1.

What issue or concept did Canagarajah raise in this article that resonated most
strongly with you, in terms of either changing or challenging your thinking about
English as an international language?
I found Canagarajah's discussion of English not being "a homogenous language with a
single norm" to be the most interesting. Recently I've been thinking about studying
Arabic. After a little research, however, I learned that one of the main difficulties in
learning Arabic is the fact that there are so many different types of Arabic (Iraqi Arabic,
Egyptian Arabic, etc.), so students of Arabic must learn Modern Standard Arabic, a form
of Arabic normally only used in writing, because it is the most commonly understood.
This caused me to think about English. As a language spoken in many countries, English
has also developed into many forms, with the difference being that they are still more or
less mutually intelligible. What I really wondered about, though, was which of these
forms could be considered "normal" like Modern Standard Arabic. After reading this
article I understand that the answer is not as simple as I thought it would be. It is possible,
and highly likely it would seem, that there is no "normal" English. This makes teaching
English much more challenging as it becomes difficult to decide which English rules to
follow. This article really made me reflect upon how English is currently taught and how
it could potentially be improved.
2. What is your impression of this paradigm shift Canagarajah presents: from
viewing World Englishes and English as a lingua franca as fixed forms versus
viewing global English use as translingual practice?
I strongly support this view of English. As a widely-spoken language, English is
constantly contacting different cultures and contexts. I believe that the changes that occur
explain the gap between the grammar we learn in school and the way we actually speak.
There have, in fact, been times when international students have corrected my English
grammar because I have been so affected by those around me that my grammar has
become "wrong." Yet I've never though that my grammar was particularly "wrong," and I
don't have problems communicating with others. Thinking about this caused me to come
to the conclusion that English is more than just a set of rules. The application of English
and the changes that English undergoes over time are also integral parts of English.
Therefore, I really enjoyed reading about Canagarajah's view of English as a translingual
practice.
3. If communicative competence in a foreign language includes grammatical
competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence,
and strategic competence, as proposed by Canale and Swain, and if, as Canagarajah
states, it is strategic competence that helps interlocutors achieve success in
translingual practice, what does that do to your thinking about the English teacher
in Koreas role?
I believe the role of English teachers in Korea lies in facilitating communication skills
rather than accuracy. It is easy to focus on grammatical accuracy and appropriate word
choice, but these are not always the most pressing issues when it comes to

communicating with those around us. Specifically, in order to increase the strategic
competence of students, I think it is necessary for teachers to expose their students to a
wider variety of Englishs and to situations requiring different types of English so that
students will have more opportunities to develop strategies and a greater understanding of
how and when English can be used. I think this can be challenging when teachers are
native English teachers as it is wasy for us to fall back on our native English, so I think it
is important to use supplemental materials that come from a variety of countries.
4. What do you think would be the reaction by your Korean colleagues if you were
to propose that the EFL classroom become a contact zone where students bring[]
in certain negotiation strategies from outside the classroom to navigate the mix of
languages and cultures within?
I think their reactions would depend on what level we were teaching. For the high school
students, so much of their time and energies are focused on college entrance exams that I
imagine our Korean colleagues would rather focus on the prescribed grammar that will
appear on the tests than the creativity and communication skills that could result from
creating a "contact zone." It is possible, however, that on the middle school level they
would be more willing to experiment with this new way of teaching as entrance exams
are farther away. Furthermore, in many East Asian countries there have been talks of
altering English education to increase production skills (particularly speaking) since
primarily understanding is emphasized currently. To this end the "contact zone" model
may be a useful tool, so I could see Korean teachers giving it a chance.