English as an international lingua franca: from societal to individual YASUKATA YANO

The purpose of this paper is to respond to some particular points on the article by Yasukata Yano and give some comments with a critical thinking approach to the ideas offered. In his article, English as an International Lingua Franca: from societal to individual, Yano depicts some realities about English language as a lingua franca; first he describes the changing nature of the native speaker in the globalized world, then discusses regional standard Englishes. On the other hand, he offers a three dimensional model of English use as for its becoming an international language, which is also a more developed version of the Kachruvian and other geography-based models. In the following part of his paper, Yano takes the subject from European Union and Australian perspectives by evaluating the English as an International language (EIL) issue in terms of their language policies. He also raises some questions such as Is it possible to think of English for Specific Cultures (ESC) as against English for General Cultures (EGC) by analogy with EGP and ESP? The title of the article, first of all, draws attention as it calls English as an international lingua franca, not just lingua franca as we are used to using and seeing on the related papers. This is not coincidental of course in that Yano, throughout his article, states the fact that English is the common language from the West to the East, namely of the whole world. It is no longer the language used by the British or American nations or by some particular group. Being a mutual tool for communication universally, it is of great importance in this globalized world. Yano strongly supports that as people get to interact more frequently than the past and the exchange of the ideas and information has become inevitable, it requires them to have the competence on the common ground- English. However, in claiming that he does not totally agree with the prediction of Graddol as for the future of English that it will be the basic skill not a special talent any longer and without English, we are not even involved in the race. I have to agree with Graddol here as it is the very same application conducted in our context, Turkey. Now, we impose English lessons to our students without regard to their wish and desire to learn and ability to acquire, we deem it as a must, not even a need for them so as to get their places in this challenging race. However, it can be said for Yanos approach to this more realistic viewpoint as he puts his claim on the realities of Japan for instance where the time shared for English lessons are not enough to make it a basic skill. I support his point here also as he is aware of the facts that would make the conditions hard, like the insufficiecy of contact hours, lack of intensity and so few chances for students to apply and make use of what they have learnt at school. These are also supportable reasons as we are faced with all these in our country. By all these in fact, Yano tries to draw our attention to the inequality of the exposure to English throughout the world, since it can be conductable in Europe whereas it is some kind of impossible for now as you move to eastern parts.

Yano starts his discussion with the question Who is exactly a native spaker of English from now on? by stating the multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual components of the societies that have been presented by the globalization process and he makes a connection between EU and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) where all individuals are growing with their uniqueness, self-identities for cross cultural communicative competence. I totally agree with Yano here as well as he is mentioning the changing nature of this native speaker notion. He makes a cross reference to both Cook and Crystal with the latters example being more of an observable situation nowadays that is under a roof, you can witness a multilingual and multiethnic content and the bridge among them is English and the children raised in those family types can be also called Native Speakers. Just at this point, he opens the subject of his offer for a newer insight for the categorization of the English users in the Kachruvian model as this kind of native speakers are also in question, the placement of the natives to the Inner Circle is to be challenged which I am on the same side with him. To my viewpoint, limiting those varieties would be impossible with the increase of global mobility and its results. The example from Jenkins has also an important role here in that the effect of the outsiders, which can be immigrants, students or business dealers, on the natives belonging to Inner Circle with their varieties is incontrovertible. On the other hand, for the funtionally native speakers the term Yano uses for the users of English as a second language have that generative ability in their varieties of English. By giving an example from Singapore context, Yano raises the questions in mind that as long as they have similar amount of exposure to English and have opportunities to use it daily, How long will we be able to distinguish between the Outer and Inner Circles ? In many parts of the article, Yano justifies his claims by concrete examples, making the reader be convinced on the raised contoversial issue. According to Yano, in the Expanding Circle, there are those who pose a diverce ingredient from different geographies, linguistically and culturally de-Anglo Americanized backgrounds, with their being, they possess functional clarity and international intelligibility. By stating all these, he has given the reasons for why we need a more realistic figure than that of the Kachruvian circle model that is geographically and historically bound and even depicting the patterns of the acquisition types of the users, to be able to accomodate the gradual change in the global English usage I am of course in favour of the more flexible and broader model that has been offered by Yano. With that model, Yano has added a three dimensional aspect to the Inner, Outer and Expanding circles with some more supplements such as ESP, EGP, proficiency level, and Intra RSE that are of necessity to consider the lingua franca dimension of English as for the societal and individual points. Being a developed version of Kachruvian model, this model leaves more flexibility to the understanding of the English user categorization. To offer his model, Yano has prepared the ground first of all, has counted the limitations of the previous model and why we need this developed version. There is no mismatch between the perception and his observations that have been given as examples.

Yano highlights the varieties across the world, and points his opinion on the question whether there will be one single international Standard English to be used universally. He points out that such a monopoly in an international language use is not feasible or desirable which is, in my opinion, impossible too. His division of the six major regional standard Englishes: EuroEnglish, Asian English, Latin English, Arab English, and African English besides AngloAmerican English seems more intelligible since they have common points of culture that would also shape their thoughts and ideas and in the end linguistic choices. In the article, Yano presents these with some idiomatic expressions that find common ground with some changes only trying to give similar meaning. But all the nations have their unique way of observing and approacing the things around, and arrange their language according to what is important concept for their culture and reflect their way of thinking. Yano seems to be in favour of letting them shape their way of intraregional English use as well. Since he is in that opinion, he places Intra-Regional Standard English (Intra-RSE) below EIL. As for ESP and EGP, each individual has their reason and area of using the acquired language. I am an advocate of this individualistic approach of Yano here because every user of English defines their place in this model not only by the region s/he belongs to, but at the same time with their unique learning background and contextual usage of English, with what purpose - general or specific, on which proficiency level, etc. We have learnt one thing for sure that English belongs to those who use it; and Yano has depicted and tried to prove this in his article as he says on the closure part: When the native/non-native dichotomy is replaced by individual proficiency, English language education will become extremely important if communicative competence in EIL is to be achieved equitably. He leaves some questions without answer on whether these categorizations would be of use in the future or not, but as it is humanistic approach to the language use and sensitive to the individual and regional characteristics, I believe it will find its ground in the near future as Lingua Franca dimension is still being discussed and preserving its popularity in ELT context. On the other hand, the article does not provide any empirical study the data of which could be analyzed and critized. Hence, it can be concluded that it can open new scopes for further study so as to justify the claims of Yano in his attempts that it is to be thought from societal and individual angles to be able to deem English as an International lingua franca.