Department of English

Individual Research Project (EN04GY)

English Linguistics

Spring 2020

Supervisor: Josep Soler

Linguistic Variation in

Swedish EFL-Textbooks A Content Analytical Study of the

Representation of Englishes in Swedish Upper

Secondary School Materials

Nellie Lindqvist

Linguistic Variation in Swedish

EFL-Textbooks A Content Analytical Study of the Representation of Englishes

in Swedish Upper Secondary School Materials

Nellie Lindqvist

Abstract

Nowadays, becoming proficient in merely one variety of English may not be sufficient,

since this does not guarantee an ability to communicate with the vast majority of English

speakers worldwide (Modiano, 2009; Fang & Ren, 2018). Despite this, studies show that

European ELT still largely focus on certain varieties over others (Modiano, 2009); hence,

it is interesting to study the materials used within this context. The present study is

intended to contribute to research within the field of World Englishes and ELT. The

purpose of the study is to investigate linguistic variation and language ideology in

teaching materials used in the course of English 5 within Swedish upper secondary

schools. For this purpose, a content analytical approach has been applied for data

collection, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Two EFL-textbooks,

Blueprint A 3.0 and Viewpoints 1, have been analyzed and three interviews have been

conducted with EFL teachers working in Swedish upper secondary schools. The data

elicited through the study shows that linguistic variation in English is limited within the

two textbooks, and that when speakers of non-standard varieties appear in the textbooks

they are presented in a controversial manner. Moreover, the interviews conducted with

the teachers yielded insights into teachers’ perspectives on the importance of exposing

students to different varieties of English. The perspectives offered through the interviews

imply that not all teachers consider the knowledge of dialectal and social variation within

the English language to be of importance, despite that it is, in fact, an objective set for

students taking the course of English 5. In general, the findings suggest that the linguistic

representation within Swedish teaching materials and practices still favor certain

Englishes, i.e. British and American English, over others.

Keywords

World Englishes, ELT, EFL, content analysis, qualitative research, quantitative research,

textbook evaluation, interviews.

Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................... 1

2. Literature Review .................................................................... 2

2.1 World Englishes ............................................................................... 2

2.1.1 Problematizing Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles Model ............................. 2

2.1.2 A Current Perspective of the Global Spread of English ........................... 3

2.2 The English Language in ELT ............................................................. 3

2.2.1 Perspectives of Linguistic Variation in ELT ........................................... 3

2.2.2 The English Subject in the Swedish Curriculum .................................... 4

2.2.3 ELT, Language Ideology and Bourdieusian Theory ................................ 4

2.3 Problematizing Textbooks ................................................................. 6

2.4 Previous Studies .............................................................................. 7

3. Method and Materials .............................................................. 8

3.1 Theoretical Framework for Data Elicitation and Analysis ........................ 8

3.2 Textbook Analysis ............................................................................ 9

3.2.1 Method for Analysis .......................................................................... 9

3.2.2 Primary Material ............................................................................. 10

3.3 Interviews ..................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 Interview Method ........................................................................... 11

3.3.2 Participants ................................................................................... 11

3.3.3 Ethical Considerations ..................................................................... 12

4. Results ................................................................................ 12

4.1 Textbook Data ................................................................................ 13

4.1.1 Linguistic Variation as Shown in the Text .......................................... 13

4.1.2 Representation of Speakers in the Textbooks ..................................... 15

4.2 Interviews ..................................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Regarding Linguistic Diversity in ELT................................................. 17

4.2.2 Perspectives on ELT-textbooks ......................................................... 18

5. Discussion ........................................................................... 19

6. Conclusion ........................................................................... 23

References .............................................................................. 24

Primary Sources ................................................................................... 24

Secondary Sources ............................................................................... 24

Appendix A .............................................................................. 27

Appendix B .............................................................................. 29

Appendix C .............................................................................. 31

Appendix D .............................................................................. 32

1

1. Introduction

The English language is today recognized as a multifaceted concept, whereas earlier it

was primarily considered a mother tongue ‘belonging’ to nations such as the UK

(Modiano, 2009). Nowadays, English is by many considered an international language,

which can be seen in, for instance, the changes in school curriculum; to exemplify, in

Sweden, instruction was formerly focused on British English (BrE) (Skolverket, 1969),

whereas the curriculum today makes no such distinction (Modiano, 2009; Skolverket,

2011). However, despite this change in perspective, much of the instruction in Europe

still centers on BrE and American English (AmE) while other varieties remain unexplored

and unrepresented (Modiano, 2009). Thus, although society’s perspective of the English

language has somewhat changed, there are still domains where some varieties arguably

prevail over others; one example is the educational domain (Heller, 1996; Modiano, 2009;

Fang & Ren, 2018).

Much of the communication that occurs between teachers and students within the

educational domain worldwide draws upon the teaching materials available (Curdt-

Christiansen & Weninger, 2015). Thus, these materials may influence both students’

language skills and their perceptions of language and language use since textbooks are an

important, and authoritative, source for input (Ellis, 2014; Curdt-Christiansen &

Weninger, 2015). Curdt-Christiansen and Weninger (2015) emphasize that materials such

as textbooks are not only sources for language learning, but they also reflect thoughts,

ideas and beliefs about language, culture and politics. Hence, “language teaching and

learning are not ideologically neutral practices” (Curdt-Christiansen & Weninger, 2015,

p. 1), but the content that students meet on a regular basis is influenced by dominant ideas

circulating in society as a whole. Taking this into consideration, examining and improving

teaching materials can affect both the students’ learning abilities and individuals’

perspectives of the English language.

Literature within the field of English language teaching (ELT) has focused greatly on

language and culture in textbooks as well as on how instruction can be designed in order

to introduce the immense variation of English that exists in today’s society (Matsuda,

2002; Modiano, 2009; Ping, 2015; Curdt-Christiansen, 2015; Galloway & Rose, 2018;

Fang & Ren, 2018). However, few studies have focused on linguistic variation in teaching

materials used in Swedish English as a foreign language (EFL) instruction. This despite

the history within the Swedish curriculum with the preference for BrE previously

mentioned, and the fact that if textbooks aim to adhere to the school curriculum this

would, in a Swedish context, entail that dialectal and social variation should be covered

(Modiano, 2009; Skolverket, 1969 & 2011). Furthermore, recent studies still emphasize

the need to develop students’ awareness of English varieties since this may boost

students’ confidence in their own production and result in more positive attitudes towards

regional accents of English (Lee McKay, 2010; Fang & Ren, 2018).

With a particular focus on linguistic variation and how English speakers are portrayed,

the present study aims to shed light upon through what perspective EFL-textbooks,

intended for Swedish upper secondary schools, actually portray the English language. The

study also considers teachers’ views on linguistic variation in EFL instruction and

materials, since this might influence how the materials are used and designed. For this

purpose, the study will address the following questions:

2

1. What kind of linguistic variation appears in EFL-textbooks (i.e. geolectal,

sociolectal etc.)?

2. What kind of speakers/situations appear in connection to the linguistic variation?

3. What kind of meanings can be derived from the way the different characters and

linguistic varieties are presented and connected?

4. What perspectives do EFL-teachers have on linguistic variation in English (i.e. in

EFL teaching and textbooks)?

2. Literature Review

This section presents literature concerning World Englishes and ELT as well as research

focused on ELT/EFL teaching materials.

2.1 World Englishes

Many terms can be used to describe the reality of English today. One such term is World

Englishes, which draws upon the Kachruvian (1985) tradition. The term World Englishes

and research concerning it is discussed below.

2.1.1 Problematizing Kachru’s (1985) Three Circles Model

Much of the research within the field of World Englishes has its basis in Kachru’s Three

Circles Model (Kachru, 1985; Bruthiaux, 2003). This model proposes that the English

language and its speakers can be divided into three circles: the inner, outer and expanding

circle (Kachru, 1985). Nations where English is the national and official language belong

to the inner circle (Kachru, 1985). Outer circle varieties of English are, on the other hand,

spoken in countries that have been subject to colonization and, due to this, English is part

of the speakers’ linguistic repertoire (Kachru, 1985). Moreover, in outer circle countries,

English “has acquired an important status in the language policies” (Kachru, 1985, p.

242). Lastly, in expanding circle countries, English is spoken as a foreign language and

does not necessarily have an important status (Kachru, 1985).

Although Kachru’s Three Circles Model (1985) has served as a basis for much research,

this perspective of World Englishes has been problematized since it was first proposed.

Bruthiaux (2003) argues that the model is an oversimplification of what English entails,

partly because it is largely nation-based and, through that, does not adhere to the

sociolinguistic landscape of today’s society. Bruthiaux (2003, p. 175) emphasizes the

need for a new kind of model of English that gives “a sociolinguistic description of

contexts for the language” rather than work as a means to promote certain varieties over

others. Fundamentally, the distinction of diverse varieties should be based on linguistic

aspects rather than geographical, for instance (Bruthiaux, 2003). Regardless, it is clear

that the English language is so much more than merely one variety; therefore, it might

not be enough to focus on AmE or BrE in, for instance, education, as have long been the

case (Bruthiaux, 2003; Modiano, 2009).

3

2.1.2 A Current Perspective of the Global Spread of English

Weber and Horner (2012) provide an extensive review on the global spread of English in

today’s society, concluding that all languages, or varieties, encompass linguistic

variation. In this, they further argue that non-standard varieties of English are as rule-

governed as standard English and take African American English (AAE) and Jamaican

Creole as examples. To exemplify, Weber and Horner (2012) note that some people

perceive English varieties such as AAE as deficient and/or illogical forms of English in

comparison to standard BrE or AmE. Yet, AAE can in reality be distinguished through

its grammatical features “such as invariant or habitual be and double or multiple negation”

(Weber & Horner, 2012, p. 39). In fact, double negation is also used in other English

varieties such as Jamaican Creole (Weber & Horner, 2012). Furthermore, another English

variety that can be distinguished through its grammar and vocabulary is Singlish (Weber

& Horner, 2012). One prominent feature of Singlish is the use of the discourse particle

“lah”, which, for instance, can show the speaker’s mood (Weber & Horner, 2012, p. 44).

The idea that non-standard varieties of English are as rule-governed as standard varieties

is also strengthened by Seargeant (2012). Seargeant (2012) shows that both Nigerian

Pidgin English and Indian English have distinct features that differ from standard BrE or

AmE. These differences are distinguishable in pronunciation, but representation of these

varieties can also be found in writing, showing grammar patterns, spelling and lexical

items that are not used in standard BrE or AmE (Seargeant, 2012). Thus, variation of

English can be illustrated not only in spoken language but also in writing, which

Seargeant (2012) exemplifies.

Although many terms can be used to name the multifaceted language of English, this

study follows Seargeant’s (2012) understanding of the issue. Seargeant (2012, p. 1)

accentuates that English should not be perceived “as a single, monolithic entity, but as

something that has multiple varieties and forms”. Therefore, Seargeant (2012) argues that

the word ‘Englishes’ better captures the nature of the language in today’s society.

Drawing on the argumentation provided by Seargeant (2012) and the evidence of English

variation provided by Weber and Horner (2012), this study utilizes the plural term

Englishes to refer to the diversity of the English language. It is noteworthy that, following

Bruthiaux (2003), the present study is more concerned with linguistic differences in

varieties represented in the material for analysis and not the representation of nations, and

this is also what is intended with the term in this context.

2.2 The English Language in ELT

2.2.1 Perspectives of Linguistic Variation in ELT

That English is a Lingua Franca, a language spoken and used for diverse purposes

worldwide, is not disputed by many in today’s society. However, in literature concerning

the global spread of English it is still apparent that a perspective of English as belonging

to certain nations still lingers (Siegel, 2006; Modiano, 2009). This is visible in ELT,

where the concept of ‘native English’ still serves as the ideal variety in many classrooms

(Modiano, 2009; Fang & Ren, 2018). Simultaneously, many researchers emphasize the

importance of increasing student awareness of the diversity of English and, thus,

diminishing the idea of the native speaker ideal that persists in educational domains

(Matsuda, 2002; Siegel, 2006; Modiano, 2009; Galloway & Rose, 2018; Fang & Ren,

2018). In fact, since AmE and BrE cannot be said to represent the whole English

language, students may become better communicators if they have an understanding of

4

the diversity of English (Modiano, 2009). Inviting linguistic variation in ELT may,

therefore, help develop students’ comprehension. This idea is strengthened since ELT

should prepare students for authentic interactions in English, which, statistically, are more

likely to occur with people who are not considered ‘native speakers’(NS) of English since

this category of speakers outnumbers NS (Kiczkowiak, 2019).

2.2.2 The English Subject in the Swedish Curriculum

As mentioned earlier, the Swedish curriculum with regards to the English subject has

changed over the years. In 1969, there was an apparent preference for BrE in instruction

in Sweden since this was considered the standard variety, which was thought to be most

suitable for the school domain (Skolverket, 1969; Modiano, 2009). However, this

changed in 1994 and in the curriculum today no explicit preference is stated regarding

what variety instruction should focus on (Modiano, 2009; Skolverket, 2011). Today, the

aim with English instruction is rather to prepare students for international contacts

(Modiano, 2009). Thus, the multifaceted nature of English is arguably recognized in a

broader sense by policymakers in Sweden than before.

Today, reception skills and comprehension encompass part of the core content of the

English subject, and explicit reference is made to exposure to dialectal and social features

of English (Skolverket, 2011). In the core content for English 5, the aim of the subject is

to enable students to develop their reception skills with regards to “spoken language, also

with different social and dialect features …” as well as to procure “strategies for listening

and reading in different ways and for different purposes” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 3). Thus,

instruction should cover diverse varieties of English and help students develop strategies

to enable comprehension. This is further supported by Lundahl (2014), who writes that

the Swedish curriculum states that English instruction should not only cover inner circle

varieties of English, but also outer and expanding circle varieties. Taking this into

consideration, it can be considered troubling that Europeans are more likely to be exposed

to certain varieties of English, due to a believed superiority of said varieties, while other

varieties are completely omitted:

It should be noted … that the vast majority of Europeans are exposed to the American, British

and continental European varieties of the language, and Asian and African varieties of English

are not prevalent in mainland European society. (Modiano, 2009, p. 70)

Thus, although the curriculum has changed its perspective of English over the decades,

there are still indications that instruction per se may not have changed as much. This

further entails that it might be valuable to examine the materials that said teaching is based

upon since these could impact how instruction is planned and executed.

2.2.3 ELT, Language Ideology and Bourdieusian Theory

ELT is an extremely delicate practice since it involves and provokes many different

beliefs of language and language learning. An understanding of said beliefs may,

therefore, be vital for the understanding of why teaching practices and materials are

planned and executed the way they are; thus, developing such an understanding is the

main purpose of this section. The term language ideology itself refers to belief systems

related to languages, which influence how people think about varieties of languages as

well as speakers of said languages (McGroarty, 2010; Weber & Horner, 2012). These

ideas about languages are not only expressed explicitly, but can also manifest themselves

5

implicitly through linguistic practices, i.e. how people talk or how texts are written

(Lanza, 2007). Thus, they can be expressed in both written and spoken text, implicitly or

explicitly. Language ideologies may have a vast impact in society, for instance, in terms

of social inclusion or exclusion as well as understanding of standard language (Weber &

Horner, 2012).

Concerning ELT in particular, one belief that is of interest is the standard language

ideology. This ideology refers to the conviction that languages have standard varieties,

which are being reinforced through so called codification and pedagogical rituals,

including not only language teaching practices but also the writing of grammars,

textbooks and dictionaries (Weber & Horner, 2012). The standard variety is, as such,

considered more valuable than other varieties since it is what people encounter in

education and in, for instance, media (Siegel, 2006; Weber & Horner, 2012). It can further

be argued that since teaching materials commonly incorporate NS of English as models

for the target language, the support for standard varieties can be connected to the native

speaker ideal. Fundamentally, this ideal entails that non-native speakers (NNS) of

English should acquire a native-like proficiency in the target language (Lundahl, 2014).

Thus, when teaching materials favor certain speakers and linguistic varieties, it can be

argued that these are positioned as the ‘norms’ to which NNS and second language

learners are expected to adhere.

The standard language ideology and the native speaker ideal can be further connected to

other ideologies concerning languages. The idea that languages all have ‘standard’

varieties closely ties to the idea that language varieties can be put in hierarchical orders,

as proposed in the hierarchy of languages (Weber & Horner, 2012). According to this

belief, certain varieties are more highly valued, and ‘languages’ are considered more

valuable than ‘dialects’ or ‘sociolects’, etc. (Weber & Horner, 2012). Since the standard

variety is what people most commonly encounter (Siegel, 2006; Weber & Horner, 2012),

as previously stated, this variety can be considered higher in the hierarchy than non-

standard varieties.

As many textbooks portray English not as a means for international communication but

rather as a tool for communicating with NS (Kiczkowiak, 2019), it is not unlikely that

ideological perspectives such as the one-nation-one-language ideology or the mother

tongue ideology are traceable in language textbooks. The first equates language with

territory, emphasizing the connection between language and national identity, whereas

the latter is the belief that speakers have merely one mother tongue (Weber & Horner,

2012). The mother tongue ideology is considered problematic since it encourages the idea

of ‘the native speaker’, which can result in a perception of NNS as lesser, while also

assuming “a norm of monolingualism” (Weber & Horner, 2012, pp. 18-19). The native

speaker ideal can further be distinguished in ideologies such as the ideology of purism,

which supports the idea that some speakers of a language have an accent or dialect

whereas others do not; having an accent is believed to be connected with the lower class

and/or foreign language learners (Weber & Horner, 2012). The standard variety of a

language is also perceived to carry higher value than other varieties (Siegel, 2006). Alike

the standard language ideology, the ideology of purism supports the idea that the standard

variety should be taught in schools, whereas other varieties should not (Siegel, 2006).

Therefore, the ideology may influence teaching materials.

The preference of a standard variety and NS can also be connected to Bourdieusian theory

and the concepts of legitimate speakers, linguistic capital and linguistic

markets. Legitimate speakers of a language are perceived as those who own this

language; it is the legitimate speaker who sets the language norms (Bourdieu, 1977).

6

Bourdieu (1977, p. 650) further connects this to the school domain by stating that school

“imposes the legitimate forms of discourse and the idea that a discourse should be

recognized if and only if it conforms to the legitimate norms”. Bourdieu (1991) defines

linguistic capital as the linguistic resources speakers encompass, which are valued

differently depending on the context of use, that is, within different linguistic markets.

Some varieties of a language can be seen as more legitimate in certain contexts, such as

within the educational domain (Heller, 1996). In educational discourse a more formal

register may be valued higher than an informal register, for instance. However,

simultaneously, some varieties may be more useful in contexts outside of the educational

domain, which is why it might be important to acquire several registers within a language.

Grammars, textbooks, and dictionaries strengthen the idea of who the legitimate speaker

of English is, both through actual language use and through the cultures and people

represented within the materials (Lundahl, 2014). This is not only the case in Sweden, but

worldwide. To exemplify, Lanehart (1998, p. 132, as cited in Siegel, 2006, pp. 162-163)

highlights that the standard variety of English has come to be considered ‘white’ by

marginalized groups in society. This may be because few varieties other than standard

varieties are used within the school domain, and that this domain for a long time was

secluded to the white population. Thus, this entails that the legitimate speaker of the

standard variety of English, to many, equals being white. Once again, this supports that

evaluation of language use within the school domain and, as such, evaluation of teaching

materials, is of utmost importance since it may affect peoples’ perceptions of speakers of

English.

2.3 Problematizing Textbooks

Textbooks constitute primary sources for planning and conducting lessons worldwide

(Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Curdt-Christiansen & Weninger, 2015; Curdt-Christiansen,

2017). They function as a “cornerstone for knowledge transmission, literacy education,

enculturation and socialisation” (Curdt-Christiansen, 2017). For many, the textbook is

considered both a secure and time-efficient tool that works as a solid basis in the everyday

profession (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994). Textbooks also enable students to practice and

develop their language skills without the help of the teacher and may provide a structure

for language learning (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994). Yet, researchers stress that some

aspects of textbook usage can be deemed problematic.

There has been extensive research on textbook design and content, and a majority of

publications have posed criticism towards textbook usage (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994).

One problematic aspect that has been emphasized centers on teachers potentially leaning

on textbooks completely in their teaching, without considering that the convictions of the

textbooks’ authors might have influenced its content (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Curdt-

Christiansen, 2017). Another aspect that has been given attention to and been deemed

problematic is the authenticity of textbook content, which is believed to be of importance

when preparing students for the real world as well as helping students in their language

learning (Siegel, 2014). Furthermore, some argue that textbook materials need to

accommodate the current reality of Englishes, which can only be accomplished by

including a broader variety of speakers, as well as more linguistic diversity than what is

often the case today (Kiczkowiak, 2019). Only by moving beyond representation of

merely BrE and AmE, as well as incorporating successful speakers of English as a Lingua

Franca rather than solely ‘natives’, can textbooks actually work to tackle native

speakerism (Kiczkowiak, 2019).

7

Moreover, concerning linguistic variation in ELT and teaching materials, these practices

can take either a prescriptive or a descriptive stance (Lundahl, 2014). A prescriptive

stance entails that a certain framework of linguistic rules that should be complied with is

set, whereas the second refers to merely describing how language is used and adapted

depending on the interlocutors and situations (Lundahl, 2014). Although it may be

valuable to adopt a prescriptive perspective on ELT in the very first stages of learning,

the instruction should move towards a more descriptive nature where different kinds of

Englishes are emphasized in order to foster understanding and comprehension of the

target language as students become more proficient (Lundahl, 2014). Following

Lundahl’s (2014) reasoning, more advanced materials should, therefore, offer a more

varied perspective on English. Hence, as the present study involves itself in examining

textbooks intended for upper secondary school, it should be possible to expect a wider

representation of Englishes.

Taking the benefits and problematic aspects of textbooks into consideration, the

importance of evaluating textbooks is evident. Textbooks can be said to be mediums

through which ideologies are being distributed and enforced, and may in turn color

learners’ perception of, or attitude towards, different speakers and languages (Curdt-

Christiansen & Weninger, 2015). This demonstrates the importance of teacher awareness

concerning textbook content and design. Curdt-Christiansen and Weninger (2015) further

emphasize that language teachers have a certain responsibility when it comes to exposing

the underlying meaning of texts that they use with students. However, although textbooks

are argued to encompass a hidden curriculum that may create and reinforce stereotypical

representations through the content of the textbook, not many teachers are aware of what

messages the materials they use carry (Kamasak, Ozbilgin & Atay, 2020).

2.4 Previous Studies

Although research on linguistic variation in ELT/EFL-textbooks has been scarce in the

Swedish context, there are examples of studies similar to the present one outside of

Sweden. Heinrich (2005) conducted a study in Japan where he examined how Japanese

is portrayed in Japanese as a foreign language (JFL) teaching materials in order to

distinguish language ideological perspectives within them (Heinrich, 2005). Heinrich

(2005) argued that materials used in JFL-instruction romanticize standard Japanese,

expecting learners to aim towards acquiring this variety. The study’s findings show that

language ideologies serve two purposes in the materials: first, they encourage proficiency

within a specific variety and, second, they “limit and prohibit deviations from the norms

of these varieties, registers and styles” (Heinrich, 2005, pp. 225-226). Heinrich (2005)

concluded that instruction aimed towards native-like proficiency creates unequal power

relations between NS and foreign language learners of Japanese, demanding not only that

JFL speakers learn the language but that they learn and adhere to the cultural norms of

the NS.

In addition, Ping (2015) studied ideologies in English textbooks in China. Ping (2015)

discusses how ideologies embedded in teaching materials can influence children’s

perspectives on culture. The study relies on content and text analysis for the collection

and analysis of data (Ping, 2015). The findings show that the representation of cultures in

the textbooks was unequal, since nations belonging to Kachru’s (1985) inner circle of

English as well as Chinese culture were more prominent than countries where English is

not spoken as a native language (Ping, 2015). Furthermore, Ping (2015) argues that since

8

the cultural representation is limited in the textbooks, the material also “fails to reflect the

cultural diversity of English as an international language” (pp. 176-177).

Similarly, Curdt-Christiansen (2015, p. 129) examined “ideological tensions and

contradictions between educational reforms, policy decisions” and English teaching

materials aimed towards Lower Primary school in Singapore. Curdt-Christiansen (2015)

describes English as an important language in Singapore, functioning as a fundamental

means for communication in diverse domains. The study aims to investigate

representation and text-choice in textbooks (Curdt-Christiansen, 2015). In the study,

Curdt-Christiansen (2015) found that local and global culture were unequally represented

in textbooks, and that Western culture was idealized. Moreover, Curdt-Christiansen

(2015, p. 143) argued that this failure in representation could further lead to “a continued

linguistic and cultural colonization”.

The three studies mentioned above demonstrate the importance and value of evaluating

textbooks, since they show that textbooks function as carriers of ideological values and

ideas about proper language proficiency. However, since none of the studies mentioned

apply to the Swedish context, the present study can be argued to be both relevant and

needed.

3. Method and Materials

This section presents the methodological framework and the primary material of the

study. However, prior to presenting the method, it is necessary to distinguish between

two terms that are central to its analysis: standard and non-standard English. Drawing on

the definition provided by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (2020a), this study

perceives standard English as widely accepted by English speakers worldwide, and “with

respect to spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary [it] is substantially uniform”.

Although there are several ’standard’ varieties of English, the term is primarily used as a

reference to standard BrE or AmE for the purpose of this paper, since these are the most

common varieties encountered in European school settings (Modiano, 2009). On the

contrary, the term non-standard refers to varieties that separate themselves from standard

varieties in terms of grammatical, lexical or pronunciational features (Merriam-Webster,

2020b).

3.1 Theoretical Framework for Data Elicitation and Analysis

This study fundamentally relies upon content analysis (CTA), which is an analytical

approach used to study both written text and, for instance, interviews (Prior, 2014; Drisko

& Machi, 2015). In this study, a triangulation of data sets is made through a combination

of textbook analysis and interviews (Groom & Littlemore, 2011). Since the two

approaches to the subject at hand differ, they complement each other and provide the

study with “a more rounded view” on the matter (Groom & Littlemore, 2011, p. 79). The

two datasets are connected through a common focus, which in this case equals the theme

of linguistic variation. CTA can be focused on diverse units of analysis, and in this study

the units of analysis in both the interviews and textbooks concern the previously

mentioned theme; however, the textbook analysis also considers lexical items and

grammatical constructions.

9

CTA refers to a set of research techniques that allow the researcher to both make use of

quantitative data and make qualitative inferences out of that data (Prior, 2014; Drisko &

Machi, 2015). This particular study will combine basic CTA with interpretive CTA while

analyzing textbooks and interview data. Basic CTA is defined as an approach of a

quantitative nature, which “predominantly address[es] literal communication content”

(Drisko & Machi, 2015, p. 3). One way to utilize this is to record the frequency of a

phenomenon, which will be the main focus in the present textbook analysis. Basic CTA

is primarily concerned with manifest content, i.e. “what is overtly, literally, present in

communication” (Drisko & Machi, 2015, p. 2). Hence, this is what will be used in order

to determine the linguistic variation that can actually be found in the textbooks that are

being studied. Moreover, interpretive CTA refers to another approach within CTA which

allows the researcher to make inferences from the texts that are examined (Drisko &

Machi, 2015). Interpretive CTA is interested in both manifest and latent content, i.e.

“content that is not overtly evident in a communication” (Drisko & Machi, 2015, p. 4).

3.2 Textbook Analysis

In this section, the method and the primary material used for the textbook analysis is

presented in order to ensure transparency and enable transferability of the study

(Bengtsson, 2016; Ali & Yosuf, 2011).

3.2.1 Method for Analysis

To answer the research questions directed at textbook content, basic CTA was employed

by studying both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the textbooks. In order to answer

research question 1, “What kind of linguistic variation appears in EFL textbooks (i.e.

geolectal, sociolectal, etc)?”, CTA was used to distinguish what linguistic variation can

be deciphered both implicitly and explicitly within the textbooks. To that end, the study

draws upon Table 1 (see Appendix A), ensuring consistency in the data elicitation (Ali &

Yosuf, 2011). In this Table, analysis criteria are listed, incorporating distinctive features

of BrE and AmE. To distinguish what linguistic variation is displayed within the

textbooks, all texts will be analyzed with regard to their use of BrE or AmE, or if the

variety used differs from these two varieties. The reason why BrE and AmE constitute

the reference points is because these varieties are most commonly taught in European

schools (Modiano, 2009).

It should be noted that the distinctive features that are prominent in the analysis criteria

draw upon the work of Estling Vanneståhl (2007), Modiano (2008) and Algeo (2010).

The features distinguished in the criteria are intended to show the differences that may

exist between BrE and AmE in spelling and grammar but, as stated by Modiano (2008),

there are exceptions to the different spelling and grammar norms listed. The Table is

primarily meant to exemplify differences in order to enable an analysis. Furthermore,

although some features that can be found in AmE are slowly gaining ground within BrE

writing, they are still more common in AmE than in BrE (Modiano, 2008). Modiano

(2008) further provides an extensive list of lexical differences between BrE and AmE

and, when differences in spelling or grammar cannot distinguish the variety used, this list

will be used as a reference point to establish what variety the text can be said to exemplify.

If needed, dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster online and Dalzell & Victor (2013) will

also be used as reference points in the analysis.

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the textbook analysis does not consider audio

recordings, due to the scope of the study and since recordings are not available online for

10

both textbooks; however, reading and listening exercises are analyzed to identify any

explicit references made to other varieties than BrE and AmE. Through this, the focus of

both written and spoken text is arguably elicited, i.e. if the intention of the exercises that

accompany the excerpts/recordings is to direct the students’ attention towards the content

or the style/variety of English.

To answer research question 2, “What kind of speakers/situations appear in connection to

the linguistic variation?”, any differences between speakers of BrE, AmE and other

English varieties will be distinguished. Thus, the characters of the textbooks, and the

situations they appear in, will be noted together with their linguistic information. The

analysis of the characters considers information that emerges both from the written text

and pictures that accompany the texts, such as occupations and other attributes.

Research question 3, “What kind of meanings can be derived from the way the different

characters and linguistic varieties are presented and connected?”, will be answered

through studying the data gathered to answer research question 1 and 2, as well as by

investigating in what ways varieties other than standard varieties of English are presented.

Thus, drawing from the context that non-standard varieties appear in and the vocabulary

used to describe them, the intention is to expose underlying meanings of the

representations provided in the textbooks, since the portrayal of a variety’s speakers may

reflect attitudes towards the variety itself.

3.2.2 Primary Material

The two textbooks analyzed are Blueprint A 3.0 (Lundfall & Nyström, 2017) and

Viewpoints 1 (Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017). Since there are no official statistics

concerning which textbooks are most commonly used in Swedish schools, the primary

material was chosen based on their publishing dates and personal experience of the

textbooks on behalf of the researcher. Personal experience entails having observed other

teachers using these textbooks during practicum periods during the teacher training

program. Both textbooks were recently published at the time of the study and are intended

for the English 5 course in Swedish upper secondary school (Lundfall & Nyström 2017;

Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017). Moreover, in both textbooks, the preface indicates that texts

and exercises included are authentic and intended to develop students’ knowledge in and

comprehension of the English language (Lundfall & Nyström 2017; Gustafsson &

Wivast, 2017).

Blueprint A 3.0, hereafter referred to as Blueprint, consists of seven chapters,

incorporating both fictional and non-fictional written texts, including news articles,

excerpts from movie scripts and books, short stories, comic strips and poems (Lundfall

& Nyström, 2017). All texts and recordings are accompanied by exercises with questions

that may help the students reflect over the texts and listening tasks (Lundfall & Nyström,

2017). Moreover, the last part of the book, called the blue pages, further helps students

develop knowledge of language conventions, writing genres and grammar (Lundfall &

Nyström, 2017).

Viewpoints 1, hereafter referred to as Viewpoints, is divided into five main themes,

comprising 21 chapters in total (Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017). The textbook includes texts

spanning over diverse genres including poems, song lyrics, new articles, novels and

biographies (Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017). Thus, it incorporates both fictional and non-

fictional texts. Each chapter also includes exercises with questions accompanying the

texts and the recordings that the students can listen to together with the teacher

(Gustafsson & Wivast, 2017).

11

3.3 Interviews

The study’s final research question, “What perspectives do ELT teachers have on

linguistic variation in English (i.e. in ELT teaching and textbooks)?”, will be answered

through the use of interviews with teachers of English, currently working within Swedish

upper secondary school. The interviews work to triangulate the data gathered through the

textbook analysis, which in turn strengthens the credibility and dependability of the

findings (Ali & Yosuf, 2011; Bengtsson, 2016).

3.3.1 Interview Method

In total, three interviews were conducted. To locate participants, an inquiry was made

through three Facebook groups aimed towards English teachers working within Swedish

upper secondary school, as well as through private channels such as emails to contacts

working in upper secondary schools in Stockholm. The Facebook inquiry did not yield

any answers; however, three participants were found through private channels and, as

such, these people became the interviewees of the study.

The interviews were semi-structured (Groom & Littlemore, 2011), utilizing a set of

questions (see Appendix B) as basis for the interviews; however, additional questions and

requests for elaborations were made where the interviewer saw fit during the interviews.

All questions were carefully considered as to avoid bias or affecting the participants’

answers (Groom & Littlemore, 2011). Before the interviews were conducted, a pilot

interview was held. This pilot was conducted to identify possible problematic areas of the

questions that could be in need of revision such as, for instance, if the questions were

misinterpreted by the interviewee. The pilot interview also made it easier to identify any

tendentious questions, which lessened the risk of directing the interviewees towards

answering in a particular way (Codó, 2008). The pilot interview showed that some

questions were vaguely phrased, which resulted in revision of said questions in order to

direct the participants towards the subject of interest.

The interview comprised three parts: Background Questions, Questions Regarding

Linguistic Variation in Teaching, and Questions Regarding Textbooks. All interviews

were audio recorded, and all participants were asked to give their verbal consent to this

at the time of the interviews. Since the purpose of the present study is not to analyze how

the participants speak but rather what they say, the transcription of the interviews does

not make note of dialectal differences, intonation or body language. However, by

recording the interviews, giving a correct account of what the participants said became

easier (Groom & Littlemore, 2011).

3.3.2 Participants

Three individuals partook in the interviews of the study. Table 2 introduces each

participant briefly drawing on their accounts concerning their experiences as EFL-

teachers. In order to ensure anonymity, any names or references to specific places have

been removed. The teachers will be referred to as Alice, Lily and Signe.

12

Table 2. Description of Participants.

Teacher Years in the

profession

Experience with

textbooks

Teacher training with focus

on linguistic variation in ELT

Alice • 22 years in the

profession

• 8 out of 22 years

in Sweden.

• Extensive experience

outside of Sweden.

• Limited use of

textbooks in Sweden.

• No.

Lily • 9 years in the

profession.

• Limited use of

textbooks.

• ELT-Textbooks

used: Magic, What’s

up, Good stuff,

Blueprint, Core.

• Other Textbooks:

Passport to (focused

on specific

countries).

• Yes.

Signe • 29 years in the

profession.

• 26 out of 29 years

in Sweden.

• Extensive experience

with textbooks.

• Uses them to

complement other

materials.

• Yes.

3.3.3 Ethical Considerations

Since this study deals with human participants, there are ethical aspects to consider when

planning and conducting data collection. Informed consent is an important aspect in

research ethics (Dörnyei, 2007); therefore, all participants were informed of the study’s

aim through an information sheet (see Appendix C) and asked to fill out a consent form

(see Appendix D) before participating. This provided them with an assurance that their

answers would only be used for the purpose of the research. Furthermore, it is also

important to assure participants that participation is completely voluntary (Dörnyei,

2007). To that end, the information sheet stated that participants could withdraw from the

study at any given time. All participants were further informed that, if they so wished,

they would be able to take part of the final product of the study. Through this, they are

given the chance to correct things they believe are wrongfully presented in the

transcriptions of the interviews (Groom & Littlemore, 2011). Finally, another ethical

consideration concerns the participants’ personal data (Dörnyei, 2007). The information

participants provide as well as their personal information needs to be handled

confidentially by the researcher (Dörnyei, 2007), which is why confidentiality and

anonymity was emphasized in the information sheet. The promise of anonymity is also

the reason why all references to specific places and names made in the interviews are

removed from the transcriptions used in the study.

4. Results

The findings of the study are presented in two separate sections: first, the textbook data

and second, the interview data.

13

4.1 Textbook Data

4.1.1 Linguistic Variation as Shown in the Text

The textbook analysis showed limited linguistic variation. In Blueprint, a total of 42 texts

with accompanying exercises were analyzed in order to locate any examples of English

varieties that follow different rules in grammar or spelling than standard BrE or AmE, as

well as words that do not typically appear in BrE or AmE. In Viewpoints, 22 texts and

accompanying exercises were analyzed. The texts and exercises were also studied in order

to identify any explicit references to other, non-standard varieties of English. As shown

in Table 3, only 13 in-text examples could be found of non-standard varieties in Blueprint,

whereas 18 in-text examples were identified in Viewpoints. It should be noted that if

several examples of the same variety occurred in a text, these have been grouped in the

Table and are, thus, counted as one example.

Table 3. Description of texts analyzed with regards to explicit and implicit references to linguistic

variation.

Textbook:

Analyzed

texts

(in total):

Examples of

non-standard

varieties in text

(UK/ US):

Examples of

non-

standard

varieties

in text (non-

British/non-

American):

Explicit

references to

non-standard

varieties of

English:

Other languages

mentioned/

exemplified

in texts:

Blueprint A

3.0

42

10 (vocabulary,

slang)

2 (grammar)

1

2

2 (Swedish and

Arabic).

Viewpoints 1

22

15 (vocabulary,

slang)

1 (grammar)

2

1

3 (Swedish, Urdu

and Yorùbá).

The in-text examples could be deciphered through non-standard grammar conventions,

and vocabulary. For instance, in Blueprint, two examples of non-standard grammar were

identified where the use of double negation is used and where the speaker uses the subject

pronoun “they” instead of the possessive pronoun “their”:

I didn’t get no answers. (McKenna, 1998, as cited in Blueprint, 2017, p. 225)

Only three things them ladies talk about: they kids, they clothes, and they friends. (Stockett,

2009, as cited in Blueprint, 2017, p. 211)

In Viewpoints, there were also instances in one text where double negation, which is

typical for AAE, was used. Viewpoints also includes an example where the modal

auxiliary verb “would” is omitted from a sentence uttered by a character who also made

use of vocabulary typical for Nigerian English, resulting in it breaking the standard word

order in English of subject, verb and object.

I [would] never bring a child there. (Allen, 2012, as cited in Viewpoints, 2017, p. 127)

14

Regarding the lexical items, both textbooks show examples of non-standard vocabulary

in the form of slang, that could be used in any English variety, but that originates from

the UK or the US (Dalzell & Victor, 2013). Moreover, in Viewpoints there is one text

where three examples of Nigerian English vocabulary could be found and in

Blueprint, examples of Scottish and Irish slang were identified. In Viewpoints, the

examples shown were of Nigerian English. The utterances “wahala” (Nigerian English

for problem), “oga” (Nigerian English for boss) and “you dey craze” (Nigerian English

for You are crazy), are used in the text and explicitly defined in the margins (Viewpoints,

2017, pp. 124-127). In Blueprint, the word “Gick” occurs, which is Irish slang for

“excrement” (Dalzell & Victor, 2013, p. 985). The word “Ilk” also occurred which,

according to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary (2020c), is a word used as a noun or a

pronoun to describe people of the same kind, primarily used in Scotland. However, it

should be noted that the non-standard variety words are not described as Irish or Scottish

words in Blueprint.

Moreover, both textbooks showed evidence of direct references made to varieties of

English other than BrE and AmE, as is shown in Table 3. In Blueprint, these references

were made in questions accompanying the text. The first explicit reference was made to

Geordie dialect, a British accent, in connection to a listening exercise, and the second

explicit reference was made to Ebonics, or AAE, in connection to an excerpt of the book

The Help. In Viewpoints, only one explicit reference was identified, and this reference to

Nigerian English was made in the margins of an excerpt from the book Ibarajo Road.

Furthermore, both textbooks made references to other languages such as Swedish, Arabic,

Urdu and Yorùbá.

In addition, neither the Irish nor the Scottish slang words were discussed explicitly in

Blueprint; however, both the example of AAE and Geordie dialect were mentioned in

questions accompanying the text/listening exercise. When the Geordie dialect is

mentioned, the question posed is focused on where in England this specific dialect is

spoken, whereas when the example of AAE is highlighted, it is explicitly referred to as

differing from Standard English:

Aibileen, the narrator of The Help, is not telling the story in Standard English, but in Ebonics,

or African American English. Look closely at the text and describe some typical features of

Ebonics. (Blueprint, 2017, p. 216)

As far as the explicit reference made to Nigerian English in Viewpoints goes, no further

discussion is made regarding the variety in the exercises accompanying the text.

One major difference between the two textbooks is that Blueprint actually includes a text

specifically written about English in the world whereas Viewpoints does not. In the text,

it is explained that there are about 350-400 million NS of English in the world.

Additionally, the text highlights that English is either an official language or used as a

primary language in 57 countries in Africa and Asia, and that it is used as a common

language by “many non-English speakers all over the world” (Blueprint, 2017, p. 105).

The text also emphasizes that English is the native mother tongue in certain countries:

English is the native mother tongue of only Britain, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, New

Zealand and a handful of Caribbean countries. (Blueprint, 2017, p. 105)

Although the text emphasizes that English is a broader concept than only a native

language to a few selected speakers in the world, it does not give examples of nor mention

that these Englishes may differ in grammatical structure, spelling or lexical items.

15

4.1.2 Representation of Speakers in the Textbooks

In this section, the findings concerning both the speakers and the meanings that can be

derived from their representation are presented. Although there were few references to

non-standard varieties in either of the two books, both textbooks include speakers of non-

standard varieties and characters from other English-speaking countries than the US and

the UK (see Table 4).

Table 4. Description of characters in textbooks.

Textbook:

Character

s

(in total):

Speakers

of

standard

varieties:

Speakers of

non-

standard

varieties

(British/

American):

Speakers

of

non-

standard

varieties

(non-

British/non-

American):

Characters

from other

countries

than

the US/UK:

Characters

with

unspecified

origin.

Blueprint A

3.0

68

36

9

0

6

20

Viewpoints

1

57

39

9

1

13

27

In total, Blueprint incorporates 68 characters, whereas Viewpoints incorporates 57. It

should be noted that, instances where a group of people are described as doing or saying

something without any explicit mentions of how many characters actually comprise the

group have been counted as 1 character. Moreover, not all texts that were included in the

analysis incorporate characters, since some texts were non-fictional, and all characters do

not actively ‘speak’ in the excerpts. Out of the 68 characters included in Blueprint, 36

characters do speak standard varieties of English throughout the excerpt and 9 speak non-

standard varieties in the written text. In Table 4, non-standard speakers have further been

divided into two groups: speakers of non-standard varieties that originate in countries

other than the US/UK and speakers of non-standard varieties that originate in the US or

the UK. Thus, 9 characters who speak British or American slang, or use the grammatical

structure of, for instance, AAE could be found in Blueprint. Furthermore, out of the 68

characters, 6 characters come from other countries than the US/UK and 20 characters

have an unspecified origin. In Viewpoints, 39 out of 57 characters speak standard varieties

of English throughout the excerpts, whereas 10 speak non-standard varieties. Out of the

10 speakers who use a non-standard variety, only 1 spoke a non-standard variety that

could be traced outside of the US or the UK, namely Nigerian English. A total of 13

characters in Viewpoints originate from countries other than the US or the UK and 27

characters have an unspecified origin.

Interestingly enough, when analyzing the non-standard speakers in Blueprint a bit more

closely, it can be seen that the instances where the text diverges from standard variety

conventions in grammar both adhere to the grammatical structures deemed typical for

AAE. Additionally, both speakers of these instances are black. However, in the instances

16

where slang-words could be found, 6 of the characters using them are visually implied to

be white, since the pictures that accompany these texts portray white people.

Regarding the characters’ identities, much focus is given to their occupations and other

attributes, although it should be underlined that all characters do not work. When

identifying the occupations/attributes of standard-variety speakers and non-standard

variety speakers, as well as people from other countries than the US and the UK, some

differences emerge (see Table 5).

Table 5. Characters and occupations/attributes.

Textbook:

Occupation/attribute

of standard variety

speakers:

Occupation/attribute

of non-standard

variety speakers:

Occupation/attribute of

characters from other

countries:

Blueprint A 3.0

Barrister, counsel,

criminal, exchange

student, professional

fighter, footballer,

founder of #BLM

movement, human

rights activist, judge,

mall worker, model,

psychiatrist, religious

enthusiast, student,

summer camp attendee.

Footballer, mall

worker, marketing

guru, teacher, maid,

white supremacist

leader.

Advertising agents for the

Devil, shoplifters.

Viewpoints 1

Detective, editor,

human rights defender,

journalist, politician,

principal, school

psychologist, school

guidance counsellor,

student, teacher.

Criminal, driver for

criminal, journalist,

student.

Child mercenary, human

rights defender, human

trafficker, journalist, refuge

worker.

Evidently, standard-variety speakers have a broader spectrum of occupations and

attributes than non-standard variety speakers and characters from other countries in both

textbooks. However, the number of occupations listed for standard versus non-standard

variety speakers is arguably affected by the fact that there are less non-standard speakers

than standard speakers in total in both textbooks.

Moreover, although there are instances where characters from the UK/US have attributes

that may be considered “problematic” as, for instance, the example of a criminal in

Blueprint, these are not solely portraying these characters from a negative perspective.

For instance, the listening exercise about a criminal in Blueprint is actually a success

story, about the criminal who turned his life around after going to prison, drawing from

the questions accompanying the story. Additionally, the story about the American white

supremacist leader in Blueprint, who uses American slang, is also a story of change,

where the individual in question changes his perspective from one of hatred to one of

understanding. Interestingly enough, when characters are described as originating from

other countries than the UK/US, they do not appear to change their ways: the advertising

agents from Canada listen to the Devil as he explains his plan for making Hell more

attractive to humans, and the shoplifters from Dublin do not seem to stop their activities.

As far as Viewpoints ventures, neither the child mercenary from Colombia nor the human

17

trafficker from a made-up country change their ways in the stories they appear in; the

child mercenary kills his friend’s uncle and the human trafficker is killed while trying to

prevent the other characters from helping his victims.

Lastly, in both textbooks, all texts that are not written by the textbook’s authors

themselves are accompanied with direct references to the specific author who wrote the

excerpt. Since the authors that are represented in the textbook can also be argued to have

the function of representing English speakers, these were also included in the analysis.

Thus, Table 6 provides information about the origin of all authors whose works are

represented in the textbook; however, the authors of the actual textbooks are not

represented in the Table below.

Table 6. Nationality of authors represented in textbooks.

Textbook:

Authors

from the

UK

Authors

from the US

Authors with other

nationality

Authors with

unknown

nationality

Blueprint A 3.0

4

13

5 (Australia, Malawi, Ireland,

Kenya/Somalia)

2 (British-American)

1

Viewpoints 1

19

3

1 (Iraq)

3

4.2 Interviews

4.2.1 Regarding Linguistic Diversity in ELT

In the interviews, all three teachers were asked whether or not they believe there is a

preferred variety of English in teaching today, despite no distinction being made in the

curriculum anymore, and the answers differed immensely. Alice reports that she does not

perceive any variety to be better thought of than another; however, both Lily and Signe

claim that there still are certain preferences. Lily says that she believes most teachers

mainly care about if students commit to one variety or several, i.e. a student should

commit to one variety’s spelling conventions, for instance. However, Lily maintains that

she believes pronunciation to be of less importance nowadays. Signe, on the other hand,

reports that she believes that there has been and still is some preference for BrE in Sweden

up until this day, but that this is changing slowly. For instance, Signe argues that more

and more attention is given to Englishes around the world, and that non-western cultures

and countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan are being mentioned more often.

One interesting finding that emerges through the interviews revolves around the teachers’

perception of their students’ awareness of World Englishes. Lily highlights that students

are mostly inclined to use AmE themselves, which she believes is a result of exposure

through television, magazines, tweets and social media. Moreover, Lily also states that

she experiences that students have difficulties to identify varieties other than AmE:

American the most. British in the second place. And everything else is a bit of a blur to them.

Sometimes they hear Australian English and they think it’s British… So, everything is blurry

below American.

18

Signe also accounts for her students, stating that not only do they seem to be aware of

certain varieties mainly, but they also consider some particular varieties to be “real

English” whereas others are not:

We are talking about English from … non-western cultures and countries, you know, like

Nigeria, Pakistan, and I still find that that issue comes up in my classroom - that the students

question ‘Why are we learning these dialects? They’re not the real English’.

Alice’s narrative concurs with the previous statements, saying that students are mostly

exposed to different varieties of English outside the school domain, and that within the

school domain, focus is mainly on BrE and AmE.

The teachers were further asked about whether or not they find it difficult to include

different varieties of English in their instruction, as well as what possible benefits or

downsides they could see with including a wider range of Englishes in instruction. The

answers provided differ immensely here too. Alice states that she does not think about

including varieties to any greater extent in her teaching, since students are exposed to and

learn about other varieties through movies, for instance. However, she states that she

believes learning about varieties is important.

Lily, on the other hand, claims that although she actively tries to include a variation, it is

difficult since a majority of the materials found online and materials such as textbooks

are focused on BrE or AmE. Moreover, Lily states that since she is encouraged to work

across subjects, it becomes even more difficult to find material that is both easily

combined with other subjects as well as offers a broad variation of Englishes. She

emphasizes that it would be much easier to incorporate different varieties if materials

included diverse Englishes while the focus is not primarily on specific countries, but

rather on themes such as society, politics, history or LGBTQ questions, etc. Lily further

states that:

The benefit [of exposing students to different varieties] is that it increases their understanding

which is the whole point of our course; to understand English is to understand that there are

different kinds of English, and American is not the only one. So it is increasing not only their

understanding of the world but also increasing their actual literal understanding of when an

Australian starts speaking to them. And instead of reacting like ‘Oh, uh, what’s this English?

it’s more ‘Oh! Australian!’.

Simultaneously, Lily stresses that nowadays, it may not be that important to actually be

able to identify where a speaker is from, but rather to be able to understand the variety

and have a positive reaction towards it.

Lastly, Signe follows the same track as Lily and Alice, in that she believes that it is

important that students learn about the different varieties of English that they may

encounter out in the world since this enables comprehension. However, Signe claims that

a certain responsibility lies with the teacher, which has to do with stressing

appropriateness in language choice, i.e. if the students learn about slang, for instance, they

also need to be instructed when to not use that kind of language. At the same time, Signe

argues that finding material that incorporates linguistic variation is not a problem, due to

the abundance of material available through the internet consisting of poetry, movies,

song lyrics and other texts.

4.2.2 Perspectives on ELT-textbooks

When the teachers were asked about their perception of linguistic variation in textbooks,

the answers given pointed mainly towards that textbooks show limited representation.

19

Lily stated that in her experience, textbooks rarely cater for the linguistic diversity of

English. Although Lily withholds that some books are more linguistically varied, most

textbooks she encountered focus primarily on BrE and AmE. Because of this lack of

diversity, Lily says that she has turned to books not primarily focused on teaching the

English language, but rather focused on teaching students about different countries.

Through these books, Lily claims to have found a way to better introduce World Englishes

to her students than if she would have used a typical textbook, since she can choose certain

parts from different books and combine them in order to teach students about English

varieties.

Furthermore, Signe emphasizes that textbook content is highly dependent on the authors

and the time-period the books are written in. Signe also argues that:

If it’s a Swedish company that published it, there’s almost always British writers or, you know,

when you look at their credentials they have been educated in the British system. I have yet to

see many books that have Canadian writers, or writers from North America or Australia. Most

of them are like, a combination of British and Swedish writers, and … that’s a problem …

Because they’re not wrong, it’s not wrong, but it’s just closing the spectrum a little bit when

you offer that … there needs to be more diversity in writers or teachers wanting to write

textbooks.

When Signe is asked about ideas for improving textbook design with regards to linguistic

diversity, she further adds that focus should not be on countries such as the UK, but that

texts and fiction from other parts of the world such as Nigeria also should be taken into

account. Through this, Signe states that textbooks would better illustrate the width of the

English language.

One interesting finding that separates itself from the rest is that Alice states that she has

not thought of the linguistic variation that is included in textbooks. Alice reports that she

is uncertain as to whether or not it is an active choice on the part of the author to include

certain texts, while simultaneously excluding others. Moreover, Alice further elaborates:

Well, I think that textbooks, maybe they are doing that with purpose, I don’t know, having a

variety of dialects and they pick up different texts, so, maybe textbooks are much better to use

rather than me creating a new task, a new assignment for the students, because I don’t think

about that matter. I don’t think about the words or the dialect that I should use in my

assignments. So, maybe it is better with the textbooks of course. Because they are more carefully

fixed and designed.

Although Alice creates most of her material herself, the excerpt shows that she relies on

the material in the textbooks to be carefully considered in order to show diversity.

5. Discussion

In this section, the study’s results are discussed in light of the four research questions first

posed in this study, as well as previous literature within the field of World Englishes and

ELT/EFL. Overall, the findings of the study suggest not only that ideas of native

speakerism and, simultaneously, legitimate speakers of English are present but also

linguistic ideologies. It should be noted that, since the third research question “what kind

of meanings can be derived from the way the different characters and linguistic varieties

are presented and connected?” is closely intertwined with both research question 1 and 2,

the third question will be answered in connection with these two.

20

The first research question addressed in the study was “what kind of linguistic variation

appears in EFL textbooks (i.e. geolectal, sociolectal etc.)?”. As previously shown, the

linguistic variation represented in the textbooks is rather limited; yet, it is there. Although

the majority of the texts exemplify either standard BrE or AmE, there are examples of

both non-standard BrE and AmE, as well as non-standard varieties originating from parts

of the world other than the UK or the US. Examples that emerge from the analysis are for

instance Nigerian English and Irish, as well as AAE, Scottish and diverse lexical items in

the form of ‘slang’ descending from either the UK or the US. However, the fact still

remains: the main part of the linguistic representation in the two textbooks is either British

or American, regardless of whether one considers standard- or non-standard varieties of

the two. This finding is further supported by the results from the interviews, where all

three teachers who were interviewed reported that, drawing from their own experience,

textbooks rarely incorporate other varieties than BrE or AmE. Hence, the results from

both the textbook analysis and the interviews are still in accordance with what Modiano

(2009) highlights: Europeans are yet to be exposed to varieties other than BrE and AmE.

However, concerning the linguistic representation identified in the textbooks, the

portrayal of these suggests that the perception of BrE or AmE as ‘real English’ still

lingers, which Signe also emphasizes in the interviews. This indication is made when

Blueprint introduces a text concerning English in the world while reinforcing the divide

between NS and NNS nations. This suggests that not only is the ideological perspective

that equates nations with languages at play, but also the notion of that a ‘standard’ exists,

from which all other varieties deviate. Thus, the ideologies of one-nation-one-language

and the standard language ideology can be identified in this text (Weber & Horner, 2012).

As such, the findings of the present study can be argued to align with the findings from

previous studies (Heinrich, 2005; Ping, 2015; Curdt-Christiansen, 2015). The

representation of standard varieties clearly outweighs the representation of non-standards,

and, as a result, standard varieties seem to carry higher value.

In addition, different varieties exemplified in the textbooks seem to be implicitly

structured in a hierarchical order, showing traces of the hierarchy of languages ideology

(Weber & Horner, 2012). Since there is an overrepresentation of standard varieties of

AmE and BrE, these appear to be the most desirable ‘norms’ to follow; thus, the findings

support earlier research in that the native speaker ideal seems to persist in contemporary

teaching materials as well as that the textbooks’ primary focus seems to be preparing

students for encounters with NS (Kiczkowiak, 2019). However, there are also indications

of non-standard varieties being valued differently. As shown in the results, one explicit

reference is made to the Geordie dialect, in which the question directs the learner’s

attention to where in the UK this specific dialect is spoken. The next time an explicit

reference is made to a non-standard variety in the same textbook, it revolves around AAE,

and the question directs the student’s attention to in what manner this variety differs from

‘standard English’. This difference in what the two questions direct attention to may be

argued to indicate that AAE is, in fact, less similar to standard English than the Geordie

dialect. Furthermore, although there are examples of Irish and Scottish vocabulary in the

running text in parts of the textbook, these are not explicitly discussed. This may suggest

that the use of such vocabulary is not as conspicuous as the use of a grammatical structure

that clearly deviates from standard AmE such as AAE, which people tend to perceive as

a deficient form of English (Weber & Horner, 2012).

Needless to say, there are several problematic aspects concerning the linguistic

representation within the textbooks, and the representation of speakers is no exception.

When analyzing the characters and authors portrayed in the textbooks in order to answer

21

the second research question of the study concerning “what kind of speakers/situations

appear in connection to the linguistic variation?”, several interesting aspects appear. For

instance, out of a total of 125 characters analyzed, merely 19 speakers of non-standard

varieties could be found in Blueprint and Viewpoints together. As shown in the results,

out of all characters in both books, only one character who spoke a non-standard variety

that does not originate from the US or the UK could be identified, namely a character

speaking Nigerian English. All other characters who were speaking a non-standard

variety spoke a non-standard variety descending from the US or the UK. This does not

only imply that the interviewees’ reports from their own experiences with textbooks are

accurate with regards to the linguistic variation shown in textbooks they have used, but

also suggests that although there is variation in English, this variation is still primarily

considered to exist within the US and the UK, with extremely few exceptions. This

representation of speakers arguably reinforces the perspective of Englishes first proposed

by Kachru (1985), since it neglects the fact that the span of Englishes stretches far beyond

the nations of the inner circle, as shown by Weber and Horner (2012) and Seargeant

(2012).

Furthermore, the speakers of standard and non-standard varieties of English are portrayed

differently. Despite the fact that non-standard variety speakers outnumber standard

variety speakers of English today (Kiczkowiak, 2019), the textbooks clearly depict

standard variety speakers as more in numbers. Due to this, standard variety speakers are

also shown to hold a wider range of occupations than non-standard variety speakers in

both textbooks. Many of the occupations held by standard variety speakers do not only

result in a higher salary, but also put higher expectations on their holders in terms of

education, for instance. Thus, standard variety speakers appear not only to outnumber

their counterparts, but they also appear to be more diligent. This can be read as the type

of person others should aim to emulate and may, therefore, influence the perspective

readers of these textbooks have of English speakers around the world. This may result in

that the reader attains a predetermined view of certain people based on their

socioeconomic status and language choice, as in the case with standard varieties of

English being associated with ‘white people’ (Lanehart, 1998, p. 132, as cited in Siegel,

2006, pp. 162-163). It also indicates that traces of the ideology of purism are present

(Weber & Horner, 2012).

Additionally, although there is one example of a criminal amongst the standard variety

speakers, the example shows a different kind of storyline than what can be seen with the

criminal among the non-standard variety speakers. It exemplifies a success story where

the character changes his life after going to prison; it is really a rags-to-riches story.

However, drawing on the portrayal of non-standard variety speakers of English, and

characters from other countries than the US/UK, these speakers are easily considered

more problematic. Among these characters, the reader encounters criminals, child

mercenaries, advertising agents working for the Devil, and a white supremacist leader.

By showing one type of speaker from a primarily positive perspective whereas the other

type of speaker is portrayed in a more controversial manner, it can be interpreted that the

intention might be to persuade the reader that mimicking the first mentioned speaker is a

more worthwhile pursuit than mimicking the other. Simultaneously, it renders an unfair

picture of non-standard variety speakers of English to the readers of the textbooks. As

stated earlier, the idea of who constitutes the legitimate speaker of a language is reinforced

through the culture and the people presented in the materials, as well as the language

characters use in the materials (Lundahl, 2014). Hence, since non-standard speakers not

only speak less favored varieties of English but are also portrayed as ‘worse people’ than

22

standard variety speakers, non-standard variety speakers are depicted in a less favorable

manner and their way of speaking is made into an indication of this (Bourdieu, 1991).

The position of British and American speakers is further strengthened, since they

constitute the majority of the authors of the texts included in both textbooks. In Blueprint,

5 out of 25 authors beyond the writers of the actual textbook are non-British/non-

American, whereas in Viewpoint, only 1 out of 26 authors is non-British/non-American.

This may be an indication of which English varieties the authors or producers of the actual

textbooks deem more appropriate for the purpose of ELT. I.e. it can be seen as

communicating an idea of British and American speakers of English as more legitimate

speakers of English (Bourdieu, 1991). In light of Signe’s accounts, who argued that

textbooks produced by Swedish companies almost exclusively include British writers, the

findings from both from the textbook analysis and the interviews suggest that a preference

of certain English varieties still remains. Thus, in Bourdieusian (1991) terms, the market

of ELT in Sweden can still be considered to assign higher value to standard varieties of

English and, as a result, the works of authors who possess this linguistic capital are more

highly valued too.

Lastly, the study’s fourth research question was “what perspectives do EFL teachers have

on linguistic variation in English (i.e. in EFL teaching and textbooks)?” and as shown in

the discussion of the other research questions, the perspectives provided by the

interviewees largely correspond with the findings from the textbook analysis; however,

further insights emerged through the interviews. First, it can be argued that the findings

of this study are not problematic since teachers do have a certain responsibility with

regards to what material they choose to use in the classroom (Curdt-Christiansen &

Weninger, 2015). Teachers should supposedly honor the core content of the course they

are teaching; hence, they should consider the different objectives set for their students

when they plan and execute their teaching. However, the present study’s findings support

what Kamazak, Ozbilgin and Atay (2020) problematize: all teachers are not necessarily

as critical of textbooks as they arguably should be, since textbooks are supposedly “more

carefully fixed and designed” (Alice). Textbook content is, by many, not questioned as it

carries an authoritative status (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Curdt-Christiansen &

Weninger, 2015; Curdt-Christiansen, 2017); this supposition clearly does not only apply

to the students that the textbooks are used with but also the teachers that lean on them as

this study shows, in accordance to previous studies (Hutchinson & Torres, 1994; Curdt-

Christiansen, 2017).

Moreover, whether or not a teacher deems it necessary to discuss other varieties than BrE

or AmE, arguably depends on the teacher’s own education. Out of this study’s three

interviewees, only one claimed not to have had any discussion regarding linguistic

variation in English during her teacher training, and the same teacher primarily talked

about BrE and AmE throughout the interview. Thus, whether teachers can be expected to

carry the weight of including different English varieties in their teaching sole-handedly

is a complex question. It could perhaps be argued that textbooks should instead be more

diversified, which would mean that the materials would better suit the course

requirements for English 5 (Skolverket, 2011), while simultaneously supporting teachers

better in their everyday profession, as emphasized by Lily in the interviews.

23

6. Conclusion

The present study’s primary aim was to elucidate through what perspective Swedish EFL

textbooks portray the English language. The findings indicate that certain linguistic

preferences are still prominent in ELT practices and materials in Sweden. This is

interesting since literature within the field of both World Englishes and ELT have long

called for an increase in representation of Englishes within educational settings.

Concerning textbooks, the ones investigated here demonstrate that BrE and AmE, as far

as Englishes go, still carry a high value in the context of EFL. Additionally, the results

show indications of native speaker idealism both in terms of the textbooks’ representation

of linguistic variation and English speakers. Non-standard variety speakers are presented

as fewer in numbers than standard variety speakers with regards to both characters in the

excerpts and authors of the included texts. Furthermore, when non-standard speakers do

appear in the texts, they tend to be portrayed in less favorable light than standard variety

speakers. These findings are further supported by the accounts of the teachers who

provided the study with yet another perspective of linguistic variation in teaching

practices and materials in Sweden. According to the teachers, textbooks rarely

incorporate a variation of Englishes and, in their experience, BrE and AmE seem to be

preferred both in textbooks, and in society.

However, since this study’s interviewees reported limited usage of textbooks overall in

their teaching, and since one of the teachers primarily focused her answers around BrE

and AmE, future research could develop this perspective further. Studying teachers’

perceptions of linguistic variation more in depth, and if/in what manner they include

World Englishes in their everyday teaching, could yield significant insights. Since this

study aims to provide an insight to textbook design and content rather than to make

generalizations, another potential angle for future research could be to develop the present

study’s aim and methodology into a larger, more detailed analysis of ELT/EFL-textbooks

which could elicit more generally applicable data. By drawing on a larger sample of

textbooks while simultaneously developing a more extensive analysis criterion where

distinctive features of several Englishes are listed, it could be investigated if the findings

of this study can be considered representative of textbooks used in Swedish schools in

general. Through such a study, it could be further problematized what perspective of

English these teaching materials actually provide students with countrywide.

24

References

Primary Sources

Gustafsson, L. & Wivast, U. (2017). Viewpoints 1 (2nd ed.). Malmö: Gleerups.

Lundfall, C. & Nyström, R. (2017). Blueprint 3.0 A (3rd ed.). Stockholm: Liber.

Secondary Sources

Algeo, J. (2010). British or American English? A handbook of word and grammar patterns. [E-

book Edition]. Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607240

Ali, A. M., & Yusof, H. (2011). Quality in qualitative studies: The case of validity, reliability and

generalization. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, 5(1/2), 25–64. Doi:

10.122164/isea.v5i1.59

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis.

NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14. Doi: 10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001

Bourdieu, P. (1977). ‘The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges’. Social Science Information,

16(6), 645–668. Doi: 10.1177/053901847701600601

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. In: Thompson, J.B. (Ed.). Language and

symbolic power. (pp. 502-513). Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell.

Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: issues in modelling English worldwide. International

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159-178. Doi: 10.1111/1473-4192.00042

Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. (2015). Ideological Tensions and Contradictions in Lower Primary

English teaching materials in Singapore. In: Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. Weninger, C.

Language, ideology and education – the politics of textbooks in language education. (pp. 129-

144). London: Routledge.

Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. (2017). Language socialization through textbooks. In: Duff, P.A. &

May, S. (Eds.) Language Socialization. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. (pp. 1-

16). Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.

Curdt-Christiansen, X.-L. & Weninger, C. (2015). Ideology and the politics of language

textbooks. In: Curdt-Christiansen, X.L. Weninger, C. Language, ideology and education –

the politics of textbooks in language education. (pp. 1-8). London: Routledge.

Codó, E. (2008). Interviews and questionnaires. In: Wei, L. & Moyer, M. G. (eds.) The Blackwell

guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism. (pp. 158-176). Malden:

Blackwell publishing Ltd.

Dalzell, T. & Victor, T. (Eds.). (2013). The new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional

English. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezp.sub.su.se.

Drisko, J. & Machi, T. (2015). Content analysis. [E-book Edition] Oxford Scholarship Online.

Doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed

methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2014). Principles of instructed second language learning. In: Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton,

D., & Snow, M. (eds.) Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 4th ed. (pp. 31-45).

Boston: National Geographic Learning.

Estling Vanneståhl, M. (2007). A university grammar of English with a Swedish perspective.

Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.

25

Fang, F., & Ren, W. (2018). Developing students’ awareness of global Englishes. ELT Journal,

72(4), 384–394. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccy012

Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2018). Incorporating global Englishes into the ELT classroom. ELT

Journal, 72(1), 3–14. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccx010

Groom, N., & Littlemore, J. (2011). Doing applied linguistics – A guide for students. London:

Routledge.

Heller, M. (1996). Legitimate language in a multilingual school. Linguistics and Education, 8,

139–157. Doi: 10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90011-X

Heinrich, P. (2005). Language ideology in JFL textbooks. International Journal of the Sociology

of Language, 2005(175-176), 213-232. Doi: 10.1515/ijsl.2005.2005.175-176.213

Hutchinson, T. & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-

328. Retrieved from Stockholm University Library.

Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in

the outer circle. In: Quirk, R. & Widdowson, H.G. English in the world: Teaching and

learning the language and literatures. (pp. 11-30). London: Cambridge University Press.

Kamasak, R., Ozbilgin, M. & Atay, D. (2020). The cultural impact of hidden curriculum on

language learners: A review and some implications for curriculum design. In: Slapac, A. &

Coppersmith, S. Beyond language learning instruction, (pp. 104-125). Hershey, PA: IGI

Global, Information Science Reference. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338312533_The_Cultural_Impact_of_Hidden_Cu

rriculum_on_Language_Learners_A_Review_and_Some_Implications_for_Curriculum_De

sign

Kiczkowiak, M. (2019). Seven principles for writing materials for English as a lingua franca. ELT

Journal, 74(1), 1-9. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccz042

Lanza, E. (2007). Multilingualism and the family. In: Auer, P. & Wei, L. (eds.), Handbook of

multilingualism and multilingual communication. (pp. 45-67). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Lee McKay, S. (2010). English as an international language. In: Hornberger, N. & Lee McKay,

S. Sociolinguistics and language education. (pp. 89-115). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Lundahl, B. (2014). Engelsk språkdidaktik: texter, kommunikation, språkutveckling. Lund:

Studentlitteratur AB.

Matsuda, A. (2002). “International understanding” through teaching world Englishes. World

Englishes. 21(3), 436-440. Doi: 10.1111/1467-971X.00262

McGroarty, M. (2010). Language and ideologies. In: Hornberger, N. & Lee McKay, S.

Sociolinguistics and Language Education. (pp. 3-39). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Merriam-Webster. (2020a). Standard English. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved April 15,

2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Standard%20English.

Merriam-Webster. (2020b). Nonstandard. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved April 15, 2020,

from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonstandard.

Merriam-Webster. (2020c). Ilk. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ilk#note-1.

Modiano, M. (2008). A mid-Atlantic handbook: American and British English. [E-book Edition].

Lund: Studentlitteratur AB. URL: https://biblioteket.stockholm.se/titel/597564

Modiano, M. (2009). EIL, native-speakerism and the failure of European ELT. In: Sharifian, F.

English as an International Language – Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues. (pp. 58-77).

Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

26

Ping, Q. (2015). Ideologies in primary English textbooks in China. In: Curdt-Christiansen, X.L.

Weninger, C. Language, ideology and education – the politics of textbooks in language

education. (pp. 163-180). London: Routledge.

Prior, L. (2014). Content Analysis. In: Leavy, P. (ed.). The Oxford handbook of qualitative

research (pp. 359- 379). New York: Oxford University Press.

Seargeant, P. (2012). Exploring world Englishes: language in a global context. London:

Routledge.

Skolverket. (1969). Läroplan för Grundskolan.

file:///Users/jobb/Downloads/gupea_2077_30902_1.pdf. Accessed 2020-03-05.

Skolverket. (2011). English. Lgr11.

https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.4fc05a3f164131a74181056/1535372297288/Englis

h-swedish-school.pdf. Accessed 2020-03-05.

Siegel, J. (2006). Language ideologies and the education of speakers of marginalized language

varieties: Adopting a critical awareness approach. Linguistics and Education, 17, 157-174.

Doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2006.08.002

Siegel, A. (2014). What should we talk about? The authenticity of textbook topics. ELT Journal,

68(4), 363-375. Doi: 10.1093/elt/ccu112

Weber, J.J., & Horner, K. (2012). Introducing multilingualism: a social approach. London:

Routledge.

27

Appendix A

Table 1. Distinctive features in British English (BrE) and American English (AmE) (Modiano, 2008,

pp. 107–128; Estling Vanneståhl, 2007; Algeo, 2010).

Distinctive

Features:

British English (BrE) American English (AmE)

Spelling -ae/-oe

encyclopaedia, aesthetic, diarrhoea

-ou

honour, colour, flavour, humour,

labour, neighbour

-ise/-ize

apologise or alopogize, organise or

organize, recognise or recognize

-yse

analyse, paralyse

- l (before -ment and -ful)

enrolment, fulfilment; skilful, wilful

-ll (verbs ending with vowel + L)

travelled, travelling, traveller

-ence

defence, licence, offence, pretence

-re

centre, metre, fibre, theatre, litre

- retaining final vowel e (words

ending with -able)

likeable, loveable

-e

encyclopedia, esthetic, diarrhea

-o

honor, color, flavor, humor, labor,

neighbor

-ize

apologize, organize, recognize

-yze

analyze, paralyze

- ll (before -ment and -ful)

enrollment, fulfillment; skillful, willful

-l (verbs ending with vowel + L)

traveled, traveling, traveler

-ense

defense, license, offense, pretense

-er

center, meter, fiber, theater, liter

- dropping final vowel e (words

ending with -able)

likable, lovable

Grammar -Verbs

burn, burnt

dwell, dwelt

dream, dreamt

get, got

kneel, knelt

lean, leant

leap, leapt

learn, learnt

saw, sawed, sawn

sew, sewn

smell, smelt

-Verbs

burn, burned

dwell, dwelled

dream, dreamed

get, gotten

kneel, kneeled

lean, leaned

leap, leaped

learn, learned

saw, sawed, sawed

sew, sewed

smell, smelled

28

spell, spelt

spit, spat

spoil, spoilt

-plural verb form for collective

nouns (family, government, etc.)

are

-contractions

I’ve not (I have not)

-expressing future

shall

-use of definite article

I need to go to hospital

I am going to study at university

spell, spelled

spit, spit

spoil, spoiled

-singular verb form for collective

nouns (family, government, etc.)

is

-contractions

I haven’t (I have not)

-expressing future

will

-use of definite article

I need to go to the hospital

I am going to study at the university

29

Appendix B

Interview Questions

Background:

• How long have you worked in the profession?

• How much experience do you have from working with textbooks? (Which

textbooks do you use/have you used?)

• Do you use textbooks today?

o Why/Why not?

• In your teacher training, did you ever discuss different varieties of English with

regards to instruction?

Regarding Linguistic Diversity in Teaching:

• Earlier, Swedish steering documents clearly stated that a specific variety was to

be taught in schools. This is not the case today; however, in your own opinion, do

you believe that there is a preferred variety of English when it comes to instruction

today?

o Specific dialects/registers?

• From your years as a teacher, do you experience that students are acquainted with

different varieties of English?

o Which varieties?

• In your instruction today, do you think it is difficult to find ways to include

different dialects/sociolects in your teaching?

• How do you think teachers can work to help students develop their knowledge of

different varieties? What do you believe are the best ways to expose students to

different varieties?

• What do you think are the possible benefits/downsides of exposing students to

different varieties of English?

Regarding Textbooks:

• From your experience as a teacher, do you believe that textbooks cater for the

diversity that the English language entails or are some varieties more common?

Why do you think it is that way?

• Do you experience textbooks to be of use to you when speaking to the students

about different varieties of English or do you lean on other materials for this

purpose?

o Can you think of any ways through which textbook design could be altered

for the better? Any specific areas?

Additionally (If they are not using textbooks regularly and believe that representation is

low):

30

• Do you think that textbooks would be of better use to you personally in your

everyday profession if they encompassed more diversity in linguistic

representation in texts/recordings?

• Finally, is there anything else you would like to add?

31

Appendix C

Language Ideologies in Textbooks:

A Study of Linguistic Variation in Swedish EFL Textbooks in Upper Secondary School

Nellie Lindqvist

Magister Student (Teacher Candidate)

Department of English, Stockholm University

Phone: 0700 44 86 61

Email: nellie.lindq@gmail.com

Supervisor: Josep Soler (Associate Prof.)

Research conducted as part of the English Mag degree project

The purpose of the study is to find out in what manner the English language is portrayed

in EFL textbooks intended for Swedish upper secondary schools. The study will analyze

textbooks, with regards to frequency of diverse language varieties. Furthermore, through

interviews, the study will take into account teachers’ perspectives of the usability of

textbooks when introducing students to different varieties of English.

Participation is completely voluntary and as a participant you can withdraw from the

study whenever you want; note that by participating in the study you give your consent

to your answers being used in the research.

The results of the study will be handled confidentially and according to the General Data

Protection Regulation. Answers in the interviews will be anonymized and the answers

will not be possible to trace back to specific participants. Answers given in the interviews

will further be used for the purpose of the research only. Before participating, you will be

asked to fill out a consent form.

32

Appendix D

Language Ideologies in Textbooks:

A Study of Linguistic Variation in Swedish EFL Textbooks in Upper Secondary School

Nellie Lindqvist

Magister Student (Teacher Candidate)

Department of English, Stockholm University

Phone: 0700 44 86 61

Email: nellie.lindq@gmail.com

Supervisor: Josep Soler (Associate Prof.)

Research conducted as part of the English Mag degree project

Consent Form

I have read the information sheet, and any questions that I have asked have been answered

to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in the research, on the understanding that I can

withdraw from the research at any time and without consequence.

I have been given a copy of this form.

Name of participant:____________________________________

Place and Date: _______________________________

Signature: _______________________________

Name of Investigator: Nellie Lindqvist

Place and Date: _______________________________

Investigator’s Signature: _______________________________

33

Stockholms universitet

106 91 Stockholm

Telefon: 08–16 20 00

www.su.se