Lingua Franca English and Challenges to U.S. Second Language Writing Pedagogy

The article I read this week, by Canagarajah (2007), discusses Lingua Franca English and multilingual communities as confirming the validity of, and indeed expanding, Firth & Wagner’s (1997) challenges to the dichotomies characterizing Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory. These dichotomies include native speaker (NS) versus non-native speaker (NNS), language learner versus language user, and interlanguage versus target language (p. 923). Canagarajah exposes these dichotomies as being based in a monolingual view of language acquisition, created in a Western framework where nation-states see language deviation as a “problem” to be “fixed” rather than the norm.

In revisiting Firth and Wagner’s (1997) theory, Canagarajah brings up two examples from the present day: Lingua Franca English (LFE), spoken in parts of the world where (non-native) English serves as a common language, and multilingual communities in the Global South, where multilingualism and language deviation are the norm, to the extent that speakers may be hard-pressed to identify their mother tongue. From these examples, Canagarajah derives an argument for a practice based model of second language acquisition, in which acquisition is seen as primarliy occurring outside of classroom contexts and conditioned by social interaction, and where meaning is created as a result of practice rather than communicated vis-à-vis the conduit model. Here, what is important is not shared values or experiences, but shared interests.

I found this article very interesting, although highly abstract. Although not directly related to writing in a second language, it provides some of the theoretical underpinnings for challenging the dominant paradigm for second language pedagogy. As Canagarajah points out, “Even Western communities are beginning to acknowledge the diversity, hybridity, and fluidity at the heart of language and identity” (p. 935). It is extending this awareness to the academic community in the United States that interests me in particular. Putting this article in context, I make the following conclusions for how we can change second language and writing pedagogy to meet the linguistic realities of the twenty-first century.

1) We need to acknowledge that much of language learning among multilingual communities of speakers occurs apart from (formalized) classroom contexts. The goal is not to get rid of classroom instruction, but rather to adapt it to the contexts in which language is actually acquired and practiced.

2) We need to throw out the NS/NNS model. While this will be difficult to accomplish, it will be well worth it. Arguably, multilinguals from other communities have an advantage in the global marketplace that monolinguals do not (p. 930). Therefore, it no longer makes sense to keep viewing the NS as superior.

3) We need to rethink our writing-centered pedagogy. If Canagarajah is correct, then the writing-centered culture of the U.S. academy does not facilitate second language acquisition. Further, it damages second language students’ sense of confidence and self-esteem when they are viewed by the academy as flawed writers, rather than the able communicators they are.