Keywords

1 Introduction: Communication in English as a Lingua Franca

Communication in English as a common international lingua franca, or ELF, can be one of the essential features of our contemporary society. English is often used as an additional language by different language speakers in many intercultural contexts, including politics, education, business, and entertainment. As such, the ability in the language is seen as part of global literacy for people living in the present and coming ages. The worldwide use of English necessarily entails great variety and diversity in its linguistic form, function, and identity because multilingual users employ the language for their own purposes to interact with linguistically and culturally diverse others. The great diversity in its use is a key characteristic of ELF (for an overview see Jenkins et al., 2018), and the degree of diversity can be further intensified by the increasing mixing of heterogeneous people. It is certain that the language people encounter in situations of ELF communication is usually not standard English, which is often presented as a model in the language classroom.

While the diversity of English in ELF communication should never be ignored, it also has to be noted that English is not the only language used for ELF communication. Other languages available to interlocutors are often utilised to facilitate interactions, and thus it is more appropriate to understand ELF within multilingualism as a multilingual franca (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012) or “English as a multilingua franca” (EMF), as reframed by Jenkins (2015a), emphasising multilingualism. Given that each multilingual speaker uses his/her own idiolect (Li, 2018), or “MY English” (Kohn, 2018), constructed through an individual process of social and educational experiences, a wide range of multilingual, pragmatic, semiotic, and multimodal resources are also used in ELF communication to succeed in their linguistic and cultural negotiations (see Zhu, 2018). Therefore, today it is difficult to predict what types of multilingual English users you will encounter, and how and what English and resources they will deploy for interaction with you.

These complex realities of ELF communication call the current practices of English language teaching (ELT) into question as it generally assumes a particular type of English speakers—native English speakers (NESs)—as target interlocutors. To better respond to the realities, English teacher education is required to equip (pre-service) teachers with knowledge and skills to prepare students for such complex and unpredictable encounters. The present chapter is a report on an initial short-term educational intervention aimed at helping university students who aspired to be English teachers depart from the NES- and monolingual-oriented views of English through the instruction on intercultural communication in English exploring key ideas relating to linguistic diversity, including native-speakerism, World Englishes (WE), ELF, and intercultural communication (ICC). The intervention was carried out by the author as a lecturer in Japan where English is chiefly learnt as a foreign language (EFL) in the classroom, and the report describes students’ difficulties in understanding ELF communication within this EFL setting.

2 Background of the Intervention: Linguistic Diversity as Language Teacher Knowledge

ELT and its teacher education are expected to change in response to the complexities of ICC in English. Investigating the variety and diversity in English, researchers of Global Englishes (GE) call for a departure from NES-focused practices of ELT. GE indicates the use and users of English for ICC mainly outside the Anglophone world, and it is used as an umbrella term covering the research fields of WE, ELF, and English as an International Language (EIL) (Baker & Ishikawa, 2021, p. 318). Although these three fields look into English from different perspectives, they share a common awareness of problems with the current ELT: That is, ELT inadequately addresses the sociolinguistic realities of English in the actual world. GE researchers have pointed out that the present configuration of ELT depends heavily on the linguistic competence of NESs and cultural knowledge of the Anglophone world as a norm (e.g., Baratta, 2019; Bayyurt & Akcan, 2015; Rose & Galloway, 2019; Matsuda, 2012), and such a monolithic approach to English results in learners’ limited intercultural awareness.

To change the present situation, many ELT practitioners and teacher trainers are striving to incorporate the multifaceted nature of English and the complex realities of ELF communication into classroom practices. In recent years, the accumulating research about the nature of ELF communication is very significant (e.g., Kiczkowiak & Lowe, 2019; ELT Journal 2020 Special issue on English as a lingua franca and language teaching), but at present what attracts more attention is the incorporation of theoretical knowledge into teacher training practice. The main reason is that “… the transformation of the conventional modes of thinking, principles, and practices into socioculturally informed pedagogy can only happen with the education of teachers both at pre- and in-service levels” (Selvi & Yazan, 2021, p. 3). If teachers continue to adhere to the monolithic approach, their students will fail to acquire ICC, necessary for effective communication with English users from diverse cultural backgrounds. This may be particularly true in places where English conversations are not regularly heard in the street, such as the East Asian region, including Japan, because the classroom may be the only space where students are exposed to the language (Suzuki et al., 2018). Therefore, to change ELT, the first step should be to support teachers in developing an awareness of the complexities of ELF communication and taking a flexible approach to the language.

Then, what attempts have been made to support teachers’ development? Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018) promote ELF-aware teacher education. It is designed to encourage teachers to reflect on how and why their teaching is constructed in light of changing sociolinguistic realities of English and potential challenges to ELT. The goal is to enable teachers to create more learner- and context-sensitive classroom activities. This “transformative” teacher education (Sifakis & Bayyurt, 2018, p. 460) consists of three phases: exposure to the variety and diversity of English, critical awareness of own teaching practice based on the exposure, and action plan for ELF-aware classroom activities appropriate for learners and contexts. Organized in alignment with this framework, Selvi and Yazan’s book on teacher education (2021) presents many innovative activities, including, for example, listening to different varieties of English using video materials, discussing common views about English through direct interaction with different types of English users, exploring the evolving nature of language by referring to a dictionary, and understanding diverse linguistic resources for writing through the use of corpora. The teacher-training practitioners who contributed to the book reported positive changes in their trainees’ attitudes, although they were also aware of limitations with their attempts.

Focusing on research methodology, Rose et al. (2021) conducted a review of GE-related classroom-based language teacher education research between 2010 and 2020. They also found that instruction on GE was likely to elicit teacher trainees’ sympathetic reactions to the diversity of English. However, they noted that available studies tended to remain in the attitudinal investigation, making it difficult to know whether changed attitudes actually translate into changes in their classroom practices. Referring to Suzuki’s (2011) research, they also pointed out that raising teacher trainees’ awareness of the diversity of English would not ensure changes in the classroom (see also Blair, 2015). However, acknowledging the diversity of English is still a crucial part of teacher education, particularly for those who operate in the EFL contexts.

Research in the field of multilingualism confirms the importance of awareness-raising by showing the significance of language teachers’ self-recognition as multilingual. Focusing particularly on European contexts, Vetter (2011), who promotes “multilingualism pedagogy”, argues that learning one specific language is necessarily intertwined with a learner’s existing linguistic resources. Therefore, language teacher education needs to address multilingualism to encourage teachers to adopt pluralistic approaches to language and cultures. However, according to Vetter, teacher education commonly does not support teachers to value their own multilinguality as an advantage for teaching (see also Iversen, 2020).

Calafato (2019) reviewed research on the identity of “non-native speaker teachers” (NNSTs) who engaged in language teaching. Like Vetter (2011), Calafato was concerned that teachers who do not embrace a multilingual identity would not be able to effectively raise their students’ language awareness. Of the 84 studies published between 2009 and 2018 that he reviewed, Calafato found that, although multilinguality was generally perceived positively by NNSTs in any region, unlike in Europe, the studies conducted in Asia showed that NNSTs were more likely to struggle with linguistic and cultural legitimacy of being teachers of the target language, very often English. In the Asian contexts where native-speakerism tends to prevail and monolingual ideology is pervasive, Calafato argues that teacher education needs to promote “multilingual practices like translanguaging, code-switching, and cross-linguistic comparisons, as well as encourage self-reflection in teachers about their language awareness and associated abilities” (p. 20). Therefore, one task for English language teacher education in the age of GE is to enhance teachers’ understanding of their own and their students’ multilinguality and multilingual practices to overcome the monolingual ideology within teaching.

3 ELT and Teacher Education in Japan

Japan is one of the East Asian countries which subscribes to native-speakerism and a monolingual ideology (Houghton & Rivers, 2013; Konakahara & Tsuchiya, 2020), and the intervention on which the present chapter reports was conducted there. To contextualise the intervention, this section provides an overview of ELT and English teacher education in this country.

In response to globalisation, Japan as a nation has been striving to improve ELT by implementing a series of educational reforms over the last two decades to equip young Japanese nationals with ICC skills in English as global literacy (Yoshida, 2021). The main rationale behind these reforms is the recognition of the English language as a necessary international lingua franca (Seargeant, 2020), and this point is explicitly stated in the policy documents such as Five Proposals and Specific Measures for Developing Proficiency in English for International Communication (Commission on the Development of Foreign Language Proficiency, 2011). Despite such a rationale, what has been implemented in the classroom seems contradictory. Let us first look into the national curriculum for students in junior high schools (7th–9th graders), known as the Course of Study (the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology [MEXT] 2017a,Footnote 1b).

3.1 School English Education Reform

First of all, the Course of Study shows great reliance on NESs for teaching, although it makes brief mentions of the diversity of English and indicates the need to consider it (Naka, 2018; Yoshida, 2021). It states that learning with NESs can enhance Japanese students’ speaking and listening skills because NESs speak “natural English” (MEXT, 2017b, p. 55) with “standard” and “correct” accents, and thus students can be exposed to “real foreign language” (pp. 89–90). Also, it advises Japanese English teachers to seek assistance from their NES colleagues with lesson planning and delivery because of their “effective” ways of speaking (p. 64) (for details see Suzuki, 2020). Another important point in the Course of Study is the principle that “[English] Lessons, in principle, should be conducted in English.” This monolingual principle first appeared in the curriculum for junior high schools in 2017, while it had been introduced for senior high school students (10th–12th graders) in 2008. The use of Japanese is not banned but discouraged, because the principle is “to enhance opportunities for the students to use English and turn classes into communication situations” (MEXT, 2017a, p. 151). From these descriptions of NESs and the monolingual policy, it can be understood that the Course of Study regards monolingual NESs who use standard English as a model to emulate and values their nativeness to English as teacher quality, dismissing Japanese English teachers’ multilinguality.

In terms of the monolingual principle, Noda and O’Regan (2020) investigated how it was received and practised at senior high schools by interviewing three types of stakeholders: national and local government officials, and senior high school teachers. They discovered that government officials strongly preferred the monolingual teaching strategy, whereas the teachers were aware of the advantages of using the students’ L1 in the classroom. They concluded that the policy made it difficult for teachers to use L1 and thus distorted local teaching practices. Glasgow (2018) also looked into high school teachers’ understanding of the policy by surveying 40 practitioners’ opinions. The teachers surveyed reported using L1 in the classroom, but they themselves perceived it as an illegitimate teaching practice. These two studies suggest that the monolingual principle has made monolingual practice the norm, causing teachers to view their own multilinguality as an encumbrance. One underlying reason for the neglect of the multilinguality of both teachers and students has been the belief among Japanese policymakers that advanced ability for ICC in English is equivalent to high linguistic proficiency in standard English, and thus the government tends to emphasise the development of linguistic skills (Kubota & Takeda, 2021). In sum, it is clear that Japanese ELT on the levels of policy as well as practice subscribes to native-speakerism and prioritizes monolingual approaches to the target language, and this causes multilingual teachers to struggle.

3.2 Teacher Education Reform

In 2017, English teacher education also underwent a major reform at the national level to improve teacher quality after a gap of twenty years. MEXT commissioned Tokyo Gakugei University (TGU) to identify the essential abilities and knowledge areas required by school English teachers to be able to perform successfully. TGU developed the Core Curriculum for English language teacher education (TGU, 2017Footnote 2), which is a standardised common curriculum. All universities that offer English teacher training programmes had to revise their teaching modules and contents to align with the new curriculum and be authorised by MEXT by the time of official implementation in April 2019.

The Core Curriculum has two major subject areas, “English class teaching methods” and “technical matters relating to English classFootnote 3” (TUG, 2017). The latter consists of four categories: communication in English, English linguistics, English literature, and cross-cultural understanding. Under the category of English linguistics, “historical development of English language, English as a global common language” is newly specified as required learning content for pre-service teachers. They are now expected “to acquire a basic knowledge of the historical evolution of the English language in terms of speech, writing, vocabulary, and grammar, and to understand the reality of English as a global common language in the English-speaking world and throughout the world” (TGU, 2017 p. 114, the author’s translation). Although what contents are covered and how many hours are spent on “English as a global common language” is up to each university’s decision, this is the very first time that teachers have been required to take this course. This change should be welcomed, even though the requirement and the Course of Study’s reliance on NESs and the monolingual principle are not necessarily compatible. Moreover, we do not know much about whether the change in the teacher education curriculum has contributed to pre-service teachers’ awareness development of linguistic diversity because the curriculum is still new. Therefore, the present study (detailed in the next section) was conducted to seek answers to the following research questions:

  1. (a)

    Can a short-term educational intervention that addresses the linguistic diversity of English invite changes in Japanese pre-service English teachers’ intercultural awareness?

  2. (b)

    If any, what changes can be observed?

The current chapter may be one of the first studies on the influences of curriculum reform on teachers’ views of English.

4 The Present Study

Within the contexts outlined above, a short-term educational intervention was conducted in 2021 to develop pre-service English teachers’ awareness of ICC in English at a university in Tokyo. The intervention was part of a semester-long compulsory module of language studies for second-year English majors, consisting of fifteen 100-minute classes. This introductory module fell under the category of English linguistics in the Core Curriculum and aimed at equipping the students with basic knowledge of concepts and technical terms necessary for language studies. Five faculty members of the university delivered lectures in turn according to each specialization, including English linguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics. The author was responsible for four lectures on the “historical development of English language’ and “English as a global common language” (TGU, 2017).

4.1 The Intervention

The four lectures the author provided were specifically designed to raise the pre-service teachers’ awareness of linguistic diversity by exposing them to key academic arguments about the global use of English, including native-speakerism, WE, ELF and ICC. Table 1 shows details of the intervention lectures, including teaching modes, themes, and topics covered in each lecture. Because the module had a large number of registered students (see the following section) and was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the lectures took a teacher-centred style. Due to the university’s decision, only the first lecture was conducted face-to-face, while the other three were synchronically delivered via an Internet video conference system. In the classroom, because oral interactions were restricted by the university, the video conference’s chat function was utilized to elicit the students’ responses. The lectures and interactions with the students were all in the students’ L1, Japanese.

Table 1 Details of intervention lectures
Full size table

4.2 Research Participants and Data Collection

The number of students who registered for the module was 93. In the first lecture, the author explained the purpose of the current research, and all students except four absentees were provided with an online research consent form that asked whether they agreed to provide the following as data for the current research: answers to a pre-intervention questionnaire (hereafter, questionnaire), pre-lecture preparation questions (preparation tasks), and post-lecture reflection questions (reflection tasks). The students were also informed that they could withdraw at any time if they changed their minds. Of the 89 students, 72 consented to the use of all their data for the research. Among these students, about 85 per cent completed all the tasks, while some students missed one or two tasks and/or were absent from one of the four lectures.

Of the 72 participants, the majority were pre-service teachers who were seeking an English teacher certificate for secondary education, although not all intended to pursue a teaching career. The ratio of males to females was about two to one, and the majority of them were 18 or 19 years old. It is worth noting that these students were going to join a study abroad programme in one of three English-speaking countries, the USA, the UK, or Ireland, which was a requirement for their graduation. The intervention was carried out during their pre-departure period, and thus they were also taking other modules that covered preparatory information about the destination countries’ cultures, as well as English language learning. Therefore, their comments introduced in this chapter may have been reflected by what they learned in those modules.

The questionnaire consisted of two parts with the first one containing 17 questions asking about the students’ ideas of the global use of English and linguistic norms of English for global communication. The second part had 11 questions about their general awareness of global participation, but these are not discussed in this chapter. The main purpose of the first part was to capture the students’ initial views of English before the intervention. As the 17 questions used a six-point Likert scale, from Strongly Agree (6), Agree (5), Slightly Agree (4), Slightly Disagree (3), Disagree (2) to Strongly Disagree (1), the simple mean scores and standard deviations of the collected answers were calculated using statistical software, Bell Curve for Excel.Footnote 4 Out of the 17 questions, this chapter only shows the results of ten questions (Table 3) because these are directly related to the chapter’s theme. The remaining seven are excluded from the analysis.

Table 2 shows the details of preparation and reflection tasks which required the participants to answer the given questions in writing. All the answers were stored and analysed using NVivo. First, each task was analysed separately to identify prominent topics, and then all the written data were thematically analysed cross-sectionally. The questionnaire and reflection tasks are the main focus of this chapter. The questionnaire could give an overview of the pre-service teachers’ existing perceptions of English, and the reflection tasks could reveal what they learnt from the lectures and what they did not. Note that all data were in the students’ L1, Japanese, and pieces of the data shown below have been translated by the author.

Table 2 Details of preparation and reflection tasks
Full size table

5 Findings

This section offers the findings of the current investigation, starting from the pre-intervention questionnaire through the first two lectures on NESs and WE and to the last two on ELF and ICC in sequence. By looking into these in turn, it is possible to track the progression of the students’ awareness of linguistic diversity. As the main aim of this chapter is to trace how they broadened their views of ICC in English through the intervention, the findings illustrated below are general tendencies of the students’ responses to the intervention, rather than intricate individual progressions.

5.1 The Pre-intervention Questionnaire: Standard English Is the Target Language

The results of the ten question items in the questionnaire are shown in Table 3 in the rank order of mean scores from high to low. In the results, what is outstanding is the students’ very strong adherence to standard English (Question 1), as evidenced by the mean score of 5.71. Of the 72 students, 57 chose Strongly Agree and 12 chose Agree. Then, what kind of English was standard English in their minds? From the items related to linguistic forms of English, it is noticed that their desires for native-like pronunciation (Question 4) and correct grammar (Question 7) were not necessarily very intense, and they were relatively tolerant of unconventional expressions (Question 6). Thus, it can be understood that, in the students’ minds, standard English did not refer to particular linguistic forms of English. Indeed, there were no significant correlations between Question 1 and the other three question items. This suggests that although the students did not have substantial knowledge of standard English, at the same time acquiring it appeared to be a pre-established goal of learning English due to their learning practices at the school, as discussed in Sect. 3.1.

Table 3 Pre-intervention questionnaire results
Full size table

Another notable point is that while there is a relatively close link between students’ association of standard English, the cultures in English-speaking countries and NESs as desirable English proficiency models (Questions 2 and 3), they did not necessarily dismiss the importance of multilingual English users and their English varieties (Questions 5 and 8). However, they exhibited ambivalent attitudes towards Japanese English teachers (Question 10) because two-thirds of the students chose either Slightly Agree (32 students) or Slightly Disagree (16 students). Their ambivalence might have come from their experiences that sharing L1 with an English teacher in the classroom had benefits for their L2 learning (Question 9). Therefore, it can be said that despite their strong desire for standard English, their views of the use and users of English were relatively open. Then, from such existing perceptions, how did the students develop and what changes did they show?

5.2 Lectures 1 and 2: NESs and WE

The first two lectures were devoted to expanding the students’ views of English use and users by exploring the concepts of NESs (Lecture 1) and introducing the idea of WE (Lecture 2). The first lecture started with the topic of standard and regional variations of Japanese to help them recognise linguistic diversity in their familiar contexts. Referring to this, the lecture moved to the issues of standard English and its relationship with NESs, taking into account multilingual users of English. Then, the students were encouraged to think about the benefits of learning English with NESs. Towards the end of Lecture 1, they were introduced to movements against native-speakerism (Holliday, 2006) in language teaching, including the TESOL International Association’s “Position Statement Against Discrimination of Nonnative Speakers of English in the Field of TESOL” (2006).Footnote 5

Lecture 2 explored the idea of WE, considering the history of the global spread of English. Showing Kachru’s three-circle model of WE (Kachru, 1992, p. 356) and examples of varieties of English, different types of English use and users, such as ENL (English as a Native Language), ESL (English as a Second Language), and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) were introduced. Then, the lecture moved on to the inseparable relationship between the globalisation and diversification of English because of the intensive contact between English and local language(s) and culture(s). The lecture ended by encouraging the students to consider their own English from the perspective of WE, which sees all varieties of English as equal.

5.2.1 Findings in Lectures 1 and 2: Diversity Should Be Celebrated

Lectures 1 and 2 revealed the students’ open and inclusive attitudes towards different speakers and varieties of English. They readily acknowledged the diversity of English and exhibited respect for linguistic differences and individual choices. For the reflection task of Lecture 1, students were invited to answer the question “if to be like NESs is not the goal of language learning, what can be the goal?” to make them explore why people, including themselves, learn English. Out of the 72 students, 67 completed the task, and there were two frequent themes: 1) The goal is to become able to communicate with any type of people who use English, and 2) There should not be a one-size-fits-all goal as each person sets different goals according to their objectives in learning English. The following answer covered both types of themes:

Although the goals of language learning vary according to the ability that individuals require, I believe that the ultimate goal for everyone, including those who do not like English or have no goals in English, should be to be able to communicate without difficulty with English speakers around the world. The goal for them should be to be able to confidently use their own English to communicate, not the standard variety of English that serves as a norm. This is because there are many non-native English speakers in the world. (Student 52)

Out of 67 posts, 57 (85%) could fall into these two themes, and what we can observe in them is the students’ respect for each person’s unique version of English, or, as Kohn (2018) puts it, “MY English.” Although the questionnaire results showed a strong preference for standard English, few students mentioned this as part of a learning goal. This is probably because the students’ knowledge of standard English was rather insubstantial: Their ideas could be easily overwritten by the new knowledge of the variability of English.

As for the reflection task of Lecture 2, the students were asked whether they supported the idea of WE. All but two of the 72 participants provided answers, and the great majority of the responses (66) basically favoured the idea. Several students expressed concerns, while only a few (4) explicitly made a denial. The most typical reasons for support were that 1) different Englishes should be respected because there should be no hierarchy among them and 2) it is natural that various varieties of English exist due to cultural and societal differences. One typical comment is below.

I agree with the idea of World Englishes. I think it is unique and interesting that English varies from region to region. To deny this is not only discriminatory but also seems to be deciding a superiority or inferiority of the language. It is fine to have a wide variety of English that has developed into a form that is unique to each region due to exposure to different cultures and societies. English does not have to be one variety, all should be respected equally with ENL. (Student 10)

The students adopted liberal approaches to the diversity of English, in many cases, from moral points of view. However, the posted answers generally did not show a deep interest in why differences were produced between the varieties of English, though they enjoyed superficial differences, such as vocabulary. Also, there seemed to be a lack of perspective on communication as an interactive process because about two-thirds of the posts did not consider the possible difficulties caused by the differences in English, although this may be reasonable since the lectures had not necessarily focused on interactional aspects of English use.

5.3 Lectures 3 and 4: ELF and ICC

Lectures 3 and 4, building upon the first two lectures, aimed at developing the students’ awareness of the communicative and flexible use of English. Lecture 3 started with criticism of WE to assist the students in anticipating possible communication difficulties that linguistic differences might cause. Then, the lecture moved to the current empirical research of ELF whose focus is on the users of English as an additional language. Features of ELF communication, including non-normative use of English in phonology and lexicogrammar (see Jenkins, 2015b), were described to make the students realise that particular linguistic forms of English, or standard English, were not always necessary for communicative success. The final part of the lecture invited the students to think about the differences between learning EFL and ELF.

Lecture 4 focused on ICC, particularly pragmatic strategies used for ELF communication. The lecture first addressed definitions of culture and communication, emphasising communication as a bi-directional process between interlocutors. Then, referring back to the features of ELF communication discussed in Lecture 3, examples of pragmatic strategies, such as negotiation of meaning and paraphrasing, were looked into. Stressing the importance of skills to accommodate communicational norms according to interlocutors and situations, Lecture 4 ended with the exploration of the role of English in ICC among multilingual users of English.

5.3.1 Findings in Lectures 3 and 4: Positive Attitudes Can Solve Problems in ICC

The students’ raised awareness of the diversity of English through Lectures 1 and 2 seemed to have facilitated their understanding of communication as an interactional process in Lecture 3. However, what Lecture 4 exposed was the limitation in their development of awareness. As the students had not had rich intercultural experiences, their discussions on successful ICC tended to remain at a superficial level.

As the reflection question of Lecture 3, the students considered whether NESs needed to learn English for ICC. Out of 65 answers, 52 (80%) showed supportive opinions. They appeared to have shifted away from the common idea among L2 learners that responsibilities for communicative success depended on themselves as non-L1 speakers of English (Shibata, 2021; see also Suzuki, 2021). This shift was likely due to their realisation that mutual cooperation was indispensable to overcome linguistic differences in intercultural encounters, like the comment below.

… [I agree with the idea because] as for English as ELF, it is English for successful communication, and native English speakers should learn English that is clear and understandable to others as any other English speaker. … If we think about ELF, whose goal is communication in English, there are many barriers to communicating with other English speakers in terms of grammar, idioms, vocabulary, pronunciation, and many other aspects of native English. Therefore, to communicate more smoothly, it is necessary to learn English that is easy to understand. (Student 29)

Although the answers commonly exhibited positive attitudes towards ELF communication, when it came to considering the qualities of a good intercultural communicator in English in Lecture 4, their responses concentrated on liberal democratic ideals rather than the practicalities of communication. One typical comment is the following:

I believe that a person who is curious is a good intercultural communicator. … Especially in different cultures, most of what we see and hear is new to us. By being interested in and acknowledging these differences, other people will appreciate us, which leads to mutual appreciation with them. … From this, it can be said that a person who is a good intercultural communicator is one who actually makes use of his or her curiosity, not the ability to use language. (Student 60)

In the lecture, the emphasis was placed on the use of pragmatic strategies for successful communication, but these were not taken up by most of the students in the answers. About 70 per cent (51 posts) of the 69 answers focused on people’s respect for and/or friendliness towards others, and about 45 per cent of them (21 posts) did not even make any mention of language or English.

Then, why did the students overlook the role of language in communication and the use of pragmatic strategies? The main reason might be the students’ lack of direct experience with ICC. This point is clearly described in Student 34’s comment:

[For answering the question] I have never met anyone I thought was a good intercultural communicator, so I read some articles on the Internet and referred to the ones I agreed with the most. (Student 34).

Comments like this were scarce, but it may be true that several students had limited experiences with direct communication with multilingual users of English. Even if they had, they might not have counted these encounters as authentic English communication due to the monolithic image of the language (Suzuki, 2021). In the context of Japan, students’ opportunity to have English communication tends to be only with their English teachers and peer students in the classroom, and therefore they could not envision how English is used for ICC and how pragmatic strategies could be helpful for them. In this way, their exclusive focus on attitudinal issues could be understandable.

6 Discussion and Conclusion

The present educational intervention was carried out to develop the intercultural awareness of pre-service English teachers by contesting the prevailing native-speakerism and monolingualism in the Japanese ELT context. The contributions of the intervention could be summarised as twofold. First, it helped the pre-service teachers foster open and inclusive attitudes towards the diverse uses and users of English because their existing knowledge of standard English was found to be superficial. The superficiality could be improved to some extent by providing robust knowledge of social and historical developments of the dominant use of English as a global language (see Chap. 7 in Baker & Ishikawa, 2021). Second, because of the lectures focusing on ELF in ICC, the pre-service teachers could realise that communication in English is an equally collaborative process, even when communicating with NESs, and that it was not always necessary for them to take all communicative responsibility just because of their non-nativeness to English (see Shibata, 2021; Subtirelu et al., 2022). However, it is difficult to know whether these trainees retain their developed intercultural awareness after the intervention. As it was a short-term, one-off process, its effects may not be long-lasting (Suzuki, 2011).

At the same time, the limitations of the intervention also became apparent. One of these is that despite the emphasis given to the multilinguality of users of English as an additional language during the intervention, it did not capture the pre-service teachers’ attention. While they well understood the diversity of English and showed respect for it, their understanding seemed to remain on the surface level. This may be because they continued to see English and L1 as completely separate languages (Li, 2018) owing to the monolingual practices in Japanese ELT they had undergone, as addressed in Sect. 3.1. Another limitation was that ELF communication was difficult to envisage without direct experiences of communication with other multilingual users (Mayumi & Hüttner, 2020). Although the importance of pragmatic strategies for communication in multilingual encounters was discussed in the lectures, it was not well recognised by the lecture participants. Compared to the intervention conducted by Ishikawa (2020) in a similar context, which successfully raised Japanese university students’ awareness of multilingual communication practices, the present intervention lacked the offering of first-hand experiences of ELF communication.

Then, what insights could be drawn from the current intervention for teacher education? One can be that, as discussed in Sect. 2 above, teacher education should explicitly acknowledge the multilinguality of both teachers and learners to nurture the trainees’ views of their L1 as a valuable resource for language learning as well as teaching. This then would lead them to build up self-confidence as legitimate multilingual language teachers (Vetter, 2011; Calafato, 2019; Glasgow, 2018; Krulatz et al., 2022). Also, it is desirable that teacher education programmes provide the trainees with opportunities for first-hand experiences of ELF communication because without them it is difficult for the trainees to understand what role English would play and how pragmatic strategies can be helpful to negotiate meaning in ELF settings (cf. Ishikawa, 2020). It could be difficult to incorporate such opportunities into a short-term intervention like the present one, but it may be still feasible to seek possibilities for out-of-class and virtual communication activities to develop the trainees’ consciousness of ELF communication (Sung, 2018), even in EFL contexts like Japan.