what is the main important difference between English as a foreign language and English as a second language?
The difference between ESL vs EFL can be in terms of students and location.
ESL= English as a Second Language
EFL= English as a Foreign Language
ESL is English which is usually taught to students in an English speaking country. EFL is English which is taught to students in a foreign, non-English speaking country. Beyond this, ESL and EFL teachers may teach differently in order to address ESL and EFL student needs. Because EFL students probably don’t have as many opportunities to speak English, an EFL teacher may plan many oral activities. ESL teachers, however, may spend time helping their students with the integration process—getting a library card, taking a driving test, etc. For more information about different needs and about the differences between ESL and EFL, check out this informative blog post connected to the Oxford University Press. How ESL and EFL classrooms differ
ESL is when there is a surrounding population of (native) English speakers with whom the student can interact outside of class. This means a country where English is widely spoken as a native language.
EFL is when the only meaningful interaction students have in the language is within the context of the class, or with themselves or other students. This means a country where English is NOT the native language, so that English is a "foreign" language.
The difference between ESL vs EFL can be in terms of students and location.
ESL= English as a Second Language
EFL= English as a Foreign Language
ESL is English which is usually taught to students in an English speaking country. EFL is English which is taught to students in a foreign, non-English speaking country. Beyond this, ESL and EFL teachers may teach differently in order to address ESL and EFL student needs. Because EFL students probably don’t have as many opportunities to speak English, an EFL teacher may plan many oral activities. ESL teachers, however, may spend time helping their students with the integration process—getting a library card, taking a driving test, etc. For more information about different needs and about the differences between ESL and EFL, check out this informative blog post connected to the Oxford University Press. How ESL and EFL classrooms differ
Thanks, dear Michael for your precise to-the-point answer!
EFL is essentially a UK term whereas ESL is an American term. Beyond that, a distinction is made between teaching English to non-native speakers in a non-English speaking country (EFL) and teaching English to non-native speakers in an English-speaking country (ESL).
ESL refers to English as a Second Language (second language).
EFL is English as a Foreign Language (foreign language).
Both of them refer to languages other than their mother tongue and are sometimes used clearly and without distinction, but in reality they are very different in the environment surrounding the language.
For example, English in Japan is EFL, a so-called foreign language. Like Chinese, French and Spanish, it is rarely used in Japanese common daily life. Use in places other than classrooms is limited. In Japan, especially if you can speak Japanese, there is no hindrance to daily life, so words other than Japanese are all foreign languages.
Meanwhile, for immigrants to the United States, Canada, etc. and for international students, English is ESL, the second language. In these countries, since English is mainly used, it is said to be the second language to be learned next to the mother tongue.
Also, English is ESL also in Thailand and Singapore. Of course, they use their mother tongue on a daily basis, but in addition to that, they use English widely in school education etc., and the use of English is spreading on a daily basis. Even outside the classroom, using English is not uncommon.
My answer to this question would be very much similar to what has already been mentioned by Marek and by Kassahun earlier.
In our country, that is in India, we speak English as one of the languages, and this is in addition to our mother tongue and our national language, that is, Hindi.
I have taught ESL both in UK and abroad and, of course, the students needs to know some English to begin with. It seems to be mainly taught by Foreign Speakers, that is by those for whom English may not even be a second language but one they've gradually learned over a number of years. I've never quite worked out whether that installs a good grasp of the language in students.
I've always had ESL courses, and IELTS courses, in the colleges I've run and owned as its necessary to help even the better students gain a better grasp of English.
EFL stands for English as a Foreign Language whereas ESL is an acronym that stands for English as a Second Language. ESL is a term used for teaching English to non-natives in an English speaking country such as UK, US, Australia, or Canada whereas EFL is a term used for teaching English to non-natives in a non-English speaking country such as Asian countries.
An American teaching English to Chinese students in China is an EFL teacher whereas an American teaching English to Chinese students living in US is an ESL teacher. Basically, the differences in EFL and ESL teaching pertain to lessons and approaches taken by the teachers.
imply speaking, ESL is about giving English language skills to someone who is living in a predominantly English-speaking environment. So you could say I did that while I was in the UK, mainly with people studying there, or immigrants, often asylum seekers. EFL is about teaching English language skills to people living in a non English-speaking environment, like I did in Moscow, where it was mainly people working in international companies, students thinking about their future, and those just generally motivated to know about the world and travel.
There really is not necessarily any difference whatsoever in how you would go about teaching it, because immersive, communicative and learner-centred approaches fix the language in the learner's mind as an active and flexible skill, whereas bookish, grammar-heavy stuff generally doesn't do that very effectively. Grammatical aspects, where they're functionally useful, like using tenses or modal verbs or something, would be in the program, but 'embedded' in some kind of discovery/immersion/practice process that actually made it into genuine, context-based, meaningful and genuinely used language.
It's true you'd probably find yourself focusing more on formalities like writing correctly, making less errors, etc., with EFL, because the students would tend to need that at work or in doing international exams and also would be more worried about 'correctness' when not focused so much on day-to-day survival, whereas with ESL you'd be focusing more on daily communication and listening and speaking ability would be more important.
Basically it's doing the same thing but with a different focus, because the needs are different. Plus you tailor it according to how they develop and what they can do with what they learn after class, so with ESL you'd be trying to bring in stuff they can actually go and use immediately, and you'd find yourself with less need to go over things again and again to consolidate them, because they'd be learning from their environment. Plus you'd probably lay off lots of the writing stuff because they probably wouldn't need it so urgently, though this might depend on who they are. If they're students then you might be doing even more of it, or if you have a class of foreign workers employed at a branch in your country or something, or diplomats maybe.
But this is true with any class. You have to figure out what they need and what's going on with them, and teach accordingly, both in terms of what doesn't need so much repetition because it will get done out of class, and in terms of what they need right now and for the future.
There's EAL too, 'English as an Additional Language', which is used in relation to children in English-speaking schools who have a different first language. I taught in an English-language school where almost all the kids were speakers of other languages, but they had to study and converse with their teachers and peers in English. I think the idea there is something along the lines of it being an equal language, and essential as a full means of communication and study, but additional to your native language. Ultimately it's just a different name. but although it's kind of like ESL, in that you need it day to day, the needs are different, plus there's the issue of relating it to study and also helping kids while they study other things. Though this then brings in CLIL, 'Content Language Integrated Learning', which could of course even be used with ESL or EFL learners in order to give them something meaningful to focus on in their learning.
In the end I say I'm and ESOL ('English for Speakers of Other Languages') teacher, because it all comes under that and you learn the same basic principles for teaching both in your own country and abroad. It's just about tailoring it to the learners' needs.
regards
Thank you all for your lovely contributions!!!!!!!!!!!!
I appreciate you all for right answers. RG helps too much in understanding of emerging themes topics and queries as well.
As all the above respondents have mentioned the main difference between the two lies in the context in which the learning is taking place. Contextual differences are likely to influence learners' needs for English, opportunities to use it and attitude towards learning it. It is therefore not helpful to teachers and learners for education systems to behave as if ESL and EFL contexts were identical, as sometimes seems to be the case. The majority of state system English learners in the world are learning in EFL contexts where most learners have little obvious reason for learning English and minimal exposure to the language outside the classroom. This is true even in many classrooms in countries such as Malaysia or India that ( perhaps for historical reasons) call themselves ESL. Ideally national curriculum goals, recommended teaching approaches, learning materials and teacher education provision would all reflect what it is possible to achieve in an EFL context. In practice they rarely do.
Thanks, dear Martin, for your answer. I agree with you.
The above answers have outlined the main difference between studying English as a second language where languge is learned in English speaking environment such as studying English in UK. whereas studying English in non- native country in a non native environment refers to EFL.
The participants clarify the distinction well. Interesting discussion.
The main difference distinguishing EFL from ESL is the context whereby the instruction is offered and exposure to input is provided. EFL refers to those contexts of language learning which occur outside the country where English is spoken, whereas ESL is associated with English learning in English speaking countries such as England, America, Canada, etc.
Nice answers from all of you. Thanks a bunch, dear all!!!!
English is said to be a second language when it has an official function in the country where it is spoken as the case with India and some African countries where English is the main medium of instruction in universities, courts and some governmental offices while English is said to be a foreign language when it has no official function in the country as the case with English in Arab countries.
The difference between ESL and EFL, in terms of teaching, also lies on the place where English is taught. English is said to be a second language if it is taught to non-native learner in an English speaking country BUT it is said to be a foreign language when it is taught to a non-native learner in a country where English has no function officially. Arab students, for example, who go to study English in Britain or US, they are learning English as a second language while Arab students who learn English in Arab countries, they learn it as a foreign language.
English as foreign language is just taught in English classes with no real target language use. a kind of simulation happens to internalize formally taught instructions. what is important is formal instruction not natural exposure. ESL encompasses more natural exposure to meaningful comprehension in informal context of language use. the context is more promising in terms of language learning.
In an ESL (English as a Second Language) situation, the learner is learning English within an English environment and needs to understand and speak English outside the classroom too. In an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) situation, the learner learns English inside a classroom, but continues to speak her own language when he leaves the classroom.
Two things: "second language" teaching and "foreign language" teaching are definitely two different things, as strategies should take into account the different distinct mechanisms of brain communication among areas and the way neuroplasticity modifies our capacity of acquiring knowledge. In other words, the brain of a student who acquires another language as "second" is already different (in terms of cerebral organization) from that of a student who studies the same language as "foreign". I can get more "neuro-specific", but the bottom line is anyway "not the same thing".
I agree with Miguel.
However it is wishful thinking to assume that because English has an official role in a country, most learners live in an 'English speaking/using environment', and so should find it easier to to learn English/learn in English.
For language teaching-learning purposes, although school based ESL learners may have a sense of the existence of English as a language,( if its official uses are visible / have impinged on their local context), their 'prior knowledge of/ capacity to use' English may be little different from those in EFL contexts
The main difference between them is that EFL is taught in contexts where it is not intended to be a means of communication in their contexts.Rather, it is learnt so as to be used for communication in English speaking communities or to be used for communication with communities or people whose language is not English In other words, they do not need it to communicate with citizens of the same country .They need it to communicate with English speaking communities or tourists who can speak English. Examples of such situations is teaching English in Spain, Italy ,Turkey , and Iran. As for ESL, English is used as a second language of communication alongside with another language, which is the native language, within a certain speaking community as is the case in India where people communicate by means of Hindu as a native language in addition to English as another language of communication especially among well-educated people, or even in offices.
"second language" and "foreign language" are surely so different , as strategies should take into consideration the different distinct methodology of teaching as well as the different contexts for use.EFL IN outside English countries however ESL IN English countries.
I speak and write my native tongue but learnt English as a second language .In addition I learnt french as a foreign language because it is foreign to my country Nigeria, though french-speaking countries are our neighbors. English is the lingua franca in my country.
Obianuju P. Umeji
researched and proved. In the process, new findings are communicated in teaching. An example is in the "Stratigraphic revisions of the South and Central Benue Trough", in Nigeria. Without research there would be no revising of existing data. If the result is not communicated in teaching, the obsolete data would continue to carry.
Obianuju P. Umeji
Thank you very much, dear Obianuju P. Umeji , for your valuable contribution.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Language
- English