Global TESOL for the 21st Century. Heath Rose

framework of World Englishes studies’ (Yano, 2001: 121). This model places varieties of English within three overlapping circles:

      (1)The Inner Circle, which depicts nation states where English is used as a prominent native language (e.g. England, Ireland, Australia, USA, New Zealand);

      (2)The Outer Circle, which depicts nation states where English is used as a second language alongside other national languages (e.g. Hong Kong, India, Nigeria, Singapore);

      (3)The Expanding Circle, which depicts nation states where English did not have a historic colonial presence, but is learned as a foreign language (e.g. Germany, China, Russia, Brazil).

      These three circles are representative of previous divisions between language users, such as Strang’s (1970) three categories which led to the eventual labelling of speakers as: English as a native language (ENL) speakers; English as a Second Language (ESL) speakers; and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) speakers.

      While Kachru’s model of World Englishes has been influential, it is not without its problems. Galloway and Rose (2015) note that ‘the model is severely flawed in a number of aspects’ (2015: 18). Some of these criticisms include the following:

      •it does not account for global mobility, where different types of English speakers live in different circles;

      •it takes a reductionist approach to the realities of how language is used in each of these circles;

      •the models focus too much on the colonial history in some nations, while overlooking the historical influence of English in others;

      •it fails to capture the multi-ethnic and multilingual realities of the world;

      •it does not clarify where native Englishes that have been formed via creolisation should be placed;

      •it positions the Inner Circle as ‘norm-providing’ and thus does not disrupt the status quo as much as it proclaims it does;

      •it does not capture the way English is used as a lingua franca within and across these circles.

      In Bruthiaux’s (2003) detailed critique of Kachru’s model, he observes that the model ‘is a twentieth-century construct that has outlived its usefulness’ (2003: 161), and concludes that we need to move more towards a usage-based model. In a similar vein, Pennycook (2010) notes that ‘we need to choose carefully between the available models of pluricentric Englishes, avoiding the pitfalls of states-centric pluralities … in order to deal with globalized linguascapes’ (2010: 685). He argues that as a discipline we need to move away from models depicting nation-based circles altogether.

      In terms of pedagogical implications (discussed further in Chapter 2) World Englishes research has emphasised the need for students to develop an awareness that speakers of English today adhere to a diverse range of grammatical and phonological norms. Thus, an education that seeks to only teach one standard of English might not prepare students to use the language with the majority of its speakers. World Englishes research has also helped to establish the legitimacy of a number of English varieties, and seeks to empower L2 users of the language as not needing to adhere to so-called ‘native’ English norms.

      English as a lingua franca

      The theoretical work within the field of English as a lingua franca (ELF) first emerged to meet the shortcomings of World Englishes, as outlined above. The focus of initial ELF research sought to explore how English was used in dynamic and fluid global contexts, where speakers of different first languages (L1s) used English for communication purposes. At its core, ELF research sought to break down traditional state-based depictions of English language use. Early work in ELF research emerged within the European context, as English rapidly gained a foothold as the European Union’s de facto lingua franca for business, political and social communication. Researchers such as Jenkins (2000), Seidlhofer (2001), and Mauranen (2003), explored the ways in which ELF challenged the established norms of English language use.

      The early work in ELF was similar to that of World Englishes, in that much of the research of this time focused on understanding the linguistic features and patterns in ELF communication. Some of the research aimed to explore similarities in these features across diverse contexts. This early work into the features of ELF was underpinned by a number of corpus studies, and was the basis of some now refuted claims that a distinctly European variety of English was emerging. Modiano (2003), for example, claimed that a codifiable variety called ‘Euro-English’ would emerge due to ongoing ELF interactions across Europe. In hindsight, many ELF researchers today see this earlier work as somewhat problematic, because codifying patterns and features of English use in these diverse contexts was at odds with the field’s later stance that ELF was not a codifiable (and therefore teachable) variety. As a result, many critics of ELF are quick to overly focus on this work. They argue ELF upholds an ‘anything goes’ ideology – a stance which ELF researchers have vehemently refuted.

      In an effort to move away from its World Englishes orientation to early research, a second phase of ELF work emphasised a fluidity of norms in each ELF communication, which were later placed at the core of much of its research focus. These norms are variable and changeable with each ELF encounter, and are underpinned by the parameters of the context, the communicative aims of the discourse, as well as the needs of the interlocutors. Because of its focus on dynamism and variability, much ELF research conducted in the late 2000s and early 2010s explored the way in which speakers used English to communicate. During this time, we saw research emerge on topics such as Business English as a Lingua Franca (e.g. Kankaanranta & Planken, 2010) and English as an Academic Lingua Franca (e.g. Mauranen et al., 2010).

      More recent work in ELF has emphasised the importance of English in multilingual contexts. As the multilingual turn in applied linguistics (discussed later in this chapter) has made inroads into numerous fields of study, ELF researchers have become more interested in exploring how English is used alongside other languages in lingua franca encounters. Jenkins (2015b) refers to this current phase of research as ELF 3. We would argue this brings ELF research closer in its focus to the field of Global Englishes.

      In terms of pedagogical implications (discussed further in Chapter 2) ELF research has emphasised the need for students to develop the communication strategies to successfully use the language with a range of speakers of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. ELF-aware pedagogy seeks to enable students to adapt their English to various communities of practice, whose norm and expectations might differ according to each context.

      Global Englishes

      The term Global Englishes was first adopted by researchers who have been described as critical applied linguists (e.g. Suresh Canagarajah & Alastair Pennycook). Rose and Galloway (2019) also link their more recent theorization of Global Englishes with critical applied linguistics. Critical applied linguistic researchers saw the conceptual shortcomings of World Englishes and early ELF research, and sought a new term to unite a shared interest in research that explored the fluidity of language use, globally. Pennycook (2003, 2007) used the term Global Englishes to describe the global spread and use of a diversity of Englishes as part of larger globalisation processes. Other researchers (e.g. Galloway & Rose, 2015) see Global Englishes as an inclusive field of study, where traditional ideologies surrounding language and identity are challenged. Canagarajah (2013) has also used Global Englishes in a similar way to refer to the way in which users reconstitute English for their local purposes. Canagarajah prefers to focus on contact practices rather than static views of ‘nativeness’ and regionality. Global Englishes research tends to not focus on codifying varieties of English at all, thus moving beyond state-based and community-based constructs of language, by challenging the very boundaries between varieties, languages and communities. It does, however, draw and build on such research, thus incorporating, rather than discarding, previous understandings of English language variation and change.

      In terms of pedagogical implications (discussed further in Chapter 2) Global Englishes research has emphasised the need to raise