English

Vocational and lower

3.96

Secondary education

3.97

Higher education

3.98

First-graders

3.96

Third-graders

3.99

Poor

3.76

Average

3.96

Good

4.02

Poor

3.73

Average

3.95

Good

4.07

Basic

3.89

Advanced

4.04

Urban area

4.00

Rural area

3.94

Girls

4.02

Boys

3.89

independent ones (see for instance, Colton and Covert 2007: 78). It turned out that the values of the power of English (i.e. its magnitude) were in more than 7% dependent on

424

a semester grade in English (the higher the grade, the greater the power of English), and in 4% dependent on both the sex of students and the level of courses they attended (the perception of the power of English was higher among girls and it rose together with the advancement of the courses). A mean value of responses to individual items was calculated to determine which aspects of the functioning of English in Poland contribute the most to the magnitude of the power of English and which the least (see Appendix C). Two the most important beliefs in this respect (both had mean values on as high a level as 4.6) were that English is a useful language (a component of attitude; item 32a) and one helping (the most) to communicate with foreigners on trips abroad (a component of accessibility, item 12). Almost just as important in the eyes of students (mean values in the order of 4.5) were beliefs concerning the perception of English as a useful language when seeking a job (a material aspect – item 13) and in situations demanding interactions with foreigners coming to Poles (accessibility – item 11). Considerably, higher mean values than the average (both on the level of 4.4) were also found in the case of beliefs concerning the usefulness of English for Poles willing to settle down abroad (accessibility, item 14) and the commonness of Poles’ learning English (demographical and numerical aspects, item 4). Conversely, it was calculated that items relating to beliefs that school-leaving exams in both lower- (item 24) and upper- (item 23) secondary schools should be mandatory (language planning and policy) had the lowest mean values of all (respectively, 3.1 and 3.2). The second lowest in order mean values (but considerably higher than the previous ones – 3.6) were found to be in the case of beliefs relating to the perception of the influence of English on the Polish language (item 27), culture (item 29), and the stigma which may be attached to people who do not know English (item 19). In addition, it should be noted that in the case of teachers (their mean value of the power of English amounted to 4.06) as many as four individual items had mean values higher than the highest one found in the group of students. To specify, beliefs about the commonness of learning English in Poland (item 4), its general usefulness (item 32a), and utility in communication with foreigners coming to Poles (item 11) as well as the role that it should play in the educational system (item 21) had all mean values in the order of 4.71. The second most important items in terms of their contribution to the overall magnitude of the power of English (both had mean values on the level of 4.57) were the beliefs that English is useful when looking for a job (item 13) 425

and that this language is interesting (item 32c). Of lowest importance in this respect were the beliefs concerning the introduction of mandatory Matura exams in English (item 23, mean value – 3.1), the usefulness of English in most Poles’ everyday life (item 8, mean value – 3.28), and the necessity on the part of white-collar workers in Poland to know the language to do their job (item 9, mean value – 3.28). Interestingly, teachers of English seem to believe that the knowledge of English in Poland is rather not common (the mean value, 3.43). As regards the mean values of lower-order dependent variables, it can be easily noticed (see Table 16) that there are some differences in the strength of particular parameters of the power of English. Nonetheless, it seems that correspondences in the way students and teachers evaluated the importance of individual indicators were more considerable. It was found out that the two most important parameters of the power of English, for both students and teachers, were accessibility and attitude. Whereas in the case of students accessibility came first (a mean value of 4.48) followed by attitude (4.08), for teachers the order was reverse with the mean value of attitude on the level of 4.57 and accessibility amounting to 4.38. Regarding the two weakest indicators of the construct in the eyes of students, these were language planning (a mean in the order of 3.62) and functional aspects (3.76). Interestingly, the latter ones turned out to be for teachers of lowest importance (3.56), considerably lower than the last but one demographical and numerical parameter (3.88). The mean values of the parameters between the two extremes (Englishization as well as material, and demographical aspects in the case of students; language planning, Englishization, and material aspects for teachers) oscillated around 4.0, a value still pointing to quite big strength of these indicators. In addition to mean values of the parameters, a median of students’ responses was calculated (due to a small number of questionnaires completed by teachers doing such calculations for this group was pointless). The greatest changes were found in the case of accessibility, language planning, Englishization, and functional aspects (see Table 16). After discarding the most extreme responses the value of accessibility increased as high as to 4.67, the one of Englishization to 4.0, and language planning to 3.75. In contrast, the value of functional aspects dropped to 3.67. Importantly, one should take heed of the high correspondence between the mean (3.95) and median (3.94) values of the power of English. This fact gives further evidence to the point that the majority of students perceive the importance and role English in Poland to be at least considerable. 426

mmm Table 16. The values of the power of English and its specific parameters – students as opposed to teachers of English. General values

Independent variables

Mean values (students)

Median values (students)

Mean values (teachers)

The power of English

3.95

3.94

4.06

Accessibility

4.48

4.67

4.38

Attitude

4.08

4.00

4.57

Material

4.02

4.00

4.05

Demographical and numerical

3.95

4.00

3.88

Englishization

3.83

4.00

4.08

Functional

3.76

3.67

3.56

Language planning and policy

3.62

3.75

3.91

Moreover, it is worth noticing that the mean values of the parameters pointing to the depth of English in Poland (Englishization as well as demographical and numerical aspects) turned out to contribute less to students’ overall perceived power of English in Poland (a mean on the level of 3.92) than its range (accessibility, functional and material aspects) – a value in the order of 4.08. Attitude and language planning and policy were assumed as not directly related to either range or depth; consequently, they should be considered as rather independent indicators of the power of English. Statistical analysis showed that even though the difference in values between the range and depth of English in Poland is rather minor, the high score of the correlation coefficient (r=0.47) indicates that it is systematic (statistically significant on the level of p=0.001) and that the range and depth do measure different aspects of the same construct – the power of English. As regards the correlation between the range and depth and the social characteristics of respondents, there were found to be only a few systematic differences. Specifically, statistically significant differences (p=0.05) in the perception of the range were found between students having the best and the worst grades as well as those attending advanced vs. basic courses in English (together with

427

better grades and more advanced classes came greater perceived range of English). Depth, in turn, was found to statistically correlate only with the sex of respondents (girls perceived it as greater than boys). Another important thing to be discussed is the correlation between the values of individual parameters (i.e. dependent variables) and the social characteristics of respondents (independent ones) (for details see Table 17 and Table 18). One can easily discern that all groups of students had quite a positive attitude (mean values oscillating around 4.0) towards English and that the differences between students in this respect were rather slight (see Table 17). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the differences in students’ overall evaluation of English (attitude) turned out to be systematic (i.e. the statistical significance of the variance rules out randomness of the score) and positively correlated with respondents’ level of advancement, a semester grade in English, and general point average (see Table 17). Moreover, it was also found out that girls tended to have a more favorable attitude towards English. As for Englishization, the mean values reveal that all groups of students perceived the influence of English and American culture to be rather high (values oscillate around 3.9) and that the variance between them is not statistically significant (see Table 17 and Table 18). As mentioned, the parameter relating to language planning and policy was found to contribute only slightly to the high value of the perceived power of English. In the case of students having poor grades (both GPA and a semester one in English) the indicator assumed values even slightly below 3.0 (only because of items 23 and 24, ‘school-leaving exams’). A positive (statistically significant) correlation was found between students’ grades (both GPA and a grade in English), level of advancement and higher values of the parameter (see Table 5 and Table 6). Another indicator of the construct which was similarly perceived by all groups of respondents (hence, there is no statistical significance of the variance in their responses) were material aspects (mean values amounting to 4.01).

428

Table 17. Mean values of specific parameters as determined by the independent variables (social traits of students). Independent variables Groups

Categories

Fathers’ education

Class

Grade point average

Semester grade in English

Level

Place of living

Sex

Specific parameters of the power of English – dependent variables Demograph.

Function.

Access.

Material

Policy

Englishiz.

Attitude

Vocational

4.01

3.68

4.45

3.98

3.58

3.93

4.07

Secondary

3.95

3.75

4.48

4.03

3.64

3.88

4.08

Higher

3.89

3.84

4.51

4.03

3.64

3.85

4.06

First-graders

3.95

3.74

4.47

4.04

3.56

3.89

4.03

Third-graders

3.95

3.78

4.49

3.99

3.70

3.89

4.14

Poor

3.92

3.56

4.31

4.05

2.92

3.77

3.77

Average

3.96

3.76

4.48

4.02

3.65

3.87

4.01

Good

3.95

3.78

4.51

4.01

3.69

3.96

4.28

Poor

3.87

3.46

4.38

4.01

2.98

3.69

3.71

Average

3.95

3.73

4.45

4.01

3.63

3.89

4.01

Good

3.98

3.89

4.55

4.03

3.81

3.96

4.30

Basic

3.95

3.69

4.42

3.98

3.43

3.85

3.89

Advanced

3.95

3.81

4.53

4.05

3.79

3.92

4.23

Town

3.95

3.79

4.52

4.05

3.65

3.88

4.16

Village

3.95

3.72

4.44

3.99

3.60

3.89

4.00

Girls

4.01

3.76

4.55

4.05

3.69

3.92

4.18

Boys

3.87

3.75

4.37

3.97

3.53

3.84

3.92

With respect to accessibility and demographical aspects, it was established that the distribution of mean values is closely equivalent in all groups (in the case of the former the values oscillated around 4.45 and the latter around 3.98) and that there is a statistically significant difference only according to the sex (p=0.05). The perceived power of these two individual parameters emerged as greater among girls (see Table 17 and Table 18). Regarding the last parameter, pointing to the functional aspects of English, the analysis showed that the discrepancies in the perception of this indicator were on a statistically significant level only in the case of students differing from each other in respect of a semester grade in English. As an aside, it should be mentioned that even though in some cases there was established to exist some systematic (non-random) patterns in the perception of the individual parameters mmmm

429

Table 18. The values of the linear correlation coefficient between dependent and independent variables; iistatistical significance of the correlations.202

Accessibility

Material

0.00

-0.14

0.11

0.05

0.06

0.03

-0.05

0.00

Class

0.03

0.00

0.04

0.01

-0.08

0.09

0.01

0.07

Grade point average

0.13

0.00

0.06

0.08

-0.03

0.15

0.10

0.22*

Semester grade in English

0.27**

0.08

0.21*

0.14

0.03

0.28**

0.12

0.29**

Level of advancement

0.20*

0.03

0.09

0.12

0.13

0.23**

0.04

0.23*

Place of living

-0.08

0.00

-0.07

-0.10

-0.08

-0.03

0.01

-0.12

Sex

-0.21*

-0.22*

0.00

-0.20*

-0.12

-0.10

-0.07

-0.20*

Independent variables

patterns in the perception of the individual parameters according to the social characteristics of students, their relative power (indicated by the coefficient of determination) was rather slight. To specify, no individual independent variable can account for more than 8% of the variance in the perception of individual indicators of the power of English (the range of the values of the coefficient of determination for the 9 statistically significant relations between the parameters and students social characteristics was within 4%-8%). This may be thought to mean that the perception of the specific indicators of the power of English among upper-secondary school students, even the ones differing with respect to various important for this group social characteristics, is to a large degree corresponding. Some attention should also be paid to the contribution of individual items in determining the values of particular parameters. Only in two instances (accessibility, and functional aspects) the mean values of all individual items of a parameter were highly similar in terms of their perceived strength (regarding the former the values of items oscillated around 4.4 and the latter around 3.7; for details see Appendix C). The 202

Statistically significant relations between the variables are indicated by means of an asterisk (significance on the level of p=0.01), a double asterisk (p=0.001), and values in italic (p=0.05).

430

Attitude

Functional

Father’s education

General

Englishization

Demographical and numerical

Dependent variables

Language planning and policy

Parameters

greatest discrepancies in this respect were found to be in the case of language planning and policy. To specify, whereas items 23 and 24 (the ones concerning the obligatory status of school leaving exams in English) assumed mean values around 3.1, queries 21 and 22 (they referred to the general importance that teaching English should have in the Polish educational system) had mean values oscillating around 4.1. Another indicator of the power of English whose items were of highly different strength was the one concerning material aspects. While items 13 and 17 (referring to the job opportunities in Poland and abroad) as well as 15 (a command of English by well-educated Poles) had values in the order of 4.48, 4.22 and 4.21, item 19 (‘a perceived stigma’), item 16 (lack of command as impediment to finding a job), and 20 (the prestige) had values considerably lower (respectively, 3.58, 3.82, 3.85). Regarding demographical and numerical aspects, the two most important items were queries 4 (the number of learners of English – 4.39) and 2 (its command in comparison to other languages – 4.09) and the least significant ones were items 1 (knowledge of English by most Poles – 3.69) and 3 (differences in the command between urban and rural areas – 3.73). Quite considerable differences between individual items were also found in the case of the indicator pointing to students’ perception of Englishization. Specifically, in comparison to items 31 and 30 (concerning the use of anglicisms by younger generations and by Poles in general) which assumed values in the order of, respectively, 4.18 and 3.92, items 27 and 29 (asking about the influence of English on Polish and Polish culture) had both mean values amounting to 3.58. As for students’ attitude, even though all items assumed at least quite high values, item 32 (the perception of English as a useful language) having the mean value on the level of 4.56 turned out far stronger than queries 33 and 34 (the perception of English as a nice and interesting language) which assumed values, respectively, 3.9 and 3.76. The fact that in the case of some parameters the items forming these individual indicators were of different strength may be thought as indicative of the special importance of some aspects of the functioning of English in Poland in determining its overall perceived power. It is also worth noticing that the values of even the weakest items were in most cases considerably greater than 3.0 – a value pointing to neither the power of English, nor a lack of it. Only items 23 and 24 (school-leaving exams) had values which were rather low in the case of almost all groups of students (students having the best grades in English and attending advanced language courses responded to the queries more favorably – the mean was in the order of 3.4). 431

Some additional insight into the perceived functioning of English in Poland may be obtained thanks to an analysis of the statistically significant variance in students’ responses to particular queries. It should be pointed out that out of 32 items included in the construct ‘the power of English’, more than a half (17) was differently perceived by at least one group of students, i.e. the responses differed with respect to at least one independent variable (statistically significant difference with p value on the levels within the range 0.05 – 0.01). As many as 6 items (scales 21, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34) manifested variance according to at least 2 independent variables. Moreover, it turned out that the most significant independent variable in causing variance in students’ responses were a semester grade in English (caused statistically significant differences in 9 items), the level of advancement of the courses attended by students (8 items), and sex (5 items). It should also be mentioned that the coefficient of determination calculated for all the statistically significant correlations between individual items and social characteristics of respondents showed that no independent variable can account for more than 7% of the variance in students responses to single queries. To elaborate, statistically significant differences were found between the responses of first- vs. third-graders to items 1, 3, 20, and 23. Students from third grades tended to perceive the knowledge of English in rural areas as less common and were generally slightly more in favor of making English an obligatory Matura exam. In contrast, first-graders saw general knowledge of English in Poland as more common and associated it more strongly with prestige. Another important independent variable which caused variance in responses (in items 6, 9, 21, 32, and 33) was sex. It was found out that females stronger believed that a command of English is widespread among Poles holding important (more prestigious) posts (item 6) and that its knowledge is necessary for white-collar workers to do their jobs (item 9). Girls also perceived English to be nicer (item 33) and more useful (item 32). Additionally, even though both girls and boys asserted that the role of English in the Polish educational system should be significant (item 21), the former would like it to be greater than the latter (4.3 and 4.0). As mentioned, the level of advancement proved the second most important variable in terms of producing statistically significant variance in responses. Specifically, students from more advanced groups tended to consider English to be more important when looking for a job (item 13), more useful in communication with foreigners coming to Poland (item 11), and more likely to give access to information and knowledge inaccessible in Polish (item 10). Furthermore, in addition to a quite obvious finding that 432

students attending more advanced courses considered English as nicer (item 33) and more interesting (item 34), it was discovered that in comparison to students from the other group they would also like the English language to play a greater role in the Polish educational system (item 21) and, by extension, that school-leaving exams in English should be compulsory at both upper- and lower-secondary levels (items 23 and 24). By far the most significant independent variable was a semester grade in English. Not only did students having the best grades in English perceive the language as more useful (item 32), nicer (item 33), and more interesting (item 34), but also considered it generally more useful in everyday life (item 8). Interestingly, they also more strongly believed that the role of English in Polish language planning and policy (all items referring to this parameter, scales 21, 22, 23, 24) should be (more) significant. Moreover, students having the best grades in English were the only group that believed significantly more often that a lack of knowledge of English may be an obstacle in finding a job in many professions. As regards grade point average, this variable turned out to impact only on the attitude towards English, i.e. students having higher GPA thought English to be more useful (item 32), nicer (item 33), and more interesting (item 34). It should also be noted that the place of living turned out to be a factor causing systematic variance in the case of the perceived correlation between a command of English and one’s education (item 5) and the belief that a command of English can give access to knowledge and information which may be difficult to obtain in Polish (item 10). Specifically, students from rural areas believed that a good knowledge of English is more related to better education (only very slight difference) and that it is less likely to give access to knowledge inaccessible otherwise (that is in Polish). The least significant social characteristic of students was father’s education. It impacted only on the perception of English as a source of knowledge and information (item 10), i.e. students whose fathers had higher education diplomas were more convinced that English may provide information and knowledge that may not be obtained in Polish. Additional insight into the perception of the indicators of the power of English may be yielded by means of an analysis of mutual relations between individual pairs of mmmm

433

Englishization

Attitude

Language planning and policy

Englishization

Material

Language planning and policy

Accessibility

Material

Functional

0.16

Accessibility

Demographical and numerical

Functional

Parameters

Demographical and numerical

Table 19. The values of the correlation coefficient between individual pairs of dependent variables (the parameters of the power of English).203

0.26**

0.37**

0.17

0.08

0.27**

0.26**

0.29**

0.37**

0.31**

0.32**

0.33**

0.38**

0.21*

0.36**

0.34**

0.27**

0.34**

0.16

0.53** 0.24**

Attitude

the parameters (see Table 19). They shed light on other type of patterns in students’ perception of the power of English in Poland. Moreover, the high p-levels of statistically significant relations between the parameters found in all but one case seems to give further evidence of the fact that they are in fact measures of the same underlying concept. Importantly, the relatively low (aside from one instance) values of the correlational coefficient pointing to their mutual relations may be interpreted as meaning that they indeed relate to different aspects of the power of English. In addition, the positive correlations between the parameters indicate that a strong perception of one aspect is conducive, to varying degrees, to perceiving the other aspects of the power of English strongly as well. Attitude, in this respect, seems to be correlated the most with the positive perception of other indicators. It seems to be an especially important factor which may be impacting on the perceived importance that the English language should have in Polish language planning and policy. In contrast, the least correlated with other parameters (in the case of one pair the relation is even not statistically significant on the p-level in the order of 0.05) is the one concerning demographical and numerical aspects of the power of English. This may mean that students’ perception of other parameters (among others, accessibility, material or functional aspects) may, in fact, be based more

203

Statistically significant relations between the parameters are indicated by means of an asterisk (significance on the level of p=0.01), a double asterisk (p=0.001), and values in italic (p=0.05).

434

on other factors, for instance, generally held beliefs, opinions or stereotypes rather than their factual knowledge. Despite many advantages of the correlation analysis applied above, it cannot provide insight into the combined effect of the independent variables upon the dependent one. With a view to establishing such an influence, regression analysis was performed to investigate this issue. Regression analysis is a statistical method allowing to estimate expected (theoretical) values of a given feature (dependent variable) on the basis of values of other features (independent variables). Out of many methods of constructing and estimating the parameters of the model of multiple linear regression, a decision was made to apply stepwise regression. This method consists in including to the initial model of regression as many potential independent variables as possible and eliminating one by one those which do not have a statistically significant influence on the variance of the values of the dependent variable and the elimination of which lead only to a slight decrease of the so called fitting of a model to empirical data. All calculations were made by using SPSS 16. In the initial phase of the analysis applying stepwise regression enabled to include in the preliminary model all ‘explaining’ independent variables, i.e. the following social characteristics of respondents: sex (x1), fathers’ education (x2), place of living (x3), class (x4), level of advancement (x5), grade point average (x6), semester grade in English (x7). In the next stages of the analysis, three independent variables were eliminated (the ones which did not have a considerable influence on the variance of the power of English and the absence of which in the model only slightly impacted on its power to estimate the value of the dependent variable). The four independent variables which remained in the model (sex, level of advancement, GPA, and a semester grade in English) were all statistically significant on the level of at least p=0.05. The results of the regression analysis point to the fact that the combined effect of all most meaningful independent variables allows one to account for the variance of the perceived power of English only to some limited extent. This is so since the value of the coefficient of determination (the so called r2) reflecting the goodness of fit of the model to empirical data and informing about the percentage of the explained variance in the perception of the construct amounted only to 15%. In other words, it means that basing on information about students’ sex, level of advancement, GPA, and a semester grade in English one can explain only 15% of the total variance in their perception of the power of English. Accordingly, in the case of students from this general upper secondary 435

school the magnitude of the power of English can only in 15% be accounted for by these four variables. Moreover, it is possible to say that the strongest perception of the power of English is most likely to be found among girl students who have good grades (both GPA and a semester grade in English) and attend advanced courses in English. There can be two possible interpretations of this state of affairs. First of all, such low explanatory character of the model may be caused by including in the research too few (or even wrong) independent variables. This seems highly unlikely bearing in mind the number of considered variables, their highly discriminative character in the case of students’ lives, and their reported (in the sociolinguistic literature) importance in the perception of linguistic issues and in actual language behavior, esp. sex (females vs. males), place of living (rural vs. urban areas), age (first-graders are still more like adolescents, and third-graders are already young adults), aspirers vs. non-aspirers (achievers vs. non-achievers) this was indicated most of by students’ grades). Therefore, an alternative explanation is far more probable and, as it seems, confirmed to some degree by the national opinion polls reported in the first section of the chapter. Specifically, it appears that the considerably low explanatory character of the model is caused most of all by the great similarity in students’ perception of the power of English. This is largely a reflection of the generally perceived importance of the language by the majority of Poles (see the first part of the Chapter four and Chapter three). Lastly, it should be reminded that there were two additional queries included in the questionnaire. Item 25 asked students how they perceived the quality of teaching English in Polish public schools (in general) and item 26 about the quality (sufficiency) of public schools’ courses aimed at preparing students for the Matura exam (usually ordinary school lessons with a greater focus on the school-leaving exam). Interestingly, these issues were evaluated differently by students from first and third grades (this was the only independent variable which influenced the values assumed by the items in a statistically significant manner). It is noteworthy that third-graders in both cases evaluated the quality of teaching English in public schools less positively and that both groups of students did not perceive it too favorably. To specify, whereas students from the first classes evaluated the general quality of teaching slightly positively (item 12 was on the level 3.35, with 3.0 pointing to neither high nor low quality), students from the last grades saw it slightly negatively (2.89). A bit more favorable was the perception

436

of the quality of preparing students for the school leaving exam; item 26 assumed the value 3.63 in the case of first-graders and 3.35 in the evaluation of third-graders.

4.4.3.3. Bias and suggestions for further research

It appears that what comes to the fore when considering the bias and limitations of the study is the sampling procedure applied in this research. Even though the sampling strategy per se should not be condemned since sound arguments are made that “[t]he sample, like all other aspects of qualitative inquiry, must be judged in context…” (and the context and the purpose of the inquiry seemed to justify the choice of maximum variation sampling), some criticism may be voiced over attempts to generalize the results of the study to the broader context (Patton 1990: 185). The problem seems to lie in impossibility to unambiguously substantiate the claim that conclusions drawn from the research may be applied to the whole population of either students from the school or other such schools in Poland. Another charge that could be made by some researchers against this investigation is that in the initial stages of research design too few items referring to general aspects of the functioning of English in Poland were put to the test. Moreover, further (obviously, justifiable) points could be made that the pool of items selected for examination was not evaluated by more specialists in the field and that there was no standardized procedure developed for the expert examination of the instrument in terms of its face validity. In addition to addressing in further research the problems mentioned above, some more thought should be given to a few other issues. First of all, one should reconsider the parameter of attitude, and specifically, the actual attitude-object relations. In the research conducted by the author of the thesis a decision was made to investigate students’ general attitude to English, nevertheless, it would be interesting, insightful (or even useful for the design of further research) to compare the results of pilot studies employing also other attitude-objects, for instance, attitude to the role of English played in Poland, attitude to the role of English in the world, attitude to the influence of English etc. Second of all, it would be advisable to further ponder over the formulation of the question asking about some aspects of the functioning of English in comparison to other languages. On the one hand, such phrasing seemed reasonable since it gave greater insight; it provided information concerning the relative importance of English as 437

compared to other languages. In other words, such wording was more insightful since it allowed to learn not only if English is important but also if it is more so in comparison to other foreign languages (other languages could also be seen as important and a different formulation would not allow one to say that it is indeed more powerful than others). On other hand, this formulation could be argued to make it more difficult to say if the construct investigated is the perceived power of English, or the perceived power of English in comparison to other languages (even though this issue does not seem to be of prime importance). Both in fact point to the power of English (possibly, to different aspects of the power), but it would be good to compare the results from two separate studies using different wording. Moreover, since the research showed that the items concerning the introduction of English as a compulsory subject in school-leaving exams do not, in fact, contribute significantly to the greater power of English (at least in the case of respondents in the schools age), one should reconsider if they should be included in further investigations carried out in schools. Finally, it would be interesting to include in the questionnaire additional scales explicitly asking respondents about their general, perceived role/importance of English in their lives, in Poland, and in the world. Such items would not only provide additional insight in themselves, but would also make it possible to examine how answers to such queries would correspond to the perception of the concept ‘the power of English.’ This latter could in fact suggest answers to the question if the proposed operationalization of the construct can claim to examine the perceived role/importance of English, or if it provides some other kind of insight.

4.4.3.4. Final notes

Evidence presented in the account of the research seems to confirm the hypothesis that students of English do perceive English to have a big role (power) in Poland. Regarding the second hypothesis, it turned out to be confirmed only in the case of the assumed positive correlation between the strength of the perceived power of English and students’ sex (girls’ as more sensitive to the power), a semester grade in English (aspirers as a more perceptive group), and the level of the advancement of the course attended by students (greater command as accompanied by greater awareness of the power of the language). Other independent variables referring to students’ social 438

characteristics did not prove to manifest a statistically significant correlation with the construct of the power of English (but most did so in the case of either individual parameters or single items). Implications and conclusions following from the empirical part of the thesis are grouped in four major sections concerning descriptive, methodological, applied, and theoretical issues:

1. Descriptive: •

English is perceived by secondary school students as a language having considerable power in Poland;

•

The differences in the perception between secondary school students according to their social characteristics are only moderate, which means that the power of English is similarly evaluated by all groups of students;

•

There was found to be a statistically significant difference in the perception of the range (accessibility, functional, and material aspects) and depth (Englishization, demographical and numerical aspects) of English in Poland, with the former being of slightly greater perceived strength in the eyes of students;

•

Even though the perception of the power of English in Poland seems universal, one can discern some systematic differences even within a single community of secondary school students attending the same school;

•

The factors related the most with variance in students’ beliefs about English were the sex of students, a semester grade in English, and the advancement of the course they attend;

•

Even though the evaluation of all major aspects of the functioning of English in Poland (the indicators singled out by the author of the research) points to the perceived power of English, some of them turned out especially salient;

•

Attitude (especially its instrumental component), accessibility, and material aspects are the three most important parameters contributing to the high perceived power of English, irrespective of the social characteristics of respondents;

•

Favorable attitude to English is correlated the most with the positive (strong) perception of all other indicators of its power;

439

•

The usefulness of English (general and in job related situations), as well as its utility in contacts with foreigners were recognized as the strongest held beliefs contributing the most to the perceived power of the language;

•

Students evaluate English also in a more experiential manner (it is for them also a school subject) and describe it as being nice, interesting, and relatively easy to learn;

•

Much indicates that the findings and patterns discussed above may also be applicable to most general secondary school students, but most likely not to students attending completely different types of schools (e.g. basic vocational ones).

2. Methodological: •

Careful implementation of the maximum variation sampling can be successfully used to investigate patterns in the perception of (socio-)linguistic phenomena;

•

Contextualization should accompany every stage of qualitative research design (especially, the choice of research tools, the instrument, and sampling procedure);

•

The power of English emerges as a concept that can be successfully operationalized and applied to investigate sociolinguistic phenomena;

•

Further research is needed to examine the utility and value of the insight obtained from investigating the perceived power of English;

•

Further research is necessary to investigate the effect that different ways of phrasing single items forming particular parameters may have on respondents’ answers and their understanding of questions;

•

The choice of factors (independent variables) causing variance in responses should be based not only on literature on the topic but also preliminary more ethnographic oriented survey (e.g. grades in the case of respondents being still students and pupils).

3. Theoretical: •

The perceived power of English emerges as construct which can successfully be applied to obtain valuable insight into the perception of the functioning of

440

English(es) in various contexts and in this way as one contributing to building up theoretical knowledge in the field of World Englishes; •

The study showed empirically that all major aspects (indicators) of the power of English described in sociolinguistic literature are recognized by secondary school students;

•

The folk perception of these phenomena is dependent only to a certain (moderate) extent on respondents’ social characteristics which points to the universality of the perceived power of English among secondary school students;

•

English is perceived as more powerful by young aspirers and females; both seem interested more than other students in sharing in the power be means of acquiring the language;

•

The universal presence of English in Poles’ lives, the reach of beliefs about its instrumental functions and the commonness of English language learning in Poland (assuming the scale of macro-acquisition) may be leading to greater awareness of various phenomena related to its sociolinguistic functioning (even among adolescents who seem, in general, less cognizant of the power relations present in the adult world);

•

The strength of students’ beliefs concerning the instrumental functions of English seems to manifest the hegemonic power that English has in Poland (see also 2.2.2.1).

4. Applied: • Even though English emerges in the eyes of all secondary school students as a foreign language which should be decidedly the most important in the school system and a subject which should play an important role in the Polish educational system (see items 21, 22 in the Appendix), students would not like it to become an obligatory subject in school-leaving exams at the end of both lower- and upper-secondary school levels. This seems to give legitimacy to the claim the because of motivations reasons ELT in Poland should not be obligatory but regulated by bottom-up mechanisms; •

Students’ perception of the quality of teaching in Polish public schools is rather not too favorable;

441

•

Students’ perceived importance of English should be taken advantage of to a larger extent in motivating them to study the language;

•

Research should be conducted if the perceived power of English does not impact negatively on students’ interest in and willingness to learn other languages.

4.5. Concluding remarks In contemporary Poland the perception of the power of English seems to be based most of all on the beliefs about the utilitarian values of the language (English as a must in the job market, English as an access to knowledge, English as an international means of communication, English as a language learnt by all, English as a symbol of the presentday culture/spirit). Even favorable attitudes seem to be determined most of all by its instrumental components. Nevertheless, one would make a sweeping generalization asserting that the perception of all aspects of the functioning of English in Poland is invariably favorable. Kachru’s remark that one can observe love-hate relationship with English seems to be applicable also to the context of Poland. As the overview of the situation in Chapters 3 and 4 suggests, the power of English is in fact discerned, accepted (or even approved of) by most Poles. In general, they do not protest about it, succumb to it, or even by their actions (learning, teaching, ensuring lessons for their children, spreading favorable beliefs etc.) contribute to increasing the power bases of the language. On the other hand, quite many Poles complain not only about the influence of English on the Polish language and culture but also about the fact that the knowledge of English is becoming a must in increasingly more professions and occupations. The perception of English as a symbol of qualifications and good education is leading to a situation in which its command is required even from specialists who, in fact, do not have an immediate need to know it to do their job adequately. This fact forces many (adult) people to devote much time, and money to learn the language to become more competitive in the job market.

442

Conclusion

An analysis of the World Englishes paradigm (understood in the broad sense of the term) and a tentative observation (and knowledge) of the sociolinguistic functioning of English in Poland allowed the author to come to a conclusion that the most significant aspects necessary to delineate a (macro-)sociolinguistic picture of English in posttransformational Poland are (1) Englishization and Americanization of the Polish language and culture, (2) the stratificational functioning of English, (3) language planning and policy, (4) sociolinguistic aspects of English language teaching, (5) attitudinal aspects concerning English, its status, diffusion, and impact, (6) the power of English. It was also recognized that accounting for the functioning of English in Poland cannot be analyzed without reference to more global forces impacting on the actual local profile of English. Just as every part of the description of the sociolinguistics of English in Poland greatly owes its final shape, contents, focus, and approach to the first two state-of-the-art chapters, hardly any conclusion would have been arrived at without relating the descriptive facts from Chapters 3 and 4 to the more general principles, models, interpretations and theories. A holistic integrative approach adopted in this project means, thus, not only a comprehensive choice of topics relevant to the sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in Poland but also an integration of major current approaches and models to account for the existing phenomena and processes. For reasons of clarity the following section of the thesis is divided into subsections referring to various descriptive, applied, empirical and methodological implications arising from the discussion of the sociolinguistic functioning of English in post-transformational Poland. In addition, an attempt is made at a more theoretical interpretation of the phenomena and processes observable in Poland in the last two decades.

443

I Descriptive conclusions and explanations – facts, processes, causes and reasons 1. Global forces and other sociolinguistic prerequisites for the spread of English in uiPoland: •

A particular niche in the market for English existed in Poland already before 1989 but it was lessened (or even denied) by the communist regime that (1) did not maintain political and economic contacts with the West, (2)i strived to censor anglophone cultural products, and curb their influence, and (3) limit access to English language teaching;

•

The great perceived (and real) demand for English, its rapid dispersion, and dramatically increasing influence occurred in the context where the power bases of the language had already been quite solidly formed prior to 1989 by to the following factors: a. the symbolic perception of English as a language of the West to which Poles aspired economically, mentally, and culturally; b. the popularity and appeal of American (pop) culture; c. the functioning of English as an elite lingua franca of Polish scholars; d. English was already then a lingua franca of the globalizing world, as well as a language used by the only super power of the time – the US – a country which Poles had already regarded as an ally rather than a foe; e. the activities of the British Council aimed at spreading counter-communist ideological discourses and strengthening beliefs among the Polish elite about the perceived importance of English and the appeal of the anglophone (and Western) world and culture;

•

The dramatic demand for English in post-1989 Poland (especially in the early 1990s) was caused by Polish political and, as a corollary, economic and cultural transformation;

•

The spread of English in post-1989 Poland has been caused most of all by a variety of external global forces which, offering no alternative, coerced Poles into learning the language so as not to experience isolation and exclusion from the global community and the world econocultural system;

•

The spread of English in Poland resulted from Poles’ ambition to both participate in the present day world, its economy, and culture (i.e. the econocultural system) and become

444

a member of international organizations protecting and strengthening its economic, political and military position and security; •

A command of English has been an important element of not only educational but also political and economic strategy of Poland (its turn to the West and globalized economy);

•

Numerous

governmental,

non-governmental,

educational,

and

other strategic

documents concerning educational and language policy of Poland recognized and/or promoted English as one of the crucial skills that Poles should acquire; •

Numerous foreign governmental and non-governmental organizations, agencies and programs helped Poland (usually on its own initiative) to spread English language teaching;

•

The de facto status of English as a lingua franca of the EU (and Europe) contributed significantly to the further diffusion and rise of importance of English in Poland;

•

The spread of English in post-1989 Poland has been an important tool in our transformation into information society and participation in information based economy;

•

The present role, status and diffusion of English in Poland is invariably related to Polish (1) economic, cultural, and political contacts with (and travels to) both anglophone and non-anglophone countries, (2) intensified attempts to attract foreign tourists, capital, and investors, (3) contacts with and/or participation in various governmental and nongovernmental international organizations;

2. Sociolinguistic aspects related to ELT and Polish language policy: •

The spread of English in post-1989 Poland has resulted from Poles’ desire the learn the language and the governments’ actions to provide them with ELT;

•

Throughout the last two decades English has been dynamically spreading in Poland, which is well evidenced by the increasing universality of its command, learning, and its growing presence in the public sphere;

•

The diffusion and increasing status of English in post-1989 Poland should also be seen as caused by the bottom-up demand for English coupled with its profound significance on the top-level business, politics, and commerce;

445

•

Instrumental motivation is the major reason for Poles’ interest in learning English; integrative motivation seems to be of far lesser importance and as such it appears related more to a desire to become a member of the contemporary world and an active participant in and a consumer of the globalized culture which is frequently symbolically represented by and accessible through English;

•

The privileged position of English has been consciously strengthened and finally sanctioned by Polish policy makers;

•

The organization of foreign language teaching in the Polish educational system makes it easier (in some respects) to become proficient in English rather than in other languages;

•

ELT in Poland is a business activity from which considerable profits are made by the UK and the US; the Polish side has also strived to capitalize on Poles’ widespread rush to English;

•

For almost two decades teaching English has been a stratificational factor (caused at first by limited availability of ELT and then considerable differences in its quality) widening the gap between the rich and the poor, the better and worse educated, and the ones living in urban vs. rural areas;

•

For over a decade English offered to teachers and other Poles having a command of it greater opportunities to earn extra money, obtain various other benefits, and enjoy considerable prestige;

•

ELT in Polish non-mainstream education has been a complex phenomenon which cannot be subject to one-sided assessment;

•

There still exist too great differences in the conditions and quality of ELT (in public schools) between various teachers, types of schools, and regions (esp. rural vs. urban areas);

•

It seems that the in-service teacher training does not, in the majority of cases, fulfill its role with respect to improving teachers’ command of language, which continues to disadvantage some students and perpetuate the need for tuition;

•

Adopted educational reforms seem to be slowly improving and equalizing educational opportunities of school age children in Poland with respect to ELT;

•

Other phenomena that can be observed include a decreasing demand for teachers of English and a rising competition among them in the job market;

446

•

A command of English is starting to be a necessary but quite unremarkable skill required at increasingly higher levels of proficiency, by increasingly more employers and in increasingly more contexts;

•

Polish post-transformational language policy seems to have been the choice of a lesser evil in which at first a focus was on ensuring widespread availability of ELT and only then striving to improve its quality;

3. Cultural, and linguistic implications related to the spread and functioning of uuEnglish in post-1989 Poland: •

Cultural asymmetry is clearly visible in the case of the influence of American and British culture on Polish culture and vice versa;

•

The societal changes of the post-transformational Poland (e.g. the emergence of Polish middle class, the spread of consumptionist lifestyle) contribute to and indicate the Americanization (and accompanying Englishization) of life, culture and language;

•

The cultural impact of the anglophone civilization in its totality has been contributing to the spread and popularization of Western (American) globalized and consumptionist discourses, ideology, lifestyles, mores, and values as well as the diffusion of the English language and borrowings;

•

Were it not for the American mass culture (its perceived appeal and attractiveness) and the (multi)symbolicity of English, the Englishization and Americanization of the Polish language and culture would probably be considerably smaller;

•

Native-language competence of younger generations of Poles developed in the period of heavy influence of English. This may have impacted on young adults’ and adolescents’ language awareness (and competence) and triggered off or strengthened some changes in the grammar system of Polish;

•

Translations of books and films (especially the inadequate ones) seem to have significantly contributed to Englishization and Americanization of the Polish language and culture;

•

The number of borrowings from English (adopted in the last two decades) outnumbers greatly recent loanwords from all other languages;

•

The comprehension of borrowings (especially of more specialist vocabulary) among Poles seems relatively poor;

447

•

The commonness of the use of borrowings varies across different social groups; younger, better educated and holding more prestigious posts Poles usually tend to use and perceive their use as more common (and, in fact, they are for them more acceptable and easier to understand);

•

The abundance of anglicisms in the technical and colloquial registers points to the type of contacts between Polish and English (i.e. mostly cultural and technological);

•

The frequency of occurrence of certain anglicisms (especially in advertising and the media), the rise of importance of the areas in which they abound, and the eye-catching purposes for which they are adopted add to the increased perception of their omnipresence;

•

Lexical borrowing from English results not only from the need to fill lexical gaps but also from a variety of other reasons: (1) to increase the creativity potential (e.g. in the field of advertising, youth slang; borrowing is also the easiest way to coin new words without risking ridicule due to the usage of lexical items having a strong connotative tinge); (2) to manifest the expertise that is associated with the use of specialist anglicisms; (3) to acquire and, subsequently, symbolically express the prestige and quality that is associated with products having English names; (4) to express solidarity (or deny it) with other interlocutors; (5) to break a taboo (curses, etc.); (6) to add new emotive coloring of words; (7) to capture attention (especially, in the field of advertising, but also in newspaper and magazine headlines and headings); (8) to participate in (or create) language fashions;

•

To claim that some borrowings are superfluous is to adopt paternalistic attitudes and an ‘ex cathedra’ approach, both of which deny their significant sociolinguistic meanings and messages as well as the sociolinguistic realities of their functioning. Such an attitude denies people the right to utilize them to achieve a range of various languagemediated goals (even if the goals are not likely to be approved of, anglicisms are here only the means), and deprives them of the right to be creative in language use;

4. ‘Attitudinal’ implications related to the spread of English, its role and influence: •

Whereas the spread of English enjoys general acceptance and approval among Poles, its learning (just as influence) has been more negatively perceived;

448

•

English itself, its spread, command, learning, and influence evoke different attitudes among Poles since they refer to different attitude-objects;

•

The functioning of English in Poland does not enjoy unanimous approval among Poles, nevertheless, negative attitudes seem to be more discreet in comparison to various Outer- and Expanding-Circle locations;

•

The multisymbolicity of English in Poland consists in associating it with (1) a language of various opportunities; (2) an international link language par excellence; (3) a language of prestige; (4) a symbolic medium of the West, American culture, and the better life; (5) a mark of good education and a man of the world; (6) a threat to the Polish language and culture; (7) a gatekeeper to success in various scholarly and specialist professions;

•

Private tuition in English was (and to a far lesser degree still is) perceived as a status symbol;

•

English allows Poles to transcend their group membership and seek identity with various global (imagined) communities frequently forming specific interest groups (e.g. hip hop fans, experts in specialist fields, tourism);

•

Poles’ language awareness concerning the power of English seems to be quite high, yet, they seem pretty unaware of the degree of its impact on the Polish language and culture;

•

It seems that aspirers (high achievers), women, and people having a greater command of English perceive the power of English as greater and appreciate to a larger extent the opportunities it offers;

•

The perceived power of English seems, at least among certain groups of Poles, to hinge most of all on their favorable attitudes, the perception of English as a link language, and as a language of opportunities;

•

Poles’ language awareness concerning the pluricentricity of English, various dialects and accents may be on the increase due to more frequent visits to anglophone and nonanglophone countries;

•

Poles discern the power of English, accept it, and by learning the language contribute to its further development;

•

All in all, Poles seem to approve of (at least covertly) American culture and the Americanization of life;

449

•

English language teaching does not seem to be perceived by Polish academic circles as a suspicious or controversial activity;

•

Native-speaker varieties (especially RP and GA) enjoy greater prestige and evoke more favorable attitudes than non-native ones;

5. The power of English in Poland (its range and depth) as compared to more uugeneral tendencies: •

The demographical and numerical aspects: Similarly to European trends (and more global ones) English in Poland is the most commonly known and taught foreign language; it is also a language whose command seems to be constantly on the increase;

•

Functional aspects: English is for Poland and other European states the most useful lingua franca language in maintaining all types of international contacts in Europe and beyond. Due to the continued spread around the world and in Europe, its functional value continues to rise. In traditionally monolingual settings, English does not serve, and is unlikely to do so in the nearest future, (important) functions in intranational communication;

•

Accessibility: For numerous groups of experts, professionals, businessmen and scholars, English (as a language giving access to expert knowledge and information) is a must to do their job. It seems that in the context of Poland, this still pertains most of all to workers occupying posts higher in the rank of their prestige and profitability;

•

Material aspects: In contrast to some Outer- and Expanding-Circle regions of the world, English in Poland seems to have mainly been a tool necessary to obtain additional benefits and profits and not a skill necessary to function in the Polish society and/or prosper at all. The fact that English is beginning to be considered as an additional requirement in many professions (a symbol of good education) in which international contacts are only marginal or a faint possibility may lead to its further growing in importance and becoming a necessary skill for ever more Poles to find employment. In comparison to other countries where English is a gatekeeper to educational and/or job opportunities (also in Europe), the stratificational function of English in Poland has not been considerable and it related most of all to a denial of access to additional opportunities;

450

•

Attitudinal aspects: Analogously to other Expanding-Circle contexts where English is an international (vs. intranational) lingua franca, it is perceived most of all as a utilitarian tool, a language of opportunities, or even (sometimes negatively) a must. In addition, English seems to hold (especially, in post-socialist contexts) a special appeal among people who associate it with Westerness, prestige, modernity, and an element of (American) pop culture that they find very attractive after years of living in the grim reality of communism. On the other hand, in Europe (traditionally, monolingual, and pretty monocultural locations) the influence that English exerts on national (or local) languages and cultures is frequently perceived negatively, especially by people more aware of its strength and the ones oriented towards more traditional values;

•

Language planning and policy: English is almost universally perceived as a necessary tool to participate in the contemporary econocultural system. In line with more general trends, efforts are made to both provide English language instructions in the educational system and to limit its negative impact on national languages and cultures. Throughout the last two decades the activities of language policy makers in Europe and in Poland have been contributing to assigning English an ever more important role in the educational system and, accordingly, to further strengthening its power bases;

•

Pluricentricity (Englishization and nativization): Europe seems to be one of the least anglified (in the sense of using English as a means of instructions, and its functional displacing of national languages) regions in the world. The Englishization and Americanization of national cultures and languages in Europe (and Poland) is considerable, nevertheless, it does not seem to pose a threat to their existence. Even though the manifestations of the phenomena are the most conspicuous on the level of lexis, Englishization and Americanization have also led to various developments on the level of discourse, registers, and genres (e.g. thematic, structural changes, or even emergence of new genres). Due to the macroacquisition of English, the language may, in fact, begin to stimulate some developments and the directions of changes in the structure of various European languages. The spread of anglicisms across European languages cannot be accounted for by the deficit (filling lexical gaps) and dominance (the impact of the dominant culture on the subordinate ones) hypotheses on their own, but needs to be viewed as also caused by the multisymbolicity of the language and the symbolic use of it and its elements to achieve a variety of different language-mediated goals. Especially in the context of post-socialist states, English can be viewed as a medium which accelerated an ideological change (turn to the West, Americanization, 451

and consumerism) of whole societies. The nativization of English in European states and Poland seems to be a marginal, possibly emerging phenomenon (it manifests itself most of all by code-mixing and, rarely, code-switching). The acculturation of English in the context of Europe may be understood as its appropriation for creative use; talking about such entities as Polglish denies the sociolinguistic realities of the functioning of English in Poland and the multiplicity of conditions that must be met to be legitimized to talk about new varieties of English;

II Applied implications following from the spread, status and functioning of uuEnglish in Poland: •

Language planning and policy should become of greater interest to Polish academics (especially Anglicists) and a more important area of their research. This is so because of (1) the role of English in the contemporary world system, (2) its macroacquisition by Poles, (3) impact on the Polish language and culture, (4) potential stratificational functions as well as its shaping and reshaping local linguistic ecologies;

•

As long as English enjoys supremacy in the present econocultural system and is ever more necessary to function in the emerging information societies, it is necessary to enable all school children (and adults) to acquire the language and obtain the opportunities accessible to those having a command of it;

•

Provision of equal educational opportunities should also consist in providing all school children with a more comparable and higher quality English language teaching. This should be achieved by both ensuring comparable teaching conditions and requiring from teachers to take every two/three years competence tests confirming their continued possession of adequate language skills;

•

Language management in the context of Poland should be based on the paradigm of language ecology (a human rights perspective, equality in communication, multilingualism, promotion of foreign language teaching) and concentrate on functional allocation (status planning), i.e. the maintenance of balance between English which should serve as a link language and Polish which should fulfill (at least) all significant functions in intranational communication;

•

Minority and ethnic languages should be provided with protection and teaching other foreign languages should not be neglected;

452

•

Plurilingualism advocated by the EU educational strategy seems to be a noble (but costly) pipe dream, unattainable in the world where people opt for learning supercentral languages having a high Q-value. The development of appreciation of other languages and cultures should be cultivated more by teaching about various lingua-cultural locations rather than teaching diverse languages per se (which is a time-consuming and expensive burden for schools, parents and children);

•

The development of a human rights perspective and critical thinking should become a compulsory element of ‘English’ teachers’ education. Teaching about World Englishes and language ecology should find their place in teacher training programs;

•

The sociolinguistic realities of the functioning of English in Poland seem to require from teachers and learners adherence to traditional native models of English (i.e. RP and GA);

•

Adherence to GA and RP should not be allowed to degenerate into universal worship making learners strive to acquire the models at all costs. This could seriously affect learners’ achievements, communicative skills, and identity as users of English (pursuing the aim should be the major goal and not its achievement per se);

•

It seems that RP and GA could also be the easiest to be appropriated and capitalized on by non-native speakers of English since they are the best described, the most desirable, and, actually, no more often used by native than non-native speakers of English (they are old, conservative, and rather artificial models of pronunciation);

•

The sociolinguistic realities of the functioning of English in the world increasingly more often require from its users familiarizing themselves with (and developing appreciation of) both numerous varieties of English and the multiple communicative strategies adopted by speakers coming from different lingua-cultural locations. The development of multicultural competence should accompany the development of bilingual competence;

•

English language teaching should focus more on teaching successful communication with speakers coming from different parts of the world and treat adherence to native speaker models as a long term secondary goal which, if not achieved, should not make non-native speakers feel intimidated and fear conversation;

•

A reconceptualization of traditional teaching models for Expanding-Circle locations should become a more important research subject which should comprehensively and objectively investigate: (1) the importance of standards in the teaching practice; (2)

453

their contribution to successful communication; (3) the adequacy of the present models (both sociolinguistic and communicative aspects); (4) the ways in which the models should (if at all) be reformulated; •

My research seems to confirm that introducing mandatory English classes and schoolleaving exams could affect Polish students’ favorable attitudes towards the language and, as a result, decrease their motivation;

•

Students’ perceived power and importance of English should be taken advantage of to further increase their motivation to achieve a higher proficiency in the language;

•

Care should be taken so that the particular interest in learning English and its greatest power do not impact negatively on students’ willingness and motivation to learn other foreign languages;

III General implications following from my empirical investigation presented in iiiChapter 4 • The concept of the power of English emerges as a useful concept amenable to operationalization. Moreover, it provides valuable insight into the differences in the perception of the role and functioning of English even within almost homogenous groups of respondents; • English is almost universally believed to have considerable power in Poland irrespective of respondents’ characteristics; • Even though the perceived power of English is likely to impact considerably on students’ motivation to learn the language, they would prefer not to include it among obligatory school-leaving exams. • According to students, the perceived quality of English language teaching leaves much to be desired; • The perceived sociolinguistic functioning of English in Poland (the perception of its range and depth) seems to considerably correspond to the actual one (as indicated by the discussion presented in Chapter 3); • It was found out that high achievers (aspirers), girls, and more advanced students of English tend to be more cognizant of the power of English in contemporary Poland;

454

• Favorable attitudes to English seem to closely (and positively) correlate with other parameters of the perceived power of English; • The perceived power of English in Poland seems to be determined most of all by positive attitudes towards the language (especially its utilitarian values), the perception of its accessibility and the material benefits that one can derive from its command; • Contextualization should accompany every stage of qualitative research design as well as the choice of research tools and the sampling procedure; • Investigating sociolinguistic phenomena can benefit greatly from supplementing more qualitative-oriented research designs with some quantitative insights (and vice versa), neither of the approaches can be self-sufficient;

IV Methodological suggestions for further research • The sociolinguistic realities of the functioning of English in various locations in the world may question traditional understanding of some cardinal (socio-)linguistic concepts and require their reconceptualization and contextualization; • The interpretation of sociolinguistic functioning of English in a given context should draw on a variety of models and approaches; • The selection of approaches to account for sociolinguistic phenomena arising from the functioning of English in specific contexts in Outer- and Expanding locations should be based on the following principles: (1) the avoidance of biased and evaluative terminology (e.g. the framework of linguistic imperialism as a classic counterexample); (2) the possible of their contextual application to investigate phenomena occurring in specific locations; (3) the adequacy for the subject matter under investigation; • Exploring the sociolinguistics of English in a given location requires: (1) attending to both global and local facets of the functioning of English; (2) drawing on historical, political, economic, sociological, attitudinal, and linguistic aspects related to its spread and status in a given context; (3) selecting (on their bases) the best fitting models and conceptual

frameworks

which

should

subsequently

be

contextualized

and

operationalized; (4) selecting appropriate research tools;

455

• An integrative holistic approach should be considered as the best and most insightful approach (a default model) to be applied when examining such a broad and complex subject matter as the sociolinguistics of English in a given context;

V Theorizing the spread and functioning of English in post-1989 Poland – a uuholistic, integrative approach

The spread of English, its conceptualization and functioning is a complex matter whose comprehension requires adopting a holistic approach examining a variety of issues in a broad context of relevant historical, political, social, economic, and sociolinguistic processes. For the same reason, accounting for diverse phenomena and processes necessitates integrating the existing theoretical base to build up a comprehensive explanatory framework. What follows is an attempt at providing a holistic, integrative model of the spread and sociolinguistic functioning of English in post-1989 Poland. When constructing the conceptual explanatory framework within which one could carry out a more theoretical analysis the following remarks were made with respect to some of the discussed frameworks and models: (1) the theory of the development of a world language emerges as a useful model accounting for some of the characteristics of the recent spread of English in Poland, (2) the econocultural model of the spread of hypercentral English (perceived as a vital element of the world system) is an insightful framework referring to more global forces and accounting for the general, external reasons for the spread of English in the contemporary, post-colonial (and post-socialist) world; (3) the hegemony of English seems to be a valuable concept providing insight into processes of predominantly ‘mental’ nature leading to consensual acknowledging and accepting the spread and status of English as a world language; (4) the division into Inner-, Outer-, and Expanding- countries is still a useful general reference point for the general patterns of functioning of English in various contexts but should be better envisaged as referring not to countries but locations; (5) the framework of the dynamic development of varieties of English clearly points to a variety of conditions that must be met to nativize English; in addition, it shows the importance of identity with a language to form a new English and/or switch from a mother to a ‘foreign’ language (in this light English is far from being a danger to the Polish language; (6) the notion of the power of English (as composed of the range and depth of the language) seems an

456

important concept that can be operationalized to broadly point to the functioning, status and role of the language in a given context; (7) the worldliness of English and its conceptualization as a translocal language is an insightful framework accounting for the mutual relations and influences between the local and the global and one broadening the explanatory base of the homogeny/heterogeny dichotomy.

1. Refuting the conspiracy theory on the basis of the diffusion of English in Poland

The contemporary spread of English in Poland cannot be regarded as caused by linguistic imperialism but by Anglophones’ economical, cultural and ideological dominance in the present econocultural system. There has been no imposition of English by anglophone countries, foreign rule and a subsequent exploitation of Poland and Poles. Benefits from mutual cooperation, relations and learning English are derived by both parties. The language policy pursued by the British Council with respect to Poland has, at most, contributed to Poles’ greater reliance on their norms, models and the import of teaching materials (linguistic imperialism in the sense of the conscious policy of promoting the preferred commodified models of English, RP as the most desired accent). Polish language policy has been determined by the fact that English is the global lingua franca of the econocultural system. The idea of linguistic imperialism viewed as a part of cultural imperialism does not apply to the current situation in Poland because even if the spread of English contributes to some extent to patterning Polish culture after American images (the homogenization of culture), English does not pose a threat to either the Polish culture or language. In terms of the diffusion of anglophone (Western) ideology, English is here only a medium of discourses which in fact do not invariably lead to their acceptance and adoption – they are more likely to be creatively interpreted, adapted or rejected rather than uncritically adopted. Moreover, English is also the major medium of non-anglophone models and anti-models; it also gives access to anti-imperial, anti-American and anti-consumptionist discourses and ideology. In Poland English is not de jure the first language in the educational system – the Polish system offers greater flexibility and responds to bottom-up needs and pressure. Nevertheless, the diffusion of English in post-1989 Poland bears the hallmarks of hegemonic spread in the sense that English is consensually and uncritically chosen as the uncontested default international language. There are no voices of criticism or disapproval since people have been convinced that there is 457

nothing wrong about the spread of English, it is a natural, desirable phenomenon or at least a historical necessity that one cannot do much about. In this way Poles are starting to live with the thought that a command of English is becoming for them (or at least young generations) a useful (almost necessary) skill for their functioning in the contemporary world. The dissemination of the image of English as a language of prosperity, modernity, free market and opportunities has been conducted by both Anglophones and Poles. English in contemporary Poland enjoys both dominance (prevalence and prominence in the educational system) and hegemony (consensual acceptance of the necessity to learn it and know it) thanks to both bottom-up and topdown pressures and both unplanned and planned language policy.

2. Theorizing the spread of English

English in post-1989 Poland spread as a global language, a vital element of the econocultural world system. The diffusion of English in Poland may also be viewed as caused by English having the highest Q-(communicative) value (due to its occupying the hypercentral position in the global language system) and its adding the most to the communicative potential of Poles. Since globalization goes hand in hand with the dispersion of English, there seems to be developing a diglossia relation between hypercentral English and Polish in which the former is used to facilitate international communication and the latter to maintain intranational contacts, express national identity and gain access to Poles’ collective cultural capital encoded in the language. The relation between English and Polish seems to be leading to a stable equilibrium in a local language ecology with a clear division of the domains occupied and functions performed by the global English, Polish and minority languages. In the nearest future English is unlikely to pose a threat to the existence of Polish since its death could only be possible if all Poles either renounced their collective cultural capital (which is encoded in Polish) and started to use and teach their children only English (in this way the next generations would deprive themselves of access to our collective culture capital) or began to express it in English (and decided to translate our cultural heritage into English) – both situations seem to be extremely unlikely. Poland is another country whose active participation in the world econocultural system has led to the macroacquisition of English contributing to the following processes and phenomena: (1) further entrenchment of English as a world language; (2) 458

the development of a stable bilingualism with English for international communication and minority languages for intranational communication and identity affiliation; (3) increasing possibilities for the emerging multicompetent bilingual speech community to express, transmit and popularize their own shared subjective knowledge and to gain access to (and transform) the supra-national global shared subjective knowledge; (4) the convergence of world English (Poles belong to an international ‘English’ speech community, they do not seek identity with English, do not use it for intranational communication and expression of national/ethnic identity and, thus, they rely on exonormative norms and native-speaker models); (5) enlarging Poles’ linguistic repertoire; (6) the emergence of the phenomena of code-mixing and (marginally, in the context of Poland) code-switching due to development of bilingual multicompetence; (7) the transcendence of the role of the elite lingua franca (democratization of a formerly stratificational resource) and diminishing the stratificational function of English; (8) intensified language contacts between Polish and English; (9) an increase in the importance of teachers of English in terms of the spread of the English language and dissemination of English and American ideology.

3. English-Polish language and culture contacts

Regarding the lingua-cultural contacts between English (and American) language and cultures and the Polish ones, the following comments should be made: (1) Viewing the impact of the English language and anglophone cultures in Poland in terms of the homogenization of our culture (or even McDonaldization) is an approach neither insightful nor scholarly; (2) Globalization does not necessarily encompass the processes of Americanization and does not simply lead to either homogenization or heterogenization – it is a complex phenomenon involving also resistance, appropriation, adaptation, reformulation, alternative cultural production and its popularization; (3) One should discern creative uses of English and American culture and language in which they serve as a resource appropriated and originally transformed by Poles to express local meanings and culture (e.g. hip-hop, the creative use of the language in advertising, teenage slang); (4) One can also notice either rejection and/or adaptation of some American-originated and propagated modes of communication (e.g. the customerclient interactions); (5) The acquisition of English by whole young generations will offer increasingly more groups of Poles a possibility to use English in the dissemination 459

of Polish cultural products and popularization of our collective cultural capital (i.e. heritage); (6) English as a translocal language of imagined communities is enabling increasingly more new generations of Poles to seek identity with international interest groups and, in this way, transcend their more local group memberships; (7) English is a language that has multiple identities and one which is being appropriated by numerous societies, communities, and groups from different lingua-cultural locations. Accordingly, English does not invariably mean lingua-cultural contacts between English, American and Polish ideologies, cultures and languages.

4. The conceptualization of the English language in Poland

Regarding the conceptualization of English in Poland the following remarks can be made: (1) it is a foreign transplanted language learned due to Poles’ instrumental and integrative motivations to use it as an international link language; (2) in terms of its content marking it is usually English for general, business, and specialist purposes, user-relatedness – a non-native non-institutionalized variety of English, the ethnopolitical marking – Polish English (and more generally Euro English); (3) English is used as a lingua franca language to communicate with both non-native and nativespeakers of English(es); (4) the sociolinguistic realities of the deculturation of English and its acculturation to new lingua-cultural contexts (nativization) clearly indicate that there can be no say about the existence of a variety which some call Polglish, i.e. a new variety of English, a localized form of English, an indigenized variety of English, or, simply, a New English; (5) it is a learner/performance variety of English that is usually taught as an RP or GA model; (6) the American varieties of English seem to contribute more to the phenomenon of Englishization; (7) English in Poland (its uses and functions) shares numerous features in common with English in other Expanding-Circle locations; (8) the usage of the following concepts – World English, Global English or International English – may suggest to both non-specialists and some language scholars the existence of certain separate varieties of English, which seems to be a gross overstatement. The notions should be applied, if at all, to refer mostly to the uses and functions of English as a link language. In this light, it seems safer to adopt such notions as English as an international language, English as a world language, English as a global language.

460

An analysis of the functioning of English (especially ELT) in Expanding Circle locations allows one to discern a phenomenon which could be called the commodification of Received Pronunciation and General American accent models of English. Because these days Expanding Circle locales seem to be responsible to the greatest extent for the continued dispersion of the English language, their almost universal reliance on native speaker norms and frequent dependence on (or preference for) their original teaching materials (which promote almost invariably RP and GA) ensure that these models enjoy the greatest prestige, are ascribed the highest Q-value and, accordingly, become commodified. They can well be regarded as profitable products that are, in fact, advertized and sold all over the world. Furthermore, a sociolinguistics of globalization suggests that it is not abstract virtual language (or autonomous registers) that spreads but specific varieties. Accordingly, one can say that the language varieties that spread all over the world thanks to the educational systems are, in fact, RP and GA. This seems to constitute a powerful centripetal force contributing to the convergence of English in terms of its uses as a world language. Moreover, the commodification of RP and GA are perfect examples of a situation in which a language variety becomes “a marketable commodity on its own, distinct from identity” (Heller 2003: 474). In addition, one can also discern struggles over the legitimacy and authenticity in terms of the provision and description of teaching models (especially between native speakers of English, e.g. Americans vs. Englishmen) and the perennial question as to who is a better teacher a native or non-native speaker of English.

VI Final remarks

The major contributions of this dissertation to the World English paradigm include the following: (1) providing the first so comprehensive a description of English in postsocialist Poland (by means of integrating and investigating a variety of data to examine diverse processes and phenomena); (2) the adoption of a holistic integrative approach attempting to account for the functioning and spread of English in post-1989 Poland (presenting and making use of recent models and approaches); (3) operationalizing and investigating the power of English, a concept argued to be a rough and ready but quite comprehensive and insightful measure of the general functioning and role of English in a given context; (4) discussing and providing explanations concerning the functioning 461

of English in post-transformational Poland; (5) pointing to the following most recent developments related to the functioning of English in Poland: •

the emergence of the phenomenon known as macroacquisition;

•

the democratization of a formerly elite lingua franca;

•

the rapidly increasing number of people for whom English is a necessary skill;

•

the formal sanctioning of the privileged position of English in the Polish educational system;

•

the continuously developing power of English in Poland.

462

References Abercombie, David. 1951. “R.P. and local accent”, The Listener 6: 10-15. Abramowicz, Witold. 2002. “Obywatele komunikujący się”, in: Wojciech Cellary (ed.), 125-126. Abramowicz, Witold. 2003. “Polska w drodze do globalnego społeczeństwa informacyjnego, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem wątku edukacyjnego”, in: Przygotowanie polskich szkół, 23-35. Admin1. 1998. “New Peace Corps volunteers are ready to teach English”, World of English 20 Aug. 1998. (http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2013187.html) (date of access 24 Aug. 2009). Admin1. 2001. “Poland's farewell to the Peace Corps”, World of English 8 May 2001. (http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2013190.html) (date of access 24 Aug 2009). Admin1. 2003. “US Embassy in Poland: Peace Corps Poland fact sheet” 18 Apr. 2003. (http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2013191.html) (date of access 24 Aug 2009). Ajzen, Icek. 1988. Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: The Dorsey Press Ajzen, Icek and James Sexton. 1999. “Depth of processing, belief congruence, and attitude-behavior correspondence”, in: Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope (eds.), 117-138. Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein. 2000. “Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes”, European Review of Social Psychology 11: 133.

463

Alatis, James E. (ed.). 1991. Linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Al-Dabbagh, Abdulla. 2005. “Globalism and the universal language”, English Today 21, 2: 3-12. Alexander, Neville. 2008 “The impact of the hegemony of English on access to and quality of education with special reference to South Africa” – in: Wyane Harbert (ed.), 53-66. Alexander, Richard J. 2003. “G.lobal L.anguages O.ppress B.ut A.re L.berating, too: The dialectics of English”, in: Christian Mair (ed.), 87-95. Anderman, Gunilla and Margaret Rogers (eds.). 2005. In and out of English: For better, for worse? Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. Arabski, Janusz. 2006. “Language transfer in language learning and language contact”, in: Janusz Arabski (ed.), 12-21. Arabski, Janusz. (ed.). 2006. Cross-linguistic influences in the second language lexicon. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD. AS and PG. 2000. “Angielski to za mało”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Rzeszów, 08 Sep. 2000: 5. ASK. 2006a. “Bój o pieniądze na angielski dla pierwszaków”, Gazeta Wyborcza, GW Rzeszów, 30 Mar. 2006: 1. ASK. 2006b. “Podstawówki dostaną pieniądze na angielski”, Gazeta Wyborcza, GW Rzeszów 22 Jul. 2006: 3. Askehave, Inger and Peter Katsberg. 2001. “Intergeneric derivation: On the genealogy of an LSP text”, Text 21(4): 489-513. Bąba, Marcin. 2007. “Niezaspokojony popyt na pracę”, in: Urszula Sztanderska, ElŜbieta Drogosz-Zabłocka, and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds.), 153-156. Bailey, Richard W. 1991. Images of English: A cultural history of the language. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Bailey, Richard W. and Manfred Görlach. 1984. “Introduction”, in Bailey, Richard W. and Manfred Görlach (eds.), 1-6. Bailey, Richard W. and Manfred Görlach. 1984. “Preface”, in Bailey, Richard W. and Manfred Görlach (eds.), vii-viii. Bailey, Richard W. and Manfred Görlach. (eds.). 1984. English as a World Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 464

Bamgbose, Ayo. 1998. “Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes”, World Englishes 17, 1: 1-14. Bamgbose, Ayo. 2001. “World Englishes and globalization”, World Englishes 20, 3: 357-363. Bartłomiejczyk, Magdalena. 2006. “The influence of English on Polish drug-related slang”, in: Janusz Arabski (ed.), 97-108. Baumgardner, Robert J. and Kimberley Brown. 2003. “World Englishes: ethics and pedagogy”, World Englishes 22, 3: 245-251. Bednar, Wioletta. 2001. “Językowe potyczki”, Gazeta Wyborcza PRACA, 22 Oct. 2001: 5. Bełza, Marta. 2008. “Anglicy szukają u nas pracowników”, Gazeta Wyborcza Olsztyn, 10 Mar. 2008: 6. Bernaś, Piotr, Magdalena Grzebałkowska and Marcin Kowalski. 2004. “Anglosaksów czas”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 11 May 2004: 17. Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Filmowców Polskich. 2005. March, (http://www.sfp.org.pl/pl/sfp/magazynsfp) (date of access 09 Feb. 2010). Blommaert, Jan. 2003. “Commentary: A sociolinguistics of globalization”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 4: 607-623. Bogaj, Andrzej, Stefan M. Kwiatkowski, and Rafał Piwowarski. 2001. Wskaźniki edukacyjne: Polska 2000. Warszawa: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych. Bolton, Kingsley and Braj B. Kachru. (eds.). 2006. World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics. Vol. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6. London: Routledge. Bolton, Kingsley. 2006a. “World Englishes”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 1, 186-216. Bolton, Kingsley. 2006b. “Where WE stands: Approaches, issues and debate in world Englishes”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 6, 279-297. Bończa-Szabłowski, Jan. 1998. “Plamy na języku”, Rzeczpospolita, 15 Apr. 1998. Boni, Michał. 2007a. “Szkolenia pracowników”, in: Urszula Sztanderska, DrogoszZabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds.), 167-170. Boni, Michał. 2007b. “Kształcenie dorosłych: Potrzeby pracodawców”, in: Urszula Sztanderska, Drogosz-Zabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds.), 63-64. Braine, George. (ed.). 2005. Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

465

Bralczyk, Jerzy. 1999. “O językowych zwyczajach polskiej reklamy”, in: Walery Pisarek (ed.), 218-226. Bray, Mark and Iveta Silova. 2006. “The private tutoring phenomenon: International patterns and perspectives”, in: Iveta Silova, Virginija Būdin÷ and Mark Bray (eds.), 27-40. Bright, Martin. 2000. “Selling English by the pound”, The Observer, 1. British Council. 1975. English teaching profile: Poland. London: English Language and Literature Division. British Council. 2009a. 75 years of cultural relations: 70 faktów o British Council w Polsce. (http://www.britishcouncil.org./pl/poland-70-facts.htm) (date of access 20 Aug. 2009). British Council. 2009b. Who we are. (http://www.britishcouncil.org./pl/poland-who-weare.htm) (date of access 20 Aug. 2009). British Council. 2009c. Protokół X sesji Komisji Mieszanej do spraw realizacji konwencji między rzędem Polskiej Rzeczypospolitej Ludowej a rzędem Zjednoczonego Królestwa Wielkiej Brytanii i Północnej Irlandii o współpracy w dziedzinie kultury, oświaty i nauki. (http://www.britishcouncil.org/pl/mixedcommpl.pdf) (date of access 21 Jan. 2010). Brown, Kimberley. 2006. “World Englishes: To teach or not to teach?”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 5, 422-437. Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 1998. “Conceptual questions in English as a world language: taking up an issue”, World Englishes 17. 3: 381-392. Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Būdin÷, Virginija. 2006. “Foreword: Private tutoring: Educating society or driving social stratification?: in: Iveta Silova, Virginija Būdin÷ and Mark Bray (eds.), 7-9 Bugajski, Marian. 2005. “Przeszłość i przyszłość polityki językowej w Polsce”, in: Gajda, Stanisław, Andrzej Markowski and Józef Porayski-Pomsta (eds.), 74- 81. Bujara, Małgorzata. 1998. “Studenci nie gęsi?”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Rzeszów, 07 Nov. 1998: 1. Burda, Piotr. 2006. “Polowanie na anglistów”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Kielce, 02 Mar. 2006: 3.

466

Burgh, John. 1985. “Foreword”, in: Quirk Randolph and Henry G. Widdowson (eds.), vii-ix. Buttler, Danuta, Halina, Kurkowska and Halina, Satkiewicz. 1971. Kultura języka Polskiego. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwa Naukowe. Canagarajah, Suresh A. 1999. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Celińska, Kalina and Dariusz Barański. 2006. “Szkoły języków obcych to wyjątkowo dobry biznes”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Zielona Góra, 16 Sep. 2006: 1. Cellary, Wojciech. (ed.). 2002. Polska w drodze do globalnego społeczeństwa informacyjnego: Raport o rozwoju społecznym Polska 2001. Warszawa: Program Narodów Zjednoczonych ds. Rozwoju. Chaiken, Shelly and Yaacov Trope. (eds.). 1999. Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford. Chen, Albert H. Y. 1998. “The philosophy of language rights”, Language Sciences, 20, 1: 45-54. Cheshire, Jenny. 1991. “Introduction: Sociolinguistics and English around the world”, in: Jenny Cheshire (ed.), 1-12. Cheshire, Jenny. (ed.). 1991. English around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chłopicki, Władysław and Jerzy Świątek. 2000. Angielski w polskiej reklamie. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Naukowe PWN. Chłopicki, Władysław. 2002. “Język angielski w polskiej reklamie: Czy nasza toŜsamość językowo-kulturowa jest zagroŜona?”, in: ElŜbieta Jeleń, Małgorzta Świątek and Justyna Winiarska (eds.), 57-67. Chłopicki, Władysław. 2005. “Polish under siege”, in: Anderman, Gunilla and Margaret Rogers (eds.), 108-122. Cieśla, Joanna and Agnieszka Rybak. 2004. “Weź się za język”, Polityka, (http://www.polityka.pl/archive/do/registry/secure/showArticle?id=1455) (date of access 27 Mar. 2009). Co Polacy sądzą o języku polskim. 2005. Warszawa: CBOS. (http://www.rjp.pan.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96:copolacy-sdz-o-jzyku-polskim-wyniki-badania-cbos&catid=45:dokumentyrady&Itemid=55) (date of access 27 Feb. 2010).

467

Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion and Keith Morrison. 2005. Research methods in education. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Colton, David and Robert W. Covert. 2007. Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conrad, Andrew W. and Joshua A. Fishman. 1977. “English as a World Language: The evidence”, in: Joshua A. Fishman, Robert L. Cooper and Andrew W. Conrad. (eds.), 3-76. Conrad, Andrew W. 1996. “The international role of English: The state of the discussion”, in: Joshua Fishman, Andrew W. Conrad and Alma Rubal-Lopez (eds.), 13-36. Coupland, Nikolas. 2003. “Introduction: Sociolinguistics and globalization”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 4: 465-472. Cronbach, Lee J. 1951. “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, 16, 3: 297-334. Crystal, David. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge: University Press. Crystal, David. 2003. English as a global language. (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David. 2006. “How many millions? The statistics of English today”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 1, 17-21. Cudak, Romuald and Jolanta Tambor. 1995. “O języku <>”, Język Polski, 3: 197-204. Czaja, Agata. 2006. “Język angielski nie dla wszystkich uczniów”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Toruń, 23 Aug. 2006: 3. Czamara, Agata. 1996. “Made in Europe – leksykalne zapoŜyczenia z języka angielskiego w polskim polu wyrazowym handlu i usług”, Poradnik Językowy 56: 23-30. Czeladko, Renata. 2006. “Wyścig po angielski”, Gazeta Wyborcza Gazeta Stołeczna, 29 Mar. 2006: 1. Czop-Śliwińska, GraŜyna. 2003. Kandydat idealny, czyli oczekiwania pracodawców wobec absolwentóe szkół technicznych, (http://www.ck.agh.edu.pl/inne/kandydat_idealny.doc) (date of access 14 Apr. 2010). Dąbrowska, Anna. 2000. “Sampling, vanselling, merchandising: O słownictwie pracowników marketingu”, in: Jan Mazur (ed.), 131-140. 468

Dąbrowska, Małgorzata. 2007. “Kształcenie nauczycieli w Polsce a rozwiązania europejskie”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 193-212. Dąbrowska, Marta. 2004. “English and its impact on electronic media communication”, in: Anna Duszak and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 261-274. Dąbrowska, Marta. (ed.). 2005. Język trzeciego tysiąclecia III. Tom3: Język polski i języki obce – kontakty, kultura, dydaktyka. Kraków: Krakowskie Towarzystwo Popularyzowania Wiedzy o Komunikacji Językowej – Tertium. Dąbrowski, Waldemar. 2002. “Referat na otwarcie konferencji”, Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Filmowców Polskich. (http://www.sfp.org.pl/pl/sfp/magazynsfp) (date of access 09 Feb. 2010). Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Gunther Kaltenboeck and Ute Smit. 1997. “Learner attitudes and L2 pronunciation in Austria”, World Englishes 16, 1: 115-128. Davies, Alan. 1996. Review article: Ironising the myth of linguicisim, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17, 6: 485-496. Davies, Alan. 1997. “Response to a reply”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18, 3: 248. Davies, Alan. 2006. “The native speaker of World Englishes”, in Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 4, 144-162. Debaene, Ewelina. 2007. “Edukacja językowa w polskim szkolnictwie gimnazjalnym na tle rozwiązań europejskim”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 135-155. deMarrais, Kathleen and Stephen D. Lapan (eds.). 2004. Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Deneire, Marc. 1998. “A response to H. G. Widdowson’s ‘EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interest’”, World Englishes 17, 3: 393-395. Dolata, Roman. 2005. “NajwaŜniejsze wyzwania stojące przed polską oświatą”, Analizy i Opinie no 45 (http://www.isp.org.pl/files/15144654030172996001125907886.pdf) (date of access 04 Mar. 2010). Domagała-Pękalska, Katarzyna. 2001. “Czas poliglotów”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Wrocław, 08 Mar. 2001: 1. Doroszewski, Jan. 1996. “O języku medycyny”, in: Jan Miodek (ed.), 253-255. Doroszewski, Jan. 1999. “Polski język medyczny”, in: Walery Pisarek (ed.), 33-49.

469

Drury, James. 1994. “Pre-service English teacher training in Poland: The need, the demand and the supply”, in: Cherry Gough and Aleksandra Jankowska (eds.), 3945. Dunaj, Bogusława, Renata Przybylska and Kazimierz Sikora. 1999. “Język na co dzień” in: Walery Pisarek (ed.), 227-251. Duszak, Anna and Urszula Okulska. 2004. Speaking from the margin: Global English from a European perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Dybowska, Agnieszka. 2000. “ Nauczanie języków obcych w polskim systemie oświaty”, Języki Obce w Szkole 5, 28-31. Dybowska, Agnieszka. 2001. “Nauczanie języków obcych w reformie systemu edukacji”, Języki Obce w Szkole 3, 5-7. Dzikiewicz, Agnieszka and Jan Miodek 1991. “Co robi mysz informatyczna, czyli o problemach z tłumaczeniem angielskich słów w literaturze informatycznej”, Poradnik Językowy 9-10, 376 – 381. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna and Joanna Przedlacka (eds.). 2005. English pronunciation models: A Changing Scene. Bern: Peter Lang. ed. 1994. “Zdecyduje minister”, Gazeta Wyborcza. Gazeta Stołeczna, 20. Sep. 1994: 3. Eden, Anthony. 1952. Overseas information services. (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/detailsresult.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=7972389) (date of access 12 Jan. 2010). Ehrenhalt, Ewa. 1990. New tasks for teachers of English in Poland in light of social, economic, and political changes. (Paper presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Dublin, Ireland, March 27-30). El-Dash, Linda Gentry and Joanne Busnardo. 2001. “Brazilian attitudes towards English: dimensions of status and solidarity”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 1: 57-74. Europeans and their languages. 2006. Special Eurobarometer 243. (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf) (date of access 02 Jan. 2009). Fabiszak, Małgorzata 2004. “Globalisation in the kindergarten. The construction of national identity and the language of children’s magazines”, in: Anna Duszak and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 213-223. 470

Ferguson, Charles A. 1992. “Foreword to the first edition”, in: Braj B. Kachru (ed.), xiii-xvii. Fidel, Agnieszka and Emilia Piętka. 2007. “Funkcjonowanie polskich migrantów na brytyjskim rynku pracy”, CMR Working Papers 23,81. (www.migracje.uw.edu.pl/download/publikacja/603) (date of access 05 Jan 2010). Firth, Alan. 1996. “The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis”, Journal of Pragmatics 26: 237-259. Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Fishman, Joshua A. 1977a. “The spread of English as a new perspective for the study of ‘language maintenance and language shift”, in Joshua A. Fishman, Robert L. Cooper and Andrew W. Conrad. (eds.), 108-133. Fishman, Joshua A. 1977b. “English in the context of international societal bilingualism”, in Joshua A. Fishman, Robert L. Cooper and Andrew W. Conrad. (eds.), 329-336. Fishman, Joshua A. 1977c. “Knowing, using and liking English as an additional language”, in: Joshua A. Fishman, Robert L. Cooper and Andrew W. Conrad. (eds.), 302-310. Fishman, Joshua A. 1992. “Sociology of English as an additional language”, in: Braj B. Kachru (ed.), 19-26. Fishman, Joshua A. 1996a. “Introduction: Some empirical and theoretical issues”, in: Joshua Fishman A., Andrew W. Conrad and Alma Rubal-Lopez (eds.), 3-12. Fishman, Joshua A. 1996b. “Summary and interpretation: Post-imperial English 19401990”, in: Joshua Fishman, Andrew W. Conrad and Alma Rubal-Lopez (eds.), 623-641. Fishman, Joshua A., Robert L. Cooper and Yehudit Rosenbaum 1977. “English around the world”, in: Fishman, Joshua A., Robert L. Cooper and Andrew W. Conrad. (eds.), 77-107. Fishman, Joshua A., Andrew W. Conrad and Alma Rubal-Lopez. (eds.). 1996. PostImperial English: Status change in former British and American colonies, 19401990. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fishman, Joshua A., Charles A. Ferguson and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.). 1968. Language problems of developing nations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 471

Fishman, Joshua A., Robert L. Cooper and Andrew W. Conrad. 1977. (eds.). The spread of English: The sociology of English as an additional language. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, INC. Fisiak, Jacek. 1961. ZapoŜyczenia angielskie w języku polskim: analiza interpretacji leksykalnej [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University]. Fisiak, Jacek. 1970. “The semantics of English loanwords in Polish”, Studia Anglistica Posnaniensia 2: 41-49. Fisiak, Jacek. 1983. English studies in Poland: A historical survey. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza. Fisiak, Jacek. 1986. “The word-formation of English loan-words in Polish” in: W. Viereck and W. D. Bald (eds.). English in contact with other languages. Studies in honour of Broder Cartensen on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Budapest, 253263. Fisiak, Jacek. 1992. “English language teacher training in Poland: Past legacy and present challenge”, Journal of the English-speaking union, 1, 6-14. Fituch, Marta. 2007. “Kształcenie językowe w polskiej szkole średniej na tle rozwiązań europejskich”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 156-180. Forrester, Sibelan, Magdalena J. Zaborowska and Elena Gapova (eds.). 2004. Over the wall/after the fall: Postcommunist cultures through an East-West gaze. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Frelak, Justyna and Beata Rogulska. 2008. “Powroty do Polski: Wyniki badań”, Warszawa: Instytut Spraw Publicznych (www.isp.org.pl/files/6427608760871582001209562869.pdf) (data of access 05 Jan. 2010). Friedrich, Patricia. 2000. “English in Brazil: functions and attitudes”, World Englishes, 19, 2: 215-223. Friedrich, Patricia. 2003. “English in Argentina: attitudes of MBA students”, World Englishes, 22, 2: 173-184. Gajda, Stanisław. 1999. “O program polskiej polityki językowej”, Komunikaty Rady Języka Polskiego Przy Prezydium Polskiej Akademii Nauk. (http://www.rjp.pan.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=185:ko munikaty-rady-jzyka-polskiego&catid=52:komunikaty-rady-jzykapolskiego&Itemid=52) (date of access 06 Mar. 2010).

472

Gajda, Stanisław and Zbigniew Adamiszyn (eds.). 1994. Przemiany współczesnej polszczyzna. Materiały z konferencji naukowej. Opole. Gajda, Stanisław, Andrzej Markowski and Józef Porayski-Pomsta (eds.). 2005. Polska polityka komunikacyjnojęzykowa wobec wyzwań XXI wieku. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa. Glück, Helmut. 1992. “Die internationale Stellung des Deutschen auf dem europäischen Arbeitsmarkt”, in: Wolfgang Kramer and Reinhold Weiss (eds.), Fremd-Sprache in der Wirtschaft, Köln, 47-75. Golinowska, Stanisława and Ewa Rumińska-Zimny (eds.). 1998. Dostęp do edukacji: Raport o rozwoju społecznym Polska 1998. Warszawa: UNDP. Gołębiewska, Beata. 2003. “Language is key”, Warsaw Voice (http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/3825 ) (data of access 25 Aug. 2009). Görlach, Manfred. 2007. “Introduction”, in Manfred Görlach (ed.), 1-12. Görlach, Manfred (ed.). 2007. English in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gotteri, Nigel. 2002. “Language myths and the alleged threat to Polish”, in: ElŜbieta Jeleń, Małgorzta Świątek and Justyna Winiarska (eds.), 53-56. gp. 1998. “Wystaw język, Ŝołnierzu”, Gazeta Wyborcza. GW Wrocław, 03 Dec. 1998: 2. Greaves, William. 1989. “Selling English by the pound”, The Times, 24 Oct. 1989: 14. Greenbaum, Sidney. 1985. “Commentator 1”, in Randolph Quirk and Henry G. Widdowson (eds.), 31-32. Griffin, Jeff. 1997. “Global English invades Poland”, English Today 13, 2: 34-39. Grucza, Franciszek. 2002. “Opening speech: (Native) language – (national) identity – European integration”, in: ElŜbieta Jeleń, Małgorzta Świątek and Justyna Winiarska (eds.), 25-49. Grybysiowa, Antonina. 2005. “Językowo-kulturowe funkcje łaciny i języka angielskiego we współczesnej polszczyźnie”, in: Marta Dąbrowska (ed.), 31- 40. Halifax. 1939. Foreign publicity. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/detailsresult.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=8047838) (date of access 12 Jan. 2010). Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 2003. “Written language, standard language, global language”, World Englishes 22, 4: 405-418.

473

Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, Angus McIntosh and Peter Strevens. 1964. The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman. Hamelink, Cees. 1994. Trends in world communication: On disempowerment and selfempowerment. Penang: Southbound and Third World Network. Handke, Kwiryna and Hanna Dalewska-Greń (eds.). 1994. Polszczyzna a/i Polacy u schyłku XX wieku. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy. Harbert, Wayne. (ed.). 2008. Language and poverty. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Heller, Monica. 2003. “Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 4: 473-492. Hill, Charles. 1957a. Oversea information services. (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/detailsresult.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=7974073) (date of access 12 Jan. 2010). Hill, Charles. 1957b. Oversea information services. (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/detailsresult.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=7974057) (date of access 12 Jan. 2010). House, Juliane. 2003. “English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism?”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 4: 556-578. Hrynkiewicz, Józefina. 1996. “Kształtowanie zasobów intelektualnych społeczeństwa polskiego”, in: Józefina Hrynkiewicz, Jolanta Supińska, Irena Herbst, Andrzej Bratowski and Małgorzata Pawlisz (eds.), 33-54. Hrynkiewicz, Józefina, Jolanta Supińska, Irena Herbst, Andrzej Bratowski and Małgorzata Pawlisz (eds.). 1996. Habitat a rozwój społeczny: Raport o rozwoju społecznym Polska 1996. Warszawa: UNDP. Hunger, Judith. 2001. “End of a decade, wnd of an wra with Peace Corps graduation from Poland”, World of English, 8 May 2001. (http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2013186.html) (date of access 24 Aug. 2009). Hutchinson, Susan R. 2004. “Survey research”, in: deMarrais and Lapan (eds.), 283301. Hyde, Barbara. 2002. “Japan’s emblematic English”, English Today 18, 3: 12-16.

474

Informacja o wynikach kontroli realizacji ustawy o języku polskim. 2004. Warszawa: NIK. (http://bip.nik.gov.pl/pl/bip/wyniki_kontroli_wstep/inform2004/2004066) (date of access 22 Jul. 2010). Informacja o wynikach kontroli warunków nauczania języków obcych w szkołach publicznych. 2005. Warszawa: NajwyŜsza Izba Kontroli. (http://bip.nik.gov.pl/pl/bip/wyniki_kontroli_wstep/inform2005/2005175) (date of access 03 Jan. 2009). Iwanciw, Emilia. 2006. “Angielski na wykładach”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Bydgoszcz 24 Oct. 2006: 2. Iwańczyk, Anna. 2009. “Znajomość języków obcych”, in: GraŜyna Marciniak and Alina Baran (eds.), 79-81. jak. 1998. “Poligloci na start”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Zielona Góra, 04 Sep. 1998: 5. Jak Polacy uczą się języków obcych? 2000. Warszawa: TNS OBOP. (http://www.tnsglobal.pl/archive-report/id/413) (date of access 01. Mar. 2010). Jałowiec, Joanna. 2006. “Jest angielski, brakuje anglistów”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Kraków, 12 Aug. 2006: 4. Janicka, Katarzyna, Małgorzata Kul and Jarosław Weckweth. 2005. “Polish students’ attitudes to native English accents as models for EFL pronunciation”, in: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds.), 251-292. Jeleń, ElŜbieta, Monika Rauen, Małgorzata Świątek and Justyna Winiarska (eds.). 2002. Zmiany i rozwój języka oraz toŜsamości narodowej – trendy w procesie integracji europejskiej. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2005. “Misinterpretation, bias, and resistance to change: the case of the Lingua Franca Core”, in: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds.), 199-210. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. “Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and Englishes as a lingua franca”, TESOL Quarterly 40, 1: 157-181. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007a. “The author replies”, TESOL Quarterly 41, 2: 414-415. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007b. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jeziorski, Michał. 2007. “Building Polish-British business links”, The Warsaw Voice, 09 May 2007. (http://www.warsawvoice.pl/printArticle.php?a=14687) (date of access 26 Dec. 2009). JIM. 2000. “Paszport do świata”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Olsztyn, 04 Sep. 2000: 6. 475

Johnston, Bill. 1997. “Do EFL teachers have careers?”, TESOL Quaterly 31, 4: 681712. Johnston, Bill. 2004. “Heteroglossia and linguistic neocolonialism: English teaching in post-1989 Poland”, in: Sibelan Forrester, Magdalena J. Zaborowska and Elena Gapova (eds.), 126-145. Jopkiewicz, Izabela. 2006. “Komisje boją się angielskiego”, Gazeta Wyborcza KUJON POLSKI, 29 Mar. 2006: 5. jow. 1999. “Język konieczny”, Gazeta Wyborcza PRACA, 26. Apr. 1999: 4. jpp. 1998. “Angielska szkolna mizeria”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Lublin, 24 Sep. 1998: 3. Jurga, Krzysztof. 2007. “PokaŜ certyfikat, a dowiesz się, kim jesteś”, Gazeta Wyborcza Praca dodatek, 19 Feb. 2007: 5. Kachru, Braj B. 1985. “Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle”, in: Randolph Quirk and Henry G. Widdowson (eds.), 11-34. Kachru, Braj B. 1986. The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English. Kachru, Braj B. 1991. “Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern”, (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini. jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED347806&ERICExtSearch _SearchType_0=no&accno=ED347806) (date of access 02 Sep. 2009). Kachru, Braj B. 1992a. “Teaching World Englishes”, in: Braj B. Kachru (ed.), 355-365. Kachru, Braj B. 1992b. “World Englishes: approaches, issues and resources”, Language Teaching 25, 1-14. Kachru, Braj B. 2006a. “World Englishes: Agony and ecstasy”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 1, 69-88. Kachru, Braj B. 2006b. “Regional norms for English”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 3, 434-456. Kachru, Braj B. 2006c. “The spread of English and sacred linguistic cows”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 3, 484-500. Kachru, Braj B. 2006d. “Models for non-native Englishes”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 4, 108-130. Kachru, Braj B. 2006e. “Englishization and contact linguistics”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 4, 253-277.

476

Kachru, Braj B. 2006f. “The power and politics of English”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 5, 193-219. Kachru, Braj B. 2006g. “World Englishes and culture wars”, in: Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru and Cecil L. Nelson (eds.), 446-471. Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). 1992. The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. (2nd edition.) Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Braj B., Yamuna Kachru and Cecil L. Nelson (eds.). 2006. The handbook of World Englishes. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Kachru, Yamuna and Cecil L. Nelson. 2006. World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong : Hong Kong University Press. Kajzer, ElŜbieta. 2006. “Brakuje anglistów dla pierwszaków”, Gazeta Wyborcza, GW Szczecin, 16 Aug. 2006: 4. Kama. 1999. “Jakiego języka warto się uczyć?”, Gazeta Wyborcza Gazeta o językach, 09. Sep. 1999: 3. Kam-Mei, Jacqueline Lam and Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday. 2002. “What is an international language?”, English Today 69, 18, 1: 11-16. Kania, Stanisław. (ed). 1997. Społeczne zróŜnicowanie współczesnej polszczyzny. Szczeciń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Katarzyńska, Alicja and Adam Krawiec. 2006. “W pomorskich szkołach brakuje anglistów”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Trójmiasto 12. Aug. 2006: 1. Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak, Agnieszka and Joanna Pawelczyk. 2004. “Globalisation and customer service communication at Polish call centres” in: Anna Duszak and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 225-236. Komorowska, Hanna. 1989. “Nauczanie języków obcych w Polsce stan obecny i propozycje zmian”, Języki Obce w Szkole 5, 404-411. Komorowska, Hanna. 1991. “Second language teaching in Poland prior to the reform of 1990”, in: James E. Alatis (ed.), 501-509. Komorowska, Hanna. 2004. “Polityka językowa w polskim systemie oświatowym na tle rozwiązań europejskich”, Języki Obce w Szkole 2, 34-40. Komorowska, Hanna. 2007a. “Bez balastu ideologii: metodyka nauczania po stalinizmie (1957-1970)”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 9-26. Komorowska, Hanna. 2007b. “Nieco otwarcia na zachód: Ukonstytuowanie się dydaktyki językowej jako dyscypliny (1971-1980)”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 71-89. 477

Komorowska, Hanna. 2007c. “Komunikacja pomimo wszystko: dydaktyka językowa w trudnych latach (1981-1989)”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 125-139. Komorowska, Hanna. 2007d. “Jak korzystamy z wolności: Dydaktyka językowa po upadku komunizmu (1990-1999)”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 173-190. Komorowska, Hanna. 2007e. “Wkraczamy w XXI wiek: nauczanie w latach 20002007”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 245-261. Komorowska, Hanna. 2007f. “Polska polityka językowa na tle innych krajów Unii Europejskiej”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed), 13-36. Komorowska, Hanna. (ed.). 2007a. Metodyka nauczania języków obcych w Polsce (1957-2007). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa CODN. Komorowska, Hanna. (ed) 2007b. Nauczanie języków obcych: Polska a Europa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Szkoły WyŜszej Psychologii Społecznej „Academica”. Kondratowicz, Ada. 2004. “Certyfikaty do pracy”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Wrocław, 21. Jun. 2004: 3. Koneczna, Halina. 1936-1937. “Wyrazy angielskie w języku polskim”, Poradnik Językowy 9: 161-70. Konik, Tomasz. 2004. “Recommendations in the discourse of macroeconomic forecasting: A case study in discourse and globalisation” in: Anna Duszak and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 275-288. Kosciuszko Foundation. 2010. Teaching English in Poland Program. (http://www.thekf.org/kf/programs/summer/teaching_english_in_poland/about/) (date of access 10 Jun. 2010). Koseła, Krzysztof. 2007. “Ewolucja kształcenia w perspektywie międzynarodowej”, in: Urszula Sztanderska, Drogosz-Zabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds.), 15-18 Kot, Wiesław. 1999. “Czystka etniczna”, Wprost no. 31. (http://www.wprost.pl/ar/4931/czystka-etniczna/?o=4931&pg=1) (date of access 22 Mar 2010). Kowalczyk, Tomasz 2010. “100 tys. kary za merchandisera: Czy obce nazwy zawodów naruszają prawo” (http://praca.wp.pl/kat,18453,title,100-tys-kary-zamerchandisera-Czy-obce-nazwy-zawodow-naruszajaprawo,wid,12225247,wiadomosc.html) (date of access 13 May 2010). Koziarska, Beata. 1997. “Uwagi o słownictwie współczesnej mody”, in: Stanisław Kania (ed.), 71-79.

478

Kryścińska, Magdalena. 2005. “Przepustka do Europy”, Gazeta Wyborcza GAZETA POLIGLOTY, 16 Sep. 2005: 3. KsięŜopolski, Mirosław. 1995. “Polska – rozwój społeczny a procesy transformacji”, in: Raport o rozwoju społecznym 1995, 35-46. Kula, Marcin. 2005. “Zachód to bogactwo”, Mówią wieki 02: 29. Kulczycka, Agata. 2004. “Ucz się angielskiego”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Rzeszów, 05. Jul. 2004: 4. Kultura 1969. 1970. Warszawa: GUS. Kultura 1973. 1973. Warszawa: GUS. Kultura 1992. 1992. Warszawa: GUS. Kultura w 1993 R. 1994. Warszawa: GUS. Kultura w 1997 R. 1998. Warszawa: GUS. Kultura w 1998 R. 1999. Warszawa: GUS. Kultura w 1999 R. 2000. Warszawa: GUS. Kultura w 2000 R. 2001. Warszawa: GUS. Kultura w 2003 R. 2004. Warszawa: GUS. (http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/5840_1741_PLK_HTML.htm?action=show_archive) (date of access 30 Jun. 2010). Kultura w 2005 R. 2006. Warszawa: GUS. (http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/5840_1741_PLK_HTML.htm?action=show_archive) (date of access 30 Jun. 2010). Kultura w 2008 R. 2009. Warszawa: GUS. (http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/5840_1741_PLK_HTML.htm?action=show_archive) (date of access 30 Jun. 2010). Kultura w latach 1994–1996. 1997. Warszawa: GUS. Kwiecień, Agnieszka. 2000. “Europolszczyzna oswojona”, Rzeczpospolita. 07 Mar. 2000. Kwiecień, Agnieszka. 2006. “Nie karmic trolla, czyli nie wpuszczać intruza”, Rzeczpospolita. 11 Apr. 2006. Lai, Mee-ling 2001. “Hong Kong students’ attitudes towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English after the change of sovereignty”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22, 2: 112-133. Language education policy profile: Poland. 2005. Ministry of National Education (Poland) and Language Policy Division (Strasbourg). 479

(http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Profils1_EN.asp#TopOfPage) (date of access 07 Mar. 2010). Lasagabaster, David. 2005. “Attitudes towards Basque, Spanish and English: An analysis of the most influential variables”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 26, 4: 296-316. Legierska, Joanna. 2002. “Język angielski na topie”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Zielona Góra, 04 Oct. 2002: 4. Lekki, Paweł. 2003. “Watch your language”, The Warsaw Voice, July 10. (http://warsawvoice.pl/printArticle.php?a=2875) (date of access 06 May 2010). Lewicki, Andrzej, Maria. 1996. “Styl oficjalny i styl potoczny w reklamia” in: Jan Miodek (ed.), 111-120. Lindlof, Thomas R. and Bryan C. Taylor. 2002. Qualitative communication research methods. Sage Publications. List, Dennis. 2004. Maximum variation sampling for surveys and consensus groups. Adelaide: Audience Dialogue. (http://www.audiencedialogue.org/maxvar.html) (data of access 02 Feb. 2010). Löfman, Liisa, Lissa Kurki-Suonio, Silja Pellinen, and Jari Lehtonen (eds.). 1993. The competent intercultural communicator. Tampere: AFinLA Serier. Lotczyk, Konrad. 2009. Stosunki polski-amerykańskie w zarysie. (http://www.polskausa.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=495:stosunki-polskoamerykaskie-w-zarysie-&catid=37:z-historii&Itemid=66) (date of access 18 Jan. 2010). Lubaś, Władysław. 2005. “Zmieniać czy ulepszać polską politykę językową?”, in: Gajda, Stanisław, Andrzej Markowski and Józef Porayski-Pomsta (eds.), 60-73. Lubaś, Władysław. 1996. “Polszczyzna wobec najnowszych przemian społecznych” in: Jan Miodek (ed.), 153-161. Luke, Allan, Alec W. McHoul and Jacob L. Mey. 1990. “On the limits of language planning: Class, state and power”, in: Richard B. Baldauf Jr and Allan Luke (eds.), 25-44. Łyda, Andrzej. 2006. “Genre: Language contact and culture transfer”, in: Janusz Arabski (ed.), 57-64. McArthur, Tom. 1998. The English languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

480

McArthur, Tom. 2002. The Oxford guide to world English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McArthur, Tom. 2003. “World English, Euro-English, Nordic English?”, English Today 19, 1: 54-58. McArthur, Tom. 2004. “Is it world or international or global English, and does it matter?”, English Today 79, 20, 3: 3-15. McArthur, Tom. 2006. “World English and World Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, and standards”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 1, 89-124. McArthur, Tom. 2006. “World English and World Englishes: Trends, tensions, varieties, and standards”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 1, 89-124. McGovern, Maura. 1992. “WyraŜenia anglojęzyczne nacechowa ekspresywnie w gwarze studentów polskich”, in: Jolanta Maćkiewicz and Janusz Siatkowski (eds.), 31-40. Machin, David and Theo van Leeuwen. 2003. “Global schemas and local discourses in Cosmopolitan”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 4: 493-512. Maćkiewicz, Jolanta and Janusz, Siatkowski. (eds.). 1992. Język a kultura: Kontakty języka polskiego z innymi językami na tle kontaktów kulturowych. Wrocław: Wiedza o Kulturze. Mair, Christian. (ed.). 2003. The politics of English as a world language. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Majkowska, GraŜyna. 1994. “Język reklamy”, in: Kwiryna, Handke and Hanna Dalewska-Greń (eds.), 317-324. Majkowska, GraŜyna. 1996. “O języku polskiej prasy”, in: Jan Miodek (ed.), 85-97. Majkowska, GraŜyna and Halina Satkiewicz. 1999. “Język w mediach”, in: Walery Pisarek (ed.), 181-196. Malinowska, Ewa. 1999. “Język w urzędach”, in: Walery Pisarek (ed.), 74-96. Mańczak-Wohlfeld, ElŜbieta. 1995. Tendencje rozwojowe współczesnych zapoŜyczeń w języku polskim. Kraków: Universitas. Mańczak-Wohlfeld, ElŜbieta. 1997. “Najnowsze zapoŜyczenia angielskie w polskiej prasie”, Poradnik językowy 3: 84-86. Mańczak-Wohlfeld, ElŜbieta. 2000. “Tendencje purystyczne we współczesnej polszczyźnie”, in: ElŜbieta Mańczak-Wohlfeld (ed.), 93-97. 481

Mańczak-Wohlfeld, ElŜbieta. 2004. “Does the spread of English constitute a threat to Polish?”, in: Anna Duszak and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 177-182. Mańczak-Wohlfeld, ElŜbieta. 2005. “Język angielski w polskich nagłówkach prasowych”, in: Marta Dąbrowska (ed.), 57-63. Mańczak-Wohlfeld, ElŜbieta. 2006a. “Language contact vs. foreign and second language acquisition”, in: Janusz Arabski (ed.), 46- 54. Mańczak-Wohlfeld, ElŜbieta. 2006b. Angielsko-polskie kontakty językowe. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Mańczak-Wohlfeld. 2007. “Polish”, in: Manfred Görlach (ed.) 213-228. Mańczak-Wohlfeld, ElŜbieta. (ed.). 2000. Studia linguistica in honorem Stanislai Stachowski. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Marciniak, GraŜyna and Alina Baran (eds.). Kształcenie dorosłych. 2009. Warszawa: GUS: Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych. Marczyk, Geoffrey, David DeMatteo and David Festinger. 2005. Essentials of research design and methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Markowski, Andrzej. 1992a “Nowsze anglicyzmy semantyczne w polszczyźnie”, Poradnik Językowy 2: 156-160. Markowski, Andrzej. 1992b. “Nowsze zapoŜyczenia w polszczyźnie: anglicyzmy gramatyczne i leksykalne”, Poradnik Językowy 3: 237-241. Markowski, Andrzej. 2006. Kultura języka Polskiego. Teoria. Zagadnienia leksykalne. Warszawa: PWN. Markowski, Andrzej and Halina Satkiewicz. 1996. “Kultura języka w powojennej Polsce” in: Jan Miodek (ed.), 11-24. mart. 1994. “Jeden język to za mało”, Gazeta Wyborcza GAZETA O PRACY, 05. Sep. 1994: 3. Matura 2005: Języki obce nowoŜytne. 2005. Warszawa: Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna. (http://www.cke.edu.pl/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=1 47) (date of access 22 Jun. 2010). Matura 2006: Języki obce nowoŜytne. 2006. Warszawa: Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna. (http://www.cke.edu.pl/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=1 47) (date of access 22 Jun. 2010).

482

Matusiak, Jerzy. 1997. “Polskie słownictwo komputerowe”, Poradnik Językowy 1: 2428. Mauranen, Anna. 1993. “Cultural differences in academic discourse – problems of a linguistic and cultural minority”, in: Liisa Löfman, Lissa Kurki-Suonio, Silja Pellinen, and Jari Lehtonen (eds.), 157-174. Mauranen, Anna. 2003. “The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings”, TESOL Quarterly 37, 3: 513-527. Mazur, Jan. 2000. “Wstęp”, in: Jan Mazur (ed.), 7-9. Mazur, Jan. (ed.) 2000. Słownictwo współczesnej polszczyzny w okresie przemian. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Mesthrie, Rajend. 2003. “The world Englishes paradigm and contact linguistics: refurbishing the foundations”, World Englishes 22, 4: 449-461. Mey, Jacob. 2006. “‘Right or wrong, my native speaker les régestes du noble souverain de l’empirie linguistic avec un Renvoy au Mesme Roy’” in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 4, 93-107. Meyerhoff, Miriam and Nancy Niedzielski. 2003. “The globalisation of vernacular variation”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 4: 534-555. Miłosz, Czesław. 1999. “O toŜsamości”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 24 Dec. 1999: 11. Miodek, Jan (ed.) 1996. O zagroŜeniach i bogactwie polszczyzny. Wrocław: Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Polonistyki Wrocławskiej. Mitraszewska, Agnieszka. 2004. “Naród szlifuje angielski” Gazeta Wyborcza KUJON POLSKI, 20 Apr. 2004: 2. Mosiołek-Kłosińska, Katarzyna. 2000. “Polskie słownictwo okresu 1989-1999 na tle współczesnych zjawisk kulturowych”, in: Jan Mazur (ed.), 75-85. Mostowik, Piotr and Wojciech śukowski. 2001. Ustawa o języku polskim: komentarz. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Prawnicze LexisNexis. Mrózek, Robert. 2005. “Potrzeby edukacji komunikacyjnojęzykowej w dobie globalizacji kultury”, in: Gajda, Stanisław, Andrzej Markowski and Józef Porayski-Pomsta (eds.), 115-121. Muchisky, Dennis. 1985. “The unnatural approach: Language learning in Poland.”, Eric Document 264728. (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&E RICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED264728&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no& accno=ED264728) (date of access 28 Jun. 2010). 483

Mühlhäusler, Peter. 1996. Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialism in the Pacific region. London: Routledge. Murawska, Barbara and ElŜbieta Putkiewicz. 2006. “Poland”, in: Iveta Silova, Virginija Būdin÷ and Mark Bray (eds.), 257-277. Nadel, Elizabeth and Joshua A. Fishman. 1977. “English in Israel: A sociolinguistic study”, in: Fishman, Joshua A., Robert L. Cooper and Andrew W. Conrad. (eds.), 137-167. Niedziela, Joanna. 2002. “Angielski mile widziany” Gazety Wyborczej PRACA, 08 Apr. 2002: 3. OBOP. 1995. Języki obce znane i nieznane czyli o umiejętnościach lingwistycznych Polaków, Warszawa: OBOP (http://www.tns-global.pl/archive-report/id/741) (date of access 01 Mar. 2010). OBOP. 2000. Jakie znamy języki obce? Warszawa: TNS OBOP. (http://www.tnsglobal.pl/archive-report/id/412) (date of access 01 Mar. 2010). OBOP. 2005. Jakie języki obce rozumieją Polacy? Warszawa: TNS OBOP. (http://www.tns-global.pl/archive-report/id/7265) (date of access 01 Mar. 2010). Ociepa, Roman. 2001. “O współczesnych anglicyzmach w nazewnictwie zawodów i stanowisk słuŜbowych”, Poradnik Językowy, 6:49-55. Okulska, Urszula. 2004. “Globalisation on the Polish radio: The case of political interviews”, in: Anna Duszak and Urszula Okulska (eds.), 239-259. Oldak, Zofia and Jacek Bromski. 2002. “List koła realizatorów filmów dla dzieci i młodzieŜy do ministra kultury”, Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Filmowców Polskich. (http://www.sfp.org.pl/pl/sfp/magazynsfp/_4744) (data of access 15 May 2010). Olechino, Piotr. 2007. “Praca za język, język do pracy”, Gazeta Wyborcza Kujon Polski, 13 Feb. 2007: 1. Onysko, Alexander. 2004. “Anglicisms in German: From iniquitous to ubiquitous?”, English Today 20: 1: 59-64. Orliński, Wojciech. 2003. “To nie słowni barbarzyńcy”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 Nov. 2003: 17. Osiągnięcia maturzystów w roku 2007: Sprawozdanie z egzaminu maturalnego 2007. 2007. Warszawa: Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna. (http://www.cke.edu.pl/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=1 47) (date of access 12 Mar. 2010).

484

Osiągnięcia maturzystów w roku 2008: Sprawozdanie z egzaminu maturalnego w maja 2008. 2008. Warszawa: Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna. (http://www.cke.edu.pl/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=1 47) (date of access 12 Mar. 2010). Osiągnięcia maturzystów w roku 2009: Sprawozdanie z egzaminu maturalnego w 2009. 2009. Warszawa: Centralna Komisja Egzaminacyjna. (http://www.cke.edu.pl/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=247&Itemid=1 47) (date of access 12 Mar. 2010). Oświata i wychowanie w roku 1999/2000. 2000. Warszawa: GUS. Oświata i wychowanie w roku szkolnym 1998/99. 1999. Warszawa: GUS. Oświata i wychowanie w roku szkolnym 2000/2001. 2001. Warszawa: GUS. Oświata i wychowanie w roku szkolnym 2004/2005. 2005. Warszawa: GUS. Oświata i wychowanie w roku szkolnym 2005/2006. 2006. Warszawa: GUS. Oświata i wychowanie w roku szkolnym 2006/2007. 2007. Warszawa: GUS. (http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/5840_3431_PLK_HTML.htm) (date of access 04 Mar. 2010). Oświata i wychowanie w roku szkolnym 2007/2008. 2008. Warszawa GUS. (http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/PUBL_PUBL_wz_oswiata_wychowanie _2007-2008r.pdf) (date of access 04 Mar. 2010). Oświata i wychowanie w roku szkolnym 2008/2009. 2009. Warszawa GUS. (http://www.stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/PUBL_e_oswiata_i_wychowanie_20082009.pdf) (date of access 04 Mar. 2010). Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, Agnieszka. 2000. A study of the lexico-semantic and grammatical influence of English on the Polish of the younger generation of Poles. Warszawa: Dialog. Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, Agnieszka. 2007. “Programy i materiały nauczania w szkolnictwie podstawowym Polski i innych krajów UE a rekomendacje Rady Europy i Unii Europejskiej”, in: Hanna Komorowska (ed.), 117-134. OŜóg, Kazimierz. 2000. “Wyrazy modne i naduŜywane w polszczyźnie lat osiemdziesiątych i dziewięćdziesiątych XX wieku”, in: Jan Mazur (ed.), 87-94. Papuzińska, Magda. 2001. “Nie dla Szekspira”, Gazeta Wyborcza Magazyn, 20 Sep. 2001: 25. Pascher, Heinz M. and GraŜyna Skąpska (eds.). 2001. A work in progress: Social and political change in contemporary Poland and Austria. Kraków: Universitas. 485

Patton, Michael Quinn. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pawluczuk, Andrzej W. 1998. “Cywilizacyjno-historyczny paradoks”, Rzeczpospolita, 11 Apr. 1998. Pendel, Zbigniew. 2001. “Dorabianie na językach”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 04 Jan. 2001: 4. Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English a an International Language. Harlow: Longman. Pennycook, Alastair. 2003a. “Global Englishes, Rip Slyme, and performativity”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 4: 513-533. Pennycook, Alastair. 2003b. “Beyond homogeny and heterogeny: English as a global and worldly language”, in: Christian Mair (ed.), 3-17. Pennycook, Alastair. 2007. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge. Perry, Fred L. 2005. Research in applied linguistics: Becoming a discerning consumer. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Petzold, Ruth and Margie Berns. 2000. “Catching up with Europe: Speakers and functions of English in Hungary”, World Englishes 19, 1: 113-124. Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, Robert. 1997a. “Realities and myths of linguistic imperialism”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18, 3: 238-247. Phillipson, Robert. 1997b. “The politics of English language teaching”, in: Ruth Wodak and David Corson (eds.), 201-209. Phillipson, Robert. 1998. “Globalizing English: are linguistic human rights an alternative to linguistic imperialism?”, Language Sciences 20, 1: 101-112. Phillipson, Robert. 2003. “English for the globe, or only for globe-trotters?”, in: Christian Mair (ed.), 19-30. Phillipson, Robert, Mart Rannut and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. 1995. “Introduction”, in: Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson (eds.), 1-22. Phillipson, Robert and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. 1997. “Linguistic human rights and English in Europe”, World Englishes 16, 1: 27-43. Piotrowiak, Katarzyna. 2006. “Wyścig po pieniądze na angielski”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Katowice, 03 Apr. 2006: 5. Pisarek, Walery. 1993. “Moda w języku”, Ojczyzna Polszczyzna 3, 56.

486

Pisarek, Walery. 2005. “Zmiany w prawnym statusie polszczyzny w ostatnim pięcioleciu (1999-2004)”, in: Gajda, Stanisław, Andrzej Markowski, and Józef Porayski-Pomsta (eds.), 45-59. Pisarek, Walery. (ed.), 1999. Polszczyzna 2000: Orędzie o stanie języka na przełomie tysiącleci. Kraków: Ośrodek Badań Prasoznawczych. Pisowicz, Andrzej. 2000. “Czy istnienie języka polskiego rzeczywiście jest zagroŜone”, Rzeczpospolita, 22.08.2000. (http://new-arch.rp.pl/artykul/293395.html) (date of access 17. Feb. 2010). Podstawa programowa z komentarzami Tom 3. Języki obce w szkole podstawowej, gimnazjum i liceum. 2009. (http://www.reformaprogramowa.men.gov.pl/dlanauczycieli/jezyki-obce) (date of access 17 Jun. 2010). Podstawowe informacje z zakresu kultury w 1992 r. 1993. Warszawa: GUS. Polański, Kazimierz. 1996. “Uroczyste powitanie”, in: Jan Miodek (ed.), 9-10. Polsko-Amerykańskie stosunki gospodarcze. 2009. (http://www.polskausa.pl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=335:polskoamerykaskie-stosunki-gospodarcze&catid=45:akty-prawne&Itemid=75) (date of access 18 Jan. 2010). Poszytek, Paweł, Maria Gorzelak, Anna Dakowicz-Nawrocka, GraŜyna Płoszajska, Barbara Kujawa, Stanisław DłuŜniewski, Tomasz Płoszaj, Beata Trzcińska and Lucyna Grabowska. 2005. Raport Krajowy: Language education policy profile. Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. (http://lifelonglearning.pl/jezyki/Edukacjaj.pdf) (date of access 04 Jun. 2010). Prator, Clifford H. 1968. “The British heresy in TESL”, in: Joshua A. Fishman, Charles A. Ferguson and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.), 459-476. Prodromou, Luke. 2007. “A reader responds to J. Jenkins’s ‘Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca’”, TESOL Quarterly 41, 2: 409-413. Przygoński, Krzysztof. 2005. An attempt at revitalizing the linguistic research on attitudes and attitude – behavior relations: An insight from social psychology. [Unpublished MA dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University]. Przygoński, Krzysztof. 2009/2010. “Angielski jako język tolerancji i równych szans? Socjolingwistyczne rozwaŜania na temat modelu języka angielskiego i programu nauczania”, Języki Obce w Szkole 6, 19-23.

487

Przygotowanie polskich szkół wyŜszych do uwarunkowań społeczeństwa informacyjnego: Materiały z konferencji zorganizowanej przez Komisję Nauki, Edukacji i Sportu. 2003. Warszawa: Dział Wydawniczy Kancelarii Senatu. Pulcini, Virginia. 1997. “Attitudes towards the spread of English in Italy”, World Englishes 16, 1: 77-85. Putkiewicz, ElŜbieta. 2005. “Korepetycje – szara strefa edukacji”, Analizy i Opinie, 56, Warszawa: ISP (www.isp.org.pl/files/16725823750919296001134135817.pdf) (date of access 02 Jan. 2010). Qiang, Niu and Martin Wolff. 2005. “Is EFL a modern Trojan horse?”, English Today 21, 4: 55-60. Quirk, Randolph. 1985. “The English language in a global context”, in: Randolph Quirk and Henry G. Widdowson. (eds.), 1-6. Quirk, Randolph. 2006a. “International communication and the concept of nuclear English”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 3, 218-231. Quirk, Randolph. 2006b. “The question of standards in the international use of English”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 3, 474-483. Quirk, Randolph. 2006c. “Language varieties and standard language”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 3, 501-511. Quirk, Randolph and Henry G. Widdowson. 1985. “Summary of discussion”, in: Quirk, Randolph and Henry G. Widdowson. (eds.), 35-36. Quirk, Randolph and Henry G. Widdowson. (eds.). 1985. English in the world: teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radio i telewizja w Polsce: Raport o stanie rynku. 2006. Warszawa: Krajowa Rada Radiofonii i Telewizji. (http://www.krrit.gov.pl/bip/Portals/0/publikacje/raporty/raport_o_stanie_rynku_c aly.pdf) (date of access 22 Jun. 2010). Radiukiewicz, Anna, Jacek Bieliński, Magdalena Larkowska. 2006. Emigracja zarobkowa Polaków do Irlandii: Raport z badań. Warszawa: ZBPO (http://www.bezrobocie.org.pl/x/235330) (date of access 05 Jan. 2010). Radwańska-Williams, Joanna and Liliana Piasecka. 2005. “English langauge teaching in Poland: tradition and reform”, in: George Braine (ed.), 115-132. Raport o rozwoju społecznym 1995. Warszawa: UNDP (http://www.unic.un.org.pl/nhdr/1995/index.php) (date of access 03 Jan.2010). 488

Raport otwarcia: Rynek radiowo-telewizyjny w Polsce. 2006. Warszawa: Krajowa Rada Radiofonii i Telewizji. (http://www.krrit.gov.pl/bip/Portals/0/raport_otwarcia20_071106.pdf) (date of access 22 Jan. 2010). Rędzińska, Agnieszka. 2003. “Lejdis ent dŜentelmen!”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Trójmiasto, 13 Jan. 2003: 32. Reichelt, Melinda. 2005a. “English in Poland”, World Englishes 24, 2: 217-225. Reichelt, Melinda. 2005b. “English-language writing instruction in Poland”, Journal of Second Language Writing 14: 215-232. Remiszewski, Michał. 2001. Language attitudes and their socio-psychological determinants: the case of Polish students’ attitudes towards English. [Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Adam Mickiewicz University]. Remiszewski, Michał. 2005. “Lingua franca core: picture incomplete”, in: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds.), 293-308. ROCH. 1999. “Spikam bo Muszę”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Zielona Góra, 11 Sep. 1999: 7. Rocznik statystyczny kultury 1945-1967. 1969. Warszawa: GUS. Rocznik statystyczny kultury 1971. Warszawa: GUS. Rocznik statystyczny kultury 1974. 1975. Warszawa: GUS. Rocznik statystyczny kultury 1981. 1982. Warszawa: GUS. Rocznik statystyczny kultury 1989. 1989. Warszawa: GUS. Rocznik statystyczny szkolnictwa. 1993/94. 1994. Warszawa: GUS. Romaine, Suzanne. 2006a. “English: From village to global village”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 1, 46-54. Romaine, Suzanne. 2006b. “The British heresy in ESL revisited”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 5, 140-153. Romaniuk, Emilia. 2008. “Boom na angielski”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Białystok 27 Aug. 2008: 3. Romanowska, Anna. 2003. “Film bez granic: Konferencja ‘Film europejski w telewizji europejskiej’”, Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Filmowców Polskich, November, 2. (http://www.sfp.org.pl/pl/sfp/magazynsfp) (date of access 09 Feb. 2010). Romanowski, Rafał. 2008. “Mówisz po angielsku? My teŜ…”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Kraków, 06 May 2008: 5.

489

Rubal-Lopez, Alma. 1996. “The ongoing spread of English: A comparative analysis of former Anglo-American colonies with non-colonies”, in: Joshua Fishman, Andrew W. Conrad and Alma Rubal-Lopez (eds.), 37-82. Ruch Wydawniczy w Liczbach. 2004. Warszawa: Biblioteka Narodowa. Rzeszutek, Monika. 2000. “Słownictwo środowisk młodzieŜowych w okresie polskiej transformacji”, in: Jan Mazur (ed.), 171-177. Rzetelska-Feleszko, Ewa. 2000. “Podstawy leksykalne obecnych nazw sklepów i firm” in: Jan Mazur (ed.), 141-148. Saloni, Zygmunt. 1996. “Głos w sprawie prawnej ochronie języka”, in: Jan Miodek (ed.), 71-83. Sano, Hikomaro. 2002. “The world’s lingua franca of science”, English Today 72, 18, 4: 45-49. Sawicka, GraŜyna. 1995a. “Kłopoty z nowym autem”, Poradnik Język, 1, 38-39. Sawicka, GraŜyna. 1995b. “Norma a problem tak zwanych zapoŜyczeń”, Poradnik Językowy 9-10, 78-86. Scheuer, Sylwia. 2005. “Why native speakers are (still) relevant”, in: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds.), 111-130. Schmitt, Neal. 1996. “Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha”, Psychological Assessment, 8: 350-353. Schneider, Edgar W. 2006. “The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 1, 125-185. Schwartz, Geoffrey. 2005. “The lingua franca core and the phonetics-phonology interface”, in: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds.), 177198. Seargeant, Philip. 2005. “Globalisation and reconfigured English in Japan”, World Englishes 24, 3: 309-319. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. “Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 2: 133-158. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. “Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 209-239. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. “English as a lingua franca”, ELT Journal 59, 4: 339-341.

490

Seidlhofer, Barbara and Jennifer Jenkins. 2003. “English as a lingua franca and the politics of property” in: Christian Mair (ed.), 139-154. Serejska-Olszer, Krystyna. 2001. Polszczyzna z oddali: Język polski w anglojęzycznym świecie. Poznań: Media Rodzina. Sękowska, ElŜbieta. 1993. “Funkcjonowanie nowszych zapoŜyczeń angielskich we współczesnej polszczyźnie. Wybrane zagadnienia.”, Poradnik Językowy 5: 242248. Sękowska, ElŜbieta. 2007. “Wpływ języka angielskiego na słownictwo polszczyzny ogólnej”, Poradnik Językowy 5: 44-53. Sibelan Forrester, Magdalena J. Zaborowska and Elena Gapova (eds.). 2004. Over the wall/after the fall: Postcommunist cultures through an East-West gaze. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Siciński, Andrzej. 1963. Samoocena znajomości języków obcych. Warszawa: OBOP. (http://www.tnsglobal.pl/archive-report/id/4383) (date of access 11 Sep. 2010). Sidor, Krzysztof. 2005. “American dreams”, The Warsaw Voice, 6. April 2005. (http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/8119) (date of access 26 Dec. 2009). Silkin, Lewis. 1947. Impressions of a recent visit to Poland and Czechoslovalia. (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/detailsresult.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=7970926) (date of access 12 Jan. 2010). Silova, Iveta and Mark Bray. 2006a. “Introduction”, in: Iveta Silova, Virginija Būdin÷ and Mark Bray (eds.), 17-23. Silova, Iveta and Mark Bray. 2006b. “The context: Societies and education in the postsocialist transformation”, in: Iveta Silova, Virginija Būdin÷ and Mark Bray (eds.), 41-60. Silova, Iveta and Mark Bray. 2006c. “The hidden marketplace: Private tutoring in former socialist countries”, in: Iveta Silova, Virginija Būdin÷ and Mark Bray (eds.), 71-98. Silova, Iveta, Virginija Būdin÷ and Mark Bray. (eds.). 2006. Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring – overview and country reports. New York: Open society institute. (http://www.soros.org/initiatives/esp/articles_publications/publications/hidden_20 070216) (date of access 02 Jan. 2009).

491

Skrzeszewski, Michał. 2005. “Stosunek do innych narodów: Komunikat z badań”, Warszawa: CBOS (http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2005/K_001_05.PDF) (date of access 27 Feb. 2010). Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 1997. “Human rights and language policy in education”, in: Ruth Wodak and David Corson (eds.), 55-65. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove. 2003. “Linguistic diversity and biodiversity: The threat form killer languages”, in: Christian Mair (ed.), 31-52. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove and Robert, Phillipson (eds.). 1995. Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Smith, Larry E. 2006. “Spread of English and issues of intelligibility”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), 68-81. Smith, Ross. 2005. “Global English: Gift or curse?”, English Today 21, 2: 56-62. Smółkowska, Teresa. 2000. “Leksyka w początkowym okresie przemian ustrojowych: Rodzaje zmian”, in: Jan Mazur (ed.), 51-58. Sobkowiak, Włodzimierz. 2005. “Why not LFC?”, in: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds.), 131-149. Sokulska, Katarzyna. 1993. “Du ju spik inglisz?”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 18 Dec. 1993: 4. Spector , Paul. E. 1992. Summated rating scale construction: An introduction . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage White Plains, NY : Longman. Spolsky, Bernard. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sprawozdanie z działalności NajwyŜszej Izby Kontroli w 2005 roku. 2006. Departament Strategii Kontrolnej. (http://bip.nik.gov.pl/pl/bip/sprawozdanie_dzialalnosc/2006130) (date of access 11 Dec. 2009). Strategia państwa polskiego w dziedzinie mediów elektronicznych na lata 2005-2020. 2005. Warszawa: Krajowa Rada Radiofonii i Telewizji. (http://www.mk.gov.pl/docs/strategia_mediow_elektronicznych.pdf) (date of access 05 Mar. 2010). Strategia rozwoju edukacji na lata 2007-2013. 2005. Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej i Sportu. (http://www.cie.gov.pl/HLP/files.nsf/0/1D69FE3F2056D2DCC1257068004FA7F 7/$file/strategia_2007_2013.pdf?Open) (date of access 05 Mar. 2010). Strevens, Peter. 1992. “English as an international language: Directions in the 1990s”, in: Braj B. Kachru (ed.), 27-47. 492

Strevens, Peter. 2006. “Standards and the standard language”, in: Kingsley Bolton and Braj B. Kachru (eds.), Vol. 3, 457-462. Structures of Education and Training Systems in Europe: Poland 2009/10 Edition. 2010. Eurydice, European Commission. (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/structures/041_ PL_EN.pdf) (date of access 18 Jun. 2010). Strybel, Rob. 2003. “The Peace Corps in Poland - they came, did their work and are moving on...”, World of English, 18Apr. 2003. (http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2013188.html) (date of access 24 Aug. 09). Svartvik, Jan. 1985. “Commentator 2”, in: Randolph Quirk and Henry G. Widdowson (eds.), 33-34. Swaan de, Abram. 2001. Words of the world: The global language system. Cambridge: Polity Press. Swales, John. M. 1997. “English as Tyrannosaurus rex”, World Englishes 17, 3: 373382. Synowiec, Helena. 1999. “Język polski w szkole”, in: Walery Pisarek (ed.), 115-129. Szczęśniak, Piotr. 2005. “Po angielsku proszę”, The Warsaw Voice, 02 Mar. 2005 (http://www.warsawvoice.pl/view/7860) (date of access 26 Dec. 2009). Szczygieł, Mariusz. 1995. “Raport: PokaŜ język”, Gazeta Wyborcza Magazyn, 25 Aug. 1995: 6. Szkolnictwo 1990/91. 1991. Warszawa: GUS. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze 2000: Dane podstawowe. 2001. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze 2002: Dane podstawowe. 2003. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze 2004: Dane podstawowe. 2005. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze 2006: Dane podstawowe. 2007. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo wyŜsze: Dane podstawowe. 1989. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze: Dane podstawowe. 1990. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. 493

Szkolnictwo WyŜsze: Dane podstawowe. 1991. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze: Dane podstawowe. 1993. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze: Dane podstawowe. 1994. Lublin: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze: Dane podstawowe. 1995. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze: Dane podstawowe. 1997. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szkolnictwo WyŜsze: Dane podstawowe. 1999. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej Departament Ekonomiczny. Szpotowicz, Magdalena. 2009/2010. “Polska podstawa programowa w kontekście europejskich ram kwalifikacyjnych”, Języki Obce w Szkole, 6, 93-98. Sztanderska, Urszula. 2007a. “Kierunki i programy kształcenia w kontekście rynku pracy”, in: Urszula Sztanderska, Drogosz-Zabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds.), 21. Sztanderska, Urszula. 2007b. “Czy kształcenie szkolne stanowi źródłobezrobocia?”, in: Urszula Sztanderska, Drogosz-Zabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds.), 192-198. Sztanderska, Urszula. 2007c. “Jak kształcenie ustawiczne wpływa na funkcjonowanie polskiego rynku pracy”, in: Urszula Sztanderska, Drogosz-Zabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds.), 199-203. Sztanderska, Urszula, ElŜbieta Drogosz-Zabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz 2007. “Od wydawcy”, in: Sztanderska Urszula, ElŜbieta Drogosz-Zabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds.), 7-8. Sztanderska, Urszula, ElŜbieta Drogosz-Zabłocka and Barbara Minkiewicz (eds). 2007. Edukacja dla pracy: Raport o rozwoju społecznym Polska 2007. Warszawa: UNDP, Bank Światowy (www.unic.un.org.pl/nhdr/nhdr2007.php) (date of access 03 Jan. 2009). Sztompka, Piotr. 2001. “Post-Communist trauma. The case of Poland”, in Heinz M. Pascher and GraŜyna Skąpska (eds.), 33-51. ŚcieŜki edukacyjne Polaków. 2005. Warszawa: GUS.

494

Śliwa, Martyna. 2008. “Understanding social change through post-colonial theory: Reflections on linguistic imperialism and language spread in Poland”, Critical perspectives on international business 4, 2/3: 228-241. Śniegułka, Marzena. 2006. “Obcy język pomaga w interesach”, Gazeta Wyborcza GW Poznań 12 Dec. 2006: 10. Świątek, Jerzy. 2002. “Czy reklama psuje język?”, in: ElŜbieta Jeleń, Małgorzta Świątek and Justyna Winiarska (eds.), 65-67. The past and the future: Annual . 2007. The Kosciuszko Foundation. (http://www.kosciuszkofoundation.org/ABNewsletter.html) (date of access 23 Jun. 2010). Thurlow, Crispin and Adam Jaworski. 2003. “Communicating a global reach: Inflight magazines as a globalizing genre in tourism”, Journal of Sociolinguistics 7, 4: 579-606. Toolan, Michael. 2003. “English as the supranational language of human rights?”, in: Christian Mair (ed.), 53-65. Trend, Burke. 1964. Plowden report. (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/detailsresult.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=7975526) (date of access 12 Jan. 2010). Trudgill, Peter. 2003. A glossary of sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Trudgill, Peter and Jean Hannah. 1982. International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English. London: Arnold. Ustrzycki, Adam. 2007. Oczekiwania pracodawców wobec kwalifikacji pracowników. Opole: WyŜsza Szkoła Zarządzania i Administracji. (http://www.zporr.wup.opole.pl/dokumenty/temat2_oczekiwania_pracodawcow_ wobec_kwalifikacji_pracownikow.pdf) (date of access 15 Apr. 2010). Varney, Maurice H. 1984. “Poland: Another kind of hunger”, The Incorporated Linguist, 23, 3, 155. W trosce o pracę: Raport o rozwoju społecznym Polska 2004. 2004. Warszawa: UNDP. Walczak, Bogdan. 1987. Między snobizmem i modą a potrzebami języka czyli o wyrazach obcego pochodzenia w polszczyźnie. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.

495

Walczak, Bogdan. 1994. “Wpływy obce w powojennej polszczyźnie”, in: Stanisław Gajda and Zbigniew Adamiszyn (eds.), 20-22. Walewska, Danuta. 2002. “To godne słowo akcesja”, Rzeczpospolita, 23 Sep. 2002. Waniek, Danuta. 2003. “Film bez granic: Konferencja ‘Film europejski w telewizji europejskiej’ - stanowisko KRRITV”, Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Filmowców Polskich, November, (http://www.sfp.org.pl/pl/sfp/magazynsfp) (date of access 09 Feb. 2010). Waszakowa, Krystyna. 1995. “Dynamika zmian w zasobie leksykalnym najnowszej polszczyzny”, Poradnik Językowy, 3: 1-12. WAW. 2001. “Język z konieczności”, Gazeta Wyborcza SZKOŁY JĘZYKOWE, 07 Feb. 2001: 9. Wądołowska, Katarzyna. Stosunek Polaków do innych Narodów: Komunikat z badań 2010. Warszawa: CBOS. (http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2010/K_012_10.PDF) (date of access 27 Feb. 2010). Wciórka, Bogna. 1999. Czy akceptujemy słownictwo obce w naszym języku? (http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/1999/K_184_99.PDF) (date of access 11 Jan. 2009). Wciórka, Bogna. 2009a. Wydatki rodziców na edukację dzieci w nowym roku szkolnym, CBOS: Warszawa. (http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2009/K_145_09.PDF) (date of access 15 May 2010). Wciórka, Bogna. 2009b. Polacy o swoich wyjazdach zagranicznych i znajomości języków: Komunikat z badań. obcych. (http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2009/K_111_09.PDF) (date of access 01 Mar. 2010). Wells, John. 2005. “Goals in teaching English pronunciation”, in: Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlacka (eds.), 101-110. Widdowson, Henry G. 1997. “EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interest”, World Englishes 16, 3: 135-146. Widdowson, Henry. G. 1998. “EIL: Squaring the circles. A reply”, World Englishes 17, 3: 397-401. Winiarska, Justyna. 2002. “Przedmowa”, in: ElŜbieta Jeleń, Małgorzta Świątek and Justyna Winiarska (eds.), 9-10. 496

Wiśniewski, Jakub and Maciej Duszczyk. 2006. Emigrować i wracać: Migracje zarobkowe Polaków po 1 maja 2004 r. Warszawa: Instytut Spraw Publicznych. (www.isp.org.pl/files/2572839620196337001163156302.pdf) (date of access 05 Jan. 2010). Wiśniewski, Jerzy. 2007. “Rola funduszy Unii Europejskiej”, in: Urszula Sztanderska et al. (eds.), 71-73. Wodak, Ruth and David Corson. (eds.). 1997. Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 1: Language policy and political issues in education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Wolny, Maja. 1999. “Przygryzanie języka”, Polityka, 31 Jul. 1999. (http://www.polityka.pl/archive/do/registry/secure/showArticle?id=3116009) (date of access 06 May 2010). Worthen, Blaine. R., Walter. R. Borg and Karl. R. White. 1993. Measurement and evaluation in the schools. White Plains, NY : Longman. Wright, Sue. 2004. Language policy andlLanguage planning: From nationalism to globalisation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Wróblewski, Andrzej, Ibis. 1996. “Polszczyzna nam się kundli, czyli Kaczor Donald z hamburgerem w dziobie”, in: Jan Miodek (ed.), 257-260. Wróblewski, Andrzej Ibis. 2000. “Nasza anemiczna polszczyzna”, Rzeczpospolita, 27 Jul. 2000. (http://new-arch.rp.pl/artykul/289007.html) (date of access 18 Feb. 2010). Wykształcenie i rynek pracy. 1998. in: Stanisława Golimowska and Ewa RumińskaZimny (eds.), 63-78. Yee, Ming and Carissa Young. 2006. “Macao students’ attitudes toward English: A post-1999 survey”, World Englishes 25, 3/4: 479-490. Zarębska, Jadwiga. 2006. Powszechność nauczania języków obcych w roku szkolnym 2005/2006. Warszawa. CODN (http://www.bc.codn.edu.pl/dlibra/pubindex?dirids=1&startint=57) (date of access 02 Mar. 2010). Zarębska, Jadwiga. 2008. Nauczyciele języków obcych w roku szkolnym 2006/2007. Warszawa: CODN (http://bc.codn.edu.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=49&dirids=1) (date of access 02 Mar. 2010). Zarębska, Jadwiga. 2009. Powszechność nauczania języków obcych w roku szkolnym 2008/2009. Warszawa. CODN. 497

(http://www.bc.codn.edu.pl/dlibra/pubindex?dirids=1&startint=67) (date of access 02 Mar. 2010). Zgółkowa, Halina. 1999. “Język subkultur młodzieŜowych”, in: Walery Pisarek (ed.), 252-261. Zieliński, Maciej. 1999. “Języki prawne i prawnicze”, in: Walery Pisarek (ed.), 50-74. Zieliński, Michał A. 2003. “Papier na język”, Rzeczpospolita, 25 Mar. 2003. Znajomość języków obcych wśród Polaków. 1985. Warszawa: OBOP SP. (http://www.tnsglobal.pl/archive-report/id/6718) (date of access 11. Sep. 2010).

498

Appendix A.

Język angielski w opinii uczniów szkół ponadgimnazjalnych Cel badania PoniŜsza ankieta ma na celu zbadać co uczniowie szkół ponadgimnazjalnych myślą na szeroko pojęty temat „Język angielski w Polsce.” Celem badania nie jest sprawdzenie Waszej wiedzy i znajomości tego zagadnienia, lecz przyjrzenie się Waszym własnym opiniom na szereg zjawisk związanych z rolą języka angielskiego w Polsce. PoniŜsza ankieta jest anonimowa (Proszę nie podpisywać się!!!). Wyniki badań będą uśredniane i analizowane jako całość. Wasza pomoc jest bardzo waŜnym wkładem w przygotowanie przez Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu socjolingwistycznego obrazu funkcjonowania języka angielskiego w Polsce.

Jak wypełnić ankietę Główna część ankiety składa się z 32 pytań. KaŜde „pytanie” rozpoczyna się krótkim twierdzeniem (zdaniem oznajmującym). Pod nim znajduje się na skali lista 5 dostępnych odpowiedzi (pod kwadratami). Proszę zaznaczyć znakiem X w kwadracie □ odpowiedź, która jest najbliŜsza Waszej opinii. Aby ankieta była waŜna koniecznym jest zaznaczenie tylko jednej odpowiedzi na kaŜdej z 34 skal znajdujących się w głównej części kwestionariusza. Dodatkowo pod ankietą znajduje się 6 pytań, które dotyczą osoby wypełniającej kwestionariusz. Proszę zaznaczyć odpowiedź w ten sam sposób (znak X w kwadracie □ obok właściwej odpowiedzi).

Przykład. Twierdzenie

→

Chodzenie do kina jest w Polsce:

Skala z odpowiedziami

→ ____□_____

____

bardzo powszechne

□____

_____

powszechne

□_____

____

ani bardzo, ani mało powszechne

□____

_____

mało powszechne

□_____

bardzo mało powszechne

Proszę o uwaŜne wypełnienie ankiety!!!

Ankieta 1

Znajomość języka angielskiego w Polsce jest:

_____

□_____

bardzo powszechna

2

□_____

zdecydowanie bardziej powszechna

□_____

zdecydowanie częściej

□_____

zdecydowanie tak

□_____

z bardzo dobrym wykształceniem

□____

_____

mało powszechna

□_____

bardzo mało powszechna

____

□____

bardziej powszechna

_____

□_____

____

ani bardziej, ani mniej powszechna

□____

mniej powszechna

_____

□_____

zdecydowanie mniej powszechna

____

□____

_____

częściej

□_____

____

ani częściej, ani rzadziej

□____

_____

□____

_____

□____

_____

□ ____ nie

_____

□____

_____

rzadziej

□_____

zdecydowanie rzadziej

____

□____

_____

tak

□_____

____

□_____

____

ani tak, ani nie

nie

□_____

zdecydowanie nie

____

□____

z dobrym wykształceniem

_____

ani z dobrym, ani ze słabym wykształceniem

ze słabym wykształceniem

□_____

z bardzo słabym wykształceniem

Większość Polaków zajmujących waŜne stanowiska zna język angielski:

_____

□_____

____

zdecydowanie tak

7

____

Polacy dobrze znający język angielski to w większości osoby:

_____ 6

□_____

ani bardzo, ani mało powszechna

Większość osób uczących się języków obcych w Polsce, uczy się języka angielskiego:

_____ 5

_____

W porównaniu do mieszkańców duŜych miast, Polacy mieszkający na wsi i w małych miasteczkach znają język angielski:

_____ 4

□____

powszechna

W porównaniu do innych międzynarodowych języków obcych znajomość angielskiego w Polsce jest:

_____ 3

____

□ ____ tak

_____

□_____

____

ani tak, ani nie

□_____

zdecydowanie nie

Polacy, którzy nie potrafią porozumiewać się w języku angielskim to w większości ludzie:

_____

□_____

z bardzo dobrym wykształceniem

____

□____

z dobrym wykształceniem

_____

□_____

ani z dobrym, ani bez dobrego wykształcenia

____

ze słabym wykształceniem

□_____

z bardzo słabym wykształceniem

499

8

Dla większości Polaków znajomość języka angielskiego jest w codziennym Ŝyciu:

_____

□_____

zdecydowanie przydatna

9

□_____

zdecydowanie konieczna

____

□_____ □______

zdecydowanie najbardziej przydatna

□______

zdecydowanie najbardziej przydatna

□_____

zdecydowanie przydatna

□______

zdecydowanie najbardziej przydatna

□_____

zdecydowanie tak

□_____

zdecydowanie tak

□_____

zdecydowanie waŜniejsza

□_____

zdecydowanie więcej

□_____

zdecydowanie pozytywnie

□_____

zdecydowanie tak

□_____

bardzo waŜna

____

□ ____ tak

_____

□_____

__ _

ani tak, ani nie

□nie____

_____

□_____

zdecydowanie nie

_____

□_____

bardziej przydatna

______

□______

ani bardziej, ani mniej przydatna

____

□____

____

mniej przydatna

□_____

zdecydowanie mniej przydatna

_____

□_____

bardziej przydatna

______

□______

ani bardziej, ani mniej przydatna

____

□____

_____

mniej przydatna

□_____

zdecydowanie mniej przydatna

____

□____

przydatna

_____

□_____

ani przydatna, ani nieprzydatna

____

□____

_____

nieprzydatna

□_____

zdecydowanie nieprzydatna

_____

□_____

bardziej przydatna

______

□______

_____

□_____

ani bardziej, ani mniej przydatna

____

□____

mniej przydatna

_____

□_____

zdecydowanie mniej przydatna

____

□____

tak

ani tak, ani nie

____

□ ____ nie

_____

□_____

□ ____ nie

_____

□_____

zdecydowanie nie

____

□____

tak

_____

□_____

ani tak, ani nie

____

zdecydowanie nie

____

□____

waŜniejsza

_____

□_____

____

□____

_____

□_____

_____

□_____

____

□____

_____

□_____

ani waŜniejsza, ani mniej waŜna

mniej waŜna

zdecydowanie mniej waŜna

____

□____

więcej

ani więcej, ani mniej

mniej

zdecydowanie mniej

____

□____

pozytywnie

_____

□_____

____

□____

_____

□_____

_____

□_____

____

□ ____ nie

_____

□_____

□_____

____

□____

_____

□_____

ani pozytywnie, ani negatywnie

negatywnie

zdecydowanie negatywnie

____

□____

tak

ani tak, ani nie

zdecydowanie nie

____

□____

waŜna

_____

ani waŜna, ani niewaŜna

niewaŜna

zdecydowanie niewaŜna

W porównaniu do innych języków obcych angielski powinien w polskich szkołach zajmować miejsce:

_____

□_____

zdecydowanie najwaŜniejsze

____

□____

waŜniejsze

_____

□_____

ani waŜniejsze, ani mniej waŜne

____

□____

_____

□_____

____

□ ____ nie

_____

□_____

□ ____ nie

_____

mniej waŜne

zdecydowanie mniej waŜne

Matura z języka angielskiego powinna być obowiązkowa dla wszystkich:

_____

□_____

zdecydowanie tak

24

□_____

zdecydowanie niekonieczna

Rola języka angielskiego w polskim systemie edukacji powinna być:

_____

23

_____

Znajomość języka angielskiego daje pewien prestiŜ:

_____

22

□____

niekonieczna

Brak znajomości języka angielskiego oraz pewnych zwrotów i wyrazów pochodzących z tego języka mogą być odbierane:

_____

21

____

Dzięki znajomości języka angielskiego moŜna zarabiać:

_____

20

□_____

ani konieczna, ani niekonieczna

Dla osób szukających pracy za granicą znajomość języka angielskiego jest (w porównaniu do innych języków):

_____

19

_____

Brak znajomości języka angielskiego moŜe uniemoŜliwić znalezienie pracy w wielu zawodach:

_____

18

□_____

zdecydowanie nieprzydatna

Osoby dobrze wykształcone znają język angielski:

_____

17

_____

Dla Polaków chcących zamieszkać za granicą znajomość języka angielskiego jest (w porównaniu do innych języków) :

_____

16

□____

nieprzydatna

Szukając pracy znajomość języka angielskiego jest:

_____

15

____

Aby porozumieć się z obcokrajowcami podczas pobytu za granicą, znajomość języka angielskiego (w porównaniu do innych języków) jest dla Polaków:

_____

14

□_____

ani przydatna, ani nieprzydatna

Aby porozumieć się z obcokrajowcami przyjeŜdŜającymi do Polski, znajomość języka angielskiego jest (w porównaniu do innych języków):

_____

13

□____

konieczna

zdecydowanie tak

12

_____

Znajomość języka angielskiego daje dostęp do wiedzy i informacji, których zdobycie w języku polskim moŜe być trudne:

_____ 11

□____

przydatna

Dla wielu osób pracujących umysłowo w Polsce znajomość języka angielskiego jest do wykonywania zawodu:

_____ 10

____

____

□____

tak

_____

□_____

ani tak, ani nie

zdecydowanie nie

Egzamin gimnazjalny z języka angielskiego powinien być obowiązkowy dla wszystkich:

_____

□_____

zdecydowanie tak

____

□____

tak

_____

□_____

ani tak, ani nie

____

□_____

zdecydowanie nie

500

25

Poziom nauczania języka angielskiego w większości szkół publicznych jest według mnie:

_____

□_____

____

bardzo wysoki

26

□_____

____

bardzo dobrze

□_____

____

□_____

____

□____

duŜy

□_____

____

bardzo duŜy

□źle ____

_____

□____

_____

□____

_____

□____

_____

□____

_____

□____

_____

□____ ____□____ niefajny ____□____ nieciekawy

_____

□_____

bardzo niski

_____

□_____

____

□_____

____

□_____

____

□_____

____

□_____

____

ani dobrze, ani źle

□_____

bardzo źle

_____

ani duŜy, ani mały

mały

□_____

bardzo mały

_____

ani duŜy, ani mały

mały

□_____

bardzo mały

□____

duŜy

_____

ani duŜy, ani mały

mały

□_____

bardzo mały

Polacy uŜywają słów pochodzących z języka angielskiego:

_____

□_____

____

bardzo często

□____

często

_____

ani często, ani rzadko

rzadko

□_____

bardzo rzadko

Osoby młode i w wieku szkolnym uŜywają słów pochodzących z języka angielskiego:

_____

□_____

____

bardzo często

□____

często

32 UwaŜam, Ŝe angielski jest: _____ a) _____ bardzo przydatny

c)

_____

niski

Wpływ języka angielskiego na kulturę w Polsce jest:

_____

b)

□____

duŜy

bardzo duŜy

31

□____

____

Wpływ popkultury amerykańskiej na język polski jest:

_____

30

□____

dobrze

bardzo duŜy

29

□_____

ani wysoki, ani niski

Wpływ języka angielskiego na język polski jest:

_____ 28

_____

Szkoły publiczne przygotowują do egzaminów maturalnych z języka angielskiego:

_____ 27

□____

wysoki

□ _____□_____ bardzo fajny _____□_____ bardzo ciekawy

_____

□_____

ani często, ani rzadko

□____ _____ □_____ ani przydatny, ani nieprzydatny ____□____ _____□_____ fajny ani fajny, ani niefajny ____□____ _____□_____ ciekawy ani ciekawy,

____

przydatny

ani nieciekawy

____

rzadko

____

nieprzydatny

□_____

bardzo rzadko

□_____ _____□_____ bardzo niefajny _____□_____ bardzo nieciekawy bardzo nieprzydatny

Proszę sprawdzić czy na kaŜdej z 34 skal znajduje się tylko jedna odpowiedź!!!

Informacje dotyczące osoby wypełniającej ankietę 1. Płeć: a) kobieta □ b) męŜczyzna □ 2. Miejsce zamieszkania: a) miasto □ b) wieś □ 3. Poziom zaawansowania zajęć z języka angielskiego w szkole: a) grupa zaawansowana □ b) grupa niezaawansowana □ 4. Ocena z języka angielskiego w pierwszym semestrze (zaznacz odpowiedni przedział): a) 1,0 – 2,9 □ b) 3,0 – 4,4 □ c) 4,5 – 6,0 □ 5. Średnia ocen w pierwszym semestrze (zaznacz odpowiedni przedział): a) 1,0 – 2,9 □ b) 3,0 – 4,4 □ c) 4,5 – 6,0 □ 6. Wykształcenie ojca: a) wyŜsze □ b) średnie □ c) zawodowe i niŜsze □

Dziękuję za poświęcony czas ☺

501

Appendix B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

(bywa) wkurzający (szczególnie frejzale) - 1 bogaty w słownictwo - 2 brzydszy niŜ polski - 1 chamski - 1 chwilami nielogiczny - 1 ciekawy - 18 cool - 2 czasem prosty - 1 czasochłonny - 1 często uŜywany - 2 dobry - 1 dostępny - 1 dziwny - 1 fajny - 8 fascynujący - 1 faworyzowany (spośród innych języków, nie rozumiem dlaczego) - 1 głupi - 1 interesujący - 9 intuicyjny (łatwo zdobyć wyczucie, intuicję) - 1 kwiecisty - 1 lepiej brzmiący niŜ polski - 1 ładny - 2 łatwiejszy od niemieckiego - 1 łatwy a zarazem trudny - 1 łatwo dostępny - 1 łatwy - 10 językiem germańskim - 1 komunikatywny -2 ma fajne wulgaryzmy - 1 ma piękny akcent, kiedy - 1 mało skomplikowany - 1 mądrym językiem - 1 magiczny - 1 melodyjny - 1 mdły - 1 miły (dla ucha) - 1 mniej skomplikowany niŜ język polski - 1 modny - 5 na dłuŜszą metę nuŜący - 1 narzędziem komunikacji - 1 nauczany w szkołach - 1 neutralny - 1 nie aŜ tak trudny aby się nie nauczyć - 1 niebezpieczny (dla polszczyzny, stosujemy kalki językowe i to jest okropne, słowo celebryta – nie nawidzę go) - 1 nieciekawy - 1 niełatwy - 1 nieodzowny - 1 nieprzewidywalny - 1 nietypowy jak na indoeuropejski - 1 niezastąpiony - 1 niezbędny - 9 nudny - 3 odkształca sposób patrzenia na językoznawstwo - 1 ogólnoświatowy - 1 okey - 1 okropny - 1 opłacalny - 1 pasuje do piosenek (piosenki w tym języku dobrze brzmią) - 1 płynny i ładnie brzmiący - 1 płynny - 1 pomocny - 3 pomaga rozwijać własne umiejętności - 2

63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

popularny -6 potoczny - 1 potrzebny - 17 powodem do dumy, dla tych co go umieją - 1 powszechnie znany - 6 poŜyteczny - 1 praktyczny - 1 promowany do roli interlingua - 1 prosty w porównaniu z innymi językami - 1 przydatny - 25 przyjemny - 6 przykry - 1 przyszłościowy - 1 przesadnie promowany - 1 rozbudowany pod względem słownictwa - 2 róŜnorodny - 1 satysfakcjonujący (kiedy się czegoś nauczymy) - 1 schematyczny - 1 sexy - 1 skomplikowany - 2 sposobem na porozumiewanie się z obcokrajowcami - 1 84. stary - 1 85. super kiedy nauczyciel jest spoko - 1 86. szybki - 1 87. szybki do zapamiętania - 1 88. świetny (gdy dobrze go znamy) - 1 89. trudny - 15 90. ubogi w formy ekspresji - 1 91. uniwersalny - 2 92. uŜyteczny - 4 93. w najlepszych filmach - 1 94. waŜny - 2 95. wielką szansą na zdobycie pracy - 1 96. wpadający w ucho - 1 97. wszechobecny - 5 98. wymagający - 3 99. wymagany - 1 100. wymusza proeuropejski i proamerykański punkt widzenia - 1 101. zabawny w niektórych przypadkach - 2 102. zagraniczny - 1 103. zawiera zawiłe elementy - 1 104. znany - 1 105. zbyt mało rozpowszechniony - 1 106. zbyt rozpowszechniony - 1 107. złoŜony - 1 108. zróŜnicowany - 1 109. Ŝałosny - 1

502

Appendix C. Mean values of individual items. Sex Items Mean

Place of living

Level of advancement

Semester grade in English

Fathers’ education

Grade 1st3rdGirls Boys Town Village Adv. Basic Poor Aver. High Poor Aver. High Grade Grade

1

3.7

3.8

3.6

3.8

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.5

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.8

3.8

3.5

2

4.1

4.1

4.0

4.2

4.0

4.1

4.1

4.0

4.1

4.1

4.2

4.1

4.0

4.1

4.1

3

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.6

3.6

3.9

4

4.4

4.4

4.3

4.4

4.4

4.5

4.3

4.2

4.4

4.4

4.5

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.4

5

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.9

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.9

4.0

6

4.0

4.1

3.8

4.0

4.0

3.9

4.2

4.1

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.1

3.8

4.1

3.9

7

3.8

3.9

3.7

3.7

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.8

8

3.7

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.7

3.6

3.3

3.6

3.8

3.5

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.6

9

3.8

3.9

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.8

3.9

10

3.8

3.7

3.9

3.9

3.6

3.9

3.6

3.5

3.7

3.9

3.6

3.8

4.0

3.7

3.8

11

4.5

4.6

4.3

4.5

4.4

4.6

4.3

4.3

4.4

4.6

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

4.5

12 13 14

4.6 4.5 4.4

4.6 4.5 4.5

4.5 4.4 4.3

4.6 4.6 4.4

4.5 4.4 4.4

4.6 4.6 4.4

4.5 4.4 4.4

4.5 4.4 4.3

4.5 4.4 4.4

4.6 4.6 4.5

4.5 4.4 4.4

4.6 4.5 4.4

4.6 4.5 4.5

4.5 4.5 4.4

4.6 4.5 4.4

15

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.2

16

3.8

3.9

3.7

3.8

3.8

3.9

3.7

3.3

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.9

3.9

3.8

17

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.2

18

3.9

4.0

3.8

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.8

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.9

19

3.6

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

4.0

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.7

3.5

3.5

3.7

20

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.9

3.8

4.0

4.0

3.7

21

4.2

4.3

4.0

4.3

4.2

4.3

4.1

3.7

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.1

4.3

22

4.0

4.1

4.0

4.1

4.0

4.1

3.9

3.5

4.1

4.2

3.9

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.0

23

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.4

2.9

2.4

3.2

3.3

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.0

3.3

24

3.1

3.1

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.4

2.8

2.3

3.1

3.4

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.1

25

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.2

3.1

3.4

2.9

26

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.3

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.4

27

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.7

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.6

28

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.8

4.0

3.9

3.8

3.9

3.8

3.9

29

3.6

3.7

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.4

3.6

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.6

3.6

30

3.9

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.5

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.9

4.0

3.9

31

4.2

4.2

4.1

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.1

4.0

4.2

4.2

4.3

4.2

4.1

4.2

4.2

32

4.6

4.7

4.4

4.6

4.5

4.7

4.5

4.2

4.5

4.7

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.5

4.6

33

3.9

4.0

3.7

4.0

3.8

4.1

3.7

3.5

3.8

4.2

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.8

4.0

34

3.8

3.9

3.6

3.8

3.7

4.0

3.5

3.5

3.7

4.0

3.9

3.7

3.7

3.7

3.8

Abstrakt Niniejsza praca doktorska dotyczy socjolingwistycznych aspektów funkcjonowania języka angielskiego w Polsce po 1989 roku. Szczególny nacisk połoŜono na interpretację i opis zjawisk w świetle współczesnych teorii i modeli. Ze względu na holistyczne ujęcie badanej problematyki, procesy socjolingwistyczne występujące w Polsce ujęto jako wynik szeroko pojętych zmian politycznych, ekonomicznych, społecznych i kulturowych, będących następstwem otwarcia się Polski na Zachód i poddania się współczesnym procesom globalizacyjnym. Opis procesów skupia się na wątku synchronicznym, jednak nie zostaje pominięty element diachroniczny stanowiący historyczne tło dla wydarzeń po 1989 roku. Wybór opisanych aspektów makrosocjolingwistycznych został dokonany na podstawie szeroko omówionej literatury teoretycznej

dotyczącej

funkcjonowania

języka

angielskiego

(oraz

jego

rozprzestrzeniania) w świecie. Główne zagadnienia podjęte w pracy to (1) formowanie podstaw dla rozprzestrzeniania się języka angielskiego w Polsce i jego rosnącej roli, (2) rozprzestrzenianie się języka angielskiego w Polsce w okresie po-transformacyjnym, (3) anglicyzacja i amerykanizacja języka polskiego i polskiej kultury, (4) rola języka angielskiego w procesach stratyfikacyjnych społeczeństwa polskiego, (5) polityka językowa państwa polskiego w okresie ostatnich dwóch dekad, (6) nauczanie i uczenie się języka angielskiego po roku 1989, (7) postawy względem i poglądy o języku angielskim i jego funkcjonowaniu w pokomunistycznej Polsce. WaŜnym elementem pracy jest jakościowo-ilościowe badanie ankietowe zgłębiające postrzeganie roli i funkcjonowania języka angielskiego w Polsce. Analiza socjolingwistyki języka angielskiego w Polsce w okresie po transformacji ustrojowej została przeprowadzona w oparciu o: (1) przedstawienie obecnego stanu wiedzy na temat funkcjonowania języka angielskiego w świecie i stworzenie ram teoretycznych w obrębie których moŜna dokonać analizy i interpretacji

504

istotnych zjawisk występujących w Polsce; (2) wykazanie związków pomiędzy globalnymi

czynnikami,

zjawiskami

i

procesami

oraz

lokalnymi

aspektami

funkcjonowania języka angielskiego; (3) omówienie ogólnych tendencji oraz schematów funkcjonowania języka angielskiego w świecie i porównanie ich do sytuacji w Polsce; (4) zintegrowanie obecnego stanu wiedzy, rozmaitych badań, danych statystycznych

i

empirycznych

w

celu

wyczerpującego

nakreślenia

makro-

socjolingwistycznego obrazu języka angielskiego po 1989 roku; (5) uzupełnienie dotychczasowego stanu wiedzy o badanie empiryczne studiujące postrzeganą rolę i wpływ języka angielskiego. Ponadto, zrealizowanie owego zadania ukazało konieczność zintegrowania i polegania na danych, statystykach, raportach, analizach etc. opracowanych, jak równieŜ zgłębianych, przez rozmaitych badaczy z wielu róŜnych dziedzin i o róŜnych specjalnościach. Praca składa się z 4 rozdziałów i zakończenia. W rozdziale pierwszym dokonano przeglądu współczesnych koncepcji i modeli teoretycznych języka angielskiego jako języka światowego. Rozdział ten stanowi ramy teoretyczne dla opisów, analiz i dyskusji prowadzonych w dalszych częściach pracy. W rozdziale drugim, na podstawie literatury światowej, przeanalizowano schematy i zasady funkcjonowania języka angielskiego w lokalnych kontekstach językowo-społeczno-kulturowych. Dokonany tu przegląd zjawisk i procesów stanowi punkt odniesienia dla opisu analogicznych zjawisk występujących w Polsce oraz jest punktem wyjścia do analizy teoretycznej socjolingwistyki języka angielskiego w Polsce. W rozdziale trzecim podjęto próbę całościowego opisu najistotniejszych zjawisk, procesów i tendencji

związanych z

rozprzestrzenianiem się, rosnącą rolą, wpływem i statusem języka angielskiego w Polsce po 1989 roku. Rozdział czwarty ma charakter opisowo-empiryczny. Skoncentrowano się w nim na analizie postrzegania przez Polaków języka angielskiego i jego współczesnego funkcjonowania w Polsce. Tematy podejmowane w tej części pracy to między innymi postawy do, i przekonania dotyczące angielskiego, jego roli oraz wpływu na polszczyznę i kulturę Polski, jak równieŜ świadomość językowa Polaków. Zakończenie pracy zawiera teoretyczną interpretację analizowanych zjawisk, występujących w kontekście Polski oraz analizę rozmaitych implikacji (natury opisowej,

teoretycznej,

metodologicznej,

i

pedagogicznej),

wynikających

z

funkcjonowania języka angielskiego w Polsce obecnej doby. Wyniki pracy przedstawiają szereg wniosków opisowych, teoretycznych, metodologicznych, stosowanych i empirycznych. Do najwaŜniejszych konkluzji 505

opisowych naleŜy zaliczyć wykazanie powiązania między rozprzestrzenianiem języka angielskiego w Polsce i jego rosnącą rolą a dąŜeniami Polski i aspiracjami Polaków do pełnego uczestnictwa w globalnym systemie ekonomiczno-kulturowym oraz rozmaitych organizacjach międzynarodowych, w których język angielski odgrywa rolę lingua franca. Upowszechnianie znajomości języka angielskiego wśród Polaków było i jest waŜnym elementem strategii narodowej i jako takie, wraz z licznymi reformami edukacyjnymi, doprowadziło do systematycznego zwiększania się liczby osób władających językiem angielskim oraz do powszechnego nauczania go w polskich szkołach. Nauczanie języka angielskiego w polskim systemie edukacyjnym cieszy się uprzywilejowaną pozycją, którą formalnie usankcjonowano w najnowszej podstawie programowej. Przez prawie dwie dekady znajomość języka angielskiego była dodatkowym czynnikiem zwiększającym róŜnice między roŜnymi warstwami społecznymi. W ostatnich latach znajomość języka angielskiego stała się na tyle powszechna, Ŝe przestaje tracić na swojej niezwykłość, zwiększa konkurencję na rynku pracy (wśród nauczycieli i nie tylko), staje się niemalŜe nieodłącznym elementem wymagań pracodawców, znacząco zmniejszającym szanse na zatrudnienie osób nieznających angielskiego (lub znających niedostatecznie). Wpływ języka angielskiego i kultury amerykańskiej na język polski i kulturę narodową (zjawiska anglicyzacji i amerykanizacji) jest większy niŜ jakichkolwiek innych współczesnych języków i kultur. Jest on dostrzegalny niemalŜe we wszystkich aspektach

Ŝycia

mieszkańców

Polski.

Powszechność

uŜywania,

świadomość

stosowania, rozumienie i akceptacja współczesnych zapoŜyczeń z języka angielskiego wykazują duŜe społeczne zróŜnicowanie. Stosunek do angielskiego i kultury amerykańskiej, pomimo pewnej krytyki, wydaje się niemal powszechnie pozytywny. UŜytkowa wartość angielskiego jest niemal powszechnie uznana i stanowi główne kryterium jego postrzegania. Status języka angielskiego w Polsce, jego rola, wpływ i istotność w codziennym funkcjonowaniu Polaków są znaczne, jednak nie aŜ tak jak w innych krajach naleŜących do tzw. Zewnętrznych i Rozwijających się Kręgów uŜytkowników języka angielskiego. Ze względu na duŜą i rosnącą rolę języka angielskiego, twórcy polskiej polityki językowej powinni dąŜyć z jednej strony do zagwarantowania kaŜdemu moŜliwości nauczenia się angielskiego oraz z drugiej do ograniczania jego negatywnych wpływów i skutków. Rozprzestrzenianie i funkcjonowanie języka angielskiego w dzisiejszym świecie (i Polsce) to skomplikowane zjawiska, wymagające holistycznych analiz integrujących 506

obecny stan wiedzy opisowej i teoretycznej. Nawiązując do współczesnych modeli i teorii moŜna dokonać następujących stwierdzeń: (1) rozprzestrzenianie języka angielskiego we współczesnej Polsce ma znamiona makro-akwizycji i nie jest spowodowane imperializmem językowym, (2) powody dla których angielski stale zwiększa swoją rolę i liczbę osób władających tym językiem w Polsce to: (a) jego kluczowa rola (i wartość komunikacyjna – Q-value) w systemie światowym oraz (b) jego hegemonia; rozumiana jako mimowolna akceptacja obecnego stanu rzeczy (roli i znaczenia języka angielskiego), i niemalŜe odruchowy wybór angielskiego jako pierwszego języka obcego, którego powinno się nauczyć, (3) kontakty językowokulturowe pomiędzy anglojęzycznym i polskim kręgiem kulturowym wykazują duŜą asymetrię, (4) wpływ angielszczyzny na współczesną polszczyznę i kulturę narodową nie moŜe być rozumiany jedynie w kategoriach homogenizacji (lub nawet makdonaldyzacji) lub heterogenizacji, lecz jako złoŜony kontakt kulturowo-językowy.

507