UNIVERSITY OF LISBON

English as an International Language, 2012/13, Prof. Luísa

Azuaga

English Language Teaching in Italy

Masina Depperu

Imagine all the people sharing all the world

(John Lennon, Imagine, 1971)

Introduction

In this paper I want to reflect on some aspects of

English Language Teaching (ELT) in Italy, in particular at

secondary schools where I have had a long experience as a teacher

and a teacher trainer. Italians, like most English speakers in the

world, use English to communicate with speakers of other languages

(SOL). They may be considered as belonging to the expanding circle1

1 B. Kashru, 1992. His model of three concentric circles –

inner, outer, expanding societies – accounts for the spread and

stratification of English and determines the varieties of norm-1

communities because English is not spoken as L1 or L2, but it is

used with people of different countries, especially in Europe, for

intercultural exchanges and only occasionally with native speakers

(NS). They are mainly concerned with specific purposes, like

travelling, tourism, academic issues or business transactions. It

is worthwhile to remark, however, that Italian students have

different reasons for learning English. Educational objectives in

National Curriculum emphasize primarily personal self-development,

training of cognitive processes and promotion of intercultural

exchanges. Apparently these assumptions are ideal to the

implementation of a school syllabus more oriented towards personal

involvement and cultural growth rather than mere language

proficiency. So, it seems a good opportunity for non native

speaker teachers (NNST) - the majority in the Italian public

system - to show more self confidence and overcome the dichotomy

NST/NNST, to become more efficient, autonomous and creative in

everyday practice. But they are still far away from adopting a

syllabus with English as Lingua Franca2 (ELF) since there is no

really authoritative codification, nor are adequate teaching

materials at hand.

Is there an ideal language teacher?

providing (inner circle), norm-developing (outer circle,

endocentric) and norm-dependent (expanding circle, exocentric).2 A good definition is in Jennifer Jenkins, 2006. The variety

of European English spoken by SOL for intercultural exchanges free

from strict patterns of SE.2

I would like to start talking about my personal experience in

language teaching, as a teacher of Italian, my first language, and

of English as an international language (EIL), to justify some

reflection points I feel particularly involved with. It goes

without saying that as a teacher of my first language I have a

privileged position for the linguistic/cultural competence in the

target language, which along with my previously acquired

expertise in ELT enables me to exploit a theoretic and pragmatic

background. Of course, when working in a foreign country, it is a

good pedagogical practice to learn the language of students in

order to get a clear vision of learning difficulties and to

pinpoint the main similarities, or contrasts, between the two

languages. When teaching English in Italy, the story becomes a bit

more complicated. I think I have gone through various stages of

self-confidence and feelings of inadequacy, a process that

characterises most NNSTs. I have constantly managed to keep the

pace with language education theories and debates, experiencing

beneficial or sometimes controversial effects in my classrooms.

Finally, I have come up with the compromise of teaching a language

for global users meant to express their cultural values in a

multilingual and multicultural society, where effective and

democratic communication is valued more than

monolingual/monocultural proficiency. It is relevant to remark the

traditional general assumption of NS as the ideal teacher implied

in contrast that of an imperfect user, NNS. This idea has been

questioned only recently. Medgyes (1992, 1994) made NNSTs visible

in the context of ELT and gave them dignity along with an

intrinsic value for their profession. Only a few years ago Llurda

argued:

3

For the importance for NNEST to adopt the formulation

of English as an International Language or English as

a Lingua Franca in order to develop a positive self-

image and feel rightfully entitled to teach a

language that is not their mother tongue. (Llurda,

2009: 42)

This is meant to be an open criticism against any language

teacher who do not worry about their professional training or do

not share a genuine empathy with their learners, resulting

definitely inadequate to the task. Generally speaking, bilingual

and of course multilingual teachers have undergone a learning

process they can share with their students. The different

languages are not stored in separate compartments, but they are

contained in a large common area.

The Anglo-Saxon poet-singers used to talk of their

‘wordhoard’. They were thinking of the collection of

words they held in their head, which they could draw

upon when they were performing... We do the same

today. Inside each brain is a wordhoard, always

changing, always growing. In fact, three-quarters of

the human race have two wordhoards: we call such

people ‘bilingual’. Some have three or more. There

seem to be no limits, other than those imposed by

time, opportunity, and motivation, to the number of

language and dialect vocabularies we can learn. (D.

Crystal, Words, Words, Words, 2006:9)

These are great advantages which have recently been

appreciated in language education and taken into serious

4

consideration in ELT literacy. Teachers of different first

languages are generally well equipped with helpful strategies and

techniques that they can teach with positive attitudes. They can

create the ideal condition for pushing forward the language

learning process acting as expert mediators, anticipating and

bridging difficulties. If L1 speakers have a perfect command of

their mother tongue, since they acquire it in childhood and

continue to use it competently as their dominant language on an

everyday basis, as claims A. Davies3, the wondrous spread of

English4 around the world obliges us to re-think the concept of

World Standard English, not only in geographical or genetic terms

as Kachru’s model suggests5, but also as a cultural and political

instrument for reasserting autonomy of use. Vivian Cook6 gives

evidence of reasons for learning/teaching English for self-

development, training of cognitive processes and promotion of

intercultural exchanges, and teachers should accept them as their

priority goals.

The fact that most of L1 teachers do not use the local

language to establish an empathic and social relationship with

learners is a serious drawback for a genuine communication with

students. Whereas bilingual or plurilingual teachers not only have

the advantage of sharing the same language with their learners,

but most importantly they are experts in language acquisition

processes and know contact points between different languages.

They may be very helpful in various pragmatic ways.

3 A. Davies, Native Speaker: Myth and Reality, 20034 A. Pennycook, 20035 B. Kachru, The Other Tongue, 19926 V.J. Cook, Portraits of the L2 User, 2002

5

Which English?

Teachers need to reflect critically on the notion of Standard

English7 (SE) which is usually defined as a socially and

institutionally accepted dialect, or a variety particularly

efficient in the written form and normally phonetically marked by

accent. On the contrary, spelling and grammar must be accurate and

follow strict rules; in fact variations are sanctioned and

stigmatized as unconventional. SE is paramount for determining the

social identity of individuals and that explains why any possible

mistake is considered a dangerous attempt on its integrity8. But at

this point it is evident that a double standard emerges and it is

rather confusing. We don’t know why we are expected to follow

grammar fixed rules while pronunciation may vary; why grammar is

inviolable but pronunciation may differ from individual to

individual, from one community to the other. Is there any

linguistic hierarchy to separate them? Which authority decides

that? Can someone ‘own9’ a language, or is it rather the result of

a socio-cultural activity? SE does not belong any more to a

restricted community. Today English is used all over the world,

for different purposes, in international business, science,

finance, technology. Each field may require specific lexis to meet

its needs. In this international community NSs are almost

irrelevant. The question is about how much and how far the so-

7 R. M. Hogg, The Standardiz/sation of English8 A. Pennycook, Disinventig Standard English, 20009 H. Widdowson, The Ownership of English, 1994

6

called new ‘Englishes10’ can go on. They are locally generated to

express peculiar experiences and perceptions of reality. It is, in

fact, quite normal and well accepted that proficient users may

adapt the language in a dynamic way, in order to assert

themselves, to convey their own cultural meanings, rather than to

submit to strictly fixed rules and conventions11.

A new, independent, international language has been

universally acknowledged. And a process of self-regulation, an

endo-normative development, is still going on to meet the

different needs of a wide range of EIL users.

ELT in Italy

Italians study English at school and tend to use it in real

life primarily to communicate with SOL for specific purposes, such

as travelling, business, trade, or in academic contexts. It is the

kind of European English we may call Lingua Franca12 (ELF) or EIL,

a contact foreign language spoken at varied levels of proficiency

and chosen by speakers for intercultural exchanges. The

educational objectives of English as a school subject, on the

other hand, focus on learners’ self-development. It is not studied

exclusively to reach linguistic proficiency but also for training

cognitive processes, for expanding intercultural competences and -

in a context of social and political awareness - for expressing

local values, cultural identities and issues. Since high

linguistic proficiency is a long term outcome, an acceptable10 P. Trudgill, www.phon.ucl.uk/home/dick/SEtrudgill.htm11 Jenkins, J., World Englishes. A Resource Book for Students12 J. Jenkins, 2006

7

performance for effective communication is preferable, even if it

is often phonologically marked by L1 accent and by some typical

lexico-grammar features. Some different uses from SE are accepted

too as long as they do not break down intelligible exchanges.

According to Barbara Seidlhofer,

In particular, typical ‘errors’ that most English

teachers would consider in urgent need of correction

and remediation, and that consequently often get

allotted a great deal of time and effort in English

lessons, appear to be generally unproblematic and no

obstacle to communicative success”. (VOICE 2004: 220)

In B. Seidlhofer 2004, we can find the majority of typical

pronunciation ‘errors’ made by Italians13. Although it has been

demonstrated that they do not impede intelligibility in

communicative interactions, nevertheless, Italian students are

often stigmatised and their good performance is underestimated by

teachers or by students themselves14. Even if they are

linguistically accurate, appropriate and fluent, they still feel

frustrated because they are convinced to have a poor phonetic or

13 as we can see in the examples given on page 614 as it is shown in the following examples of Italians

speaking English and how they underestimate their performance: An Italian girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSYq4aj7ik&feature=related, 7/12/12

Andrea from Domodossola http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaKWXjuwYno, 7/12/12And then an English teacher who insists correcting superfluous mispronunciation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y9EZcw5zaA&feature=related, 7/12/12

8

lexical competence. Sometimes this sense of inferiority is

negatively stressed by inflexible or over-performing teachers, as

it happens in the well-known case of Mr Higgins teaching Eliza how

to pronounce ‘h’ in My Fair Lady15. B. Seidlhofer (2003) claims,

instead, that phonology is a comparatively closed system, and

virtually all ELF users speak the language with some trace, more

or less pronounced, so to speak, of their L1 accent. Sounds which

are regarded and taught as ‘particularly English’ ones - and

also as particularly difficult - in countless classrooms are the

'th' sounds and the dark 'l' allophone. In the conversations analyzed

by Jenkins, mastery of these sounds were proved not to be crucial

for mutual intelligibility, and so various substitutions, such

as /f/, /v/ or /s/, /z/ or /t/, /d/ for 'th' are permissible, and indeed are

also found in some native-speaker varieties.

We know that phonological deviations from the norm are quite

frequent. On the contrary, violations of pragmatic norms are rare;

in fact, when misunderstandings occur, they tend to be resolved

strategically with topic change or rephrasing the statement in

other words, or repeating key words. A sort of negotiation of

meaning takes place naturally and communication is carried on

successfully. When speakers are engaged in conversation with SOL,

interaction is generally cooperative, mutually supportive and

consensus-oriented. VOICE lists by B. Seidlhofer16 contain a wide

range of lexicogrammar features that give an idea of English

varieties taken from different first language backgrounds and in

various settings and domains. The common ELF items that emerge are

15 My fair lady, Mr Higgins’ lesson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gA7qq7Ja4U, 7/12/12

16 Barbara Seidlhofer, 20049

not apparently connected or determined by L1 or levels of L2

proficiency. Some recurrent misuses, such as dropping the third

person present tense ‘s’, interchangeable use of ‘which’ and ‘who’,

inappropriate omission or insertion of articles, all-purpose use

of one tag question ‘isn’t’, pluralisation of uncountables such as

‘businesses’, ‘informations’, ‘furnitures’, are not a problem for successful

communication. While misunderstandings may occur and do cause

problems when paraphrasing skills are lacking.

English for Italians

Italian students have a variety of viewpoints and

expectations about learning English. There is the conscious

learner type who considers pronunciation particularly difficult

but extremely useful, so future managers or young professionals

choose to have a full immersion in the UK or US to acquire a

native-like accent. For many learners English is just another

school subject added to the numerous ones already present in the

curriculum. The apocalyptic type is convinced there is no way to

avoid English in modern life: it is pervasive in technology,

social media, science. It is worldwide spread and we can’t survive

without it!

Educational purposes

In educational contexts, English is a tool and a goal at the

same time. It is taught as a language for global communication,

but also as an instrument for cultural development through which

10

students can acquire knowledge in several domains: literature,

arts, science, films, music17. Teaching and learning a language

involves the conscious use of communication and compensation

strategies which are helpful for transferring previously acquired

competence to new contexts. Adjusting meaning and words according

to the given setting and the role of interlocutors, self-

correcting and paraphrasing are useful techniques used to

integrate and compensate communicative abilities that permit to

cope with many complex situations. Motivation and learners’

attitudes are fundamental in language acquisition and essential

for successful learning.

In ELT it is often assumed that it is much better to give

priority to effective communication rather than to insist on

merely linguistic accuracy. Helping learners develop interaction

strategies is an important educational goal in view of promoting

intercultural exchanges, friendly relationships and long life

learning. Another explicit aim is fostering textual competence,

reading and writing skills for learner-selected purposes. All this

implies that teachers should choose materials and cultural

contents with sensitivity and awareness according to the expected

pedagogical results. Respect for individual interests and local

culture, instead of submission to stereotyped version of dominant

cultures, is the criterion for selecting sustainable sources of

information and motivating topics for linguistic exchanges.

Teaching ELF means abandoning unrealistic notions of

achieving perfect communication through native-like’

proficiency in English, drawing on extralinguistic

17 the so-called Content and Language Integrated Learning

(CLIL)11

cues, identifying and building on shared knowledge,

adjusting to interlocutors’ linguistic repertoires,

supportive listening, using compensation strategies:

asking for repetition, paraphrasing, and the like.

Exposure to a wide range of varieties of English and

a multilingual, comparative approach (Seidlhofer,

2004: 227)

A lesson plan: text messaging, aims and contents.

I have tried to apply some of these new trends to ELT keeping

in mind the main principles previously described. I have drafted a

lesson addressed to a group of young teenagers. The educational

objectives I have taken into account are related to the students’

needs and preferences. On the one hand there is the socio-

affective aim to express their cultural identities with their

preferred means of communication; on the other hand the urgent

need to create opportunities for developing linguistic and

communicative strategies through transferring and paraphrasing

ability. With these assumptions in mind, I have chosen texting

messages for the activities of decoding and encoding,

paraphrasing and glossing. Students are also asked to apply

lexico-grammar norms in these realistic contexts of authentic

communication. During the learning process, language awareness can

arise and students may benefit from the activities on both

cognitive and metalinguistic levels.

12

Let’s take, for instance, the following texts18, where

students have to read and give the glossed version: ‘Pls kn U do that 4

me?’; ‘How R U 2day?’; ‘Hi is evrythin ok?’ Although the activity implies

reflection on the peculiar language of texting - spelling,

grammar, syntax - this is not its main goal, which is instead

related to the communicative purposes of asking for a favour,

greeting, checking and establishing contact. Students can easily

realize the involved interlocutors use direct questions in a

colloquial style.

Focus on Genre

To make students aware of the typical features of this

specific text, I may ask a simple question, such as ‘What makes

texting distinctive?’ and they should reflect on what actually

takes place when people text each other, their roles and

relationship, the linguistic code. A productive discussion is

expected, where students can share their personal points of view

and experiences.

There is also the possibility to show the creative and

poetical potentiality of such a genre. Students are invited to

analyze, give the glossed version and paraphrase the following

texts:

It splts my @oms

18 Texts examples in these pages are taken from D. Crystal,

Txtng, the Gr8 Db8, 200813

Wen he :-)s @me

Try2rite essays

Gran not plsed

w/letters shes getn

B4 comin 2uni

Reflecting on how interpreting strategies work is fundamental

for acquiring not only language competence but also language

learning awareness. It is commonly believed that texting is weird

because of its use of abbreviations, pictograms, logograms. D.

Crystal (2008) asserts and demonstrates they are not all new,

since they came into use long time ago for different purposes and

contexts. Something we are already familiar with in dictionary

entries, telegrams, etc. Actually they can also be easily and

briefly classified and codified with metalinguistic terminology:

• Logograms: b, 2, @, x, 2day, zzz, b4

• Pictograms :-) ;-) :-(

• Omission: plsed/msg/gtn/xlnt/rite/comin

• Abbreviations: absol/arr/poss/prob/incl/esp/diff/max/min

And here comes a good opportunity for class discussion that will

focus on some language features such as vocabulary, structures,

spelling/pronunciation, formulas, grammar.14

The lesson may be concluded with a production phase where

students are invited to create their own pieces of writing. Here

are some possible instructions:

• Can you write a poem using 160 characters?

• Can you add more texts/emoticons?

• Can you translate from English into Italian?

• Text a friend to tell what you are doing/thinking/feeling...

• Reply to a text you just got ….

This lesson, although briefly drafted, is meant to satisfy

students’ social and communicative

needs with a realistic use of English. It gives them the

opportunity to reflect on language structures and morphology and,

at the same time, to develop learning strategies.

Some concluding remarks

Recent research calls for an important shift in ELT and I have

tried to demonstrate it is possible to make some little but

crucial changes in the classroom. We are now aware of the fallacy

of a model SE; geographically and socially limited, it is

questionable and no longer reflects the new pragmatic needs and

intercultural meanings of its users. Many researchers have

demonstrated how common ‘errors’ are well accepted and justified

in real life communication as efficient ways to express peculiar

realities. In fact, the most frequent risk of unsuccessful

communication occurs when local idioms or metaphors are used in a

15

unilateral idiomaticity19, that is when no other speakers can understand

them. For this reason, teachers and users try to accommodate

English accordingly to the different contexts of use, with the

most appropriate methodology aimed at encouraging learners’

confidence, attitudes and practices. ELTs and educators are

challenged to take on great responsibilities and to be well aware

of the pluricentric approach to the teaching and use of English,

that hopefully may enable language users to convey their own

peculiar sociolinguistic reality and not a distant or an imposed

one. Many unresolved problems arise from everyday life at school,

where teachers and students have to deal with biased materials and

a testing system based on a monolingual model. A major shift in

school curricula today is still a far away target.

Being competent and authoritative users of ELF is the final

objective of teaching ELF. It offers the perspective of improving

effects on English language pedagogy and to be more aware,

reflective, self confident and creative teachers. Quality and

responsible teachers are expected to be more realistic and

pragmatic in abandoning unrealistic notions of achieving perfect

communication through native-like’ proficiency in English.

Successful learning strategies, such as drawing on extralinguistic

cues, identifying and building on shared knowledge, adjusting to

interlocutors’ linguistic repertoires, supportive listening, using

compensation strategies are encouraged and are likely to lead

students towards an effective performance.

References

19 Terminology used by B. Seidlhofer, 200416

Bolton, Kingsley, “World Englishes”. The Handbook of Applied Linguistics,

Eds. Alan Davies and Catherine Elder, Oxford: Blackwell, 2004:

367-96.

Burns, Anne, C. Coffin, Eds, Analysing English in a Global Context – A Reader,

London and New York: Open University/Routledge, 2001

Cook, V.J. “Language teaching methodology and the L2 user

perspective”. V.J. Cook Ed. Portraits of the L2 User, Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters, 2002.

Crystal, David, Words, Words, Words, Oxford University Press, 2006

Crystal, David, Txtng the Gr8 Db8, Oxford University Press, 2008

Graddol, David, The Future of English?, London: The British Council,

1997.www.britishcouncil.org/English/future.pdf, 20/12/2012

Higgins, C. ''’Ownership’' of English in the Outer circle: An

alternative to the NS-NNS Dichotomy''. TESOL Quarterly 37,

(2003): 615-644.

Hogg, Richard M, The standardiz/sation of English’,

www.richardmhogg.me.uk/proper/standardizsation.20-12-12

Jenkins, Jennifer, World Englishes. A Resource Book for Students. UK:

Routledge, 2003

Jenkins, Jennifer, “Current Perspectives on Teaching World

Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca”, TESOL Quarterly Vol.

40, No. 1, March 2006

Kachru, B. , The Other Tongue, 2nd Ed., Urbana: University of Illinois

Press, 1992.

Llurda, Enric, “Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an

International Language”, International Journal of Applied

Linguistics. 14 (3), 2004: 314-323

17

-------------------, “The Decline and Fall of the Native Speaker”,

Wei, Li & Cook Vivian. (eds) Contemporary Applied Linguistics: Volume 1

Language Teaching and Learning, London: Continuum, 2009: 37-53

Medgyes, P., “Native or non-native: Who's worth more?”. ELT Journal,

46, 4. (1992): 340-349.

Medgyes, P. The non-native teacher. London: Macmillan Publishers, 1994

Pennycook, Alastair, “Disinventing Standard English”. English

Language and Linguistics 4.1, Cambridge University Press, (2000):

115-124

---------------------------, “The wondrous spread of English”, in

J. Jenkins Ed. World Englishes. A Resource Book for Students. UK:

Routledge, 2003: 146-153.

Phillipson, Robert, “English for globalisation or for the world’s

people?”, International Review of Education 47 (3-4), 2001: 185-200

Seidlhofer, Barbara, A Concept of International English and Related Issues: From

Real English to Realistic English, Council of Europe, 2003

Seidlhofer, Barbara, Research Perspectives on Teaching English as a Lingua

Franca, CUP, 2004: 209-239

Trudgill, Peter, “Standard English: what it isn’t”, BEX, Tony &

Watts, Richard J. (Eds). Standard English: the widening debate.

London: Routledge, 1999, 117-128.

www.phon.ucl.uk/home/dick/SEtrudgill.htm. 20/12/2012.

Widdowson, Henry, “The Ownership of English”, TESOL Quarterly, 28

(2). 1994:377-389

18