The Language Teacher
August 2001

Which Varieties of English Do You Teach at Your Jr./Sr. High School?

James Goddard

Kwansei Gakuin University


As language educators, we are well acquainted with the importance associated with choosing the appropriate language forms, functions and topics for our students' lessons. However, some recent reading has led me to ask myself and other educators an additional question about the language and materials used in lessons: "When was the last time we considered the appropriate varieties of English to expose our learners to?" In a round of interviews with teachers, I discovered a general lack of awareness regarding language variety planning and pedagogy in the handful of high schools I queried (including my own).

Dialect, accent and variety

When many of us refer to the different "kinds" of English in use among English speaking countries (or even within a single nation), we commonly use the terms dialect and/or accent. Strevens notes that "since many educators use the terms interchangeably"(1983, p.87), it is useful to make a distinction between dialect and accent. Dialect is generally taken to mean "differences in grammar and vocabulary" while accent represents, "differences in phonology" (Strevens, 1983, p.88). The negative associations with the terms dialect and accent among many language communities has led authors to use the term variety when referring to a subtype of a language, such as the American or British varieties of English (Kachru & Nelson, 1996). In this sense, varieties could include variation in any or all of the following: grammar, vocabulary, phonology and even pragmatics.

Identifying English varieties

As a simplistic, but useful guide, Kachru and Nelson (1996) have categorized English varieties by using an illustration of three concentric circles (a three-circle, bulls-eye). The "Inner Circle" (or bull's eye) contains the commonly accepted varieties of English: American, Australian, British, Canadian, and New Zealand. These varieties are used in countries where English is the first or predominant language. The next circle is called the "Outer Circle" and represents varieties used in countries where English has had a long history of institutionalized functions and wide importance. Examples are India, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa and the Philippines. The last circle is called the "Expanding Circle" and contains countries in which English fulfills roles that are rather specific in nature. These countries include Japan, China, Korea, Iran and Nepal. This last circle is always growing, and hence it has earned its name.

Informal Interview Question

Do you teach multiple varieties in your classroom now?

In an effort to survey how some teachers approach the issue of linguistic variety in their high school classrooms, I conducted about a dozen informal interviews, asking the above question. About half of the instructors queried answered with a paraphrase of what this teacher said: "My students struggle with listening comprehension in American English, which they've been studying for 5 years now. Why would I confuse them with another variety?" Another said, "We have a multinational teaching staff representing several inner circle varieties. We all have pronunciation and lexis differences, but we don't deal with these issues explicitly in our lessons." One mentioned that some texts have more exposure to varieties than others, "We use Marathon Mouth, which has a variety of speakers in the listening materials." Another reasoned that his curriculum paid some attention to variety of English:" Yeah, we do a lesson once a year highlighting the differences between American and British English." However, the overall reality seemed to be echoed by one teacher who verbalized what many of us (including me) probably do unconsciously, "My students get one variety of English -- mine."

From this small sampling of skilled and knowledgeable teachers, it became clear to me that many or most high school teachers (and most likely teachers in many other contexts) probably do not address the issue of language variety in a conscious and systematic way. In my own case, I cannot say that this neglect results from a lack of need: last year we began a home stay program in Australia, and this year it dawned on me that we were giving students absolutely no exposure to Australian English in our curriculum.

The Myth of "Standard English"

There have been volumes written about standards of English which is quite an interesting and controversial topic these days. As previously discussed, English is used in a variety of functions in a multitude of countries throughout the world. The question of standard is much more complicated than the choice between British and American English as many people assume (Phillipson, 1992). All of the inner circle countries have legitimate varieties, and none of them are inherently wrong (Kachru & Nelson, 1996). The question of standard gets more complicated if we consider the varieties of the outer and expanding circles as well. These varieties are not transitional "interlanguage," they are stable systems with their own characteristic vocabulary, grammar, phonology and pragmatics, and are thus argued to have merit and legitimacy in their own right (Kachru & Nelson, 1996; Phillipson, 1992)

The question of standards within any single country is also a sensitive one these days. Using the United States as an example, there are many varieties as can be seen in the video American Tongues, and some hold more social and economic prestige than others (McGroarty, 1996). GAE (General American English) is the variety that is generally identified with social and economic power in the US, and this is what you will generally hear spoken by national newscasters, high-level politicians, academics and businessmen (Rickford, 1996). Other varieties in the US, such as African-American Vernacular or a heavy New York accent for example, are two varieties that do not hold widespread prestige and would weigh against a user in many contexts (Rickford, 1996).

It is probably best to say that there are many legitimate varieties of English in the world, some of which hold prestige in certain settings. GAE and British English (RP) or received pronunciation likely have more worldwide prestige than other varieties, but that does not make other varieties incorrect (Kachru & Nelson, 1996). Since most of our students here in Japan have likely been taught that American English is the acceptable English standard, unfamiliar varieties are likely to be seen as wrong by students (Kachru & Nelson, 1996). If you would agree that Australian, Canadian and New Zealand English are not wrong, you may also agree that it is our responsibility to point this out to our students. Pennycook addresses the reality of multiple standards and prestige forms saying, "Rather than assuming some monolithic version of the standard language, therefore, we can acknowledge multiple standards"while at the same time acknowledging, "the importance of certain language forms because of their relationship to certain discourses"(Pennycook, 1994, p. 316).

How do We Decide which English Varieties to Use in the Classroom?

Armed with our new, broader awareness of language variety, we must now ask ourselves which varieties would be the most appropriate pedagogic candidates for our students. Pennycook suggests that we, "first need to make sure that students have access to those standard forms that are linked to social and economic power and prestige. Next we need a good understanding of the status and possibilities presented by different standards. Then we can focus on those parts of language that are significant in particular discourses, and students need to understand that these forms represent only one set of particular possibilities." (Pennycook, 1994, 317-318).

Initially, this suggests the importance of teaching students the standard(s) they will need to navigate gate keeping tests such as TOEIC or TOEFL to promote equal opportunity for second language learners (McGroarty, 1996). Then, we also need to identify what the students' needs might be other than the prestige forms. A needs analysis (Long, in press) of your students' likely current and future use of English can be utilized to identify the varieties that they are likely to come in contact with. Which countries do many or most of your students travel to? Does your school have an official home stay program? Where? Do any of your students go abroad for extended study? What varieties will our students be exposed to in these settings?

In my own case, I decided to expose my learners to all varieties included in the inner circle countries (as input only). Due to my students' rather low level, I don't think it would be worthwhile to work with more localized varieties of English that would be classified as regional or social (Kachru & Nelson, 1996), or to have them produce other varieties to any great extent. Unless a specific need arose, I think that such specificity is best left to higher-level students or those that have specific needs due to travel or relocation. However, I would consider broadly treating a regional dialect if a needs analysis discovered that such a variety was helpful to our home stay students. For example, if my students were to travel to a rural area where the varieties I teach are not used (GAE and RP), I would definitely expose them to the regional variety in the input and would perhaps have them practice output of key phrases as well.

How Do We Introduce these Varieties to Students?

Begin by Raising Student Awareness

"I'm from New Zealand, and my girlfriend (Japanese) thinks my English is wrong." (A response from teacher interviews.)

If we accomplish nothing more than raise our students' awareness to the reality and validity of other English varieties, I believe we will have performed an essential service. A very useful starting strategy is to first raise the students' awareness to variety within their own language. This is a powerful technique for opening their minds to the acceptance of legitimate varieties other than a prestige form or widely accepted variety (Kachru & Nelson, 1996). Students can be directed to brainstorm in groups about the varieties of the "standard" that exists in Japan. "Are there people in certain regions that cannot communicate in spoken form with one another?" "What variety would our students recommend a tourist to learn if they were coming to Tokyo? To Kyushu? To Hokkaido? To Aomori?" 'Could a visitor communicate well in these areas with only "standard Japanese"?'

Once students have been reminded of the variety within their own language, we can explain that many languages are pluricentric in nature and have, "more than one variety, many times more than one accepted standard (Arabic, Hindi, Spanish, French)" (Kachru & Nelson, 1996, p. 71). This is, of course, true of English as well. As educators, we can point out that even within any of the inner circle countries, including the US, many valid varieties exist (Kachru & Nelson, 1996). This is where the use of the video such as American Tongues would be an ideal and entertaining way to see the broad variety of English used just within the United States. This video is a wonderfully candid and entertaining tour of the staggering array of English varieties in the US.

I believe that the final result of this exercise would be to open our students' eyes to the legitimate need for general exposure to nonstandard varieties of any language, and the value of learning specific varieties when they are likely to travel, study or work in places where regional varieties are used to the exclusion of the commonly taught standard.

Kachru & Nelson (1996) note other benefits of such awareness raising exercises:

  1. The students would move beyond an abstract belief in the existence of world Englishes in a hands on way.
  2. Students would become less reluctant to engage an unfamiliar variety in the future. This is essential given the fact that "interactional contexts in which nonnative and native speakers use English with each other are fast shrinking" (Kachru & Nelson (1996, p.88).

Classroom Application

McGroarty claims that, "The fact that multiple standards exist is a crucial insight for teachers and students of language, and it suggests that teaching materials and practices ought to make them explicit" (1996, p. 32). Most teachers understand that exposure to other English varieties translates into different activities according to students' proficiency levels. At lower levels, activities that require input recognition (McGroarty, 1996) seem appropriate, while at higher levels activities can be more challenging and involved. Some principles and activities specifically addressing language variety include:

Conclusion

As English increasingly takes on international language status (McGroarty, 1996; Pennycook, 1994), I feel that one of our duties as responsible educators is to convey the rich variety that English embodies. I suggest that a valid goal would be to enable our students to view English as the multicolored rainbow of possibilities that it actually is, rather than the black and white inkblot our teaching and materials often make it out to be. A plan for introducing a broader sense of English variety in your curriculum could be designed accordingly:

  1. First, do the teachers in your program agree that language variety is a useful and sensible feature of English; a feature that should be included in the curriculum?
  2. If so, which varieties would be most beneficial to expose students to?
  3. How will you raise learner awareness to the legitimacy of other English varieties?
  4. How will you introduce these varieties into the lesson materials: at what level, and in which modes (reception and or production)?

A concise reader survey: What do you think?

Though this article's primary aim is to raise teacher awareness about the possibilities of including a broader treatment of English variety into their curriculum, I am also interested in garnering input from teachers regarding this issue. Please consider the following:

  1. Do you think that the JR/HS context is appropriate for varietal introduction? If not, at what level do you think it is appropriate?
  2. What is your personal experience with English varieties in your classroom?

Please email me at tanto11@hotmail.com with your views and experiences.

References

Brown, D. (1994). Teaching by Principles. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Kachru B. & Nelson C. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation and standards. In S. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 71-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Long, M (In press.). Methodology issues in learner needs analysis. Revised version to appear in TESOL Quarterly 35, 3, 2001.

McGroarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation and standards. In S. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 3-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as a World Language. New York: Longman.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rickford, J. (1996). Regional and social variation. In S. McKay & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 151-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strevens, P. (1983). What is "Standard English?" In L. Smith (Ed.) Readings in English as an international language (pp. 87-93). Oxford: Pegamon.


All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website