Colabora en la realización de los juegos y las actividades a partir

Timmis’ study highlights how student and teacher attitudes towards language varieties may not always correspond. Both students and teachers from almost 50 countries responded to a questionnaire (with language samples presented in the form of written excerpts) asking about language learning goals for pronunciation, grammar, and spoken grammar. Results for pronunciation suggested that a majority of students still adhere to native-speaker norms as a linguistic goal, although the international group of teachers surveyed was less focused on this traditional idea. However, students from India, Pakistan, and South Africa were distinctly more willing to retain pronunciation features of their L1 than students from other regions, prompting Timmis to suggest that acceptance of L1 influences may be context sensitive. As a whole, teachers were more accepting of non-native pronunciation, although in some cases teachers may have been expressing what they considered more realistic goals rather than more desirable goals, and some teachers even suggested that attaining native-like pronunciation could be

“empowering” (p. 243).

For grammar, results among students were similar to those for pronunciation, with a majority viewing native speakers as a type of benchmark for achievement. Teachers were more

conservative regarding grammar than they were for pronunciation. Regarding acceptance of spoken grammar, there was a distinct difference among students who had ESL versus EFL experience, with the latter group more accepting of deviations from textbook standards. Additionally, over two-thirds of the students who strongly disagreed with possibly using the informal grammar themselves also mis-identified the native sample. Teachers were more accepting of the spoken grammar samples, with recognition that learner level is important when introducing students to such examples and that native spoken samples are unnecessary for non-

native/ non-native interactions. Nevertheless, Timmis concluded that “[t]eachers seem to be moving away from native-speaker norms faster than students are” (p. 248).

Murray (2009) suggests that pedagogical practices have not kept pace with changes in how English functions in the world. Like Timmis, Murray uses a questionnaire methodology to investigate the attitudes of both native and non-native English teachers in Switzerland towards a minimized role of native-speaker norms in ELT. In particular, Murray is concerned with

teachers’ view of Euro-English – that is, “the emerging variety of English spoken as a lingua franca by EU residents” (p. 150). Results suggest that native speaker teachers were more

receptive towards non-standard grammar and Euro-English influences than non-native teachers. The author concludes that greater awareness of the new functions of English among Europeans is needed before they are willing to accept non-native targets.

Sifakis & Sougari (2005) also found that awareness of English in modern society is lacking among many Greek language teachers. In a questionnaire-based study, the researchers asked Greek teachers of English how the sociocultural status of standardized norms may influence their teaching, the goal of which was to explore the consistency between teaching practices and

personal beliefs about pronunciation norms. Results, according to the authors, were paradoxical: while teachers seemed to believe that discourse was more important than rules or standards, they nonetheless held very norm-bound perspectives regarding pronunciation. Sifakis and Sougari posit a general lack of awareness of the implications of the international spread of English as one reason for this paradox. Thus, pre-service and in-service teachers require training that explicitly addresses contemporary ways in which English is used globally; such training builds awareness, which teachers ultimately incorporate into their own teaching. The authors conclude that “[i]n all probability, the situation described in this article is repeated in many other expanding-circle

countries” (p. 483) – an interesting notion that also raises the question as to how such attitudes may be reflected in inner and outer circle countries as well.

Jenkins (2005, 2007a) suggests that dominant language ideologies are responsible for the general lack of awareness of the viability of non-inner circle Englishes. Jenkins (2007a) uses an approach based in perceptual dialectology, “a branch of folk linguistics … [that] aims to reveal people’s (the folk’s) beliefs about different language varieties by means of exploring how they overtly categorize and judge those varieties” (p. 148). Results illustrate the relationship between respondents’ perceptions of correctness, pleasantness, intelligibility and international

acceptability of accents and the influence of dominant sociopolitical attitudes (i.e., linguistic insecurity, language myths, response to change). A large majority of non-native respondents, for example, were unable to conceive of non-native English as better than or equal to native

varieties. Jenkins attributes such results to the dominant (but in her opinion outdated) language ideology that more traditionally English speaking regions such as the U.K. or North America represent the most desirable norms.

This theme is also evident in Jenkins’ earlier work. In Jenkins (2005) the author conducts personal interviews with non-native English language teachers. Her analysis reveals

participants’ ambivalence and contradictions regarding their language and sociocultural identity: they desire to speak a native-speaker-accented English, but feel attachment to their mother tongue and the influence it may have on their English pronunciation. The detailed

rationalizations that participants offer to support their views accentuate the benefits of qualitative language attitude studies, for quantitative methods would be challenged to uncover such

Recognizing that teachers’ beliefs “have a considerable impact on the ways in which varieties are selected for teaching purposes” (p. 125), Young & Walsh (2010) conducted focus group interviews with three sets of experienced English language teachers of various

international backgrounds. Prior to the interviews, participants were asked to read a series of

contributions from The Times Higher Education Supplement, which included a piece by Jenkins

(2007b) about ELF as well as a number of reactions for and against her position. The study’s findings were not necessarily positive for proponents of ELF: despite having prepared for the interviews, “no participant was clear about the exact nature of EIL, ELF or any other ‘NNES’ variety” (p. 135). Most teacher participants assumed a “practical and pragmatic perspective” (p. 135) towards English and suggested that some standard form was necessary in order to teach. Yet most participants were uncertain which variety of English they themselves had learnt and demonstrated little concern for target models in their own teaching. Instead, they commented that clarity and utility were essential for practical purposes such as employment or higher education, and that learner needs were not something normally negotiated.

Learner goals and educational context are relevant to the pedagogical decisions of English language teachers. Decke-Cornill (2003) conducted focus group interviews with German

teachers of English at two different types of high schools – a Gymnasium and a Gesamtschule,

which differ primarily in how these types of schools prepare pupils for tertiary education. While

the German Gesamtschule is a type of comprehensive school, the Gymnasium is comparable to

British grammar schools or North American prep schools. According to Decke-Cornill, results of the interviews suggest that ELF, which allows for a “less normative, more process-oriented view of communication” (p. 68), is more aligned with the “socially ambitious … multi-cultural

ambitious and linguistically homogenous context of the grammar school” (p. 68). Although not directly addressed by the author, these findings suggest recognition of how English users can have drastically different linguistic needs depending on their own reasons for learning the language.