Holborow (1999) offers a similar ar

Holborow (1999) offers a similar argument from a Marxist perspective. 'Often attempts to revive and impose a former national language can be a nationalist cloak under which new rulers' interests are hidden'. (Holborow 1999: 79). The traditional foreigner view is, at bottom, an acceptance of the strong view, that the NS is so by virtue of early childhood experience. That is seen to be an inescapable fact and it is pointless to pretend otherwise.
The revisionist foreigner
Observing the sense of deprivation of which Medgyes writes, Seidlhofer (2000) takes the bold step of recommending the abandonment of the traditional native speaker model, echoing Kramsch who suggests that it is time to 'take our cues not from monolingual native speakers ... but from the multilingual non-native speakers that constitute the majority of human beings on the planet' (1995: 49). The problem with such boldness is that it takes learners into a mapless setting. For indeed the state of mind she describes among non-native speakers of English as a lingua franca is surely one of anomie. Seidlhofer quotes Medgyes on non-native speaking teachers of English:
'We suffer from an inferiority complex caused by glaring defects in our knowledge of English. We are in constant distress as we realize how little we know about the language we are supposed to teach' (Medgyes 1994: 10). (Sceptics among us might wonder how far this lament applies to native speakers also). But the point Medgyes is making is that native speakers do not need this knowledge in an explicit form, while NNS do because that is their way into the language.
And so Seidlhofer recommends that attention be given to the variety of English used by speakers of English as a Lingua Franca (EliF) communicating with one another. She claims that the appeal to the native speaker (NS) as model for all English is not appropriate now that the numbersof EliF speakers far outnumber theEnglish L1 speakers, especially since the L1 model is neither desired by nor relevant to the kind of communication between EliF speakers 'it is important to realise that native-speaker language use is just one kind of reality, and not necessarily the relevant one for lingua franca contexts.' (Seidlhofer 2000: 54). So it is English as a lingua franca that needs to be investigated and described, now that EliF is spreading 'with a great deal of variation but enough stability to be viable for lingua franca communication' (ibid: 54).
Seidlhofer proposes a research project which works towards 'mapping out and exploring the whole spectrum of Englishes across the world' (ibid: 65). Such a project may be thought timely now that the methodology exists for the compilation of a corpus of English as a lingua franca. Indeed, work on such a corpus ('the Vienna EliF corpus') has already begun. The end point of the research is to provide a description of EliF use which 'would have potentially huge implications for curriculum design and for reference materials and textbooks'.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Holborow (1999) menawarkan argumen yang sama dari perspektif Marxis. 'Sering upaya untuk menghidupkan kembali dan memaksakan bahasa nasional mantan dapat mantel nasionalis di mana kepentingan penguasa baru tersembunyi'. (Holborow tahun 1999:79). Pandangan tradisional asing itu, di bawah, penerimaan tampilan kuat, NS sangat berdasarkan pengalaman anak usia dini. Yang dilihat sebagai sebuah fakta tak terelakkan dan itu ada gunanya untuk berpura-pura sebaliknya.Asing revisionisMengamati rasa kekurangan yang Medgyes menulis, Seidlhofer (2000) mengambil langkah berani merekomendasikan ditinggalkannya model tradisional pembicara asli, menggema Kramsch yang menunjukkan bahwa itu adalah waktu untuk 'mengambil isyarat kami bukan dari monolingual penutur asli... tapi dari multibahasa non-penutur yang merupakan mayoritas manusia di planet' (1995:49). Masalah dengan keberanian seperti itu adalah bahwa dibutuhkan pelajar ke suasana mapless. Untuk memang keadaan pikiran dia menggambarkan antara non-penutur bahasa Inggris sebagai lingua franca adalah pasti salah satu anomie. Seidlhofer mengutip Medgyes guru berbicara non-asli bahasa Inggris:'We suffer from an inferiority complex caused by glaring defects in our knowledge of English. We are in constant distress as we realize how little we know about the language we are supposed to teach' (Medgyes 1994: 10). (Sceptics among us might wonder how far this lament applies to native speakers also). But the point Medgyes is making is that native speakers do not need this knowledge in an explicit form, while NNS do because that is their way into the language.And so Seidlhofer recommends that attention be given to the variety of English used by speakers of English as a Lingua Franca (EliF) communicating with one another. She claims that the appeal to the native speaker (NS) as model for all English is not appropriate now that the numbersof EliF speakers far outnumber theEnglish L1 speakers, especially since the L1 model is neither desired by nor relevant to the kind of communication between EliF speakers 'it is important to realise that native-speaker language use is just one kind of reality, and not necessarily the relevant one for lingua franca contexts.' (Seidlhofer 2000: 54). So it is English as a lingua franca that needs to be investigated and described, now that EliF is spreading 'with a great deal of variation but enough stability to be viable for lingua franca communication' (ibid: 54).Seidlhofer proposes a research project which works towards 'mapping out and exploring the whole spectrum of Englishes across the world' (ibid: 65). Such a project may be thought timely now that the methodology exists for the compilation of a corpus of English as a lingua franca. Indeed, work on such a corpus ('the Vienna EliF corpus') has already begun. The end point of the research is to provide a description of EliF use which 'would have potentially huge implications for curriculum design and for reference materials and textbooks'.