*Dmitri Detwyler
Abstract
The adjective ‘broken’ is often used to describe the English competence of self or others, especially in places like Nepal where English is the first language of relatively few people. What is happening when speakers use this ‘broken English’ discourse in conversation? What might speakers be using it to do? This brief essay considers several possibilities and their consequences, with recommendations for English language teachers especially to refrain from using this description in their practice.
Keywords: broken English, world Englishes, psychological, expanding and outer circle
Introduction
The discourse of ‘broken English’, or the figurative use of the adjective ‘broken’ to describe one’s linguistic competence, is a common feature of environments in which English learning is a central preoccupation; for instance, in expanding (e.g., Nepal, China, South Korea) and outer-circle (e.g., India, Pakistan, Singapore) countries as described by Kachru, Kachru, and Nelson (2006) in the world Englishes paradigm. In this essay, this phrase will be considered as representative of a broader class of simplistic and usually negative absolute descriptions, such as ‘poor English’, ‘bad English’, and so on. Most of the discussion, except for a brief consideration of the metaphorical aspect of brokenness more than a simple assessment of competence, is, in fact, a form of social action that performs complex psychological work in conversation. The implications of this conception should be of special interest to language teachers, who because of their profession tend to both use and encounter the use of English language in daily life more than most others do. This is especially true in places like Nepal, where English remains the home language of relatively few people, even as it gains social importance.
We will begin our analysis from a formal semantic perspective. As an adjective, ‘broken’ offers a number of possible definitions for modifying the noun ‘English’. The most precise is the sense of “imperfectly spoken” or “spoken in a halting or fragmentary manner, as under emotional strain” (“Broken”, n.d.), as in “he asked the doctors in a broken voice what had happened to his child”. This is a rather specialized and sophisticated usage, arguably likely to be familiar to only a subset of second language users. The key point is the sense of strain, which is temporary; once it passes, the ability should return to some normal level. If no such temporary difficulty is present, then another interpretation might be more appropriate. One alternative arguably familiar to a greater proportion of second language users is “not functioning properly; out of working order” (“Broken”, n.d.), which invokes a mechanistic metaphor, as in ‘a broken clock’. This sense suggests a continuing or persistent condition of malfunction. And because machines do not repair themselves, but must rather be repaired, it prompts the question of agency: just who is capable of performing the necessary repair?
This rudimentary discourse analysis already reveals itself to have at least one obvious limitation: we have thus far considered only a fragment of text, removed from any context, and represented also as text rather than speech. Even from a semantic perspective, some level of context is required to establish which of the senses of ‘broken’ might have been intended, and therefore enable us to understand its interactional effects for the speakers. What are they ‘doing’ by their use of this discourse? What is needed here, in other words, is a framework for thinking systematically about spoken discourse as oriented to action in context. One such framework is provided by ‘discursive psychology’, which considers context on three levels: first the interactional context, such as a language classroom or the principal’s office; second, one or more rhetorical ‘frames’, which can be understood as each person’s version of reality, and which speakers promote through rhetorical moves; and third, the sequence of turns, or what was said before and following (Wiggins, 2016). While these levels interact to some degree and the most relevant for analysis will depend on the question to be answered, all discourse is to be understood as oriented towards action; put another way, words are not only for thinking but for doing, in specific situations (Wiggins, 2016). It should be clear by now that in order to analyze the ‘broken English’ discourse from this perspective, more detailed data will be needed. I now provide two examples that are composites of interactions I have observed as a teacher of English as an additional language in Taiwan, the U.S., and Canada. I believe they will also be recognizable to most teachers of English in Nepal. While authentic data of specific, situated interaction would be even more fruitful, I hope that these composites are sufficient to suggest a range of analytic possibilities that language teachers might wish to consider for their practice.
The first case is of two English teachers in conversation in their school office. One asks the other a question about some grammar point, perhaps in the process of marking a test, receives an answer from the colleague, and then states, “my English is broken”:
- Teacher one: Which is correct here, those who or those which?
- Teacher two: Here it should be those who, but those which is also possible in some cases.
- Teacher one: Thanks. My English is so broken.
- Teacher two: It’s fine, you’re welcome.
A great deal of interesting and potentially informative detail has obviously been omitted, not only relevant characteristics of the speakers, such as gender, age, nationality, and linguistic background, but also the fine details of the conversation itself, the intonation and pauses and so forth; I trust that some of these details may be supplied by the reader’s own experience of similar interactions.
One plausible reading is that the end of line 03 functions as an expression of shame, that teacher one feels they ought to have known the correct answer, and is using the ‘broken English’ discourse to perform an apology and explanation for inconveniencing the colleague. The response of teacher two, “it’s fine”, would suggest this apology is accepted. Another related interpretation is that teacher one is undermining their professional expertise by aligning with those who should have known the correct answer on this test; in other words, expressing membership in the same category as the learners who wrote the test. In this case the reply of “it’s fine” could then become a ratification of the categorization. I leave it to readers to imagine the respective identities and linguistic backgrounds of the teachers that would support such an interpretation. It is enough to note here that the ‘broken English’ discourse appears to carry no positive connotations; it has at best no effect, and at worst a deleterious one.
The second case is slightly different: a conversation between two English teachers discussing the student of one of them, who is known to both. Teacher one is marking exam papers, and, having marked this student’s test, exclaims “her English is so broken!”:
- Teacher one: This student’s English is so broken!
- Teacher two: I know, I know. It’s very terrible.
The expression in line 01 is perhaps readable as an expression of frustration, something like “I have taught this topic so carefully and well, and yet this student has not grasped it.” And the response in line 02 acknowledges the display of emotion and offers empathy. However, another possible reading is that, in making an absolute statement about the student’s competence, teacher one may be attempting to shift responsibility for the bad mark from the teacher to the student. Brokenness is used as a fixed attribute of the latter; for comparison, an alternative framing like “I was unable to teach this student successfully” would instead locate responsibility with the teacher. By this interpretation, teacher one’s utterance can be taken as an avoidance of blame (especially valuable if the teacher’s status is low). And if teacher one and the student share the status of L2 users of English, teacher one might be using the ‘broken English’ discourse to differentiate the teacher as expert language user category from the student as a language novice one. My direct experience with English in Nepal is limited, but in my observation elsewhere, the ‘broken English’ discourse tends to be used most often by L2 rather than L1 English teachers. While expressions of frustration about linguistic competence may be natural and even healthy, considering the often-stressful conditions of the language teaching profession, this discourse in particular has potentially problematic consequences for the status of their users in complex, plurilingual environments.
We now have some idea of the effects of the ‘broken English’ discourse in practice, and they are clearly not compatible with the professional or ethical responsibilities of the language teacher. The next step is to consider how it might be effectively resisted in our professional work. From an individualistic, translingual perspective, in which language features are understood as resources in the unique repertoire of their user (Canagarajah, 2012), it is a simple matter of consciously and systematically expunging this discourse from one’s own repertoire by refraining from its use whether for apologies or for promoting one’s status. The determination to do so can be strengthened by recognizing the value of the fast-emerging Nepali English variety; if discrete language varieties are acceptable in principle, then the Nepali one is in no way inferior to longer-established forms associated with the colonial powers. It is arguably superior because of its relative newness, for a great many of its inherited features remain to be refined through everyday practice. There may be a rich opportunity to remake a form of English that is ethically and pragmatically better suited to the complex conditions of post-modernity if its users can keep a critical perspective towards its problematic features (such as the ‘broken English’ discourse). But one need not adopt any particular philosophical position towards the existence of linguistic varieties in general to recognize the value and potential power of Nepali English specifically as a discursive construct for advocating for language learners.
Resistance to this discourse becomes more complicated and risky when it is encountered in the talk of others. If it is deployed by a school principal or other person of high status, the consequences of fighting back may be too high to bear; this is a calculation that must be made by each person for themselves. But I urge language teachers, where it feels safe to do so, not to let the discourse of ‘broken English’ pass without comment. The most effective response will depend on the context of the action. On overhearing two colleagues describe a student thusly in their conversation, one might interrupt the talk, or wait until later to address them individually and ask them to choose other discourses to accomplish their interactional goals. It is vital to acknowledge that the student’s linguistic competence may be a problem for one or both of those teachers and help them find a more positive and productive description. If the issue is frustration at a low mark or other unsatisfactory performance, it might be expressed in more concrete and situational terms such as “I am frustrated that my student got such a low score after my teaching”. Given that discourse both constructs and is constructed from our social reality (Wiggins, 2016), increased attention to the psychological work it performs in educational settings especially may enable language teachers to break the cycles of categorization that perpetuates the problematic status of second language teachers, learners, and language.
References
Broken. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/broken
Canagarajah, S. (2012). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y. A., & Nelson, C. L. (2006). The handbook of world Englishes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Wiggins, S. (2016). Discursive psychology: Theory, method and applications. London: Sage.
(Dmitri is a second-year PhD student in TESL at the University of British Columbia in Canada, where his research involves classroom discourse analysis, discursive psychology, and global Englishes. He earned his MA-TESL at Pennsylvania State University in the United States, with a focus on second-language teacher education. Embracing socio-cultural approaches to SLA and a critical perspective, he has taught a variety of content and language courses for postgraduate and undergraduate learners in Canada, the U.S., and Taiwan. He maintains a personal interest in the learning of Mandarin Chinese as an additional language.)
NELTA ELT Forum
NELTA ELT Forum 