I'm feeling a lot like Andy Rooney, these days. My 33 years in ESL, 16 of it in publishing, has made me a crotchety "elder statesman". Of course, if these were the Middle Ages, 16 years in some trades, such as smithing or sorcery, barely qualified one to finish an apprenticeship. Be that as it may, I've recently joined a British publishing house, where we publish a lot of ESL,EFL and ELT. I've been thinking about EFTWALIAALOTWTSOC (English For Those Who Are Learning It As A Language Other Than What They Speak or Comprehend), and what we Americans (North Americans?), who teach and publish it call our chosen profession. As publishers we have an obligation and a profit motive to call a spade a spade or at least to call what we publish the same thing that the public calls it. But what's a po' boy to do?

Educators, and language teachers being no exception, love acronyms and the like. Our field has never lacked for them. Perhaps minor wars have been fought over them.

When I got into this gig (in the broad sense) in 1965 as a Peace Corps volunteer, I learned that I was going to be a TESL teacher. Now right there was already a logical fallacy. If TESL was Teaching English as a Second Language, and I was going to be teaching TESL, then that meant I was going to be teaching teachers something I had never taught. In fact, I wasn't. Peace Corps was only training us to be plain old ESL teachers. (As it turned out, the school I went to didn't need any, but they did need a history teacher, so that's what I did, and that's OK, because I had never taught that either).

In the 70's and 80's, we became more modern and called it ESL/EFL. This was so that the rest of the world wouldn't think we were being colonialists. EFL is, of course, English as a foreign language, and is taught outside of English speaking countries where, naturally, everyone speaks English as a first language. They do don't they? We were heading down a thorny path and quicksand was just around the corner.

At least we were more politically correct than English programs for immigrants in the US around the turn of the century, which were often known as EFB, English for the Foreign Born (still used in New Jersey today).

Of course, Native Americans would have to take EFB too, wouldn't they? There were two trends that I recall from the 80's which were somewhat divergent. As "ESL" became a more widely known term, one enlightened part of the population became increasingly angry. For example, when I told someone that I taught English as a Second Language, they replied, "G-ddammit! Why can't they learn English as the first language of this country! The other enlightened part of the population felt that "ESL" reflected an insensitivity towards those for whom English was, in fact, a third, fourth or fifth language, and it was unconscionable to refer to it as "second."

And so was born ESOL and TESOL. You all know by now what they stand for so I won't go into it. But here in the not-so-gay nineties, or what's left of them, we are faced with a host of regional terms which reflect local realities. Most of these I've only heard once or twice and I don't remember them, but I'll present the few I'm aware of. In California, where, since Prop. 227, ESL has become a no-no, ELD (English Language Development) is very much in flavor. Since they're all just "kids who need to learn English" and who will be tossed in with their "native speaker" counterparts, then they are all learning to develop their English. Hoo boy! And just what is a native speaker? I don't think I'll go there just yet. But shouldn't all of "those people" speak standard English anyway? Guess not, otherwise, there wouldn't have been the brouhaha over Ebonics, nor would there be an interest section within TESOL practicing SESD (Standard English as a Second Dialect). (By the way, anybody remember Elvis as Kid Creole? There was a pigeon who spoke southern pidgin).

What about those "Developmental English" classes in colleges and high schools? For whom are those designed? And ABE (Adult Basic Education), many of us know, is not for all adults but only native speakers. Immigrant adults get ESL.

As English is becoming the Lingua Franca (go figure that one!) newer terms are coming in that we publishers and youse teachers have to cope with.

Is it World English, Global English, or plain old International English? Simultaneously, the type of English used in the country of origin has become an issue. In the good ol' days, it was simply British vs. American English. (Why British and not English English?) In sixth grade geography, we once learned that when referring to the country between Canada and Mexico one had to use the full United States of America as the name otherwise, it would be an insult to all the other nations in the world that have United States in their official title, such as Mexico and Brazil (apologies for not using it here). Today it's Canadian English, Australian English etc. I'm waiting for East Indian English vs. West Indian English. (And whaddadey tawk in da Bronx?)

Ten years ago, ESL sales and marketing people would always squawk, about putting "ESL" in the title of a book, e.g. Critical Thinking for ESL Students. We instinctively understood that "ESL" would limit potential sales of the book. By eliminating the term from the title we could sell it to any school wanting to teach critical thinking. Sure, once they saw it was geared towards ESL students, they may not buy it but some would and that would be a good thing for all concerned. Today, there is a major trend toward "local publishing" i.e. publishing in the corner of the world for which the book is intended.

The contents have local color (pardon the expression) and the book uses the appropriate English. Canadians have raised US publishing consciousness and made us put "North American" English on a cover if we wanted the book to sell both in the US and Canada.

The Brits are not immune to this madness, though they don't suffer as much from it. To distinguish British series which have been re-edited into American English for the purposes of selling in the US, they often add American to the title, e.g. Streamline/American Streamline or American Start with English. (Of course, sometimes they've been sneaky and smart and just gave the book a new title, so you wouldn't know you were using an Americanized British English text. OUP's Main Street, actually began life in England as Grapevine).

The trouble is that US teachers have no clue what "American Start with English" means. It gets even trickier if you're talking about subtitles.

American vs. British English is an important marketing issue outside the US. There, customers do care which English they are learning. But if you put in a subtitle stating that a book is for learners of American English, then to the US customer, this will be redundant and make no sense because, by definition, English is American English. The answer is separate printings for the US and global markets.

Our English publishing cousins have always been smarter than their US counterparts. They have neatly sidestepped the colonialist laden terms of ESL/EFL, and called it ELT (English Language Teaching) which is simple and elegant, and avoids the morass into which US ESL Publishers have sunk.

We really should follow the British example of sensitive nomenclature. After all any nation that refers to victims of Cerebral Palsy as spastics must know something that we United States of Americans do not.