Gibson Ferguson Language Planning and Education Edinburgh ...

New Englishes and teaching models 177
uniform standard written print variety, the supplementation of which by some
alternative written lingua franca norm would be of questionable utility.
The greatest obstacle, however, to the promulgation of an ELF teaching model,
exceeding by far the difficulties just mentioned, is acceptability. 12 As Timmis’s (2002:
244) data reveals, and as is corroborated by Wright’s (2004: 176) observations, there
is still a considerable degree of attachment to standardised native speaker norms, the
principal reason being the persistence of the traditional notion that native-speakerlike
competence is the ultimate benchmark of learning achievement. Even Seidlhofer
(2004: 244) herself, in her opposition to the hegemony of native speaker norms, does
not entirely evade what she refers to as a ‘conceptual straightjacket’, for in outlining
‘unproblematic’ ELF features posing no obstacle to successful communication she
employs negatively loaded vocabulary: for example, ‘confusing the relative pronouns
who and which’ or ‘failing to use correct forms in tag questions’ (our italics); an
oversight remedied by Jenkins (2004: 64) in a subsequent article where these terms
are enclosed in inverted commas.
Given the deep-rooted nature of these attitudes there is a risk, then, that an ELF
model constructed on the lines indicated above will come, like other ‘reduced’
models before, to be perceived – however unjustifiably – as a second-rate English. It
seems unlikely either that European or East Asian students will easily be persuaded
that an ELF model is the most suitable one for them on the grounds that they will
predominantly, or only, use English as an international lingua franca with other nonnatives.
They may reason, on the contrary, that their future communication needs
are unpredictable, and that, given the still impressive demographics and economic
power of native-speaking communities, there is in fact some prospect of encountering
native speakers at some future time, in which case a prestige variety of English
of wide currency, internationally as well as in the inner circle, will be the best, most
flexible bet for them.
The conclusion we are driven to, then, is not that the pursuit of an ELF model is
valueless or pointless. Far from it, despite the methodological and conceptual
difficulties involved. But rather that gaining acceptance is a formidable obstacle that
can probably only be overcome by convincing teachers, students and the wider
public not just that English is sociolinguistically in a different position from all other
languages, which is obvious, but that this sociolinguistic uniqueness justifies the
abandonment of a popular assumption that by and large holds sway for most
languages; the assumption, namely, that native-speaker-like proficiency, and conformity
to native speaker norms, is the truest measure of achievement in second
language learning.
NOTES
1. The distinction between stress-timed and syllable-timed languages is an idealisation; many
languages fall on a continuum between these two extremes. Stress-timing refers to a tendency
by which stressed syllables occur at regular intervals of time, a characteristic known as
‘isochronism’. Syllable-timing refers to the tendency for all syllables in an utterance to receive
equal prominence, a characteristic known as ‘isosyllablism’.