|
Helsinki English
Studies 6, 102-117
43
surprisingly, several publications related to ELF have explicitly stated editorial
policies which do not expect native-like English and have not edited submissions
along such lines. For example, Mauranen and Ranta in the introduction to a
volume of ELF studies state that
72
:
Some of the papers in this book have been written by native speakers of
English, others not, but all have been written by expert users of English. No policy
of having the L2 authors' texts checked by native speakers for linguistic
correctness has been applied, because this was regarded as an irrelevant practice in
a book presenting international scholarship. Whether English has been the first or
an additional language to the writers, they have been addressing an international
audience, not primarily ENL (English Native Language) communities. Their
contributions thus reflect the kind of language use they discuss: effective English
as an international lingua franca.
Mauranen also adopted a similar policy in an earlier volume of a journal she
co-edited, and Murata and Jenkins followed a comparable procedure in their recent
volume on global Englishes and ELF in Asian contexts. This approach has also
been taken in a journal that is not specifically related to ELF or global Englishes,
but whose concerns are certainly those that reflect scholars who have frequently
been placed on the periphery. The
Asian EFL Journal
in their submission
guidelines embraces a plurality of norms for both language and rhetorical structure
stating that
73
:
The Asian EFL Journal welcomes submissions written in different varieties
of world Englishes. The reviewers and Associate Editors come from a wide variety
of cultural and academic backgrounds and no distinction is made between native
and nonnative authors. As a basic principle, the Asian EFL Journal does not define
competence in terms of native ability, but we are a strictly reviewed journal and all
our reviewers expect a high level of academic and written competence in whatever
variety of English is used by the author. Every effort will be made to accept
72
Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.),
English as a lingua franca: studies and findings
(pp. 107123). Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Press.
73
http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/guidelines-submissions.php
44
different rhetorical styles of writing.
While these are encouraging signs, it must be recognized that these more
pluralistic practices come from within specialist fields where we would expect a
high degree of linguistic awareness. It is not clear if such practices are spreading
outside of applied linguistics. Promoting linguistic awareness in other academic
disciplines is a task that applied linguists should be involved in, perhaps through
the advising role that national and international organizations (such as AILA) play.
Implications for intercultural rhetoric and research
The perspective on intercultural communication, language and culture taken
in ELF and commensurable critical post-modernist theory represent a paradigm
shift. This is a shift that is of direct relevance to IR research, which shares a
concern with context, culture and intercultural communication, and entails a more
complex view of cultures than previously utilized in IR. In particular, rhetorical
patterns cannot be equated in a simplistic manner with national cultures.
Furthermore, although certain rhetorical structures may be more stable than others
and have longer historical precedents in particular contexts, emergent approaches
to language and communication caution that we should not expect any structures to
remain fixed. This is not to deny that culture is a relevant category in IR studies.
The fact that culture is still part of IR, despite the many debates and changes in
definitions that have taken place over previous decades, shows that it is still
considered valuable by writers, researchers and teachers of writing in
understanding the field. It must also be recognised that there are differences
between rhetorical conventions which writers have to negotiate. However, it is
necessary to take a critical view of culture, one in which we question the manner in
which culture is used to aid in the interpretation of a text and in which we do not
associate difference with deficit. This critical approach applies to any equation of
rhetorical patterns with cultural groups from national cultures to small cultures.
We need to consider what it is that culture adds to our understanding of the
text, who has decided that cultural contexts are a relevant frame of understanding
and what alternative interpretations of the text, and equally what cultural frames of
45
reference, may exist. This means that culture should be approached as an
ideological construct which can be questioned, critiqued and negotiated. This is
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
