According to Jenkins, in her book World Englishes, twenty countries are at present (2003) in transition from EFL to ESL status. She mentions Argentina, Belgium, Costa Rica, Denmark, Sudan and Switzerland as being among those countries, but doesn't give the rest. Can anyone tell me which are the other countries that are making the transition from EFL to ESL status?

How will such transitions effect what is taught there regarding English learning?

Mithunbarik wrote:

What is the diference between EFL and ESL. I know F= Foreign, S= Secondary. But what does it signify actually?

EFL = English as a Foreign Language

ESL = English as a Second Language

"English outside English-speaking countries

EFL indicates the use of English in a non-English-speaking region. Study can occur either in the student's home country, as part of the normal school curriculum or otherwise, or, for the more privileged minority, in an anglophone country which they visit as a sort of educational tourist, particularly before or after graduating from university. TEFL is the teaching of English as a foreign language; note that this sort of instruction can take place in any country, English-speaking or not. Typically, EFL is learned either to pass exams as a necessary part of one's education, or for career progression while working for an organisation or business with an international focus. EFL may be part of the state school curriculum in countries where English has no special status (as is the case in most of the European Union); it may also be supplemented by lessons paid for privately. Teachers of EFL generally assume that students are literate in their mother tongue.

[edit] English within English-speaking countries

The other broad grouping is the use of English within an English-speaking region, generally by refugees, immigrants and their children. It includes the use of English in countries, often former British colonies, where English is an official language even if it is not spoken as a mother tongue by the majority of the population. In the US, Canada and Australia, this use of English is called ESL (English as a second language). This term has been criticised on the grounds that many learners already speak more than one language. A counter-argument says that the word "a" in the phrase "a second language" means there is no presumption that English is the second acquired language (see also Second language). TESL is the teaching of English as a second language."

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language_learning_and_teaching

I think that in countries like Denmark it is more appropriate to describe English as an auxiliary language. I think the term second language implies that the language has some degree of official standing (whether sanctioned by law or not). I do not think that the number of people who speak the language (however well they speak it) has anything to do with it.

Milky wrote:

What do you mean by auxiliary language?

“Second” language in an educational context simply means “another” language.

In other contexts I take “second” language to mean a language of which in a given community most or all of the following is true:

(a)    It is spoken by many, if not the majority of, members of the community who have a perfect or near perfect command of the language.

(b)   It is widely used in the community by the members of that community when dealing with each other, but is not the mother tongue of any members of that community.

(c)    It will be seen written everywhere in the community.

(d)   It has newspapers aimed at members of the community published in that language and some of the television and radio is broadcast in that language.

(e)    It will be used for official purposes, irrespective of whether it is an official language.

(f)     It is used for keeping business records.

(g)    At least some part of the education of the community may be conducted in the language or schools may exist where education is conducted exclusively in the language.

(h)    It is probably the language of a former colonial power which once ruled the community.

By an “auxiliary” language I mean one of which in a given community most or all of the following is true:

(i)      It is spoken by many, if not the majority of, members of the community who have a perfect or near perfect command of the language.

(j)     It is not generally used in the community by the members of that community when dealing with each other, but is used when dealing with outsiders.

(k)   It is unlikely be seen written everywhere in the community.

(l)      It does not have newspapers aimed at members of the community published in that language and none of the television and radio is broadcast in that language, except perhaps for educational purposes.

(m)  It will not be used for official purposes

(n)    It will not used for keeping business records.

(o)   No part of the education of the community will be conducted in the language and no schools will exist where education is conducted exclusively in the language. Nevertheless, at tertiary level the language may be used for accessing resources.

(p)   It is probably not the language of a former colonial power which once ruled the community; rather, the language has become an auxiliary language because the members of the community perceive an advantage, whether cultural and/or economic, in having a knowledge of it.

When I refer to members of a community I exclude recently arrived and expatriate members of the community.

Milky wrote:

...and how would the teaching of that differ from EFL or ESL teaching?

I think that how the language is taught depends very much on the community.

Difficult to answer your point as I make a distinction between "second language" and "auxiliary language" and believe that each arises for different reasons so that in general neither one leads to the other, except perhaps over a long period.

To take the countries mentioned in your first thread, I cannot imagine that in any of them English is going to be used widely in any of the following circumstances any time soon:

1. In internal business agreements

2. In broadcasting and press aimed at nationals

3. In legal proceedings

4. At home

5. For public notices, especially in areas where non-nationals are not found in large numbers.

Like many areas in linguistics, I do not say that there is any hard and fast distinction to be made.

Even where second languages are concerned, not all situations are the same.

Take three countries I have visited:

Tunisia

Everywhere you go everything is written in Arabic and French. If you buy a packet of anything one side will be in Arabic and the other side in French; all signs whether official or not are in Arabic and French (the exceptions are religious buildings where everything is in Arabic and international hotels where everything is in French); almost everyone seems to speak some French. However, Tunisians do not communicate with each other in French, at least when speaking - some Tunisians prefer to write in French as they find it easier than writing Arabic, which is not the same as the vernacular and has to be learned.

The Gambia

English is the only language you see written. To read and write in The Gambia means to read and write in English. Everyone seems to know at least some English. Gambians do not (as far as I could tell) use English to speak to each other. English is the only official or national language.

Sri Lanka

English is very widely spoken and seen written everywhere. It is not an official language, but is effectively a national language. In all the hotels I stayed in English is the only language written down. Many middle class Sri Lankans speak to each other in English at home, in some cases in preference to Sinhala or Tamil - many Sri Lankan children speak English as well as British or American children.

I have not visited any of the countries mentioned in your first post, but I doubt that any of the above descriptions could be applied (mutatis mutandis) to any of them.