Local problems and a global solution: examining the recontextualization of CEFR in Thai and Malaysian language policies

Abstract

Since its publication in 2001, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has become a highly influential means of describing language proficiency. Its spread has, however, been marked by contradictions, since the framework has been appropriated in the service of a variety of different policy agendas. In this paper, I argue that such contradictions are indicative of broader ideological contrasts, which may impact how the framework is implemented at the local scale. By drawing on critical discourse analysis and conceptual history, I analyse a set of recent language policy texts from Thailand and Malaysia, two Asian contexts where CEFR has recently been introduced, to examine how such global ideological struggles connect with local agendas. I find that CEFR has in these multilingual contexts been embedded into a bilingual policy agenda which foregrounds the national language (Thai or Bahasa Malaysia) and English while backgrounding other languages. This means that CEFR was detached from the agenda of the Council of Europe, with the recontextualization of CEFR shown to have been a selective process in which the only part to be consistently transferred were the CEFR levels, which were in this decontextualised form presented as a transnational standard. I argue that these patterns are indicative of a struggle between the global agenda of ELT and its roots in the ideology of neoliberalism, that underlies much of the worldwide spread of CEFR, and a local nationalist agenda attempting to appropriate the framework for its own purposes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of the documents presented from the Thai context, T-Plan and both teaching manuals were in Thai and were interpreted and analysed with the help of research assistants.

  2. 2.

    The reasons for this are related to the timelines imposed by previous policy, in this case the expiration of the previous National Education Plan.

  3. 3.

    The reason for such an expansion was a perception that the bottom range of the original CEFR, where most Thai speakers of English are seen to be concentrated, was insufficiently detailed to provide useful background information (for a presentation of this adapted version by its developers, see Hiranburana et al. 2018), a motivation similar to that referred to by the authors of CEFR-J (Negishi 2012).

  4. 4.

    This reference is likely an error since CEFR does not include a level C1+. Such ‘plus levels’ are used to represent half-way points between levels of proficiency (i.e. B1+ is an intermediate level between B1 and B2) but have only been described below the two highest levels (C1 and C2). For more information, see North (2014).

References

  1. Anderson, B. (1998). The spectre of comparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity (pp. 295–310). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arnott, S., Brogden, L. M., Faez, F., Péguret, M., Piccardo, E., Rehner, K., et al. (2017). The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Canada: A research agenda. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 20(1), 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baker, W., & Jarunthawatchai, K. (2017). English language policy in Thailand. European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baldauf, R., Kaplan, R., Kamwangamalu, N., & Bryant, P. (2011). Success or failure of primary second/foreign language programmes in Asia: What do the data tell us?. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 309–323.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barakos, E., & Unger, J. W. (Eds.). (2016). Discursive approaches to language policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Block, D., Gray, J., & Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Blommaert, J. (2007). Sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalization of language education policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cambridge English. (2013). Cambridge baseline 2013: English language in Malaysian schools: Results report.

  11. Canagarajah, S. (2018). The unit and focus of analysis in lingua franca English interactions: In search of a method. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(7), 805–824.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Coluzzi, P. (2017). Language planning for Malay in Malaysia: A case of failure or success? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 244, 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Council of Europe. (2018). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  15. De Costa, P. I., Park, J., & Wee, L. (2019). Linguistic entrepreneurship as affective regime: Organizations, audit culture, and second/foreign language education policy. Language Policy, 18(3), 387–406.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Diller, A. (1988). Thai syntax and “National Grammar”. Language Sciences, 10(2), 273–312.

    Google Scholar 

  17. European Council. (2002). Presidency conclusions: Barcelona European Council, 15 and 16 March 2002. SN 100/1/02 REV1.

  18. Extra, G., Spotti, M., & Van Avermaet, P. (2009). Testing regimes for newcomers. In G. Extra, M. Spotti, & P. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Language testing, migration and citizenship: Cross-national perspectives on integration regimes (pp. 1–34). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Flores, N. (2014). The unexamined relationship between neoliberalism and plurilingualism: A cautionary tale. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 500–521.

    Google Scholar 

  20. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual education for social justice: Globalising the local (pp. 128–145). Orient Blackswan: New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gill, S. K. (2014). Language policy challenges in multi-ethnic Malaysia. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hamid, M. O. (2014). World Englishes in international proficiency tests. World Englishes, 33(2), 263–277.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heller, M. (2011). Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and identity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hill, R. C., & Fujita, K. (2012). “Detroit of the East”: A multiscalar case study of regional development policy in Thailand. In B.-G. Park, R. C. Hill, & A. Saito (Eds.), Locating neoliberalism in East Asia: Neoliberalizing spaces in developmental states (pp. 257–293). Maiden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hiranburana, K., Subphadoongchone, P., Tangkiengsirisin, S., Phoocharoensil, S., Gainey, J., Thogsngsri, J., et al. (2018). A framework of reference for English language education in Thailand (FRELE-TH)—Based on the CEFR. The Thai experience. LEARN Journal, 10(2), 90–119.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Holland, J. (2014). Narrative fidelity to the Little Red Book in the framing efforts of the Red Guard Movement: A theoretical model for foundational documents. Discourse & Society, 25(3), 383–401.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Holzinger, K., & Knill, C. (2005). Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 775–796.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hornberger, N. H. (2005). Opening and filling up implementational and ideological spaces in heritage language education. Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 605–609.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hult, F. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jessop, B. (2007). State power: A strategic-relational approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jin, Y., Wu, Z., Alderson, J. C., & Song, W. (2017). Developing the China Standards of English: Challenges at macropolitical and micropolitical levels. Language Testing in Asia, 7(12), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson, D. C. (2013). Positioning the language policy arbiter: Governmentality and footing in the School District of Philadelphia. In J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (2nd ed., pp. 116–136). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jones, C., & Pimdee, P. (2017). Innovative ideas: Thailand 4.0 and the fourth industrial revolution. Asian International Journal of Social Sciences, 17(1), 4–35.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jones, N., & Savile, N. (2009). European language policy: Assessment, learning, and the CEFR. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kirkpatrick, A. (2017). Language education policy among the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). European Journal of Language Policy, 9(1), 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Koselleck, R. (1982). Begriffsgeschichte and social history. Economy and Society, 11, 409–427.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Koselleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history. Timing history, spacing concepts. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kosonen, K. (2017). Language of instruction in Southeast Asia: Background paper prepared for the 201718 Global Education Monitoring Report.

  43. Krzyzanowski, M. (2016). Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society, 27(3), 308–321.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Krzyzanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). Theorising and analysing social change in Central and Eastern Europe: The contribution of critical discourse analysis. In A. Galasinska & M. Krzyzanowski (Eds.), Discourse and transformation in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 17–40). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Krzyżanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2011). Political strategies and language policies: The European Union Lisbon strategy and its implications for the EU’s language and multilingualism policy. Language Policy, 10(2), 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kubota, R. (2014). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism: Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 474–494.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kubota, R. (2016). Neoliberal paradoxes of language learning: Xenophobia and international communication. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(5), 467–480.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kulsiri, S. (2006). A critical analysis of the 2001 national foreign language standards-based curriculum in the Thai school system. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Canberra: University of Canberra.

  49. Littlejohn, A. (2012). Language teaching materials and the (very) big picture. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 283–297.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lorente, B., & Tupas, R. (2013). (Un)emancipatory hybridity: Selling English in an unequal world. In R. Rubdy & L. Alsagoff (Eds.), The global-local interface and hybridity: Exploring language and identity (pp. 66–82). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Martyniuk, W. (Ed.). (2010). Aligning Tests with the CEFR: Reflections on using the Council of Europe’s draft Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Maybin, J. (2017). Textual trajectories: Theoretical roots and institutional consequences. Text & Talk, 37(4), 415–435.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Negishi, M. (2012). The development of the CEFR-J: Where we are, where we are going. Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research Report. Retrieved from www.tufs.ac.jp/common/fs/ilr/EU_kaken/_userdata/negishi2.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2019.

  54. Ng, C. J. W. (2018). Skilling the nation, empowering the citizen: Neoliberal instantiations in Singapore’s lifelong learning policy. Journal of Language and Politics, 17(1), 118–140.

    Google Scholar 

  55. North, B. (Ed.). (1992). Transparency and coherence in language learning in Europe: Objectives, evaluation, certification. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation.

    Google Scholar 

  56. North, B. (2014). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Phillipson, R. (2010). Linguistic imperialism continued. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Piccardo, E. (2010). From communicative to action-oriented: New perspectives for a new millennium. CONTACT TESL, 36(2), 20–35.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 600–613.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Piccardo, E. (2014). The impact of the CEFR on Canada’s linguistic plurality: A space for heritage languages? In P. Trifonas & T. Aravossitas (Eds.), Rethinking heritage language education (pp. 45–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Pietikäinen, A. (2010). Sami language mobility: Scales and discourses of multilingualism in a polycentric environment. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 79–101.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pilkinton-Pihko, D. (2013). English-medium instruction: Seeking assessment criteria for spoken professional English. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

  64. Premsrirat, S. (2011). Redefining “Thainess”: Embracing diversity, preserving unity. The Journal of the Royal Institute of Thailand, 3, 54–75.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2015). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (pp. 23–61). London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Roger, C., & Dauvergne, P. (2016). The rise of transnational governance as a field of study. International Studies Review, 18(3), 415–437.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rutkowski, D. (2007). Converging us softly: How intergovernmental organizations promote neoliberal educational policy. Critical Studies in Education, 48(2), 229–247.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Savski, K. (2016). State language policy in time and space: Meaning, transformation, recontextualisation. In E. Barakos & J. W. Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy (pp. 51–70). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Savski, K. (2018). The roles of field and capital in negotiating language policy in the Slovene parliament. Journal of Language and Politics, 17(1), 24–45.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Savski, K. (2019). Putting the plurilingual/pluricultural back into CEFR: Reflecting on policy reform in Thailand and Malaysia. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 16(2), 644–652.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting construct valid assessment policies. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 418–429.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Smalley, W. (1994). Linguistic diversity and national unity: Language ecology in Thailand. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sukamolson, S. (1998). English language education policy in Thailand. Asian Englishes, 1(1), 68–91.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Tabouret-Keller, A. (1991). Factors of constraints and freedom in setting a language policy for the European Community: A sociolinguistic approach. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), A language policy for the European Community: Prospects and quandaries (pp. 45–58). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Trim, J. L. (2012). The Common European framework of reference for languages and its background: A case study of cultural politics and educational influences. In M. Byram & L. Parmenter (Eds.), The Common European framework of reference for languages: The globalisation of language education policy (pp. 14–35). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Van Ek, J. A. (1975). The threshold level for modern language learning in schools. Strasbourg: The Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wodak, R. (2008). Introduction: Discourse studies—Important concepts and terms. In M. Krzyżanowski & R. Wodak (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp. 1–29). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Wodak, R., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Recontextualizing European higher education policies: The cases of Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 19–40.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wodak, R., & Savski, K. (2018). Critical discourse-ethnographic approaches to language policy. In J. Tollefson & M. Pérez-Milans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning (pp. 93–112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Wongsothorn, A., Hiranburana, K., & Chinnawongs, S. (2002). English language teaching in Thailand today. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 22(2), 107–116.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Thailand Research Fund (Grant No. MRG6080168). I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Ruth Wodak and Dr Chonlada Laohawiriyanon for the advice they provided during the course of this research. Any errors or inaccuracies are, of course, my own responsibility.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristof Savski.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Savski, K. Local problems and a global solution: examining the recontextualization of CEFR in Thai and Malaysian language policies. Lang Policy 19, 527–547 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-019-09539-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • CEFR
  • Recontextualization
  • Globalization
  • Thailand
  • Malaysia