Page 15 - Kukanja Gabrijelčič, Mojca, and Maruška Seničar Željeznov, eds. 2018. Teaching Gifted and Talented Children in A New Educational Era. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 15
Promoting Giftedness through ‘English as a Lingua Franca’ Informed Language Teaching
A lack of awareness of the importance of communicative strategies is not
only apparent in Austrian assessment documents but also in official EU pub-
lications such as Misused English Words and Expression in EU Publications (Eu-
ropean Court of Auditors, 2016). This document claims to analyse and correct
English words used in EU publications and documents, which are incorrect
or not Standard English. It is stated that this is necessary because ‘whereas
EU staff should be able to understand “real” English, we cannot expect the
general public to be au fait with the EU variety’ (p. 4). An example of such
wrong use of English words is ‘actor’ (p. 9). While in Standard English it can
only stand for a person playing in a film or a play, the EU uses the meaning of
the French and German word ‘acteur/Akteur’ namely people (and organiza-
tions) doing something. This clearly is an example of another communicative
strategy used in international encounters by interlocutors with different L1,
namely foreignization. Interestingly the author states that native speakers are
confused by the EU’s use of the word and leaves out an analysis of non-native
speakers. It can be assumed that due to the fact that this Romance word is
used in more than just Romance languages, lots of EU citizens with different
L1 will not struggle with the ‘EU meaning,’ as their shared knowledge of the
virtual language is similar. Communicatively capable language learners and
users can draw from experience in other languages and add new meaning
to existing words. Foreignization can only work if the interlocutor is aware of
the others’ language capability and in how far this word is shared knowledge.
They have to draw upon their linguistic and interpersonal potential in order
to create new words. Effective use of foreignization can expand the meaning
potential of the conformist meaning of an utterance. Foreignization, there-
fore, does not demonstrate incompetence but rather flexibility and the ca-
pability to make use of personal potential.
In conclusion it can be said that although the CEFR criticizes the use of
these strategies, as they seem to show a lack of language knowledge, they
are necessary in ELF communication. And quite on the contrary they show
flexibility and monitoring control of personal (linguistic) potential.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how ELF-informed language teach-
ing does not only promote a realistic goal for language learners but, more
importantly, allows for a focus on their individual potential. ELF-informed
language teaching focuses on language learner’s communicative needs tak-
ing into consideration their multilingual and multicultural backgrounds and
works towards reaching their personal communicative goals.
13
A lack of awareness of the importance of communicative strategies is not
only apparent in Austrian assessment documents but also in official EU pub-
lications such as Misused English Words and Expression in EU Publications (Eu-
ropean Court of Auditors, 2016). This document claims to analyse and correct
English words used in EU publications and documents, which are incorrect
or not Standard English. It is stated that this is necessary because ‘whereas
EU staff should be able to understand “real” English, we cannot expect the
general public to be au fait with the EU variety’ (p. 4). An example of such
wrong use of English words is ‘actor’ (p. 9). While in Standard English it can
only stand for a person playing in a film or a play, the EU uses the meaning of
the French and German word ‘acteur/Akteur’ namely people (and organiza-
tions) doing something. This clearly is an example of another communicative
strategy used in international encounters by interlocutors with different L1,
namely foreignization. Interestingly the author states that native speakers are
confused by the EU’s use of the word and leaves out an analysis of non-native
speakers. It can be assumed that due to the fact that this Romance word is
used in more than just Romance languages, lots of EU citizens with different
L1 will not struggle with the ‘EU meaning,’ as their shared knowledge of the
virtual language is similar. Communicatively capable language learners and
users can draw from experience in other languages and add new meaning
to existing words. Foreignization can only work if the interlocutor is aware of
the others’ language capability and in how far this word is shared knowledge.
They have to draw upon their linguistic and interpersonal potential in order
to create new words. Effective use of foreignization can expand the meaning
potential of the conformist meaning of an utterance. Foreignization, there-
fore, does not demonstrate incompetence but rather flexibility and the ca-
pability to make use of personal potential.
In conclusion it can be said that although the CEFR criticizes the use of
these strategies, as they seem to show a lack of language knowledge, they
are necessary in ELF communication. And quite on the contrary they show
flexibility and monitoring control of personal (linguistic) potential.
Conclusion
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate how ELF-informed language teach-
ing does not only promote a realistic goal for language learners but, more
importantly, allows for a focus on their individual potential. ELF-informed
language teaching focuses on language learner’s communicative needs tak-
ing into consideration their multilingual and multicultural backgrounds and
works towards reaching their personal communicative goals.
13
