McKay, Sandra Lee & Bokhorse-Heng, Wendy D. (2008). International English in Its Sociolinguistic Contexts: Towards a Socially Sensitive EIL Pedagogy. Reviewed by Na Liu, Arizona State University

McKay, Sandra Lee & Bokhorse-Heng, Wendy D. (2008). International English in Its Sociolinguistic Contexts: Towards a Socially Sensitive EIL Pedagogy. NY: Routledge Pp. x + 209         ISBN 978-0-8058-6338-3 Reviewed by Na Liu Arizona State University March 7, 2009 This book addresses a very timely and important topic: the diverse sociolinguistic contexts of present-day English use and learning, which were created by globalization, migration, and the spread of English. In examining the sociolinguistic contexts of language learning, the authors focus on the manner in which English learning is affected by the larger social, political, and educational setting. A basic assumption throughout this book is that “...because English is an international language, effective pedagogical decisions and practices cannot be made without giving special attention to the many varied social contexts in which English is taught and learned” (p. 197). Altogether there are seven chapters in this book. The authors begin with an overview of the development of English as an International Language (EIL) and the pedagogical contexts of EIL learning. In Chapter One, employing a language ecology perspective, the authors examine how English has developed as a global language and how this development has impacted the status and use of English and other languages. This chapter also considers the dangers that can arise with the spread of English in terms of the loss of other languages, growing monolingualism in Anglophone countries, and an economic divide in access to English. Chapter Two describes various present-day English learning contexts, using Kachru’s model of Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circles. Major pedagogical challenges faced by educators in each of these contexts are discussed and illustrated through the use of case studies of specific countries. Chapters Three and Four describe the social and political forces that affect language use. Chapter Three provides an analysis of multilingual societies by discussing countries in which there are both diglossia and widespread English bilingualism, such as India and South Africa, as well as countries in which there is English bilingualism without diglossia, such as Great Britain and the United States. Chapter Four focuses on language planning and policy decisions as they affect EIL learning. For example, one of the primary issues addressed in language planning decisions is which language or languages should be designated as an official language. Chapters Five and Six take a much more micro-level approach, focusing on specific features of the structure and pragmatics of EIL. Chapter Five discusses how social factors influence specific syntactic, interactional and discourse features of English. Special attention is given to the development of World Englishes, their features, and their relationships to identity issues. Chapter Six examines how interactional sociolinguistics can provide insight into the use of English in an era of globalization. Specifically, the authors consider the ways in which interactional sociolinguistics research has been beneficial in providing insight into English as the lingua franca, the code-switching behavior of bilingual users of English, and bilingual users’ attitudes towards code-switching. In the final chapter, the authors argue that in order to have a socially sensitive EIL pedagogy, language planners and educators should consider the following factors when making pedagogical decisions: the extent of multilingualism in the country, the language policies and practices of the nation, the linguistic features of the particular varieties of English spoken in the country, and the manner in which individuals in these contexts make linguistic choices to indicate their affiliation with particular speech communities and ideologies. One of the strengths of this book is that it provides different perspectives about globalization, the spread of English, and the teaching of English. While recognizing all perspectives, the authors argue for their own. For example, the spread of English is always a controversial topic, with Crystal (2003) viewing it positively, and Phillipson (1992) criticizing it vigorously. Brutt-Griffler (2002) emphasizes the agency of individuals in the process of spreading English. The authors argue that while there are indeed instances of colonizers imposing the spread of English through educational policies, the agency of individuals to choose to study English cannot be overlooked in a comprehensive analysis of colonial history. Another strength is engagement with both the theoretical issues and specific cases from all over the globe. The links to language policy, planning, politicking, and interactional sociolinguistics, confer theoretical richness on this effort. The specific cases make the theories more accessible and comprehensible to readers. For example, when introducing the social contexts for EIL learning, the authors use Kachru’s three concentric circles as a heuristic. Britain and the United States are discussed as cases for Inner Circle countries; South Africa and Philippines for Outer Circle countries; China, South Korean, and Japan for Expanding Circle countries. One limitation here is that when the authors discuss the social contexts using Kachru’s model Europe is not covered. The authors do mention that in Europe, English seems to have assumed the role of a lingua franca rather than a foreign language. Therefore, European countries are not going to be dealt with when discussing Expanding Circle countries. However, the social contexts in European countries, as a special case and an important one for EIL teaching, deserve some discussion under this topic. Throughout the book, the authors challenge some well-established views in EIL teaching. For example, in many Expanding Circle countries, there is a native speaker fallacy that assumes that native speakers of that language should provide the model for English training. However, the authors argue that globalization has brought with it a constant interplay between global and local space. The strength of local bilingual teachers is that they can bring to the classroom an understanding of local conditions and how they interact with global concerns. Another example concerns Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). In Nunan’s (2003) study, many Expanding Circle countries subscribe to the implementation of CLT, though in fact in many classrooms, due to a variety of constraints, the method is not actually being implemented. Therefore, the authors argue that the most effective method must be one locally produced by educators who are aware of the global reach of English and also fully informed of the local context. I agree with the authors that EIL pedagogy should encourage awareness of the variation that exists in English today and recognize the validity of different varieties of English; however, I am not quite in accord with the authors when it comes to standards. The authors claim that there should be different standards for different contexts of use and the definition of each Standard English should be endonormative (determined locally). I would argue, however, that when talking about standards, distinctions should be made between Inner Circle countries, Outer Circle countries and Expanding Circle countries. In both Inner Circle countries and Out Circle countries, English is used on a daily basis, while in Expanding Circle countries, sometimes English is only a subject in schools. If varieties in Inner Circle countries and Outer Circle countries can be regarded as standards locally, I am not sure whether varieties in Expanding Circle countries should have the same status. Since the authors believe that the definition of each Standard English should be determined locally, more research on local people’s views on this issue is needed to better inform EIL teachers and policy makers. In addition, the authors quote House’s (2003) work and claim that it is inappropriate to teach the pragmatic norms of an Inner Circle country. Rather the curriculum “should focus on the learners’ need to be flexibly competent in international communication through the medium of the English language in as broad a spectrum of topics, themes, and purposes as possible” (p. 149). English will be used to communicate in a variety of contexts, so it is beneficial to learn all kinds of pragmatic norms, but how? It is easy to make pronouncements, but the difficulty comes in deciding how to implement them. Despite my disagreement with some statements made by the authors, this book provides a valuable resource on the current sociolinguistic contexts in which English is learned as an international language. As stated in the preface, this book is directed to a wide TESOL and applied linguistics professional readership. This text is particularly useful and effective for pre-service and in-service professional development in the TESOL field. Regardless of whether readers are persuaded by the arguments, this book can enrich their understanding of EIL learning and spark educators’ critical thinking beyond their everyday routine. References Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. House, J. (2003). Teaching and learning pragmatic fluency in a foreign language: The case of English as a lingua franca. In A. Martinez Flor, E. Uso Juan & A Fernandez Guerra (Eds.), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 133-159). Castellao de la Plana, Spain: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613. Philipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. About the reviewer Na Liu is a Ph.D. candidate in Mary Lou Fulton College of Education, Arizona State University. Her research interests focus on second language teaching and acquisition, heritage language maintenance, and language policy.