English as a Lingua Franca in Thailand: Characterisations and Implications

Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 English as a Lingua Franca in Thailand: Characterisations and Implications Will Baker, University of Southampton Introduction As the focus of this journal makes clear, the English language has a major presence in South, East and South East Asia. Bolton (2008) suggests that there may be as many as 812 million users of English in the region. Both McArthur (2003) and Kachru (2005) regard English as an Asian language and World Englishes studies have documented many varieties of Asian Englishes. Furthermore, English functions as an official lingua franca in ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) and ASEAN +3 (which includes China, Japan and S. Korea). This paper will offer a brief overview of the role of English in one country within this region, Thailand. An ELF perspective will be adopted as the most appropriate and justifications for this given. Furthermore, it will be suggested that many of the implications of this ELF approach have yet to be fully explored both in relation to characterisations of the linguistic landscape of Thailand and educational policy. A brief history of English in Thailand Unlike many other countries in the region, for example Malaysia, Singapore and Burma, Thailand was not colonised by the British, or any other European power. This has meant that Thailand has had a comparatively short history of involvement with the English language (Kirkpatrick, 2010). The official use of English in Thailand is generally attributed to the reign of Rama III (1824-1851) (Baker and Phongpaichit, 2005; Foley, 2005; Wongsothorn, 2003), who regarded it as a necessity in dealing with the increasing presence of British colonial power and as a force for modernisation. This trend was continued through his successor King Mongkot, Rama IV, perhaps best (or most notoriously depending on your perspective i) known through Margaret Landon’s novel, ‘Anna and the King of Siam’ based very loosely on the appointment of the English governess Anna Leonownes at the royal court. However, English was largely restricted to the court until 1921, when it was introduced to the school curriculum. At this stage, though, it was predominantly treated as an academic subject rather than as a means of communication (Wongsothorn, 2003). In 1996 it was made a compulsory Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 subject for all primary schools. This was followed by the 1999 Education Act and the subsequent National Education Curriculum implemented in 2002 which placed English, alongside IT, “at the forefront of national intellectual development” (Wongsothorn, 2003: 445). This involved a shift in emphasis from teaching English as an academic subject of study, to English as a medium of communication. Thailand is also a founder member of ASEAN which was established in 1967 and uses English as its official working language, further increasing the role of English in Thailand. English in Thailand today Given that Thailand does not have a history of colonisation by the British and that English is not an official language in the country, Thailand is typically classified as an ‘expanding circle’ country (Kachru, 2005) in which English is used as a means of intercultural communication. Importantly such a classification also entails that Thailand is a norm dependent country which does not have its own variety of English and which does not use English for intracultural communication. While the extent to which this classification of English in Thailand will be questioned in this paper, the expanding circle tag serves as a useful, if simplified, means for distinguishing Thailand from countries which use English as a first language, or as an official second language. The linguistic landscape of Thailand is often portrayed as monolingual and highly homogenous with government sources claiming that almost 100% of the population speak standard Thai (National Identity Board, 2000). As might be expected this hides a more complex linguistic picture. Other languages including Chinese, Malay, Lao, and Khmer are also spoken by minority groups (National Identity Board, 2000; Foley, 2005) and the majority of the population use one of the four regional dialects of Thai rather than standard Thai (Simpson and Thammasathien 2007). Nevertheless, given the relatively minor status given to other languages in the country, English forms the ‘de facto’ second language of Thailand. There are a number of domains in which English is widely used in Thailand including: as a compulsory subject in school and in higher education, as a medium of instruction in international education programmes, as the language of international organisations and conferences (including ASEAN and ASEAN +3), for international business transactions, tourism, the internet, global advertising, scientific and technology transfer, Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 media (including imported films and music), international safety and international law (Wongsatorn et al 1996; 2003; Foley, 2005). English is thus perceived as an essential lingua franca which links Thailand culturally, intellectually and commercially with other ASEAN countries and the rest of the world. Indeed English is increasingly referred to as the lingua franca in the Thai setting (Foley, 2007; Baker, 2008; 2009; Kirkpatrick, 2010). This expansion in the use of English has resulted in it being viewed as a necessary skill and status symbol for the urban middle classes (Simpson and Thammasathien 2007). The extent to which English is understood in these settings is illustrated by the recent popularity of the bilingual Thai-English comedian Chris Wright (Wright 2009) whose shows require a degree of proficiency in both languages. Furthermore, English is also beginning to be used within Thailand as a language of intracultural communication between Thai speakers, particularly for electronic communication (Baker, 2009; Glass, 2009; Seargeant and Tagg, 2011). However, while features of English use unique to Thailand have been identified (Tan, 2005), there is presently no variety of Thai English analogous to outer circle Englishes (Butler, 2005). The increasing role of English in Thai society has not been unproblematic. Most notable has been the uneven spread of English. While, as previously mentioned, English has been widely adopted as a lingua franca by the urban middle classes, this has not been the case in rural or poorer communities where access to English education is limited (Kosonen, 2008; Hayes, 2010). Furthermore, the need for English in rural communities away from tourism or international business is also limited (Hayes, 2010). Although, as Bruthiaux (2009) points out, in many such communities there are more pressing needs than English language education, it is an issue of concern that communities are restricted in their access to a resource that carries a high level of cultural capital in Thai society. Furthermore, such a situation further exacerbates the already wide gaps between the affluent urban middle classes and rural poor. Another major problem in the spread of English has been providing adequate English language education. Following the move towards more communicative language teaching in the late 1990s Chulalongkorn University Academic Services (2000 cited in Baker, 2008: 137) conducted a survey in which they identified the following problems in implementing curriculum changes: an overabundance of curriculum content; students inadequately prepared for the level at which they studied; teachers inadequately prepared and an overload of Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 responsibilities; inadequate materials and equipment; insufficient budgets; large class sizes; inadequate assessment including an over-reliance on multiple choice tests; and students being unable to transfer the skills learned in the classroom to other situations. 10 years later Hayes’ (2010) case study of a rural English teacher brings up many of the same problems. Further concerns have been expressed as regards the English proficiency of teachers with many failing government English tests (Tuhoey, 2010). Adding to this overall perception of low English language proficiency has been Thailand’s consistently poor rating in international English tests, particularly TOEFL in which Thailand comes lower than all of its regional neighbours (ETS, 2009), although recently the scores have improved (ETS, 2011). However a note of caution is needed in this negative evaluation of ELT in Thailand. There are serious questions regarding the imposition of teaching methods such as CLT which have been developed in contexts very different to Thailand. This has led to calls for teaching methodology that is more in-tune with local pedagogic practices and beliefs (Saengboon, 2004; Adamson, 2003; Baker, 2008) and less centralised top-down planning (Hayes, 2010). Furthermore the influence of native English speakers (NES) is still pervasive in evaluation of language proficiency in Thailand (Watson-Todd, 2006). In contrast, multilingual models of communication, as envisaged in ELF, may result in more positive perceptions of English language proficiency in Thailand. Linked to this, the appropriateness of tests, such as TEOFL, which are based around a specific variety of NES, is questionable in settings such as Thailand where English is used as lingua franca by multilingual communicators. Combined with these issues over how English language education has been delivered and evaluated in Thailand has been more general concern with recent changes in Thai society and the place English may have in this. The 1997 financial crisis, which began in Thailand, resulted in a re-evaluation of Thailand’s engagement with globalisation and a return to more traditional Thai values and behaviour, however they might be defined (Baker and Phongpaichit, 2005). The 1999 Education Act placed an emphasis on the value of local knowledge and wisdom, yet this did not result in a curtailing in the role of English which was expanded in the Act and the following 2002 curriculum (Wongsathorn et al 2003). More recently there has been increased stress on morality in education and the preservation of traditional Thai values in the face of rapid social change, which is often associated in media and government rhetoric with ‘outside’ forces. Furthermore, there has also been an increasing awareness of and acceptance of local languages (Kirkpatrick, 2010). It might have been expected that this would result in a corresponding re-evaluation of the role of English, Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 but recent government publications still place English at the forefront of Thailand’s development with the furthering of English education and raising English proficiency still key concerns (Ministry of Education 2011). Alongside many other countries in Asia (Tsui and Tollefson, 2007) English seems to be viewed as a vehicle for promoting Thailand and Thai culture regionally and internationally. Implications This characterisation of English in Thailand has a number of important implications for our understanding of the role of English. Most significantly the use of English as a lingua franca challenges previous concepts of English in Thailand. As Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey (2011) underscore, ELF represents a paradigm shift in understanding language use which moves away from the traditional foreign language paradigm. Rather than viewing users of English as an L2 as deficient in comparison to NES, ELF users are seen as proficient multilingual communicators with their own repertoire of linguistic and communicative resources. Thus, if we are to view English use in Thailand as part of the ELF paradigm, which given the identified uses described above would seem most appropriate, we need to move away from a NES baseline by which English proficiency is measured. As already suggested this offers a different perspective on the apparently ‘disastrous’ situation in Thai ELT and the supposedly poor levels of proficiency. It would be naïve to deny that there are problems in terms of the available resources for education in Thailand or that there is a divide between wealthy urban communities and poorer rural communities. Nevertheless, we might wish to question the implied incompetence of many Thai English teachers and their students if they are being measured against an inappropriate NES baseline. Rather, ELT in Thailand should be evaluated in accordance with local pedagogic practices and proficiency in relation to the needs of these learners and the communicative situations that are of relevance to them. Following from this, and to repeat an earlier point, it is questionable how much an externally derived test such as TOFEL can reveal about language proficiency in Thailand. Given the high status accorded to English in Thai society it is necessary to develop ELT in directions which are more relevant to Thai users of English as a lingua franca. Most obviously this means departing from the dominance of the NES model for Thai English speakers. In the past the Thai government has attempted to recruit large numbers of NES teachers, often with little consideration of their qualifications or suitability as teachers (Baker, Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 2008; Kirkpatrick, 2010). More recently there have been some signs that policy is changing with NES teachers being required to submit proof of their qualifications as well as undertaking a number of training programmes in Thai culture and language, although how much these measures are simply political rhetoric or genuine attempts at improving the quality of NES teachers is a matter of some debate. More significant though is the need for recognition of the skills and abilities Thai teachers as multilingual communicators bring to the classroom and a raising of their status. Similarly, the content of ELT needs to move away from a focus on inner circle Anglo- American varieties of English. Indeed a focus on any one particular variety of English is a mistake. Users of English in Thailand can expect to meet a large range of users of different Englishes. Furthermore, while there may be shared features of ELF in the ASEAN region (Kirkpatrick, 2010), ELF is primarily characterised by its fluidity with variety being its most distinguishing feature (Seidlhofer, 2009). Therefore, Thai users of English, like other ELF users, need to be able to negotiate this variety through developing the skills, knowledge and attitudes of successful multilingual intercultural communicators (Canagarajah, 2007; Kramsch, 2009). These involve more than knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and phonology. Of equal importance is pragmatic and intercultural competence (Cogo, 2009; Baker, 2011a) and pedagogic approaches that can develop these are necessary (Baker, 2008; 2011b). Finally, the characterisation of English in Thailand presented here offers a contribution to the growing debate in regard to the relevance of Kachru’s three concentric circles of English (see for example Bruthiaux, 2003; Pennycook, 2009; Yano, 2009). Apart from problems with associating individual users of a global language, who are often very mobile, with fixed geographical regions, there are a number of other issues in regard to Thailand. If expanding circle countries are norm dependent, it is not clear whose norms English use in Thailand is dependent on. Given the identified features of ASEAN ELF and the inherent variety in ELF it is unlikely that English in Thailand will be dependent on any one particular variety of English and certainly not native speaker English. Although this is not to deny that NES ideology still exerts a strong influence on English. Furthermore, it has been suggested that English is used in Thailand for both intercultural and intracultural communication, particularly in electronic communication. This further blurs the boundaries between the expanding and outer circle as this is supposedly a feature of outer circle English. In sum, Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 given the multifarious and dynamic uses of English in Thailand Kachru’s three circles seem too static and restrictive a model to offer an accurate characterisation. Conclusion The argument in this paper has been that English in Thailand is best characterised through the ELF paradigm due to the diverse and fluid range of uses to which it is put. English functions as the de facto second language for communication with other countries in the region, globally and increasingly internally as well. However, despite the growing importance of English in Thailand, its place is not ubiquitous and its spread has been uneven, particularly as regards poorer rural communities. Further concern has been the lack of resources for ELT and the subsequent supposedly low proficiency levels of many teachers and students. However, the low level of proficiency has been questioned in this paper as much of the evaluation and measurement of ELT has been conducted in relation to a NES baseline and extrinsically imposed pedagogy, both of which may be inappropriate to the needs of Thai English language users. An alternative is to focus on the skills, knowledge and attitudes of successful multilingual communicators, particularly as envisaged through ELF studies. Further investigation is needed into how this can be applied in classroom settings, although some tentative suggestions have already been given (Baker 2008; 2011b). Crucially this should be done in a manner that is relevant to and draws on local resources rather than imposing outside ‘expertise’. Such approaches offer a counter to the previous deficit position, inappropriate NES models and externally imposed pedagogies. The ELF paradigm offers a lens through which to view the place of English in the linguistic landscape of Thailand in its own terms and in a manner which empowers Thai English users. Note1 The novel and subsequent musical ‘The King and I’ are both banned in Thailand for being disrespectful to the Monarchy and nation as well as for their misleading historical inaccuracies. References Adamson, J. (2003). Challenging beliefs in teacher development: potential influences of Theravada Buddhism upon Thais learning English. Asian EFL Journal, 3(3). Retrieved from www.asain-efl-journal.com/September_03_sub2._JA.php Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 Baker, C., and Phongpaichit, P. (2005). A history of Thailand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, W. (2008). "A critical examination of ELT in Thailand: the role of cultural awareness." RELC 39(1): 131-146. Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 567- 592. Baker, W. (2011a). Intercultural awareness: modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca. Language and Intercultural Communication. 11(3), 197-214 Baker, W. (2011b). Global cultures and identities: refocusing the aims of ELT in Asia through intercultural awareness. In T. Muller, S. Herder, J. Adamson & P. Shigeo Brown (Eds.), Innovating EFL Education in Asia. .(pp. 23-34) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian. Bolton, K. (2008). English in Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English Today, 24(2), 3-12. Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159-178. Bruthiaux, P. (2009). Multilingual Asia: looking back, looking across, looking forward. AILA review, 22, 120-130. Butler, S. (2005). Lexicography and World Englishes from Australia to Asia. World Englishes, 24(4), 533-546. Canagarajah, A. S. (2007). Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities, and Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(5), 923-939. Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversation In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: studies and findings (pp. 254-273). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. ETS. (2008). Test and Score Data Summary for TOEFL Computer-Based Tests and Paper- Based Tests January 2007-December 2007 Test Data. Retrieved January, 2009, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/71943_web.pdf ETS. (2011). Test and Score Data Summary for TOEFL Computer-Based Tests and Paper- Based Tests January 2010-December 2010 Test Data. Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/toefl-sum-10 Foley, J. (2005). English in Thailand. RELC Journal, 36(2), 223-234. Foley, J. (2007). English as a global language: my two Satangs' worth. RELC, 38(1), 7-17. Glass, T. (2009). Why Thais write to other Thais in English. World Englishes, 28(4), 532– 543. Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 Hayes, D. (2010). Language learning, teaching and educational reform in rural Thailand: an English teacher’s perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(3), 305-319. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: a resource book for students (Second ed.). London: Routledge. Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a Lingua Franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281-315. Kachru, B. B. (2005). Asian Englishes : beyond the canon. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a lingua franca in ASEAN. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kosonen, K. (2008). Literacy in Local Languages in Thailand: Language Maintenance in a Globalised World. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(2), 170-188. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McArthur, T. (2003). English as an Asian language. English Today, 19(2), 19-22. Ministry of Education Thailand (2011) website: http://www.en.moe.go.th/ accessed March 2011 National Identity Board, (2000). Thailand into the 2000s. Bangkok: Office of the Prime Minister. Office of the National Educatin Commission (1999). Thai National Education Act of B.E.2542 (1999). Retrieved from http://www.onec.go.th. Office of the National Educatin Commission (2003). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002)). Retrieved from www.onec.go.th/publication/law2545/nation_edbook.pdf. Pennycook, A. (2009). Plurilithic Englishes: towards a 3D model. In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts : current and future debates (pp. 194-207). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Saengboon, S. (2004). Second Language Acquisition and English Language Teaching PASAA, 35, 11-34. Seargeant, P. and C. Tagg (2011). "English on the internet and a 'post-varieties' approach to language." World Englishes 30(4): 496-514. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339-341. Englishes in Practice Issue 1, May 2012 Seidlhofer, B. (2009). Orientations in ELF research: form and function. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: studies and findings (pp. 37-59). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press. Simpson, A., & Thammasathien, N. (2007). Thailand and Laos. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in Asia (pp. 391-414). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tan, M. (2005). Authentic language or language errors? Lessons from a learner corpus. ELT Journal, 59(2), 126-134. Tsui, A. B. M., & Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tuohy, T. (2010). Thai heads ‘fail English tests’ EL Gazette Retrieved from http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/Olive/ODE/ELGAZETTE/ Watson Todd, R. (2006). The Myth of the Native Speaker as a Model of English Proficiency. rEFLections Retrieved 22 August, 2008, from http://arts.kmutt.ac.th/sola/rEFL/REFL8.pdf Wongsothorn, A., Hiranburana, K., and Chinnawongs, S. (2003). English language teaching In Thailand today. In H. Wah Kam, and Wong, R.L. (Ed.), English language teaching in East Asia today: changing policies and practices (pp. 441-453). Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Wongsothorn, A., Sukamolsun, S., Chinthammit, P., Ratanothayanonth, P., & Noparumpa, P. (1996). National profiles of language education: Thailand. PASAA, 26(1), 89-103. Wright, C. 2009 Chris Unseen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFYdBEoJ__I accessed March 2010 Yano, Y. (2009). The future of English: beyond the Kachruvian three circle model? In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts : current and future debates (pp. 208-225). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.