Claus GNVTZMANN * Globalisation, plurilinguism and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): Has English as a Foreign Language (EFL) become obsolete? ** Abstract. From a communicative point of view, the phenomenon of globalisation is, above all, reflected in the use of English as a world-wide Lingua Franca. At the same time, the ever increasing use of English as a world language also reinforces the process of globalisation. In order to counterbalance the power of the English language in a global and specifically European context, several approaches have been advanced by politicians and applied linguists: • A policy of multilingualism. This can be attained by offering a greater variety of languages at school and by encouraging pupils to learn more than one foreign language thereby reducing the dominant role of English. • A policy of plurilingualism. According to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, plurilingualism is expected to result in the acquisition of a non-language-specific, but general and holistic communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language(s) contributes, andin which languages interrelate and interact. • Trying to establish English a Lingua Franca as a linguistic variety in its own right. Thus ELF is seen as more or less independent from the native varieties of English. After assessing the merits and possible shortcomings of the above mentioned positions the paper reexamines the role and function of English as a Foreign Language in European English language classrooms. lt concludes that the concept of EFL has not outlived itself (yet), and is still valid though in a modified and restricted version. 1. lntroduction: Some general and language policy aspects of globalisation The term globalisation has been around since at least the early 1960s, but it has only been widely used in the media during the last two decades. The term itself is a fairly recent coinage but the origin of the concept is much older and can be traced back to nineteenthand early twentieth-century sociological and geopolitical thinkers, who recognised how Korrespondenzadresse: Prof. Dr. Claus GNUTZMANN, Univ.-Prof., Technische Universität Braunschweig, Englisches Seminar, Bienroder Weg 80, 38106 BRAUNSCHWEIG. E-mail: c.gnutzmann@tu-bs.de Arbeitsbereiche: Englische Grammatik und ihre Didaktik, Kontrastive Linguistik und Fehleranalyse, Fachsprachen, Fremdsprachenlernen mit neuen Medien, Englisch als globale lingua franca. ** This article is dedicated to my colleague Günter ROHDENBURG from the University of Paderborn on the occasion of his 65th birthday in July 2005. The article originated from a paper which I presented at the "International Conference on Language and the Future of Europe: Ideologies, Policies and Practices" at the University of Southampton in July 2004. JFLILIL 34 (2005) 16 Claus Gnutzmann modernity was integrating the world (HELD/ MCGREW 2000a: 1). With reference to the concept of modernity GIDDENS (2000: 92) has defined globalisation "as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa". Globalisation manifests itself in the rapid flow of trade, capital and people across the globe 1 and has been facilitated by the advances made in information and communication technologies, a process which has resulted in the overcoming of spatial andtemporal barriers. As a consequence of this development theorists of international relations have argued that the nation-states have suffered losses of sovereignty and, consequently, have less and less control over their own affairs although the emergence of a 'world-state' is not envisaged as a realistic perspective (cf. ibid.: 93). Though it may be tempting for 'globalists' to regard the processes and results of globalisation as preparing the way for a closely-knit cosmopolitan world with advantages for everybody, 'sceptics' like HELD/ McGREW (2000a: 4) have clearly dismissed "the emergence of a harmonious world society [... ]in which there is a growing convergence of cultures and civilizations". Since the benefits of globalisation are so unevenly distributed there is little justification in viewing it as a globally advantageous phenomenon, as can be seen from the following list ofwell-known negative characteristics of globalisation: • Exploitation of people living in lesser developed countries • Unemployment in the first world • Widening of the gap between rieb and poor, globally and locally • Possible erosion of traditional values and the loss oflocal self-determination due to the unconstrained commercialisation of global culture • Increasing deterioration of the environment, e.g. global warming • Lack of 'global responsibility' due to absence of transparency and democratic control in the management of the global system From a communicative point of view the phenomenon of globalisation is, above all, reflected in the use of English as a world-wide Lingua Franca. 2 At the same time, the ever increasing use of English as a world language also reinforces the process of globalisation. In view of the dynamic dialectical relationship between globalisation in general, and the globalisation of English in particular, it is not surprising that the statistics of According to HELD/ MCGREW (2000a: 4) these flows "are facilitated by different kinds of infrastructure physical (such as transport or banking systems), normative (such as trade rules) and symbolic (such as English as a lingua franca) which establish the preconditions for regularized and relatively enduring forms of global interconnectedness." 2 Traditionally, a lingua franca has been defined as a medium of communication between people or groups of people each speaking a different native language (cf. GNUTZMANN 2000). In view of the use of English as a global language an extended definition of lingua franca has also been suggested: "a language common to, or shared by, many cultures and communities at any or all social and educational levels, and used as an international tool (McAR.THUR 2002: 2)". The possible advantage of this definition is that it includes native speakers of English when communicating with non-natives in international contexts. lFlLulllL 34 (2005) Globalisation, plurilinguism and English as a Lingua Franca (EFL) ... 17 W orld English 3 are far from being clear and consistent; especially with regard to the speakers of English as a foreign language, where there is a lot of uncertainty: the numbers differ widely and range from 100 million to one billion speakers, a highly unsatisfactory estimate. On the other hand, MCARTHUR (2002: 3) claims to have made out "three firmer facts", which underline the unchallengeable status of English as a world language. (1) English is used in over 70 countries as an official or semi-official language and has a significant role in over 20 more: 90 in all. (2) Worldwide over 1,400 million people live in countries where English has traditionally been in use (one billion ofthem in India). (3) Some 75% ofthe world's mail and the world's electronically stored information is in English. Of an estimated 40 million users ofthe Internet in 1997, amajority used English. 4 Thus the concept of globalisation can be viewed as a highly ambivalent phenomenon, and not surprisingly so can the globalisation of English. On the one hand, the role of English in the process of globalisation has been portrayed in very favourable terms. lt is understood as a language that unites the world (CRYSTAL 1997). lt enables speakers of different languages and cultures to participate actively in the globalisation process. On the other hand, English has been criticised as an oppressive language exerting linguistic imperialism (PHILLIPSON 1992) and not only that: it has also been described as a language that "kills" other languages (SKUTNABB-KANGAS 2003). W e cannot ignore the fact that the role of English in the globalisation process seems to be much less favourably assessed today than several years ago (cf. GNUTZMANN/ INTE- MANN 2005a). Among other things, this development can probably, in part, be related to the political and military role that the leading native English speaking nations have played in recent years. Richard ALEXANDER (2003) has expressed the ambivalent role of English, i.e. its 'yes-but-structure', quite effectively in the title of a recent article: "G.lobal L.anguages O.press B.ut Are L.iberating, too: The dialectics of English". No doubt, a lack of instruction in English limits a person's communicative potential and mobility and can thus lead to social inequalities on a national as well as international level. In an ethnographic study on language policy and the function of English in South Africa, BRUTT-GRIFFLER (2005) has demonstrated convincingly and sensitively how noncompetence in English can contribute to the perpetuation of social inequality. Furthermore, it has been argued by CREW (1999) that Singapore's language policy in favour of the spread of English was based on the idea that Singaporeans saw English as an indispensable prerequisite to participating in international economic affairs. On World English and World Englishes see, for example, BRUTI-GRIFFLER (2002), GRAMLEY (2001), JENKINS (2003), MELCHERS/ SHAW (2003), MCARTHUR (2002). 4 According to more recent figures, however, this situation has changed drastically: www.internetworldstats. com (accessed 27 April 2005) lists 888 million Internetusers of whom 32.8% are native speakers of English. This development suggests very clearly that the number oflnternet users will increase even further; there is also a clear trend that the proportion of native English users will be reduced at the expense of non-natives. lFLlllllL 34 (2005) 18 Claus Gnutzmann lt may also be interesting to note here that even the staunchest critics of the global role of English use the English language as a medium to encode their criticism (cf. PHILLIP- SON 1992 and 2003). This observation is somewhat reminiscent ofthe criticism that was launched against the deficit hypothesis by the proponents of difference linguistics. Linguists working within the difference framework continually pointed out the equivalence of all linguistic varieties. This meant, for example, that the standard variety of a language was not in any way 'better', in the sense of more functional than other, nonstandard varieties. Interestingly enough, in this case the positive aspects of non-standard varieties were always formulated in Standard English. 2. Responding to and counterbalancing the role of English Although a systematic survey into the foreign language policies of the countries of Europe is not available as yet, even an informal analysis suggests quite clearly that the majority of the countries of Europe have reacted to the supremacy of English by making it the first foreign language at school, very often starting at primary level, sometimes even in the children' s first year of schooling. In addition, English is used in 'Contents and Language Integrated Leaming' (CLIL), where the language is employed as a medium of instruction not only in non-language subjects such as history, politics and geography, but also in the natural sciences, though less frequently. In order to counterbalance the power of the English language in a global and specifically European context, several approaches have been put forward. 2.1 A policy of multilingualism Being able to communicate in several languages is generally seen as something very much worth aspiring to. Quite obviously, this ability increases a person's communicative range in an international context, it confers prestige and it can be a most decisive criterion for a successful job application. In addition, multilingual competence is assumed to overcome the limits of the mother tongue as well as to emphasise and value diversity in language and culture. The principle of diversity in language and culture is an essential feature of European language policy; indeed, in many respects it is a sacred cow. Therefore, VAN ELS' (2000: 31) criticism of diversity is certainly quite exceptional definitely amongst applied linguists, language planners and foreign language educators, though he would probably find a lot of agreement amongst the general public. lt is a myth that the great diversity of languages and cultures as such is a good thing and that, consequently, its present manifestation in the EU represents a great richness, a treasure that should be defended at all costs. lt is one of the myths that co-determine current EU policy on institutional language use. Diversity is in itself not a good thing, certainly not the concrete manifestation of it at the present moment. JFLIIL 34 (2005) Globalisation, plurilinguism and English as a Lingua Franca (EFL) ... 19 Among experts it is a well-known fact tbat witbin tbe European Union quite substantial amounts of money are sperrt on translation services, 5 money wbicb could be used for different purposes if tbere was only one official language in the EU. On tbe otber band, tbe use of only one language could exclude many people from taking part in EUpolitics people wbo do not speak Englisb. For many Europeans tbe idea of an official and institutionalised Lingua Franca 'Englisb' is felt as a first and undesirable step towards cultural uniformity. Tbe above quotation also raises several unsolved questions, for example: How many languages sbould a person actually be able to communicate in to count as a multilingual individual: Motber tongue plus Englisb plus one, two or even more foreign languages? How important is in fact tbe sbeer number oflanguages? Wbat is tbe role of tbe four linguistic skills, are some more important tban otbers? What kind of competence levels do we bave in mind for multilingual competence? Wbat languages will actually 'count' for a European multilingual, considering tbat many people grow up bilingual witb one European and anotber non-European language. What will tbe status of tbese multilinguals be? How can their linguistic knowledge and competence be integrated more effectively into scbool curricula? 2.2 A policy of plurilingualism In tbe Common European Framework (CEF) (Council of Europe 2001) tbe concept of plurilingualism is put forward as tbe Council of Europe' s favoured approacb to language learning. In tbe CEF plurilingualism is clearly distinguisbed from multilingualism: multilingualism can refer eitber to an individual's knowledge of a number oflanguages, or to tbe co-existence of different languages in a given society. In accordance witb tbis distinction one can speak of individual plurilingualism and societal multilingualism. According to tbe CEF multilingualism may be reacbed by "simply diversifying tbe languages on offer in a particular scbool or educational system, or by encouraging pupils to learn more tban one foreign language, or reducing tbe dominant position of Englisb in international communication" (CEF: 4). Furtbermore, tbe CEF sees multilingualism in an individual as an additive, non-interactive concept. 6 On the otber band, plurilingualism is said to result in the acquisition of a non-language-specific, but general and bolistic communicative competence. Consequently, tbe CEF claims tbat a plurilingual person's knowledge and experience of languages is not stored in strictly separated mental compartments; tbis would be tbe case witb a multilingual individual. Instead, a plurilingual person's knowledge and experience of language interrelate and interact and tbus contribute to tbis non-language-specific and bolistic communicative competence. From tbe perspective of tbe CEF' s concept of plurilingualism, tbe aim of language learning bas drastically cbanged: 'Mastery' of one or two, or even tbree languages, eacb 5 The budget of the EU translation service is estimated tobe over 800 million Euros (http: / / news.bbc.eo.uk/ 1/ hi/ world/ europe/ 3604069.stm, accessed 27 April 2005). 6 On 'integrative plurilingualism' see BAUSCH/ HELBIG-REUTER (2003). lFLlllL 34 (2005) 20 Claus Gnutzmann taken in isolation is something of the past. As a consequence, native speaker competence as the ultimate goal in foreign language leaming is not sought after any more: "Instead, the aim of language education is to build up a linguistic repertoire, in which all linguistic abilities have a place" (CEF: 5). In the CEF it is conceded, however, that "the füll implications of such a paradigm shift have yet to be worked out and translated into action" (ibid.: 5). Such an assertion is not easy to follow: to proclaim something which in reality only exists as a fairly vague concept as a "paradigm shift" is to take the second step before the first. Also, from a practical point of view there are problems: it is hard to imagine learners not getting confused when they have to learn several languages at the same time. All the more so, when they are discouraged from keeping these languages apart since, according to the CEF, this would prevent them from developing a non-language-specific, plurilinguistic competence. "Reducing the dominant position ofEnglish in international communication" has been explicitly defined as one of the aims or methods of plurilingualism. Having said that, what would be the use of a general "plurilingual competence", if it is to be traded in for a reduced and perhaps insufficient competence in English? From a socio-political perspective the concept of plurilingualism seems tobe based on something along the lines of 'Europeanism' and the creation of some European identity. This would tie in with the idea that the CEF's notion of plurilingualism has seemingly dismissed the concept of national language as well as that of the native speaker. lt is doubtful whether the majority of Europeans would actually subscribe to these assumptions. Rejecting the concept of plurilingualism in its present, somewhat vague definition does not mean a retum to old style compartmentalised language teaching. There is certainly a need to bridge the current gap between the different language subjects despite the research and practice on language awareness and language leaming awareness. 7 By applying some of the following language-awareness related principles, the gap between the language subjects could become less wide. Such principles include: • Overcoming the isolation of the language subjects without abolishing their autonomy, e.g. by using at least in part the same grammatical terminology • Carrying out language-awareness exercises in order to help leamers develop language-awareness • Encouraging leamers to observe and analyse their language process in order to help them develop language learning awareness/ metacognitive competence • Initiating and strengthening cooperation among the different types of language teachers as well as non-language teachers (for CLIL) The application of these principles could contribute to making the learning process more efficient as well as to stressing its educational dimension. The communicative significance of English in world-wide communication is taken into account by many European language curricula, even at a very early stage in primary 7 For surveys on language (learning) awareness cf. GARRETT/ JAMES (2000) and GNUTZMANN (2003a). lFlLILIL 34 (2005) Globalisation, plurilinguism and English as a Lingua Franca (EFL) ... 21 school. However, in order to avoid English monolingualism and monoculture in European language classrooms the teaching of English in Europe should stress the intercultural dimension of language learning. lt should aim to build up intercultural collllllunicative competence in learners. With regard to teaching methodology, it would be worth taking a closer look at the "continental European tradition of EFL" (VAN ESSEN 1989). At the same time, the development of methodology in other language subjects than English should be taken into consideration. In an analysis of the literature on language teaching methodology in Great Britain and the United States on the one hand, and Germany on the other KÖNIGS (1999: 250) discovered that "there seems tobe a one way street from the English speaking world to Germany which does not include a way back". Apart from very exceptional cases, English-speaking countries do not refer to publications in German. Since this state of affairs is unlikely to change in the future, publishing in English has been suggested as an alternative. However, there could be mixed feelings on · the part of (German) specialists of German as a foreign language as to whether they should publish their findings in English; after all language and education do not qualify per se as "anglophone disciplines" (cf. SKUDLIK 1990, GNUTZMANN/ lNTEMANN/ JANßEN/ NüBOLD 2004, MEißNER 2005), but are understood as subjects that are strongly shaped and influenced by the cultures (and consequently languages) in which they exist and develop. 2.3 English as a Lingua Franca: a linguistic variety in its own right A third way to come to grips with and to counterbalance the dominance of English and the alleged cultural and ideological baggage associated with it is "to profile ELF as a viable variety" of English (SEIDLHOFER 2001a: 144). At present, only sketches of such a profile are available, for example Jenkins' work on the phonological Lingua Franca Core (LFC) (JENKINS 2000: 135-158), which, according to JENKINS/ SEIDLHOFER (2001) could serve as the phonological basis for a variety of "Euro-English". 8 The LFC comprises those features which were found to be essential for intelligibility. They include all 1, consonant sounds except for voiced and voiceless 'th' and the dark 'l' as in 'Bill', the retention of vowel length contrasts as in 'bid' and 'bead', nuclear (tonic) stress (e.g. the stress indicated by capital letters in the following: 'I come from SPAIN. Where are YOU from? '). 9 SEIDLHOFER' s characterisation of "ELF as a use in its own right" (SEIDLHOFER 2001 a: 137) expresses a far weaker claim than her above description of "ELF as a viable variety" [Italics are mine, CG]. Lingua Franca English is English which is used by non-native 8 ALEXANDER (1999: 27-29) Iists some syntactic and Iexical features of Euro-English, which he collected from studeuts' academic papers and from the Internet, for example in the areas of "tense and temporal phrases" (I am working here for two years), "verb complementation" (is prohibited of transferring money abroad), "lexis" (economic (used when trade and industry matters are intended)). 9 For further discussion of Jenkins' LFC and the question of pronunciation models in English language teaching cf. GNUTZMANN (2003b). lFLl.lllL 34 (2005) 22 Claus Gnutzmann speakers of the language and which can serve many different purposes ranging from the use of very formal and academic written English to very mundane spoken communication. Since not all ELF speakers make use of the whole range of purposes it can be assumed that ELF speakers constitute a very heterogeneous group. When necessary, e.g. in spoken communication, ELF speakers employ certain communicative strategies such as simplification, paraphrasing and summons-answer sequencing. According to MEIER- KORD/ KNAPP (2002: 17) these strategies serve to "create a cooperative and collaborative atmosphere [... ] to cope with situations". The observation that speakers attempt "to collaboratively manage their communicative task" (ibid.: 19) has also led these authors to claim that "English as a lingua franca is a variety of its own right". The concept of variety, however, does not really lend itself to being applied to ELF. After all, linguistic varieties are conceived as distinct forms of a language. They are classified as regional, social or functional depending on the type of variation referred to. Varieties can differ in pronunciation, lexis, grammar and pragmatics. According to Crystal (1991: 370) a variety can be defined as "any system of linguistic expression whose use is govemed by situational variables". "System of linguistic expression" means the capacity to identify distinct linguistic sub-systems for the different linguistic levels. On the other hand, speakers from very different linguistic and cultural backgrounds participate in the use of English as a Lingua Franca. Many of these speakers use spoken forms which are strongly influenced by their mother tongue. Thus they use English "with its own pattem of interference from the mother tongue" (CRYSTAL 2001: 57). The result is an enormous spoken diversity and heterogeneity in ELF communication. In view of this situation it seems difficult, if not impossible, to adequately compare spoken products uttered in ELF communication. Such a comparison or calibration would be a requirement, however, if a concept such as ELF were tobe allocated the status of a linguistic variety. An analysis of several types of ELF communication has led JAMES (2005: 141) to conclude that "ELF is contingent, marginal, transitional, indeterminate, ambivalent and hybrid in various ways. lts users do not belong thereby to a well defined social group and their subjectivities are indeed diverse." The possible exclusion of the native speaker as a linguistic reference norm and as a model for the non-native users is seen as a major socio-political asset by proponents of ELF as a variety in its own right. This is an argument which should be taken seriously in the context of teaching English to non-native speakers, since insensitive enforcement of native speaker rules has generally demotivated students and has caused them to become tacitum in the foreign language. Obviously greater tolerance towards errors in foreign language teaching is needed. However, it is doubtful certainly at this stage whether the concept of ELF as a variety in its own right will enable ELF users to establish themselves as "competent and authoritative speakers of ELF with an identity of their own as users of an international language" (SEIDLHOFER 2001b: 46). 10 In a similar fashion, MODIANO has criticised traditional ELT practices because they rely on British or 10 Fora critical view of SEIDLHOFER see also MACKENZIE (2003). lFLuL 34 (2005) Globalisation, plurilinguism and English as a Lingua Franca (EFL) ... 23 American English and because they lead to "the erosion of cultural diversity within the Union" (MODIANO 2000: 33). In order to "counteract the impact of Anglo-American cultural, linguistic, and ontological imperialism" he proposes to develop a form of English which would enable Europeans to "retain their divergent cultural distinctiveness" (ibid.: 34). For MODIANO, this new form of English is Euro-English or Mid-Atlantic English. Mid-Atlantic English is associated with the young presenters on the satellite TV networks "who are difficult to place, being more 'European' and less 'Dutch' or 'Belgian' or 'French"' (ibid.: 34). lt is Modiano's vision that Euro-English can be adapted to the specific needs of non-native speakers ofEnglish in Europe and "support a democratic platform for social and cultural integration" (ibid.: 37). Although sociolinguistic research into ELF and suggestions for its pedagogical implementation have not stood the test of empirical verification and pedagogical appropriateness, they nevertheless deserve praise since they have undoubtedly strengthened the position of non-native speakers (and non-native researchers of English teaching and leaming) in international (academic) communication. 3. Has English as a Foreign Language (EFL) become obsolete? The propagation of ELF as a variety in its own right very much rests on the assumption that non-native speakers do not come into contact with native speakers of the language. lt may be true that the majority of communicative exchanges of ESL and EFL speakers, especially adult speakers, do not involve native speakers of English. On the other band, it would probably be short-sighted to conclude from this that pupils in schools should be taught English without being informed about the socio-cultural contexts in which the language is used. For many young Europeans, Great Britain and Ireland, but also the U.S.A. and Canada as well as Australia and even New Zealand, are popular destinations, not least because of their language and culture. For this reason it seems highly appropriate that pupils should leam English as a Foreign Language, i.e. as a language that explicitly refers to the native English-speaking territories and societies. Consequently, pupils in Europe should be taught how to communicate in ELF and EFL situations. The differences between ELF and EFL can be illustrated as follows (cf. GNUTZMANN 1999a). • ELF prepares leamers to communicate with non-native speakers of English from all over the world. • EFL prepares leamers to communicate with native speakers of English in Englishspeaking countries. • ELF is neutral with regard to the different cultural backgrounds of the interlocutors. Depending on how long the communication lasts, the interlocutors will 'negotiate' and establish some kind of common intercultural basis. • EFL is based on the linguistic and socio-cultural norms of native speakers of English and their respective cultures. • ELF communication is not based on any particular national linguistic standard of lFL111L 34 (2005) 24 Claus Gnutzmann English. Relying on native speaker norrns (or near-native nonns) cannot guarantee that the communication will be successful. On the contrary, using elaborate linguistic structures or vocabulary may even be harmful to the success of the communication, if the interlocutor does not share a similar linguistic repertoire. • EFL communication is based on Standard English, generally British or American English. The better the learners are able to handle the grammatical rules and lexis of the standard language, the more successful they tend to be in their communication with native speakers. There is no doubt that under the influence of globalisation, the topics and aims of English teaching will change in the direction of fewer Anglo-American and more global topics (cf. KUBANEK-GERMAN 2005). However, detaching communication in an international context entirely from the native English-speaking countries and their associated cultures seems problematic, for linguistic and pedagogical, as well as political reasons. Having said that, one other point needs tobe made with regard to language policy in Europe. In the National Curriculum of England and Wales modern foreign languages are now only part of the non-core subjects such as Art, Design and Technology, Geography, History, Information Technology (IT), Music and Physical Education (PE). The core subjects are English, Welsh (for schools that are Welsh-speaking), Mathematics and Science. As a consequence, it is no langer necessary for pupils to study a foreign language for GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education, exams that English and Welsh students take at the age of 16], let alone for GCE 'A' level [General Certificate of Education, exams that English and W elsh students take at the age of 18]. Quite obviously this does not contribute to European multilingualism and it does not correspond to the aims stated in the CEF. lt will be interesting to observe whether there will be any changes to the National Curriculum of England and Wales in the future concerning the status of foreign languages. If not, then this might be considered tobe a further step away from the European Union. 4. Conclusion There is little doubt that the role of English as an international Lingua Franca is highly ambivalent. The ideological implications of ELF oscillate between serving as an indispensable communicative prerequisite in order to participate in a multilingual national society, as well as a global cosmopolitan society and functioning as a means to oppress other languages. Elevating the use of English as a Lingua Franca to a variety in its own right and the propagation of plurilingualism or multilingualism have been discussed as two paths to counterbalance this ambivalence. However, the main question remains unanswered: will the individual benefit more from a multilingual/ plurilingual competence or from a very good competence in the world's leading language? lFfanL 34 (2005) Globalisation, plurilinguism and English as a Lingua Franca (EFL) ... 25 References ALEXANDER, Richard J. (1999): "Caught in a Global English trap, or liberated by a lingua franca? Unravelling some aims, claims and dilemmas of the English teaching profession". In: GNUTZMANN 1999b, 23-40. ALEXANDER, Richard J. (2003): "G.lobal L.anguages O.ppress B.ut Are L.iberating, too: The dialectics of English". In: MAIR, 87-95. BAUSCH, Karl-Richard / HELBIG-REUTER, Beate (2003): "Überlegungen zu einem integrativen Mehrsprachigkeitskonzept: 14 Thesen zum schulischen Fremdsprachenlernen". In: Neusprachliche Mitteilungen 56, 194-201. BRUTT-GRIFFLER, Janina (2002): World English. A Study of its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. BRUTT-GRIFFLER, Janina (2005): '"Who do you think you are, where do you think you are? ': Language policy and the political economy of English in South Africa". In: GNUTZMANN/ INTEMANN 2005b, 27-39. BYRAM, Michael (ed.) (2000): Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. CHEW, Phyllis Ghim-Lian (1999): "Linguistic imperialism, globalism, and the English language". In: AILA Review 13: English in a Changing World, 37-47. CRYSTAL, David (1991): A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (3'd edition). London: Blackwell. CRYSTAL, David (1997): "English. How one language is uniting the world". In: Spotlight? , 12-16. CRYSTAL, David (2001): "The future of Englishes". In: BURNS, Anne/ COFF1N, Caroline (eds.): Analysing English in a Global Context: A Reader. London/ New York: Routledge, 53-64. COUNCIL OF EUROPE (ed.) (2001): A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Online-document: http: / / www.culture2.coe.int/ portfolio/ documents/ 0521803136txt.pdf GARRETT, Peter/ JAMES, Carl (2000): ' "Language awareness". In: BYRAM, 330--332. GIDDENS, Anthony (2000): "The globalizing of modernity". In: HELD/ MCGREW (2000b), 92-98. GNUfZMANN, Claus (1999a): "English as a global language. Perspectives for English language teaching and for teacher education in Germany". In: GNUTZMANN 1999b, 157-169. GNUTZMANN, Claus (ed.) (1999b): Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language -Native and Non-Native Perspectives. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. GNUTZMANN, Claus (2000): "Lingua franca". In: BYRAM, 356-359. GNUTZMANN, Claus (2003a): "Language awareness, Sprachbewusstheit, Sprachbewusstsein". In: BAUSCH, Karl-Richard/ CHRIST, Herbert/ KRUMM, Hans-Jürgen (Hrsg.): Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht. 4. völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage. Tübingen: Francke, 335-339. GNUTZMANN, Claus (2003b): "Global English: Anything goes? Zur Rolle der Aussprache im Englischunterricht und in der Lehrerausbildung". In: ABENDROTH-TIMMER, Dagmar/ VIEBROCK, Britta / WENDT, Michael (eds.): Text, Kontext und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Gerhard Bach zum 60. Geburtstag. Frankfurt/ M.: Lang, 295-308. GNUTZMANN, Claus / INTEMANN, Frauke (2005a): "Introduction: The globalisation ofEnglish. Language, politics, and the Englisch language classroom". In: GNUTZMANN/ INTEMANN 2005b, 9-24. GNUTZMANN, Claus / INTEMANN, Frauke (eds.) (2005b): The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom. Tübingen: Narr. GNUTZMANN, Claus / INTEMANN, Frauke / JANßEN, Hero / NüBOLD, Peter (2004): "Die englische Sprache in Studium, Wissenschaft und Verwaltung - Ergebnisse einer Online-Umfrage". In: Fachsprache 1-2, 14--34. GRAMLEY, Stephan (2001): The Vocabulary ofWorld English. London: Arnold. lFLlllL 34 (2005) 26 Claus Gnutzmann HELD, David/ MCGREW, Anthony (eds.) (2000a): "The great globalization debate: An introduction". In: HELD/ MCGREW, 1-45. HELD, David/ McGREW, Anthony (eds.) (2000b): The Global Transformations Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. JAMES, Allan (2005): "The challenges of the Lingua Franca: English in the world and types of variety". In: GNUTZMANN/ INTEMANN 2005b, 133-144. JENKINS, Jennifer (2000): The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. JENKINS, Jennifer (2003): World Englishes. A Resource Bookfor Students. London: Routledge. JENKINS, Jennifer / SEIDLHOFER, Barbara (2001): "Bringing Europe's lingua franca into the classroom". Online document: http: / / www.guardian.eo.uk/ GWeekly/ Story/ 0,3939,475315,00.html (25.04.2005) KÖNIGS, Frank G. (1999): "To know English or not to know English: Some thoughts on the hegemony of English from a methodological point of view, with spezial reference to German as a Foreign Language". In: GNUTZMANN 1999b, 247-258. KUBANEK-GERMAN, Angelika (2005): "Global English and global education". In: GNUTZMANN/ INTE- MANN, 245-258. MAcKENZIE, Ian (2003): "English as a lingua franca and European universities". In: The European English Messenger 12, 59-62. MAIR, Christian (ed.) (2003): The Politics of English as a World Language. New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. McARTHUR, Tom (2002): The Oxford Guide to World English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. MEIERKORD, Christiane/ KNAPP, Karlfried (2002): "Approaching lingua franca communication". In: KNAPP, Karlfried / MEIERKORD, Christiane (eds.): Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt/ M.: Lang, 9-28. MErßNER, Franz-Joseph (2005): "Zu Gebrauch und Wirkung von Englisch in der internationalen Fachkommunikation der Fremdsprachendidaktiken". In: BURWITZ-MELZER, Eva/ SOLMECKE, Gert (eds.): Niemals zu früh und selten zu spät: Fremdsprachenunterricht in Schule und Erwachsenenbildung. Festschrift für Jürgen Quetz, Berlin: Corndsen, 74-84. MELCHERS, Gunnel / SHAW, Philip (2003): World Englishes. London: Arnold. MODIANO, Marko (2000): "Euro English: Educational standards in a cross-cultural context". In: The European English Messenger 9, 33-37. PHILLIPSON, Robert (1992): Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PHILLIPSON, Robert (2003): "English for the globe, or only for globe-trotters? The world ofthe EU". In: MAIR, 19-30. SEIDLHOFER, Barbara (2001a): "Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca". In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 133-158. SEIDLHOFER, Barbara (2001b): "Brave new English? " In: The European English Messenger 10, 42-48. SKUDLIK, Sabine (1990): Sprachen in den Wissenschaften. Deutsch und Englisch in der internationalen Kommunikation. Tübingen: Narr. SKUTNABB-KANGAS, Tove (2003): "Linguistic diversity and biodiversity: The threat from killer languages". In: MAIR, 31-52. VAN ELS, Theo J. M. (2000): "The European Union, its institutions and its languages - Some language political observations". Paper of the final public lecture given at the University of Nijmegen, Netherlands. VAN ESSEN, Arthur (1989): "The continental European contribution to EFL, past and present". In: EDELHOFF, Christoph/ CANDLIN, Christopher N. (eds.): Verstehen und Verständigung. Bochum: Kamp, 113-125. lFLl.llL 34 (2005)