Asian vs the Middle East English Language Skill and Confidence - Term Paper Example

ASIAN VS MIDDLE EAST ENGLISH LANGUAGE SKILL AND CONFIDENCE Introduction Language is the medium of communication between two parties. For any message to pass through the two parties must have similar communication skills. Globalization has triggered the need to have a common language for people to communicate effectively. Language has therefore crossed borders and most people have studied foreign languages (Dash, & Jung, 2005). The English language can be said to be one language that has been widely spread throughout the world and is spoken en-mass. This has included trade and regional groupings. For a rich language the practice makes perfect and though one is taught then practicing the use of the language will help the individual in mastering it. In order to bridge the gap in communication one language has to be taught to the populations for effective communication. Learning a second language makes a person more confident and proud thus it is important. In these two regions English has continually been used as a second language since most of the other languages never apply beyond borders (Widdowson, 2003). Whichever dialect of English that one speaks it must make him/her communicate effectively in skill and be confident while using it (Wakelin, 2008). The history of English may be long and complicated since it was believed to be spoken in west-Germany from the dialect of Anglo-Frisian and Old Saxon, but was later brought to Britain. English since then has been portrayed to be from the British (Wakelin, 2008). The use of English in other parts may have been spread since the colonial period with most colonies of English speaking nations picking on the language as the dominant official language. Some of these countries are India, Ireland, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Philippines, among others. The English language in Asia has been spoken in several dialects which include Burmese, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Indian, Malaysian, Philippine, Singapore, and Sri Lankan English. In the Middle East most of the English is Arabic English (Arabish), Japanese (Japlish), South Korean (Konglish), and Russian (Runglish) which are mainly a mixture of other local dialect and English (Louise, 2005). The English language is a lingua franca of the Asia and Middle East and its use by majority of the population needs to be effective so as to be confident and skillful in aspects of politics, ideologies, intellect, social, cultural, and religion (Robertson, 2005). This research focuses on the English language in the Asian and Middle East regions and how it has been furthered and its impact in the people’s confidence. It aims at identifying differences in culture regarding English language skill and confidence of that skill. This project will test the hypothesis: “that university students of Middle Eastern cultural background have higher confidence in English skill than Asian background university students and that Middle Eastern university students have poorer English grammar skills than Asian university students”. The project will ask the students how they feel about their English skills and then test them to test this hypothesis. Literature Review English has proven to be indispensable as a language for international and international communication throughout the globe. According to Acar (2005) in Asia English remains used without other compromises, for example in the Southeast Asia the language it is the lingua franca for the region of ten states of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations). Due to this and other uses of English the English language teaching community globally has tremendously increased programs to sponsor English training. McArthur in his article English as an Asian language site three options for the future of English as a lingua franca which are; it may remain dominant, it may be replaced by mandarin, or there will be no dominant language. He further describes the different parts of Asia i.e. the East and South (Brumfit, & Johnson, 1979). The English language debate is largely based on the part of Asia, in that America they describe it as Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, and for Britain they are the Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladesh (Nunn, & Lingley, 2004). In Asia though many languages have competed against English e.g. Chinese, Hindu-Urdu, Arabic and Mandarin they don’t tend to be of more significant outside their borders and fail in the quest to be the lingua franca of Pan-Asia. In the Middle East the Arabic, Persian, and Turkish languages are the largest most spoken native languages, but English is used as a second language mainly by the middle and upper classes in many countries. English has also been most dominant in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel among others (Crystal, 1997). The major challenge in the Asian and Middle East populations for English to be fully adapted as the dominant language is that there are no huge native English-speaking people. English has been slowly accepted by many populations in Asia through visual and cultural ways. English has however broken the barriers and has been diversified even in pronunciation hence its easy flow. This has made it more diffusing and adaptable in the regional and local socio-cultural aspects thus bringing the issue of regional and local dialects and varieties of English (Canale, & Swain, 1980). In relation to competence and communication the language must pass the huddles of misinterpretation and mother tongue influence so that it can be used as a lingua franca in Asia and Middle East. Nunn (2005) in his report “Competence and Teaching English as an International Language” describes the scope of proficiency of the language of English into four levels, which are; internationally effective, national, local, and ineffective. When one falls in the internationally effective then one is “Able to use communication strategies and a linguistic variety that is comprehensible to interlocutors from a wide range of national and cultural backgrounds” (Nuun, 2005). Nationally effective is when communication between two people from the same country communicate effectively. Local proficiency would be when one communicates effectively with members of his/her community. To be ineffective one may know some English but not enough to communicate using it (Kaplan, 2002). Methodology The data required was to cover on the two regions i.e. the Asian Vs Middle East on issues of English language skill and confidence. The data was collected through filing of questionnaires by anonymous respondents (students) 44 of Asian origin and 27 Middle East origin. The university students will be of either Middle Eastern or Asian origin and be between the ages of 18-30 and studying undergraduate or postgraduate courses. The project will test the hypothesis: “that university students of Middle Eastern cultural background have higher confidence in English skill than Asian background university students and that Middle Eastern university students have poorer English grammar skills than Asian university students”. The questionnaire will have the part “your opinion about English” and an “English test” consisting of two parts (A and B). The data will then be transferred to spreadsheets and analyzed by the SPSS statistical package, where data of every region will be considered separately then compared. Ten items will be compared for the two regions and chi-square analysis (Pearson Chi-Square, Continuity Correlation b, Likelihood Ratio, Fisher's Exact Test, Linear-by-Linear Association, and N of Valid Cases) computed on each item after cross tabulation. The chi-square tests will be computed for a 2x2 table. On each region the will be t and F-tests and other statistical tests for the English test, comprehension, and grammatical tests. The English will have all ten items computed; the comprehension test will have the first five items computed, while the rest five items will be used to compute the statistical tests for grammar. The mean, standard deviation, and standard error mean were also computed for the data collected. The hypothesis was then tested using the tests of the significance level at 0.05 and the probability checked on 2x2 tables. Results The frequency for the Asian region and the Middle East was 44 and 27 that accounted for 62% and 38% respectively. Of the total population that was sampled 33.8% of the respondents had studied English for more than 5 years while 66.2 had studied for less than 5 years as shown in figure 1 below. 52.1% of the respondents suggest that it was hard to study in English while 47.9% said it was not hard as shown in figure 2. Figure 1: Proportional representation of the respondents in years of study. Figure 2: Proportional representation of the difficulty of English. For the chi-square tests for the items were as follows: Item 1: 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 10.65; item 2: 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 11.41; item 3: 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 10.65; item 4: 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 8.37; item 5: 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 8.75; item 6: 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 7.23; item 8: 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 7.61; item 9: 1 cells (25.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 4.18; and item 10: 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 7.99. For the t-tests for the English test using the assumed mean the probability of significance level was; item 1: 0.863, 2: 0.438, 3: 0.863, 4: 0.077, 5: 0.702, 6: 674, 7: 746, 8: 0.58, 9: 0.896, and 10: 0.32. While for the un-assumed mean the probability of significance level was; item 1: 0.863, 2: 0.443, 3: 0.863, 4: 063, 5: -0.700, 6: 0.679, 7: -0.745, 8: 0.089, 9: 0.897, and 10: 0.043. For the F test the probability of significance level was; item 1: 0.737, 2: 1.253, 3: 0.737, 4: 0.00, 5: 0.432, 6: 0.412, 7: -0.510, 8: 0.00, 9: 0.797, and 10: 0.001 as shown in table 1 in the appendices. For the comprehensive test using the assumed mean the probability of significance level the t-test was; item 1: 0.863, 2: 0.438, 3: 0.863, 4: 0.077, and 5: 0.702. and for the un-assumed mean item 1: 0.863, 2: 0.443, 3: 0.863, 4: 063, 5: -0.700. For the F test the probability of significance level was; item 1: 0.737, 2: 1.253, 3: 0.737, 4: 0.00, and 5: 0.432 as shown in table 2 in the appendices. For the grammar test using the assumed mean the probability of significance level the t-test was; 6: 674, 7: 746, 8: 0.58, 9: 0.896, and 10: 0.32 and the un-assumed mean was: 6: 0.679, 7: -0.745, 8: 0.089, 9: 0.897, and 10: 0.043. The F-test probability of significance levels were 6: 0.412, 7: -0.510, 8: 0.00, 9: 0.797, and 10: 0.001 as shown in table 3 in the appendices. Since most of the probabilities are greater than or equal to significance level of 0.05 then the null is failed to be rejected, thus the outcome is not significantly significant. The mean, standard deviation, and standard error mean were as indicated in table 4 in the appendices. Discussion and Conclusion The English language in the two regions i.e. Asian and Middle East cannot be denied access since it has continually been accepted and studied by many locals, this means that English is continually being adapted as the lingua franca. According to literature more Asians have adopted the language than Middle East residents, but they are also picking up on the trends. In general more students found it hard to study English though only few had studied the language for a period of less than five years. In the study more Asian students were administered with the questionnaire than the Middle East. The study maybe interpreted as the students from the Middle East maybe are more confident in English and its skills. Given the hypothesis “that university students of Middle Eastern cultural background have higher confidence in English skill than Asian background university students and that Middle Eastern university students have poorer English grammar skills than Asian university students”. The hypothesis will not be rejected since most of the probability tests of significant proved the data was not statistically significant. This calls for formulation of other hypothesis or collection of more data to test the hypothesis that was failed to be rejected. To conclude, English has been widely used throughout the globe and it proves to be the global language that will communicate effectively in the global village. The study faced several limitations. Firstly, the study used a small sized sample thus it should be increased in future. The time used for the study was also short thus more time should be considered to get more accurate results. Other methods of data collection such as interviews should be used in future so as to increase the data collected. Other items on the questionnaire instead of just the ten should be included for better accurate results and inference in the report. Reference Acar, A. (2005). The "communicative competence" controversy. Asian EFL Online Journal, Vol.7 (3). Brumfit, C. & Johnson, K. (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching. London: Oxford University Press. Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical basis of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics Vol.1, 1-47. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dash, P. & Jung, J. (2005). English Language Learning in the Asian Context. Pusan: The Asian EFL Journal Press. Vol.6. (pp. 5-8) Kaplan, R. (2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Louise, F. (2005). International Relations of the Middle East. New York, Oxford University Press. McArthur, T. (2002). “English as an Asian Language” ABD journal, Vol. 33, No.2. Nunn, R. (2005). Competence and Teaching English as an International Language. Asian EFL journal. Vol.7, Issue 3Article 6 Nunn, R. & Lingley, D. (2004). Formative placement testing and its impact on ELT. JACET Bulletin, Vol.39, 73-86. Robertson, P., et. al. (2005). English language learning in the Asian context. Pusan: The Asian EFL Journal Press. Wakelin, M.F. (2008). Discovering English Dialects. Oxford: Shire Publications Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Appendices Table 1: Showing the independent sample tests Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Item 1 Equal variances assumed .114 .737 .174 69 .863 .021 .121 -.221 .263 Equal variances not assumed     .173 54.438 .863 .021 .122 -.223 .265 Item 2 Equal variances assumed 1.331 .253 .780 69 .438 .095 .122 -.148 .338 Equal variances not assumed     .774 53.721 .443 .095 .123 -.151 .342 Item 3 Equal variances assumed .114 .737 .174 69 .863 .021 .121 -.221 .263 Equal variances not assumed     .173 54.438 .863 .021 .122 -.223 .265 Item 4 Equal variances assumed 15.929 .000 -1.795 69 .077 -.201 .112 -.425 .022 Equal variances not assumed     -1.891 63.962 .063 -.201 .106 -.414 .011 Item 5 Equal variances assumed .625 .432 -.385 69 .702 -.045 .116 -.276 .187 Equal variances not assumed     -.388 56.434 .700 -.045 .115 -.275 .186 Item 6 Equal variances assumed .680 .412 .422 69 .674 .046 .110 -.172 .265 Equal variances not assumed     .416 52.565 .679 .046 .111 -.177 .270 Item 7 Equal variances assumed .439 .510 -.325 69 .746 -.036 .111 -.259 .186 Equal variances not assumed     -.327 56.559 .745 -.036 .111 -.258 .185 Item 8 Equal variances assumed 15.200 .000 1.926 69 .058 .168 .087 -.006 .343 Equal variances not assumed     1.745 39.667 .089 .168 .096 -.027 .363 Item 9 Equal variances assumed .067 .797 .131 69 .896 .015 .116 -.216 .247 Equal variances not assumed     .130 54.312 .897 .015 .117 -.219 .249 Item 10 Equal variances assumed 12.682 .001 2.192 69 .032 .240 .109 .022 .458 Equal variances not assumed     2.082 46.393 .043 .240 .115 .008 .472 Table 2: Showing independent sample tests for comprehensive English test Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Item 1 Equal variances assumed .114 .737 .174 69 .863 .021 .121 -.221 .263 Equal variances not assumed     .173 54.438 .863 .021 .122 -.223 .265 Item 2 Equal variances assumed 1.331 .253 .780 69 .438 .095 .122 -.148 .338 Equal variances not assumed     .774 53.721 .443 .095 .123 -.151 .342 Item 3 Equal variances assumed .114 .737 .174 69 .863 .021 .121 -.221 .263 Equal variances not assumed     .173 54.438 .863 .021 .122 -.223 .265 Item 4 Equal variances assumed 15.929 .000 -1.795 69 .077 -.201 .112 -.425 .022 Equal variances not assumed     -1.891 63.962 .063 -.201 .106 -.414 .011 Item 5 Equal variances assumed .625 .432 -.385 69 .702 -.045 .116 -.276 .187 Equal variances not assumed     -.388 56.434 .700 -.045 .115 -.275 .186 Table 3: Showing independent sample tests for grammar English test Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Item 6 Equal variances assumed .680 .412 .422 69 .674 .046 .110 -.172 .265 Equal variances not assumed     .416 52.565 .679 .046 .111 -.177 .270 Item 7 Equal variances assumed .439 .510 -.325 69 .746 -.036 .111 -.259 .186 Equal variances not assumed     -.327 56.559 .745 -.036 .111 -.258 .185 Item 8 Equal variances assumed 15.200 .000 1.926 69 .058 .168 .087 -.006 .343 Equal variances not assumed     1.745 39.667 .089 .168 .096 -.027 .363 Item 9 Equal variances assumed .067 .797 .131 69 .896 .015 .116 -.216 .247 Equal variances not assumed     .130 54.312 .897 .015 .117 -.219 .249 Item 10 Equal variances assumed 12.682 .001 2.192 69 .032 .240 .109 .022 .458 Equal variances not assumed     2.082 46.393 .043 .240 .115 .008 .472 Table 4: showing group statistics Group Statistics   Region N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Item 6 Asia 44 .75 .438 .066 Middle East 27 .70 .465 .090 Item 7 Asia 44 .70 .462 .070 Middle East 27 .74 .447 .086 Item 8 Asia 44 .91 .291 .044 Middle East 27 .74 .447 .086 Item 9 Asia 44 .68 .471 .071 Middle East 27 .67 .480 .092 Item 10 Asia 44 .80 .408 .062 Middle East 27 .56 .506 .097 Read More