World English and World Englishes: perspectives from English language learners in Iran

1. Introduction

The wide global spread of English has fuelled discussions among a large number of researchers around the world regarding the repercussions, benefits, as well as the hindrances, if any, that this spread can or has already brought about. Kachru and Nelson (1996) maintain that the spread of English into the status of a global language can be viewed in terms of two distinct diasporas, an idea which was first proposed by Kachru (1992a). The first diaspora involved the diffusion of English from the mother country such as North America to new locations, while in the second diaspora those who had been trained in English were responsible for transmitting English to new contexts. The first diaspora, assert Kachru and Nelson (1996), occurred in the Inner Circle while the second diaspora was the case with the other circles and involved processes of nativization of English.

Numerous terms are used to denote the international status of English. These terms are employed in their singular and plural forms and include: “English as an international (auxiliary) language, global English(es), international English(es), localized varieties of English, new varieties of English, non-native varieties of English, second language varieties of English, World English(es) (WE[s]), new Englishes, alongside more traditional terms such as ESL (English as a second language) and EFL (English as a foreign language)” (Bolton 2004, 367).

Specifically, WEs refers to “localized forms of English” which are used across the world (Bolton 2005 as cited in Xiao 2009, 421). English is now regarded as the international lingua franca. To conceptualize the global spread of English, Kachru (1985a, 1992a) introduced three circles: inner, outer, and expanding. According to Kachru, these circles correspond to the terms English as a native language, ESL, and EFL, respectively. Crystal (2003) provides the following well-known figure (Figure 1) to show the number of the speakers of English in each circle (p. 61).

Figure 1.

The three circles of English.

Crystal (2003, 60) defines the three circles as follows:

1. The Inner Circle: Known as the “traditional bases of English, where it is the primary language,” this circle includes such countries as the USA, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand;

2. The Outer Circle: Also called Extended Circle, this refers to the countries in which English is used as a second language (ESL) and in which the main uses of English are for communicational, institutional, and official purposes. Examples include Singapore, India, and Malawi.

3. The Expanding Circle: Also termed Extending Circle, this refers to settings with no history of colonization on the part of the inner circle territories and in which English is used and taught as a foreign language (EFL). Examples include China, Japan, and Greece.

The present study is primarily motivated by the dearth of research studies on such an important issue as the global status of English and the attitudes toward it. Hopefully, the findings can be enlightening to scholars looking forward to hearing more of the views of students of English from an expanding circle context (i.e., one specific segment of the expanding circle), i.e., Iran.

3. Method

4. Results

The primary objective of the present study was to examine the attitudes of Iranian EFL learners toward English, its learning, and status. The results are presented below, first, in general terms describing the overall descriptive statistics (Tables 2–4) and, second, with t-test findings of each proficiency group with the purpose of investigating the differences between them. The most frequent response(s) in each table is/are in bold.

5. Discussion

The objective of the current study was to examine the attitudes of Iranian EFL learners toward WE, WEs, and EIL across proficiency. It is interesting to see that the items of the questionnaire that were selected the most unanimously by the participants are those that deal most directly with the status of English as an “international” language. For instance, in the case of the participants’ attitudes toward English which were examined in the first part of the questionnaire, the responses showed that the following items had been agreed upon most frequently:

The synopsis of the whole content of the abovementioned items is that the participants conceive of English as an internationally recognized language, are interested in learning Standard English, and prefer it to non-native varieties of English such as Singapore English. This fervent desire to learn English is also reflected in the other items of the second part of the questionnaire which have been selected most frequently:

It is interesting that while Items 23 and 24 contradict each other, the participants, both elementary and advanced groups taken together, agreed with them most highly and did not differ significantly in their perceptions toward both items. Similar results have also been reported in the literature. Madrid and Cañado (2004) found out that students’ perceptions inclined toward native teachers as their proficiency increased and teachers were found to be more positive on natives than on non-natives. Madrid and Cañado declared that such perceptions might have negative outcomes for language teaching and learning profession.

The analysis of the interview results also demonstrated views that were found to be in tandem with the data gathered by means of the questionnaire. The following interview transcripts, for instance, show an immensely positive regard for English:

Interviewee 1: I agree with English becoming an international language. The world needs one common language to speak with. But the problem is that not all people may accept it because everyone likes his/her language to be the international language.

Interviewee 2: It’s good for English to be used by all the people of the world. An international language will benefit the whole world because people all over the world will have a chance to speak with one another in one language without difficulty.

Interviewee 3: English is an easy language to learn. It’s not difficult like other languages like French. So, it’s better that this language be used as the international language.

These quotes demonstrate that the learners’ attitudes toward whether English can serve as an international language are shaped by the learners’ attitudes toward the English language itself.

Other parts of the questionnaire are also indicative of this keen sense of “native-speakerism.” By way of example, Items 14 and 15 which enquired about “Iranian English” clearly revealed that the participants are not aware of such a variety of English nor do they welcome its emergence. This finding is particularly worthy of attention since it indicates that Iranian EFL learners, whether those who have elementary knowledge of English or advanced learners, still hold a one-way view of the world overwhelmingly dominated by Western values with English of the United States and the United Kingdom as the display of this dominance. In this regard, Wenfag’s (2011, 8) assertion is illuminating: “The attempt to remove the genetic element from the definition of ‘native speaker’ is very welcome, because such unbalanced centricity cannot embody the equality in Englishes. This equality is very vital for characterizing globalization.” However, what this finding demonstrates is that Iranian EFL learners still privilege NSs over NNSs while the notion of the NS has recently been called into question. For instance, Flowerdew (2001) cited many positive aspects of NNSs that NSs hardly possess including NNSs’ cognizance of cross-cultural pragmatics, their mastery of other languages, as well as the international scope of the NNSs’ views.

The preference of “NSs of English” over NNSs as teachers of English was also reflected in another part: Item 36. To this item, 65.8% of the participants responded in the affirmative, thus further confirming their high regard for native English speakers as the sole owners of the language. This finding remarkably aligns itself with Saito’s (2012) findings who related this orientation to teaching materials, pedagogical practices, media discourses, and others. Earlier, Jenkins (2006) had reached similar results in a review of the perspectives taken with regard to WEs. Further, Madrid and Cañado (2004) reached similar conclusions in a study done with both teachers and learners.

The findings clearly reveal that Iranian EFL learners view English as “one” entity, incapable of decomposing into local varieties and that the only “legitimate,” “pure,” and “original” English (the participants’ own words) is that spoken in English-native-speaking countries (i.e., the United States, England, and Australia). The non-native, localized varieties of English were described as “unimportant,” “incomplete,” “illegitimate,” “flawed,” and even as “corrupt” and “useless.” In this regard, the following interview transcripts stand out:

Interviewee 4: I believe that such Englishes as German English or Indian English and so on must not come into existence and that only British and American English should be used unchanged everywhere.

Interviewee 5: There’s just no reason why these Englishes should exist. They’re not needed. Their existence is unreasonable and will make the situation worse.

Interviewee 6: I believe that such Englishes will threaten the existence of the indigenous languages of the country they come into existence in. I don’t agree with such Englishes. It is better for the whole world to speak only one English!

Interviewee 7: I do agree with the idea of English becoming an international language but not with non-native varieties of English because these varieties will make it hard for people across the globe to communicate easily.

These transcripts show that the participants regard the non-native varieties of English as a hindrance to international communication. On the contrary, EIL was viewed to facilitate the task of global contact on the condition that the only English used internationally be the native-speaker English.

The results are remarkably in line with Saito’s (2012) findings in a Japanese context. Saito (2102) reported on the findings of a study which examined the attitudes of middle school Japanese EFL learners, revealing that there exists a strong native-speaker orientation among Japanese students and that highly positive evaluations of the native-speaker norm are dominant among them. Saito speculated that this native-speaker ideal has roots in the current vast West-supporting propaganda spread by the media, teaching materials, and pedagogical practices. Similarly, while Medgyes (2001) asserts that the terms “native English-speaking teacher” (henceforth NEST) and “non-native English-speaking teacher” (henceforth non-NEST) might be said to be discriminatory, the distinction between these two terms and the subsequent debate over them should not be overlooked but should be brought to further attention and research. Further, Medgyes (2001) mentions the weaknesses as well as the strengths of both, hence attempting to refute the unjust flaws that have been unkindly attributed to the non-NEST. NS-centered inclination seems to retain increasing dominance in other areas of language. Researchers, for instance, have even identified a tendency toward NS norms in testing language abilities (e.g., Hu 2012).

It can be seen that the participants view ease of communication across the globe as the major advantage arising from the existence of EIL. This is appreciable but there is no prevailing consensus on this issue among researchers. Crystal (2003, 16) states that “the use of a single language by a community is no guarantee of social harmony or mutual understanding.”

The above as well as the following quotes can also be suggestive of “linguistic self-hatred” (Labov et al. 2006; as cited in Zhang 2010) among Iranian EFL learners in which they despise NNS varieties and praise NS varieties instead. To set an example, the following interview transcripts clearly show this view:

Interviewee 8: The English language is sweet and is easier than many other languages like Arabic or Japanese to learn. I’m happy with English as an international language.

Interviewee 9: English is taught everywhere and is accepted by all the people across the world as an international language. Besides, it is easier to learn than many other languages.

The findings of the current study clearly showed that the participants view English as a useful commodity which can be of significant importance and utility in their career, education, and travel. This is clearly indicative of the position that English has occupied in the Iranian society. As Kachru and Nelson (1996) have stated, such an attitude derives from the belief in the power and position of English which has been recognized widely recently. It is likely that NSSs acknowledge NSs and prefer them to (non)native speakers due to the power that they have gained during history (see Lindemann 2003). The following interview transcripts are suggestive of this view:

Interviewee 10: If we learn English then it’ll be easier for us to study and travel abroad especially in English-speaking countries.

Interviewee 11: People in the most developed countries of the world speak English now. If we know English then we can easily communicate with them.

Interviewee 12: Speaking English has many advantages. For example, when somebody knows English well he can travel to other countries and study there without difficulty. It is as if a heavy burden has been taken from him.

Contrary to the views voiced above, some disagreement was also expressed toward the phenomenon of English and its status as an international language:

Interviewee 13: I think that speaking English too often causes us to be removed from our native language which is our identity. After a while, it will cause us to sound more English than Persian even when we speak our mother tongue.

Interviewee 14: If English is an international language that’s only because of its colonial past. The British colonized many countries in the past like India. There isn’t any logical reason why another language cannot be the international language.

Interviewee 15: The English language has many ridiculous grammatical rules. For example, why should there be only one “you” [compare with plural and singular “you” in Persian] in English when you refer to one person and sometimes to more than one person? I don’t agree with such a language becoming an international language.

It is interesting to see that EFL learners at the age range of 14–18 or above posit such profound views toward EIL. Researchers have also pointed to the risks of an international language. Crystal (2003, 14–15), for instance, reminds us of the possible dangers inherent in the existence of an international language, mentioning such risks as the formation of “an elite monolingual class which is dismissive of other languages,” making individuals lazy about learning other languages than the international language and finally the death of minority languages. The quotations above confirm the fact that these views are widely held. Crystal’s (2003, 15) recommendation is “It is important to face up to these fears!”

Unlike these findings, which reveal EFL learners’ strong tendency toward native-speakerism, there were some opposing voices. The following is an example of the learners’ positive view of the non-native varieties of English:

Interviewee 16: I think all nations have a right to create their own variety of English according to their customs and beliefs.

The above interviewee’s belief is a profound insight because it takes into account the social reality of language use, i.e., the fundamental concepts of sociolinguistics. Needless to say, variation and change are inevitable, continuous processes in language. Thus, the fact that Iranian learners of English still think of English as “one” and only “one” entity, belonging exclusively to its NSs is evidence that they seem to not be cognizant of the multiple perspectives recently adopted on the status of English which assert that “linguistic features which differ from Standard English are not necessarily errors but may instead represent components of a New English” (Kirkpatrick and Deterding 2011, 374).

6. Conclusion

The study clearly demonstrates the marked tendency of EFL learners to associate English with its NSs, with what has been labeled the “Inner Circle” (Kachru 1985a, 1992a; Crystal 2003). Therefore, the reference group and the only legitimate authorities on English are viewed by Iranian EFL learners to be the NSs of English who “first created English and who own it” (an excerpt from an interviewee). The “Expanding Circle” and even the “Outer Circle” speakers of English are also dissociated from the only “true” and “legitimate” version of English by which they meant the English spoken by Americans, the British, Australians, and other “Inner Circle” speakers. Clearly, this tendency reflects what has been dubbed “native-speakerism” defined as “the over-representation of the ‘native-speaker’ (NS) point of view at the expense of the ‘non-native-speaker’ (NNS) one” (Waters 2007, 281). This finding also reflects what Kumaravadivelu (2006, 218) terms “marginalization,” a process that he defines as “the overt and covert mechanisms that are used to valorize the everything associated with the colonial Self and marginalize everything associated with the colonized Other” (original emphasis).

Finally, Jenkins (2006, 171) argued that “Despite the strength of the counter arguments, the belief in NS ownership persists among both native and nonnative speakers- teachers, teacher educators and linguists alike.” Of course, Jenkins’ statement seems to be disappointing particularly because while a good wealth of research has been done and a large number of arguments have been put forward in defense of the NNSs, no practical results and no signs of positive attitudes among learners toward NNSs have been documented in the literature.

The acute sense of native-speakerism among Iranian EFL learners can be also attributed to their purpose of identifying with the NSs as a means of self-expression. Expressing one’s identity through the target language has also been documented in contexts other than Iran such as Hong Kong, for instance (Zhang 2010). Research has even confirmed that such a sense exists among EFL teachers as well (e.g., Kim 2011).

The results of the present study have clear implications to inform practice. One of these implications is that since EFL learners hold positive attitudes toward NSs but not toward NNSs, it is likely that they construe of NNSs as incompetent or merely not as proficient. This stance is very unfortunate and needs to be moderated. They should be made aware that NNSs also benefit from a large number of positive aspects as highlighted by many researchers (e.g., Flowerdew 2001; Medgyes 2001; Modiano 2009; Petrić 2009). On the plus side, many scholars now hold that the status of the ownership of English is changing, not to mention that the whole concept of English ownership has been forcefully challenged (Caine 2008; Cook 1999; Holliday 2009; Lurda 2009; McKay 2003; Widdowson 1994). These scholars have also expressed regret about this situation. Petrić (2009), for example, narrates how a consular official expressed mock surprise when, in response to the official’s enquiry as to the reason why Petrić was migrating to Samara, Petrić, a NNS of English, had replied that he had been invited to teach English, an issue that sounds ridiculous to the officer simply because the teacher of English was a NNS. It is unfortunate that research has confirmed EFL teachers’ tendency to privilege the NS with the sole right as the owner of the target language, a tendency that Kim (2011) deems as leading to “low professional self-esteem.” This evidence suggests that views of the NS as being the “best” instructors of the language are quite widespread around the world, and arguably not just due to Western-dominated propaganda (as stated earlier, with reference to Saito’s (2012) findings).

Some scholars have also suggested some solutions to this NS orientation among EFL learners. Saito (2012, 1078), for instance, supported what he termed “educational intervention,” stating that “[…] the native speaker orientation calls for an educational intervention at middle school when the vast majority of Japanese embark on EFL.” Similarly, Kim (2011, 65) proposes that “non-NESs should develop the personal and professional confidence to perceive themselves as legitimate English teachers.” Caine (2008) also called for challenging the current practices and conceptions of language teaching. In spite of these recommendations, it has been evidenced that challenging this sense of native-speakerism is very often faced with substantial resistance on the part of both learners and teachers/practitioners.

The dark side of the attitude coin of Iranian EFL learners is that holding negative attitudes toward NNSs can result in their lack of acceptance of their teachers since nearly all teachers of English in Iran are NNSs of English. This implies that primarily Iranian EFL learners should be made cognizant of the positive aspects of NNSs. For instance, Medgyes (2001, 436), while admitting to the weaknesses of non-native English teachers, cited the following as their strong points:

1. Provide a better learner model;

2. Teach language-learning strategies more effectively;

3. Supply more information about the English language;

4. Better anticipate and prevent language difficulties;

5. Are more sensitive to their students;

6. Benefit from their ability to use the students’ mother tongue.

The above strong points are interestingly beneficial but they seem to focus only on the “language teaching” aspect. To the abovementioned points, it might be added: NNS teachers also possess a better understanding of and display more heightened sensitivity toward the learners’ first culture, setting, and values. Questioning the current practices and transforming them, however, seems to be a substantially demanding task, particularly in an expanding circle context (see, e.g., Caine 2008). Other researchers have called for intervention in modifying students’ perceptions toward more positivity as well (Madrid and Cañado 2004).

No study is complete in all aspects. The present study did not consider the role of gender which can be an influential factor in learners’ attitudes toward a certain issue. The second limitation concerns the fact that the participants were assigned to the elementary and advanced groups based on the in-house proficiency criteria of the institute where they studied English. More accurate results could have been obtained had the participants’ linguistic level been determined by administering a proficiency test. Convenient sampling is another limitation. Meticulous research requires random sampling of participants (Mackey and Gass 2005).

To summarize, it is unquestionable that acknowledging one international language, be it English or any other language, moves us toward a “mono-linguistic,” and probably a “monocultural,” world. Such a world is away from a multilingual and multicultural variety and it is where sameness, not variety, is the norm. This is just, linguistically speaking, not democratic (see Crystal 2003). Indeed, whether English is a threat to other languages is still a controversial issue (House 2003).