Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T21:36:18.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rheme and reason: Why is English always the Theme rather than the Rheme in our acronyms?

Why does English always get up front?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2011

Extract

The position of ‘E’, for English, has always been at the forefront of all the acronyms of language learning and descriptions of world trends in English language teaching and acquisition, EFL, ESL, ELT, ESP, EIL, ELF, or second only to ‘T’ for teaching, TEFL and TESOL. We have become so used to seeing the letter ‘E’ out there in front, the Theme rather than the Rheme, that we do not even seem to question that position anymore. Despite developments in the study of World Englishes (Kachru, 1985, 1990, 1991, 2005; Jenkins, 2003; Bolton, 2005, 2006; Canagarajah, 2006, 2007, 2009) and a supposedly secondary role for so-called Native English and the Native English speaker, we continue to place the ‘E’ at the front, as though we have no option but to accept its primacy in every concept. If we always place ‘E’ at the beginning though, as the defining Theme, surely we are giving both it and its origin England a leading role in all conceptual beginnings. The Theme after all is always the principal actor, the familiar, whilst the Rheme is the unfamiliar and undefined object (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), but what English is now, in its global context, is exactly that, the unfamiliar and undefined object. In the following article I will argue for a rethinking of our terminology, particularly regarding the use of the acronym ELF (English as a Lingua Franca), and how perhaps we should be thinking more carefully about our choice of acronyms in order to be more precise about our approach to the study of English in the changing world.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bolton, K. 2004. World Englishes. In Davies, A. & Elder, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 367–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, K 2005. ‘Where WE stands: Approaches, issues and debate in world Englishes.’ World Englishes, 24(1), 6983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, S. 2006. ‘Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca.’ Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 197218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, S 2007. ‘Lingua Franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition.’ The Modern Language Journal, 91, 923–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, S 2009. ‘The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia.AILA Review, 22, 522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. 2008. ‘Two thousand million?English Today, 93(1).Google Scholar
Freeman-Lawson, D. 2007. ‘Reflecting on the Cognitive-Social Debate in Second Language Acquisition.The Modern Language Journal, 91, Focus Issue.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.Matthiessen, C. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edition. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. 2003. World Englishes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. & Seidlhofer, B. 2003. ‘English as a Lingua Franca and the politics of property.’ In Mair, C. (ed), The Politics of English as a World Language. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitudes and Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. 1985. ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle.’ In Quirk, R. & Widdowson, H. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1136.Google Scholar
Kachru, B 1990. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B 1991. ‘Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern.’ English Today, 7(1), 313.Google Scholar
Kachru, B 2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. 2008. ‘Language ecology in multilingual settings. Towards a Theory of symbolic competence.’ AL 29(4), 645–71.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. 1998. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saraceni, M. 2008. ‘English as a lingua franca: between form and function.’ English Today 24(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceni, M 2009. ‘Relocating English to a new paradigm for English in the world.’ Language and Intercultural Communication 9(3), 175–86.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. 2005. ‘English as a lingua franca.ELT Journal, 59, 339–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar