A GuilherEnglish as a Global Language and Education for Cosmopolitan Citizenshipme English as a...

This article was downloaded by: [Central U Library of Bucharest]On: 13 November 2012, At: 14:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and Intercultural CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmli20

English as a Global Language and Educationfor Cosmopolitan CitizenshipManuela Guilherme aa Centro De Estudos Sociais, Universidade De Coimbra, PortugalVersion of record first published: 05 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Manuela Guilherme (2007): English as a Global Language and Education forCosmopolitan Citizenship, Language and Intercultural Communication, 7:1, 72-90

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/laic184.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation thatthe contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions,formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publishershall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out ofthe use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmli20

http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/laic184.0

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

English as a Global Language andEducation for Cosmopolitan Citizenship

Manuela GuilhermeCentro De Estudos Sociais, Universidade De Coimbra, Portugal

Due to the overriding power of World English in the global economy, media,academy, entertainment, etc., EFL education has become a crucial curricular elementin the educational systems of developing societies. English language learning hastherefore been portrayed either as a fundamental tool that unquestionably bringsprofessional success or one that oppresses us under capitalism, neoliberalism andthe global market. Without questioning the veracity of both descriptions, indeedprecisely for this reason, this paper argues for a critical pedagogy of English as aGlobal Language. The use of English as a common language, but not as a linguafranca, can provide us with opportunities for acting as responsible cosmopolitancitizens, without implying the loss of our cultural and ideological roots or thetransformation of the English language into a neutral, disengaged or unaffiliatedmedium. This paper attempts to theorise this hypothesis based upon the ideas ofauthors such as Santos on globalisation and the World Social Forum, as well as thestatements of EFL teachers on curriculum development.

Devido ao papel tao importante que o Ingles tem hoje na economia global, nosmedia, na academia, no entretenimento, etc., o ensino/aprendizagem do Ingles comolıngua estrangeira tem-se tornado um elemento curricular fundamental nos sistemaseducativos das sociedades em desenvolvimento. Sem questionar a veracidade destasafirmacoes e precisamente por causa disso, este artigo propoe uma pedagogia crıticapara o ensino do Ingles como Lıngua Global. O uso do Ingles como lıngua comum,mas nao como lıngua franca, pode dar-nos a oportunidade de agirmos como cidadaoscosmopolitas responsaveis, sem que isto implique a perda das nossas referenciasculturais e ideologicas nem a transformacao da Lıngua Inglesa num instrumentoneutro, sem conotacoes nem filiacoes. Este artigo tenta teorizar esta hipotesebaseando-se nas ideias de autores, tais como as Santos sobre globalizacao e o ForumSocial Mundial, e nas afirmacoes de professores portugueses de Ingles LınguaEstrangeira sobre desenvolvimento curricular.

doi: 10.2167/laic184.0

Keywords: English, globalisation, cosmopolitanism, citizenship, curriculum

The concepts of ‘language’ and ‘citizenship’ have always been linked, at leastimplicitly, to each other and both of them to notions of nationality in politicalthought and, consequently, they have also been present in educational policies,and particularly those concerning language education (first, second orforeign). The hegemony of nationality, citizenship, education and languagehas over the last centuries contributed to the consolidation of the structure ofthe nation-state. This construction became more evident with the organisationof the nation-state in the 18th century: ‘Has a nationality anything dearer thanthe speech of its fathers?. . . With language is created the heart of a people’

1470-8477/07/01 072-19 $20.00/0 – 2007 M. GuilhermeLanguage and Intercultural Communication Vol. 7, No. 1, 2007

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

(Herder, 1982). However, this hegemony started to be de-constructed, both inits idea and in practice, two centuries later, being overcome by the structuringof political, economic and technological globalisation, and, furthermore, by theincreasing political recognition and social visibility of multicultural commu-nities within the nation-state. However, language continues to be used ‘tocreate group membership (‘us/them’), to demonstrate inclusion or exclusion,to determine loyalty or patriotism, to show economic status (‘haves/havenots’) and classification of people and personal identities’ (Shohamy, 2006: xv).

The notion of citizenship1 has, therefore, become more flexible, both bytranscending the borders of the nation-state and by gradually renovating itselfintranationally. In the meantime, the notion of cosmopolitanism, once extrinsicto the idea of nationality, has also acquired an intrinsic dimension, as we shallsee further on with reference to the ‘four modes of production of globalization’(Santos, 1999). Furthermore, the difference between the concepts of migrationand mobility accounts for the existence of two types of cosmopolitanism, if wefocus on citizenship issues, which correspond to two types of bilingualism ormultilingualism and have been predominant in our societies: (1) deficitcosmopolitanism and (2) elite cosmopolitanism. The first, intrinsic to thecontemporary nature of the nation-state, lies in the multicultural fringes ofsociety, generally restricted to the lower socioeconomic levels, which are onlyrecognised by a monocultural state to the extent that they are expected to gothrough transitory bilingualism in order to reach monolingualism and to keeptheir multicultural irreconcilable spaces apart, the private and the public. Thesecond, extrinsic to the nation-state, lies in the upper socioeconomic levels ofsociety, where multilingualism is the goal and the dialogue between cultures ispossible and, therefore, intercultural competencies are valued, regardless ofhow they are achieved as long as they are strategically effective. However, notonly vertical and horizontal but also spatial and epistemological mobility hasintensified across and within societies and cultures, and (1) high classcosmopolitanism has increased with the inclusion of a crowd of mediaproduced nouveaux riches ; (2) middle class cosmopolitanism has becomeubiquitous with globalisation and ‘glocalisation’ and the resulting exchangeprogrammes in education; and (3) lower class cosmopolitanism has becomemore educated therefore individually reaching the upper levels or establishingglobal links at group level.

English teaching/learning currently raises, in any circumstance, complexand controversial but very interesting issues about the various relationshipspossible between language and citizenship in contemporary societies, regard-less of whether they are more or less conscious in the minds of teachers andlearners. Language has turned both into one of the main symbols of nationalethnicity and one of the main instruments of citizenship. The homogenisationand standardisation of the national language, resulting from the expansion ofthe educational system and the media, has introduced a hierarchy into thepractice of citizenship based on linguistic norms. However, the globalisation ofthe English language, resulting from various factors strengthened by thedevelopment of electronic technology, has introduced new elements andfurther possibilities into the civic life of nationals worldwide. All languages areconfronted, in their historical and social development, by issues of power

English as Education for Cosmopolitan Citizenship 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

while competing with each other and dealing with divergent forces withinthemselves both at the intra- and international levels. Sociologists, philoso-phers and linguists have, over the past century, increasingly emphasised thehistorical and social construction of language, which Vygotsky summarised inone simple statement: ‘A word is a microcosm of human consciousness’(Bakhtin, 1929; Vygotsky, 1939/1986: 256). Despite the existence of somevoices opposing the nationally based citizenship model, such as the multi-culturalists, who emphasise the linguistic and cultural rights of groups whilerequiring a ‘differentiated citizenship’ (Hall, 2000; Young, 1998), and the so-called postmodernist view of radical democrats, who argue for an activeintegration of difference in the public sphere, the national perspective is, in oneway or another, prevalent in the notion of citizenship. However, consideringthat in most cases English is a foreign and dominant language, althoughstill related to the power-negotiation process between languages, criticalEnglish teaching/learning nowadays cannot avoid reflecting on identityand citizenship discussions as related to regional, national, international andtransnational spheres. The use of English is, therefore, a controversialand critical issue, in any of these spheres, throughout the world. Moreover,the connotations of English are complex. It is the language of imperialism,consumerism, marketing, Hollywood, multinationals, war and oppressionas well as of opportunity, science, social movements, peace processes, humanrights and intercultural exchanges. You may be discriminated against if youdon’t use English, and also if your mastery of Standard English is thoughtinadequate, but you can also suffer discrimination in some national contexts ifyou do use it.

In the midst of all this there are several questions that have to be addressed.Is it possible to use English as a lingua franca, a neutral language for business,for scientific or for political purposes? Is it possible to empty English of allthese connotations and of its cultural roots and use it as a decontaminated toolfor our immediate purposes and for translating our cultures? What is thisglobal, cosmopolitan language we have borrowed and made our own or,alternatively, that has been imposed, more or less aggressively, upon us? It is alanguage that, in fact, we manipulate in our everyday lives while commu-nicating with more immediate or more remote contexts and which has beenpenetrating our minds and bodies deeper and deeper. How does it work in theformation of our identities in their different spheres and in the fulfilment ofour citizenship? Finally, what is the role of citizenship and foreign language/culture educators who deal with English teaching/learning and who are alsodetermined to implement a critical pedagogy (Guilherme, 2002)?2 Thequestions raised here will guide our reflections on the role of global Englishfor the development of cosmopolitan citizenship, although I do not attempt toanswer them fully here.

The English language definitely cuts across national boundaries more thanany other language and is an icon of the contemporary age. It is undoubtedlythe language of the cosmopolitan/global professional elites, but it has alsobeen a tool for the citizens of the developing countries, mainly those colonisedby the English. Being the language of hegemonic globalisation, can it, at thesame time, be appropriated by the counter-hegemonic movements and used as

74 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

an emancipatory tool? In fact, English is the language used both in the WorldEconomic Forum in Davos and one of the most frequently used ones in theWorld Social Forum (WSF), in Porto Alegre. I would, however, like to focus onthe latter and reflect upon the role English can play in the development ofglobal awareness and cosmopolitan citizenship.

The World Social Forum Views of Globalisation and the Use ofLanguage

The WSF in itself represents an alternative to hegemonic globalisation and,therefore, offers not only a different worldview but also guidance for thedevelopment of global practices, processes and products within a ‘radicalcritique of present-day reality and the aspiration to a better society’ (Santos,2003). The languages used as a common medium both in the WSF events andon their website are Portuguese, English, Spanish and French, that is, theEuropean languages most widely spoken in the world. However, the WSFdefines itself, in its Charter of Principles, as an ‘open meeting place’ (Point 1)that ‘brings together and interlinks only organizations and movements of civilsociety from all the countries in the world’ (Point 5). Moreover, besides offeringa forum for transnational exchange between social movements and organisa-tions other than political parties, government leaders or business companies,from all over the world, the WSF has, according to Santos, ‘created a certainsymmetry of scale between hegemonic globalization and the movements andNGOs’ (Santos, 2003: 69).

Therefore, such an event and network demands common linguistic tools toallow for wider communication despite the possibility of using various otherlanguages in smaller groups or in regional and local meetings. Besides, theWSF structure is trans- and interthematic, in the sense that there are topics thatmay interest all the participants as well others which are nation- or group-specific. This, together with the above-mentioned characteristics, may allowfor the exercise of a ‘dialogic imagination’ that Beck identifies with a‘cosmopolitan perspective’. In his words, the latter is ‘an alternative imagina-tion, an imagination of alternative ways of life and rationalities, which includethe otherness of the other’ (Beck, 2002: 18). However, the author also states that‘cosmopolitanism means: rooted cosmopolitanism, having ‘‘roots’’ and ‘‘wings’’at the same time’ and he clarifies that ‘there is no cosmopolitanism withoutlocalism’ (Beck, 2002: 19).

However, the above description of global events and of a kind of globalawareness where the universal and the particular, the global and the local,coexist and, therefore, where ‘glocalisms’ emerge (Robertson, 1995),3 raisesissues concerning the use and the teaching/learning of the English languageas a cosmopolitan medium of communication and as a tool for enhancing thedevelopment of cosmopolitan citizenship (Guilherme, 2004). To what extentcan the English language constitute a common ground where differentappropriations of the English language and of the English-speaking culturescan dialogue? And one into which the various home cultures of the differentEnglish-speakers (as native, second or foreign language) can be translated?While, at the same time, make room for other languages to grow? This


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

discussion exists alongside the discussion about the precedence of rights toequality over rights to difference or vice versa. Should English languageteaching/learning be a priority because it gives access to knowledge, towork and to the global market? Or should native languages take the leadfor reasons of human dignity? Santos’ statement helps us clarify the prioritiesin cosmopolitan citizenship education and, as a consequence, it also offersguidance in handling the issues of language priorities: ‘people havethe right to be equal whenever difference makes them inferior, but theyalso have the right to be different whenever equality jeopardizes their identity’(Santos, 1999: 227).

Although the feasibility of an effective transnational citizenship is con-sidered premature because access to social and political rights still dependsvery much on rules and regulations established by the nation-state (Falk,2000), the growing importance, whether formal or informal, of transnationalorganisations and of ‘globalisation-from-below’ movements, like the WSF,requires a different attitude towards language. If, on the one hand, strongforeign languages, like English and Spanish, are becoming more and morewidespread, on the other hand, ‘glocalisation’ and ‘cosmopolitanisation’ alsoprovide for a greater contact with minority languages, promoting a world thatBeck describes as ‘the internalized global’ both at an individual and nationallevel (Beck, 2002). As citizenship acquires a de-territorialised transnationaldimension, it allows for the ‘globalisation’ and, consequently, ‘glocalisation’ ofa few of the most widespread and most powerful languages, namely English,but also for recurrent contact with and interest in other languages. These maybe either majority languages outside the North and the West, e.g. Mandarin inAsia, Swahili or Shona in Africa, and Portuguese, a national but weaklanguage in Europe that, however, is widespread across the world, or minoritylanguages.

The linguistic and cultural processes described above may be understoodas coinciding with the four forms of globalisation distinguished by Santos:(1) ‘globalized localism ’ � ‘the process by which a given local phenomenon issuccessfully globalized, be it . . . the transformation of the English languageinto the lingua franca ’; (2) ‘localized globalism ’ � ‘the specific impact oftransnational practices and imperatives on local conditions that are therebydestructed and restructured in order to respond to transnational imperatives’;(3) ‘cosmopolitanism ’ � ‘the opportunity for subordinate nation-states, regions,classes or social groups and their allies to organize transnationally in defenceof perceived common interests and use to their benefit the capabilities fortransnational interaction created by the world system’; (d) ‘common heritage ofhumankind ’ � ‘the emergence of issues which, by their nature, are as global asthe globe itself’ (Santos, 1999: 217�218). As far as the English language isconcerned, the above processes can be applied as follows: (1) ‘globalisedlocalism ’ � the English language as a local phenomenon that is successfullyglobalised; (2) ‘localised globalism ’ � the specific impact of such a transnationallinguistic tool on other home languages and cultures at a national and locallevel; (3) ‘cosmopolitanism ’ � the opportunity for subordinate, even oppressed,groups to use such a transnational linguistic tool to exchange their ideas,organise their social struggles and even to challenge the very ‘hegemonic


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

criteria of truth and efficiency’; and (4) ‘common heritage of humankind ’ �allowing groups to voice their arguments in international and transnationalmeetings and to seek a platform of dialogue in order to administer the issuesregarding the sustainability of human life on earth, for instance.

English as a Global Language (EGL): A CosmopolitanMedium of Communication

In the 2000 study Through other Eyes: How the World Sees the United Kingdom ,carried out on behalf of the British Council, some interesting issues wereraised concerning the dialogue between English speakers and the UK and theimportance and use of English.4 I will concentrate on the latter. In this study,the British Council and the international opinion research organisation MORI,concluded that ‘nearly every young person [in the 28 countries where theresearch study had taken place] spoke English (We did not define speak, so weshould understand the result broadly)’ (p. 55). These results also included‘countries where English is not a national language’, such as Vietnam, Greece,Thailand, Italy, Spain and Korea, where more than 90% of the participants saidthey spoke English (p. 55). Moreover, ‘just about all of those who didn’t speakit [in countries, like Japan and Bangladesh, where English language ability wasleast well developed] said that they would like to be able to’ (p. 55) and, to bemore precise, ‘respondents were just about unanimous that knowledge ofEnglish is ‘‘crucial’’ or ‘‘very important’’ for the purposes of internationalbusiness and education’ (p. 56). Acknowledgement of the importance ofEnglish for travelling abroad also prevailed. In a previous study, in 1999,carried out in a group of 13 countries, included in the study mentioned above,the importance of English in career development and knowledge enhancementwas also strongly endorsed (p. 40).

This study formally acknowledges the importance of EGL in bothindividual and collective goals with respect to professional and social success,despite the fact that the majority of the world population does not speakEnglish and that those who do and have such concerns for professional andsocial success are the affluent ones (Phillipson, 2001). They are, in Bauman’swords, those who have the ‘freedom to move and act’ (Bauman, 1998: 70). It isprecisely due to this awareness that fluency in English may, by and large,represent and be accountable for economic success and, furthermore, that‘English for business [has been] business for English’ (Phillipson, 2001: 191),that places a considerable responsibility on EGL/EFL teachers as far ascosmopolitan citizenship education is concerned. This acknowledgementraises another issue: how can EGL teachers be made accountable for thisresponsibility (i.e. cosmopolitan citizenship education) and to whom? Citizen-ship education is becoming popular, either as a subject or as a transversal topicin the curriculum, in many countries across Europe and around the world, andthe bibliography is now immense. What role does it effectively play in EGL/EFL classes in state schools (a compulsory subject in most educational systemsaround the world)? How can these teachers perform their role as cosmopolitancitizenship educators?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

In this world, English is a powerful medium of different identifications andrepresentations and therefore the teaching/learning of EGL needs to includethe responsibility for preparation of cosmopolitan citizens who consciouslyand critically mediate between various competing identity loyalties. And thesame certainly applies to the other strong national or international languageson this planet. In this postmodern, fragmented global world our actions have aglobal impact although we do not ‘know well how to obtain the means to planand execute actions globally’ (Bauman, 1998: 60). As it has become moredifficult to engage in collective action and because ‘the new rich do not needthe poor any more’ (Bauman, 1998: 72), it is essential that the citizens are awareof the tricks that the new society plays on them. Furthermore, ‘while non-Western communities were busy working on one project (decolonisation), thecarpet has been pulled from under their feet by another project (globalisation)’(Canagarajah, 2005: 195�196) and, therefore, while new nation-states wereemerging, they were also being pressed from the outside by economic forcesthat made them vacillate in their own freedom and autonomy. In order tocounter such pressures, from the linguistic point of view, hegemonic locallanguages, in Africa mainly, have also emerged and threatened other minoritylocal languages, sometimes alongside authoritarian regimes. This has led tothe use of English and other European languages as symbolic instruments forclaiming democracy, economic and social justice, as well as legal equity, if notas ‘the main medium of an Afrocentric counter-discourse’ (Mazrui, 2004: 100).Moreover, ‘the impetus to use non-native languages of wider communication[will] emanate[s] [more and more] . . . from an investment in reinforcingtransnational affiliations’, which may be global or simply regional (Adejun-mobi, 2004: 205).

Unveiling the dominant hegemonies, questioning both the ruling and thesubordinate ideologies, making connections between the different narratives atthe local, national and global levels, and giving voice to those discourses thathave been silenced are important steps that uncover the power relations whichdetermine the nature of intercultural interactions either amongst individualsor amongst groups. In sum, the argument supports the need for a criticalpedagogy of native and foreign languages, of English in particular, so that theeducation of a cosmopolitan citizenry also takes place along the way (Phipps &Guilherme, 2004). Giroux also argues for this need by clarifying that ‘learninga foreign language is a largely humanistic endeavor rather than an elite orstrictly methodological task and the force of its importance has to be tied toits relevance as an empowering, emancipatory, and democratic function’(Guilherme, 2006).

A Critical Pedagogy of English as a Global Language (EGL)A critical pedagogy of EGL, aimed at the education of cosmopolitan

citizens, integrates broader educational frameworks such as Human RightsEducation and Education for Democratic Citizenship. The Human RightsEducation dimension focuses on the rights of every human being in the world,as stated in the documents of transnational organisations which were ratifiedby a number of nation-states, and which are nevertheless assumed to take


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

multicultural forms, according to the local contexts. A critical approach to EGLwould, therefore, be expected to meet these goals. Human Rights Educationhas become more and more important in language education as the politicalidea of human rights has developed and included the notion of linguistichuman rights (Phillipson, 1992, 2001). Skutnabb-Kangas makes a usefuldistinction between linguistic human rights and language rights, the formerbeing language-related identity rights and the latter an ‘enrichment-oriented’right (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000a: 498). The latter (second and foreign languageeducation) should not be reinforced without the former (mother tongueeducation), which is indispensable for emancipatory citizenship. However,once linguistic human rights are fully ensured, language rights will only addto them and English, if it ‘serve[s] more equitable purposes’, can also play arole which is important but limited (Phillipson, 2001: 197).

From an institutional point of view, Human Rights Education has beenpromoted through the initial recommendations of transnational organisa-tions, adopted by national educational systems and implemented byindividual schools and teachers, while Education for Democratic Citizenshiprelies more on the initiative of national education policy-makers. The latter, ingeneral, focuses on national identity and, in some cases, on interculturaldialogue. Therefore, a critical pedagogy of EGL may add a multiple-perspective approach as well as a discussion about the power relations thatunderlie and surface differences within and beyond the limits of the nation-state (Guilherme, 2002). Moreover, it also demands an awareness that, for afully successful and effective cosmopolitan citizenship, knowledge of Englishis important but it is not sufficient as ‘there is an increasing awareness aboutthe necessity of high levels of multilingual competence in the future’(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000b: 39), due to the fact that not only is Global Englishfar from being truly global but also communication may often be moreeffective if we can communicate, more or less fluently, in our interlocutors’native tongue. Therefore, there is a need for a change in attitude in EGLeducation and the challenge is that ‘it empowers rather than subjugates thelearner and the society to which he or she belongs’ (Corbett, 2003: 208).Moreover, Corbett (2003: 205�206) adds, ‘the curricular goals of interculturaleducation embed language teaching and learning in a wider educationalproject that has explicit ethical implications’.

The effective study of foreign languages, EGL/EFL in particular, impliescultural, cross-cultural and intercultural learning.5 This process involves theacknowledgement not only of facts, that is, the input of geographical,historical, social or political data about English-speaking nations and cultures,but also of the complexity of hidden meanings, of underlying values, and howthese articulate with the micro- and macro-contexts in which they/we exist(Guilherme, 2000a). Human rights, for instance, are not simply a universallanguage and they ‘are not universal in their application’, as Santos says, andhe identifies four international regimes of human rights ‘in our time: theEuropean, the Inter-American, the African and the Asian’ (Santos, 1999: 219).Can they be translated into English? To what extent can they be discussed inEnglish?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

Current theories and practices of EGL teaching around the world may besimplistically divided into three main perspectives: (1) the traditional frame-work, where the English language is connected to specific cultures of the‘Inner Circle’, in Kachru’s description of English-speaking cultures, and to afew standardised models of ‘native speakers’, all viewed as hegemonic entities(Alpektin, 2002; Kachru, 1986); (2) the modern framework, where the Englishlanguage is used as a disinfected tool for functional purposes, pretending to bestripped of any cultural, ideological, historical or political baggage, either inbusiness, scientific or other exchanges; (3) the postcolonial framework, whereEnglish is the language of Intercultural Communication, Human Rights andCosmopolitan Citizenship, which has ‘killed’ the notion of a native speakerand discarded its traditional ethnocentric historical and ideological load inorder to highlight its appropriation by local cultures and its role in ‘translatingthem’ and, therefore, in solving intercultural conflicts.

Described in this way, the three approaches above � the first being ethno-centric, the second ethno-cleansing and the last ethno-decentring � seem toonaıve to be feasible. English was not invented along with cinema, television orthe internet; it has its own heritage that is territorially and chronologicallyrelated to specific cultures and territories (Guilherme, 2003), and to worlddevelopments that have de-territorialised but not emptied it. While being usedas the language of business or of science, for example, it also carries meaningsand values, apart from the cross-cultural and intercultural nuances and thenational, regional and individual idiosyncrasies of those who speak and thosewho listen to it. Furthermore, in describing Human Rights or DemocraticCitizenship, it entails particular historical and cultural meanings (Byram &Guilherme, 2000).

However, a multiple perspective does not mean that ‘anything goes’ as ‘acritical pedagogy should speak against the notion that all cultural realitiesneed to follow one dominant narrative or that all diverse cultural realities needto be given voice, since it is obvious that many of these realities harbour racist,classist, and sexist assumptions’ (Crawford & McLaren, 1998: 146). Not onlydoes English, first of all, carry its own historical, cultural and political baggageand not only does EGL, most probably, entail particular beliefs, attitudes andvalues, but it also gives access to countless social, cultural, political and ethicaloptions. Therefore, its use requires a critical mind capable of constantlymaking provisional or final choices amongst them, that is, of being criticallyselective. Furthermore, intercultural interactions, like intracultural ones, andtherefore linguistic exchanges, involve asymmetrical power relations. As suchintercultural exchanges imply the use of a foreign language, they can becomeeven more ambiguous and subtle (Guilherme, 2001). Power relations rely onassumptions of status that depend on different variables present in eachcultural framework, like social class, age, gender, race, ethnicity, geographicalregion, etc. but that, in situations of multicultural interaction, incorporate newcross-cultural and intercultural dimensions and generate new communicativedynamics. Moreover, the range of contacts and experiences that are nowaccessible has widened and their intensity has also increased due to greatermobility and advances in communication technologies, which have consider-ably facilitated cultural exchange.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

A critical pedagogy of the English language gives room both for the so-called sociology of absences and sociology of emergences (Santos, 2003). Accordingto Santos (2003: 12), the sociology of absences consists in actually proving, insociological terms, that ‘what does not exist is in fact actively produced as non-existent’ by ‘hegemonic criteria of rationality and efficiency’. The counter-hegemonic strategy of the sociology of absences consists in replacing a regime of‘monocultures’ by a regime of ‘ecologies’. Among the five ecologies identifiedby the author,6 ‘the ecology of knowledges’, calling for the validation ofpreviously discredited knowledge(s) that may offer alternative criteria ofrigour, illustrates the kind of change in attitudes that such an epistemologicaloperation entails. The sociology of emergences then opens up the horizon of whatis possible, of what may be considered as alternative, by ‘identifying signals,clues, or traces of future possibilities in whatever exists’ (Santos, 2003: 25).What role can EGL, within the framework of education for cosmopolitancitizenship, play in the implementation of such epistemological operations?

Active Cosmopolitan CitizenshipTurner defines global citizenship as a ‘language of obligation and virtue’

and cosmopolitanism as a ‘set of virtues’. Amongst this set of virtues, theauthor highlights the ‘commitment to protect the cultural diversity of theglobal commonwealth’ and identifies as main strategies for achieving this goal,amongst others, ‘care for other cultures, ironic distance from one’s owntraditions, concern for the integrity of cultures in a hybrid world, openness tocross-cultural criticism’ through the process of ‘self-reflexivity with respect toboth our own cultural context and other cultural values’ and ‘Socratic irony’, inthe sense that it enables one to ‘achieve some distance from the polity’ (Turner,2002). Such a disposition refuses any hegemonic or ethnocentric discourse thatimposes ‘a set of virtues’ understood as universalising principles, whatever thescope, as it presupposes the critical questioning of one’s own and others’cultural traditions, values and attitudes, even an ironical posture towards themall. If, on the one hand, national citizenship entails a sense of belonging andtherefore is political, then cosmopolitan citizenship is also political preciselybecause it implies an undoing or, at least, a loosening of any previous ties.

However, both levels are not mutually exclusive. Nor are learning foreignlanguages/cultures and developing one’s home language(s)/culture(s) orpractising one’s linguistic skills in English and, via that process, having theopportunity to meet and deepen one’s knowledge of other less powerfullanguages/cultures. Neither is citizenship a monolithic structure with clearlyseparate levels of identification. Besides, being an active cosmopolitan citizendoes not start only beyond national borders, nor does the fact that one isbilingual or an expatriate make one a critical and active cosmopolitan citizen,for this depends on ‘the level of conscious awareness involved’ in actinginterculturally (Byram, 2003: 64). Here Byram (2003: 64�65) distinguishesbetween ‘being intercultural’ and ‘acting intercultural’ stating that ‘actinginterculturally involves a level of analytical awareness which does notnecessarily follow from being intercultural’ despite the fact that the condition(being intercultural) may be a strong factor for the development of the capacity


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

to act according to that attitude (acting interculturally). Nevertheless, ‘beingintercultural’ may also be viewed as an ontological-like quality through whichone sees the world (Phipps & Gonzalez, 2004). These authors, however,envisage a critical cultural awareness and a disposition to act that is developedthrough education.

Citizenship education in a plural society is one that prepares and stimulatesyoung citizens to interact with a variety of cultures that are ‘mutually definingeach other and themselves’, keeping in mind that ‘every culture is itself aninterculture’ (Figueroa, 2000: 53). The notion of agency is an important onewhen considering the idea of citizenship (Guilherme, 2002) and it corroboratesthe reinforcement of the notion of participative democracy that is so central inthe WSF along with complementary, co-relational and proactive dimensionssuch as solidarity and reciprocity within the basic concepts of human rights asdescribed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Education for citizenship is ultimately geared to promoting a participationthat shapes the present in order to also shape the future. In addition, educationfor cosmopolitan citizenship opens up the goal beyond territorial and ethniclimits while striving to maintain one’s cultural roots, and these mutuallyreinforce one another. Therefore, cosmopolitanism does not mean ‘to standnowhere’, for this is impossible, nor is it ‘an attempt to stand everywheretenable’, for this is not recommendable (Figueroa, 2000: 55). Thus, educationfor cosmopolitan citizenship carries the responsibility of simultaneouslypromoting a shared identity, the appreciation of diversity, the respect fordifference, the pride in one’s own identifications and the commitment totaking action in the interest of the weaker members of our communities.Language necessarily plays an important role in articulating and connectingmultiple experiences and identifications both individually and collectively.How can teachers of EGL foster the accomplishment of such goals? How canthey connect, combine and incorporate the resources at hand?

Teachers Have Their SayA study of the critical dimension in EFL education at upper secondary level

in state schools in mainland Portugal (10th, 11th and 12th forms) can providesome illustrative examples of teachers’ opinions on the implementation of acritical approach, bearing in mind its contribution to citizenship education atits various levels.7 The case of Portuguese EFL teachers was particularlyinteresting at this stage as those participating in this study were implementinga national syllabus which required them to carry out a ‘critical interpretation’of the English-speaking cultures while dealing explicitly with concepts/topicssuch as identity and citizenship. The syllabus placed a strong emphasis oncitizenship issues in all their spheres, namely local, national, European andglobal, both at an individual and collective level. This study was carried outhalf way through this syllabus (1995�2003) and the data referred to below,collected by questionnaire and focus-group interviews, are only a small part ofthe whole study (Guilherme, 2000b).

The general aims of this research project were to find out if, why and howthe participants were approaching culture critically and what sort of teacher


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

development models they thought they needed (the analysis provided belowrefers only to the ‘how’ part of this process). The ‘why’ part of the study hadshown evidence of a strong awareness amongst these EFL teachers of their roleas citizenship educators.8 This part of the study focused mainly on resources,both human and material, on the interaction between human resources(teachers and students) and the target cultures, according to the teachers’views, and on the procedures used to teach/learn English and English-speaking cultures that could best help develop critical cultural awareness, thatteachers had beforehand tried to define, bearing in mind citizenship education(Guilherme, 2000b, 2002). Participants were asked a general question about themain determinants of a critical attitude and questionnaire respondents wereasked to rate some of the elements provided from 1 (minimum) to 5(maximum). For example, they rated the textbook (3.03) even lower than thenational syllabus (3.26) with respect to their roles in developing a criticalattitude. Comparatively, they placed greater emphasis on the teacher’s role byrating not only her/his approach (3.03) but also her/his choice of materials(3.53) and activities (3.98) higher, which gives consistency to this result. Focusgroup participants didn’t value the importance of the textbook for this purposeeither. However, the latter stressed that the topics included in the syllabuscould increase or decrease the possibility of taking a critical approach towardsthe target cultures. For example, topics that relate to family, environment orhuman rights issues generally raise students’ interest and, therefore, thepossibility of engaging in dialogue and of being critical. On the other hand,topics such as the ‘Victorian Age’ were demoralising and favoured a factualapproach rather than a critical one. Some participants remarked that mosttopics in the syllabus did not relate to the students’ reality, despite the fact thatthey used complementary material such as articles from newspapers ormagazines or recordings from cable television. The fact that a critical approachhad not been considered in the final/national exams was also pointed out bygroup participants as a major impediment for teachers trying to apply such anapproach to cultural contents. With regard to textbooks, group participantspointed out some of the limitations of textbook materials. Their complaintswere centred on the fact that ‘the texts included did not, first of all, present acritical perspective but they were rather expository and informative’. However,some group participants added that the textbook was ‘just a basis for workwhich is not the only one; it never should be the only one’.

Therefore, human resources were those most valued by participants in thestudy. Respondents to the questionnaire rated ‘the approach suggested by theteacher’ highest as a determinant of ‘the development of a critical attitude’(4.31), which focus group members confirmed. Not surprisingly, teachersexpanded on their perceptions of their own role and, therefore, the data hasbeen enriched with their comments. It was common for them to viewthemselves as mediators between native and target cultures, betweenthe knowledge/perceptions students already have of these cultures and theborders they still have to cross. One participant perceived her/his role as one‘of helping students find their own way in organising the amounts ofdisorganised information they have access to’.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

There was a discussion in all groups about whether teachers should orshould not be impartial, neutral and/or objective. Although a small majority ofrespondents to the questionnaire answered that ‘they should listen to student’sviews and be impartial’ (54.5%), focus group members displayed muchdisagreement on this matter. Some participants argued that the teacher shouldadopt a critical position, meaning that the teacher should express her/hisopinion, as ‘one aspect of a critical approach is precisely that the individualaffirms who s/he is and what s/he thinks’. For the teacher cannot help thestudent walk this path without having previously walked it her/himself, asone group participant suggested when she said that ‘first we must have ourown critical vision, and then we will be able to help students walk the samepath and find their own position’.

Students were also acknowledged by group participants as the mostimportant resources, ‘it depends mostly on students. . . in fact, our work canbe better or worse according to that resource’. It depends on their curiosity,their willingness to learn and their background knowledge, and these varymainly according to personality and family background. However, positiveand negative images of students’ critical capability varied from group togroup. Some teachers would argue that some/most students are critical abouttheir own environment while in other groups teachers would be unanimous incomplaining about their students’ lack of critical vision of their own culture, letalone of foreign cultures.

With respect to teachers’ and students’ views of and interactions withthe target cultures, English-speaking cultures in this case, most participantsin the study considered culture to be dynamic and constantly changing. Theyalso viewed culture as complex and did not reduce it to factual data. However,elsewhere in the study they rated the idea that ‘cultural identities arecontradictory’ lower (2.54, on a 1�5 scale), which may imply that theyview cultures as evolving wholes, which however do not include dissonancewithin themselves. The same idea about the constant evolution of culturewas also conveyed in group discussions where teachers seemed to be aware ofthe need to constantly update their knowledge, a need which was alsoacknowledged by questionnaire respondents who claimed that ‘in order topromote a critical view of the culture [they] teach, it seems important toprovide updated information’ (4.33, on a 1�5 scale). This was not viewed as aburden by most participants, quite the contrary. The following excerpt from agroup discussion may reveal some of the feelings the participants displayed onthis matter:

A: In cultural matters, the more we think we know a little more, the more weget the notion that we know very little. This is a continuous process, it is aprocess that is always changing

G: And culture itself evolves, it is not static.A: It is a continuum

. . .B: And the fact that it [culture] is an unending, continuous process, has its

advantages too, because we always have something new, innovative,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

stimulating, we do not end up with something static, boring, we have newmaterials and new ideas and we can always improve our lessons.

Despite expressing the idea that culture is a continuous flow, questionnairerespondents, at least, did not make a strong statement on cultural diversity orcontradiction within it, as mentioned previously, as they did not find that thefact that ‘cultural identities are contradictory’ was an important principle tokeep in mind. In spite of finding that ‘giv[ing] representation of various groupswithin the culture’ was relatively important ‘in order to promote a critical viewof the culture [they] teach’ (3.36 on a 1�5 scale), it was not given as muchimportance as one might have thought. However, group participants in generalclaimed that they focused more on diversity: ‘I do not identify a culture with anation because there are, in fact, several cultures within a country’.

Focus group participants revealed that they also displayed their own ideasand preferences when teaching about English-speaking cultures. No matterhow impartial they tried to be they did not expect this to go unnoticed amongtheir students, although they did not expect them to share their views either.Furthermore, one group participant remarked that ‘it is important that theyunderstand that I have my own values and preferences’. This leads us toanother issue, which is the role of history in EFL classes at an advanced leveland the possible perspectives of historical narratives. Although teachersseemed to keep an open mind in relation to students’ response to materials,which a group participant called ‘perspective of discovery’, the limits of suchan approach were, however, also evident. Clearly, such a ‘perspective ofdiscovery’ is restricted by the school’s organisation of time and space, and alsodepends on both the students’ desire for discovery and the teachers’willingness to give up some control. On the other hand, the questionnaireresults show that participants do not rate such activities as ‘gather[ing] data’(3.34 on a 1�5 scale), or ‘collect[ing] information’ (3.03) very highly, within thecontext of a critical approach, which obviously diminishes the scope forstudents’ discovery.

In other words, a critical approach has to be rooted in students’ lives andbackground knowledge and stimulate their intellectual curiosity and emo-tional involvement in order to lead them to further their knowledge aboutalternatives found in different cultural frames. The importance of the affectivecomponent in a critical approach was once again confirmed by the ques-tionnaire results where a majority, although small, of the respondentsconsidered that ‘in order to promote a critical view of the culture I teach itseems important to raise feelings and emotions about that culture’ (66.3%).This finding may account for other components of a critical approach thatwere underlined by focus group participants such as the use of multimediamaterials, with recourse to music, theatre and film, and of different activitiesthat require a strong involvement on behalf of the student. To summarise,questionnaire respondents rated procedures such as ‘compar[ing]/contrast[ing]’ (4.66, on a 1�5 scale), ‘question[ing]’ (4.50), ‘comment[ing]’(4.43) and ‘recogniz[ing] positive and negative aspects’ (4.01) highly, and thesealso demand personal involvement from the students.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

Finally, while discussing whether developing critical cultural awarenesswas more an individual or a collective enterprise, a group participant saidthat ‘it can be prompted in a group but the maturation process impliesindividual endeavour’. Participants emphasised the importance of ‘criticalreflection and a critical analysis of culture through individual work’.Nonetheless, groupwork was considered by focus-group participants themost important way to stimulate a critical attitude since, as one participantadded, ‘when they work together they become aware of their ownweaknesses and learn through their colleagues’ work’. Therefore, thedevelopment of communication skills, for the purpose of both groupworkand classwork, was a main concern for many participants. But they alsomentioned having to deal with students with strong convictions, anincapacity to communicate, serious family problems, who defended totalitar-ian regimes or openly admitted and maintained their prejudices, racial onesfor example, as pointed out by one of the groups. In sum, as one groupparticipant put it, being a critical educator is a ‘risky profession’ because ‘wedeal with people’.

We may conclude from the excerpt of the study presented above that theparticipants’ vision of their own role and performance contributes to thearguments introduced here. Considering that these secondary school teachersof English as a Foreign Language were required to follow a national syllabus,which demanded that they carry out, with their students, both a reflection onidentity and citizenship issues while studying English and a ‘criticalinterpretation’ of English-speaking cultures, although these were restrictedto the UK and the USA, it is evident that they do, although timidly, suggestsome responses and hints to our initial questions. By emphasising the role ofthe teacher, his/her choice of materials and a critical interpretation of theEnglish-speaking cultures neither the syllabus nor the teachers implementingit start from the principle that their object of study, English, is a lingua francain the sense of it being an empty vessel, a self-evident tool which everyonecan use as a culture-free vehicle for words and ideas. Furthermore, they areaware that their object of study is dynamic, fragmented, contradictory,complex and, therefore, we cannot easily use it for our immediate purposesor to translate our cultures, equally dynamic and complex, into it in astraightforward manner. On the other hand, they are committed to helpingtheir students negotiate their identity and citizenship levels while studyingthis powerful global language which may add to their opportunities not onlyin the job market but also in the exercise of an emancipatory citizenship.Nevertheless, they promote a critical approach by implementing a perspec-tive of discovery, a questioning stance and an emotional involvement, as wellas by allowing for dissonance, which may contribute towards the prepara-tion of critical global citizens. On the one hand, they express their intentionnot to abdicate their, or their students’, cultural backgrounds but, on theother hand, to be open to learning and ready to expand their horizons andtheir commitments while interacting with their interlocutors through themedium of English.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

ConclusionMany possibilities have been pointed out for the teaching/learning of EGL,

understood either as the language of the English tradition and of Americanmodernity, or as a lingua franca for business, science and tourism. However,considering that EGL is a loaded language that is manipulated everydaymainly by those world citizens who have greater access to power andaffluence, and that it is itself a powerful vehicle for the exercise of a globalcitizenship, in the cosmopolitan sense, defined above, a critical pedagogy of itis something which deserves to be fully explored. Technology, both in the fieldof communication and of transportation, is enabling school populations indeveloped countries, whatever their origin and in spite of their differentmaterial conditions, to interact more closely and intensely with one anotherand also to make contact, although not extensively, with those in the so-calledunderdeveloped countries. This calls for a critical and conscious use ofcommon linguistic tools and offers plentiful opportunities for critical activecosmopolitan citizenship while also making room for expansive linguistic and(cross- and inter-) cultural knowledge. The critical use of EGL, as that of anylanguage, although more emphatically in this case due to its prevalence incontemporary societies, goes beyond the acquisition of linguistic skills andcultural information into the sphere of ‘languaging’, defined as a life skill, byconveying the possibility of entering the ‘languaging’ of others and re-enteringour own ‘languaging’ (Phipps & Gonzalez, 2004). EGL is a powerful mediumfor educational systems to engage in the preparation of critical and activecosmopolitan citizens through their teachers and students (viewed as theirmain resources, as proved by the data examined above). This can be achievedby opening up their horizons and by making them aware of their rights andobligations as individuals and as members of various communities, whethermore immediate or remote. The intercultural dimension of EGL education is,as mentioned above, an important element in order to achieve the interculturalfreedom which is the basis of cosmopolitan citizenship. Developing inter-cultural freedom not only entails the physical capacity to move or theintellectual capacity to speak and understand various languages, but alsothe control of the fear of the unknown (at the emotional level), the promotionof a critical outlook (at the cognitive level), as well as the enhancement of self-development (at the experiential level).

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Manuela Guilherme, CentroDe Estudos Sociais, Universidade De Coimbra, Colegio de S. Jeronimo,Apartado 3087, Coimbra P-3001-401, Portugal ([email protected]).

Notes1. The notion of citizenship that is dealt with in this paper is one that departs from the

legal, political and cultural relationship between the individual and the nation-state(s) and goes beyond it into a multilayered conception of its nature, in the sensethat it connects with multiple points of reference. The individual develops multipleidentifications, that can also be formal (legal and political) or informal (social andcultural), throughout his/her lifetime with different communities on a trans- and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

intranational basis. This notion has in mind that the perception of citizenship variesaccording to factors and circumstances deeply related to cultural frameworks andhistorical contexts, but it firmly relies on the conception of participatory democracyand on the citizen’s critical engagement with society in general.

2. A critical pedagogy of foreign languages/cultures includes a Human Rights andCitizenship Education framework, adopts a multiple and interdisciplinaryperspective and is based upon critical reflection and critical dialogue mainly aboutthe power relations between and within different cultures.

3. ‘Glocalism’ here is used in connection with the phenomenon of ‘Glocalisation’described by Robertson as ‘the simultaneity and the interpenetration of what areconventionally called the global and the local, or � in more abstract vein � theuniversal and the particular’ (Robertson, 1995: 30).

4. For the British Council ‘the precise way [they] define this group [the targetaudience] varies a little from country to country to take account of local factors, butit may be generally understood as ‘‘men and women, aged between twenty-fourand thirty-five, well educated, with above-average incomes, and likely to rise topositions of influence in their society’’. . . The research looks at twenty-eightcountries selected on the basis of their importance to the British Council’ (TheBritish Council, 2000: 1).

5. Cultural learning means that it focuses on one culture. Cross-cultural learningfocuses on how cultures compare and contrast, e.g. native versus foreign culture,whereas intercultural learning focuses on how different cultures relate and interactwith each other.

6. Santos identifies five ecologies: (1) the ecology of knowledge ; (2) the ecology oftemporalities , taking into account different conceptions of time; (3) the ecology ofrecognitions , confronting the social hierarchies based on criteria established byWestern societies; (4) the ecology of trans-scales , questioning the logic of global scale;and (5) the ecology of productivities , validating alternative systems of production(Santos, 2003).

7. I endorse Giddens’ definition of ‘education in citizenship’ as ‘education of criticalspirit: a critical engagement with one’s own position in society’. The aims ofeducation in citizenship, in the perspective and within the scope of this text, aremainly to develop critical cultural awareness towards one’s native and othercultures, to promote a discussion about intercultural power relations and to fostersolid democratic behaviour.

8. Both quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative methods (focus group inter-views) were applied in this case study and data analysis was carried out separatelyand, eventually, compared and integrated as shown below. The internal consis-tency of the instruments, the correlation between both instruments, the size andgeographical distribution of the samples, and the triangulation of methods allowedfor the repetition of patterns of thought in different situations and with variousparticipants.

References

Adejunmobi, M. (2004) Vernacular Palaver: Imaginations of the Local and Non-nativeLanguages in West Africa . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Alpektin, C. (2002) Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELTJournal 56 (1), 57�64.

Bakhtin, M.M. (1929/1977) Le Marxisme et la philosophie du langage [Markszism i filosofijajazyka ]. (M. Yaguello, trans.) Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.

Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences . Cambridge: Polity Press.Beck, U. (2002) The cosmopolitan society and its enemies. Theory, Culture & Society 19

(1�2), 17�44.Byram, M. (2003) On being bicultural and intercultural. In G. Alred, M. Byram and M.

Fleming (eds) Intercultural Experience and Education . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

Byram, M. and Guilherme, M. (2000) Human rights, cultures and language teaching. InA. Osler (ed.) Citizenship and Democracy in Schools: Diversity, Identity, Equality. Stokeon Trent, Sterling: Trendham Books Ltd.

Canagarajah, A.S. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching . Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Canagarajah, A.S. (2005) Accommodating tensions in language-in-education policies:An afterword. In A.M.Y. Lin and P. Martin (eds) Decolonisation and Globalisation:Language-in-education Policy and Practice (pp. 194�201). Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.

Corbett, J. (2003) An Intercultural Approach to English Language Teaching . Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.

Crawford, L.M. and McLaren, P. (1998) A critical perspective on culture in the secondlanguage classroom. In D.L. Lange, C.A. Klee, R.M. Paige and Y.A. Yershova (eds)Culture as the Core: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Culture Teaching and Learning in theLanguage Curriculum . Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition(CARLA), Working Paper Series, University of Minnesota.

Falk, R. (2000) The decline of citizenship in an era of globalization. Citizenship Studies 4(1), 3�17.

Figueroa, P. (2000) Citizenship education for a plural society. In A. Osler (ed.) Citizenshipand Democracy in Schools: Diversity, Identity, Equality. Stoke on Trent, Sterling:Trendham Books Ltd.

Giddens, A. (2000) Citizenship education in the global era. In N. Pearce andJ. Hallgarten (eds) Tomorrow’s Citizens . London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Guilherme, M. (2000a) Intercultural competence. In M. Byram (ed.) Encyclopaedia ofLanguage Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge.

Guilherme, M. (2000b) Critical cultural awareness: The critical dimension in foreignculture education. Unpublished PhD dissertation, School of Education, University ofDurham.

Guilherme, M. (2001) The critical study of a foreign culture and citizenship education.Anglo-Saxonica 2, 14�15.

Guilherme, M. (2002) Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World: Foreign LanguageEducation as Cultural Politics . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Guilherme, M. (2003) Re-visioning Britishness: The teaching of democracy in Britishschools today. Anglo-Saxonica 19, 199�205.

Guilherme, M. (2004) The role of intercultural communication and interaction inmodern language departments. Anglo-Saxonica 2 (21), 119�138.

Guilherme, M. (2006) Is there a role for critical pedagogy in language/culture studies?An Interview with Henry Giroux. Language and Intercultural Communication 6 (2),163�175.

Hall, S. (2000) Multicultural citizens, monocultural citizenship? In N. Pearce and J.Hallgarten (eds) Tomorrow’s Citizens: Critical Debates in Citizenship and Education (pp.43�51). London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Herder, J.G. (1982) Briefe zur Beforderung der Humanitat. Herders Werke. Berlin:Bibliotehek Deutscher Klassiker (1st edn. 1793�1797).

Kachru, B.B. (1986) The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-nativeEnglishes . Oxford: Pergamon.

Mazrui, A.M. (2004) English in Africa after the Cold War. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Pennycook, A. (1994) English as an International Language . London: Longman.Phillipson, R. (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Phillipson, R. (2001) English for globalisation or for the world’s people? International

Review of Education 47 (3�4), 185�200.Phipps, A. and Gonzalez, M. (2004) Modern Languages: Learning and Teaching in an

Intercultural Field . London: Sage.Phipps, A. and Guilherme, M. (2004) Critical Pedagogy: Political Approaches to Language

and Intercultural Communication . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

Robertson, R. (1995) Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity�heterogeneity.In M. Featherstone, S. Lash and R. Robertson (eds) Global Modernities (pp. 25�44).London: Sage.

Santos, B. de S. (1999) Towards a multicultural conception of human rights.In M. Featherstone (ed.) Spaces of Culture: City, Nation, World . London: Sage.

Santos, B. de S. (2003) The World Social Forum: Toward a Counter-hegemonic Globalization .On WWW at www.ces.fe.uc.pt/bss/documentos/wsf.pdf. Accessed 1.04.

Shohamy, E. (2006) Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches . London:Routledge.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000a) Linguistic Genocide in Education � or Worldwide Diversity andHuman Rights? London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000b) Linguistic human rights and teachers of English.In J.K. Hall and W.G. Eggington (eds) The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching(pp. 22�44). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

The British Council (1999) Through Other Eyes: How the World Sees the United Kingdom .The British Council (2000) Through Other Eyes 2: How the World Sees the United Kingdom .Turner, B.S. (2002) Cosmopolitan virtue, globalization and patriotism. Theory, Culture &

Society 19 (1�2), 45�63.Vygostky, L. (1939/1986) Thought and Language [Myshlenie I rech ]. (A. Kozulin, (trans./

ed.) Cambridge: The MIT Press.Young, I. (1998) Polity and group difference: A critique of the ideal of universal

citizenship. In G. Shafir (ed.) The Citizenship Debates (pp. 263�290). Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cen

tral

U L

ibra

ry o

f B

ucha

rest

] at

14:

32 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2012

A GuilherEnglish as a Global Language and Education for Cosmopolitan Citizenshipme English as a...

Documents

Transcript of A GuilherEnglish as a Global Language and Education for Cosmopolitan Citizenshipme English as a...