The Linguistics Journal September 2009 Special Edition Language

The Linguistics Journal – September 2009
their cultures, then language learning may become a more mechanical task in which language functions
simply as a tool with no cultural dimension or associated identity issues. This may already be the case for
language learning at relatively low levels, especially when confined to more academic classroom based
exercises. However, when language is used to communicate and represent the individual partaking in
that communication this can never be true. It may be possible that a language such as English can be
imposed on top of the original L1 identity and be used to express this. Yet, this seems unlikely; firstly,
this would most likely lead to communication difficulties with interlocutors not familiar with the
participants C1, and thus defeat the aim of English for intercultural communication. Secondly, given the
global influences on English language use and that languages are rarely learnt in isolation cultural
references, other than just those of the L1, may well be present. Furthermore, as already discussed, local
contexts are also fluid, changing and influenced by global forces. Speakers may thus be able to choose
the extent to which they use language to represent particular cultures or identities, moving between local
and more international contexts depending on situation and interlocutor (Canagarajah, 2005; Kirkpatrick,
2007; Meierkord, 2002).
Alternative identities for ELF users, in contrast to either L1/C1 identities or NES, are those of the
multilingual, multicompetent users of language who can mediate and negotiation between different
languages and cultures (Baker, 2003; 2008a,b; Byram, 1997; Canagarajah, 2005; 2007; Jenkins, 2006;
2007; Kramsch, 1993; Risager, 2006; 2007). Jenkins believes that such features may lead ELF speakers
to identify with one another in a ‘community of practice’ in which users are joined in a shared endeavour
with similar resources to draw upon (2007; 232). A recent proposal in language education, which
provides a commensurable aim and identity for L2/FL users, is that of the ‘intercultural citizen’ (Alred
et. al. 2006; Byram, 2008a; 2008b). Byram believes that the competencies involved with being a
successful user of a language for intercultural communication, as outlined above, extend beyond surface
behaviour and entail emotional levels which are related to identity. Thus, “we might expect an
identification with a group” (Byram, 2008b). This group, Byram believes, will be other successful
intercultural communicators who can mediate and negotiate between cultures: a multilingual and
multicultural group of intercultural citizens.
The perspectives on identity associated with ELF users in expanding circles are also articulated
by the participants in this research. The conflicting identities and associations are frequently expressed
The Linguistics Journal – Special Edition Page 24