English As A Lingua Franca - Perspectives and Prospects - Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer

Marie-Luise Pitzl and Ruth Osimk-Teasdale (Eds.
)
English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects
Trends in Applied Linguistics
Edited by
Ulrike Jessner
Claire Kramsch
Volume 24
English as a Lingua Franca:
Perspectives and Prospects
Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer
Edited by
Marie-Luise Pitzl and Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
ISBN 978-1-5015-1122-6
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0317-7
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0299-6
ISSN 1868-6362
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
6 2016 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

Cover image: Roswitha Schacht/morguefile.com
Typesetting: RoyalStandard, Hong Kong
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
For Barbara Seidlhofer
Table of contents
Acknowledgments xi
List of abbreviations xiii
Contributing authors xiv
Preface xxii
Marie-Luise Pitzl & Ruth Osimk-Teasdale

English as a lingua franca: Perspectives and prospects – Introduction 1
I Perspectives on the study of ELF

Jennifer Jenkins
Barbara Seidlhofer: Another ‘mother’s’ reflection 13
Anna Mauranen
ELF corpora: Design, difficulties and triumphs 19
Henry Widdowson
ELF, adaptive variability and virtual language 31
Alessia Cogo
Visibility and absence: Ideologies of ‘diversity’ in BELF 39
Maria Grazia Guido

ELF in Responsible Tourism: Power relationships in unequal migration
encounters 49
Beyza Björkman
English-medium instruction and English as the lingua franca in Higher
Education in central and northern Europe 57
Lucilla Lopriore
Language education policies and practice in (Mediterranean) Europe:
An ELF perspective 69
Kumiko Murata
ELF research – Its impact on language education in Japan and East Asia 77
viii Table of contents
Kurt Kohn
From ELF communication to lingua franca pedagogy 87
Andy Kirkpatrick
Standards and lingua francas – A personal account 97
II The study of ELF in a wider context

Section A: Sociolinguistics, variation and ELF
Edgar W. Schneider
World Englishes and English as a lingua franca: Relationships and
interfaces 105
Peter Trudgill
ELF and new-dialect formation 115
Herbert Schendl
Historical linguistics and ELF 123
Nikolaus Ritt
What’s in a word? Reflections on labels such as ‘ELF’ or ‘English’ 129
Diane Larsen-Freeman
Complexity theory and ELF: A matter of nonteleology 139
Evelien Keizer
(Morpho)syntactic transparency and ELF 147
Jagdish Kaur
Conversation analysis and ELF 161
Section B: Multilingual/-cultural perspectives and ELF

Zhu Hua
Intercultural Communication and ELF 171
Claire Kramsch
Multilingual identity and ELF 179
Table of contents ix
Juliane House
ELF and translation 187
Cornelia Hülmbauer
Multi, pluri, trans. . . and ELF: Lingualisms, languaging and the current lingua
franca concept 193
Section C: Policy, pedagogy and ELF

Guy Cook
Cosmopolitan combat: Politics, teaching and interpreting 207
Elaine Tarone
Learner language in ELF and SLA 217
Tim McNamara and Elana Shohamy

Language testing and ELF: Making the connection 227
Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Ute Smit

Content and Language Integrated Learning and ELF 235
Janina Brutt-Griffler and Sumi Kim

Closing the gender gap: The role of English 245
Joseph Lo Bianco
The Seidlhofer Effect: Gaining traction for ELF in language planning and
educational change 259
Afterword
Marie-Luise Pitzl
Expanding frontiers: Prospects on the creativity of ELF 275
Barbara Seidlhofer
A select bibliography 281
Index 289
Acknowledgements
This volume (affectionately known as Something to those involved in its genesis)
would not have been possible without the help and support of a number of
people.
First and foremost, we would like to express our heartfelt thanks to Henry
Widdowson, who generously provided academic expertise, advice and assistance
throughout the entire editing process. Having been our main partner in crime,
he always had an open ear for ideas, questions or concerns, and he helped us
in playing our conspiratorial roles without alerting ‘the cat’ that Something was
going on when she was away.
In terms of publication, we are grateful to Claire Kramsch, who (when asked
to be a contributing author) suggested the volume for inclusion in the Trends in
Applied Linguistics series. We thank her and Ulrike Jessner as series editors for
their encouragement and support of this Festschrift volume.
At De Gruyter Mouton, we would like to thank Emily Farrell (our initial con-
tact for this project), Lara Wysong and Wolfgang Konwitschny for guiding us
safely through the editing, review and production process and for answering
all our questions so promptly and expertly. Our thanks also go to the publishers
for agreeing to the somewhat unusual request to suspend all pre-publication
announcements to keep the volume a secret until its date of publication.
In a similar vein, we are indebted to all authors in this volume not only for
providing stimulating and focused thematic contributions, but especially also
for sharing (and keeping) the secret of Something.
List of abbreviations
ACE Asian Corpus of English
CA Conversation analysis
CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
CEIL Content and English Integrated Learning
CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning
EFL English as a foreign language
ELF English as a lingua franca
ELFA English as a lingua franca in academic settings
ELT English language teaching
ENL English as a native language
EMI English-medium instruction
ESL English as a second language
IC Intercultural communication
JELF Journal of English as a lingua franca
L1 First language
L2 Second language
SLA Second language acquisition
VOICE Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English
WE World Englishes
Contributing authors
Beyza Björkman is Associate Senior Lecturer at Stockholm University, Depart-

ment of English. Her research interests include ELF in academic settings, spoken
academic discourse in general, linguistic equality, and language change. More
recently, she has published on language policy work at Swedish universities,
focusing on actual language practices vs language management and planning
issues, as well as attitudes towards the use of English as manifested in language
policy documents in Swedish higher education. She is currently doing research
on the spoken pedagogical genre of PhD supervision in ELF settings.
Janina Brutt-Griffler is a Professor in Foreign/Second language learning at the

State University of New York at Buffalo. Her research focuses on English as a
global language, second language acquisition, language policy and higher edu-
cation. She is the author of the award winning book World English: A Study of its
Development, English and Ethnicity, and Bilingualism and Language Pedagogy.
She has published numerous peer-refereed articles and has served as the principle
investigator on a number of international and US research grants. She serves as
Director of the Center for Comparative and Global Studies and co-the Editor of
the International Journal of Applied Linguistics (Blackwell-Wiley).
Alessia Cogo is Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Goldsmiths, University of

London (UK), where she teaches modules in sociolinguistics and global Englishes.
She supervises PhD students in the pragmatic and multilingual aspects of English
as a lingua franca (ELF) and English language pedagogy. She is Reviews Editor of
English Language Teaching Journal as well as co-founder and co-convenor of the
AILA Research Network on ELF. Her current research concerns ELF multilingual
practices in professional and academic contexts. Her ELF-related publications
include journal articles, edited volumes and a monograph with Martin Dewey,
entitled Analyzing English as a Lingua Franca (Continuum 2012).
Guy Cook is Professor of Language in Education at King’s College, London. His

books published in this century are Translation in Language Teaching (2010),
Genetically Modified Language (2004), Applied Linguistics (2003), The Discourse
of Advertising (2001), and Language Play, Language Learning (2000). He is cur-
rently principal investigator on the project ‘People’, ‘Products’, ‘Pets’ and ‘Pests’:
The discursive representation of animals (http://animaldiscourse.wordpress.com).
He has known Barbara Seidlhofer since they studied for an MA at the Institute of
Education in 1983.
Contributing authors xv
Christiane Dalton-Puffer is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of

Vienna and has an affiliation to the University’s Centre of Teacher Education.
Today, both her teaching and research interests are in educational linguistics.
Her current publications are mainly on classroom discourse and the use of
English in Content and Language Integrated Learning. Work in this area has
given her a special interest in crossing disciplinary borders in order to convince
educators of the relevance of language matters for learning.
Maria Grazia Guido is Full Professor of English Linguistics and Translation at
the University of Salento, Italy, where she is also Director of the Interfaculty Lan-
guage Centre, of the Masters Course in ‘Intercultural and Interlingual Mediation
in Immigration and Asylum Contexts’, and of the International Ph.D. Programme
(with the University of Vienna) in ‘Modern and Classical Languages, Literatures
and Cultures’. Her research interests are in cognitive-functional linguistics applied
to ELF in intercultural communication and specialized discourse analysis. Her
monographs include English as a Lingua Franca in Cross-cultural Immigration
Domains (2008), The Acting Translator (2012), The Acting Interpreter (2013), and
Mediating Cultures (2004).
Juliane House received her first degree in English and Spanish translation and
international law from Heidelberg University, her PhD in Applied Linguistics
from the University of Toronto, Canada and honorary doctorates from the Uni-
versities of Jyväskylä, Finland and Jaume I, Castellon, Spain. She is Emeritus
Professor at Hamburg University and Distinguished University Professor at Hellenic
American University, Athens, Greece as well as President of the International
Association for Translation and Intercultural Studies (IATIS). Her research inter-
ests include translation, contrastive pragmatics, discourse analysis, politeness
theory, English as a lingua franca, and intercultural studies. She has published
widely in all these areas.
Cornelia Hülmbauer is an applied linguist specialising in ELF and linguistic

diversity. She obtained a PhD from the University of Vienna and has written on
various aspects of translinguality in lingua franca communication and its con-
ceptual implications. She worked as a researcher for the European FP6 project
DYLAN – Language Dynamics and Management of Diversity and for the interna-
tional network project Toolkit for Transnational Communication. She currently
holds a position at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.
Jennifer Jenkins holds the Chair of Global Englishes at the University of South-
ampton, where she is founding director of the Centre for Global Englishes. She
has been conducting research into ELF for over 25 years, originally for her
PhD, and has published many articles and chapters on the subject, as well as
xvi Contributing authors
three monographs: The Phonology of English as an International Language (OUP

2000), English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity (OUP 2007), and English
as a Lingua Franca in the International University (Routledge 2014). Together with
Barbara Seidlhofer and Anna Mauranen, she was founding editor of the Journal
of English as a Lingua Franca, and edits the book series Developments in English
as a Lingua Franca (De Gruyter Mouton) with Will Baker. She also recently
published the third edition of her university coursebook, Global Englishes
(Routledge 2015).
Sumi Kim is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Foreign and Second Language Education
program at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Her dissertation focuses
on the exploration of gender and English language learning among Asian inter-
national students and its intersections with the development of English from a
sociolinguistic and postmodern stance. Her research interests include English
as an international language, language and gender, multilingualism, discourse
analysis and postmodernism.
Jagdish Kaur is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics,

University of Malaya. Her research interest lies mainly in the microanalysis of
interactions in English as a lingua franca, using conversation analytic procedures,
to establish how speakers of ELF communicate and to identify the kinds of com-
petences they rely on to achieve success in communication. She has published
her findings on ELF in journals like World Englishes, Journal of Pragmatics, Inter-
cultural Pragmatics and Text&Talk.
Evelien Keizer is Professor of English linguistics at the University of Vienna.

Her main interest is in the interplay between the discourse-pragmatic, semantic,
syntactic and phonological properties of linguistic expressions. Her overall
approach is a functional-cognitive one; more specifically she works within the
framework of Functional Discourse Grammar. She has published widely on the
noun phrase in English (e.g. The English Noun Phrase. The nature of linguistic
categorization, 2007, Cambridge University Press) and Dutch (Syntax of Dutch:
The Noun Phrase, Vol. 1, 2011, Amsterdam University Press). She is also the
author of A Functional Discourse Grammar for English (2015, Oxford Textbooks
in Linguistics). Her current research interests include modification, linguistic
categorization and the analysis of semi-fixed expressions.
Kurt Kohn is Professor Emeritus of Applied English Linguistics at the University
of Tübingen and co-director of the Steinbeis Transfer Center Language Learning
Media (www.sprachlernmedien.de). His research interests include theoretical
and empirical issues of second language learning and teaching, technology-
enhanced language learning, English as a lingua franca and lingua franca
Contributing authors xvii
pedagogy as well as translation and interpreting. His overall theoretical approach

is a social constructivist one. Since the early 1990s, he has been involved in
European projects focusing on multimedia content authoring, pedagogic corpus
development, intercultural telecollaboration, interpreter training in virtual reality,
and language teacher education.
Claire Kramsch is Emerita Professor of German and Affiliate Professor of Educa-

tion at the University of California at Berkeley (USA). She has written extensively
on language, culture and identity in the teaching and learning of foreign lan-
guages. Her most recent monograph, The multilingual subject (OUP 2009), was
awarded the Mildenberger Prize from the Modern Language Association. She is
co-editor with Ulrike Jessner of The multilingual challenge (Mouton de Gruyter
2015). She is past president of the American Association for Applied Linguistics
(AAAL) and current president of the International Association of Applied Linguistics
(AILA).
Andy Kirkpatrick is Professor in the Department of Languages and Linguistics

at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. He is the author of World Englishes:
Implications for ELT and International Communication (CUP) and English as a
Lingua Franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model (Hong Kong University Press)
and the editor of the Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. Recent books are
English as an Asian Language: Implications for language education, co-edited
with Roly Sussex (Springer 2012), and Chinese Rhetoric and Writing, co-authored
with Xu Zhichang (Parlor Press 2012). He is founding and chief editor of the journal
and book series Multilingual Education, published by Springer. He is Director of
the Asian Corpus of English (ACE) project (http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace/).
Diane Larsen-Freeman is Professor Emerita of Education, Professor Emerita of

Linguistics, and Research Scientist Emerita at the University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor. She is also a Distinguished Senior Faculty Fellow at the Graduate SIT
Institute in Brattleboro, Vermont and a Visiting Senior Fellow at the University
of Pennsylvania. Her most recent books are Teaching Language: From Grammar
to Grammaring (2003), Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics (2008, with
L. Cameron), winner of the Kenneth Mildenberger Book Prize, the third edition
of Techniques and Principles (2011, with M. Anderson), and the third edition
of The Grammar Book, Form, Meaning, and Use for English Teachers (2015, with
M. Celce-Murcia).
Joseph Lo Bianco is Professor of Language and Literacy Education in the

Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne and Research
Director, UNICEF Language and Social Cohesion, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand.
His main areas of research focus are language policy and planning and wellbeing/
xviii Contributing authors
social cohesion and peace building effects of multilingual policy. Recent books
include: Language Planning and Student Experiences (2013 Multilingual Matters)
and China and English: Globalisation and Dilemmas of Identity (2009). Forthcom-
ing through Springer is Peacebuilding and Language Policy.
Lucilla Lopriore is Associate Professor at Roma Tre University, holds an MA

in TEFL from Reading University and PhD in Italian as a foreign language
from University for Foreigners, Siena. She was TESOL Italy President (1996–
1998), member of the TESOL Intl. Board of Directors (2001–2004) and is a
member of the TESOL Intl. Research Committee (2014–2016). She is teacher edu-
cator, course-book writer and has published research papers on ELF, World
Englishes, ESP, early language learning, assessment and teacher education. Her
main research interests are ELF, CLIL, teacher education, assessment, terminology
and early language learning.
Anna Mauranen is Professor of English at the University of Helsinki. Her recent

research focuses on ELF, corpus linguistics, modelling speech, and academic
discourse. She is co-editor of Applied Linguistics and a former co-editor of the
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca. She is director of several research projects
on spoken and written ELF (the ELFA project), and a consortium of Changing
Englishes. Recent books: Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native
speakers (2012); English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings (ed. with
E. Ranta 2009); Linear Unit Grammar (with J. Sinclair 2006).
Tim McNamara is Professor in the School of Languages and Linguistics at the

University of Melbourne. His main areas of research are language testing (partic-
ularly specific purpose language testing, Rasch measurement, and the social
and political functions of language tests), and poststructuralist perspectives on
language, particularly in the work of Jacques Derrida. He is currently preparing
a manuscript for publication entitled Language and Subjectivity. His publications
include Measuring Second Language Performance (Longman 1996), Language
Testing (OUP 2000) and (with Carsten Roever) Language Testing: The Social
Dimension (Blackwell 2006).
Kumiko Murata is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the School of

Education and the Graduate School of Education, Waseda University, Japan. She
is the author of A Cross-Cultural Approach to the Analysis of Conversation and Its
Implications for Language Pedagogy (1994) and the co-editor of Applied Linguistics
and Language Teaching in Japan (2008, in Japanese) and Global Englishes in
Asian Contexts (2009). Her most recent edited book is Exploring ELF in Japanese
Academic and Business Contexts: Conceptualization, Research and Pedagogic Im-
plications (2015).
Contributing authors xix
Ruth Osimk-Teasdale worked as a full-time researcher for the Vienna-Oxford

International Corpus of English (VOICE) from 2009 to 2013, where she was mainly
responsible for developing a methodology for the part-of-speech (POS) tagging
of the corpus (published as online and downloadable XML version in 2013).
She has published on segmental intelligibility in ELF, as well as on the chal-
lenges of POS tagging ELF data. In 2015, she defended her PhD thesis entitled
Parts of speech in English as a lingua franca: The POS tagging of VOICE, in which
she explored issues regarding linguistic categorisation in general and with
regard to applying word class categories to ELF data, in particular.
Marie-Luise Pitzl is Postdoc/Assistant Professor in English Applied Linguistics

at the University of Vienna, Austria. She is one of compilers of the Vienna-Oxford
International Corpus of English (VOICE), a member of the Editorial Board of the
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca (JELF) and co-founder and co-convenor of
the AILA Research Network on ELF (with A. Cogo). She has published on a range
of ELF topics, including resolving miscommunication, BELF, creativity, idiom
variation, metaphor, corpus building and intercultural understanding. She has
recently co-edited the first special of JELF on ‘Teaching ELF, BELF and/or Inter-
cultural Communication?’ (2015, with S. Ehrenreich) and is currently finishing a
monograph on Creativity in ELF: Idiom and Metaphor (De Gruyter Mouton).
Nikolaus Ritt is Professor of Historical English Linguistics at the University of

Vienna. His research deals with phonological and morphological change and
their interaction, as well as with the theory of language variation and change.
He attempts to account for languages and their properties in Darwinian terms
by viewing them as populations of constituents whose existence depends on
being transmitted and shared in communication and acquisition. The principles
of that approach are described in Selfish Sounds and Linguistic Evolution (2004
Cambridge University Press).
Herbert Schendl is retired Professor in English linguistics at the University of

Vienna. His main research interests are the history of English, early language
variation and change, and medieval multilingualism. His book publications
include Contact and Conflict in English Studies (with S. Coelsch-Foisner, 2015),
Transfer in English Studies (with S. Coelsch-Foisner and M. Markus, 2012), Code-
switching in Early English (with L. Wright, 2011), Rethinking Middle English (with
N. Ritt, 2005), Historical Linguistics (2001). He has published numerous articles
on Old English syntax and semantics, historical phonology and morphology,
historical sociolinguistics, and recently especially on historical code-switching.
xx Contributing authors
Edgar W. Schneider holds the Chair of English Linguistics at the University of

Regensburg, Germany. He has written and edited many books, including Hand-
book of Varieties of English (2004), Postcolonial English (CUP 2007), and English
Around the World (CUP 2011), and edited the journal English World-Wide and
its associated book series, Varieties of English Around the World, for many years.
He is known widely for his “Dynamic Model” of the evolution of Postcolonial
Englishes and has published extensively on the dialectology, sociolinguistics,
history, semantics and varieties of English in leading journals, collective volumes,
and international handbooks.
Elana Shohamy is Professor of Language Education at Tel Aviv University

where she researches co-existence and rights in multilingual societies within
frameworks of Critical Language Testing, Language Policy, Migration and Linguistic
Landscape. She authored The Power of Tests (2001), Language Policy (2006), and
edited a number of books and the Encyclopedia of Language Education, 2009
(Springer) on language testing (currently working on the 2018 edition). Elana is
the outgoing editor of the journal Language Policy and current editor of the new
journal Linguistic Landscape. Elana is the winner of the ILTA Lifetime Achieve-
ment Award presented in Cambridge in 2010.
Ute Smit is Associate Professor at the Department of English Studies, University

of Vienna. Presently, her main research interests lie at the cross-roads of English-
medium instruction in higher education, CLIL, English as a lingua franca, class-
room discourse and language policy research. Her publications include English
as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education (de Gruyter 2010), Language Use and
Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms (Benjamins 2010) and numerous journal
articles (e.g. in Applied Linguistics, International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilin-
gual Education, Journal of Academic Writing, Language Teaching, System).
Elaine Tarone is Distinguished Teaching Professor, and the Director of the

Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) at the Univer-
sity of Minnesota-Twin Cities, where she has taught graduate courses in English
as a second language and in world language learning and teaching since 1979.
Recent books are Literacy and Second Language Oracy (with Martha Bigelow and
Kit Hansen), Exploring Learner Language (with Bonnie Swierzbin), and Inter-
language: Forty Years Later (with ZhaoHong Han).
Peter Trudgill is a theoretical dialectologist who has held Professorships at the
Universities of Reading, Essex, and Lausanne. He is currently Professor of Socio-
linguistics at Agder University, Norway; Emeritus Professor of English Linguistics
at Fribourg University; and Honorary Professor of Sociolinguistics at UEA. He
has honorary doctorates from the Universities of Uppsala, East Anglia, and La
Contributing authors xxi
Trobe University. He is the author of Dialects in contact; New-dialect formation:

the inevitability of colonial Englishes; and Sociolinguistic typology: social deter-
minants of linguistic complexity.
Henry Widdowson in earlier years taught at the universities of Edinburgh,

London and Essex. He was a founding editor of the journal Applied Linguistics
and for thirty years acted as applied linguistics adviser to Oxford University
Press. He has lectured and written extensively on applied linguistics, discourse
analysis and language teaching and his publications include Defining Issues in
English Language Teaching (2003), Text, Context, Pretext (2004) and Discourse
Analysis (2007) – a book in the series Oxford Introductions to Language Study,
which he edited. He is Honorary Professor at the University of Vienna, where
he works closely with Barbara Seidlhofer and her colleagues.
Zhu Hua is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Communication and Head of

Department at Birkbeck College, University of London, UK. Her main research
interests are intercultural pragmatics, language and intercultural communication,
and child language development. Her most recent book-length publications
on Intercultural Communication include The Language and Intercultural Com-
munication Reader (2011 Routledge), Exploring Intercultural Communication:
Language in Action (2014 Routledge), Research Methods in Intercultural Com-
munication (2016 Blackwell) and Weaving Intercultural Work, Life, and Scholar-
ship in Globalizing Universities (2016 Routledge). She is a joint editor for the
book series Routledge Studies in Language and Intercultural Communication and
Cambridge Key Topics in Applied Linguistics.
Preface
When, in the spring of 2002, I attended the second seminar Barbara Seidlhofer
ever offered on the subject of English as a lingua franca, I had no idea that this
would in fact (looking back) in many ways be the beginning of my professional
career. Finishing my MA at Vienna’s English Department in the early/mid 2000’s,
there was, with very few exceptions, practically no place around the globe that
would have been better for taking first steps in the emerging field of ELF in
applied linguistics. Throughout the years, I was incredibly lucky, for example
finishing my MA thesis at the right time to be asked by Barbara to become one
of the ‘Voices’ (i.e. the team of young researchers working on the compilation of
VOICE), and thus being able to embark on a PhD project about ELF while being
involved in the compilation of the first general ELF corpus ever to be built. In
the more than ten years that I have known her, Barbara has been many things
to me: a teacher and a supervisor; a boss and a project leader; a guide and a
mentor; an encourager, a questioner and an inspirer; and a friend. My expertise
in ELF (which has allowed me to co-edit this volume) and, no less crucially, the
opportunity, space, time and encouragement to develop it, I owe to her.
Marie-Luise Pitzl
Vienna, December 2015
My interest in ELF was first sparked in a seminar held in 2005 by Barbara

Seidlhofer, at the end of which she asked if any students were interested in
working as transcribers for her newly approved project VOICE. I was, and over
the following years I got to work more closely with Barbara, first as a transcriber
and then a full-time researcher for VOICE and as a PhD student. Whilst being
tireless and thorough in her academic work, she remained always kind and
positive, quick to encourage and open to new ideas. This book, with its large
number of contributions from renowned scholars, colleagues and friends of
Barbara’s, bears witness not only to the interdisciplinary relevance and excel-
lence of her research, but also her popular and inspirational nature.
Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
Linz, December 2015
Marie-Luise Pitzl & Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
English as a lingua franca: Perspectives and
prospects – Introduction
1 The present volume

In the past 15 years, English as a lingua franca (ELF) has evolved from a ‘niche
topic’ researched by a relatively small group of specialists to a highly productive
research area that now has a firm place on the map of (applied) linguistics. At
the beginning of the new millennium, there were only a handful of publications
on ELF; in 2015/16, the situation is very different. Applied linguistics now offers
an increasing number of edited volumes, monographs and journal articles, all
concerned with describing, theorizing and considering the pedagogical impli-
cations of English as a lingua franca. This interdisciplinary volume seeks to
address perspectives on and prospects for ELF, i.e. links and points of connec-
tion that research on ELF has with other areas of linguistics. It is being compiled
in honour of Barbara Seidlhofer, one of the most influential scholars worldwide
in the development of ELF as an area of research, as a tribute to her on the
occasion of her 60th birthday.
Looking back (as well as forward), it is the aim of this volume to bring
together ELF scholars and experts from a wide range of areas in linguistics in
order to explore the question how ELF relates to other linguistic fields. Compiled
with an inter-/transdisciplinary approach in mind, the contributions in this book
are written by friends, colleagues and academic companions of Barbara that
come from all kinds of disciplines: corpus linguistics, sociolinguistics, historical
linguistics, language pedagogy, language policy, multilingualism, intercultural
communication, to name just a few. Individually, as well as read as a whole,
the twenty-eight chapters explore the impact discussions about ELF have had –
or may have – beyond the study of ELF as such: on the conceptualiza-
tion, description, methodology and pedagogy of ‘English’. The main aim of
the volume is therefore to establish an interdisciplinary dialogue and forum
for multiple perspectives on (and from) ELF as an area of (applied) linguistic
enquiry.
Marie-Luise Pitzl and Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, University of Vienna

2 Marie-Luise Pitzl and Ruth Osimk-Teasdale
2 The honouree
Having started out as a student of English, Italian and Russian and then a uni-
versity assistant at the English Department of the University of Vienna in the
early 1980’s, Barbara1 did her MA degree and PhD research at the Institute of
Education, University of London. Already in her PhD thesis, entitled Approaches
to summarization: Discourse analysis and language education (completed in 1991,
published in 1995), she was concerned not with ‘native speakers’ of English but
with what she then referred to as L2 speakers and considered the educational
implications of her empirical study for teaching and learning contexts. So clearly,
Barbara’s interest and involvement in the language use of so-called ‘non-native
speakers’ of English – an interest that would later develop so impressively into
some of the most influential publications about ELF (e.g. Seidlhofer 2001, 2011) –
dates back almost three decades. After devoting time and research capacity also
to Pronunication (Dalton and Seidlhofer 1994) and Principle and practice in
applied linguistics (Cook and Seidlhofer 1995) in the mid-1990’s, Barbara’s critical
interest in the role of ‘the native speaker’ in foreign language education intensi-
fied and she began to draw attention to the double standards of teacher edu-
cation in the Expanding Circle even more explicitly in her publications (e.g.
Seidlhofer 1995b, 1999).
The early 2000’s – and in particular 2001 – was one of the most decisive
periods not only for the formation of ELF as a field in applied linguistics, but
also for Barbara’s academic career. 2001 saw the completion of her Habilitation
at the University of Vienna as well as the publication of her influential ‘concep-
tual gap’ article in the International Journal of Applied Linguistics (Seidlhofer
2001). It was this article which, in many ways, prompted and molded much of
the discourse on ELF that was beginning to take shape at the time. It secured
her an international reputation as one of the leading ELF scholars2 and probably
contributed to her being invited to become one of the main editors of the journal
in which it was published3.
The mid-2000’s were the period in which ELF research really took off – also,
and especially, in Vienna where Barbara was appointed Full Professor in
Applied English Linguistics in 2005. Only shortly before her Berufung (i.e. being
1 We will henceforth use the more personal first name Barbara in this introduction.
2 In November 2015, at the time of writing this introductory chapter, google scholar lists 773
publications that cite Seidlhofer’s 2001 conceptual gap article.
3 Barbara served as the main editor of the International Journal of Applied Linguistics (together
with Leiv Egil Breivik) from 2004 to 2008.
offered the Chair) in Vienna, she had received the first substantial project fund-
ing by the Austrian Science Fund for the compilation of the Vienna-Oxford Inter-
national Corpus of English (VOICE). The year 2005 thus also meant the beginning
of the VOICE project, which ran until 2013 and led to the publication of the first
general ELF corpus (VOICE 2009, 2013), whose significance is acknowledged in
many ELF publications. Also around the same time, i.e. in 2006, Barbara re-
ceived a second substantial body of research funding as part of the EU project
DYLAN (Language dynamics and management of diversity), in which she acted
as director of the work package on ‘Emergent varieties’ until 2011.
It would go beyond the scope of this introductory chapter to discuss all of
Barbara’s research contributions and topics of publications in detail (but see
the list of her publications provided at the end of this volume), so we will
merely provide two recent examples – one local and one global – that indicate
her international status. Starting with the local, in 2013 Barbara’s most recent
monograph Understanding English as a lingua franca (Seidlhofer 2011) was listed
among the 28 most influential publications by Austrian scientists in the past
decade – across all (!) academic disciplines (http://derstandard.at/1369361897181/
Das-Jahrzehnt-der-Meilensteine, 22 July 2015). In August 2011, Barbara was in-
vited to be one of keynote speakers at the 16th World Congress of the Association
Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée (AILA) in Beijing; on the global aca-
demic scale, an AILA plenary would seem to be one of the major summits that
an applied linguistic scholar can reach in their career.
Barbara’s national and international reputation is, of course, intricately tied
to ELF and so it only seemed fitting to dedicate this Festschrift thematically to
this, ‘her field’. As the honouree of this volume, she is one of the few persons
centrally responsible for the change in the research landscape that now includes
an area called ELF.
3 The contributions
The contributions collected in this book, written by friends, colleagues and aca-
demic contemporaries of Barbara, provide a wide range of perspectives on and
prospects for ELF. They combine a number of internal perspectives on ELF
provided by prominent ELF scholars in Part I and a wide range of external inter-
disciplinary perspectives on ELF by well-known scholars in diverse fields (Part II).
The first part (Part I) of this Festschrift offers descriptive, methodological
and regional Perspectives on the study of ELF and comprises ten contributions
written by European and Asian ELF experts.
In the first contribution, Jennifer Jenkins combines her long-standing

scholarly expertise with her role as one of the ‘founding mothers of ELF’ to
explore, in the manner of a personal reflection, Barbara Seidlhofer’s major con-
tributions to the development of ELF as field of research in (applied) linguistics.
Among these she highlights, for example, Barbara’s founding and compilation
of VOICE, her reconceptualization of ELF in late 2000’s and the launch of the
Journal of English as a lingua franca in 2012 (of which Barbara currently is the
sole editor). Next, Anna Mauranen describes how ELF corpora were first re-
ceived skeptically by corpus linguists but are now an integral part of the corpus
linguistic landscape. She gives an overview of ELF corpora, such as VOICE and
ELFA (English as a lingua franca in academic settings) and illustrates some
insights on ELF usage which can be gained with different corpus linguistic
methods. In the third contribution, Henry Widdowson looks at adaptive vari-
ability and virtual language in relation to ELF. Quoting Seidlhofer, he argues
that notions such as ‘Standard English’ and ‘native speaker usage’ are “con-
venient fictions”, which however only represent part of the English language
reality. Giving a number of examples for variable language use which has, how-
ever, not been codified, Widdowson argues that even though such variability is
necessarily part of any language use, it is especially evident for ELF because of
its particularly diverse contexts.
The next two contributions offer insights from studies on two very different
ELF domains: business and asylum seeking. Alessia Cogo looks into how ideolo-
gies regarding diversity and multilingualism can be explained by using Goffman’s
notion of front- and backstage communication in BELF (English as a lingua franca
in business) settings. Drawing on data collected in two businesses, she demon-
strates differences between frontstage ideologies and regulations that seek to
keep languages clearly separate and backstage BELF practices which include
the fluid mixing of multilingual resources. Maria Grazia Guido’s chapter on
ELF in Responsible Tourism then explores one of the lesser described scenarios
of ELF, namely unequal power relationships in the high-stakes context of
asylum seeking. Offering insights into a context very different from the global
world of business, she traces the potential miscommunication effects of differing
sociocultural schemas in conversational ELF data between an African asylum
seeker and a local Italian ‘intercultural mediator’.
The next three contributions are concerned with the theme of ELF and edu-
cation (policies) and offer different regional perspectives. Beyza Björkman’s
chapter provides a comprehensive overview of research on English-medium
instruction (EMI) and ELF in higher education in central and northern Europe.
Reviewing studies on EMI programs, Björkman specifically addresses research
on ELF in higher education contexts and discusses the implications (and relevance)
of geographical parameters in relation to ‘English’ and ELF at universities. Lucilla

Lopriore summarizes the main educational policies in (Mediterranean) Europe
which advocate multilingualism. She shows how an ELF-aware perspective has
influenced both policies (e.g. formal documents) as well as practical aspects
of language courses and teacher education. The chapter written by Kumiko
Murata traces the impact of ELF research for language education in Japan and
East Asia. Murata discusses how ‘native speaker norms’ have influenced lan-
guage education policies in East Asia and continue to shape foreign language
teaching in the region through imports like the Common European Framework
of Reference (CEFR). She shows how ELF research has helped to offer alterna-
tives to these predominantly ‘native speaker geared’ benchmarks.
In the subsequent contribution, Kurt Kohn engages with the potential of
ELF in the context of pedagogy. Arguing for the relevance of an ELF pedagogy
(alongside a general lingua franca pedagogy), Kohn explores the implications
of insights about ELF communication (for example, concerning negotiation and
resolving miscommunication) for language learning from a social constructivist
perspective, providing an example of a language learning project using tele-
collaboration.
The last contribution in Part I, written by Andy Kirkpatrick, mirrors the
more personal tone of the first chapter by Jennifer Jenkins. Giving a very personal
account of his own story of language learning and migration, shaped by many
regional cultural influences and experiences, Kirkpatrick provides autobiograph-
ical insights into the complexities and intricacies that are essential to the iden-
tities of so many multilingual and multicultural individuals today. ELF, and
Barbara Seidlhofer’s work on ELF, has “given us all a rigorously developed
framework and way forward to push for a more equitable world”, he concludes.
Part II of the volume then considers The study of ELF in a wider context.
Seeing how Barbara herself has intensively engaged with what ELF means in
relation to many linguistic subdisciplines, it seemed fitting to devote a large
portion of this book to interdisciplinary perspectives on ELF and to invite
experts from a range of areas to explore points of connections or implications
of ELF for their field. Part II comprises seventeen chapters that are organized in
three sections on major thematic areas that are close to Barbara’s own interest
and expertise. Section A looks at Sociolinguistics, variation and ELF, Section B
discusses Multilingual/-cultural perspectives and ELF and finally Section C
engages with Policy, pedagogy and ELF.
Section A on Sociolinguistics, variation and ELF starts out with three chapters
that explore key areas of sociolinguistics in relation to ELF, namely World Eng-
lishes, dialectology and historical (socio)linguistics. In the first contribution,
World Englishes scholar Edgar Schneider discusses some of the main parallels
and points of connection, but also differences, between the investigation and
description of World Englishes (WE) and ELF. In doing so, Schneider pays atten-
tion, for example, to the chronological/historical development and conceptual
aspects of WE and ELF. The second contribution comes from sociolinguist Peter
Trudgill and considers ELF in relation to new-dialect formation. Trudgill explores
some of the central factors and characteristics (such as simplification and transfer)
in the formation of new dialects in lingua franca settings and relates current
global events and linguistic phenomena (like Multicultural London English) to
historical linguae francae such as Greek and Latin. Herbert Schendl’s contribu-
tion also outlines parallels between the linguae francae ELF and Latin, but
also between present-day ELF and English in medieval England, for example in
relation to multilingualism and code-switching. He argues convincingly that
historical linguistics and ELF share many research interests (such as in pro-
cesses of variation and language contact) that might be of interest for more inter-
disciplinary explorations in the future.
The next two contributions in this section are both essentially concerned
with the theoretical implications of questions prompted by variation and vari-
ability in ELF. Writing from the perspective of a historical linguist, Nikolaus
Ritt reflects on the ontology of labels such as ‘ELF’ or ‘English’. Taking up
debates and discussions that have been present in much of ELF research (also
still recently), Ritt rigorously applies John Searle’s distinction between brute
facts and institutional facts to demonstrate the illusory nature of any language
label, both synchronic and diachronic. Similar to Ritt, but from a very different
disciplinary angle, namely that of an SLA scholar working with the framework
of complexity theory, Diane Larsen-Freeman takes issue with what she calls
the teleological view of language. Arguing for a nonteleological view, both for
the fields of ELF and Second Language Acquisition (SLA), her chapter uses con-
cepts like creativity and innovation to shed light on the non-boundedness and
non-finiteness of language.
The final two chapters in Section A look at the interface of methodology and
theory in describing ELF and complement each other, precisely through the very
different disciplinary angles they adopt. Evelien Keizer approaches ELF data
from the perspective of Functional Discourse Grammar, focusing on the concept
of (morpho)syntactic transparency. For this, she analyzes data from the POS-
tagged version of VOICE to investigate different transparency phenomena, such
as third person singular marking. Keizer convincingly shows how the concept of
transparency can yield insights into the nature of ELF and positions the dis-
cussed phenomena in a wider context. After Keizer’s corpus-based chapter,
Jadgish Kaur provides a chapter on a very different methodology that has been
of importance for the study of ELF, namely Conversation Analysis (CA). Kaur
explores how the principles of CA methodology where gradually applied to
ELF data, thereby providing insights into the communicative and pragmatic
regularities of ELF interactions. She summarizes some of the main findings that
CA-based studies on ELF have brought forth thus far.
Section B on Multilingual/-cultural perspectives and ELF contains four chapters
and opens with Zhu Hua’s contribution that addresses the links between the fields
of Intercultural Communication (IC) and ELF. After sketching similarities in the
points of departure of IC and ELF research, the chapter discusses four main
areas in which ELF and IC research collaborate and converge. The contribution
by Claire Kramsch explores questions concerning multilingual identity and ELF
(and lingua franca situations in general). Contemplating the intricacies and oppor-
tunities (but also challenges) posed by lingua franca constellations, Kramsch
argues for a complementary perspective on lingua franca use and multilingualism.
She illustrates how the activity of rendering concepts in another language may,
in fact, be more than ‘simple’ acts of translation.
Continuing on the theme of translation, Juliane House takes the view that
translation is enhanced by glocalisation processes – the same processes which
have given rise to the use of ELF – and critically examines the (controversially
discussed) role of ELF within translation practices. She argues that while trans-
lation is commonly done into ELF, the concept of ELF users as consumers of
translations (rather than only native speakers of English) is still underspecified
and calls for future work on the link between translation and ELF. In the final
contribution in Section B, Cornelia Hülmbauer addresses questions of multi-/
plurilingualism, translanguaging and ELF. In her paper, she reviews and connects
various approaches and definitions relating to ELF and shows how linguistics in
the past decades has in fact gradually moved away from the notion of a stable
‘language’ to more fluid concepts that take account of the multilingual realities
of most individuals.
Section C, the third and final section in Part II, addresses the most directly
applied linguistic concerns of Policy, pedagogy and ELF. The first of the six con-
tributions in this section is provided by Guy Cook, with whom Barbara has
shared the common interest in applied linguistics and language teaching (as
well as a personal friendship) for more than 30 years. In his chapter, Cook
zooms in on misguided notions of language purity observable in global and
national politics, interpreting and language teaching and relates these to the
study of ELF. Next Elaine Tarone discusses the issue of learner language and
the limited conceptualizations of (communicative) competence often applied to
its evaluation in language teaching contexts. Using an example of a videotaped
task performed by adult beginning learners, Tarone demonstrates that dimen-

sions like strategic and sociolinguistic competence do not necessarily depend
on sentence-level accuracy. She makes the case that the observed processes are
very much in line with an ELF perspective and proposes that an adoption of
such an ELF perspective might be conducive to predominant SLA thinking.
The next two chapters are centrally concerned with particular domains of
pedagogy and education. The chapter by Tim McNamara and Elana Shohamy
takes up the challenge of making the connection (as its title states) between
language testing and ELF. Written by two prominent experts in language test-
ing and assessment, the chapter points out questions that would be essential to
consider for devising language tests based on ELF as a test construct. Focusing
on the Austrian educational context from primary to tertiary levels, Christiane
Dalton-Puffer and Ute Smit discuss the enormous influence that English –
and ELF – has on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs
and on wider language education policies. They argue that CLIL programs are
de facto CEIL (Content and English Integrated Learning) programs and that this
demonstrates the status of English, which is unlike other languages, within and
outside of the educational sector.
The final two chapters in Section C once again turn to the political dimen-
sion of ELF research and ELF use respectively. Reporting insights from a study
conducted in the ‘native speaker’ context of the United States of America, Janina
Brutt-Griffler and Sumi Kim explore connections between the promotion of
gender equality and ELF for female Asian students. They argue that some female
Asian students in the U.S. use ELF in order to overcome traditional female gender
roles and expectations (prevalent in their countries of origin) and take on new,
less prescribed gender identities in their overseas (ELF) classroom settings. In
the last paper of this section, Joseph Lo Bianco explores “The Seidlhofer effect”
and highlights the significance of the existence of ELF as a field in applied lin-
guistics for language planning. He shows how academic – and especially applied
linguistic – work has the potential to shape practice, for example in policy and
education, and he traces Barbara Seidlhofer’s role in policy discussions.
The contributions authored by thirty well-known scholars in (applied) lin-
guistics that are collected in this volume thus reflect a wide range of perspec-
tives on and prospects for the study of ELF. Taken together, they make visible
the intersections and points of connections that ELF has with other areas of
study and are indicative, as Marie-Luise Pitzl argues in her afterword, of the
creativity of ELF as a field of study in applied linguistics.
References
Cook, Guy & Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.). 1995. Principle and practice in applied linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, Christiane & Barbara Seidlhofer. 1994. Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 1995a. Approaches to summarization: Discourse analysis and language
education. Tübingen: Narr.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 1995b. Die Rolle der Native Speaker im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Eine
kritische Bestandaufnahme. In Rudolf de Cilia & Ruth Wodak (eds.), Sprachenpolitik in
Mittel- und Osteuropa, 217–226. Wien: Passagen Verlag.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 1999. Double standards: Teacher education in the Expanding Circle. World
Englishes 18(2). 233–245.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a
lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2). 133–158.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
VOICE. 2009. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 1.0 online). Director:
Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Angelika Breiteneder, Theresa Klimpfinger, Stefan
Majewski, Marie-Luise Pitzl. http://voice.univie.ac.at (accessed 23 July 2015).
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 XML). Director:
Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka.
I Perspectives on the study of ELF
Jennifer Jenkins
Barbara Seidlhofer: Another ‘mother’s’
reflection
I should start by pointing out what will be obvious to most readers: that the title
of this piece does not refer to a real ‘mother’. It refers, rather, to a description of
the author as one of the “three founding mothers of ELF” by Andy Kirkpatrick at
the 4th International ELF Conference in Hong Kong in 2011. Another of the three
“founding mothers of ELF” was, of course, Barbara Seidlhofer herself, with the
third being Anna Mauranen.
But back to the beginning. Barbara Seidlhofer and I met for the first time in
April 1995 in the dinner queue at Derwent College, University of York, where we
were both attending that year’s IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of
EFL) annual conference. We had each given papers earlier that day. Barbara’s
was a presentation of her groundbreaking 1994 book (with Christiane Dalton),
Pronunciation in the Oxford University Press Scheme for Teacher Education
series. I had attended and much enjoyed her talk, and that evening, queuing
for dinner, Barbara recognised me as a member of her audience. My talk had
been my first ever on ELF, or rather, an embryonic version of ELF, not even
named as such until the following year. Barbara1 told me that she had assumed
from the title that my talk was about business English, which was not of
particular interest to her. However, when I explained what the topic had actually
been, she immediately engaged with it, understood its potential (in a way that
most of my audience earlier that day had not), and we spent the entire evening
engrossed in a discussion of ELF. Our shared interest in ELF was thus forged
that evening, and as I write, almost exactly twenty years later, I can only look
back over the intervening years, marvel at what has grown out of it, and wonder
how ELF might (or more likely, might not) have turned out if that meeting had
never taken place.
But enough of conference dinner queues. I would like to focus this short
piece, more of a personal reflection than an academic paper, on what seem to
me to be Barbara’s four greatest contributions, among the many other possibilities,
to ELF research, and to the development of the field of ELF more broadly – or
1 I am adopting the somewhat unconventional practice of referring to Barbara Seidlhofer by

her given name because of the personal nature of my contribution to the volume.
Jennifer Jenkins, University of Southampton

14 Jennifer Jenkins
the ELF paradigm, as I think it is nowadays justifiable to call it. The four contri-
butions I have in mind are, in chronological order, firstly Barbara’s establish-
ment of the VOICE corpus, secondly her insight in linking ELF pronunciation
(and other) theory with practical applications, thirdly, her reconceptualising of
ELF in the second half of the 2000s, and finally, her recognition of the need for
an ELF journal, and the huge amount of time and effort she put into setting up,
and has since put into editing, the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca.
First of all, the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English, or VOICE.
Other contributors to this volume who have far more expertise in corpus linguistics
than I do will no doubt be discussing ELF corpora, and more specifically, VOICE,
so I will not discuss the VOICE corpus itself in detail (but see e.g. Mauranen,
this volume). Instead, I would like to consider its implications, starting with
Barbara’s seminal journal publication (Seidlhofer 2001), in which she announced
that she was establishing a corpus of ELF use, and urged others to do the same.
She pointed out in her article that despite the fact that so many users of English
were non-native English speakers (NNESs) who learned and used the language
for intercultural communication rather than to communicate with native English
speakers (NESs), often with no NESs present at all in their interactions, the only
descriptions of English available for learners were those of English as a Native
Language (ENL), usually British or American. She took issue with these ENL
varieties as ‘real’ when, in truth, they were either idealised versions of ‘standard’
native English or the kinds of idiomatic English that NESs use among themselves,
and argued that there was nothing ‘real’ about any of this for those NNESs who
use English among themselves. Barbara’s identification of a “conceptual gap”
between available descriptions of English and one of its most frequent contem-
porary uses, i.e. as a lingua franca among NNESs, was soon taken up by others,
and as a direct result, the use of the term ELF itself quickly became known
whether loved, or hated, or even avoided by the ‘squeamish’ in favour of E-L-F.
VOICE was not only the first ELF corpus of its kind, the first-ever ELF corpus
to be established, but it also inspired many others to establish similar corpora. It
is because of Barbara’s pioneering work that we now have so many other ELF
corpora. Most notably among these, of course, are two others whose founders
have collaborated closely with Barbara: Anna Mauranen’s Corpus of English
as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (ELFA)2, and later, Andy Kirkpatrick’s
Asian Corpus of English (ACE)3. As well providing a stimulus to others to start
corpora, VOICE, through Barbara, has been providing an invaluable resource
for several years to those who, for whatever reason, are unable to establish a
2 Cf. http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/elfacorpus.html
3 Cf. http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace/
corpus of their own. For not only was VOICE the first ELF corpus to be estab-
lished, but it was also the first one to be made accessible to all comers includ-
ing, later on, its audio files. Several students of my own have used it to provide
data for their masters’ dissertations, and I doubt I am alone in this respect.
VOICE, because of Barbara’s work, has thus contributed extensively to encourag-
ing and enhancing the field of empirical ELF research including, crucially,
among the next generation of potential ELF researchers.
Setting up VOICE was a major undertaking, and involved identifying and
assembling a team of people with the right kind of competence to be able to
collect and tag the data effectively. Among the VOICE team that Barbara assembled
were some of the young scholars destined to become key ELF researchers them-
selves further into the future. Most notably among these was Marie-Luise Pitzl,
one of the two co-editors of this volume, and (later) Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, the
other co-editor, as well as Angelika Jezek-Breiteneder, Theresa Klimpfinger (now
Lehner) and Stefan Majewski. The VOICE team subsequently met up with two of
my own doctoral students, Alessia Cogo and Martin Dewey, at the International
Association of World Englishes (IAWE) conference in Regensburg, Germany, in
2007. This led to the forming of ELF friendships and collaborations among the
younger ELF researcher generation, and resulted in a further important develop-
ment, when a couple of years later, with encouragement from Barbara, Marie-
Luise Pitzl and Alessia Cogo successfully proposed the setting up of an AILA
ELF Research Network (ReN)4. The ELF ReN has been running for several years
and continues to thrive and to promote ELF research collaborations around the
world.
I turn now to the second of what I see as Barbara’s major contributions: her
linking of theory with practice. Although there are many other examples of this
that I could have mentioned, I have one particular event in mind. This again
took place at an IATEFL conference, this time in 2001. At the conference, Robin
Walker gave a talk in which he demonstrated how he had adapted my Lingua
Franca Core (Jenkins 2000) for his Spanish tourism students at the University
of Oviedo. Barbara listened intently to Walker, and when he had finished,
she turned to me and said words to the effect that what Walker had done for
Spanish learners had huge potential for ELF users from other first languages.
She arranged a meeting between herself, Robin and me, the outcome of which
was Walker’s proposal to Oxford University Press for an ELF pronunciation
handbook for teachers. This resulted in his 2010 book, the first to address ELF
directly in pedagogic terms. As such, it represents a key moment not only in
4 Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliqué (AILA) ELF Research Network (http://

english-lingua-franca.org/).
16 Jennifer Jenkins
ELF pronunciation, but in ELF’s development as a whole. And although peda-

gogy is still under-represented, Walker’s book, itself inspired by Barbara, laid
the foundations and provided a much-needed boost for those ELF researchers
who had, until then, felt that they should not become involved in pedagogic
matters.
Barbara’s third contribution takes us back to theory, and more specifically,
to her major reconceptualization of ELF just after the mid 2000s. Although
accommodation had earlier been presented as central to ELF, if primarily in
terms of pronunciation (Jenkins 2000), this had largely been ignored, and had
remained under-theorised in respect of the field of ELF as a whole. Instead, the
main focus had been on identifying ELF features, or what Barbara, in the
abstract for her paper at the 1st International ELF conference (Seidlhofer 2008),
described as “the fatal attraction of lists”. In a reconceptualization of ELF that
Barbara first presented in a plenary at the 2006 Anglistentag conference in Halle
(later published as Seidlhofer 2007), she argued that the English of those who
use it as a lingua franca could not be considered within the framework of
the notion of ‘speech community’ (she proposed instead the notion of ‘com-
munity of practice’) and that nor could it be considered as a language ‘variety’
(or varieties).
Barbara followed up this theorising in two further articles both published in
the same year (2009). The first was based on her 2007 IAWE talk (Seidlhofer
2009b), and the second on her 2008 ELF conference talk (Seidlhofer 2009a). In
these publications, she developed her thinking further, arguing, for example,
that the features identified in ELF corpora are not interesting primarily in them-
selves, but in terms of the functions that they fulfil, the underlying processes
that they reveal, and thus the ways in which they “foster understanding of
‘what is going on’ in the interaction” (Seidlhofer 2009a: 56). She took this still
further in the other 2009 publication, arguing that empirical ELF findings were
calling for a new way of thinking about what ‘a language’ is: one that takes
account of the fact that interactants in ELF communication “are making use
of their multi-faceted multilingual repertoires in a fashion motivated by the
communicative purpose and the interpersonal dynamics of the interaction”
(Seidlhofer 2009b: 242). This, she observed, meant that “[i]n many speech events,
boundaries between languages also seem to be perceived as fluid or irrelevant”,
and therefore that we need to “raise questions about the denomination ‘Englishes’
and ‘world Englishes’, i.e. countable (proper) nouns implying separate bounded
entities” (Seidlhofer 2009b: 242). Barbara’s reconceptualising of ELF culminated
in her 2011 book, and I think it would be true to say that it has provided the
impetus for and thus led to all subsequent (re)thinking about ELF.
Finally, it would not be possible to discuss Barbara’s massive contribution

to the founding and developing of the field of ELF research without mentioning
the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca. As with so much else in the develop-
ment of ELF, this was Barbara’s idea in the first place. She called a meeting with
Anna Mauranen and me at the 2nd International ELF Conference in 2009 in order
to say that she thought the time was ripe for a journal dedicated to ELF and to
elicit our views. She then made a successful case for such a journal to De
Gruyter Mouton, who began publishing the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca
in 2012. Initially all three ‘mothers’ were co-editors with Barbara taking the lead,
and more recently, Barbara took on the role of sole editor. The Journal of English
as a Lingua Franca is currently in its fifth year, and going from strength to
strength. It provides the key forum for the publication of ELF research and think-
ing, and the only forum to which authors can submit their articles knowing with
certainty that their work will be reviewed by scholars who have sufficient exper-
tise in ELF. Having said that, I should also point out that the Journal of English
as a Lingua Franca is by no means narrow in its remit. Barbara has always been
very willing to publish a range of perspectives, and from the start she therefore
encouraged submissions from scholars outside ELF, including those who do not
necessarily see English language life through the same lens as ELF researchers
do. In fact it was crucial to Barbara that half of the editorial advisory board for
the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca should come from outside ELF research
to ensure that the journal was not seen to take a narrow ‘in-group’ approach to
the field.
The four areas that I have singled out do not represent by any means the
sum total of what Barbara has contributed to the development of the field of
English as a lingua franca as a new, but now relatively established, research
paradigm. However, for me they are the four most far reaching of her many
activities; the four that show most clearly (to me at least) how very significantly
Barbara has contributed by means of her seminal works and deeply insightful
thinking to the founding and legitimising of ELF as a field of linguistic enquiry,
and how she was there from the very start. I am proud and honoured to have
known her and worked with her during these past twenty years, and look
forward to the insights that she will no doubt continue to provide over the next
twenty.
References
Dalton, Christiane & Barbara Seidlhofer. 1994. Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
18 Jennifer Jenkins
Seidlhofer Barbara. 2007. English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Sabine
Volk-Birke & Julia Lippert (eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings, 307–318. Trier:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2008. ELF findings: Form and function. Plenary paper presented at the 1st
International ELF Conference, Helsinki, 6–8 March.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009a. ELF findings: Form and function. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta
(eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 37–59. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009b. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and
English as a lingua franca. World Englishes 28(2). 236–45.
Press.
Walker, Robin. 2010. Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca (Oxford Hand-
books for Teachers). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anna Mauranen
ELF corpora: Design, difficulties and
triumphs
1 Introduction
It may seem obvious today that corpora of English include those where English
is used as a lingua franca. After all, it is ELF that is the most visible and fastest-
growing use of English. However, this was far from obvious before the first ELF
corpora came on the scene. Corpus linguistics was oriented to the native
speaker, having fought its own battles within linguistics to demonstrate the
value of investigating actual use, not only the native speaker’s intuition. Orien-
tation to native speakers lives on in learner corpora, which position L2 users
invariably as learners. ELF corpora, in contrast, take the largest contemporary
group of speakers of English as their source. This, surely, is exactly what corpus
linguistics should be about: capturing language in its genuine, prominent uses.
Today, this data attracts deserved interest, and the pioneering ELF corpora such
as Seidlhofer’s VOICE, have been able to reveal fascinating developments in
contemporary English. This paper discusses ELF corpus linguistics and high-
lights its achievements.
2 How did we get to corpora of ELF?

Now that we are used to having several electronic corpora of ELF in existence, it
may appear to be the most natural thing on earth to have them available for
research. However, this was far from obvious in 2000 at an ESSE conference in
Helsinki where I first heard Barbara Seidlhofer present the need for, and her
intention to compile, a corpus of ELF (later published, see Seidlhofer 2001a). I
was delighted, having already begun to plan my own corpus along similar lines
just a few months earlier. My sentiments were not generally shared at the con-
ference, though: the atmosphere in the corpus linguistics session was stormy, to
put it mildly. But we weathered it, and afterwards Barbara and I got together,
eagerly talking and sharing ideas around ELF and corpora. This led to many
Anna Mauranen, University of Helsinki

20 Anna Mauranen
other meetings, sessions, conferences, and all kinds of collaboration around

ELF – and, importantly, two corpora, VOICE (http://voice.univie.ac.at) and
ELFA (www.helsinki.fi/elfa), which have been followed by others, notably ACE
(corpus.ied.edu.hk) and WrELFA (http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/wrelfa.html).
Why the corpus linguistics community would not immediately take to this
new kind of corpus was a true surprise to me who had been working actively
with corpora for half a dozen years at the time. Corpora, as I could see it, were
compiled to capture languages as they were used by actual speakers engaging
in authentic communication, whether written or spoken. Corpus linguistics had
itself taken a long time to be accepted into the linguistics research canon. Even
though it followed a long and respectable, largely European, tradition of data-
based empirical study of languages, this was not in the mainstream of linguistics
research at the time of the first corpora in the early 1960s and the 1970s. The lin-
guistics scene was dominated by the theoretical study of language, underpinned
by the idea of the native speaker’s intuition about grammaticalness. Since the
native speaker was able to access and assess through introspection the gram-
matical acceptability of any given sentence in his/her first language – or
whether it indeed was one of the sentences of the language – there was no
need to describe the outcomes of this intuitive ability as manifested in actual
performance. The intuition of the ideal speaker was considered both perfect and
infallible, whereas in real-world execution by real speakers, i.e. performance,
language data became degenerate, since ordinary fallible speakers were subject
to problems in on-line production, and could even be tired, emotional, drunk, or
just forgetful. Data from such performance was thus not of consequence to the
theoretical linguist. The description of the language, the grammar, was to be the
best match between the ideal native speaker’s intuition about grammaticality
and the most economical model (cf. Chomsky 1965).
By contrast, corpus linguists wanted to tackle precisely the performance
data, because what speakers actually did in and with language was what lan-
guage was about. Despite mainly Chomskyan formal-linguistic dominance, a
number of empirically based strains of research continued, for instance in dia-
lectology, historical linguistics, and sociolinguistics, but the most influential
theoretical developments were led by the various models developed by Chomsky
and his followers. The corpus approach, then, tuned into actual usage. More
recently, theoretical work of language has also been taken up in usage-based
models (e.g. Barlow and Kemmer 2000; Bybee and Hopper 2001; Ellis 2009),
which make use of corpora, and which are compatible with the line of thinking
ELF represents.
Since the turn of the millennium, a reconceptualization of English as an
international language used as a lingua franca has meant a drastic change to
the way we understand what English is. As defined by Seidlhofer (2011: 7) ELF
means “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for
whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only
option”. This reconceptualization, which had several precursors, but which first
gained wider attention in Jenkins’s seminal work (2000), has been one of the
most important new departures from traditional orientation in linguistics and
applied linguistics (see also Jenkins 2007, 2014; Mauranen 2006, 2012; Seidlhofer
2001b, 2009b, 2010, 2011; Widdowson 1994). It has simply meant getting a truly
global perspective on English, and envisioning its development not only within
national and regional boundaries, but in communities of unprecedented mobility
and interconnectedness in the world. These developments tend to have particu-
larly close connections to English, as also observed in contemporary socio-
linguistics of globalisation (Blommaert 2010; Blommaert and Rampton 2012).
ELF takes on board notions of communities that acknowledge their non-locality
such as communities of practice (Wenger 1998), with an emphasis on their
variability, even fluidity (Dewey 2009; Seidlhofer 2011), together with the high
adaptability and changeability of language itself.
Even though corpus approaches have prioritised usage, the data that was
gathered even in the large reference corpora like the British National Corpus
(BNC) or the Bank of English was nevertheless limited in many ways – in terms
of mode, variety, speaker age, and most relevantly to our present concerns, their
first-language status. Corpora are still overwhelmingly compiled to reflect the
language of native speakers. There are very few exceptions to this, the most
notable among them perhaps the ICE corpus and the ICLE corpus, which both
include usage from bilinguals or multilinguals. ICE, The International Corpus
of English, comprises several varieties, and although the data for its individual
subcorpora covers many continents, a considerable proportion of it comes from
places where English has a strong official status, and is either the national lan-
guage (as in the UK or the US) or one of the national languages (as in Canada,
Nigeria, or the Philippines) of the country or region. Moreover, the data is
confined to standard or educated English, which severely restricts its coverage.
It is nevertheless highly likely that in certain countries much of the data comes
from multilingual speakers. ICLE, or the International Corpus of Learner English
(httpsː//www.uclouvain.be/en-258636.html) again, is a corpus of learner English,
which by definition only contains data from non-native speakers. However,
language learners are in many important ways different from second language
users (SLU; see Mauranen 2012), and ELF is the language of the latter. Inter-
estingly, the theoretical argument for the basically sociolinguistic difference
between SLU and SLA, or ELF and learner English, has recently received em-
pirical support from corpus analysis: Laitinen (2015) showed in his analysis of
22 Anna Mauranen
structural variables that there are notable typological differences between ELF
and learner language, and that advanced non-native data was closer to indi-
genized L2 varieties than learner varieties.
It is interesting to note that in the case of ELF the usual progression from
written to spoken language in corpora and in linguistic research has been
reversed: VOICE, ELFA, and ACE are all speech corpora. The first written ELF
corpus, WrELFA (http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/wrelfa.html), has only re-
cently (2015) been completed. Clearly, language change is usually first evident
in speech, which motivates the order in which ELF corpora were compiled, but
at the same time this choice also indicates a clear orientation in ELF research to
what is going on in face-to-face interaction. Distinctions between the spoken
and the written modes are nevertheless getting blurred in digital communica-
tion, which is why WrELFA now includes digitally produced material.
A notion of discourse communities (Swales 1990) as regulators of language
and genre practices is also reversed in the digital age, as communities seem to
take shape around discourses and genres rather than initiate and regulate them
(Mauranen 2013a, but see also Mauranen 1993). Digitalisation has also made us
aware of the increasingly non-local nature of communities, which is a common
characteristic of ELF use. However, ELF communities are diverse, and their life
spans are not always short: numerous international organisations and businesses,
as well as research institutions and universities have adopted English as their
internal lingua franca. A range of these is included in VOICE.
How we see language communities is a key question to corpus-related lan-
guage studies, because corpora reflect their relevant communities from the very
start (see e.g. Seidlhofer 2007, 2011). Especially corpora compiled on ‘external’
criteria, such as VOICE or ELFA, pay close attention to the notion of community
they draw on.
3 Compiling a corpus of ELF

When corpora began to be deliberately compiled on the basis of external criteria
(cf. Sinclair 2005), that is, not linguistic but ones that reflect relevant social uses
of language, the question of criteria in picking the relevant uses arises. Both
VOICE and ELFA opted to follow the MICASE (Michigan Corpus of Academic
Spoken English, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micase) principle of talking about
‘speech event types’ not genres. For ELFA, which focuses on the academic com-
munity, the relevant criteria were based on the speech event types best reflecting
the community’s activities. Clearly, VOICE had a harder selection to make, aim-
ing for more general coverage. It solved the problem by looking into mode,
authenticity, and interactivity (for a detailed account, see Breiteneder et al.

2006). Both corpora also employed some linguistic, or internal, criteria. Clearly,
for an ELF corpus it is crucial to include a wide variety of speakers’ first lan-
guages, so as to tease out that which holds for the kind of English that is being
used and co-constructed. Both VOICE and ELFA include around 50 L1s. The
distributions of these languages are not even, which could hardly be expected
in authentic situations, but it is important to note that this also precludes the
kinds of L1-based comparisons that learner corpus studies often carry out. Where
the ELF corpora depart more radically from learner corpora is that the speakers’
levels of proficiency vary freely. Even though learner groups may not be at
entirely the same level, there is a rough correspondence in terms of years studied
or the relevant school grade. In contrast to this, ELF conversations include
any combination of proficiency levels, since this is what happens in ordinary
communication.
New openings in corpora require a strong conceptual backing, and Seidlhofer
has tirelessly worked on this since the early 2000’s, as her many publications in
a variety of fora (e.g. Seidlhofer 2003, 2005, 2007) testify. She has not only
fought against recurrent misconceptions about ELF (Seidlhofer 2006) but also
contributed insightful and influential perspectives on ELF, including widely-
used definitions of ELF.
A particular strength of the VOICE corpus is the careful and labour-intensive
annotation of the database, with the innumerable choices that such work entails
(see, for instance, Breiteneder et al. 2006, 2009), along with the meticulous
documentation of this work.
4 Approaches to ELF corpora

The main strength of a corpus is beyond doubt its ability to yield observations
on large-scale phenomena in language. Additionally, transcripts and their audit
files lend themselves to qualitative, for example interactional analyses, which
adds to the usability of a corpus – it is not limited to strictly corpus linguistic
approaches, let alone only quantitative observations. In terms of corpus meth-
odology, ELF corpus work has the same broad approaches available as any other
corpora: we can start from testing pre-set hypotheses, or some corpus-driven
method like frequency lists, from qualitative reading of transcripts or listening
to audiofiles, or we can start from intuition.
Both Osimk-Teasdale (2014) and Carey (2013) started from testing hypotheses
that had originated in earlier observations. Osimk-Teasdale analysed word class
shifts in VOICE, which she found to be bound to their communicative situations,
24 Anna Mauranen
made in a systematic manner, bi-directional, and indicative of the content priori-

tization of ELF users. These were interesting observations, and despite Carey’s
critique of the incidence of the phenomenon (httpsː//elfaproject.wordpress.com/
2014/08/27/needles-in-a-haystack-fluidity-of-elf/), taken together with other corpus
findings would seem to point to a certain reshuffling of form-function corre-
spondences in ELF use, an expedient way of dealing with the tension of getting
things said without excessive effort but at the same time staying within the
limits of intelligibility. We could also explain these tendencies by evoking the
notion of approximation (Mauranen 2012), which seems to be a major process
in ELF, which applies to form as well as meaning, and is an apparent a success
strategy in most cases. Together with the process of fixing (Vetchinnikova 2014),
it contributes to change in English: unfixing and re-fixing conventionalised con-
nections. Carey in his turn (2013) set out to test hypotheses concerning a few
interactive and text-organising chunks in ELFA, VOICE, and an early version of
WrELFA, with the result that a number of standard-like frequent chunks were in
fact more common in ELF than in ENL (MICASE), whereas there were again
approximate forms of functionally similar chunks in ELF. This, together with
analyses based on n-gram frequencies in Mauranen (2012), shows that the most
frequent phraseological units are nearly identical in ENL and ELF. In the much
less explored domain of ELF syntax, Ranta (2013) discovered distinct traces of
non-standard clause structures in all the four variables she studied. Yet the
same features she found in ELF speech were present in comparable ENL data,
albeit in different distributions. ELF simply is a kind of English: what is really
firmly established, remains largely in place, and variability in less entrenched
patterns manifests itself in L1 speech as well.
The second methodological approach listed above is illustrated in taking
frequency lists as a point of departure. Simple as it may seem in itself, frequencies
and distributions throughout ELF-based corpus work show clearly that these differ
from comparable ENL data. This is a powerful indicator of change in progress:
different preferences are ushered in even where the forms remain intact. Their
importance lies in the tendency of preferred, frequent patterns to repeat and
re-establish themselves more and more firmly with time.
The third approach, starting from qualitative reading, is a classic case of
corpus-driven methods (see Tognini-Bonelli 2001). It has produced serendipitous
findings, such as the use of in my point of view, or I’m going to say some words
about this (Mauranen 2012), which, as repeated approximative expressions, would
certainly support both Osimk-Teasdale and Carey discussed above. It would
seem clear that the approximations reflect the lesser entrenchment of the exact
conventional forms in the speakers in ELF corpora. On a less quantitative note,
many studies performed on VOICE have taken a deliberately qualitative approach,
or drawn a sample from the corpus. On phraseological findings, Seidlhofer

(2009a) and Seidlhofer & Widdowson (2007) have pursued this line of study as
they have been exploring the idiom principle and the open choice principle in
ELF data, concluding that the open choice principle is what ELF speech tends
to lean on rather than the idiom principle. Other essentially qualitative studies
based on samples of VOICE data include Pitzl’s (2011, 2012) innovative work on
metaphor and re-metaphorisation of conventionalised elements, Hülmbauer’s
(2009) work on communicative effectiveness, and Hüttner’s (2009) investigations
on fluency.
The final methodological approach that is used in corpus studies is reliance
on intuition. This can be close to qualitative reading, or casual observations of
conversations that may raise curiosity about not only what has been said but
also what might be said. Linguistic intuition of this kind can drive corpus inves-
tigation, but its yield may remain sporadic. However, occasionally we find that
ENL speakers fall back on their intuition as native speakers, and come up with
categories of items for confirmation (e.g. Marx and Swales 2005). This is a matter
of serious methodological confusion: obviously, the figures found are not dis-
torted in themselves (although no zero hits seem to be reported). However,
what is not picked up by intuition cannot be recovered in the data. Worse, if
the same list is applied to an ELF corpus, it will not only show a different distri-
bution of the items, but also zero hits in many instances (Mauranen 2013b) –
which will make ELF look defective and odd. Thus, native speaker intuition
makes a poor point of departure for investigating ELF, and if comparisons
are made, it is important to remain mindful of the direction of the comparison.
Starting from our searches of ELF data in the first place, as was done for
instance by Ranta (2013) gives priority to ELF speaker usage which of course is
the point of investigating ELF. Interestingly, too, as Ranta’s study shows, ELF as
a point of departure helps make unexpected discoveries in ENL usage. This is
important to bear in mind, as especially in applied linguistics and language
teaching it is all too commonly assumed that ENL practices must by and large
be those reflected in standard reference works. Change observable in diachronic
corpus studies (including contemporary change) is always ahead of normative
ruling, and current change is in part driven by ELF.
5 Conclusion
Corpus data is valuable for investigating English as a lingua franca as we have
seen; compiling a corpus of authentic spoken language is always a great effort
and a major achievement. Compiling a pioneering corpus is a real feat.
26 Anna Mauranen
The laws of big numbers bring important trends to light where close atten-
tion to detail tends to obscure them. What we can glean from ELF corpora is that
ELF is, in the main, very much like the rest of English. For instance, compar-
ing the most frequent trigrams in two corpora of academic speech, ELFA and
MICASE, the top ten were nearly identical (Mauranen 2012). After that, moving
down the frequency rank, the distributions begin to bifurcate, which tends to
happen with any comparison of two corpora. The most frequent items behave
differently from less frequent ones, as is usually the case with linguistic items
(see e.g. Bybee and Hopper 2001).
Of course, the laws of big numbers can also hide what is already brewing
under the surface, and the subtler processes and alterations need to be observed
in terms of their similarities across phenomena rather than as negligible phe-
nomena if taken individually. Many of the studies carried out in Vienna on sam-
ples of the VOICE corpus have been on a small scale, using qualitative methods.
Such studies are valuable for corpus linguistic work in contributing insights into
emerging phenomena.
ELF corpora have also thrown non-standardness in ENL in sharp relief.
Elina Ranta’s (2013) work shows how many non-standard features are common
to ENL and ELF speech, and discrepancies between prescribed standards and
actual educated speech pertain to native and non-native speakers alike. Although
deviations from the standard varied depending on the feature, all deviations
attested in ELF also occurred in ENL speech; embedded inversions were particu-
larly striking in being virtually identical in type and rate of occurrence in ELFA
and MICASE.
One of the notable triumphs of ELF work in corpora is that new digital data-
bases of L2 use are being compiled by researchers who come from outside the
ELF community but who take a keen interest in the on-going changes in contem-
porary English. Recent examples are the dual corpora of written SWE-CE and
FIN-CE, two corpora of written ELF used as a working language, compiled by
Mikko Laitinen with his team at the Linnaeus University, and CASE, a corpus of
on-line academic ELF talk on Skype, compiled by a team led by Stefan Diemer at
the University of Saarland (http://www.uni-saarland.de/lehrstuhl/engling/case.
html).
The idea of an ELF corpus might not have pleased the English corpus lin-
guistic community at first sight, but fifteen years on it simply seems just normal.
The first ELF corpora, VOICE and ELFA, saw the daylight in the first decade of
this millennium. Now they are widely used and followed.
References
ACE. 2014. The Asian Corpus of English. Director: Andy Kirkpatrick; Researchers: Wang Lixun,
John Patkin, Sophiann Subhan. http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace/ (accessed 10 July 2015).
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage based models of language. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Blommaert, Jan & Ben Rampton. 2012. Language and superdiversity. MMG Working Paper 12-05.
httpsː//www.academia.edu/1496858/Language_and_Superdiversity_Blommaert_
and_Rampton_2012_ (accessed 10 July 2015).
Breiteneder, Angelika, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Stefan Majewski & Theresa Klimpfinger. 2006. VOICE
recording – Methodological challenges in the compilation of a corpus of spoken ELF.
Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2). 161–188. http://hdl.handle.net/2077/3153 (ac-
cessed 10 July 2015).
Breiteneder, Angelika, Theresa Klimpfinger, Stefan Majewski & Marie-Luise Pitzl. 2009. The
Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) – A linguistic resource for exploring
English as a lingua franca. ÖGAI-Journal 28(1). 21–26.
Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic
structure. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic
structure, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carey, Ray. 2013. On the other side: Formulaic organizing chunks in written and spoken aca-
demic ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(2). 207–228.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Dewey, Martin. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implica-
tions. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and
findings, 60–83. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
ELFA. 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna
Mauranen. http://www.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus (accessed 10 July 2015).
Ellis, Nick C. 2009. Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-
focused learning. In Michael H. Long & Catherine J. Doughty (eds.), The handbook of
language teaching, 139–158. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2009. ‘We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think
you will understand’ – The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in
ELF. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and find-
ings, 323–347. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hüttner, Julia. 2009. Fluent speakers – fluent interactions. On the creation of (co)-fluency
in English as a lingua franca. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a
lingua franca: Studies and findings, 323–347. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2014. English as a lingua franca in the international university. London:
Routledge.
28 Anna Mauranen
Laitinen, Mikko. 2015. From diachrony to typology: Testing typological profiling on advanced
non-native data. Paper presented at Changing English 2015: Integrating cognitive, social
& typological perspectives, University of Helsinki, 8–11 June.
Mauranen, Anna. 1993. Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. A textlinguistic study. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.
Mauranen, Anna. 2006. A rich domain of ELF – the ELFA corpus of academic discourse. Nordic
Journal of English Studies 5(2). 145–159. [Special issue] on English as a lingua franca,
Anna Mauranen & Maria Metsä-Ketelä (eds.).
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mauranen, Anna. 2013a. Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet.
Nordic Journal of English Studies 12(1). 7–36.
Mauranen, Anna. 2013b. Speaking professionally in an L2: Issues of corpus methodology. In
Julia Bamford, Silvia Cavalieri & Giuliana Diani (eds.), Variation and change in spoken
and written discourse, 5–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Marx, Stephanie & Swales, John M. 2005. Announcements of self-repair: ‘All I’m trying to say is,
you’re under an illusion.’ www.lsa.umich.edu/eli/micase/kibbitzer.htm.
Osimk-Teasdale, Ruth. 2014. ‘I just wanted to give a partly answer’: Capturing and exploring
word class variation in ELF data. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1). 109–43.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2011. Creativity in English as a lingua franca: Idiom and metaphor. Vienna,
Austria: University of Vienna PhD thesis.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2012. Creativity meets convention: Idiom variation and re-metaphorization in
ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1). 27–55.
Ranta, Elina. 2013. Universals in a universal language? – Exploring verb-syntactic features in
English as a lingua franca. Tampere, Finland: University of Tamere PhD thesis.
English as a lingua franca. Tampere: University of Tampere PhD thesis.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001a. Making the case for a corpus of English as a lingua franca. In
Aston, Guy; Burnard, Lou (eds.). Corpora in the description and teaching of English, 70–
85. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice Bologna.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001b. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2003. English for Europe, or European English? In Rüdiger Ahrens (ed.),
Europäische Sprachenpolitik. European Language Policy, 123–138. Heidelberg: Universi-
tätsverlag Winter.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. Language variation and change: The case of English as lingua
franca. In Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kolaczyk & Joanna Przedlacka (eds.). English pronuncia-
tion models: A changing scene, 59–75. Bern: Peter Lang.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2006. English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn’t. In
Rani Rubdy & Mario Saraceni (eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles, 40–
50. London: Continuum.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2007. English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Sabine
Volk-Birke & Julia Lippert (eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings, 307–318. Trier:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009a. Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua
franca. Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2). 195–215.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009b. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2010. Lingua franca English – The European context. In Andy Kirkpatrick
(ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, 355–371. Oxon: Routledge.
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Henry G. Widdowson. 2007. Idiomatic variation and change in English.
The idiom principle and its realizations. In Ute Smit, Stefan Dollinger, Julia Hüttner,
Gunther Kaltenböck & Ursula Lutzky (eds.), Tracing English through time. Explorations in
language variation (Festschrift for Herbert Schendl, Austrian Studies in English, vol. 95),
359–374. Wien: Braumüller.
Sinclair, John. 2005. Corpus and text – Basic principles. In Martin Wynne (ed.), Developing lin-
guistic corpora: A guide to good practice. 1–16. Oxford: Oxbow Books: http://ahds.ac.uk/
linguistic-corpora/ (accessed 11 October 2006).
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana. 2014. Second language lexis and the idiom principle. http://urn.fi/
URN:ISBN:978-951-51-0064-1 (accessed 11 July 2015).
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 Online). Director:
Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka http://voice.univie.ac.
at (accessed 11 July 2015).
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, Henry G. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2). 377–89.
WrELFA. 2015. The Corpus of Written English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director:
Anna Mauranen. Compilation manager: Ray Carey. http://www.helsinki.fi/elfa/wrelfa.html
(accessed 10 July 2015).
Henry Widdowson
ELF, adaptive variability and virtual
language
In Barbara Seidlhofer’s critical discussion of the nature of ELF (Seidlhofer 2011)

there is a chapter entitled Standard English and Real English. The conjunction
implies that there is both a distinction and a relationship between two. But as
Seidlhofer points out, the two are commonly conflated: the established way of
thinking is to assume that Standard English is the real language, and so is
accorded official status in linguistic description and in language pedagogy.
But what kind of reality does Standard English represent? The concept is
regularly invoked, but its definition is uncertain. It is generally equated with
the equally uncertain notion of native speaker competence, as in the following
definition of British English: “As far as grammar and vocabulary are concerned,
this generally means Standard English as it is normally written and spoken by
educated speakers in England and, with certain differences, in Wales, Scotland,
Northern Ireland, The Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and South
Africa.” (Trudgill and Hannah 2008: 5)
To describe what is normal obviously depends on the definition of an
abstract norm, but then how has this norm been determined? This is left un-
explained and all we can do is to take what the authors say on trust. Similarly
we have to assume that the authors have reason to suppose that there is a dis-
tinct category of educated speakers. But again, there is no indication of how this
abstract category might be defined. All speakers have had some education, so
what level of education do they have to reach to be categorized as educated?
The notion of Standard English has, of course, been much discussed in the
sociolinguistics literature (e.g. in Milroy and Milroy 1991, Bex and Watts 1999,
Crowley 2003) but a clear definition of just what it is has proved elusive, as
indeed some sociolinguists concede: “[. . .] ‘standard English’ still seems to me
to be a ‘confused and confusing’ territory for sociolinguistics, and probably
much more so than we should be comfortable with. ‘Standardness’ and ‘non-
standardness’ are too deeply ingrained into sociolinguistic theory and methods
for us to dispense with received perspectives and begin again, conceptually.”
(Coupland 2000: 632)
One can acknowledge that the concepts of Standard English and native
speaker competence are convenient constructs. It is difficult to see how any
Henry Widdowson, University of Vienna

32 Henry Widdowson
linguistic description can dispense with such abstractions. Chomsky has been
much berated for concept of the “ideal speaker-listener in a completely homoge-
neous speech community” (Chomsky 1965: 3). But the ideal speaker listener is
presupposed in the very idea that there is a native speaker competence, and
research in SLA – Second Language Acquisition – is based on this presupposi-
tion. Similarly, the description of languages or language varieties as stable and
separate entities associated with distinct communities of speakers obviously de-
pends on an assumption of homogeneity (for further discussion see Widdowson
2012).
The expedient descriptive value of such concepts can of course outweigh
their theoretical shortcomings. In linguistics, as in everything else in life, one
has to assume some stability. To see things steadily one has to see them whole:
one can only make sense of anything by ignoring particulars. So concepts like
variety, standard language and native speaker competence have their value and
are well suited to ‘received perspectives’. But what if these perspectives are not
themselves well suited to changing circumstances which call them into question
and create a need to begin again conceptually?
Whatever its doubtful theoretical status might be, Standard English, is de-
scriptively enshrined in grammars and dictionaries as authoritative sources of
reference. Over recent years, these have been based on corpora of native speaker
usage and it is this now that is commonly claimed to represent ‘real English’ But
this in effect is a revised version of the standard which is still equated with
native speaker norms. One can simply defer to the authority of these descrip-
tions and ratify their reference status by accepting them as the officially sanc-
tioned representation of the English language. But although this authorized
version of native speaker English is taken to have a special and privileged status,
it is, as is widely recognised, only one version, one variety of the language. There
are many others.
But this raises the question of what it is that varieties vary from. Their
variation presupposes some kind of stabilized norm. One can argue that the
non-conformist features of non-standard varieties can be identified by reference
to Standard English, and this indeed is how they are usually identified. But this
does not mean that for their speakers, there is a reference norm of Standard
English from which these features vary. These varieties develop independently
as naturally dynamic and adaptive uses of language. And if Standard English is
also a variety, what is the norm that this variety varies from?
There are two conceptual problems about the notion of variety. One is that it
is represented as a distinct and stabilized system in a state of arrested animation
and so misrepresents the continuing natural dynamism of language use. In short
the identification of a variety depends on a disregard of the adaptive variability
that is of the essence of natural language. The second problem is that even
if one accepts that for some purposes the idealized description of varieties as
stable and separate linguistic states is a legitimate thing to do, there is the
difficulty of knowing what they are supposed to be varieties of. When one talks
about varieties of English, how is this English to be defined?
For reasons already touched upon, it cannot be Standard English, whether
this is based on native speaker usage or not. This is only one version of the
language, a variety that has been accorded a privileged status but of its nature
not essentially different from any other. Like the others it is the exemplification
of certain encoding principles, one set of realizations that have become conven-
tionally established within a particular community. But a code is of its nature a
generative device with the potential to be realized in all manner of various ways.
It cannot be equated with the way it is realized in the standard language, or
in any other variety. So we need to conceive of the code of English as a set of
general encoding principles which are independent of their partial and selective
use and which represents an inexhaustible potential for meaning making – a
virtual language that allows for infinite adaptive variability in the way it is
actually realized.
Contrary to what has at times been supposed (e.g. Vetchinnikova 2015), the
concept of a virtual language is radically different from Saussure’s langue. It is
not a system of actual encodings: it is a generative encoding potential whose
properties can only be inferred from its variable use. It is perhaps not too fanci-
ful to liken it to a phenomenon like a Black Hole: something which is not
directly observable but whose presence can be inferred from effects that are
observable. Similarly, I would argue, linguistic variability presupposes a virtual
language.
The essential point is that the lexis and grammar of an actual language,
like that which is described as Standard English, or the ‘real’ English of native
speaker usage, is only a partial exploitation of coding possibilities. And not
only is it partial but it is also inconsistent. To take one or two brief examples.
In Standard English certain lexical items, like break, open, close are encoded as
both transitive and intransitive verbs. But this encoding principle is virtually
applicable to all verbs. It allows for verbs that are conventionally only intransi-
tive to function transitively as well, as in she smiled/her agreement, she agreed/
his idea. In this second example, as in many other cases, this transitivity shift
can only be conventionally encoded by means of the adverbial particle of phrasal
verbs: she agreed to/with his idea. These are for the most part idiosyncratic encod-
ings, historical traces of past realizations that are inconsistent with the productive
regularities of the code.
34 Henry Widdowson
The virtual language also allows for a similar functional flexibility in the
use of nouns. For example, it allows an extension of the use of the plural suffix
to all mass nouns and not only those that have already been actualized as such
in the standard language. So although expressions like informations, evidences
and advices happen not to actually occur in standard English and are stigma-
tized as ‘errors’ (see Seidlhofer 2011: 15), they are just as consistent with the
encoding principles of the virtual language as are the Standard English forms
transformations, pretences and practices. Again, the use of the encoding principle
of verbal recategorization is restricted in Standard English to certain nouns and
not others. But, in principle it applies to all nouns. The use of the nouns window
and door as verbs, for example, is not less consistent with the encoding principles
of the virtual language than is the verbal use of the nouns table and chair. The
difference is only that the latter happen to have become conventionalized and
the former have not.
The same point can be made about virtual morphological principles of
word-formation. Affixes like the prefix un- and the suffixes -less, for example,
are in actual English conventionally attached to certain lexical forms but not
to others. But there is the virtual possibility of extending this affixation principle
to other forms as well. Word formations like unsad and unsick or acheless
and prideless are just as consistent with this virtual encoding principle as are
those that happen to have become conventionally established like unhappy and
unhealthy or painless and shameless.
When, as often happens, ELF users (or EFL learners) exploit the resources of
the virtual language in this way, they may be told that they are over-generalizing –
wrongly following encoding rules that do not apply in these cases. But the rules
do apply: it is just that users of English have hitherto not had occasion to apply
them, or are inconsistent in their application.
It is, of course, not surprising that actual language is irregular and inconsis-
tent in applying virtual language rules. On the contrary, the normal social func-
tioning of a language requires it to be. The ways in which the resources of the
code are put to use in actual language will naturally vary. As is pointed out in
Sinclair (1991), actual usage is not a matter of composing messages in accor-
dance with code rules, but follows an idiom principle whereby the language is
produced and processed as already encoded phraseological units. As Sinclair
(1991: 110) puts it:
The principle of idiom is that a language user has available to him or her a large number of
semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute single choices, even though they might appear
to be analysable into segments. To some extent, this may reflect the recurrence of similar
situations in human affairs; it may illustrate a natural tendency to economy of effort; or it
may be motivated in part by the exigencies of real-time conversation. (Sinclair 1991: 110,
emphasis mine)
Such “semi-preconstructed phrases” are composites which, in varying de-

grees, are adaptable to communicative requirement. But their adaptation is
necessarily in conformity to virtual encoding principles: they are not just ran-
domly assembled. Such phrases make for communicative efficiency, but only
on condition that they are indeed available to the language users within that
community who know them to be recurrent. But what of language users who
are not, and do not know? Particular phraseological patterns can be said to
“reflect the recurrence of similar situations in human affairs”, as Sinclair puts
it, but which situations and which human affairs? These are socio-culturally
different across communities. What Sinclair seems to have in mind is native
speaker users in the situations that recur in their communities. These patterns
of particular encodings become conventional over time because they are service-
able for the contexts and purposes of communicative use in particular com-
munities. And once conventionalized, they become markers of communal identity.
But there is no reason to suppose that such patterns should be equally serviceable
outside those communities. On the contrary, given the adaptive variability of lan-
guage, there is every reason to suppose that they will not. Every use of language
will naturally follow the idiom principle, but how this is actually linguistically
realized is bound to vary. Acting on the principle necessarily involves variable
adaptation according to context.
The learning of a language necessarily involves the inferring of abstract en-
coding principles from their actual realizations and learners will quite naturally
focus on those principles which have most communicative value for them. As far
as the learning of English as an L1 is concerned, this will involve a process of
gradual conformity as learners acquire those principles and their particular
usage realizations that have become conventional in the communities they are
being socialized into. But as far as learning English as an L2 is concerned, there
is no such requirement of conformity: not all, perhaps not most L2 learners are
learning the language in order to be socialized as members of native speaking
communities, or to identify with them. The contexts and purposes for which
they will need the code as a communicative resource are other than those that
obtain in such L1 communities. The encoding principles they focus on as having
communicative value, and the way these principles are variably realized in
patterns of usage, will naturally be other than those that have been established
as conventional in L1 communities.
Adaptive variability is a necessary feature of all natural language use, but is
particularly evident in the use of ELF because, apart from the fact that this has
to relate to a wide range of different contexts and purposes, its users also have
to find ways of accommodating to each other across their different linguacul-
tural backgrounds. What ELF use reveals so clearly is the on-line enactment of
36 Henry Widdowson
the actual process of adaptive variability and therefore the essential pragmatics
of communication. Where there is lack of conformity, it is entirely consistent
with natural language development.
To return to where I started, with the supposed reality of Standard English.
I have argued that there is nothing uniquely real about it, even when it is
extended to include norms of actual native speaker usage. It represents particular
realizations of a virtual code which by no means exhaust its conceptual and
communicative potential. And it is this potential that is realized when the lan-
guage is put to actual use, with users drawing on code resources in variable
ways as appropriate to context and purpose: they do not communicate simply
by conforming to established encodings, but also by realizing other encoding
possibilities inherent in the virtual language. This is true of all users of English
(and of any other natural language) whether they are so-called native speakers
or not: if the language did not allow for such variation, it would be pragmati-
cally dysfunctional. Adaptive variability, an intrinsic feature of language use,
presupposes the availability to users of an unrealized meaning-making resource
of a virtual language.
Seen in this way, as Barbara Seidlhofer and other researchers in ELF have
consistently argued, ELF is communicatively normal. But, especially in in the
field of English language teaching the idea still persists that it is an abnormal
use of language in that its variations deviate from the encodings established as
normal, and it is taken as self-evident that this abnormality necessarily makes
ELF a reduced version of ‘proper’ English, deficient as a means of communica-
tion, and so no different from learner language. In giving primacy to conformity
over adaptive variability, this still widespread and influential pedagogic view
actually misrepresents the very nature of human communication.
What seems to me to be of central significance of ELF study, in which
Barbara Seidlhofer has played such a prominent role, is that it calls into ques-
tion taken for granted assumptions not only about what ‘English’ is, but what
all languages are. In so doing, her work and that of other ELF researchers have
challenged the institutionalised presumption that Standard English and native
speaker norms of usage are real English and is the only variant version of the
language that it is proper for people to use and to learn, in denial of the fact
that it is clearly inappropriate as a means of international communication in a
globalized world.
References
Bex, Tony & Richard Watts (eds). 1999. Standard English: The widening debate. London: Routledge.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: University of Michigan
Press.
Coupland, Nikolaus. 2000. Sociolinguistic prevarication about ‘standard English’. Journal of

Sociolinguistics 4(4). 622–634.
Crowley, Tony. 2003. Standard English and the politics of language. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1991. Authority in language, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance and collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trudgill, Peter & Jean Hannah. International English. A guide to the varieties of Standard
English, 5th edn. London: Hodder Education.
Press.
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana. 2015. Usage-based recycling or creative exploitation of the shared
code? The case of phraseological patterning. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(2).
223–252.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2012. ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca 1(1). 5–26.
Alessia Cogo
Visibility and absence: Ideologies of
‘diversity’ in BELF
1 Introduction
When we talk about English as a Lingua Franca, we often run into the risk of
prioritising the ‘English’ part of the label and underestimate the ‘lingua franca’
aspect. However, while the first part may seem like we refer to English only, it is
the ‘lingua franca’ perspective that points to the diversity, variability and nego-
tiability of the medium. One of the first scholars to emphasise this is Barbara
Seidlhofer (2011: 101), who has also recently reminded us that “[m]uch of ELF
is negotiated ad hoc, dependent on content, purpose, and constellations of
speakers and their own linguacultural backgrounds”. Seidlhofer’s work con-
tributes to conceptualising ELF as the phenomenon at the interface between
stability and variability, where its dynamic, open source nature is “stabilized”
in the local realisations of different communities, like the business ones I deal
with in this chapter.
Today, Business English as a Lingua Franca (BELF) constitutes the most
common medium of communication in international business contexts. The
study of BELF is a growing area of investigation, which has provided some
common findings and raised some interesting issues for future research (for an
overview, see Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011; Ehrenreich and Pitzl 2015). Like
ELF, it is a complex, flexible, fluid and dynamic medium of communication,
highly variable and adaptable to different communicative contexts. Unlike ELF
more generally, BELF specifically concerns the use of ELF in business and pro-
fessional contexts, where the business part of the acronym draws the attention
to the domain specific characteristics of this medium, aspects that cannot be
separated from BELF, but constitute an important part of its communicative
practices.
In facts, findings show that BELF is a highly flexible and adaptable medium,
both from a sociolinguistic perspective, in the analysis of BELF conversations,
and from an attitudinal perspective, in the analysis of BELF speakers’ attitudes
to English in international situations. Research shows variation on various levels
of analysis (lexico-grammar, phonology and pragmatics) and general positive
attitudes and acceptance of this variation as an inherent characteristic of BELF
Alessia Cogo, Goldsmiths, University of London

40 Alessia Cogo
communication. In short, BELF is not a neutral code or a variety, but a phe-

nomenon characterized by diversity at different levels and in different contexts,
domain-related or geographically-related.
However, diversity has been a rather marginalized area of concern in BELF
studies. To complicate the picture even more, considerations of ‘language’ and
‘English’ cannot escape the influence of globalizing forces, both on their use
and conceptualizations. The introduction of the term superdiversity and its
related research on complexity (Blommaert and Rampton 2011) has pointed to
the empirical challenges of contemporary multilingual contexts and highlights
its implications for conceptualizations of language, variety, community, and com-
petence (though not in relation to superdiversity, these concepts are extensively
and critically discussed in Seidlhofer 2011).
This paper is a contribution to an understanding of diversity in BELF con-
texts. I will start by exploring the discourses and ideologies related to diversity
in BELF and then illustrate these with two case studies carried out in two different
companies. I will conclude with emphasizing how two seemingly contradictory
ideologies of diversity, the visibility of diversity and the absence of diversity in
writing, dominate some of the discourses around languages explored in BELF
studies.
2 Conceptualizations of ‘English’ and discourses

of diversity in BELF studies
In business communication studies, ‘English’ is usually portrayed as a global
phenomenon that has its reach beyond the national boundary and is particu-
larly useful for multinational companies (MNC) and organizations as a corporate
language. Although ELF researchers too conceptualize English as a transnational
medium of communication and the inevitable development of the globalization of
the language, the emphasis in ELF studies is as much on the global phenomenon
as on the local realizations, where ELF is constructed and constantly adapted to
local practices.
The majority of studies in business contexts explore the role of English as
a corporate language (see Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen, and Piekkari 2006).
Research shows that various companies deal with this concept differently –
sometimes the notion of corporate language is included in official language
policies, whereby language choice decisions are explicitly formulated and one
or more specific languages are mentioned as corporate languages. Sometimes
other companies adopt a laissez-faire mode and language choices are left to
ad-hoc realizations. Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta (2012) describe these

as “multilingual strategy” and “emergent strategy” respectively. However, it is
difficult to gauge what the notion of ‘corporate language’ really means beyond
the specific strategic decisions. In fact, in business communication studies, the
concept is often taken for granted, something that does not need explaining and
is usually associated with one language – English. Consequently, English as a
corporate language is reified and conceived as a monolithic entity, which does
not need explaining or exploring.
BELF studies have started addressing this gap, though even there studies of
naturally occurring communication are still relatively few, mainly because it is
increasingly difficult to obtain access to business settings. So, while the diversity
of the medium is rarely explored, the general diversity of the business context
has received more attention, especially in studies that investigate language
choice between BELF and other languages. For example, Louhiala-Salminen,
Charles and Kankaanranta (2005) conducted a study of BELF in the Scandinavian
context, which explored the merger of a Finnish and a Swedish company and
their decision to use BELF as a corporate language. The study focused on the
linguistic and cultural challenges faced by the employees and their perceptions
of BELF and other linguistics practices. The findings showed that the employees
experienced a number of challenges with using BELF and that the corporate
language occupied only 20 per cent of their communication time, with other
languages being particularly relevant in their everyday exchanges. Despite the
challenges, the employees’ attitudes to English were rather flexible, seeing
BELF both as an international medium rather than the language associated
with native speakers and “a conduit of its speakers’ communication culture”
(Louhiala-Salminen, Charles, and Kankaanranta 2005: 417).
Despite different corporate language policies the discourses around the use
of a corporate language are clearly pointing to the perceived advantages. A
corporate language is seen as a tool for effective company communication, for
transnational exchanges among different branches in order to avoid communi-
cation problems and to save costs of translation and interpreting practices.
These discourses promote the understanding that using one language at a time
reduces the possibility of miscommunication, and the inverse ideology that
mixing languages is confusing and may be problematic. This ideology that only
one language at a time can ensure successful communication not only dominates
the business communication studies but also sifts through into corporate contexts
especially. In these contexts, diversity is usually underplayed, especially linguistic
diversity, and discourses around BELF being a flexible and multilingual medium of
communication are relegated to the informal sphere and internal communication.
The understanding of BELF being a flexible and dynamic medium which is only
42 Alessia Cogo
suitable for informal and internal communication is part of the discourses

constructed in a number of studies (see Kankaanranta, Louhiala-Salminen, and
Karhunen 20151) which explore the external/internal communication dichotomy.
The Goffmanian distinction between front-stage and back-stage (Goffman
1956) can be usefully applied in business communication to indicate two dichot-
omous modes of communication – one where speakers take on a public persona
and the other when they let down their guard and offer a private face. While the
distinction between external and internal communication is not clear-cut and
professional activities often fall in between or in both categories, the distinc-
tion between front-stage and back-stage communication helps clarify company’s
communication practices: all the official documents and the company’s website
are the front-stage realizations, while informal spoken communication or written
informal communication are back-stage practices. What Kankaanranta, Louhiala-
Salminen and Karhunen (2015) and Ehrenreich (2010, 2011) have found in their
own data is that front-stage practices are carried out in English monolingually,
whereas back-stage communication can be done with any of the language re-
sources of the interlocutors. However, what still needs to be explored are the
ideologies and discourses operating behind these front- and back-stage decisions,
which influence not only people’s perceptions but also their use of their linguistic
resources.
Language ideologies have significant influence on how language is used in
a specific context – and workplaces are not an exception. What has happened so
far is that in workplace BELF research, studies have focused either on the
dynamic use and co-construction of BELF or on the attitudes and identities of
participants. Studies have tended to keep the two aspects separate and implicitly
downplayed the role of ideologies, and the strong bearing that ideological con-
structs hold on everyday language practices. While ELF research has fruitfully
produced a good number of studies covering attitudes and ideologies starting
from Jenkins (2007) (an overview of studies is provided in Jenkins, Cogo, and
Dewey 2011), the field of BELF has remained rather immune to the critical analysis
of this sociolinguistic phenomenon. More studies on how local practices and
situation-specific language use are related to the wider social processes and
ideological bearings are needed.
1 These discourses are explored in Kankaanranta, Louhiala-Salminen and Karhunen (2015)’s

paper, which shows them in a continuum between Standard English and BELF. The idea of
BELF and standard English being two extremes in a continuum and therefore coexisting
in business globalized contexts raises a number of issues, especially concerning the role of
ideologies in language use, which I have explored elsewhere (see Cogo 2015).
3 Discourses of diversity in business contexts

I will illustrate my points by briefly referring to the findings of two research
projects in two different companies, which investigated language issues in inter-
national contexts. The two case studies concerned a MNC offering financial
services and a small company offering IT services. The data was collected within
a linguistic ethnographic approach (Copland and Creese 2015)2 and focused on
both discourses/attitudes/ideologies around ELF and multilingual resources in
the workplace and practices that employees regularly carry out in their profes-
sional contexts.
3.1 Diversity in an MNC

The first study concerns a multinational banking corporation, with branches in
various parts of the world, and the headquarters in Paris (see Cogo forthc.).
Though the company’s working languages are English and French, the official
policy is a multilingual one: four main European languages (English, French,
Italian and Dutch) can be used for the writing and publication of the company’s
official documents. This multilingual strategy could be ‘seen’ as displayed in the
company’s website language options and in the company’s intranet, but was
not particularly visible in any other documentation that the participants used
on an everyday basis, and was not known by any of the participants until the
researcher started the fieldwork. Multilingualism as corporate communication
is the official choice of the company, and the one displayed in official documents
and websites, which are translated into the four official languages, but the other
practices show a more complex interplay of English and multilingual resources.
In contrast to the actual policies, the discourses around diversity were
rather contradictory and centred around the front- and back-stage distinction,
which the participants formulated as “formal and informal communication” or
“external and internal communication”. According to them, it was the internal
communication that was more flexible and, depending on the formality of the
2 The studies were conducted in 2012–2014 and involved field-work visits to the companies and
ethnographic data collection (observations, collection of documents, linguistic landscape data,
participation in social and professional activities as researcher/observer), together with inter-
views with the participants, follow up phone calls with some of the participants, activity logs
of employees and exchange of emails about the research findings, and recordings of naturally
occurring conversations for the IT company only (for specifics about the data collection see
Cogo 2012, forthc.).
44 Alessia Cogo
exchange, could allow for using multilingual resources, while the external ex-
changes had to be conducted solely in English, or occasionally French. The
participants constructed discourses of language separation, which followed the
company’s structural separation of their activities. However, their everyday prac-
tices did not reflect the linguistic separation they had described: their offices,
their emails, their BELF exchanges with colleagues all constructed a more flexible
language-contact orientation, with frequent use of codeswitching and trans-
languaging practices.
The internal communication practices allowed for more flexibility in a multi-
lingual perspective, with fluidity and flexibility in the realizations and performance
of different tasks. However, in these back-stage situations, language choice,
languaging practices emerged in the specific exchange, and depended on partic-
ipants’ repertoires and expectations, but they were also affected by the expecta-
tions, regulations and the institutional practices of the company. Participants
commented on the need to keep languages separate in back-stage too, when
referring to writing an e-mail and codeswitching to another language (for
instance, Italian) for openings and closings to create rapport, but writing the
main text in English, or using only English when writing reports or emails which
needed to be forwarded to other people. However, conversations in the office
were flexibly showing elements of Italian and English and the office premises
displayed various other languages (in the employees’ computers screens, video
recording and conference call practices).
The MNC explored in this study is a very diverse environment that manages
diversity in different ways. Publically, it enforces an ideology of homogeneity,
whereby various languages are listed as corporate languages, but they cannot
be mixed and need to be kept separate and work in a one-language-at-a-time
mode. The overarching discourse implies that diversity needs to be listed,
displayed and ticked off from a list of diverse items in a multiplicity which re-
quires demonstrating a number of separate languages. Listing languages implies
separating them and considering them as different, which would contain or limit
the possibility of mixing or translanguaging practices. Whereas in informal and
unofficial spoken communication diverse practices like translanguaging are
normally carried out, dominant ideologies do not allow flexible use of language
in written (and some oral, front-stage) practices. While the linguistic landscape
of the office allows for extensive exposure to various languages, participants
only make use of them in spoken informal communication. Their everyday work-
ing practices are immersed into a landscape of multilingualism, but this remains
a visual one, almost a symbolic representation, which is not fully exploited in
their front-stage business practices.
3.2 Superdiversity in a small company

In the second case study of the small IT company (see Cogo 2012), discourses of
diversity also tend to be related to the distinction of front-stage and back-stage
communication. Participants talk about the company’s IT world and anything
related to IT content, i.e. the technical aspects of their work, as being in English.
“English is the language of IT” for them, but they say that expertise is more
important than speaking English like native speakers. Issues of correctness
from a native speaker ideology seem to be secondary to expertise in the techni-
cal content and knowledge of relevant IT issues. However, when advertising or
marketing the company, the discourses around English change. Front-stage
activities, such as advertising and marketing, are usually carried out digitally,
through various websites or social networks, or in writing, through mailing
newsletters, leaflets and others. This is the front-stage part of their communica-
tion and here participants construct a certain tension between the more fluid
and content-oriented preferences and the discourses of correctness, especially
when they talk about the necessity to employ a native speaker of English for
marketing.
The analysis of the company’s everyday conversational practices, i.e. Goffman’s
back-stage, showed the kind of linguistic flexibility that has been described as
translanguaging practices, i.e. flexible use of linguistic resources, which apart
from English, include Spanish and German (see Cogo 2012). Translanguaging
here is more about using multiple resources without a specific functional orien-
tation and in a non-marked way. Their translanguaging practices are part of
their normal everyday conversations and are constructed differently according
to the participants in the conversations, depending on their repertoires, the
time they have known each other, the content of the exchange and other factors.
Here diversity is seen as common and normal, exposure to it is commonplace,
and not something to pay attention to or something marked, it is a super-diversity
that is experienced without disruption or interruption to participants’ professional
lives. In this specific context BELF translanguaging is so common that people do
not stop or comment on the diversity because diversity is ever present and not
strange. This does not mean that they stop noticing diversity, in fact participants
still construct linguistic resources as separate languages (a bit of German and a
bit of Spanish), but the presence of a multitude of languages and their intersec-
tions have become normal practice and common behavior of their workplace.
While in spoken discourse the participants seem to have accepted and be
comfortable with BELF translanguaging practices, in the written mode this is
not the case. Their marketing work still displays a monolingual standard-
language ideology, as in the MNC study. The ideology of the intrinsic value of
46 Alessia Cogo
writing seems to be associated with the idea that writing is permanent, some-
thing of higher importance than speaking, which on the other hand is ephemeral
and cannot be controlled. Writing is possibly also associated with higher artistic
or scientific accomplishment, as the culmination of research and understanding.
As such, writing needs to be coherent and coherence is not supposed to show
any mixing of linguistic resources. This intrinsic importance of writing does not
allow for diversity and the absence of diversity in writing emerges strongly from
both case studies.
4 Conclusions
We have seen how language ideologies and discourses around diversity and multi-
lingual aspects of language use seem to be justified in terms of the Goffmanian
front-and back-stage distinction. The overall discourse seems to be one in support
of keeping firm control of the boundary between front- and backstage communica-
tion, whereby in front-stage communicative situations languages need to be kept
controlled, separated and employed as a one-language-at-a-time. Diversity is
therefore constructed as ‘ticking the box’ of the official languages of the com-
pany in formal documents and the website, which are carefully written as one
language at a time. Similarly, we have explored how these ideologies clearly
affect the way people communicate in the workplace: translanguaging practices
have to be kept for the internal and informal kind of communication, the emer-
gent, un-regulated and non-ratified practices. Mixing linguistic resources is not
contemplated as an official option, but something that can be carried out only in
unofficial situations, where BELF is excluded from front-stage visibility.
The visibility of diversity relies on two main aspects: countability and clear
separation. I have explored the ideology of diversity as something visible, but
also as something that needs to be counted and clearly separated. The visibility
of diversity implies that diversity has to show its characteristics, being in terms
of displaying different ethnicities or displaying different religious orientations
and, consequently, also displaying different languages. The discourses around
diversity have been in terms of ‘ticking the box’ of the different, in terms of tick-
ing the boxes of the languages spoken in the company, allowed on the intranet
or listing them in the website as separate entities. Practices of ELF communica-
tion, instead, have shown to go beyond clear separation and be more flexible,
displaying “flexibility beyond the fixed” (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer 2013: 396).
Finally, a seemingly contradictory ideology of the absence of diversity in
writing emerges from BELF discourses and practices. The ideology of the intrinsic
value of writing showed its influence in both case studies, and it affected the
way BELF is constructed and the way business people orient to it. However,
there are resistant practices too. Together with speaking, the IT case study has
shown that translanguaging practices are accepted and encouraged informally
in collaborative writing among employees. When writing becomes a socially-
situated practice, with writers writing together, BELF writing seems to be con-
structed in a more flexible and dynamic way.
As multilingual studies of ELF have shown, “ELF does not undermine multi-
lingual diversity but actually helps to sustain it” (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer
2013: 399). This is also valid in BELF contexts, where flexible multilingual com-
munication is practiced, but not officially recognised, and therefore subject to
various ideologies both in the small and multinational corporations. Seidlhofer’s
contribution to conceptualising ELF has had fundamental repercussions in BELF
contexts and on how we view diversity within it. And yet, this is not all. The
practices, policies and identities are always changing and with them ideologies
too. We need more research on how different kinds of ideologies influence BELF
discourses and practices. Ideologies move through and influence people, practices
and organizations and conceptualizations of BELF are not immune from them.
References
Blommaert, Jan & Ben Rampton. 2011. Language and superdiversity: A position paper. Working
Papers on Urban Language and Literacies 70. http://www.academia.edu/6356809/WP70_
Blommaert_and_Rampton_2011._Language_and_superdiversity_A_position_paper (accessed
17 May 2015).
Cogo, Alessia. 2012. ELF and super-diversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a
business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2). 287–313.
Cogo, Alessia. 2015. Complexity, negotiability, and ideologies: A response to Zhu, Pitzl, and
Kankaanranta et al. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1). 149–155.
Cogo, Alessia. forthcoming. ‘They all take the risk and make the effort’: Intercultural accom-
modation and multilingualism in a BELF community of practice. In Lucilla Lopriore (ed.).
Proceedings of 6th international conference of English as a lingua franca, Rome.
Copland, Fiona & Angela Creese. 2015. Linguistic ethnography. London: Sage.
Ehrenreich, Susanne. 2010. English as business lingua franca in a German multinational corpo-
ration: Meeting the challenge. Journal of Business Communication 47(4). 408–43.
Ehrenreich, Susanne. 2011. The dynamics of English as a lingua franca in international business:
A language contact perspective. In Alasdair Archibald, Alessia Cogo & Jennifer Jenkins
(eds.), Latest trends in ELF research, 11–34. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Ehrenreich, Susanne & Marie-Luise Pitzl (eds.). 2015. Teaching ELF, BELF, and/or Intercultural
Communication? [Special issue]. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1).
Fredriksson, Riikka, Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen & Rebecca Piekkari. 2006. The multinational
corporation as a multilingual organization: The notion of common corporate language.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 11(4). 406–423.
48 Alessia Cogo
Goffman, Erving. 1956. The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh, Social Sciences Research Centre.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2013. English as a lingua franca in European multi-
lingualism. In Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi (eds.), Exploring the
dynamics of multilingualism, 387–406. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
sity Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Alessia Cogo & Martin Dewey. 2011. Review of developments in research into
English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44(3). 281–315.
Kankaanranta, Anne, Leena Louhiala-Salminen & Päivi Karhunen. 2015. English in multinational
companies: Implications for teaching ‘English’ at an international business school. Journal
of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1). 125–148.
Louhiala-Salminen, Leena, Mirjaliisa Charles & Anne Kankaanranta. 2005. English as a lingua
franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case companies. English for Specific Purposes
24(4). 401–421.
Louhiala-Salminen, Leena & Anne Kankaanranta. 2012. Language as an issue in international
internal communication: English or local language? If English, what English?. Public Rela-
tions Review 38(2). 262–269.
Press.
Maria Grazia Guido
ELF in Responsible Tourism: Power
relationships in unequal migration
encounters
1 Introduction
Research on the use of English as a lingua franca (ELF) has so far clearly illus-
trated how ELF users from different linguacultural backgrounds actually appro-
priate the English language without conforming to native speaker norms of
usage. More interestingly, Barbara Seidlhofer’s (2001; 2011) pioneering research
on ELF in intercultural communication has provided evidence (mostly drawn on
empirical data from the VOICE Project1 that she directed) of ELF users’ constant
search for cooperative pragmatic accommodation in interactions, despite their
different ELF variations in contact. And yet, in cases of unequal encounters –
most of them emblematically taking place in immigration contexts between
petitioners from the “outer circle” and advisers in authority from the “expand-
ing circle” (Kachru 1986) – such constructive conditions for effective ELF accom-
modation often do not occur (Guido 2008; 2012). In such cases, in fact, non-
native speakers’ ELF variations are not just characterized by L1 → ELF transfer
processes of a typological and/or pragmatic kind (Guido and Seidlhofer 2014),
but also by the transfer of native socio-cultural schemata to the ELF variations
that the participants in the interactions use, thus causing misunderstandings.
The case explored in this chapter is meant to be illustrative of such ELF
misunderstandings that arise from different schemata in contact. It will focus
on the domain of Responsible Tourism promoted by local administrators of
Italian seaside resorts negatively affected by migrant arrivals. Here, tourists are
offered holidays in voluntary-work camps in contact with migrants to enhance
their ‘sympathetic understanding’ of the migration experience by ‘playing the
role of mediators’, whereas immigrants are expected to be committed to the pro-
motion of the tourist destination, whose image is seriously endangered by their
mass arrivals. Migrants often reluctantly cooperate in this, in the hope for more
accessible social and legal assistance. The conversation analysis carried out on a
1 Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) (http://voice.univie.ac.at)
Maria Grazia Guido, University of Salento

50 Maria Grazia Guido
field transcript shows how both tourists and immigrants draw from their respec-
tive ELF resources in the attempt to co-create a successful intercultural commu-
nication which, however, soon turns into a manipulation of semantic meanings,
ultimately leading to ELF accommodation failure.
2 Theoretical grounds and research context

The aim of this chapter is to enquire into ELF misunderstandings arising from
asymmetric power relationships in migration encounters. More specifically, the
focus is on differences in the participants’ cultural schemata in contact, meant
as the experiential knowledge of an event shared with a primary/native speech
community (Carrell 1983). Previous research on ELF in unequal migration en-
counters (mostly referred to legal and medical contexts) imputed ELF accom-
modation failure principally to the participants’ transfer of their respective L1
typological and pragmatic structures to ELF (Guido 2008; 2012). Subsequent
research developments, however, have revealed that such a failure is more likely
to occur when the participants’ cultural schemata diverge, making successful
communication more difficult to be achieved, as in the case of miscommunica-
tion caused by conflicting religious beliefs (Guido 2014).
The present chapter introduces another case illustrating how power asym-
metries emerge through ELF. It regards the specialized domain of Responsible
Tourism, which aims at advertising tourists’ experience of problematic socio-
cultural situations – such as the promotion of holiday destinations affected by
migrants’ arrivals, as in the emblematic case of Lampedusa, the Italian island
between Sicily and Africa, where migrant landings take place almost daily,
which deters tourism. In these places, often seaside resorts in Southern Italy,
administrators often act as tour-operators aiming to bring tourists back by
offering them accommodation in voluntary-work camps where they can feel
like ‘mediators’ helping local communities and immigrants to integrate.2 Such
places can indeed be regarded as an actualization of the Utopia vs. Dystopia
(anti-utopia) archetype in that the tourists-mediators’ initial intent to achieve
2 A parallel case is to be found in Malta, where a website advertises the need for “volunteers”
willing to assist African refugees massively landing there and educate them in English on
“European customs” (http://www.gooverseas.com/blog/volunteering-in-malta-beyond-tourism-
websites, accessed 10 August 2014). An extreme case is represented by the agency for Refugee-
Camp Tourism providing in Rwanda “life-enriching activities” that offer “unique insights into
the harsh lives of refugees” (http://newdawnassociates.com/new/signature-tours/akagera-
humure-refugee-community-visit/, accessed 10 August 2014).
ELF in Responsible Tourism: Power relationships in unequal migration encounters 51
cooperation with migrants often turns out to be an attempt to impose their own
schemata on the immigrants, on purpose or not. In fact, the term Utopia has two
Ancient-Greek etymologies: eu-topos, meaning ‘place of good and harmony’,
and ou-topos, meaning ‘no place’, ‘nowhere’. Utopia in Literature (i.e., Moore’s
Utopia, Bacon’s New Atlantis, and Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, to name but a few)
is represented as a counterfactual island of happiness and justice alternative to
the observer’s real corrupted society. The observer is portrayed as a traveller
landing in Utopia after a difficult journey and adopting an estranged stance in
describing it. In this study, the ancient Utopian archetype has been revisited
with reference to the two opposite contemporary schemata of social Utopia,
typical of left-wing political movements, and recreational Utopia, typical of
light-hearted touristic resorts, which unexpectedly come to be reconciled in
contexts regarding Responsible Tourism where intercultural communication
through ELF takes place. In such situations, the Italian tourists playing the role
of ‘intercultural mediators’ to immigrants consider the place they arrive at as a
Utopia where they end up acting the reassuring familiar role of ‘tourist-resort
entertainers’ who try to brighten up the guests’ stay, thus turning the immigrant-
reception schema into a tourist-reception schema. In doing so, they find themselves
playing the ‘Robinson Crusoe’ role, casting immigrants in the supporting ‘Friday’
role imposing their own Utopian schemata upon them. Conversely, the immigrants
as travellers consider this landing place as an alienating Dystopia that does not
recognize their experiential identities.3
The conversation data collected in landing places (from which the extract
to be analyzed has been drawn) show that ELF variations used by tourists-as-
mediators and immigrants, though aimed at co-creating shared strategies for
successful communication, often produce a ‘dystopian manipulation’ of semantic
3 This is due to the new ‘touristization’ of the migrants, who are expected to tell their stories
every time they are asked to (like Ulysses being obliged to narrate his journey at each landing),
and to be involved in a range of recreational activities in the tourist promotion of the place. A
case in point is represented by the musical band of African immigrants who, in Lampedusa,
advertised the local policy of Responsible Tourism, exemplified by the brief extract from their
reggae song reported below (a Caribbean, foreign musical genre that African immigrants had
to make their own) referring to the immigrants’ journey, also revisited according to the western
classical ‘epic’ literature not belonging to the immigrants’ cultural schemata, which also in-
cludes the invocation for a safe journey addressed to the “sweet Muse” (httpsː//www.youtube.
com/watch?v=szZ84o6H7Qw, accessed 15 March 2015):
Row, row, to Lampedusa we go,
Go, go, for a better life we row, yeah,
O dolce Musa, portami a Lampedusa [O sweet Muse, bring me to Lampedusa]
O dolce Musa, bring me to Lampedusa, yeah [. . .]
meanings causing serious misunderstandings. Indeed, language issues have

always been crucial in Utopian Literature, either as to the language in which
Utopian novels are written (e.g., Latin in Moore’s Utopia, the 16th/17th-century
lingua franca for scientific and political-philosophical communication), or as to
the languages spoken by the inhabitants of the Utopian places. Such languages
are characterized by syntactic-semantic structures diverging from the standard
language code to comply with the counterfactual socio-semiotic order of the
Utopian/Dystopian societies (e.g., the rational horses’ unambiguous language
in Gulliver’s Travels, or the desemanticized “Newspeak” in Orwell’s 1984). Dia-
logue, in particular, is a constant feature in Utopian Literature as a stylistic
device to make divergences between opposite schematic stances emerge.
3 Unequal encounters and power relationships:

Conversation analysis
As an instance of ELF in intercultural unequal encounters, the following extract
reports a dialogue between an Italian female mediator (IM) participating in a
voluntary-work camp in a seaside resort and speaking the Italian-ELF variation,
and a Nigerian male asylum seeker (AS), speaking an ELF variation largely
grounded on features of Nigerian Pidgin English (e.g., ergative clause structures
with inanimate objects in animate subject position, and pre-verbal tense/aspect
markers). The assumption here is that there are as many ELF variations as there
are groups of non-native speakers transferring the structural features and the
meaning conventions of their L1 into the English that they use, each appropriat-
ing and “authenticating” (Widdowson 1979: 163–172) the language in accordance
with their respective L1 norms (Guido 2012). The present case of Nigerian Pidgin
ELF can be explained by the fact that the nativized varieties of outer-circle English
that immigrants normally use as endonormative variants to serve the communica-
tive needs of the communities of their provenance, when dislocated from their
habitual contexts, come to be perceived by expanding-circle ‘western’ participants
in charge of interactions with reference to their own ELF variations, which is influ-
enced by their native pragmalinguistic uses and ‘western’ schemata (Guido 2012:
222). The following example will illustrate how both participants in the unequal
interaction tend to resort to their own cultural and experiential schemata and
native linguacultural conventions transferred into their respective ELF uses as
they interpret the unfamiliar communicative situation they are involved in –
the outcome being cross-cultural ELF miscommunication.
AS was kept in a CIE (Centre for Identification and Expulsion) after having
fled from Nigeria with his sister (caught and detained in Libya just before he set
sail, with his having heard nothing about her since) and his brother (thrown
overboard by smugglers as a ‘warning’ for mutinous migrants on the boat).
Both IM and AS are cut off from their habitual socio-cultural environments to
be displaced in the holiday resort that they perceive respectively as Utopian
and Dystopian places. The dialogue transcript reported below is an instance of
unequal encounter in that IM clearly embodies a high-status role as she feels
herself to be in an empowered position where she may impose her own culture-
bound ‘migration schemata’ on AS. This may be prompted by her double social
role as ‘intercultural mediator’, providing immigrants with psychological support,
and ‘holiday entertainer’, trying to induce them to feel committed to the local
socio-political project in Responsible Tourism. Indeed, research data have revealed
a crucial difference between (a) encounters where high/low-status participants
are both from the expanding circle (like the Italian IM) and perceive their own
ELF variations as an exonormative foreign language with reference to native-
speaker norms of usage – which, though influenced by the L1, does not call
for any identity investment, thus facilitating cooperative accommodation – and
(b) unequal encounters where participants are respectively from the outer and
the expanding circles, with the outer-circle ones (like AS) investing their social
identity in their endonormative ELF variations as an expression of their native-
community values (Guido 2008). This latter occurrence is reflected in the
exchange reported below where IM’s higher status may be strengthened by her
perception of AS’s Nigerian Pidgin ELF as a deficient version of the inner-circle
L1-English and, as such, to be attributed to a ‘culturally inferior’ person whose
tragic migration experience comes to be downgraded to the level of mere adven-
turous narration for recreational purposes during this asymmetric interaction.
The conversation analysis carried out on the following transcript4 shows that
the breakdown of cooperative ELF accommodation occurs because of different
culture-bound ‘migration schemata’ in conflict and not because it is hindered
by divergences between IM’s Italian-ELF and AS’s Nigerian Pidgin ELF (here
conventionally transcribed into phonetic conventions, see Faraclas 1996). In
fact, a cooperative pragmatic accommodation might have occurred if issues
about power and inequality between the two participants had not interfered
with the attempts to establish a successful ELF communication.
4 Conversation symbols: [ ] → overlapping speech; underlining → emphasis; ° ° → quieter

speech; (.) → micropause; (..) → pause; :: → elongation of prior sound; hhh → breathing out;
.hhh → breathing in; > < → speed-up talk; = → latching.
(1) IM: we had a great fun together (.) we eat sing karaoke dance (.) play
football together every day (.) this is wonderful (.) eh? (.) an example
that can help the other people >to understand the migrants<=
(2) AS: =no (.) dem no:: understand di migrant (.) dem no understand di sea
(.) >a never bin look di sea bifo a bin get fo di boat fo come hie< (.)
di sea bin >swell swell< fo kill os
(3) IM: but now your relation with the sea is changed (.) you don’t fear it no
more no? hhh we made many baths together and you were so:: happy
(4) AS: °you know?° (.) >dem bin trow mi broda down di sea< (.) fo warn di
oder pipul in di boat >so dem no go complain fo di bad journey<=
(5) IM: =°oh yes° (.) >you told us< (..) °I’m sorry° (..) he know to swim?
(6) AS: a (..) a (..) wen a bin look in di sea mi broda bin de swim (.) yes=
(7) IM: =so don’t worry (.) he got safe (.) be sure
(8) AS: .hhh a (..) °a hope° (.) °yes° (..) >hhh wen a bin come hie wit di boat
dat night< (.) tourist dem bin de dance on di beach (.) but a bin cry
>because in Libya dem bin keep mi sista< (.) °en a come safe hie°
(9) IM: .hhh yes (..) we understood more of your journeys when the organizers
took us for the trip in the boat that night and we throwed the little
paper boats in the sea >in memory of the dead migrants< (..) and
when all we made the flashmob on the beach with the liberating
shout >to make tourists to understand the migration problem< (.)
°that was nice° (.) you remember their big appla::use?=
(10) AS: =a tink tis cra ::zy=
(11) IM: =yes (.) crazy (.) wo::nderful moments (..) >like when on the beach we
played the wayfarer game< with a word on each card >that started a
story< (..) eh? (..) your stories were not sad (.) you seemed serene (.)
not a victim (.) for example the story of the dolphins >that say that the
sea could not swallow you in the boat< is full of joy (.) because even if
many migrants are died you arrived alive [>to become my friends<
(12) AS: wen dem ask mi] to tell mi story a se no (.) because dem no under-
stand (.) but hie a tell someting °so a tink a do what dem want and so
dem go help me wit di permit (.) [°di asylum°
(13) IM: >but you see?<] we empathize with you (..) >you remember the
landing that we saw together?< (..) I’m sure that I could see the joy
in the eyes of the migrants even if they looked sad and tired (..) oh I
don’t want to go away from this wonderful place (.) and you?=
(14) AS: =no (.) a want go away quick
In cue (1), IM gives an overenthusiastic representation of her Utopian expe-

rience that she wants to share with AS by enumerating the playful recreational
activities in which AS was reluctantly involved in order to make local people

and tourists acquainted with the migrants. Instead, AS’s dispreferred response
focuses, in (2), on his Dystopian realization that people in the resort are actually
unable to understand the migrants’ experience of the sea which, in his emo-
tional recollection of his own tragic migration journey, embodies the animated
role of the logical subject of the ergative clause, swelling tremendously to kill
the migrants on the boat. Yet, AS’s experiential ‘migration schema’ is not recog-
nized by IM who instead more readily recalls, in (3), her preferred ‘recreational
schema’ of the migrant gladly becoming integrated with the tourists. But AS, in
(4), upgrades the narration of his migration experience by evoking his brother
being thrown overboard by smugglers. Once again, in (5), such an appalling
event is filtered through IM’s positive stance in an attempt to elude the unbear-
able horror and to somewhat reassure AS by uttering he know to swim?, in her
Italian-ELF interrogative-clause structure with no auxiliary fronting without
which it is not easily recognizable as a question. But AS easily identifies it as a
question and replies, in (6), with a preferred answer, as he actually saw his
brother swimming. IM’s relief at AS’s positive reply prompts her to dismiss at
once such a painful memory with the reassuring remark, in (7), so don’t worry,
he got safe, be sure. But AS, in (8), insists on his distressing recollection by add-
ing the sad account of her sister’s being caught and detained in Libya just
before sailing, reported against the opposite view of the tourists gaily dancing
on the beach on the night of his safe arrival. Such a disheartening account, how-
ever, seems to leave IM almost unaffected as she filters AS’s tragic ‘migration
schema’ through her ‘recreational schema’ marked by an unconscious lack of
empathy, especially when, in (9), she associates the migration event with the
paper boats and liberating shout beach games aimed to make tourists to under-
stand the migration problem. Even AS’s disparaging comment tis crazy in (10)
comes to be positively reinterpreted by IM, in (11), in association with wonderful,
followed by a Dystopian resemanticization of AS’s migration narrative, by turn-
ing the migrants’ ‘resigned desperation’ into ‘serenity’ and even ‘intimate joy’.
Such a misconstruction alienates AS who, in (12), clarifies that his complying
with local people’s schematic expectations is just an attempt to receive from
them the necessary help in obtaining the permit to leave the place. In (13), IM
even comes to describe a migrants’ landing as a joyful tourist attraction, which
prompts AS, in (14), to cut the conversation short with the dispreferred remark a
want go away quick.
As evident, in this asymmetric exchange, misunderstanding is induced by
schematic divergences, not by differences in ELF usage – which both participants
manage to overcome by easily getting the sense of their respective cues in the
interaction. The conversation outcome is thus accommodation failure as the
two participants are unable to use ELF to achieve a satisfactory communication.
4 Conclusions
To achieve a successful ELF communication, therefore, each group in contact
should not only become aware of the other groups’ native linguacultural features
that are divergent from the equivalent ones in their own L1s – and, as such, per-
ceived as formally deviating and pragmatically inappropriate when transferred
to ELF. They should, in fact, also recover the original socio-cultural schematic
dimensions determining sense and reference in their respective experiences,
with the ultimate aim of developing mutual ELF accommodation strategies to
make culture-bound discourses conceptually accessible and socio-pragmatically
acceptable to each other.
References
Carrell, Patricia L. 1983. Some issues in the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in
second language comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 1. 81–92.
Faraclas, Nicholas. 1996. Nigerian Pidgin. London: Routledge.
Guido, Maria Grazia. 2008. English as a lingua franca in cross-cultural immigration domains.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Guido, Maria Grazia. 2012. ELF authentication and accommodation strategies in cross cultural
immigration domains. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2). 219–240.
Guido, Maria Grazia. 2014. New-Evangelization discourse in ELF immigration encounters: A case
study. Lingue e Linguaggi 12. 111–126.
Guido, Maria Grazia & Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.). 2014. Perspectives on English as a lingua
franca. [Special issue]. Textus 1.
Kachru, Braj. 1986. The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of Non-Native
Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.
Press.
Widdowson, Henry G. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beyza Björkman
English-medium instruction and English as
the lingua franca in Higher Education in
central and northern Europe
1 Introduction
The joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education in Bologna in 1999
stated clearly that the common aim to work towards was “a more complete and
far-reaching Europe, in particular building upon and strengthening its intellec-
tual, cultural, social and scientific and technological dimensions” and to work
on “the competitiveness of the European Higher Education” internationally
(Bologna Declaration1 1999: 1). While different actors can help Europe work
towards this goal, especially when it comes to achieving stronger “intellectual
and cultural dimensions”, Higher Education (HE) institutes have a major role.
Following the Bologna Declaration, HE institutes throughout Europe have been
working actively towards increased academic mobility. To allow for such aca-
demic mobility, a larger number of English-taught programs (henceforth ETPs)
have had to be created, enabling students to follow studies in institutes other
than their home, and scholars to teach and conduct research in other academic
settings.
The present paper primarily aims to provide a brief overview of the research
available on English-medium instruction (EMI) and English as a lingua franca
(ELF) in academic settings, especially pertaining to central and northern Europe.
While it is not possible to summarize all work on EMI and ELF in this entire
region, an attempt will nevertheless be made here by providing the reader with
examples from parts of this region, aiming to spot trends in research and point-
ing to research gaps. With regard to ELF studies, the paper will argue that while
a geographical divide as an organizational criterion is not relevant for studies
focusing on form at the discourse level, it is key for (some) studies within prag-
matics and certainly language policy, when the sociolinguistics of each country
and region must be considered.
1 http://www.magna-charta.org/resources/files/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.pdf
Beyza Björkman, Stockholm University

58 Beyza Björkman
2 Looking at English-medium instruction (EMI)

and English-taught programs (ETPs) in
(central2 and northern) Europe
When it comes to ETPs in Europe in general, we see that the increase in number
has been staggering with 725 programs in 2001 (Wächter and Maiworm 2002),
to 2,389 in 2007 (Wächter and Maiworm 2008), all the way up to 8,089 in
2014 (Wächter and Maiworm 20143), based on the three reports produced by the
Academic Cooperation Association (ACA)4. The figures from 2014 show a growth
of 500 per cent in the numbers of ETPs throughout Europe. While these figures
do not reveal any clear trends specifically when it comes to ETPs in central
Europe in comparison with other regions in Europe, the very clear divide between
northern and southern European countries visible in the first two reports (2002
and 2008) is still very much present in the most recent figures5. Among the top
twelve countries by multi-criteria based on all three ACA reports (2002, 2008,
2014) are seven countries from central and northern Europe6. The leaders in
absolute numbers have remained the same since 2008; the Netherlands with a
total of 1,078 programs, followed by Germany and Sweden in the second and
third places with 1,030 and 822 programs, respectively. The Netherlands, Germany,
Finland and Sweden were the pioneers of English-medium instruction (Coleman
2006; Wächter and Maiworm 2002), and the Netherlands and the Nordic countries
have been the solid ETP powerhouses of Europe for long (Wächter and Maiworm
2014). Looking at these figures, it may not be so surprising that most of the
research available on the topic has focused on (parts of) central and northern
Europe.
With regard to research on EMI in the region, first of all, we see studies that
approach the phenomenon for descriptive purposes and that focus on the use of
2 There seems to be no agreement on which countries are included in central Europe, not
even within EUs own organizations. Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland,
Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine are included in the European Regional Developmental Fund,
whereas Interreg, a suborganization, excludes Ukraine and parts of Germany and Italy. In the
present paper, I have considered the geographical map division and included Austria, Czech
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia.
3 In cooperation with the Gesellschaft für Empirische Studien (GES) and StudyPortals BV
(Wächter and Maiworm 2014: 1).
4 http://www.aca-secretariat.be/
5 See Lopriore (this volume) for ELF and language policy and practice in Mediterranean Europe.
6 The ranking is as follows: 2. Denmark, 3. Sweden; 4. Finland; 9. Austria; 10. Norway, 11.
Iceland, 12. Estonia. (http://www.aca-secretariat.be/index.php?id=773).
English-medium instruction and English as the lingua franca 59
English in European universities in general in their investigations (e.g. Airey

2009; Björkman 2013; Bolton and Kuteeva 2012; Doiz, Lasabagaster, and Sierra
2013; Kuteeva 2011; Kuteeva and McGrath 2014; Mortensen 2010; Preisler 2009;
Saarinen 2012; Tange 2010; Tatzl 2011; Unterberger 2012). In the second group
are studies that have had as their foci the interplay between English and the
local language (e.g. Hultgren 2014a, 2014b; Linn 2010; Ljosland 2008; Mortensen
2014; Söderlundh 2010). Although some of the studies in this second group are
critical towards the use of English as the medium of instruction (e.g. Ljosland
2014), they are more investigatory in general than overly critical. As mentioned
above, it is immediately noticeable that a majority of the work in these two
groups of studies comes from northern European settings, with the exception of
work from Austria and Germany.
In the third group are studies where it is highlighted that the widespread
use of English as the medium of instruction is problematic and therefore not
immediately welcome by all. These studies have as their main focus the chal-
lenges of internationalization practices (e.g. Haberland et al. 2008; Haberland
and Mortensen 2012). Some of these studies express serious concerns regarding
the use of English in such settings in general (e.g. Phillipson 1999, 2006) and
the implications of the use of English on the local language (on German: e.g.
de Cillia and Schweiger 2001; Mühleisen 2003; Norwegian: e.g. Brock-Utne 2001;
Ljosland 2008; Tislevoll 2001; Swedish: Gunnarsson and Öhman, 1997; Hollqvist
1984; Ljung 1986; Mannberg 1986; Olsson and Sheridan 2010; Söderlundh
2012). Some studies in this third group are in general either very cautious about
or critical towards the EMI enterprise, describing EMI as an Englishization pro-
cess (e.g. Erling and Hilgendorf 2004). It is not surprising that these concerns
are expressed about languages that were once the holders of a strong position,
such as German (e.g. Alexander 2008; Ammon and McConell 2002; Erling and
Hilgendorf 2004) or smaller languages that traditionally have not been used
in a wide range of domains, such as Norwegian or Swedish (e.g. Ljosland 2008;
Söderlundh 2010) (see Björkman 2013, 2015 for an extended discussion).
Ammon (2001: 348) groups the reactions to such widespread use of English
in scientific communication and HE as coming from countries, i) where the local
languages have been lingua francas of science and technology (e.g. French and
German), ii) where the aim is to achieve wide use of their L1s as international
languages of science and technology (e.g. Japanese); iii) where the L1s have
had only local use and do not/cannot aim for international usage (e.g. Swedish);
and iv) where the L1s have not yet been modernized or have been modernized to
a very limited extent (e.g. Haus(s)a). Relevant to our purposes in the present
paper are groups i) and iii).
60 Beyza Björkman
I would like to add to this list by introducing another group and dimension:
countries in central Europe where the self-reports point to lower levels of profi-
ciency in English compared to northern Europe. One must note, however, that
even within central Europe, the situation is quite diverse: in Austria and Germany,
the level of proficiency has been reported as very high and high7, respectively. It
seems from the present literature review, however brief, that there is much room
for research on EMI in central European settings, which are sociolinguistically
all very exciting settings for fieldwork, especially considering the status the L1s
and English has in these countries and in turn, attitudes toward EMI and ELF.
3 ELF in Higher Education in (central and

northern) Europe
The figures given in the previous section show, without a question, that we are
witnessing a major European operation where several actors are involved.
Among these actors are decision-makers in HE, policy-makers from these HE
institutes and governments, other international bodies and non-governmental
organizations. In the very center of this major operation are students and staff
who need to operate in these EMI settings for their everyday purposes. While
the internationalization of HE undoubtedly brings within significant opportunities
for both of these groups, this does not happen without challenges. Students need
to do all the coursework required to successfully complete their programs, and
staff needs to make sure they can do their teaching and research while ensuring
that they meet the linguistic demands of the local setting. All of these high-
stakes activities take place through the medium of a lingua franca, and this
lingua franca is very often, if not always, English. English has even been called
“the language of Higher Education” (Brumfit 2004, emphasis mine). This linguistic
scenario typical of EMI settings brings within the need to describe the everyday
practices of students and staff in English-medium HE settings and ELF.
ELF settings in general are by nature complex language contact situations
with high linguistic heterogeneity, where there is a wide number of first language
(L1) backgrounds and levels of proficiency. Since the appearance of the first ELF
studies (Jenkins 2000; Mauranen 2003; Seidlhofer 2001), and Seidlhofer’s (2001)
call for empirical research on ELF, a large number of investigations have been
carried out on ELF in different domains (academic settings, business etc.),
academia being one of the two most-researched domains (Jenkins, Cogo, and
7 EF EPI language proficiency index. http://www.ef.se/epi/

Dewey 2011: 297). In academic ELF settings, linguistic heterogeneity is coupled

with high-stakes academic tasks, which creates challenges for students and
staff. ELF researchers have shown great interest in this domain, realizing the
need to investigate the everyday linguistic practices of students and staff in
such academic EMI settings.
The first scholar to look into academic ELF settings was Mauranen, who
started compiling the ELFA corpus (English as a Lingua Franca in Academic
Settings) in 2003 with her team members based in Finland, the University of
Tampere and the University of Helsinki (Mauranen 2003). The ELFA corpus8 has
generated many empirical studies, contributing significantly to our understand-
ing on what academic ELF settings are like (e.g. Mauranen 2006a, 2006b, 2012;
Ranta 2013) along with other studies from the same team using different data-
sets (Hynninen 2011; Pilkinton-Pihko 2013; Suviniitty 2012). Other than Finland,
researchers have reported on academic ELF settings in Denmark (e.g. Haberland
and Mortensen 2012; Hazel 2012; Mortensen 2010), Norway (Ljosland 2007), and
Sweden (Björkman 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015) with other important studies from cen-
tral Europe (Austria9: Smit 2010; Germany: House 2013; Knapp 2011; Meierkord
2000; Hungary: Kalocsai 2013). Most of these studies have employed naturally-
occurring data to investigate the complex nature of academic ELF settings, and
almost all have focused on spoken discourse (but see Pilkinton-Pihko 2013 on
testing and ELF). A second branch of studies on ELF in academic settings have
investigated language policy and practice, focusing particularly on the (im)balance
between language practice and policy (e.g. Björkman 2014, in press; Jenkins 2014;
Lo Bianco 2014; Mortensen 2014; Soler-Carbonell 2014). There seems to be growing
interest in this area, especially as a topic in PhD theses (e.g. Karakas forthc.)
although none focusing on central or northern Europe.
A general summary of the main findings of the studies mentioned in the
previous paragraph will not do justice to the sophisticated investigations, but
roughly, we can say that findings of general ELF research are echoed in studies
that analyze ELF in academic HE contexts: misunderstandings are rare in general
despite the linguistic heterogeneity (e.g. Mauranen 2006a); there is a wide range
of non-standard morphosyntactic forms but they do not seem to cause commu-
nicative breakdown (Björkman 2013; Breiteneder 2005; Ranta 2013); speakers in
ELF settings use a wide range of communicative strategies to get the message
8 Cf. http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/elfacorpus.html
9 The VOICE corpus (http://voice.univie.ac.at) with its headquarters in Vienna has provided
data for many influential studies on ELF; however a majority of them are on ELF in general
(not specifically academic settings) and are therefore not mentioned in this review (e.g. Osimk-
Teasdale 2014; Pitzl 2011, 2012).
62 Beyza Björkman
across and to pre-empt and resolve misunderstandings (e.g. Björkman 2014);

speakers use other L1s present as linguistic resources (Mortensen 2010; e.g.
Söderlundh 2010). ELF studies addressing policy and practice issues have pointed
to a problematic situation: most policy work seems to be characterized by top-
down decisions from university management uninformed by relevant research
without considering individuals’ everyday linguistic practices (e.g. Björkman 2014).
Being loyal to the title of the present paper, I have applied geographical
boundaries as the organizational criterion when providing the above review
on ELF research from academic settings. However, while talking about different
regions and ELF, we need to remember that “the fact that ELF research has been
conducted in particular geographical locations should not be taken to mean that
the research conducted IN a specific location necessarily relates to the English
OF that location.” (Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011: 285). This is certainly true
when it comes to studies at discourse level. If we are investigating morpho-
syntactic structure, whether we focus on Swedish, Finnish or Austrian settings,
we observe similar usage despite the vast differences among these L1s belonging
to different language families. ELF settings by nature are linguistically diverse
with a large number of L1s and varying levels of proficiency. This is visible from
the commonalities of non-standard morphosyntactic use across geographical
boundaries (Björkman 2013; Ranta 2013).
So what we have said above is that studying ELF in separate domains is
important, and as Ehrenreich (2011) has pointed out by referring to McGroarty
(2003), it accords well with the relatively recent trend in sociolinguistics of
focusing on domains instead of insisting on geographical boundaries. This is
certainly true and very helpful when trying to spot domain-specific trends. At
the same time, what seems clear from the existing research on academic ELF,
especially pragmatics, is that ELF operates at a finer level and that it is com-
munication at the micro level that seems to determine some usage-related issues.
In any domain, “there is a strong link in ELF between the purposes of language
use in a particular situational context, i.e. the communicative functions of lan-
guage use, and the actual forms that are subsequently employed by speakers”
(Pitzl 2012: 39). We know, for example, that we hardly find topic abandonment
in naturally-occurring, high-stakes speech events, but speakers seem to abandon
the topic frequently in small-talk when there is communicative turbulence,
since in small-talk, there is little or nothing at stake for those involved (as in
Meierkord’s study from 1998).
At this point, however, we need to discuss when geographical regions and
local settings are key parameters in ELF studies. The sociolinguistics of each
country is surely different, which has implications for the status of the local
language and English, shaping language attitudes that are indicative of this
background. In this respect, a study of attitudes towards ELF will need to provide
proper anchoring to the local setting with all its sociolinguistic characteristics and
its history. In contrast to this, form-based and/or function-oriented studies inves-
tigating the discourse level may not yield results unique to the local setting,
although each ELF interaction is embedded in a different sociolinguistic setting.
Whether the local setting becomes linguistically relevant, however, depends on
the particular situation.
Pölzl and Seidlhofer (2006) have shown us the very first example of
such anchoring in ELF studies with their investigation of pragmatic fluency in
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the participants being Arabic speakers at the
Department of Modern Languages. Pölzl and Seidlhofer (2006) argue convinc-
ingly that where the interaction takes place is decisive on the significance of
culture for communication. They define habitat (Bourdieu 1991) as “the setting
which interlocutors recognize as their own” (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006: 155).
The subjects in the study seemed to opt for their L1 communicative norms
in the interactions, displaying a high rate of speech and frequent overlap and
code-switching, which was not perceived as irritating or inappropriate by the
rest of the participants. This goes to show that local pragmatic norms may apply
in interactive situations, and that the habitat factor is an important socio-
psychological effect of a speech event (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006: 172). Speakers
in ELF situations do not need to conform to ENL cultures, and due to the hetero-
geneity of ELF settings, they generally cannot rely on their own culture either,
but they seem to do if they can (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006: 173).
Other good examples of such anchoring come from recent ELF studies on
language policy and practice in HE settings. In his analyses of the HE interna-
tionalization documents in Estonia, Soler-Carbonell finds, among other things,
that English is referred to implicitly as the ‘foreign language’ instead of the
medium of instruction or the lingua franca, which is very different from how
English is mentioned in the Swedish university language policy documents
(Soler-Carbonell 2014). This can be explained properly only by thorough anchoring
to the history and sociolinguistics of Estonia.
4 Conclusion
In the present paper, I have attempted to give a brief overview of research on
EMI and ELF in academic settings in central and northern Europe. English-
medium instruction in this region certainly seems here to stay in the foreseeable
future with the staggering increase I have mentioned in the present paper.
64 Beyza Björkman
Equally clear is that there is much room for research describing EMI in parts of
central Europe which constitute rich research fields for EMI and ELF research.
There is now quite a large pool of ELF studies carried out in the academic, but
we are far from being ‘done’. We need to, among other things, acknowledge the
significance of sociolinguistic challenges brought on by a globalized European
HE and consider the local setting at a finer level. I want to conclude this chapter
with a quote from Seidlhofer, Breiteneder and Pitzl (2006), in which I very much
believe: “So English functions as a lingua franca, enabling people to connect
based on common interests and concerns across languages and communities.
Despite widespread criticism of its dominance, it has to be acknowledged that
English does serve the ideal of European integration and facilitate movement
across borders” (Seidlhofer, Breiteneder, and Pitzl 2006: 5).
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the editors of this volume Marie-Luise Pitzl and Ruth
Osimk-Teasdale for their help, support and patience throughout the process,
and on a more general level, I am indebted to Barbara Seidlhofer, who has
always been a great source of inspiration and immense support to us, the new
generation of ELF researchers.
References
Airey, John. 2009. Science, language, and literacy: Case studies of learning in Swedish univer-
sity physics. Uppsala: Uppsala University PhD thesis.
Alexander, Richard J. 2008. International programmes in the German-speaking world and English-
ization: A critical analysis. In Robert Wilkinson & Vera Zegers (eds.), Realizing content
and language integration in higher education, 77–95. Maastricht: Maastricht University.
http://digitalarchive.maastrichtuniversity.nl/fedora/get/guid:7a48d841-788b-44b1-add7-
c0878081ffd7/ASSET1 (accessed 4 July 2015).
Ammon, Ulrich (ed.). 2001. The dominance of English as a language of science: Effects on other
languages and language communities. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ammon, Ulrich & Grant McConnell. 2002. English as an academic language in Europe: A survey
of its use in teaching. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Björkman, Beyza. 2011. Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways of
achieving communicative effectiveness. Journal of Pragmatics 43(4). 950–964.
Björkman, Beyza. 2013. English as an academic lingua franca. An investigation of form and
communicative effectiveness. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Björkman, Beyza. 2014. Language ideology or language practice? An analysis of language policy
documents at Swedish universities. Multilingua 33 (3/4). 335–365. [Special issue] on
English in the language ecology of “high proficiency” European countries.
Björkman, Beyza. 2015. PhD supervisor-PhD student interactions in an English-medium Higher
Education (HE) setting: Expressing disagreement. European Journal for Applied Linguistics
3(2). 205–229.
Björkman, Beyza. in press. Attitudes towards English in university language policy documents
in Sweden. In Andrew Linn, Neil Bermel, Gibson Ferguson & Chryso Hadjidemetriou (eds.).
English in Europe: Opportunity or threat? Volume 1: Attitudes towards English in Europe.
Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bolton, Kingsley & Maria Kuteeva. 2012. English as an academic language at a Swedish univer-
sity: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and Multi-
cultural Development 33(5). 429–447.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Breiteneder, Angelika. 2005. The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: The case
of the ‘third person –s’. Vienna English Working PaperS 14(2). 3–26. httpsː//anglistik.
univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views0502ALL_
new.pdf (accessed 10 November 2015).
Brock-Utne, Birgit. 2001. The growth of English for academic communication in the Nordic
Countries. International Review of Education 47(3/4). 221–233.
Brumfit, Christopher. 2004. Language and higher education: Two current challenges. Arts and
Humanities in Higher Education 3(2). 163–73.
Coleman, James A. 2006. English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language
Teaching 39(1). 1–14.
De Cillia Rudolf & Teresa Schweiger. 2001. English as a language of instruction at Austrian uni-
versities. In Ulrich Ammon (ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science, 363–
387. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Doiz, Aintzane, David Lasagabaster & Juan Sierra. 2013. Globalisation, internationalisation,
multilingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education
38(9). 1407–1421.
Ehrenreich, Susanne. 2011. The dynamics of English as a lingua franca in international business:
A language contact perspective. In Alasdair Archibald, Alessia Cogo & Jennifer Jenkins
(eds.), Latest trends in ELF research, 11–34. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Erling, Elizabeth J. & Suzanne K. Hilgendorf. 2004. Language and the future of Europe: Ideologies,
policies and practices. Language 8. 10.
Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise & Katarina Öhman. 1997. Det internationaliserade universitetet. En
studie av bruket av engelska och andra främmande språk vid Uppsala Universitet [The
internationalized university. A study of the use of English and other foreign languages at
Uppsala University]. Uppsala: Department of Nordic Languages, Uppsala University.
Haberland, Hartmut & Janus Mortensen (eds.). 2012. Language variety, language hierarchy and
language choice in the international university. [Special issue]. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 216.
Haberland, Hartmut, Janus Mortensen, Anne Fabricius, Bent Preisler, Karin Risager & Susanne
Kjærbeck (eds.). 2008. Higher Education in the global village: Cultural and linguistic
practices in the international university. Roskilde: Roskilde University Press.
66 Beyza Björkman
Hazel, Spencer. 2012. Interactional competence in the institutional setting of the international
university – talk and embodied action as multimodal aggregates in institutional interaction.
Roskilde: Roskilde University PhD thesis.
Hollqvist, Håkan. 1984. The use of English in three large Swedish companies. Studia Anglistica
Upsaliensia 55.
House, Juliane. 2013. Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using
discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics
59. 57–67.
Hultgren, Anna Kristina. 2014a. Whose parallellingualism? Overt and covert ideologies in
Danish university language policies. Multilingua 33(1/2). 61–87.
Hultgren, Anna Kristina. 2014b. English language use at the internationalised universities of
Northern Europe: Is there a correlation between Englishisation and world rank? Multi-
lingua 33(3/4). 389–413. [Special issue] on English in the language ecology of “high
proficiency” European countries.
Hynninen, Niina. 2011. The practice of ‘mediation’ in English as a lingua franca interaction.
Journal of Pragmatics 43(4). 965–977. [Special Issue] on English as a lingua franca, Beyza
Björkman (ed.).
Hynninen, Niina. 2013. Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca: Exploring language-
regulatory practices in academic spoken discourse. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD
thesis.
University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2014. English as a lingua franca in the international university. The politics of
academic English language policy. London: Routledge.
Kalocsai, Karolina. 2013. Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: A study of
Erasmus students in a Central-European context. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Karakaş, Ali. forthcoming. Turkish lecturers’ and students’ perceptions of English in English-
medium universities. Southampton: University of Southampton unpublished PhD thesis.
Knapp, Annelie, 2011. Using English as a lingua franca for (mis-)managing conflict in an inter-
national university context: An example from a course in engineering. Journal of Prag-
matics 43(4). 978–990.
Kuteeva, Maria. 2011. Teaching and learning English in parallel-language and ELF settings:
Debates, concerns and realities in higher education. Ibérica 22. 5–12.
Kuteeva, Maria & Lisa McGrath. 2014. Taming “Tyrannosaurus rex”: English use in the research
and publication practice of humanities scholars in Sweden. Multilingua 33(3/4). 365–
389. [Special issue] on English in the language ecology of “high proficiency” European
countries
Linn, Andrew. 2010. Can parallelingualism save Norwegian from extinction? Multilingua –
Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 29(3/4). 289–305.
Ljosland, Ragnhild. 2007. English in Norwegian academia: A step towards diglossia? World
Englishes 26(4). 395–410.
Ljosland, Ragnhild. 2008. Lingua franca, prestisjespråk og forestilt fellesskap: Om engelsk
som akademisk språk i Norge. Et kasusstudium i bred kontekst [Lingua franca, prestige
language and imagined communities: on English as an academic language in Norway.
A case study in its broader context]. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and
Technology dissertation.
Ljosland, Ragnhild. 2014. Language planning confronted by everyday communication in the

international university: The Norwegian case. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development 35(4). 392–405.
Ljung, Magnus. 1986. Undersökningen Engelskan i Sverige [The study of English in Sweden].
Språkvård 1. 5–10.
Lo Bianco, Joseph. 2014. Dialogue between ELF and the field of language policy and planning.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1). 197–213.
Mannberg, Gustaf-Adolf. 1986. Engelskan – inkräktare eller befriare? [English – intruder or
rescuer?]. Språkvård 1. 18–22.
Mauranen, Anna. 2003. The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL
Quarterly 37(3). 513–527.
Mauranen, Anna. 2006a. Signalling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua
franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 123–150.
Mauranen, Anna. 2006b. Speaking the discipline. In Ken Hyland & Marina Bondi (eds.),
Academic discourse across disciplines, 271–294. Bern: Peter Lang.
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers
(Cambridge applied linguistics series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGroarty, Mary. 2003. Editor’s Introduction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23. vii–xi.
Meierkord, Christiane, 1998. Lingua franca English. Characteristics of successful non-native-/
non-native-speaker discourse. Erfurt Electronic Studies in English 7. http://webdoc.sub.
gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic98/meierk/7_98.html (accessed 4 July 2015).
Meierkord, Christiane. 2000. Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of
non-native-/ non-native small talk conversations in English. In Karin Pittner & Anita Fetzer
(eds.), Neuere Entwicklungen in der Gesprächsforschung. Linguistik online 5. 1/00.
Mortensen, Janus. 2010. Epistemic stance marking in the use of English as a lingua franca.
Roskilde: Roskilde University PhD thesis.
Mortensen, Janus. 2014. Language policy from below: Language choice in student project
groups in a multilingual university setting. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Devel-
opment 35(4). 425–442.
Mühleisen, Susanne. 2003. Towards global diglossia? In Christian Mair (ed.), The politics of
English as a world language: New horizons in postcolonial cultural studies, 107–118.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Olsson, Anna & Vera Sheridan. 2010. A case study of Swedish scholars’ experience with and
perceptions of the use of English in academic publishing. Written Communication 29(1).
33–55.
Phillipson, Robert. 1999. Voice in global English: Unheard chords in Crystal, loud and clear.
Applied Linguistics 20(2). 265–276.
Phillipson, Robert. 2006. English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of lan-
guages? European Journal of English Studies 10(1). 13–32.
Pilkinton-Pihko, Diane. 2013. English-medium instruction: Seeking assessment criteria for
spoken professional English. Helsinki: University of Helsinki PhD thesis.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2011. Creativity in English as a lingua franca: Idiom and metaphor. Vienna:
University of Vienna PhD thesis.
68 Beyza Björkman
Preisler, Bent. 2009. Complementary languages: The national language and English as working
languages in European universities. Angles on the English Speaking World 9. 10–28.
Pölzl, Ulrike & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2006. In and on their own terms: The ‘habitat factor’ in
English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
177. 151–176.
English as a lingua franca. Tampere: University of Tampere PhD thesis.
Saarinen, Taina. 2012. Internationalization of Finnish higher education – is language an issue?
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 216. 157–173.
Lingua Franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2). 133–158.
Seidlhofer, Barbara, Angelika Breiteneder & Marie-Luise Pitzl. 2006. English as a lingua franca
in Europe: Challenges for applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26. 3–34.
Smit, Ute. 2010. English as a lingua franca in higher education: A longitudinal study of class-
room discourse (Trends in applied linguistics). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Soler-Carbonell, Josep. 2014. University language policies and language choice among Ph.D.
graduates in Estonia: The (unbalanced) interplay between English and Estonian. Multi-
lingua 33(3/4). 413–437. [Special issue] on English in the language ecology of “high
proficiency” European countries.
Suviniitty, Jaana. 2012. Lectures in English as a lingua franca-interactional features. Helsinki:
University of Helsinki PhD thesis.
Söderlundh, Hedda. 2010. Internationalle universitet – lokala språkval: Om bruket av talad
svenska i engelskspråkiga kursmiljöer. [International universities – local language
choices: On spoken Swedish in English-medium course environments]. Uppsala: Uppsala
University PhD dissertation.
Söderlundh, Hedda. 2012. Global policies and local norms: Sociolinguistic awareness and
language choice at an international university. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 216. 87–109.
Tange, Hanne. 2010. Caught in the Tower of Babel: University lecturers’ experiences with inter-
nationalisation. Language and Intercultural Communication 10(2). 137–149.
Tatzl, Dietmer. 2011. English-medium masters’ programmes at an Austrian university of applied
sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes
10(4). 252–270.
Tislevoll, Jan R. 2001. Norsk språkpolitikk og domenetap for norsk språk. Rapport til Nordisk
ministerråd. [Norwegian language policy and domain loss for Norwegian. Report to the
Council of Ministers]. Oslo.
Unterberger, Barbara. 2012. English-medium programmes at Austrian business faculties: A
status quo survey on national trends and a case study on programme design and delivery.
AILA Review 25(1). 80–100.
Wächter, Bern & Friedhelm Maiworm. 2002. English-language-taught degree programmes in
European higher education: Trends and success factors. Bonn: Lemmens.
Wächter, Bern & Friedhelm Maiworm. 2008. English-taught programmes in European higher
education: The picture in 2007. Bonn: Lemmens.
Wächter, Bern & Friedhelm Maiworm. 2014. English-taught programmes in European higher
education: The state of play in 2014. Bonn: Lemmens.
Lucilla Lopriore
Language education policies and practice in
(Mediterranean) Europe: An ELF perspective
“English is a pervasive element in the education as well as in the working lives of a large
portion of the population” (Seidlhofer 2011: 19)
1 Introduction
The realities of foreign language education in Europe have recently been affected
by a number of factors such as the growingly plurilingual profile of the European
population, the implementation of European language education policies in
favour of multilingualism, the widespread diffusion of audiovisual media and
the prevailing use of English as a lingua franca among speakers of different
lingua cultures in a wide variety of contexts. This contribution aims to provide
a description of current changes occurring in the EU language policies, in the
educational systems and practices of some European countries with an English
as a lingua franca (ELF) perspective.
2 The changing linguistic and cultural profile of

the European population
Demographic growth, the new composition of the European population and
the most recent migration flows from different parts of the world are closely
monitored and explored by the EU policymakers and have become central in
EU policies. Population changes have thus become the object of several EU
policy acts, particularly in social, economic and educational fields.
Migration is one of the key components of population change in Europe.
Over the past decades migration flows among EU member states and in- and
outside of the EU, have had a significant impact on the current population size
in most member states thus changing the linguistic and cultural profile of the
EU population. In 2012, almost 10% (48.9 million) of the population resident in
the European countries was born in another country. Of these, one third (16.5
Lucilla Lopriore, Roma Tre University

70 Lucilla Lopriore
million) was born within the EU, the remaining 32.4 million was born elsewhere
around the world, and the trend is constantly growing widening the large
number of migrants from all continents (Vasileva 2012).
While the flow of migrants has increasingly grown, the migrants’ average
age has been consistently lowering thus modifying the school population profile
of several European countries. The number of young migrant people from a wide
spectrum of linguistic and cultural backgrounds (North and Central Africa, the
Middle East, China, South East Asia, the former Soviet Union countries) coming
into Europe varies from country to country, but overall figures provided by the
European Commission show that, besides a high level of second generation
migrant children, there is a consistent growth of the presence of migrant
children at all school levels. The integration and education of children and
adolescents from migrant backgrounds are among the most urgent challenges
facing many member states of the Council of Europe from the point of view of
social cohesion and inclusion. How far are the European language policies
responding to these challenges?
3 European language education policies

The amount of documents produced in the last two decades by the European
authorities on multilingualism is impressive, particularly on issues related to
language education (Council of Europe 2001, 2007, 2010, 2014; European Com-
mission 2005a, 2005b, 2008). All of these documents officially state that they
aim at protecting endangered languages, favouring multilingualism, as well as
sustaining learners’ academic success, in an effort to reconcile unity with diver-
sity. But the most recent migration flows within and outside European countries,
are expanding Europe’s multilingual landscapes; they challenge all the previous
statements of intent and demand for new and realistic language policies. In all
European countries the educational system plays a major role in providing equal
opportunities and language competencies for all students. What Europe has so
far been proposing for language education, e.g. the trilingual formula of mother
tongue plus two, does not respond to a situation where more effective and
meaningful solutions are needed and at all levels. In a way, the 2008 Languages
for Jobs Report on a European strategy for multilingualism showed some
concern for a more realistic approach to issues of language learning in the
European countries. It highlighted the need to support languages as a way to
broaden people’s access to markets, to “promote language skills in career devel-
opment”, to “provide job-specific language courses in vocational education and
Language education policies and practice in (Mediterranean) Europe 71
training” and to “use the linguistic competences of citizens with migrant back-
grounds” (European Commission 2008: 8). And as for the role of English, the
report underlines that “English is clearly an extremely important language for
international exchange and is increasingly regarded as a basic skill” (European
Commission 2008: 16).
The role of English is still a controversial issue since English is still perceived
in many contexts as a ‘danger’ to the plurilingual European identity, to its
linguistic diversity and to minority languages (Neuner 2002; Phillipson 2003;
European Union 2011; British Council 2013). But English is also perceived as
a basic need for all European citizens, it has a marketplace value, it is often
associated with wealth and progress, it is unlike other languages in its status
(Neuner 2002; British Council 2013). As a matter of fact it is the first foreign
language taught in European schools and it occupies a large part of the time
available for foreign languages in the school curriculum. English is the most
widely chosen language learned at school, even if a number of countries reported
this as something which was becoming a substitute for multilingualism and
which undermined diversity (Eurostat 2008; Eurydyce 2012). English is the
language which is taught and encouraged the most among all foreign languages
at all school levels in all South Mediterranean countries: Albania, Serbia,
Montenegro, Slovenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Italy, Portugal, Spain,
Greece and Croatia. Most of the southern Europe countries have recently been
receiving large numbers of migrant people mostly coming from Africa and the
Middle East. All these countries have recently introduced English at primary
level and most offer English Mediated Instruction (EMI) at university.
All of the above factors are bound to profoundly affect the education systems
of many European countries, their foreign language curricula and daily classroom
practice, as well as language teacher education programs, particularly when it
comes to English. Language policies in plurilingual contexts such as Europe
need to take into consideration the current linguistic scenario, the languages
most frequently used and avoid stereotypes about English.
English cannot be anymore perceived as a threat to other languages, and
attention to the potential of English as a lingua franca should be thoroughly
paid. In her 2003 contribution to the Language Policy Division, Barbara Seidlhofer
reminds the European educational authorities that “it is the non-native speakers
of English who will be the main agents in the ways English is used, is maintained,
and changes, and who will shape the ideologies and beliefs associated with it”
(Seidlhofer 2003: 5).
The whited sepulchres of European documents on multilingual education
should thus be challenged by a more realistic view whereby, for example, the
72 Lucilla Lopriore
notion of English should be revisited in the light of the research so far carried
out (Cogo and Dewey 2012; Dewey 2013; Jenkins 2007, 2009; Kirkpatrick 2007,
2010; Mauranen and Ranta 2009; Seidlhofer 2003, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011;
Seidlhofer, Breiteneder, and Pitzl 2006) and a fundamental reconsideration of
language education policy that incorporates ELF awareness into ELT should be
enhanced in language curricula and in teacher education.
4 An ELF perspective in European language

education
How English can be read within a European perspective, has de facto been well
represented by Seidlhofer when she writes, “[. . .] in order to capture the nature
of English we need to acknowledge the vital role and authority of ELF users
as active contributors to the development of the language by appropriating the
language in a process Brutt-Griffler (2002) has termed macroacquisition, ‘second
language acquisition by speech communities’, that links language change to its
spread” (Seidlhofer 2011: 19).
Even if in many European contexts English is being perceived as a platform
to facilitate mobility, too often the mere function of English as lingua franca is
emphasised, disregarding the whole notion of English as a lingua franca and
its realistic perspectives. English is growingly been associated with different
ways of promoting multilingual awareness, as for example when guidelines for
intercultural development activities are provided, the use of English varieties is
often recommended (Council of Europe 2010), but very little is done in order to
explore its pedagogical implications.
It is within a plurilingual approach to languages in education that an ELF
aware perspective is gradually spreading in some European countries through
local educational documents, in school curricula, in English course-books, in
teacher education in- and pre-service courses. A careful rethinking of foreign
language planning and of the constructs underlying English curricula and assess-
ment practices is thus required. As for the English curriculum in European
contexts, for example, it is not without conflict or tension as to which English
to teach, which variety is more ‘correct’ or appropriate, which course-books and
materials, or which approach to use in a multilingual and multicultural class-
room where English is usually being taught by non-native teachers.
Several changes in the approaches adopted in language teacher education
have already begun to occur in different European countries in order to offer
future teachers of English an ELF perspective (Sifakis 2007; Lopriore 2010;

Dewey 2013; Bayyurt and Akcan 2015; Blair 2015; Lopriore and Vettorel 2015;
Vettorel and Lopriore in press). In two Italian universities, for example, some
components of the training courses for prospective English teachers introduced
participants to English as an International language (EIL) and English as a
Lingua Franca (ELF). The teachers were challenged in their beliefs about English
and were asked, as multilingual speakers, as learners and as teachers of English,
to reconsider their perspectives on English (Vettorel and Lopriore in press).
An ELF-aware perspective demands for a view of English as a social practice
and a better understanding by teachers and learners of inherent language vari-
ability and diversity. These conceptions should be reflected within ELT teacher
education programmes, moving beyond the ‘native’/‘non-native’ distinction. The
process is slow but it is moving ahead and more and more English and subject
matter (CLIL) teachers are being involved in bottom up processes leading to a
shift in perspective.
References
Bayyurt, Yasemin & Sumru Akcan (eds.). 2015. Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as
a lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Blair, Andrew. 2015. Evolving a post-native, multilingual model for ELF-aware teacher education.
In Yasemin Bayyurt & Sumru Akcan (eds.), Current perspectives on pedagogy for English
as a lingua franca (Developments in English as a Lingua Franca 5), 89–102. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton.
British Council. 2013. Language rich Europe. London: British Council.
Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Cogo, Alessia & Martin Dewey. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca. London: Continuum.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe. 2014. LIAM: Linguistic integration of migrants report. Strasbourg. www.coe.
int/lang-migrants (accessed 15 July 2015).
Council of Europe/Jean Claude Beacco & Michael Byram. 2007. From linguistic diversity to
plurilingual education. Guide for the development of language education policies in
Europe. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division.
Council of Europe/Jean Claude Beacco, Michael Byram, Marisa Cavalli, Daniel Coste, Mirjam
Egli Cuenat, Francis Goullier & Johanna Panthier. 2010. Guide for the development and
implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education. Strasbourg: Lan-
guage Policy Division.
Dewey, Martin. 2013. The distinctiveness of English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 67(3). 346–
349.
74 Lucilla Lopriore
European Commission. 2005a. White paper. Teaching and learning: Towards a cognitive society.
Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. 2005b. White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning.
Towards the learning society. Com (95) 590 final, 29 November 1995. Brussels: European
Commission.
European Commission. 2008. Languages for jobs report. Brussels: European Commission.
European Union. 2011. Civil society platform on multilingualism. Policy recommendations for
the promotion of multilingualism in the European Union. Brussels: European Unity. http://
ec.europa.eu/languages/information/documents/report-civil-society_en.pdf (accessed 15 July
2015).
Eurostat. 2008. Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. http://eacea.ec.europa.
eu/about/eurydice/documents/KDL2008_EN.pdf (accessed 15 July 2015).
Eurydice. 2012. Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Brussels: Education,
Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a lingua franca. Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2009. World Englishes. A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2007. World Englishes. Implications for international communication and
English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Lopriore, Lucilla. 2010. World Englishes and language teacher education in a world in migration:
A shift in perspective. In Cesare Gagliardi & Alan Maley (eds.), EIL, ELF, Global English:
Teaching and learning issues, 69–91. Bern: Peter Lang.
Lopriore, Lucilla & Paola Vettorel. 2015. Promoting awareness of Englishes and ELF in the
English language classroom. In Hugo Bowles & Alessia Cogo (eds.), International perspec-
tives on English as a lingua franca. Pedagogical insights, 13–34. Basingtoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Mauranen, Anna & Elina Ranta (eds.). 2009. English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Neuner, Gerhard. 2002. Policy approaches to English. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Phillipson, Robert. 2003. English only Europe? London: Routledge.
Romaine, Suzanne. 2013. Politics and policies in promoting multilingualism in the European
Union. Language Policy 12(2). 115–137.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2003. A concept of international English and related issues from ‘real
English’ to ‘realistic English’. Strasburg: Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/
linguistic/Source/SeidlhoferEN.pdf (accessed 15 July 2015).
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24. 209–239.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. Orientations in ELF research: Form and function. In Anna Mauranen
& Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 37–59. Newcastle
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2010. Lingua Franca English – The European context. In Andy Kirkpatrick
(ed.), The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, 355–371. Oxon: Routledge.
Press.
in Europe. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26. 1–34.
Sifakis, Nicos. 2007. The education of the teachers of English as a lingua franca: A transforma-
tive perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3). 355–375.
Vasileva, Katya. 2012. Population and social conditions. Statistics in focus. 31/2012. Luxem-
bourg: EUROSTAT. http://www.trf.sll.se/Global/Dokument/Statistik/externa_rapporter/
eurostat_2012_31_foreigners_in_the_eu.pdf (accessed 15 July 2015).
Vettorel, Paola & Lucilla Lopriore. in press. WE, EIL, ELF and awareness of their pedagogical im-
plications in teacher education programs in Italy. In Aya Matsuda (ed.), Preparing teachers
to teach English as an international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kumiko Murata
ELF research – Its impact on language
education in Japan and East Asia
1 Introduction
I was constrained by native speaker (NS) norms. I was ashamed, comparing myself with
NSs and returnees. I was sometimes too ashamed to speak up because I did not want to
make mistakes. (2-4F91, a Japanese final-year female student reflecting on her experience
at the beginning of the EMI programme she attended at university)
I sometimes feel ashamed when I speak with NSs, because the level of English is so different
and I’m not confident at all if my English is correct. (2-4M13, a Japanese final-year male
student reflecting on his experience in the EMI programme he has attended at university)
(based on Iino and Murata 2015: 122, emphasis mine)
These two comments were made by students during the interviews which
were conducted as part of ELF research at a university in Tokyo. Now why do
they need to feel ashamed? The clues to this are also found in their comments:
mistakes and correct. That is, they are so constrained by correctness based on NS
norms, and thus, are more afraid of making mistakes than enjoying communica-
tion with their peers.
More than 15 (or by now nearly 20?) years ago, around the time when
Barbara Seidlhofer just started the VOICE project or it might still have been in
its conceptual inception period, I remember listening to her passionately, but in
her typical humble (particularly considering the idea’s uniqueness and its very
influential nature) manner, talking about her great idea of collecting English
as a lingua franca (ELF) data. Perhaps I didn’t immediately understand what
exactly she had meant, and used the term ‘learners’ in responding to her idea,
as around that time (and still now) compiling learner corpora was very popular
and receiving very much attention in comparison with the then already established
1 The numbers here indicate different interviewees. The interviews were conducted with different
groups of students (although pursuing the same EMI course) at different times. Thus, the first
number 2 here indicates Group 2, whose interviews were held after the first group. The second
number shows which year student the interviewee was at the time of the interview, ‘4’ meaning
a 4th (final) year student. F or M after that indicates the interviewee’s sex, i.e., female or male.
The number which follows it is an individual interview’s number.
Kumiko Murata, Waseda University

78 Kumiko Murata
large native speaker corpora. To this, she immediately, but of course in her
another typical very polite and non-face threatening way, mentioned that it
wasn’t actually a learner corpus, but that she was collecting ELF users’ data.
Since then, more than a decade has passed and her initial ELF project,
VOICE, has been completed for some time now, and other ELF related corpora
have also been compiled or are being compiled, including Mauranen’s ELFA
corpus (Mauranen 2012, among others), and the very much VOICE inspired ACE
Project is also under way in Asian contexts (Kirkpatrick 2010). Thus, ELF related
research inspired by Seidlhofer’s initiative is now thriving not only in European
contexts, where it originally started, but also in Asian contexts. Influential
publications have also become widely available, including Seidlhofer’s thought-
provoking and inspiring ones (see, for example, Seidlhofer 2001, 2004, 2009,
2011 among others) and the journal dedicated to ELF, i.e. the Journal of English
as a Lingua Franca (JELF), thanks to pioneering works by Seidlhofer and other
prominent ELF scholars such as Jenkins, Mauranen and their colleagues and
students (see Jenkins 2000, 2007, 2014; Mauranen 2012 among many others).
However, considering its significance to increasing numbers of ELF users the
world over, be they business or education related, beyond the border of its
original stronghold of European contexts, has ELF research really impacted on
linguistic and applied linguistic researchers as well as language policy makers,
practitioners, and, most importantly, language learners and users around the
world as it should have done? This chapter, therefore, closely examines the
impact of ELF research on language education in other parts of the world,
namely East Asia, drawing specific examples from Japanese contexts.
2 Language policy and education in East Asia:

Prevalence of NS norms
As briefly touched on above, a major research project on ELF has also started in
Asia with the initiative of Professor Kirkpatrick (Kirkpatrick 2010). Furthermore,
an increasing number of researchers on World Englishes (WE) or Asian Englishes
in this region are also directing their research interests towards ELF or at least
incorporating an ELF perspective in their research (see, for example, D’Angelo
2015; Hino 2015; Yano 2012, among others). Traditionally, research on WE
has been very strong in the region, partly because of the colonial history of the
language. Recently, however, even (or even more so) in this region, inter-
regional communication, not only within the ASEAN, but also with other neigh-
bouring countries, and communication with other parts of the world, are on the
increase because of ever-expanding globalization and the consequent greater

mobility of people. Under these circumstances, the governments of Asian coun-
tries are increasingly paying more attention to the role of language which plays
a part in surviving in this competitive world. The impact of globalization is even
larger in Asia than in other parts of the world with its large, ever-increasing
population and emerging economy. Although this region boasts varied lingua-
cultural backgrounds and identities based on diverse backgrounds of its peoples,
many of the governments have started recognizing the importance of languages
as lingua francas for communication, but particularly, widely-used English as a
lingua franca, thus, changing their language policies, accommodating more to
this trend.
One of such language policies is the introduction of English at an earlier
stage of education, namely at primary level, and another is the introduction of
English as a medium of instruction (EMI) mainly at tertiary, but also at secondary
levels. To give an example from Japan, the introduction of English activities at
primary level has been enforced since 2011 (The Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology, henceforth MEXT 2011a), and as to the latter,
just from 2015, high school English teachers are encouraged to teach the lan-
guage in principle in English (MEXT 2010). This tendency started even earlier in
other East Asian countries such as Korea (see Park, J.-K. 2009; Park, K.-J. 2009)
and China (Hu 2005, 2009; Hu and McKay 2012). At tertiary level as well, to give
an example from Japan again, the government has been introducing various
policies and providing funding to promote the development of ‘global human
resources’ to survive in the increasingly globalized world, fostering students’
(and future workforce’s) ability to use English. In particular, they are promoting
EMI at university, where students can learn content matters in English and thus,
enabling the universities to attract more international students, with the special
programme funded directly by the government under the names of the Global 30
Project (MEXT 2011b) and most recently, the Top Global University Project (MEXT
2014).2
Thus, although the governments are responding to the recent drastic change
in the world order and to the demands of English as an international means of
communication in their discussions and policies, the English they are talking
about remains the same as the NS-norm-based one, as pointed out by Seidlhofer
(2011, 2015) and Widdowson (2015) in the similar situation elsewhere. That is,
although most of these policy makers are keenly aware of the role of English as
a lingua franca, they are stating this superficially from the fact that it is used
2 See, for example, Hu (2009) for the Chinese situation, Park, J.-K. (2009) for the Korean situa-
tion, and Hu and McKay (2012) for both Chinese and Korean situations.
80 Kumiko Murata
internationally as a lingua franca among people from different lingua-cultural

backgrounds, but are not aware of what really happens when it is used as a
lingua franca in these situations or how it is used, that is, they remain unaware
of the nature of ELF interaction. As many ELF researchers have made it clear,
English used as a lingua franca among these traditionally-defined non-native
speakers (NNSs) cannot be described or judged from the yardstick of native
speakers who are presumed to have a privileged ownership of the language
(see Seidlhofer 2015: 20). As Seidlhofer puts it: “Teachers may acknowledge
this reality, but at the same time often cannot rid themselves of the belief that
all the same ENL has a unique authenticity – a belief that is all the more persis-
tent when it is sanctioned by educational policy and orthodox approaches to
teaching and testing.” (Seidlhofer 2015: 22)
Widdowson (2003, 2012, 2015) also points out that the authenticity of NS use
quite often is irrelevant for those typical ELF communicators. Yet it remains true
that language policy makers, education authorities and practitioners are still
regrettably very much operating under this firmly established NS yardstick. This,
can be observed, for example, in job-recruiting markets, which, quite often, still
specifically advertise for native English-speaking teachers (NESTs).
Three recent examples of these can be seen in the following, which are
advertised through the mailing list of a Japanese ELT (English language teaching)
related association during the two weeks from the last week of April to the first
week of May 2015:
1) The successful applicant will, at the time of application, fulfill the following
requirements:
– have English as a first language – (A Univ., advertised on 8 May 2015)
2) full-time position (one-year contract renewable) of Special Instructor of Lan-
guage (SIL) to teach English, –.
Native/ Near-native speaker competence in English is required and fluency
in Japanese preferable. (B Univ., advertised on 27 April 2015)
3) Job Opening for Professor or Associate Professor (tenure position) at –.
The applicant is required to be a native speaker of English – (C Univ.,
advertised on 22April 2015)
This preference for NESTs in turn indicates how much Japanese universities
are still constrained by NS norms. This is particularly due to the administration
of entrance examinations, which is one of the most important events at universities
in Japan.3 Under these circumstances, English is regarded somehow as a very
3 See Hu and McKay (2012) and Park, J.-K. (2009) for similar situations in China and South
Korea.
good measure for selecting students on the basis of both their language and
intellectual abilities (see also Hu and McKay 2012). In this situation, well-codified
readily available NS norms prevail, as universities are very sensitive to making
any ‘mistakes’ in their test-making as they are quite often reported in the media,
thus, the importance of hiring NESTs to cope with this arises. As a backlash
against this, high school students are also geared towards ‘correct’ English so
that they are not penalized in the competitive entrance examinations, which
might influence their future career altogether. The quotations at the outset of
this chapter show some examples of such consequences. Therefore, in a sense,
both high school students and their teachers are also simultaneously victims
and complicit in this process in orientating towards NS-based ‘correctness’ in
preparation for entrance examinations, thus accelerating ‘correctness-oriented’
teaching and learning.
In this way, NS-norm-oriented students are constantly reproduced (see also
Seidlhofer 2001), and there is a great gap, when they face actual ELF communi-
cation on EMI courses at university or in their future job assignment. Currently,
there is not very much coordination between educators and policy makers at
different levels which organically deals with these issues in a plausible, realistic
manner. Thus, despite ELF research being in existence for nearly two decades,
there is not any drastic change in the actual conduct of NS-norm-based ELT in
Japan, even in this rapidly changing globally-oriented-world; thus, widening
the gap even further.
This is where ELF research and researchers can contribute more, on one
hand by explicitly disseminating and reporting the results of their findings and
heightening the awareness of policy-makers, practitioners, materials-developers,
test-makers, etc., but on the other, by leaving the details of actual implementa-
tion to them, taking local conditions into account.
3 EMI situations in Asian countries

One area where the use of ELF should be more taken into consideration is EMI
situations. As briefly touched on earlier in the chapter, EMI is also becoming
popular in East Asian contexts, just like in Europe, where the ERASMUS Project
has accelerated this tendency (see, for example, Mauranen 2012; Jenkins 2014).4
4 See Hu (2009), Hu and McKay (2012) and Park, J.-K. (2009) for EMI situations in China and
South Korea.
82 Kumiko Murata
The Japanese government has also been promoting it by introducing the Global
30 Project (MEXT 2011b; see also Iino and Murata 2015), where 13 designated
universities with special funding from the government run EMI courses to attract
more international students and make their home students get used to com-
municating in English or rather ELF, as it should be. Most recently this policy
has been enhanced by the introduction of another big project entitled the Top
Global University Project, where in total 37 universities (Top Type, 13 and Global
Traction Type, 24) are selected and provided with substantial funding for the
implementation of EMI courses and other related matters to “enhance the inter-
national compatibility and competitiveness of higher education in Japan” (MEXT
2014: 1). However, the reality of EMI situations needs to be closely examined and
assessed with qualitative surveys, investigating what is actually going on in
these situations, how both students and faculty are benefiting from EMI and
what to be done or improved to make it more student-friendly or rather to
make them in a real sense globally-minded people. To this end, ELF research
can contribute greatly to making students more globally-minded and operative
as ELF users by reporting what is really happening in the actual situation of
ELF use and thus, to what should be encouraged and focused on in EMI com-
munication or in preparation for broader ELF communication.
Here what should be cultivated among students is what Seidlhofer and
Widdowson term “communicative capability” (see Seidlhofer 2011, 2015; Widdowson
2003, 2008, 2015), not, the too often quoted “communicative competence –
komyunikeeshon- noryoku”, the term used by the MEXT without detailing what
it actually means. As both Seidlhofer and Widdowson explicate the concepts,
competence is still very much NS-based knowledge, but if learners are to be
immersed in English used by people from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds
without sharing their first languages, what they need to acquire is, to borrow
Seidlhofer’s terms: “capability for using the language by exploiting its com-
municative potential” (Seidlhofer 2011: 202), which enables them to act upon their
acquired knowledge (Seidlhofer 2011: 198; see also Widdowson 2003, 2008).
How to make this possible, however, is a great challenge for practitioners.
Educational policy makers, test makers, curriculum and syllabus designers,
material developers, and of course, teachers all need to bear this in mind, to
make learners successful ELF users in their future career. To realize this, well-
coordinated action by all the people concerned with language education is
necessary. This, however, is not an easy task. One such example, the import of
the CEFR, will be discussed in the following section.
4 The import of the CEFR to Japan – plausible?

To take an example of the Common European Framework of Reference for Lan-
guages (CEFR), which is originally devised by the Council of Europe (2001) and
is increasingly imported by other parts of the world, including East Asia despite
the fact the language situation in these countries is very different from that
of European nations (see also Seidlhofer 2015: 19), Japanese scholars have also
recently produced a Japanese version of the CEFR, the CEFR-J (Japan) (Tono
2013), considering Japanese local conditions. However, although it emphasizes
the importance of the education of global citizens for global communication, it
has directly imported the wording for NS norms from the original CEFR, as can
be seen in the explanation of B2 level speaking in the Japanese version below
(Tono 2013: 174):
Part of the CAN-DO list based on self-assessment grid on speaking for B2 Level:
(3) 話すこと（やりとり）(Speaking (interaction))
○母語話者と流暢で自発的なやりとりができる。
[Can interact with native speakers fluently and naturally.]
○母語話者と定期的なやりとりが可能。
[Can interact with native speakers regularly.]
(Translated by the current author.)
The list could be of practical use to language practitioners for reference

purposes, but that is exactly why it is even more important for it to incorporate
the current situation of ELF being widely used among people from various
lingua-cultural backgrounds in their interactions (see also Hynninen 2014;
McNamara 2012; Pitzl 2015; Seidlhofer 2011 for critiques of the CEFR). Thus, the
list (at least the above-mentioned part) is not satisfactory if we are to educate
students to become global citizens, communicating with people from diverse
lingua-cultural backgrounds, where their counterparts are most likely to be also
ELF users, but not necessarily native speakers of English (NSEs). Here, it is not
realistic either to require learners to acquire NSE like pronunciation, and not
plausible to require them to spend so much time in pursuing this unattainable
and irrelevant goal (see also Jenkins 1998, 2000, 2002 on this matter)
What they need is to be provided with more chances to actually interact
with ELF speakers5 from other regions or other parts of the world, and if that
5 However, contradictorily the current course of study for Japanese high schools by the MEXT
clearly states that students should be provided with more opportunities to interact with NSEs
although the actual term used in Japanese is ネーテイブスピーカーなど (‘native speakers,
etc.’) with a suffix nado, which means ‘et cetera’; thus, at least indicating a possibility of inter-
acting with people other than NSEs (MEXT 2010).
84 Kumiko Murata
is not very realistic, at least to have more exposure to ELF communication if not
actual interaction. The following two comments by Japanese students who expe-
rienced EMI in ELF contexts might be of interest from this perspective:
(1) In Sweden, we were equal and positive because we came from different
places. We did not see a set standard of English to judge what’s right or
wrong. (2-4F10)
(2) Easier to speak in English, when there are students from various lingua-
cultural backgrounds, especially Asian friends. (4F3)
(based on Iino and Murata 2015: 124 & 126)
5 And, finally –
The pioneering work of Seidlhofer has great potential to empower and liberate a
great number of ELF users or EFL learners from their straitjacket of NS English,
who are even now regarded as deficient users of English or rather eternal EFL
learners, even when they very tactfully manage important international transac-
tions or interactions. Despite this great potential, there is still a lot to be done at
both local and global levels to benefit in a true sense from Seidlhofer’s seminal
work although it is no easy task, considering people’s general unwillingness for
changes, and not just changes, but a radical change of the conceptualization of
English.
Young ELF users, however, are more perceptive about this reality as seen in
the comments quoted above. By actively providing students with environments
where ELF is naturally used and valued in educational processes and by im-
mersing them in the environment, it is possible to make them more natural ELF
users freed from the NS-norm-based constraints as seen in the comments shown
at the outset. It is established language policy makers, ELT practitioners, linguistic
and applied linguistic scholars and educators that really need to adjust to this
fast-globalizing world in East Asian contexts as well. It is a great challenge we
all still have to face.
References
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,
teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
D’Angelo, James. 2015. Nurturing EMI in broad-based Japanese higher education: The case of
Chukyo University. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 4. 219–228.
Hino, Nobuyuki. 2015. Toward the development of CELFIL (Content and ELF Integrated Learning)
for EMI classes in higher education in Japan. Waseda Working Papers in ELF 4. 187–198.
Hu, Guangwei. 2005. English language education in China: Politics, progress, and problems.
Language Policy 4(1). 5–24.
Hu, Guangwei. 2009. The craze for English-medium education in China: Driving forces and
looming consequences. English Today 25(4). 47–54.
Hu, Guangwei & Sandra Lee McKay. 2012. English language education in East Asia: Some recent
developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(4). 345–62.
Hynninen, Niina. 2014. The Common European Framework of Reference from the perspective
of English as a lingua franca: What we can learn from a focus on language regulation.
Iino, Masakazu & Kumiko Murata. 2015. Dynamics of ELF communication in an English-medium
academic context in Japan – From EFL learners to ELF users. In Kumiko Murata (ed.),
Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts, 111–131. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 1998. Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an International
Language? ELT Journal 52(2). 119–26.
University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2002. A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus
for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics 23(1). 83–103.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2014. English as a lingua franca in the international university – The politics
of academic language policy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
McNamara, Tim. 2012. English as a lingua franca: The challenge for language testing. Journal of
MEXT. 2010. 高等学校学習指導要領解説：外国語編、英語編 (H21. 12月版) [Course of studies
for upper secondary schools and commentaries: Foreign languages and English. December
2010] http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/
afieldfile/2010/01/29/1282000_9.pdf (accessed 12 May 2015).
MEXT. 2011a. 小・中学校学習指導要領等の改訂のポイント [Course of studies for primary
and lower secondary schools. Points for the revised version]. http://www.mext.go.jp/
component/a_menu/education/micro_detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/30/
1234773_001.pdf (accessed 12 May 2015).
MEXT. 2011b. An interim report of the council on promotion of human resource for globalization
development. http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/110622chukan_matome.pdf (Japanese)
http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/global/1206011interim_report.pdf (English) (accessed 12
May 2015).
MEXT. 2014. Press release ‘Selection for the FY 2014 top Global University Project’. http://www.
mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/26/09/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/10/07/1352218_02.pdf (ac-
cessed 12 May 2015).
86 Kumiko Murata
Park, Jin-Kyu. 2009. ‘English fever’ in South Korea: Its history and symptoms. English Today
25(1). 50–57.
Park, Kyung-Ja. 2009. Characteristics of Korea English as a glocalized variety. In Kumiko Murata
& Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts: Current and future debates,
94–107. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2015. Understanding and misunderstanding in the Common European Frame-
work of Reference: What we can learn from research on BELF and Intercultural Communica-
tion. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1). 91–124.
lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11. 133–58. http://www.univie.
ac.at/voice/documents/seidlhofer_2001b.pdf (accessed 6 July 2015).
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English
as a lingua franca. World Englishes 28(2). 236–245.
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2015. ELF: English in a global context. In Kumiko Murata (ed.), Exploring
ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts, 17–28. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Tono, Yukio. (ed.). 2013. Eigo totatsudo shihyo. CEFR-J gaidobook. (THE CEFR-J Handbook. A
Resource Book for Using CAN-DO Descriptors for English Language Teaching). Tokyo:
Taisyukan Shoten.
Widdowson, Henry. G. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Widdowson, Henry. G. 2008. Foreword. In Kumiko Murata & Tetsuo Harada (eds.), Applied
linguistics and language teaching in Japan, 1–6. Tokyo: Hitsuji Shobo.
Widdowson, Henry. G. 2012. ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of
Widdowson, Henry. G. 2015. Competence and capability: Rethinking the subject English. In
Kumiko Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts, 213–
223. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Yano, Yasukata. 2012. World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. A personal observation.
Waseda Working Papers in ELF 1. 24–32.
Kurt Kohn
From ELF communication to lingua franca
pedagogy
I first met Barbara Seidlhofer in September 2003 at the Annual Conference of the
German Society of Applied Linguistics (GAL) at the University of Tübingen. Her
enlightening plenary talk and the many discussions that were to follow opened
a door for me and inspired my own excursions into ELF territory.
1 Communicative language teaching and

ELF communication
The story of the evolution of lingua franca pedagogy needs to be told against the
backdrop of the communicative turn in English language teaching since the
early 1970s. Triggered by Dell Hymes’ (1972) trail-blazing theory of communica-
tive competence and seconded by advances in pragmatic and psycholinguistic
studies on utterance comprehension, the English classroom came under the
influence of communication. Learning objectives were changed to include a
focus on communicative skills, and communication was advocated as the prin-
cipal method of teaching and learning (Littlewood 1981). Task-based teaching
(Willis and Willis 2007) and immersion approaches (Johnson and Swain 1997)
further influenced and enriched the pedagogic spectrum of communicative lan-
guage teaching, eventually culminating in various manifestations of content and
language integrated learning (CLIL) (Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010), such as e.g.
bilingual subject education (in English, French or Spanish) in German schools.
And what is more, with the explicit reference to intercultural communication
and English as a lingua franca, educational regulations for school curricula
finally seem to answer to urgent learning needs resulting from changes in a
world of global communication (Kultusministerkonferenz 2012).
However, while the communicative orientation in language teaching no
doubt yields positive learning outcomes, far too many young people are leaving
school today without being able to cope with the challenges of real English com-
munication to their own satisfaction. They seem to feel communicatively less
competent than desirable, notably less than could be expected after all those
Kurt Kohn, University of Tübingen

88 Kurt Kohn
years of English in school. How to help learners improve their speaking skills is
a recurring topic in online discussions about English language teaching (ELT).
Top tips include increasing students’ speaking time in class and avoiding correc-
tions except serious ones: “Let them believe that they can communicate in
English even if they make mistakes in pronunciation, grammar etc. Compliment
students for speaking!”1 But is this sufficient for making non-native speakers feel
comfortable in real communicative interaction outside classroom contexts?
Descriptive ELF studies, urgently and persistently demanded by Barbara
Seidlhofer and significantly influenced and shaped by empirical insights gained
in her VOICE project2, have sustainably changed our understanding of the
characteristics and challenges of communication under lingua franca conditions.
Quite obviously, to ensure communicative success, non-native speakers need to
resort to a rich array of communicative strategies including e.g. paraphrasing,
accommodation, co-construction, negotiation of meaning, or resolving mis-
understandings (Cogo and Dewey 2012; Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011; Mauranen
2006; Pitzl 2005, 2010; Seidlhofer 2011). And what is more, in their endeavour
to find appropriate expression for their communicative and communal needs
and intentions, they creatively exploit and extend the English they were taught
beyond mere correctness, thus appropriating and making the language their
own (Seidlhofer 2011; Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2009). This is the bright side
of the coin. Whether speakers always succeed with what they want to achieve
is, however, a different issue and a matter of debate in ELF related research
discussions (Albl-Mikasa 2013; Kaur 2011).
2 ELF-aware teacher education

How can these insights about ELF communication be used to improve the com-
municative force and validity of English language teaching? Dewey (2012) em-
phasizes the need for teachers to become aware of the strategic and creative
qualities of successful ELF communication; he strongly argues for helping them
to replace their typical focus on Standard English (SE) correctness by an overall
post-normative orientation. In a similar vein, Hall et al. (2013) challenge the
pedagogic validity of monolithic views of English; their online course “Changing
Englishes”3 is designed for teachers to develop awareness of “the ‘plurilithic’
1 http://eteachershub.com/2014/12/10/top-5-tips-improve-speaking-skills-esl-class/ (accessed 4
July 2015).
2 http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/ (accessed 4 July 2015).
3 www.yorksj.ac.uk/changing-englishes (accessed 4 July 2015).
nature of English and of the multiple, locally-modulated outcomes of actual

learning and teaching processes [. . .] and to become comfortable with the notion
of locally-appropriate learning objectives and outcomes” (Hall et al. 2013: 3).
Also compare Bayyurt and Sikakis (2015) and Sifakis (2014), who propose a
transformative teacher education approach aiming to enable teachers to make
insights from ELF communication research their own and, in doing so, eventually
change their teaching practices.
To educate teachers about the dynamics of English and the creative ways
of ELF communication is certainly necessary for helping them to develop and
implement ELF-aware learning and teaching approaches. But is this sufficient?
In my own ELF-related seminars and workshop discussions with teacher stu-
dents and in-service teachers, I frequently noticed a mismatch between readily
understanding and acknowledging the strategic competence and creativity of
ELF speakers and a persistent reluctance to open up to ELF-aware pedagogic
views (also see Vettorel 2015). Further increasing awareness didn’t seem to
help. A typical reply would be some variant of “I don’t want to teach incorrect
English”. What held them back was not so much a lack of empirical insight into
the nature of ELF communication but rather their negative evaluation of certain
characteristics of ELF performance they judged as deviant from SE. Considering
the prominent role of SE in ELT, this conflict between teachers’ SE orientation
and their newly gained insights into ELF, nor their preference for a “resolution”
in favour of the former were hardly surprising. Key areas of ELT thinking, from
educational regulations to testing methodology to communicative language
teaching approaches, are generally permeated with the unquestioned assump-
tion that learning success critically depends on compliance with SE norms.
ELF research, however, clearly shows that successful communication in
English does not necessarily require SE correctness (Seidlhofer 2011: chap. 5).
On all levels of language from phonology to lexico-grammar to pragmatics,
communicative interactions in real-life contexts are abundant with deviations
from normative conventions. Reviewing and discussing the empirical evidence
from various angles, Seidlhofer (2011: 127) emphasizes “that non-conformity of form
does not at all preclude functional effectiveness but on the contrary can
enhance it”. The question thus remains whether SE and ELF communication
are essentially in conflict with each other, or whether it is possible to harmonize
speakers’ aspiration for SE correctness with successful ELF communication as two
complementary instead of opposing pedagogic objectives. Barbara Seidlhofer’s
own understanding of the pedagogic implications of ELF research prepares the
ground for a reconciliatory solution which clearly leaves room for SE, as it does
for any other target language model.
90 Kurt Kohn
I am not advocating that descriptions of ELF should directly and uniquely determine what
language is taught in the language classroom. [. . .] What really matters is that the lan-
guage should engage the learners’ reality and activate the learning process. Any kind of
language that is taught in order to achieve this effect is appropriate, and this will always
be a local decision. So what is crucial is not so much what language is presented as input
but what learners make of it, and how they make use of it to develop the capability for
languaging. The pedagogic significance of an ELF perspective is that it shifts the focus of
attention to the learner and the learning process. (Seidlhofer 2011: 198)
Complementary support comes from a social constructivist understanding

of language learning. According to the “my language”/“my English” condition
(Kohn 2011, 2015), learners/speakers acquire a language by collaboratively creat-
ing and developing their own version of it in their minds, hearts and behaviours.
The individual and social construction processes involved operate on and are
influenced by a number of shaping forces including in particular the learners’
native language(s), linguistic input manifestations, type of (communicative) expo-
sure, linguistic target models and learning objectives, teaching and learning
approach, motivation and effort, and others more. What gives these forces their
impact, however, are not their external manifestations but rather the internal
representations a learner happens to create of them. Such an internal view is
not common in ELT thinking, in particular not with reference to linguistic target
models based on Standard English or Native Speaker English. Throughout the
history of ELT these concepts have generally been understood and discussed in
relation to externally given pedagogic norms and conventions imposed upon the
learner from the outside. Since ELF researchers have always emphasized an
endonormative perspective, it is thus no wonder that learning objectives and
assessment criteria referring to (native speaker) SE are a solid bone of conten-
tion between ELT and ELF.
A pedagogic reconciliation between ELT and ELF becomes possible through
a social constructivist reconceptualization of SE and its pedagogic status and
role. Besides being advocated (or rejected) as an externally conceived and imposed
pedagogic norm, SE also has a learner-internal manifestation as the result of
mediating perception processes and the individual, social and pedagogic factors
by which these are influenced. Social construction processes of language learn-
ing begin with learners’ transformational perception of initially external norms
and conventions, eventually resulting in their own creative representations. It is
these internally modified versions of externally given target norms and conven-
tions that actually guide and influence learning. Social construction continues
with how learners (are allowed to) pursue their SE orientation. Are they required
to closely follow the chosen SE model in as strict a fashion as possible? Or is
there an open leeway for all the other shaping forces in the social constructivist
concert of learning? It makes all the difference whether the social constructivist,
learner-internal quality of SE is ignored and suppressed, as is commonly the

case in ELT, or whether it is comfortably acknowledged and pedagogically ex-
ploited from an ELF-aware perspective. Making teachers and learners aware of
the need to reinterpret the status and role of SE in the light of an open, social
constructivist understanding and to change their attitudes and pedagogic require-
ments accordingly are necessary steps in the process of implementing an ELF
dimension within ELT.
3 Lingua franca communication practice through

telecollaboration
Acceptance and adoption of a pedagogic social constructivist view is, however,
only part of the solution and needs to be complemented with rich exposure to
authentic lingua franca communication in English. Helping learners develop
their ELF competence simply requires as much intercultural communicative
practice as possible. The range of communicative challenges offered should
be sufficiently wide and diversified to include opportunities for raising their
awareness of unfamiliar characteristics and requirements of ELF communica-
tion, practising comprehension and production under ELF conditions, adapting
and expanding their strategic sensitivity and skills, as well as exploring and
ascertaining their non-native speaker creativity (Kohn 2015, 2016). What is thus
required is intercultural contact and communicative interaction among speakers
from different lingua-cultural backgrounds, who share a natural and urgent
need for using English as a means of communication. This is arguably difficult,
if not impossible, to implement in ordinary classroom settings.
Promising solutions emerge with the rise of web-based social media and
communication technologies from asynchronous forum and blog tools to syn-
chronous chat, videoconferencing and virtual world environments. These very
same technologies that are increasingly being used by people around the world,
including students and pupils, for everyday purposes of communication are also
available for imbuing the foreign language classroom with intercultural and
communicative authenticity (O’Dowd 2011). They offer no less than the possibility
of exploiting the communication and socialising environments learners are
familiar with in their real lives for intercultural communication and collaborative
language learning in the school environment. Pedagogically motivated inter-
cultural telecollaboration exchanges offer rich opportunities for natural and
authentic lingua franca communication between pupils of different languages
and cultural backgrounds. Strengthening foreign language communication out-
side and beyond the physical classroom through intercultural telecollaboration
92 Kurt Kohn
harbours the potential for an innovative revitalisation of the decades-old com-

municative language teaching approach (Kohn and Hoffstaedter 2015).
In the following, I will sketch out a pedagogic lingua franca approach
designed, implemented and evaluated in the EU project TILA (Telecollaboration
for Intercultural Language Acquisition) from January 2013 until June 2015.4 The
overall objective in TILA is to explore how virtual worlds and videoconferencing
as well as chat, forum and blog can be used to facilitate spoken and written
intercultural communication and learning between secondary school pupils across
Europe (Hoffstaedter and Kohn 2014; also see Grazzi 2013; Vettorel 2013). Four
target languages – English, Spanish, French and German – are addressed in
two complementary pedagogic language constellations, tandem and lingua
franca. The tandem constellation requires telecollaboration partner A’s native
language to be partner B’s target language, and vice versa; it thus incorporates
the native speaker preference of the common ELT approach. The lingua franca
constellation, on the other hand, radically departs from this ‘ideal’ in that both
telecollaboration partners communicate in a shared non-native target language.
Focus is on intercultural communicative exchanges between peers who are in
the same language boat. Communication-related requirements, comprehension
and production skills as well as interaction strategies come to the fore. In
addition, being able to mirror oneself in the performance of other non-native
speakers helps learners to adopt an open, social constructivist orientation
towards their target language.
Since the lingua franca constellation may apply to any of the target languages
offered in TILA, the pedagogic lingua franca approach is generalized and ex-
tended beyond English. The justification for this move is not so much reliant
on the respective language being in use as an attested lingua franca (as is the
case with English), but rather on the very nature of language learning as a social
constructivist process of creation. From this perspective, ELF pedagogy is a
special branch of lingua franca pedagogy, which itself should be conceived of
as the consequential further development of communicative language teaching,
reaching out beyond the confines of a traditional (and implicitly behaviourist)
exonormative orientation towards native speaker norms of correctness and appro-
priateness. Lingua franca pedagogy incorporates Hymes’ (1972) notion of com-
municative competence originally developed with reference to native speakers
and extends it to apply to non-native speakers as well (Leung 2005; Widdowson
2012). Unlike Canale and Swain’s (1980) exonormative adaptation of com-
municative competence for purposes of second language learning and testing,
however, its social constructivist lingua franca reinterpretation keeps the endo-
normative quality inherent in Hymes’ judgment dimensions of possibility, appro-
4 www.tilaproject.eu (accessed 4 July 2015).

priateness, feasibility and probability. From a truly communicative perspective,

non-native speakers in general, not only those of English, need to be granted
creative agency in relation to their respective target orientation.
The pedagogic validity of the TILA lingua franca constellation is convinc-
ingly demonstrated by evaluation feedback gained from teachers and pupils
after having participated in telecollaboration exchanges (Hoffstaedter and Kohn
2015). The exchanges were organized outside class hours as videoconferencing,
virtual world (OpenSim) or forum exchanges in the school’s computer lab or
from pupils’ home computers. Conversation topics were related to the pupils’
own experience and opinions and included e.g. Fashion and dress code in school
or A day without mobile phone or computer. The task was to communicate in
speaking or writing depending on the affordances of the technological environ-
ment and to discuss one’s opinions and prepare a summary account for a follow-
up session in class. Most of the feedback comments referred to German lingua
franca conversations between Dutch and French, and Dutch and British pupils,
respectively. Initially, teachers were concerned about losing control over their
pupils, in particular when interacting from home, and they also feared that
some of them might be tempted to avoid speaking German and shift to English
as a more familiar lingua franca. These worries were not confirmed. A teacher’s
comment: “Ich bin total zufrieden mit dem, was passiert ist” [“I am entirely
happy with what happened.”]. The pupils communicated in German, felt more
comfortable and less inhibited to stretch their limits, saw more proficient peers
as encouraging stimulation, and were ready to help each other. Communicating
with non-native speakers was often experienced as less anxiety-inducing than
with native speakers. Similar comments were made in connection with English
encounters between German and Spanish pupils. One of the Spanish pupils
mentioned the additional advantage of having exposure to international English
accents, thus clearly showing awareness of the global lingua franca status of
English.
4 Conclusion
This article aims at an ELF-aware transformation of ELT. A social constructivist
understanding of language learning provides a basis for the reconciliation of
ELT’s orientation towards SE with ELF’s call for granting creative agency to
non-native speakers. Developing teachers’ awareness of the nature of ELF com-
munication and exposure of learners to intercultural communicative interaction
are identified as prime conditions for ELF-aware language learning and teach-
ing. With reference to the European project TILA, telecollaboration tools and
scenarios are described as a means to facilitate authenticated intercultural com-
94 Kurt Kohn
munication between pupils from different countries and thus to overcome the
natural constraints of the common language classroom. Finally, TILA case studies
demonstrate that the pedagogic lingua franca approach can be generalized and
successfully extended to target languages other than English. All in all, in
combination with telecollaboration, research on ELF communication and ELF
pedagogy provides a fertile ground for opening the windows of the foreign
language classroom to the breeze of real life communication.
References
Albl-Mikasa, Michaela. 2013. Express-ability in ELF communication. Journal of English as a
Lingua Franca 2(1). 101–122.
Bayyurt, Yasemin & Nicos Sifakis. 2015. Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: Insights from a
self-education programme. In Paola Vettorel (ed.), New frontiers in teaching and learning
English, 55–76. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Canale, Michael & Merrill Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1). 1–47.
Cogo, Alessia & Martin Dewey. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven
investigation. London: Continuum.
Coyle, Do, Philip Hood & David Marsh. 2010. CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.
Dewey, Martin. 2012. Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal
Grazzi, Enrico. 2013. The sociocultural dimension of ELF in the English classroom. Rom: Anicia.
Hall, Christopher J., Rachel Wicaksono, Shu Liu, Yuan Qian & Xu Xiaoqing. 2013. English
reconceived: Raising teachers’ awareness of English as a ‘plurilithic’ resource through
an online course. British Council ELT Research Papers 13(05). 1-20. http://englishagenda.
britishcouncil.org/sites/ec/files/D053%20Raising%20teachers%20awareness%20of%
20English_ONLINE%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 4 July 2015).
Hoffstaedter, Petra & Kurt Kohn. 2014. Task design for intercultural telecollaboration in secondary
schools: Insights from the EU project TILA. In Sake Jager, Linda Bradley, Estelle J. Meima &
Sylvie Thouësny (eds.), CALL design: Principles and practice (Proceedings of the 2014 EURO-
CALL Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands), 146–150. Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
Hoffstaedter, Petra & Kurt Kohn. 2015. Cooperative lingua franca conversations in intercultural
telecollaboration exchanges between pupils in secondary foreign language education.
Research report of the EU project TILA (“Telecollaboration for Intercultural Language
Acquisition”). https://uni-tuebingen.academia.edu/KurtKohn (accessed 2 February 2016).
Hymes, Dell H. 1972. On communicative competence. In John B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings, 269–293. London: Penguin Books.
Johnson, Robert Keith & Merrill Swain (eds.). 1997. Immersion education: International perspec-
tives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2011. Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of
misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(1). 93–116.
Kohn, Kurt. 2011. ELF and the Standard English misunderstanding. In Annick De Houwer & Antje
Wilton (eds.), English in Europe today. Sociocultural and educational perspectives, 72–94.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kohn, Kurt. 2015. A pedagogical space for ELF in the English classroom. In Yasemin Bayyurt &
Sumru Akcan (eds.), Current perspectives on pedagogy for ELF, 51–67. Berlin & New York:
De Gruyter Mouton.
Kohn, Kurt. 2016. Teaching towards ELF competence in the English classroom. Paper presented
at the 7th International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, DEREE – The American
College of Greece, Athens, 4–7 September. https://uni-tuebingen.academia.edu/KurtKohn
(accessed 2 February 2016).
Kohn, Kurt & Petra Hoffstaedter. 2015. Flipping intercultural communication practice: Oppor-
tunities and challenges for the foreign language classroom. In Jozef Colpaert, Ann Aerts,
Margret Oberhofer & Mar Gutiérez-Colón Plana (eds.), Task design & CALL. Proceedings of
the CALL 2015 Conference, 6–8 July 2015, 338–354. Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Kultusministerkonferenz. 2012. Bildungsstandards für die fortgeführte Fremdsprache (Englisch/
Französisch) für die Allgemeine Hochschulreife. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz
vom 18.10.2012. http://www.kmk.org/bildung-schule/qualitaetssicherung-in-schulen/
bildungsstandards/dokumente.html (accessed 5 May 2015).
Leung, Constant. 2005. Convivial communication: Recontextualizing communicative competence.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 15(2). 119–144.
Littlewood, William. 1981. Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge:
Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca
communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 123–150.
O’Dowd, Robert. 2011. Intercultural communicative competence through telecollaboration. In
Jane Jackson (ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and intercultural communication,
342–358. New York: Routledge.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2005. Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a
business context. Vienna English Working Papers 14(2). 50–71. http://anglistik.univie.ac.
at/views/archive (accessed 5 May 2015).
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2010. English as a lingua franca in international business: Resolving mis-
communication and reaching shared understanding. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Henry Widdowson. 2009. Conformity and creativity in ELF and learner
English. In Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Sabine Braun & Sylvia Kalina (eds.), Dimensions of
second language research, 93–107. Tübingen: Narr.
Sifakis, Nicos. 2014. ELF awareness as an opportunity for change. A transformative perspective
for ESOL teacher education. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2). 317–335.
Vettorel, Paola. 2013. ELF in international school exchanges: Stepping into the role of ELF
users. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1). 147–173.
Vettorel, Paola (ed.). 2015. New frontiers in teaching and learning English. Newcastle upon
Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Widdowson, Henry. 2012. ELF and the inconvenience of established concepts. Journal of English
as a Lingua Franca 1(1). 5–26.
Willis, Dave & Jane Willis. 2007. Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Andy Kirkpatrick
Standards and lingua francas –
A personal account
In this piece, rather than writing a typically academic article, I have adopted a
more informal personal style in which I recount some of my own encounters
with languages and cultures and show how Barbara’s work (e.g., Seidlhofer
2011, 2005) helps reduce the injustices and inequities in the ways particular
types of language and particular types of knowledge are devalued.
I grew up in a multilingual society (Malaya/Malaysia). As a child, I was free
to roam around the local kampongs and played with a range of Chinese and
Malay kids; we spoke a mixture of Malay/English and Hokien without of course
realising this is what we were doing. To add to the mix, the principal of the
kindergarten I attended was a Tamil, the formidable Mrs Bandaranaike.
At home, I spoke English with my mother and father (who was born in
Dublin), but as she was a fluent speaker of Malay and as we had Chinese servants,
the home also echoed to the sounds of different languages. So I grew up used
to code-switching, being around multilinguals and hearing different varieties of
English being spoken. For the most part, everybody seemed happily able to
understand each other. The criterion for receiving the highest band in Hong
Kong’s infamous Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers of English
Exam (LPATE) “the candidate’s accent displays no influence from the L1” would
have been quite meaningless in the Malaya/sia I grew up. Naturally everyone’s
English betrayed their first language. It is reassuring to report that the LPATE
criterion has since been abolished. It is less reassuring to note that in many
parts of the world such criteria remain used to measure the relative proficiency
of speakers.
This idyllic existence was rather rudely interrupted when I was sent ‘home’
to England at the age of 7 to a preparatory school (the term for private primary
schools where pupils boarded). As you can imagine, it took some time to settle
down to a life that was essentially monolingual, monocultural and cold from
one that had been wonderfully warm and multilingual. My first inkling that
the knowledge I possessed was not as highly valued as the knowledge of the
other boys (for we were all boys) was when I proudly answered “Tunku Abdul
Rahman” when being asked in class what the name of the Prime Minister was.
No one, of course, had the first inkling that the Tunku was Malaysia’s Prime
Andy Kirkpatrick, Griffith University

98 Andy Kirkpatrick
Minister. I was corrected and sternly told that the name of the Prime Minister
was Harold Macmillan. This was the correct answer. I did not have the courage
or self-confidence to say “But he’s the Prime Minister of Britain, not the Prime
Minister”.
It wasn’t, of course, that bad. We learned French, Latin and in the upper
forms, classical Greek. The reader will note that only one of these languages
had what you might call ‘street appeal’; but I don’t think I learned much French,
although it did come in useful on one occasion as we journeyed by train across
Europe to Switzerland when I was able to explain to my guardian that I felt that
what the Swiss customs officer wanted to know was not whether he had nine
cameras but rather whether the camera he had was new. It was on return from
this two-week holiday in Switzerland that I was reminded how little real language
had to do with classroom language. Eager to show off my recently acquired
French expressions in the next French class, the French teacher chose to mock
my ‘Swiss’ accent. Only the ‘standard’ was good enough, even for English school-
boys just back from two weeks in Switzerland.
I continued with Latin and Classical Greek at secondary school in England. I
enjoyed both, but was somewhat puzzled when marks were deducted from my
Greek prose assignments (when we had to translate English into Greek) on the
grounds that, “Plato would not have written it like this”. Looking back now,
this was not so much a grammatical textbook-type standard but a standard set
by a single author. The notion of Classical Greek as a lingua franca – even
though that was exactly a major role of the language at the time – was not one
conceived by the Cambridge exam boards in 1960s England. If one author was to
set the standard of written English in today’s world, I wonder who it might be.
After several years of learning languages that no one ever really spoke, I
actually finally learned some proper French many years later when I went to
live in Brussels for a year (proper French? The Belgians don’t speak proper
French, do they?). Our Belgian teacher was a keen exponent of the audio-lingual
method, so we sat in class looking at slides of ‘activities’ (Hunting/Fishing/At
the Seaside and so on) while memorising the text which went with each slide.
This resulted with me being word perfect on certain topics but unable to say a
word on others. The denizens of the little pub near the evening school where we
went for our French classes must have wondered about the strange Englishman
who came in every Tues and Thurs evenings and talked about arcane subjects
and asking bizarre questions such as Anybody shot a hare recently? This, when
I had never shot a hare in my life, but had just been through the ‘Hunting’
lesson. By and large, languages are learned outside the classroom rather than
in it. The pub provided a far more conducive language learning environment
than the classroom.
My next serious encounter with language learning came when I went to

study modern Chinese at Leeds University up in the north of England. If any of
the 18 of us who had enrolled in the first year of the 4-year Chinese Studies
course thought that learning Chinese was going to be useful for getting jobs
and so forth, we were immediately set right by one of the lecturers who, while
briefing us on the course on our first day, sternly announced that if anyone of
us thought that learning Chinese would result in us getting a job we should
think again and if anyone wanted to leave now we could. No one did.
The course at Leeds focussed on getting us literate in Chinese and becoming
familiar with modern texts, including inspiring tracts of twentieth century Chinese
literature and less inspiring propaganda documents extolling the virtues of the
Chinese Communist Party and its ability to raise the agricultural production of
the country to dizzying heights and thus benefitting the populace. I discovered
an alarming gap in my knowledge of Chinese when I first arrived in Beijing as a
postgraduate student and found, while I could discuss agricultural production
with the best of them, I was unable to ask for the lavatory. Another discovery
was the importance of the ‘standard’ in Beijing. This was in 1976, a time when
very few locals had ever heard people other than their neighbours and friends
speaking the language. Thus, if they could actually be convinced that we were
speaking Chinese – in itself not easy as they had seldom, if ever, met foreigners
who could speak Chinese – they found us extremely hard to understand because
we did not speak like their friends and neighbours. Knowing only their standard
made it hard for them to move beyond their own circle. The situation today
could hardly be more different now that Putonghua (the common language)
has become the national lingua franca, meaning that literally hundreds of
millions of people now speak this variety of Mandarin Chinese with a dazzling
variety of accents and speech styles. One result of this is that ‘native speakers’ of
Putonghua have become familiar with these different varieties and have little
difficulty understanding them. A similar development can be seen in Indonesia
where 230 million people of extraordinary linguistic and cultural diversity –
more than 400 ethnic groups speaking some 700 languages – have adopted a
form of Malay, Bahasa Indonesia, as their national lingua franca. Now a speaker
from the western tip of Sumatra can understand a compatriot from the Moluccas
in the eastern part of the archipelago speaking Bahasa Indonesia. Both Putonghua
and Bahasa Indonesia have become highly successful lingua francas. In these
contexts both intra- and international communication requires an understand-
ing of how languages are used as lingua francas. Above all, this requires famil-
iarity with variation and diversity. Knowing only the standard is very limiting, as
is insisting on it.
100 Andy Kirkpatrick
My time in China also opened my eyes to the presence of different styles of

rhetoric and different ways of displaying authority or knowledge in the writing
of academic essays. As part of my graduation requirements I had to write a
10,000 character essay in Chinese. The topic I chose was The effects of his home
town on the short stories of Lu Xun. I have to say I was pretty pleased with it as I
handed it in for assessment. I thought I had persuasively argued that his home
town had had a deep and lasting effect on China’s most famous contemporary
writer. I felt I had referred to the work of the most relevant scholars and refer-
enced them accurately and appropriately. I was thus somewhat abashed to
read the comments of the examiner when my assignment was returned. Simply
put, I was told to rewrite it using more appropriate and accurate references.
Believing that I had already used references appropriately, I sought advice from
my two Chinese roommates (who were also studying Chinese literature). They
kindly read my essay and announced they were not surprised I had been asked
to rewrite it. “You have not referenced the works of the Chairman”, they explained.
“You have to insert quotes from Mao throughout the essay.” I spent the next week
finding quotes from the Chairman which I hoped might, at a pinch, be seen as
vaguely relevant and then sprinkling them liberally throughout the essay. The
revised essay was graded ‘good’.
Later on, having successfully applied for a job in Burma, when I got there I
thought I had better try and learn some Burmese. This proved difficult as there
were, at that time (1985), no textbooks for foreigners available in Burma itself.
Before discovering the textbooks compiled by John Okell and Anna Allot of
SOAS at the University of London, the only materials I could find were primary
school texts written for Burmese children learning their mother tongue. It’s not
always easy trying to suitable contexts into which one can slip Burmese nursery
rhymes into the conversation, especially when one’s conversational partners are
highly educated adults. My primary level Burmese led to my worst cross-cultural
faux pas. I had the habit of taking an early morning walk across open fields to a
neighbouring Buddhist monastery. One morning, there was a hive of activity; it
seemed that a fair was being set up with side shows, stalls and what looked to
be like an enormous tandoor oven. I approached the oven builders and asked
what sort of things they would be cooking. This question was received with
such looks of shock and astonishment that I assumed I had used the wrong
tone and inadvertently said something appallingly rude. However, I was later
to discover that, sadly, this was not the case. What I did not know was that the
Abbott had recently died and the ‘tandoor’ was actually to be his crematorium. I
still shudder to think I may have given the impression that I was looking forward
to enjoying a bit of the Abbott.
But this goes with the territory of learning languages and cultures. We
also learn that what might be normal in one culture is impossible to accept
in another. I am not talking here about culture with a capital C, but everyday
occurrences as seemingly simple as terms of address. For, while in Australia it
is considered perfectly normal for an undergraduate student to address his or
her lecturer/professor by their first name, students from different cultures may
find this impossible to do, even though they know it is acceptable, as to do so
would violate their own cultural norms. Similarly, while I know perfectly well
that asking the equivalent of “where are you going?” was simply a friendly
greeting in Chinese and did not require an answer I still became irritated when,
with a towel round my shoulders and carrying a washing bowl across the uni-
versity campus, local students would happily ask me “Where are you going?”.
How I wanted to say “Hazard a wild guess”. Yet, in Australia we routinely say
“How are you going?” as a greeting.
I say ‘we’ when referring to Australia, but when I first went to Australia in
1989, it was as an international student from England who had spent most of
his life in various parts of Asia. This led to another communicative routine that
caused me immense cultural discomfort. Informality is a key Australian cultural
value. This is realised linguistically by referring to people by their first names,
despite the relationship between them and/or how well they know one another.
This explains why, when paying for supermarket goods at the checkout, the
checkout person – usually either a school boy or school girl – would ask me,
on reading the name on the credit card, “How’s your day been Tom?” (Officially
I am Thomas Andrew Kirkpatrick and this is the name on my credit cards). If
ever there was an example of how the use of English as a lingua franca requires
constant negotiation for meaning and the seeking of common ground or a ‘third
place’ this was it. But even today, I remain exercised when an Australian teenager
asks me how my day has been, while addressing me as Tom!
I have given an informal and personal account of some incidents in my
language and culture learning life. I have discovered that, while the world is in
fact multilingual and multicultural and that the majority of people in the world
are multilingual and multicultural, people are still often judged against mono-
lingual and monocultural norms. Nowhere is this more invidiously clear than
in the employment of English teachers, where, in many contexts, an untrained,
unqualified and inexperienced monolingual will be preferred and paid more
than a trained, experienced multilingual, as long as s/he is a ‘native speaker’.
This invidious prejudice for a ‘native standard’ is also seen in the so-called inter-
nationalisation of higher education. Far from being internationalisation in the
true sense – where, for example, the focus should be on the internationalisation
of the local student – internationalisation all too often sees the imposition of a
102 Andy Kirkpatrick
‘standard’ English on multilinguals for whom English is an additional language

and who use it as a lingua franca. This seems completely about face – surely it
is the local monolingual monocultural student who needs internationalisation,
not the multilingual multicultural international student?
But this is, of course why Barbara’s work is so valuable – it gives voice
(if not VOICE), authority and hope to all those multilinguals who are using
English as a lingua franca and demonstrates how successfully they are doing
so (Seidlhofer 2010). Barbara’s work also shows that the people who really
need to undertake courses on intercultural education and the use of English
are often the monolingual so-called native speakers of English (Seidlhofer 2007).
All too often internationalisation programmes at English-speaking universities
have got it about face – it is the internationalisation of the local student which
should be the focus, rather than the Anglicisation of the international student.
Barbara’s work has exposed this ‘conceptual gap’ and given us all a rigorously
developed framework and way forward to push for a more equitable world
(Seidlhofer 2001, 2011).
References
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. Key concepts in ELT – English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59(4).
339–341.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2007. Common property: English as a lingua franca in Europe. In Jim
Cummins (ed.), International handbook of English language teaching, 137–53. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2010. Giving VOICE to English as a lingua franca. In Roberta Facchinetti,
David Crystal & Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.), From international to local English – and back
again, 147–163. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Press.
Section A: Sociolinguistics, variation and ELF

Edgar W. Schneider
World Englishes and English as a lingua
franca: Relationships and interfaces
1 Introduction
Evidently, the disciplines of World Englishes (WE) and English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF) are closely related to each other – there are similarities and areas
of overlap but also substantial differences in their subject domains, conceptual
frameworks, practical applications, and methodological approaches. Both dis-
ciplines focus on non-native uses of English which have gained in importance
tremendously all around the globe over the last few decades. In both contexts
the question of whether we observe stable varieties or ‘just’ socially defined
usage contexts is at stake. Both show structural similarities, language contact
effects, and the impact of both substrate transfer and cognitive principles. In
both of them learner usage and an applied perspective have come to be im-
portant in practice. What, then, is their mutual relationship like? This chapter
explores some interfaces between them from a variety of perspectives.
This is not a wholly new line of thinking, of course; a number of authors
have touched upon these issues, either in passing or in a more focused and
deliberate fashion (e.g. Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011: 284). Most importantly,
a panel at the conference of the International Association of World Englishes held
in Regensburg in 2007 focused on this relationship; versions of these contribu-
tions of varying length were published in Berns et al. (2009) and in the journal
World Englishes (Seidlhofer and Berns 2009), including Seidlhofer (2009), a
paper-length contribution by the honoree of this volume on precisely this issue,
explicitly recognizing the mutual relationship. I had my say on some of these
points in an earlier paper (Schneider 2012). In what follows, I have been
informed and inspired by these and other sources, and I summarize, adopt and
address some of the issues there, but essentially, here is my own take on the
subject (unavoidably sketchily, given space constraints), summarized under a
few main concepts and headings.
2 Historical relationship
Historically, ELF research lags behind WE research by a few decades. The emer-
gence of WE as a scholarly discipline can be dated to the early 1980s: after a few
Edgar W. Schneider, University of Regensburg

106 Edgar W. Schneider
isolated publications on individual varieties, notably English in Singapore and

Malaysia, a wider awareness of shared concepts and approaches and similarities
between varieties was established by the publication of the first, influential
collective volumes (Bailey and Görlach 1982; Kachru 1982; Platt, Weber, and Ho
1984), and scholarly journals specifically devoted to this subject domain were
founded (English World-Wide in 1980, World Englishes in 1982). It can be viewed
as a predecessor field to ELF, which gained momentum about two or three
decades later and which clearly to some extent has been inspired by the con-
cepts and methods developed there (for early traces of the cross-fertilization
of both lines of thinking see some of the paper reprints from that period in
the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1), Ehrenreich and Pitzl 2015). Early
references to concepts related to ELF appeared in some publications of the
1980s and 1990s (cf. Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011), but the “turning point”
(Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011: 282) of ELF’s appearance as a coherent dis-
cipline can be dated to the early 21st century, with Jenkins (2000) and Seidlhofer
(2001) constituting early milestones which triggered interest in the subject as
such. These were soon followed by book-length studies and collections (e.g.
Jenkins 2007; Mauranen and Ranta 2009; Cogo and Dewey 2012), an influential
survey monograph (Seidlhofer 2011), and also a specialized journal, with the
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca launched in 2012.
Practitioners of both areas of study also meet at annual conferences – the
International Association of World Englishes (IAWE) since 1992 (when the asso-
ciation was formally established – precursor conferences had been held since
1978), and scholars interested in ELF since 2008.
3 Conceptual setting
It is a not a chance effect that both disciplines under comparison emerged
when they emerged – to put it pointedly, both would be hardly conceivable in a
nineteenth-century world with strongly dividing national boundaries. Indirectly
but quite indisputably, both are children of the late-twentieth-century globaliza-
tion process. Both appear in contexts where bilingualism is the norm, multi-
lingualism is widespread, and multicultural attitudes and interactions are many
people’s daily bread. By their very nature, both approaches transcend national
boundaries and perspectives – ELF even more so than WE: WE research has
traditionally upheld a focus on national varieties (e.g. Schneider 2007) categorized
by Kachruvian “Circles” or status assignments of English (as Native, Second or
Foreign language, i.e. ENL – ESL – EFL, respectively) and has only recently come
to recognize the increasing blurring of these boundaries (see, e.g., Buschfeld 2013
World Englishes and English as a lingua franca: Relationships and interfaces 107
on the ESL-EFL distinction, Schneider 2014 with an overall assessment of ongoing

developments, and Blommaert 2010 and Meierkord 2012 on English as a frag-
mentary resource in a poststructuralist perspective). ELF, in contrast, has never
championed a national or a variety-specific perspective but has highlighted the
intercultural function of (predominantly) non-native English usage.
Both WE and ELF are closely (though not exclusively) associated with orality,
being products of intercultural oral interactions. The nativization processes which
stand at the heart of the emergence of World Englishes occur in speech, and
features of these new varieties are much less widely employed in writing, if at
all. Basically the same applies to ELF interactions, although in this domain there
are some branches – notably academic settings (e.g. Mauranen 2012), to some
extent also international businesses – where ELF commonly appears in writing
as well. As I argued elsewhere (Schneider 2013), ELF (but not WE) shows also a
close affinity and substantial overlap with using English for Specific Purposes
(ESP), in both professional and (though this is less commonly recognized) leisure-
orientated settings.
Both disciplines also share a strong focus on an Applied Linguistics orien-
tation: while a lot of descriptive work has been done and there is also some
interest in theorizing, many practitioners of both perspectives have been primarily
interested in what implications for the practice of language teaching might be.
In both of them influential books have advocated such a direction: Kirkpatrick
(2007) for WE, Seidlhofer (2011, esp. ch. 8) for ELF. The main shared issue is
the quest for which norms to strive for, given a widespread feeling that a tradi-
tional exonormative orientation, with learners forced or expected to adopt British
or American English, is no longer necessary, and seems unjustified, and un-
desirable. WE, in a nationally oriented and postcolonial perspective, offers an
alternative, namely an endonormative orientation as a natural stage in the emer-
gence of new varieties (Schneider 2007), i.e. the acceptance of educated local
usage as a newly-adopted standard, as ‘correct’ and the target of education in a
young nation (although this typically meets with substantial resistance amongst
conservative authorities). In ELF contexts, this is more of a problem, since there
is no ‘ELF norm’: Even if such new targets have been suggested in early ELF
publications (e.g. Jenkins 2000), this seems unmotivated and artificial in the
light of the wide variability and the strong impact of native-language transfer
in ELF speakers. Claims of mutual accommodation leading to newly-emerging
shared norms and habits, e.g. across Europe (cf. Modiano in Berns et al. 2009),
appear premature and unsubstantiated by facts at this stage (Mollin 2006). It
remains to be seen whether such thinking may ultimately lead to an ‘everything
goes’ attitude, without a target norm imposed. Personally, I believe a loosening
of traditional norm orientations in itself would not be deplorable, since most
non-native learners do not speak like the Queen anyhow (just like most native
speakers, for that matter), and asking them to do so often is not a realistic
goal. In my view, it is more important to teach and train intercultural and
cross-linguistic communication skills, actively and receptively, including the
abilities to accommodate to one’s interlocutors, to ask back, to rephrase things,
to articulate slowly and clearly when the need arises. On the other hand, the
question is how much variability can be tolerated without jeopardizing a shared
basis of usage habits across idiolectal preferences. Still, in ELF contexts the
trend clearly is to value variability and to regard ELF as a functional tool rather
than looking at formal properties, let alone attempting to codify or teach it as
such.
This connection with practical issues of language teaching, finally, leads to
my next point, the importance of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) processes
in both frameworks. Both WE and ELF usage have emerged in the mouths of
second-language learners of English, and thus the processes, strategies and
products of SLA processes have left their marks. The notions of both ELF and
EFL view speakers as reasonably competent users of English, at least for prac-
tical communicative purposes, but as non-native speakers both must have gone
through such acquisitional stages, irrespective of what proficiency level they
have achieved or whether or not a learning effort is still being invested (cf.
Schneider 2012: 62–67).
4 ELF versus EFL (and ESL)

The overlap and particularly close relationship between ELF on the one hand
and EFL countries and contexts in the WE domain on the other is obvious:
when speakers of English from an EFL country use it naturally, outside of learn-
ing and teaching contexts, this represents ELF by definition. Not so the other
way round, obviously: ELF usage may involve ENL speakers (as well as ESL
users, of course). And the focus of both concepts is quite different: EFL high-
lights the ‘foreign’ status of English in a given nation, while ELF emphasizes
the application and usefulness of English between speakers of different, includ-
ing non-native, backgrounds.
As just stated, in both frameworks speakers have acquired English as
second or later languages, whether in formal schooling or naturally through
exposure without explicit teaching. Basically the same applies to ESL countries,
with the minor difference that there both the obligatory teaching of English in
schools and the presence of the language within the community interact and
contribute to speakers’ proficiency levels. In WE research the learner’s perspec-

tive and the connection with SLA as a discipline were pointed out early on
(Sridhar and Sridhar 1986), then disregarded for a while, and then rediscovered
in the recent past (Mukherjee and Hundt 2011; Gilquin 2015). In ELF scholarship,
as far as I can see, however, the focus is often either on usage contexts or
on questions of how to teach, but not predominantly on how ELF speakers
have acquired whatever they command.
Interestingly, the similarities and overlaps pertain to scholarly sources for
investigation as well. Both WE and ELF rely on the compilation of electronic
corpora to some extent, and have embraced the tools and methods of modern
corpus linguistics (e.g. Lindqvist 2009). Both Louvain’s International Corpus of
Learner English (ICLE; http://www.uclouvain.be/en-cecl-icle.html, 26 Jan 2015),
rooted in the corpus-linguistic tradition of building learner corpora, and Vienna’s
VOICE (Vienna-Oxford Corpus of International English; http://voice.univie.ac.at, 26
Jan 2015), stemming from an ELF orientation, compile language production by
speakers of various mother tongues, and the WE-oriented sub-corpora of the
International Corpus of English project (ICE; http://ice-corpora.net/ice, 26 Jan
2015), while aiming to record ESL varieties, are also comparable. All of them
reflect the similarities between EFL, ELF and ESL, and allow empirically based
comparisons.
5 Formative influences and shared properties

Both WE and ELF are products of language contact, with properties of the speakers’
native languages possibly being transferred to their English usage. The strength
of such transfer varies by levels of language organization and speakers’ profi-
ciency levels. Phonetic transfer seems to be the rule rather than the exception
in both contexts – many non-native speakers retain ‘an accent’ which reflects
phonological or phonetic interference. In WE, loan words tend to be semanti-
cally specified (coming from specific domains of life, esp. indigenous culture);
in ELF usage, foreign lexis may be motivated by gaps in a learner’s acquired
vocabulary (and paraphrase skills may play a rather important role) or by con-
textual needs and conditions. Syntactic transfer tends to be less conspicuous
(except for very low proficiency levels) but does occur as well. One major differ-
ence is that in ELF the focus is more on spontaneous interactions, which for lack
of stable local ELF communities often does not lead to linguistic stabilization,
while in WEs some of these phenomena have become firmly established as new
properties of an emerging community variety.
In a similar vein, the SLA background in both domains has resulted in

comparable effects of some cognitive principles of linguistic evolution – such
as tendencies towards simplicity, isomorphism, and the like (Schneider 2012:
62–67; Cogo and Dewey 2012: 81–113).
Consequently, structural similarities between WE and ELF usage have re-
peatedly been disclosed (e.g. Nesselhauf 2009). Simplicity effects, for instance,
show in the loss of inflectional endings, or in tendencies to increase the redun-
dancy or transparency of structures produced. Interestingly, both ESL and ELF
users tend to manipulate idiomatic expressions of ENL more liberally, as “open-
choice” constructions (Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2007; Schneider 2012: 69–72).
In general, it has been observed that despite varying L1 input (‘substrate’) lan-
guages ELF usage displays a range of structural similarities, often shared with
ESL (cf. e.g. Cogo and Dewey 2012; Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011: 289–292;
and many others).
6 Varieties or usage types?

One major difficulty in the above comparisons, however, results from the funda-
mental question of whether we are dealing with the same kind of entity – and
obviously, and by conventional understanding, we are not (even if this state-
ment is also in need of some reflection and explanation). WEs are conceptualized
as varieties, usually (in the established Three Circles or Dynamic models) as
national ones, with the potential of zooming in to smaller, i.e. regional or social,
ones (e.g. with respect to regional varieties of Indian English). The implication is
that these are reasonably stable systems associated with specific speech com-
munities. ELF, in contrast, is conventionally not viewed as a more-or-less stable
linguistic system as such, a variety (even if some authors, such as Modiano in
Berns et al. 2009: 375, argue for an ongoing “variety-building process”); instead,
Seidlhofer (2009: 238; 2011) emphasizes that it is a socially defined function
associated with a “community of practice”, a situationally defined mode of
linguistic behavior (and there are many other statements arguing for such a
processual, communicative perspective, e.g. Berns et al. 2009; Seidlhofer 2011:
87–91).
This perspective aligns ELF more closely with recent tendencies in WE research,
mentioned above, the “poststructuralist”, “transnational attraction” or “socio-
linguistics of globalization” approaches, which downplay the systematicity and
the “varieties” character of some forms of linguistic behavior and emphasize the
creative availability of elements of English as a resource instead. There are
clearly many interaction settings which can be viewed from both perspectives –
say, students from different ethnicities communicating in a Cape Town cafeteria,

an Indian cab driver talking to his clients, and so on. Also, the study of ELF
is concerned with interactions and language use across all three of Kachru’s
circles.
7 Conclusion
In sum, there are significant overlaps between both approaches; to some extent
differences appear to result from a focus of attention more than substance; but
clearly there are also some properties and assumptions which distinguish them.
A hypothesis which I considered in Schneider (2012) is whether the relation-
ship and overlap between these two domains may have to do with their develop-
mental trajectories, respectively: can ELF usage be viewed as a possible precursor
to emerging WEs and ESL? In the dynamic model worked out in Schneider (2007)
forms of ELF usage such as intercultural communication, going hand in hand
with (early) acquisition, characterize the early phases, notably those of exonor-
mative stabilization and nativization, more than the later ones – this is where
the overlap seems strongest, and where ELF may be seen as an early stage of
possible development towards ESL. But of course this applies to some contexts
of ELF usage only – notably those where reasonably stable communicative
settings persist (which is not necessarily the case in many ELF contexts). Alter-
natively, many forms of ELF exist as such, without any implication of leading
towards stabilization or variety growth. In this sense ELF is the more encom-
passing notion.
References
Bailey, Richard W. & Manfred Görlach (eds.). 1982. English as a world language. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Berns, Margie, Jennifer Jenkins, Marko Modiano, Barbara Seidlhofer & Yasukato Yano. 2009.
Perspectives on English as a lingua franca. In Thomas Hoffmann & Lucia Siebers (eds.),
World Englishes – Problems, properties and prospects. Selected papers from the 13th
IAWE conference, 369–384. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Buschfeld, Sarah. 2013. English in Cyprus or Cyprus English: An empirical investigation of
variety status. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Cogo, Alessia & Martin Dewey. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven
investigation. London: Continuum.
Ehrenreich, Susanne & Marie-Luise Pitzl (eds.). 2015. Teaching ELF, BELF and/or Intercultural
Communication? [Special issue]. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1).
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2015. At the interface of contact linguistics and second language acquisi-
tion research: New Englishes and Learner Englishes compared. English World-Wide 36.
91–124.
University Press.
sity Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Alessia Cogo & Martin Dewey. 2011. State-of-the-art article: Review of develop-
ments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44. 281–315.
Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). 1982. The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana & Chicago: Uni-
versity of Illinois Press.
Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2007. World Englishes: Implications for international communication and
English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindquist, Hans. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cam-
Mauranen, Anna & Elina Ranta (eds.). 2009. English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Meierkord, Christiane. 2012. Interactions across Englishes. Linguistic choices in local and inter-
national contact situations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mollin, Sandra. 2006. Euro-English. Assessing variety status. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Marianne Hundt. 2011. Exploring second-language varieties of English and
learner Englishes: Bridging the paradigm gap. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2009. Co-selection phenomena across New Englishes: Parallels (and differ-
ences) to foreign learner varieties. English World-Wide 30(1). 1–26.
Platt, John, Heidi Weber & Mian Lian Ho. 1984. The New Englishes. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English. Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2012. Exploring the interface between World Englishes and Second Lan-
guage Acquisition – and implications for English as a lingua franca. Journal of English as
a Lingua Franca 1(1). 57–91.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2013. Leisure-activity ESP as a special kind of ELF: The example of scuba
diving English. English Today 29(3). 47–57.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2014. New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of world Englishes.
World Englishes 33(1). 9–32.
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Margie Berns (eds.). 2009. Perspectives on English as a lingua franca.
[Special issue]. World Englishes 28(2).
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Henry Widdowson. 2007. Idiomatic variation and change in English. The
idiom principle and its realizations. In Ute Smit, Stefan Dollinger, Julia Hüttner, Gunther
Kaltenböck & Ursula Lutzky (eds.), Tracing English through time. Explorations in language
variation, 359–374. Vienna: Braumüller.
Sridhar, Kamal K. & S.N. Sridhar. 1986. Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language acquisi-
tion theory and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes 5(1). 3–14.
Peter Trudgill
ELF and new-dialect formation
1 Prologue
In August 2014, a deeply unpleasant event brought linguistic scientists in England
into contact, if only briefly, with British journalists – and indeed with journalists
from elsewhere.1 The event was the murder of an American journalist, by violent
Islamic extremists in the Middle East, which was videoed and posted online
by the murderers, together with a soundtrack in English. Many media sources
reported that the (male) speaker on the video had “a British accent”. What the
journalists wanted to know from the linguists was whether the man was really
British, and if so, where was he from. These were difficult questions to answer,
not least because, to very many British people, the speaker did not actually
sound British at all.
2 The linguistics of lingua francas

The widespread usage of English as a lingua franca in the 20th and 21st centuries
is an important and rather remarkable sociological phenomenon, and one which
has led to the development of the new academic field of English as a Lingua
Franca (ELF): witness the establishment of the Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, in 2012, and the publication of important works such as Seidlhofer
(2011).
The phenomenon of ELF is rather obviously of special interest to applied
linguists, sociologists of language, sociolinguists, and others in related fields.
In this chapter, however, I also note that it is of interest to historical linguists
and dialectologists. This is in particular because of what it can tell us about the
formation of new linguistic varieties, including new dialects, in situations of dia-
lect contact and language contact. The focus of the interest for these scholars is
on the issue of what consequences – especially what long-term consequences –
lingua franca usage may have for the linguistic structures of particular language
varieties.
1 Very many thanks for help with this paper to David Britain, Sue Fox, Paul Kerswill, and
Eivind Torgersen.
Peter Trudgill, University of Agder

116 Peter Trudgill
It cannot be doubted that such consequences may be of great structural

importance linguistically. For instance, the two great classical European lingua
francas, Greek and Latin, are widely agreed to have been linguistically transformed
by non-native lingua franca usage and, in the case of Latin, dramatically so.
The Greek language was taken, by the conquests of Alexander the Great,
through the Middle East and Iran into Central Asia and the northwest of the
Indian sub-continent, as well as into North Africa. After Alexander’s death in
323 BC and the rise of the Hellenistic empires which arose out of those con-
quests, Greek became the language of inter-communal communication in the
Hellenistic world and remained so for many centuries (Trudgill 2014). According
to Janse (2002), there was a great deal of bilingualism during the Hellenistic
period; and Adrados (2005: 185) discusses the influence which contact with
other languages, including Coptic and Aramaic, had on the structure of Greek
as a native language: contact-induced simplification helped to shape the form
which was taken by koiné Greek, and eventually by the native-speaker Greek of
the Mediaeval and Modern periods.
For Latin, Clackson and Horrocks (2007: 276) argue that it is possible to
relate the diachronic drift from syntheticity to analyticity – as Latin morphed
into Rumanian, Romansch, Italian, Catalan, Spanish, Portuguese, French, and
the other Romance languages – to the very widespread use of Latin as the
lingua franca of those parts of the Roman Empire where Greek did not have
that role (Adams 2003). They suggest that, given a choice between a synthetic
construction with complex and often irregular morphology, and an analytic con-
struction which can be generalised, adult language-learner lingua franca users
will naturally prefer analyticity.
One linguistic consequence of lingua franca usage, then, is simplification,
i.e. an increase in regularity, analyticity and transparency. But there are also
two more linguistic consequences we can note from the Latin example. First,
lingua franca usage also led to transfer. Adams (2007: 579) says that “once Latin
spread among the Celtic population it was bound to take on regional charact-
eristics, given that it was by definition the second language of the locals and
subject to interference from Celtic”. According to Schrijver (2002), the Latin
with a (Brittonic) Celtic substratum which arose out of its usage as a means of
intercommunal communication in multilingual southern and eastern Roman
England was a language which, if it had survived, would have ended up being
very much like Old French. Schrijver links this spoken British Latin with the
Gallo-Romance precursor of Old French, labelling them both “Northwestern
Romance”. Adams (2007: 622) agrees that recent finds, and analyses, show that
the Latin of Gaul and Britain had a common “northwestern character” and that
certain Latin features which were “found in Gaul are now attested in Britain
as well”. This was because of “the common Celtic background” and “contacts
across the Channel” (Adams 2007: 622). Secondly, there were also internal lin-
guistic developments which took place independently of influence from the
metropolitan Latin-speaking homeland: “the remoteness of Italy caused Gaul
and Britain to develop their own linguistic features, embracing phonetic inter-
ference from Celtic and the adoption of Celtic loanwords” (Adams 2007: 596).
We can therefore suppose in a more general kind of way that new mother-
tongue varieties which develop out of originally non-native lingua franca usage
are likely to demonstrate simplification, transfer and independent developments,
with the latter occurring in inverse proportion to the degree of contact which
remains with mother-tongue speakers.
3 Lingua Franca English and the formation of a

new dialect
Given the widespread use of English as a lingua franca in modern times, it
would not be surprising to find examples of such structural consequences
in originally multilingual communities where focussing has taken place and a
lingua franca variety of English has become nativised.
A very interesting example comes from the English which is spoken today
on the Bonin (Japanese: Ogasawara) Islands, an anglophone community not
known to linguists until it was discovered by the American Japanologist Danny
Long in the 1990s (Long 2007). These isolated islands, which are today adminis-
tered by Japan, lie in the northern Pacific Ocean between mainland Japan, which
is about 600 miles/1,000 kilometres to the north, and the Northern Marianas
Islands, which are rather further away to the south. The islands were uninhabited
until 1830, when a small band of European sailors and drifters arrived on the
main island, Chichi-jima, with their Polynesian girlfriends and a few Polynesian
men. Over the next few years, they were joined by other groups, leading to the
growth of a highly multilingual environment. Languages spoken on the island
included Chamorro, Malagasy, Hawaiian, Tahitian, North Marquesan, Rotuman,
Carolinian, Kiribati, English, Portuguese, German, Italian, French, Breton, and
Danish (Long 2000).
Research has shown that, in spite of the fact that only a small minority of
native speakers of English were present amongst the original settlers, English
was the only language sufficiently well known by sufficient numbers of speakers
on the island to take on the role of a communal lingua franca. A new non-native
variety of lingua franca English thus developed on the island, and eventually
118 Peter Trudgill
became the mother tongue of children born there (Long 1999) – they became
native speakers of (what had originally been) non-native English. This variety
was then passed down to subsequent generations of speakers on the island.
Analysis shows that the phonological basis of the new lingua franca variety
was the American English of Eastern New England, the area around Boston,
Massachusetts – one of the original settlers was from Bradford, Massachusetts
(Trudgill 2010). Nevertheless, the linguistic structure of Bonin Islands English
does show the results of simplification, transfer, and independent development,
as noted in the case of Latin. Simplification can be seen in Bonin English, for
example, in the fact that the plural forms of man and woman are mans and
womans respectively; and that the past tense of beat is beated. In the phonology,
/w/ and /v/ are merged on /ß/, which may be an instance of transfer: Hawaiian
has no contrast between /v/ and /w/ – according to Elbert and Pukui (1979) /w/
is [w] on Kaua’i and Ni’ihau, and [v] on Hawaii, with [v] and [w] occurring as
allophonic variants on the other Hawaiian islands. And a possible innovation
can be seen in the way that sentence-initial was corresponds to General English
“there was”: Was four daughters all told.
4 Multicultural London English

To return now to the subject matter of our prologue: it was clear to any linguist
attempting to respond in August 2014 to journalists’ questions about the putative
British accent of the murderer why the label “British accent” had been used: the
speaker on the recordings demonstrated T-glottalling, for instance, employing
[Ɂ] as a realisation of intervocalic /t/ as in British. And it was also clear to them
that, if the speaker was British, his accent came from the southeast of England.
The speaker had TH -fronting – he had /f/ and /v/ rather than /ɵ/ and /ð/, a
feature stereotypically associated with London English, although it has been
spreading rather rapidly across much of England in recent years; his accent
was non-rhotic – he lacked /r/ in words like far and world; and he had the
FOOT- STRUT split, i.e. STRUT had /ʌ/ rather than the /ʊ/ associated with the
north of England.
But there were also many phonological indications that this was not in
fact any kind of traditional native English English, which was what had led
many listeners to suppose that the speaker was actually a foreigner. Most striking
was the fact that the speaker had no linking or intrusive /r/. That is, a phrases
such as “more of” and “idea is” were pronounced without an /r/. Linguists
agree that there are very few non-rhotic accents indeed in the anglophone world
which have this feature – though some varieties of South African English do
(Wells 1982) – and no variety anywhere in the British Isles.
Nevertheless, a group of English and England-based linguists were able to
identify the dialect used by the speaker as in fact being a form of English
English. They were also, interestingly, able to go one stage further, and suggest
that the speaker himself might not actually be a native speaker of this variety
but rather be someone who had acquired it after the age of, say, 10.
The dialect was identified as being a relatively new variety of English asso-
ciated with parts of London, and certain other locations in the English urban
southeast, which is known to linguists as Multicultural London English (Cheshire
et al. 2008). This new and only as yet partly focussed dialect has its origins in
the use of English as a lingua franca – as the means of intercommunal com-
munication employed in the east of London by non-native immigrant English
speakers who had no other language in common. Pioneering work on this
variety was first reported in Fox (2007) in a study of the English spoken by
adolescents in Tower Hamlets, East London. At the time of Fox’s study, the
predominant language in the area was Sylheti Bengali, which was the home
language of 54% of children in local schools. But many other languages were
used in the community, with the most common other non-indigenous varieties
being Somali, Cantonese, Turkish, Arabic, Yoruba, Punjabi, Vietnamese and Urdu.
English monolinguals constituted only 34% of the school population, with some
of these being of Jamaican and other Caribbean origin.
Multicultural London English is very distinct in a number of respects from
Traditional Cockney, notably in its vowel system (Fox 2012), and is characterised
by a series of distinctive non-indigenous transfer-based phonological features.
One is the lack of linking and intrusive /r/ mentioned above (Fox 2007). Another
is the realisation of /k/ as a uvular stop [q], as in car [qa:], except in the environ-
ment of high front vowels (Fox 2012). The dialect also tends to be syllable-timed
rather than stress-timed, which makes a particularly non-native impression. In
addition, there are examples of simplification in the grammatical system, notably
the usage of the single all-purpose undifferentiated tag question2 innit? < isn’t it
(Fox 2012).
The dialect is, then, a multiethnolect – a term introduced by Clyne (2000) to
refer to distinctive varieties of a host language developed as a result of its usage
as a lingua franca in interaction between immigrants of different language back-
grounds. It has its origins in contact between African, Caribbean, and South
Asian English, as well as Cockney and Jamaican Creole, and second-language
Englishes as well as languages other than English (Kerswill 2014).
2 As also in a number of other contact-influenced varieties of English around the world (see
Trudgill and Hannah 2008).
120 Peter Trudgill
5 Conclusion
We are already familiar with the development of focussed and established
second-language varieties of English in multilingual countries, such as in India
and Nigeria, as a result of intranational lingua franca usage. But it is also clearly
the case that in situations where a language such as English is not only used as
a lingua franca but also comes to be employed so extensively in particular com-
munities that it assumes the role of the main or even only means of communica-
tion, then a somewhat simplified and mixed variety can eventually become fully
nativised: new native-speaker dialects can develop. As we have seen, this can
happen in a small isolated community far removed from the mainstream anglo-
phone world on an island in the remote North Pacific. But it can also just as well
take place in the heart of the largest English-speaking city in the world.
References
Adams, James. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Adams, James. 2007. The regional diversification of Latin 200 BC – AD 600. Cambridge: Cam-
Adrados, Francisco Rodríguez. 2005. A history of the Greek language: From its origins to the
present. Leiden: Brill.
Cheshire, Jenny, Susan Fox, Paul Kerswill & Eivind Torgersen. 2008. Ethnicity, friendship network
and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London. Socio-
linguistica 22. 1–23.
Clackson, James P.T. & Geoffrey Horrocks. 2007. The Blackwell history of the Latin language.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Clyne, Michael. 2000. Lingua franca and ethnolects in Europe and beyond. Sociolinguistica
4. 83–89.
Elbert, Samuel & Mary Kawena Pukui. 1979. Hawaiian Grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
Press.
Fox, Susan. 2007. The demise of Cockneys? Language change in London’s ‘traditional’ East End.
Colchester: University of Essex PhD thesis.
Fox, Sue. 2012. Varieties of English: Cockney. In Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds.),
English historical linguistics, 2013–2031. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Janse, Mark. 2002. Aspects of bilingualism in the history of the Greek language. In J. N. Adams,
Mark Janse & Simon Swain (eds.), Bilingualism in ancient society: Language contact and
the written word, 332–390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kerswill, Paul. 2014. The objectification of ‘Jafaican’: The discoursal embedding of Multicultural
London English in the British media. In Jannis Androutsopoulos (ed.), The media and
sociolinguistic change, 428–455. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Long, Daniel. 1999. Evidence of an English contact language in the 19th century Bonin (Ogasa-
wara) Islands. English World-Wide 20(2). 251–286.
Long, Daniel. 2000. Examining the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands within the contexts of Pacific lan-
guage contact. In Steven Fischer & Wolfgang Sperlich (eds.), Leo Pasifika: Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Oceanic Linguistics, 200–217. Auckland: Institute
of Polynesian Languages and Literatures.
Long, Daniel. 2007. English on the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands. Durham: Duke University Press.
Schrijver, Peter. 2002. The rise and fall of British Latin: Evidence from English and Brittonic. In
Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola & Heli Pitkänen (eds.), The Celtic roots of English, 87–
110. Joensuu: University Press.
Press.
Trudgill, Peter. 2010. The last Yankee in the Pacific. In Peter Trudgill, Investigations in socio-
historical linguistics: Stories of colonisation and contact, 92–107. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Trudgill, Peter. 2014. Before ELF: GLF from Samarkand to Sfakia. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca 3(2). 387–393.
Trudgill, Peter & Jean Hannah. 2008. International English: A guide to varieties of Standard
English. London: Hodder Arnold.
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herbert Schendl
Historical linguistics and ELF
1 Introduction
In Understanding English as a lingua franca, Barbara Seidlhofer (2011: x) has
complained that neighbouring academic disciplines such as historical linguistics
and sociolinguistics have tended to neglect ELF (research). This fact is indeed
surprising since these three research fields share central assumptions about lan-
guage, such as the importance of variation and its relation to linguistic change,
the relevance of linguistic contact and multilingualism, the nature of lingua
francas and the status of standard languages, to name but a few. Even a brief
discussion of such shared issues would clearly go beyond the scope of a single
paper. The present contribution will therefore focus on only two small areas
which seem to be of interest to both ELF researchers and historical linguists.
Focussing on multilingual medieval England from a mainly sociohistorical per-
spective, I will start with a brief discussion of lexical innovation in medieval
Latin, which was still widely used as a lingua franca (section 2). In section 3, I
will address the complex linguistic situation in medieval England, especially its
multilingualism and extensive use of code-switching.
Early uncodified stages of English such as Middle English and the beginning
of Early Modern English show a dynamic and unstable situation of the language,
which had not yet become subjected to the norms of codification and standardisa-
tion. As a result, speakers and writers were much more at ease in exploiting and
extending the boundaries of language, and use it creatively. Similar to the users
of these early pre-standard varieties of English, users of ELF have been said to
feel free to push “the frontiers of Standard English when the occasion, or the
need, arises” (Seidlhofer 2011: 99; for more specific discussion see also Pitzl
2012, Osimk-Teasdale 2014). However, it is particularly this creative freedom and
independence which has often provoked severe criticism on the part of the
adherents of the Standard ideology. Approaching the study of language both
from the point of view of historical linguistics and of ELF research and high-
lighting common research interests of both disciplines will certainly further rein-
force the insight that language is inherently unstable and dynamic. Insights
from historical linguistics will also support the obvious – but still controversial –
view that ELF is “an entirely ‘ordinary‘ and unsurprising, sociolinguistic phe-
Herbert Schendl, University of Vienna

124 Herbert Schendl
nomenon“ (Seidlhofer 2011: x) which shows many features of earlier uncodified

stages of language, even though it may violate the – often artificial – norms of
the standard language.
2 Latin and English – The most successful lingua

francas in history
While ELF is rightly considered as the most successful lingua franca in terms of
its global spread, range of communicative functions and domains of use, Latin
is still unrivalled as a lingua franca in regard to its temporal extension: for many
centuries, it served both as the standard language and the lingua franca of the
Roman Empire in large parts of Europe, Asia Minor and North Africa. After its
collapse, it continued to be the lingua franca of most of Europe for more than
a millennium, throughout the Middle Ages and well into the modern period,
mainly due to the dominance of the Roman church. (For a comparison of
English and Latin as lingua francas see Wilton 2012.)
The widely used term Medieval Latin often makes us forget that this was
not a homogeneous linguistic system, but rather a continuum of varieties rang-
ing from forms closer to classical Latin (especially as the language of church,
scholarship and literature), to the much simpler Latin used in domains such as
administration and account keeping where it served as a widely used lingua
franca. At this ‘lower’ end of the continuum of Latin varieties, which is still
rather neglected by research and even stigmatized, we find grammatical simpli-
fication and innovation not attested in classical Latin (and therefore often con-
sidered as ‘incorrect’). Even more obvious is the extensive lexical innovation,
which is partly influenced by the vocabulary of the vernacular L1s of its users,
such as English and French in medieval England. Many of these lexical innova-
tions in the administrative Latin texts of medieval England were evidently
formed on an ad-hoc basis, even though there are often more or less semanti-
cally equivalent classical Latin terms. The recently completed Dictionary of
Medieval Latin from British Sources (DMLBS) provides a good source for such
lexical innovations.
Let me illustrate this with three DMLBS entries of innovations, namely arrivare,
loma, scoppa, which are all derived from vernacular French and English lexemes,1
with a summary of the dictionary information including years of attestation in
brackets (see also Schendl 2015: 27):
1 Abbreviations: ‘OF’ Old French; ‘L’ Latin; ‘ME’ Middle English; ‘AS’ Anglo-Saxon, i.e. Old
English; the dates in brackets are those for which the DMLBS provides quotations.
1) arrivare ‘to arrive, come ashore’, < OF ariver2 (1308)

2) loma ‘loom’, < ME lome (1494)
3) scoppa (shopam, schoppas) ‘shop’, < AS scoppa, sceoppa (1189, 1257, 1305)
For all three concepts expressed by these lexical innovations of medieval Latin,
semantically widely equivalent classical forms exist (cf. tela ‘loom’; taberna,
officinal ‘shop’; ad-, per-venire ‘arrive, come’). It is, however, difficult or even
impossible to uncover the reasons for these new coinages: did the writer want
or need to fill a lexical gap because he either did not know the corresponding
classical terms or because these did not fully correspond to the intended mean-
ing? Or were other, possibly pragmatic, factors responsible for the coinage?
Whatever the reasons, the strategy used clearly resembles one that is also well
attested with users of ELF who coin new terms for the same or similar reasons
(see Pitzl, Breiteneder, and Klimpfinger 2008; Seidlhofer 2011: 102–105). Criticising
such innovations in lingua francas or other types of multilingual communication
shows a lack of awareness of the needs of multilingual speakers (or writers) in
certain communicative situations.
3 Language contact, variation and multilingual

medieval England
Post-conquest medieval England presents a complex and dynamic picture of
societal multilingualism, with three languages of literacy, Latin, French, English,
not only existing side by side, but also being closely intertwined in various com-
municative situations (see Hunt 2011). Not surprisingly, we find extensive lexical
borrowing in all directions, not only from Latin and French into English. The dif-
ferent languages were widely used by a majority of literate people for different
functions and in different text types, even though individual multilingualism
was not the norm. None of the three languages existed in a single standardised
variety, but they appear in different varieties such as Anglo-French vs. Con-
tinental French and in different local varieties of Middle English (for Latin see
section 2).
Apart from lexical borrowing, the close linguistic contact between these lan-
guages and varieties is reflected in various ways in the textual production of the
period: in monolingual texts in each of these languages, with authors and
scribes often producing texts in more than one language; in manuscript collec-
2 French ariver itself goes back to an unattested late Latin item *aripare.
126 Herbert Schendl
tions containing monolingual texts in different languages and evidently aimed

at a multilingual readership (Schendl 2015: 16–17); thirdly, and perhaps most im-
portantly, in a large number of texts showing code-switching (see Schendl and
Wright 2011). Code-switching was a widely accepted multilingual strategy in
medieval England which is even attested in letters to king Henry IV and thus
clearly not stigmatised (Schendl 2012: 524–525, 529). It was used for a variety of
pragmatic functions (see Schendl 2015: 22–24), some of them identical with
those found in ELF communication (see Klimpfinger 2009) and is in some cases
attested as a mechanism of lexical change, when a later lexical borrowing from
French into English is first recorded in a bilingual text (Schendl 2015: 24–25).3
By definition, code-switching regularly involves linguistic variation, between
languages, lexical and morphological items. Variation in the frequency of use of
a specific language in a specific text type is often an indication of an ongoing
language shift, such as the shifting use of Latin and English in the so-called
Rolls of Parliament between 1420 and 1440 (Schendl 2012: 522, 524). However,
linguistic variation is also a regular feature of monolingual texts in the non-
standardised varieties of medieval English and French (especially in morphology,
the lexicon and, most obviously, in spelling) and often indicates linguistic
change. It is only with standardisation that conscious attempts are made to
inhibit variability and change, though it cannot prevent them (cf. Milroy 2000: 14).
4 Conclusion
Historical linguistics and ELF research share a common interest in questions of
variability, change and in the endeavour of users of language to fully exploit the
potentials of language, before, beyond, and outside the norms of standardisa-
tion. This is especially the case in multilingual contact situations – whether in
medieval England or in ELF communication in the modern world. Certain simi-
larities in the strategies used in these very different communicative situations
point to common research interests in the two disciplines, which make further
co-operation an interesting goal. Many of the linguistic features and strategies
found in ELF and often criticised by normative linguists, grammarians and
teachers of English are normal products of linguistic communication, as also
3 Though histories of the English language as well as the large historical dictionaries of Anglo-
Norman, Middle English and the Oxford English Dictionary online provide extensive information
on lexical borrowing into English, there is still a lot of further research necessary, especially in
regard to multilingual texts, see Wright (2011, 2013).
found in pre-standardised linguistic systems in communicative exchanges in

multilingual communities or between speakers of different languages.4 In spite of
the criticism often raised by adherents to the Standard ideology, these phenomena
are worthy objects of linguistic study.
References
DMLBS = Latham, R.E., D.R. Howlett and Richard Ashdowne (eds.). 1975–2013. Dictionary of
Medieval Latin from British Sources. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunt, Tony. 2011. The languages of medieval England. In Michael Baldzuhn & Christine Putzo
(eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit im Mittelalter. Kulturelle, literarische, sprachliche und didaktische
Konstellationen in europäischer Perspektive, 59–68. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.
Klimpfinger, Theresa. 2009. ‘She’s mixing the two languages together’ – Forms and functions
of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.),
English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 348–371. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cam-
bridge Scholars Publishing.
Milroy, James. 2000. Historical description and the ideology of the standard language. In Laura
Wright (ed.), The development of Standard English, 1300–1800, 11–28. Cambridge: Cam-
Pitzl, Marie-Luise, Angelika Breiteneder & Theresa Klimpfinger. 2008. A world of words: Pro-
cesses of lexical innovation in VOICE. Vienna English Working PaperS 17(2). 21–46.
http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/
views_0802.pdf (accessed 25 September 2015).
Schendl, Herbert. 2012. Multilingualism, code-switching and language contact in historical
sociolinguistics. In Juan M. Hernández-Campoy & J. Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The
handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 520–533. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schendl, Herbert. 2013. Multilingualism and code-switching as mechanisms of contact-induced
lexical change in late Middle English. In Daniel Schreier & Marianne Hundt (eds.), English
as a contact language, 41–57, 331–332 (notes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schendl, Herbert. 2015. Language contact and code-switching in multilingual late medieval
England. In J. Camilo Conde-Silvestre & Javier Calle-Martín (eds.), Approaches to Middle
English. Variation, contact and change, 15–34. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Schendl, Herbert & Laura Wright (eds.). 2011. Code-switching in Early English. Berlin & New
York: De Gruyter Mouton.
4 The distinction between ‘norm-following’ and ‘norm-developing’ creativity made in Pitzl

(2012) is a promising way to account for the differences between these two attitudes. In both
ELF and the non-standardized medieval and early modern linguistic varieties norm-developing
creativity seems to predominate, but is criticized by norm-following linguists and educators
alike.
128 Herbert Schendl
Press.
Wilton, Antje. 2012. The monster and the zombie: English as a lingua franca and the Latin anal-
ogy. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2). 337–361.
Wright, Laura. 2011. On variation in medieval mixed-language business writing. In Herbert
Schendl & Laura Wright (eds.), Code-switching in Early English, 191–218. Berlin & New
York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wright, Laura. 2013. On historical language dictionaries and language boundaries. In Liliana
Sikorska & Marcin Krygier (eds.), Evur Happie & Glorious, ffor I hafe at Will Grete Riches,
11–26. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Nikolaus Ritt
What’s in a word? Reflections on labels
such as ‘ELF’ or ‘English’
0 Prolegomena
In this essay I reflect on research on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) from the
perspective of a historical linguist. My original plan was to apply evolutionary
thinking to the phenomena referred to as ELF. As it turned out, however, I
became increasingly intrigued by the fact that some rather fundamental ontolog-
ical questions that historical linguists have faced since the discipline emerged
in the 19th century present themselves in a new light and are vigorously
discussed in the context of ELF studies. Seeing how research on ELF lends new
relevance to time-honoured issues, I could not resist taking one of them up.
Thus, this essay has turned into an exercise in linguistic ontology. The argu-
ments it develops do not claim to be either sophisticated or original (see e.g.
Mazzon 1997 and the references therein), but since debates on ELF show that
they have lost none of their relevance I hope to be forgiven for rehearsing them
once again.
1 Introduction
“In recent years, the term ‘English as a lingua franca’ (ELF) has emerged as a
way of referring to communication in English between speakers with different
first languages.” This is how Barbara Seidlhofer put it in 2005 (Seidlhofer 2005:
339). Since then, the term has become widely and stably established in the
discourse of the linguistic community and beyond. The Google Ngram Viewer
documents a sharp rise in the token frequency of the phrase (see Figure 1
below), and searching for “English as a lingua franca” in Google Scholar yields
about 100.000 hits among publications after 2000. Also, the term has come to
figure in the name of a successful conference series (International Conference of
English as a Lingua Franca) as well as in the title of an academic journal ( Journal
of English as a Lingua Franca) and a book series (Developments in English as a
Lingua Franca).
Nikolaus Ritt, University of Vienna

130
Nikolaus Ritt
Figure 1: Frequency plot of “English as a lingua franca”, returned by Google’s Ngram viewer
At least in retrospect it appears easy to understand that research on ELF,

as defined by Seidlhofer (2005: 339), should have become a focus of linguistic
enquiry. After all, it is undeniably true (a) that a vast number of speakers with
different first languages do actually communicate with one another, and (b)
that they would most certainly refer to the language they use for doing so as
‘English’. Therefore, it is clearly legitimate to ask how English actually is used
for communication among speakers of different first languages, and then to try
and understand why it is used as it is. In fact, given the sheer number of people
routinely engaged in the kind of communication that the term ‘ELF’ refers to,
it would seem almost negligent if these questions were not addressed in the
linguistic community.
Apart from representing a timely research programme, however, academic
discourse on ELF has revived questions that have long been of central concern
to the linguistic enterprise. This is partly because the phenomena referred to as
‘ELF’ had not been systematically investigated before. Thus, they supply fresh
sets of data against which concepts (e.g. ‘variety’ or ‘speech community’, cf.
particularly Seidlhofer 2011), theories (e.g. speech accommodation theory), and
methods (e.g. corpus linguistics) that appear to have proved viable so far can
once again be tested. Partly, however, the liveliness that has been characteristic
of discourse on ‘ELF’ is most certainly also due to the fact that the phenomenon
does not only attract academic interest, but also figures prominently both in
public awareness and in the awareness of individuals practicing or being con-
fronted with it in- and outside of academia.
Long before an empirical basis for its systematic description was established
in the form of corpora such as VOICE (2009) or ELFA (2008), and before ELF was
beginning to be understood, it began to raise emotions and controversies of
various kinds (e.g. Prodromou 2007a; Philipson 2008). These included the ques-
tion of whether or not ELF was deficient if compared to communication among
native speakers of English, whether it reflected an appropriation of English and
liberated the language from the exclusive ownership of its native speakers,
whether it represented a threat to non-English languages and cultures, and
whether it should inform the teaching of English. While not all of the questions
that were raised in academic and non-academic circles are addressable by lin-
guistic methods, the fact that they have been raised and discussed emotionally,
has had the welcome side effect that some issues of general relevance in the
study of any language have come to be perceived as urgent and interesting
because they were addressed in relation to ELF.
132 Nikolaus Ritt
2 What do labels such as ELF or English refer to,

and why does it matter
One of these problems is the question what some of the labels that are well
established in academic and public discourse about language actually refer to.
What exactly is it, for example, that one means when one speaks, generally,
of a ‘language’, a ‘dialect’, or a ‘variety’, or specifically of ‘Latin’, ‘German’,
‘Bavarian’, ‘Piedmontese’, ‘English’, ‘Middle English’, ‘Anglo-Saxon’, ‘West-
Saxon’, or, indeed ‘ELF’? Do such labels have material and spatio-temporally
localizable referents, such as sets of texts (i.e. artefacts) or discourses (i.e. com-
municative acts), or (populations of) systems of cognitive constituents (repre-
senting words and rules)? Do they establish and represent socially constructed
facts, such as semiotic virtual systems that “exist by virtue of a sort of contract
signed by the members of a community” (Saussure 1959: 14), or do they merely
establish and reflect the shared belief in the existence of such systems without
actually specifying their properties even only virtually? No matter what interpre-
tation one prefers, one will invariably face another problem, intimately tied up
with the first, namely the question what is to count as an instantiation and
thus as evidence of one specific language, dialect, or variety rather than of
another one. Fundamental as the question seems, it has not yet received a com-
monly accepted answer in the linguistic community. Instead, it has remained as
true today as it was in 1886 that we must be
prepared to find that into however many groups we may divide languages, there will
always remain a number of individual [. . . case]s which we shall be uncertain to ascribe
to one or to the other of two nearly related groups. And the same dilemma becomes really
formidable when we try to combine the smaller groups into larger, and to mark these
sharply off from each other. (Paul 1891 [1886]: 21)
In the context of research on ELF the question what labels such as ‘ELF’
actually refer to was obviously urgent from the start and was intensely debated
(see e.g. Seidlhofer 2001, 2006; Jenkins 2006; Prodromou 2007a, 2007b; Cogo
2008; Saraceni 2008; Seidlhofer 2011), because, after all, the label was not
established. Recently, it came to be taken up again, probably unintentionally,
by O’Regan (2014: 536) in Applied Linguistics. O’Regan (2014: 536) diagnoses
“ELF movement discourse [as being] marked by slippage”, and points to “refer-
ences to using English as a lingua franca [that] metamorphose into a more
linguistically and conceptually reified formulation, so that the relativized con-
ception of English which ‘using English as a lingua franca’ implies congeals
and ‘ELF’ becomes a thing-in-itself ” (O’Regan 2014: 536, emphasis in original).
Referring to “users of English [. . .] in multicultural settings [as] [. . .] speakers or

users of an hypostatized ‘ELF’”, O’Regan (2014: 536) suggests, “projects ELF into
material existence”. He goes on to explain that “hypostatization is [. . .] a form of
reification in which abstract concepts are artificially concretized and made real”
(O’Regan 2014: 536).
The reason why I think that O’Regan did not intentionally raise the question
is that he seems to take it for granted that at least one thing is self-evident: the
specific label ‘ELF’ does not ‘really’ refer to anything (or at least not to any thing)
at all, and using it as if it did creates the illusion of its material existence. Labels
such as ‘English’, on the other hand, which O’Regan employs as if they were
utterly unproblematic, apparently refer to things that do exist materially. On
any other premise, O’Regan’s argument would be strangely self-contradictory if
applied to itself.
Of course, and as pointed out by Widdowson (2015), the premise is false, but
that is not my main concern here. What I think O’Regan’s article and the reac-
tions it prompted (see e.g. Baker and Jenkins 2015) show is how research into
ELF has lent new urgency to fundamental questions in linguistic research, and
motivates attempts to re-approach and re-think them.
3 What kind of facts are languages? An exercise

inspired by John Searle
When addressing the question what labels such as ‘ELF’ or ‘English’ ‘refer to’, a
possible starting point might be to observe that the difference O’Regan (2014)
makes between nouns (such as ‘English’) that have referents with material exis-
tence and nouns that don’t (such as ‘ELF’) is reminiscent of a distinction,
proposed by John Searle (e.g. 1995: 2 and passim), between “brute facts” and
“institutional facts”. The former are defined as “[i]ntrinsic features of reality
[. . .] that exist independently of all mental states, except for mental states
themselves, which are also features of intrinsic reality” (Searle 1995: 12). An
example of a brute fact is “the fact that the sun is ninety three millions of miles
from the earth” (Searle 1995: 27). Institutional facts, on the other hand, such as
the fact that Barack Obama is president of the United States (cf. Searle 1995), are
observer-relative and fully dependent on shared mental states (beliefs) repre-
sentable as constitutive rules of the simple format “X counts as Y” (Searle 1995:
28)1. While the distance of the sun from the earth can be adequately described in
1 In fact, Searle extends the formula to read “X counts as Y in context C” (Searle 1995: 28). For
my argument, the simpler version will do, however.
134 Nikolaus Ritt
physical terms, there is no physical description adequate to describe ‘president

of the United States’ even though Barack Obama is a physical phenomenon.
Barack Obama (X) merely counts as president (Y) because a sufficient number
of people are committed to believing that there are such institutions as the
United States, a president thereof, elections as well as other procedures by
which a person can be made to count as president.
Applying Searle’s definition of institutional facts in thinking about ELF, it
becomes evident that there can also not be a “physical [. . .] description adequate
to define [. . .] ‘sentence of [. . .] [ELF or English]’ even though [. . .] sentences
of [. . .] [ELF and English] are physical phenomena” (Searle 1995: 3). In fact,
there can be no physical description adequate to define ‘sentence’ as such
either, because sentences are themselves constituted, as institutional facts in
Searle’s sense, by the mental states attributing ‘syntactic structure’ to them,
thereby making utterances (X) count as sentences (Y). In short, ‘sentences’,
‘ELF’, ‘English’, as well as any ‘language’, ‘dialect’, or ‘variety’, or indeed any
constituents thereof, represent institutional facts and are constituted as such by
beliefs in and attitudes toward them, which are in turn expressible as words.
At the same time, the objects that acquire institutional status when referred
to (or thought about) as an utterance, sentence, or word of ‘ELF’ (or ‘English’)
always also have “intrinsic features” and can therefore with equal justification
be referred to as brute facts. For example, the graphic pattern instantiated by
I’m liking it represents a single object but two facts, an institutional one reflect-
ing that it counts as ‘ELF’ (or ‘English’), and a ‘brute fact’ with intrinsic proper-
ties such as colour, shape and chemical composition. And the same is of course
true of the mental or neuronal structures involved in the production or inter-
pretation of the pattern. They represent objects (systems of particles and forces
acting among them) which constitute, simultaneously, both brute facts with
intrinsic physical properties and institutional facts established by the attitudes
and beliefs by which they count as constituents of linguistic competence in
‘ELF’ or ‘English’.
Thus, there is nothing extraordinary about either of the two possible referents
of the label ‘ELF’. The institutional fact it refers to, is of the very same sort as the
institutional facts that labels such as ‘English’, ‘Cockney’ or ‘Germanic’ refer to,
and the same is true of the brute facts it can refer to as well: they are uttered
texts (spoken or written), or mental states and processes with perfectly ordinary
properties that can be described in physical or biological terms.
What, then, does all this imply for research into ELF, and, by extension, for
research into any other type of linguistic communication?
4 What questions this raises (and settles)

about ELF
First, it needs to be taken into account that institutional facts are constituted by
attitudes and beliefs, and since attitudes and beliefs are subjective and variable,
languages as institutional facts have no objective existence and cannot be
identified or distinguished from one another in terms of any properties of the
objects institutionalised, factually, as specific languages. Thus, also the problem
(already mentioned by Hermann Paul and reproduced above) that there will
always be individual utterances or mental states that cannot be unambiguously
attributed to one language or another, is really a pseudo problem. Attempts to
describe and account for the properties of any language or communication in
it do not require prior agreement on what counts as an instantiation of it. For
such investigation to be a rational research agenda, it is fully sufficient that
some utterances or mental states do count as being in or of ELF, or in or of any
language.
Second, it is possible to try and account for the properties of utterances and
mental states that count, institutionally, as ELF or any other language in physi-
cal and biological terms, because – and even though they have the status of
institutional facts – they also represent physical and/or biological objects and
can be studied accordingly. If they are approached as brute facts, it can be
asked, for example, to what extent the utterances and the mental states count-
ing (to some) as ‘ELF’ or ‘English’ (or any language, dialect, or variety) owe their
properties to biological constraints on articulation and perception, to what
extent they reflect (and serve) the psychological and communicative needs of
their speakers, how many of their properties and constituents derive (via pro-
cesses of historical transmission in learning or acquisition) from properties and
constituents institutionally attributed to other languages or varieties, to what
extent the transmission of each of their constituents is favoured or impeded by
transmission of others, and so on.
Third, and assuming that a distinction between languages as brute facts and
languages as institutional facts is made, one may then enquire into the ways in
which the two interact causally. Although intrinsic features of reality and institu-
tional facts have different modes of existence, the mental states that create insti-
tutional facts out of physical objects are themselves intrinsic features of reality,
i.e. brute facts. Thus, it is perfectly conceivable that the ontologically objective
properties of utterances in any language or variety may be causally influenced
by the institutional status attributed to them. Conversely, reasons for which a
specific subset of utterances (or the mental states they express) comes to count
136 Nikolaus Ritt
as being in a specific ‘language’ or ‘variety’ may depend on which and how

many objective properties they share or do not share either among themselves
or with utterances that count as being in some other languages. For example,
the properties of communication in ELF may both depend on and determine
whether they are thought to count as ELF or as English. In what ways such
interaction unfolds, remains to be discovered.
5 Conclusion
Now, as already pointed out at the beginning, I am quite aware of the fact
that all of the three points I have just made, are of course already being
addressed and discussed intensely and competently within the community of
researchers who have put ELF on the agenda (see in particular Seidlhofer 2011
and some contributions in this volume). My primary motivation for raising the
issues nevertheless has been to show how they are not exclusively relevant
to research into ELF, but represent fundamental questions for all linguistic
research, including research into the history of English and language change,
such as I myself happen to pursue. At the same time, thinking about them in
the context of ELF studies (or of what I understand them to be) has been reward-
ing for two reasons. First, the issues simply deserve to be explicitly addressed
again and again, because we are so used to dealing with institutional facts that
we take them for granted and overlook their particular nature at the peril of
winding up hopelessly confused about the objects of linguistic enquiry (see
O'Regan 2014). Second, the phenomena and the study of ELF are indeed special
and different from the study I normally pursue in that they involve questions of
immediate social relevance: the way in which modes of human communication
are institutionalised, invariably affects the self-esteem, the prestige and the
power of the people engaged in it. It is in the nature of social institutions that
they have “deontic powers [by which they] [. . .] impose rights, responsibilities,
obligations, duties, privileges, penalties, authorizations, permissions, and other
such deontic phenomena” (Searle 1995: 100). Given the fact that the number of
speakers with different first languages who communicate with one another in
English is indeed huge, investigating their communication not only with regard
to its properties but also with regard to its institutional status and with regard
to the interdependencies between the two is clearly an urgent matter. More
urgent, for example, than the question whether Middle English derives more
of its essential properties from Anglo-Saxon of from Old Norse (Emonds &
Faarlund 2014), which falls into the general category of questions that I normally
deal with. Nevertheless, the experience of realising that the problems which
need to be solved when trying to understand ELF are not altogether different
from the ones being addressed in historical linguistics has reassured me that I
am concerning myself with something useful after all.
References
Baker, Will & Jennifer Jenkins. 2015. Criticising ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1).
191–198.
Cogo, Alessia. 2008. English as a lingua franca: Form follows function. English Today 24(3).
58–61.
ELFA. 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna
Mauranen. http://www.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus (accessed 1 July 2015).
Emonds, Joseph E. & Jan T. Faarlund. 2014. English: The language of the Vikings (Olomouc
modern language monographs (OMLM) volume 3). Olomouc: Palacký University.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a
lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 157–181.
Mazzon, Gabriella. 1997. The study of language varieties in diachrony and synchrony, or: On
methodological cross-fertilization. In Olga Fischer & Nikolaus Ritt (eds.), Target papers
and commentaries prepared for the ESSE workshop on applying historical linguistics.
http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/hoe/pmazzon.htm (accessed 5 July 2015).
O'Regan, John P. 2014. English as a lingua franca: An immanent critique. Applied Linguistics
35(5). 533–552.
Paul, Hermann. 1891 [1886]. Principles of the history of language. (transl. from the 2nd German
edn. by Herbert A. Strong). London: Longman.
Phillipson, Robert. 2008. Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integra-
tion and globalisation. World Englishes 27(2). 250–267.
Prodromou, Luke. 2007a. A reader responds to J. Jenkins’s ‘Current perspectives on teaching
World Englishes and English as a lingua franca’. TESOL Quarterly 41(2). 409–413.
Prodromou, Luke. 2007b. Is ELF a variety of English? English Today 23(2). 47–53.
Saussure, Ferdinand. 1959. Course in general linguistics, 3rd edn. (ed. by Charles Bally &
Albert Sechehay). New York: Philosophical Library.
Searle, John R. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.
Saraceni, Mario. 2008. English as a lingua franca: Between form and function. English Today
24(2). 20–26.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59(4). 339–341.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2006. English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn’t.
In Rani Rubdy & Mario Saraceni (eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles,
40–50. London: Continuum.
Press.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2015. Contradiction and conviction. A reaction to O’Regan. Applied Lin-
guistics 36(1). 124–127.
Diane Larsen-Freeman
Complexity theory and ELF: A matter of
nonteleology
1 Introduction
I have had the privilege of witnessing the birth of several subdisciplines in
applied linguistics over the span of my career. Perhaps none has been as use-
fully provocative as the study of English as a lingua franca (ELF). The study of
ELF has forced us to contend in original ways with fundamental issues such
as native speaker privilege, language variation and change, the nature of non-
normative performance (in terms of a standard language), and especially relevant
to this chapter, the nature of language and its development/use. No scholar has
been more influential in challenging us to grapple with these issues than Barbara
Seidlhofer. I intend to pay tribute to Seidlhofer in this short essay at the same time
addressing my charge in writing on ELF from a Complexity Theory perspective.
Actually, Seidlhofer herself has made it easy for me by observing (Seidlhofer
2011: 99): “They [ELF speakers] draw on ELF as a complex adaptive system
that, in the words of Cameron and Larsen-Freeman (2007), is ‘continually trans-
formed by use.’”
In this chapter, I expand on this observation that language is a complex
adaptive system (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008; Beckner et al. 2009), con-
tinually transformed by use, by making a case for its nonteleological character,
which seems especially relevant to ELF. I elaborate on this assertion by dis-
cussing Taylor’s (2012) distinction between creativity and innovation. Then,
following this discussion, and before concluding, I briefly discuss implications
that the nonteleology of language has for ELF and how these implications might
contribute to the study of second language acquisition (SLA).
2 A nonteleological view of language

Teleology means completion or end-directedness, goal, purpose. While there is a
purpose for ELF, i.e., to provide a means of communication among speakers of
different languages “for whom English is the communicative medium of choice”
Diane Larsen-Freeman, University of Michigan

140 Diane Larsen-Freeman
(Seidlhofer 2011: 7), I submit that it has no end-directedness. Deacon (2012)

helps us to understand this claim by noting that the genitive form of its Greek
root is telos-. It forms the prefix of English words such as telescope and
telepathy, both of which imply a relationship to something occurring at a dis-
tance, despite physical discontinuity. In other words, Deacon (2012: 24) writes
“[w]e recognize teleological phenomena by their development toward something
they are not, but which they are implicitly determined with respect to [. . .] It is
the end for the sake of which they exist”.
It seems to me that a nonteleological depiction of language, in terms of
its having no end-directedness, easily applies to ELF. However, it is interesting,
that while ELF researchers do contest the boundaries of communities and of
language varieties (Seidlhofer 2011: 88), I am unaware of the nonteleological
boundlessness of ELF being taken up by ELF researchers (at least not in these
terms). It would seem entirely appropriate for ELF researchers to do so, for as
long as there are speakers who use ELF meaningfully through interactions with
other ELF users, new properties will emerge, and in contrast to a putative end-
state grammar, no endpoint will be reached.
Furthermore, ELF is autopoietic. “[A]utopoiesis entails the production and
maintenance of a dynamic entity in the face of material change” (Thompson
2007: 146). Its identity is not fixed because its components are constantly being
renewed. Further, an autopoietic system is adaptive, changing in relation to
changing conditions (Thompson 2007). Importantly, though, this understanding
of adaptation is not as it is in Darwin’s theory of evolution. “For neo-Darwinians,
evolution involves the optimization of adaptation through natural selection. From
an autopoietic perspective, however, adaptation is an invariant background condi-
tion of all life (Maturana and Varela 1987, pp. 94–117) [. . .]” (as cited in Thompson
2007: 159). In other words, adaptation in autopoietic systems is not for the
purposes of ensuring survival of the fittest; instead, it is ongoing – more locally
improvisational than teleological.
Seeing language in use from this perspective also does away with the need
to posit preformationism, i.e., “the assumption that in order to build a complex
structure you need to begin with a detailed plan or template” (Deacon 2012: 50).
In the place of preformationism, a complexity theorist would propose that all
that is needed for structure to emerge is a sensitive dependence on initial con-
ditions and language users operating meaningfully within a context in which
the system can adapt and change.
3 Creativity and innovation

Related to this observation about emergence is the distinction that Taylor (2012)
makes between creativity and innovation. Although he has co-opted the mean-
ing of the terms beyond how they are conventionally construed, his distinction is
worth considering. Let’s start with creativity. A major motivation for Chomsky’s
(1965) theorizing a generative grammar was based on the observation that lan-
guage users can create and understand novel utterances that they have not
encountered previously. While it is true that there are conventionalized recurrent
patterns in language (Pawley and Syder 1983), these patterns might be better
accounted for through Searle’s regulatory rules (of performance), rather than
the constitutive rules (of competence) (Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2009). It
follows, then, that “the existence of conventional phraseology is not in itself
incompatible with creativity in the generativists’ sense” (Taylor 2012: 248) because
many sentences are unique combinations of conventionalized phrases. In this
way, it would seem that “the generativists’ view of creativity is indeed well-
founded” (Taylor 2012: 245). Taylor (2012: 249) continues “[t]he crucial question,
though, concerns the logical link between creativity and the need for a genera-
tive model.”
Taylor challenges the logical link by distinguishing creativity from inno-
vation: “Creativity involves the application of the rules of grammar to items
selected from the lexicon; creativity therefore remains strictly within the bounds
of the language system. Innovation is a matter of going beyond the system.
Strictly speaking, therefore, innovation involves the production of ungrammatical
sentences” (Taylor 2012: 246). Thus, according to Taylor, creativity and a genera-
tive model can be linked, but there is an additional source of novelty, which
cannot be linked: innovations. Innovations flout the system (Taylor 2012; Pitzl
2012).
In other words, ungrammaticality, as defined by deviance from a standard
language norm, such as the use of informations, attributed to ELF speakers, is
by Taylor’s definition an innovation. In their innovations, “ELF users exploit
the potential of the language” (Seidlhofer 2009: 242). Indeed, the classification
of a noun as noncount in English is by no means categorical, and English nouns
with zero morphological marking can be interpreted as count with a morphological
shift (Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia 2015).
Furthermore, such innovations are by no means unique to users of ELF.
Young first language learners overgeneralize morphology (Ambridge et al. 2013),
and mature native speakers regularize it. A recent example of the latter is that
data is no longer regarded as a plural form. While data used as a singular
noun might have been ungrammatical earlier, its growing acceptance has con-
tributed to language change.1
4 Innovation in ELF and SLA

ELF researchers themselves have observed a similar distinction between creativity
and innovation. For instance, Pitzl (2012) recontexualizes Kachru’s (1992) norm-
following and norm-developing distinction with regard to language varieties,
and she applies it to creativity in language use. Norm-following creativity is
associated with a synchronic dimension of variation and norm-developing with
a diachronic perspective of change by Pitzl (2012). Pitzl’s and Taylor’s distinc-
tions draw attention to the fact that ELF speakers’ productions are often norm-
developing innovations, rather than creations within the confines of a static
language system, i.e., the internalized grammar (the I-language) of the “ideal
speaker-hearer” who exists in a “completely homogeneous speech-community”
(Chomsky 1965: 3). Of course, both creations and innovations are norm-referenced;
in this way, they are ‘backward-looking’. However, innovations are unfettered by
teleology. There is no ‘target’ towards which ELF is evolving. It is ever labile.
Any potentially system-changing innovation, then, would be in support of regu-
larizing2, expressiveness, social positioning, communicative efficiency, or motivated
by other pragmatic factors. ELF speakers might accommodate to other ELF users
in the moment, but these would essentially be local, contingent, and situated
adaptations, often interactively co-constructed, in fulfillment of ELF’s functional
purpose, and therefore only potentially candidates for language change.
It is these insights from ELF that can contribute to the study of SLA. While
it is true that many second language learners aspire to native target language
(TL) use, it is also true that conceiving of interlanguage (IL) success in this
teleological way is problematic despite the fact that this perspective on IL has
been foundational for much of the modern history of SLA. After all, Selinker
(1972: 223), in his seminal article on interlanguage, defined second language
learning success as “productive performance in the TL by the second-language-
learner which is identical to that produced by the native speaker of that TL.”
1 Seidlhofer and Widdowson (2009) add an important dimension, which is that such innova-
tions in language use by ELF speakers apply to all linguistic levels, not only the grammatical
one (see also Pitzl 2012).
2 Which non-natives sometimes do intentionally (Todeva, p.c.).
While the notion of an IL has been tremendously influential in the study

of second language development and one wants to be careful not to judge
yesterday’s breakthroughs by today’s sensibilities and awareness, it is neverthe-
less the case today that researchers (e.g., Cook 1999) recognize the need to
revisit the “endpoint of the IL continuum” (Larsen-Freeman 2014). Not all second
language learners have the need or desire to achieve isomorphism with native
speaker performance. Of course, even if they did, it would not be possible to
do so, for among other reasons, there is no homogeneous, static native speaker
target; language is an inherently evolving nonteleological system. Therefore, as I
have said many times (e.g., Larsen-Freeman 2003), learning a language is not
about conformity to uniformity.
We are then left with the dilemma of characterizing the progress that lan-
guage learners make without resorting to benchmarks based on TL-centric lin-
guistic proficiency. As ELF researcher Baker (2015: 11) has recently put it “we
need a revised understanding of the types of competences language learners/
users need, moving away from a priori specification of a restricted range of
linguistic features related to a particular ‘code’”. I believe that one possibility
is to see development characterized more in terms of building capacity than in
acquiring native speaker competence (Widdowson 1983).
5 Conclusion
In sum, the view I am putting forth here (as I have for some time, e.g., Larsen-
Freeman 1997) is that language as realized in use is an open system, always
changing, never fixed and that the language resources of its speakers are a
dynamic network of emergent and mutable language-using patterns: conven-
tional, creative, innovative, or some combination of these. Their use, then, is
not as an act of conformity, but rather comes from continuing dynamic adapta-
tion to a specific present and ever-changing context (Larsen-Freeman 2006;
2011). In this sense, L1 English speakers, English learners, and ELF users can
all contribute towards expanding the semiotic potential of English.
This is because in the language use of all three populations is nonteleol-
ogical; there is no endpoint3, and what replaces it is “the boundlessness of
potentiality”, to borrow a phrase from David Birdsong (2006) (who used it for
a different purpose), a quality that is the cause for celebration and one that
inspires continuing innovation, as befits users of a lingua franca in a rapidly-
changing world.
3 Other than that which learners themselves choose.

References
Ambridge, Ben, Julian M. Pine, Caroline F. Rowland, Franklin Chang & Amy Bidgood. 2013. The
retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: Word learning, morphology,
and verb argument structure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4(1). 47–62.
Baker, Will. 2015. Culture and complexity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking com-
petences and pedagogy in ELT. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1). 9–30.
Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Joan Bybee, Morten H. Christiansen, William Croft, Nick C. Ellis,
John Holland, Jinyun Ke, Diane Larsen-Freeman & Tom Schonemann. 2009. Language is a
complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning Supplement 1. 1–26.
Birdsong, David. 2006. Why not fossilization. In ZhaoHong Han & Terrence Odlin (eds.), Studies
of fossilization in second language acquisition, 173–188. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Cameron, Lynne & Diane Larsen-Freeman. 2007. Preview article: Complex systems and applied
linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(2). 226–240.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Syntactic structures. London: Mouton.
Cook, Vivian. 1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2).
185–209.
Deacon, Terrence. 2012. Incomplete nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Kachru, Braj B. 1992. Teaching World Englishes. In Braj B. Kachru (ed.), The other tongue.
English across cultures, 2nd edn, 355–365. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics 18(2). 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2003. Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston:
Heinle/Cengage.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization:
There is no end and there is no state. In ZhaoHong Han & Terrence Odlin (eds.), Studies
of fossilization in second language acquisition, 189–200. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2011. A complexity theory approach to second language acquisition/
development. In Dwight Atkinson (ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acqui-
sition, 48–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2014. Another step to be taken: Rethinking that endpoint of the inter-
language continuum. In ZhaoHong Han & Elaine Tarone (eds.), Interlanguage: Forty years
later, 203–220. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron. 2008. Complex systems and applied linguistics.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Marianne Celce-Murcia. 2015. The grammar book: Form, meaning,
and use for English language teachers, 3rd edn. Boston: National Geographic Learning/
Heinle/Cengage Learning.
Maturana, Humberto & Francisco Varela. 1987. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of
human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
Pawley, Andrew & Frances Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection
and nativelike fluency. In Jack Richards & Richard Schmidt (eds.), Language and com-
munication, 191–226. London: Longman.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2012. Creativity meets convention: Idiom variation and re‑metaphorization in
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Henry G. Widdowson. 2009. Conformity and creativity in ELF and learner
English. In Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Sabine Braun & Sylvia Kalina (eds.), Dimensionen der
Zweitsprachenforschung. Dimensions of Second Language Research (Festschrift for Kurt
Kohn), 93–107. Tübingen: Narr.
Selinker, Larry. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10(3). 209–231.
Taylor, John R. 2012. The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Thompson, Evan. 2007. Mind in life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Widdowson, Henry G. 1983. Competence and capacity in language learning. In Mark Clarke &
Jean Handscombe (eds.), On TESOL ‘82: Pacific perspectives on language learning and
teaching, 97–106. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Evelien Keizer
(Morpho)syntactic transparency and ELF
1 Introduction
This paper will discuss the relevance of the notion of transparency as defined in
the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG; Hengeveld and Mackenzie
2008; Keizer 2015) for the study of ELF, considering the possible role this notion
may play in explaining a number of specific, non-canonical (morpho)syntactic
features of ELF. Previous studies have claimed that in language contact situa-
tions there is a tendency for languages to become more transparent, i.e. to prefer
one-to-one meaning-to-form relations (Heine and Kuteva 2005; Trudgill 2011), in
particular in situations with more L2 acquirers than L1 acquirers (e.g. Kusters
2003: 41–45, 357–358, 367). The aim of the present paper is to find out whether
there is evidence to suggest that this also holds true for ELF.
First, a general impression will be given of the notion of transparency and
the various ways in which it has been applied. This will be followed by a discus-
sion of the way transparency is defined in FDG, and in particular of the different
types of non-transparency that the theory, with its different levels of analysis,
allows us to distinguish (Hengeveld 2011; Leufkens 2015). Subsequently, a number
of (morpho)syntactic phenomena involving one or more of these types of non-
transparency (fusion, redundancy, discontinuity and form-based-form), will be
briefly discussed, using results from previous studies as well as new data from
the VOICE corpus:
– third person singular marking
– phrasal agreement
– sequence of tenses
– raising
The aim of this paper is to show that the FDG notion of transparency provides
a useful framework for studying various (morpho)syntactic phenomena in ELF,
which not only enables us to capture what these (and many other) phenomena
have in common, but which also allows for more detailed comparison between
the use of ELF and the processes of language change and language evolution, as
well as between ELF and varieties of English and other languages (e.g. creoles).
Evelien Keizer, University of Vienna

148 Evelien Keizer
2 Linguistic transparency
2.1 Definition and application
Transparency is generally defined as a one-to-one relation between meaning
and form (e.g. Langacker 1977: 110; Carstairs-McCarthy 1987: 13; cf. Haiman’s
1980 notion of isomorphism and Croft’s 2003 meaning-to-form mappings). Dif-
ferent types of transparency have been distinguished, depending on which
domain, or level, of description they apply to. Semantic transparency, for
instance, applies at the level of the lexeme, where polysemous expressions and
idioms are regarded as being non-transparent (involving many-to-one and one-to-
many relations, respectively). Similarly, within morphology, the notion of trans-
parency has been used to distinguish between transparent and non-transparent
compounds (teacup vs. buttercup) and derivations (cleverness vs. highness).
Phonological non-transparency can be found in contractions and reduced forms
(e.g. I’m, won’t or wanna, where two free morphemes are expressed as one
phonological unit), as well as in verbal inflection (where person, number and
tense features may be fused in one suffix). In this paper the focus will be on
(morpho)syntactic transparency, i.e. on the relationship between units of mean-
ing and units of grammar (inflectional morphology and syntax).
The notion of transparency has played an important role in studies on lan-
guage acquisition, language change and language contact. Slobin (1977: 189–
192), for instance, observes that in L1 acquisition transparent structures are
easier to learn, as evidenced by the fact that they are acquired before opaque
ones. Kusters (2003: 55), in his study of the influence of social change on verbal
inflection, concludes that although certain non-transparent features present
some difficulty for the L1 learner, “[t]hese problems are only relative in com-
parison with L2 learners, whose problems are much more serious with all devia-
tions from Transparency”.1
In studies on language change, too, transparency has been shown to be a
useful notion. Thus many linguists have noted that, generally speaking, the
direction of (long-term) change in languages is from analytic to more synthetic,
and from transparent to more opaque (Seuren and Wekker 1986; Dahl 2004: 276–
280; Hengeveld 2011; see also Trudgill 2011); in such a scenario, opaqueness can
be seen as the result of a maturation process (Dahl 2004: 103–118). There are,
however, also circumstances under which languages become more transparent.
Slobin (1977: 192), for instance, points out that there seems to be “a universal
1 This does not mean that the notions of transparency and ease of acquisition (or learnability)
are equivalent; nor would it be correct to regard transparency as synonymous with simplicity
or regularity. For a discussion of the relation (and competition) between these notions, see
Langacker (1977: 111–116), Dahl (2004: 39–40) and Leufkens (2013).
tendency away from oversynthesis”, causing languages to fluctuate between the

poles of analyticity and syntheticity (Slobin 1977: 203).
Languages may also develop more transparent features in situations of
language contact (e.g. Kusters 2003; Heine and Kuteva 2005; Trudgill 1983, 2011).
Thus, it has often been claimed that creole languages tend to be relatively trans-
parent, or at least more transparent than their base languages (e.g. Slobin 1977;
Seuren and Wekker 1986; McWhorter 2001; Leufkens 2013). Similarly, Kusters
(2003) observes that non-transparency is particularly dispreferred in com-
munities where L2 speakers outnumber L1 speakers. More specifically, he claims
that the simplification processes he identifies (processes reducing the degree of
non-transparency in a language) take place under a number of social conditions
(Kusters 2003: 367):
1. a language must spread rapidly outside its initial sphere of use to a domain
where it is predominantly used in its communicative function by second
language learners
2. to be simplified it must remain in use for a longer period, and be learned by
a next generation
3. contact between the source language and the variety spoken in the new
domain must be not too extensive, otherwise simplifications may be levelled
out, especially when the source language is dominant.
Although ELF does not qualify as a variety of English (e.g. Seidlhofer 2011:
77), these conditions (in particular conditions 1 and 3) describe the circumstances
under which ELF is used quite well. The similarity between contact languages
and ELF has, indeed, been recognized before; Firth (1996: 240), for instance,
describes ELF as “a ‘contact language’ between persons who share neither a
common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English
is the chosen foreign language of communication”.
In Section 3, we will look at a number of non-transparent morphosyntactic
features that speakers in contact situations may be expected to avoid, to see
whether such tendencies can be found in ELF. Before doing so, however, it may
be useful to have a closer look at transparency, and at the way it is defined in
the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar.
2.2 Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar
2.2.1 General architecture of the model
Functional Discourse Grammar is a typologically-based model of language use

adhering to the basic principle that linguistic form – however indirectly or
150 Evelien Keizer
inconsistently – reflects communicative function. At the same time FDG is

primarily an account of linguistic facts, concerned only with those linguistic
phenomena that are encoded in the grammar of a language. This means that
within the functional paradigm, FDG takes a moderate position: it is characterized
by Hengeveld and Mackenzie (2008: 39) as a form-oriented ‘function-to-form’
approach to grammar; in Van Valin’s (1993) terminology, FDG qualifies as a
“structural-functional” theory of language (see Butler 2003: 30–31).
FDG has a number of distinctive features (Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008:
1–12; Keizer 2015: 21–22). One of these is that the model is organized in a top-
down manner, taking the speaker’s intention as the point of departure and
from there working its way down to articulation. Another important characteristic
of the model is that it analyses linguistic expressions in terms of four indepen-
dent, but interactive, levels, dealing with pragmatics, semantics, morphosyntax
and phonology. Finally, as part of a wider theory of verbal interaction, FDG
systematically interacts with three other components: a conceptual component,
a contextual component and an output component. The general architecture of
the model is represented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: FDG: general layout (based on Hengeveld and Mackenzie 2008: 13)
This architecture reflects the idea that every linguistic communication starts
with some communicative intention at the prelinguistic conceptual level. This
information is subsequently fed into the grammatical component where the
operation of formulation converts it into interpersonal (pragmatic) and represen-
tational (semantic) representations. Next, the operation of encoding translates
these into morphosyntactic and phonological representations, which, in turn,
feed into the output component.
Rather than describing each level in detail, let us look at an example (1B) to
illustrate which linguistic phenomena belong to which level:
(1) A: What’s the matter with John?
B: The poor guy doesn’t like onions.
At the Interpersonal Level (IL), B’s answer will be analysed as a declarative

expression, consisting of the Referential Subacts (realized as the poor guy and
onions) and a number of Ascriptive Subacts (corresponding to like, guy, onion).
One of the Referential Subacts (the poor guy) has the feature +identifiable2 and
is assigned the pragmatic function Topic; the other (onions) has the feature
-identifiable and is assigned the pragmatic function Focus. In addition, the
modifier poor is represented at this level, as it performs an interactional function
(expressing speaker attitude) rather than a descriptive one.
The Representational Level (RL) deals with the semantic features of the
expression, including present tense and negation. It is here that we find the
predicate and its arguments, as well as the semantic functions of the arguments
(in this case Actor-Experiencer and Undergoer).
At the Morphosyntactic Level (ML) the expression is analysed as a clause
consisting of two noun phrases and a verb phrase; one of the noun phrases
also contains an adjectival phrase (good). It is at this level that the dummy element
do is inserted and that the syntactic functions Subject and Object are assigned.
Finally, at the Phonological Level (PL), the expression will be analysed as a
single intonational phrase, characterized by a neutral declarative intonation
(focal stress realized on the last lexical element, ONions). In addition, the deter-
miner the will appear in its weak form and the elements does and not are fused
into one phonological unit.
2 I.e. the Speaker assumes the referent in question to be recoverable or inferrable by the hearer
on the basis of previous discourse or context.
152 Evelien Keizer
2.2.2 Transparency in FDG
Let us now consider the implications of the presence of four levels of organiza-
tion for the notion of transparency. Rather than seeing transparency as a simple
relation between meaning and form, the organization of the FDG model makes
it possible to define transparency relations more precisely. Leufkens (2015: 13),
for instance, provides the following definition of transparency in FDG (see also
Hengeveld 2011):
Transparency obtains when one unit at one level of linguistic organisation corresponds to
one unit at all other levels of organisation.
This means that non-transparency may indeed result from a lack of one-to-
one relationships between (pragmatic or semantic) meaning and (morpho-
syntactic or phonological) form, but that, in addition, non-transparency may be
brought about by meaning-meaning and form-form mismatches. Altogether,
non-transparency may occur at six interfaces:
(2) Meaning-form mismatches: IL-ML, IL-PL, RL-ML, RL-PL

Meaning-meaning mismatches: IL-RL
Form-form mismatches: ML-PL
If we now return to example (1), we see that B’s answer does indeed contain
mismatches belonging to each of these three groups; some are given in (3):
(3) Meaning-form mismatches: dummy do (ML) has no counterpart at IL/RL

Meaning-meaning mismatches: the adjective poor (IL) has no counterpart
at RL; the feature tense (RL) has no
corresponding IL unit
Form-form mismatches: the morphemes does and not (ML) are
fused into one phonological unit (PL)
Finally, different categories of non-transparency can be distinguished by

looking more closely at the nature of the mismatch between two levels (Leufkens
2015: 16–20):
(4) Fusion: many-to-one relation between a higher and a lower level

Redundancy: one-to-many relation between a higher and a lower level
Discontinuity: a single unit at one level is expressed as two
(incomplete) components at a lower level
Covert elements: one-to-null relation between a higher and a lower level
Form-based-form: null-to-one relation between a higher and a lower level
As various studies have shown, languages differ with regard to both the
kind and the number of non-transparent features they contain (Kusters 2003;
Hengeveld 2011; Leufkens 2011, 2015); as a result, some languages may be char-
acterized as more transparent than others. In the remainder of this paper, we
will consider a number of differences in morphosyntactic transparency between
Standard English (StE) and ELF.
3 Syntactic transparency in ELF

3.1 Third person singular present tense
One of the best-documented morphosyntactic phenomena in ELF is the third
person singular ‑s, mentioned as a potential syntactic feature of ELF in Seidlhofer
(2004: 220), and indeed found to be so in later studies (e.g. Breiteneder 2005;
Cogo and Dewey 2006). Breiteneder (2005), for instance, finds that European
speakers of ELF, although conforming to StE rules in the majority of cases
(almost 80%), deviate from the norm in certain contexts, either dropping the
suffix or using it where it does not appear in StE.
Both these tendencies can be explained by the preference of ELF speakers
for transparent forms. Although transparent in the sense that it is triggered by
a single semantic feature (present tense), the third person singular -s is opaque
in that it involves fusion, expressing not only tense but also person and number.
Not using the suffix therefore means disposing of a non-transparent feature.
Overuse of -s, however, also leads to more transparency, as in that case the
feature simply functions as a present tense marker, no longer marking person
and number.
It may therefore be concluded that both the dropping and the overuse -s
is not merely a random feature of ELF, but actually has an underlying function
(Seidlhofer 2009: 40), in that it is motivated by the general tendency for L2
speakers to use language communicatively, with a focus on content rather than
form (Breiteneder 2005: 22–23), especially in the absence of native speakers
(Cogo and Dewey 2006: 78–81). These, as we have seen, are exactly the circum-
stances under which, according to Kusters (2003), languages tend to become
more transparent. This also means that, as Breiteneder (2005: 23) indeed em-
phasizes, the non-standard use of -s in ELF cannot be dismissed as an instance
of incorrect English, but instead constitutes natural language usage (as further
evidenced by the fact that it can also be found in other varieties and dialects,
such as African American Vernacular English and East English dialects; Trudgill
2002).
154 Evelien Keizer
3.2 Phrasal agreement

Many languages exhibit the feature of phrasal agreement, whereby one and the
same feature (e.g. gender or number) is expressed both on the head noun and
on the determiner (and modifier). In English, two forms of phrasal agreement,
both involving the feature number, can be distinguished: those in which a plural
cardinal numeral is followed by a noun marked for plurality (four apples) and
those in which number is expressed both on the determiner and the noun (this
apple, these apples). Both these cases involve non-transparency: one and the
same feature is marked twice. Therefore, ELF speakers may be expected to replace
this feature of StE with a more transparent form (see Seidlhofer 2011: 144–145).
Since in FDG these two forms involve different types of non-transparency,
they will be discussed separately.
3.2.1 Plural numeral + noun
Standard English has plural concord between a numeral and the noun it pre-
cedes, which means that the feature plurality (a feature of the referent set) is
expressed twice: on the (inherently) plural numeral and on the noun (two lan-
guages, four universities). In FDG this double-marking is regarded as a case of
redundancy at the RL-ML interface.
A quick look at the VOICE corpus (VOICE 2013) shows that in the case of a
plural numeral followed immediately by a noun, the plural ending on the noun
is omitted in about 7% of the cases (see also Björkman 2008: 231–232); since
plurality is unambiguously coded in the numeral, this does not affect the com-
municative process:
(5) a. so you have (.) three <un> x </un> you have the two language
which are TAUGHT (VOICE 2013, EDwgd305:292, S5)
b. . . . and also the student can get diploma from er from (2) other
from four university (VOICE 2013: POwgd12:159, S1)
That the marking on the noun is indeed redundant is also clear from the fact
that in many languages plurality is not marked on the noun when it is preceded
by a plural numeral. This is the case, for example in Hungarian (Lotti Viola,
p.c.), Turkish (Lewis 1978: 25–26), Georgian (Hewitt 1995: 55), Teiwa (Klamer
2003: 69).
3.2.2 Demonstrative determiner + noun
In English, there is also agreement between a demonstrative determiner and the

following head noun. In FDG these cases would not, however, be analysed as
redundancy, but rather as form-based-form: since plurality is not an inherent
feature of the demonstrative determiner, it is first expressed on the noun, after
which it is copied onto the determiner. Thus, whereas in the case of numerals
the plural feature (represented once at the Representational Level) is present
twice at the Morphosyntactic Level, in the case of demonstrative determiners,
the feature is expressed once on the Morphosyntactic Level (as a plural suffix
on the noun), and is subsequently copied onto the determiner. A brief examina-
tion of the determiners this and these immediately followed by a noun shows
that in the VOICE corpus the combination this + plural noun occurs in 6.1%
of all relevant cases, and the combination these + singular noun in 5.7%. Some
examples are provided in (6):
(6) a. . . . which doesn’t mean that we close this lists

(VOICE 2013, POwsd372:246, S1)
b. all these material we (gathered) so far

(VOICE 2013: POwsd372:1085, S2)
What is interesting is that, unlike in the case of numerals, in 98% of all non-
standard combinations it is the form of the noun that indicates the number of
the intended referent set (i.e. in (6a) reference is made to a plural set, in (6b) to
a singular set).3 This not only confirms that we are dealing with two different
types of non-transparency, but also lends support to the idea that in the case
of determiners plural concord is the result of feature copying: ELF speakers
apparently do code number on the noun, but fail to copy this feature onto the
determiner (presumably because it is not necessary for successful communication).
3.3 Sequence of tenses

Sequence of tenses (Consecutio temporum) is a mechanism whereby the tense of
the main clause is copied onto the verb of the embedded clause. In English, it
3 It might be objected that some of these deviating forms result from the fact that ELF speakers
find it difficult to distinguish between the vowels /ɪ/ and /iː/. As it turns out, however, the same
pattern can be found with the distal determiners that and those, though in slightly lower
frequencies.
156 Evelien Keizer
occurs in cases of indirect speech report, like (7), where, under certain circum-
stances, the verb in the embedded clause appears in the past tense, despite the
fact that this clause does not denote an event (or state) in the past:
(7) a. I said I had three kids and I could work all day and then I had to do my
bloody work when I got home (BYU-BNC, spoken, conversation)
b. He told me that he knew (pause) both individuals (BYU-BNC, spoken,

courtroom)
This is seen as a case of form-based-form: the past tense of the embedded

clause does not express a semantic feature of the event, but is simply copied
from the verb in the main clause. That this is a highly non-transparent feature
is clear from the fact that cross-linguistically it is quite rare (Leufkens 2015). It
may therefore not come as a surprise that ELF speakers do not always apply it,
which may lead to non-standard constructions like those in (8):
(8) a. exactly that’s why i said that i am {was} going to complete it today?
(VOICE 2013: EDwgd497:478, S5, bracketed { } material added by
author)
b. i went to: (.) the district office an:d they <1> told me </1> that i need
{needed} a letter = (VOICE 2013: PBsve430:4, S2, bracketed { } material
added by author)
3.4 Raising
Another transparent phenomenon is raising, a process whereby a unit that
semantically belongs to a subordinate clause is “raised” to a position in the
main clause, leading to discontinuity of expression (Leufkens 2015: 65–66). In
example (9), for instance, the subject of the embedded clauses in (9a and b)
functions as the subject of the main clause in (9a’ and b’), thus separating the
argument in question from the predication to which it belongs:
(9) a. It seems that John has stolen the money.

a’. John seems to have stolen the money.
b. We believe that he has stolen the money.
b’. He is believed to have stolen the money.
Note that unlike in the constructions discussed in the previous sections,

both forms are perfectly acceptable in StE. What may be expected, however, is
that ELF speakers, preferring the more transparent form, use the non-raised
form more often than StE speakers. To test this hypothesis, a (very) small-scale
study was conducted, focussing on the alternation illustrated in (9a and a’),
between It seems that X and X seems to, and comparing their frequency of use
in VOICE and the BNC. The VOICE corpus contained 44 relevant examples4, 23 of
which involved raising (52%); the 44 instances randomly selected from match-
ing sections of the BNC yielded 32 cases of raising (73%). Although by no means
conclusive, this result may be taken to suggest that ELF speakers do indeed tend
to avoid the use of raised constructions. This seems to be confirmed by the
examples in (10), where ELF speakers use non-raised constructions where an
StE speaker might have applied raising:
(10) a. erm it SEEMS that modernity (.) is a question of er a WESTERN (.)

ideology and a phenomena (.) er that is not to go along with ISLAM (.)
it SEEMS that everybody does agree in er (.) in western discussions
tha:t (.) in general islam needs a reform (VOIVE 2013: PRpan1:7, S2)
b. and we’re studying that because it seems that this is a very important
matter (.) within the globalization issues. (VOICE 2013: PRpan1:125, S6)
4 Conclusion
Since the (morpho)syntactic features dealt with in this paper have not been
discussed in any depth, no strong claims can be made about the use of these
features in ELF. Each of the four case studies was clearly (and necessarily)
incomplete and vastly oversimplified, ignoring, for instance, any social and con-
textual factors, as well as the difference between speakers and hearers when it
comes to processing non-transparent features. Such a detailed discussion was,
however, not the aim of this paper, which was merely intended to show that
the notion of transparency as defined in FDG may offer a useful tool for the
study of certain (morpho)syntactic phenomena in ELF.
4 The following constructions were excluded from the analysis: (i) seems followed by a non-
clausal complement (e.g. John seems ill); (ii) the combination it seems like/as if; and (iii) the
sequence it seems (to me) when clearly used as a fixed phrase/pragmatic marker. In addition,
only those instances were included where alternation between the two forms was possible. Any
pragmatic differences between the two alternants (in terms of information structure; e.g. García
Velasco 2013) have been ignored.
158 Evelien Keizer
One of the advantages of applying the FDG notion of transparency is that it

not only helps to explain specific features of ELF separately, but that it can also
place them in a wider theoretical context, allowing for a systematic analysis of
these features, and offering a basis for comparing ELF (in terms of degree of
transparency) to standard and non-standard varieties of English, as well as to
other (contact) languages. In addition, the approach presented may help to
identify (perhaps less obvious) features for future examination, not only, as
in this paper, involving non-transparency at the RL-ML interface, but also
including opaque features located at other (multiple) interfaces, e.g. the use of
cleft-constructions (IL-RL-ML), question tags (IL-RL) or (productive) instances
of contraction and fusion (ML-PL).
Bibliography
Björkman, Beyza. 2008. So where we are? Spoken lingua franca at a technical university in
Sweden. English Today 24(2). 35–41.
Breiteneder, Angelika. 2005. The naturalness of English as a European Lingua Franca: The case
of the ‘third person -s’. Vienna English Working papers 14(2). 3–26. http://anglistik.
univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views0502ALL_
new.pdf (accessed 10 February 2015).
Butler, Christopher S. 2003. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional
theories. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in inflexion. London: Croom Helm.
Cogo, Alessia & Martin Dewey. 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives
to lexicogrammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2). 59–94.
Croft, William. 2003. Typology. In Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller (eds.), The Blackwell Hand-
book of Linguistics, 2nd edn., 337–369. Oxford: Basil Blackwell..
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Davies, Mark. 2004. BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University
Press). http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/ (accessed 10 February 2015).
Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality. On ‘lingua franca’ English and
conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2). 237–259.
García Velasco, Daniel. 2013. Raising in Functional Discourse Grammar. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie
& Hella Olbertz (eds.), Casebook in Functional Discourse Grammar, 249–276. Amsterdam
& Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3).
515–540.
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge:
Hengeveld, Kees. 2011. Introduction: Transparency in Functional Discourse Grammar. Linguistics
in Amsterdam 4(2). 1–22.
Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-
based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hewitt, Brian George. 1995. Georgian. A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Keizer, Evelien. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English (Oxford Textbooks in Linguis-
tics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klamer, Marian A. F. 2003. A grammar of Teiwa (Mouton grammar library 49). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic complexity: The influence of social change on verbal inflec-
tion. Utrecht: Leiden University PhD dissertation.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic reanalysis. In Charles Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic
change, 56–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Leufkens, Sterre. 2011. Kharia: A transparent language. Linguistics in Amsterdam 4(2). 75–95.
Leufkens, Sterre. 2013. The transparency of creoles. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
28(2). 323–362.
Leufkens, Sterre. 2015. Transparency in language. A typological study. Utrecht: University of
Amsterdam PhD dissertation.
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1978. Turkish grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McWhorter, John. 2001. The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars. Linguistic Typology
5. 125–166.
upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publications.
Press.
Seuren, Pieter & Herman Wekker. 1986. Semantic transparency as a factor in creole genesis. In
Pieter Muysken (ed.), Substrata versus universals in creole genesis, 57–70. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Slobin, Dan I. 1977. Language change in childhood and history. In John Macnamara (ed.), Lan-
guage learning and language thought, 185–214. New York: Academic Press.
Trudgill, Peter. 1983. On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
Trudgill, Peter. 2002. Sociolinguistic variation and change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology. Social determinants of linguistic complexity.
Van Valin, Robert D. 1993. Synopsis of role and reference grammar. In Robert D. Van Valin (ed.),
Advances in role and reference grammar, 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version POS Online 2.0). Director:
Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Stefan Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl,
Michael Radeka, Nora Dorn. http://voice.univie.ac.at/pos/ (accessed 19 January 2015).
Jagdish Kaur
Conversation analysis and ELF
1 Introduction
The past two decades have witnessed growing research interest in the use of
English as a medium of communication amongst speakers of different first
languages and cultures. The status of English as a global lingua franca means
that English is today the language of choice for a large majority of people, both
native and non-native speakers, who find themselves having to communicate
for any number of purposes in a range of domains with others with whom they
may lack commonality in terms of linguacultural background, English language
proficiency, language experience and socio-pragmatic knowledge, amongst
others. In spite of the diversity in the ELF context of use, communication has
been observed to proceed in a normal, orderly fashion (Firth 1996; Pitzl 2005;
Mauranen 2006; Seidlhofer 2011).
How participants communicate in ELF with the resources they have and
how they arrive at shared understanding are some of the questions researchers
set out to answer. In this regard, some of the earliest empirical work on ELF
communication adopted Conversation Analysis (CA) as the theoretical and
methodological framework to analyse naturally occurring spoken interaction in
ELF (see e.g., Firth 1990, 1996; Gramkow Andersen 1993, 2001; Haegeman 1996).
Although CA has traditionally been associated with the study of English native
speaker talk-in-interaction, CA-based research of ELF has contributed signifi-
cantly in uncovering some of the interactional features of successful ELF com-
munication and in re-conceptualizing non-native speakers of English as interac-
tionally competent users in their own right. The present chapter considers what
makes CA well suited for the study of ELF in action and reviews some of the
significant findings of research employing CA methodology to investigate ELF
interactions.
2 Why CA to study ELF talk-in-interaction?

Seedhouse (1998: 101) describes CA as “the most tenable methodology for the
analysis of naturally occurring verbal interaction”. Similarly, Wooffitt (2005: 2)
Jagdish Kaur, University of Malaya

162 Jagdish Kaur
considers CA as offering “the most sophisticated and robust account of language

in action”. In essence, CA equips the analyst with the necessary tools to uncover
the procedures and methods employed by participants in interaction to produce
and interpret talk. Observations are made based on the details of the talk,
namely, the sequences and turns within sequences, which reveal what partici-
pants orientate to as relevant in their talk. The methodology provides an emic
perspective of how participants co-construct talk and thus frees the analyst
from having to resort to speculations or relying on any preconceived notions
that may cloud judgement.
Although the global phenomenon of ELF does not exclude the native
speaker from the equation, much of ELF research tends to focus on non-native
speaker interaction in English. Given CA’s early focus on native speaker talk-in-
interaction, particularly in English, Firth (1996), in his often cited paper, con-
siders the applicability of the CA methodology to ELF data (see also Firth 2012).
The early interest in native speaker interaction is said to stem, in part, from
the fact that conversation analysts then had greater access to and were most
familiar with this type of data. In addition, the absence of a shared lingua-
cultural background and linguistic competence in English among the participants
and between the participants and the analyst was considered to render the appli-
cation of CA methods to non-native speaker data somewhat problematic as it
brought into question the reliability of the analyst’s interpretations (see also
Wagner 1996). Seedhouse (1998: 85), while conceding that the analysis of non-
native speaker data poses challenges to the analyst, asserts that “CA is in fact
quite capable of handling FLI [foreign language interaction] data”.
Perhaps most revealing is what Schegloff (in Wong and Olsher 2000), a
pioneer of CA, himself has to say of the dearth of early CA studies of non-native
speaker interaction. Conversation analysts it appears did not set out to avoid
non-native speaker data, rather non-native was not perceived as a relevant cate-
gory distinction for purposes of investigation. Schegloff in fact considers non-
native speaker talk a “sub-area in the study of talk in interaction” (Wong and
Olsher 2000: 119) which should be treated no differently from native speaker
talk. While the organization and structure of non-native speaker talk is unlikely
to be different from native speaker talk, how interactional resources are deployed
to perform communicative actions may differ. It is the latter that is of interest to
ELF researchers keen to uncover “how ELF speakers use the language in and
on their own terms” (Seidlhofer 2011: 23).
CA is in fact particularly well suited for the study of the use of ELF in inter-
action for a number of reasons. As much of the empirical work on ELF continues
to focus on the spoken use of ELF, CA, both a distinctive methodology and a
powerful analytical tool to study spoken interaction, affords the researcher the
means to uncover the sense making procedures that participants in ELF en-
counters rely on to communicate. Not unlike their native speaker counterparts,
participants in ELF interaction use a common set of procedures and methods
to produce and understand talk. These “known-in-common” (Firth 2009: 156)
procedures, while established locally on a turn by turn basis by the participants
in interaction, are equally open to scrutiny and investigation. As the action that
utterances perform is tied to the local context in ELF, as in ENL (English as
a Native Language), the sequential organization of the talk provides both the
participants and the analyst the requisite resource to interpret the unfolding
talk. CA’s focus on intersubjectivity in talk is also compatible with a major
concern of ELF research which is how speakers of different first languages
understand each other through the medium of English. CA, which emphasizes
fine-grained analysis of participants’ turns at talk to uncover how understanding
is locally negotiated and jointly accomplished, provides ELF researchers with
reliable means to identify the communication strategies and practices that
speakers in ELF settings employ to arrive at shared understanding. The point
that “CA is only marginally interested in language” (Hutchby and Wooffitt
1998: 14) also means that it suited for the study of ELF talk which is defined
by the functions it performs rather than the form it takes (Seidlhofer 2011; Cogo
2012). CA’s view of talk as a practical social accomplishment is particularly
relevant in this case as participants in lingua franca contexts jointly work to
fulfill instrumental needs through fine-tuned negotiations and monitoring in
whatever English they have learned.
Applying CA methods to ELF data can prove challenging to the analyst,
however, given that variability is considered “one of ELF’s defining characteristics”
(Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011: 297). Firth (2009: 159) observes “variation in
form both across and within speakers”, emanating not only from the diversity
in participants’ linguacultural backgrounds and English proficiency levels but
also from the accommodative behavior of participants. There is also the added
challenge posed by participants’ use of let-it-pass and make-it-normal strategies
(Firth 1996) that can mask or conceal actual problems in understanding. While
the aforementioned are potential problems that conversation analysts may face
when analyzing ELF data, CA’s strict adherence to participants’ orientations
as revealed in the details of the talk provides the guiding principle. Next turn
analysis grants the analyst direct access to participants’ negotiation of meaning
on a turn-by-turn basis, shedding light on what participants orientate to as
relevant in their talk. CA is thus methodologically well equipped to handle ELF
data and the studies reviewed in the section below evidence this.
164 Jagdish Kaur
3 Studies and findings of some CA-based ELF

research
While this section reviews research that adopts a CA framework in its investiga-
tion of ELF interaction, there are just as many studies that apply selected ele-
ments of CA in their analysis of ELF data (see e.g. Pitzl 2005; Mauranen 2006;
Watterson 2008; Cogo 2009). CA-based ELF research has made significant contri-
butions towards shedding light on the kinds of interactional work participants
undertake as they jointly construct talk in a language that is to most of them
non-native. The earliest study of ELF deploying CA methodology by Firth (1990,
1996) revealed participants’ use of let-it-pass and make-it-normal strategies in
dealing with non-standard features in the Englishes of their interlocutors. Rather
than highlighting such features or making known their difficulty in understand-
ing, participants allowed the features to pass, bringing attention to them only if
meaning did not become clear in subsequent talk or if mutual understanding
was challenged. The participants in Firth’s study also adopted the use of non-
standard forms from their interlocutor’s speech, thus, displaying acceptance of
each other’s Englishes and willingness to embrace difference. Both strategies
constitute some of the ways in which participants in ELF interaction “imbue
talk with orderly and ‘normal’ characteristics” (Firth 1996: 256).
In instances where letting-it-pass is not an option, participants initiate and
perform repair, both self and other, in their efforts to arrive at shared under-
standing. Kaur (2009, 2010), applying CA methods of analysis to her data as
well, observed the increased use of interactional practices such as repetition
and paraphrase to perform various pragmatic functions such as seeking and
providing a re-hearing of talk, confirmation of understanding and clarification,
amongst others. The use of these strategies not only addresses actual problems
of understanding when they occur but also succeeds in pre-empting potential
difficulties in understanding (see also Mauranen 2006). Matsumoto (2011), who
looked specifically at the repair of pronunciation difficulties and the kinds of
interactional strategies used, found that the participants in her study employed
careful repetition – adjusting their pronunciation to converge towards their inter-
locutor’s pronunciation – to increase phonological intelligibility when mutual
understanding was under threat. Besides providing further evidence of the kinds
of accommodative behavior participants in ELF interaction display, Matsumoto
also highlights the need for greater familiarity among speakers with the sounds
of other varieties of English to promote more effective negotiation of meaning.
In addition to the let-it-pass and make-it-normal strategies identified by
Firth (1996), participants in ELF interaction have been observed to deploy various
other cooperative, supportive and consensus-seeking practices in their efforts to

make meaning. Gramkow Andersen, who looked specifically at participants’
turn-taking behavior, found that features such as overlap and simultaneous
speech constitute “cooperative devices” (Gramkow Andersen 2001: 158) that
allow participants to jointly produce talk that is meaningful and ordinary (see
also Konakahara 2013). Accommodation that involves adjusting, adapting or
modifying one’s use of language in response to some aspect of the context,
e.g., differences in the participants’ linguacultural background and linguistic
proficiency, is also reflective of cooperative behavior in interaction (Seidlhofer
2011; Mauranen 2012). Haegeman (1996) found that the participants in her study
orientated to their interlocutors’ perceived lower linguistic proficiency levels,
making adjustments in their use of the language to enhance and promote
mutual understanding. The notion of recipient design, which is central to CA, is
in fact an important feature of ELF talk. Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998: 138–139)
describe recipient design as “the way in which all turns at talk are in some way
designed to be understood in terms of what the speaker knows or assumes
about the existing mutual knowledge between him or her and the recipient”.
Haegeman (1996: 272) remarks that the conversational adjustments speakers
make in ELF interaction “par excellence show(s) the talk to be recipient-
designed” as participants orientate and accommodate to their interlocutors’
level of proficiency in English. Kaur (2011) also provides evidence of how partic-
ipants modify their speech through the practice of lexical replacement and
insertion to make meaning explicit and enhance communicative clarity. Close
monitoring of the unfolding talk and the move to replace general terms with
more specific ones or to make references explicit or to flag upcoming modifica-
tions to speech all reflect accommodative and cooperative behavior on the part
of the speaker. Participants using ELF it appears are aware of and sensitive to
the diversity and variability associated with the ELF context of use and thus
take measures to make themselves more easily understood.
Participants in ELF interaction by virtue of their varied first language back-
grounds have access to multilingual resources which are creatively put to use in
their interactions. In a recent study, Pietikäinen (2014) examined the practice of
code switching by couples of different linguacultural backgrounds who have
English in common and use it for their daily communication. Combining CA
with content analysis, Pietikäinen (2014: 1) observed how such couples deploy
“automatic code-switching” in their interactions, i.e., where the speaker’s move
to code-switch is unannounced and in turn elicits no comment from the inter-
locutor. This suggests that code-switching is a natural part of these couples’
ELF communication and can contribute to the meaning-making process when
participants use shared vocabulary from other languages.
166 Jagdish Kaur
While the bulk of CA-based ELF research points to the cooperative nature
of ELF interaction, Jenks’ (2012) study on the use of ELF in online voice-based
chatrooms reveals that there are exceptions to this. The participants in Jenks’
study were found to draw attention to dysfluencies, ungrammaticalities and
various other kinds of anomalies in their interlocutor’s speech through laughter,
ridicule and humour. Thus, rather than allowing problems to pass, participants
engaged in reprehensive talk and displayed interactional behavior that was un-
supportive. According to Jenks (2012: 402), (un)supportive behaviour “is deter-
mined by the norms, expectations and interactional and institutional goals of
the communicative context”. In the absence of face-to-face contact and clear
communicative goals, participants appear more willing to violate established
communicative norms and expectations. The study is important in that it high-
lights the influence the communicative setting can have on the nature of the
communication and the need to extend ELF empirical research to a wider range
of settings.
4 Conclusion
Applying CA to ELF data provides insights into ELF in action: the kinds of inter-
actional work participants engage in and the types of practices and methods
relied on to jointly construct talk that is meaningful and gets the work done.
Detailed analyses of naturally-occurring ELF spoken interaction that are based
on participant orientations evidence the communicative competence of partici-
pants as they deploy common practices to negotiate the variability and diversity
inherent in the ELF context of use. While the form of ELF is variable, fluid and
flexible, participants display a great deal of consistency and regularity in the
way they apply various interactional practices to successfully construct talk in
English.
Findings from CA-based ELF research are consistent with and support the
findings of studies employing other research frameworks, such as corpus lin-
guistics, to investigate the use of English in lingua franca contexts. CA, as
evidenced by the increasing number of studies adopting the framework in its
study of ELF, is certainly well suited for the study of non-native speaker inter-
action in spite of earlier reservations. To provide for a deeper understanding of
ELF use, however, future research will need to expand its investigations to
include a wider range of settings and situations. There is much more to be un-
covered about how users of English in different lingua franca contexts commu-
nicate and CA is well poised to contribute to furthering this research agenda.
References
Cogo, Alessia. 2009. Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic
strategies. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies
and findings, 254–273. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cogo, Alessia. 2012. English as a lingua franca: Concepts, use, and implications. ELT Journal
66(1). 97–105.
Firth, Alan. 1990. ‘Lingua franca’ negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World
Englishes 9(3). 269–280.
Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and
Firth, Alan. 2009. The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2). 147–170.
Firth, Alan. 2012. Conversation analysis and lingua franca. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The ency-
clopedia of applied linguistics, 1043–1047. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gramkow Andersen, Karsten. 1993. Lingua franca discourse: An investigation of the use of
English in an international business context. Aalborg: Aalborg University MA thesis.
Gramkow Andersen, Karsten. 2001. The joint production of conversation. Aalborg: Aalborg Uni-
versity Centre for Languages and Intercultural Studies.
Haegeman, Patricia. 1996. Business English in Flanders: A study of lingua franca telephone
interaction. Ghent: University of Ghent PhD dissertation.
Hutchby, Ian & Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applica-
tion. Oxford: Polity Press.
Jenks, Christopher Joseph. 2012. Doing being reprehensive: Some interactional features of
English as a lingua franca in a chat room. Applied Linguistics 33(4). 386–405.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2009. Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca. In
Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings,
107–125. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2010. Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes
29(2). 192–208.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2011. Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca.
Journal of Pragmatics 43(11). 2704–2715.
Konakahara, Mayu. 2013. Overlapping as an active involvement in ELF interactions: Explicitness
and efficiency. In Kumiko Murata (ed.), WASEDA working papers in ELF (Vol. 2), 40–58.
Waseda ELF Research Group.
Matsumoto, Yumi. 2011. Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential
analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. The Modern Language Journal 95(1).
97–114.
Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca
communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 123–150.
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF. Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cam-
Pietikäinen, Kaisa. 2014. ELF couples and automatic code-switching. Journal of English as a
168 Jagdish Kaur

business context. Vienna English Working Papers 14(2). 50–71. http://anglistik.univie.ac.
at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views0502ALL_new.pdf
(accessed 28 January 2015).
Seedhouse, Paul. 1998. CA and the analysis of foreign language interaction: A reply to Wagner.
Journal of Pragmatics 30(1). 85–102.
Press.
Wagner, Johannes. 1996. Foreign language acquisition through interaction: A critical review of
research on conversational adjustments. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2). 215–235.
Watterson, Matthew. 2008. Repair of non-understanding in English in international communi-
cation. World Englishes 27(3). 378–406.
Wong, Jean & David Olsher. 2000. Reflections on conversation analysis and nonnative speaker
talk: An interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11(1). 111–128.
Wooffitt, Robin. 2005. Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical
introduction. London: Sage.
Section B: Multilingual/-cultural perspectives

and ELF
Zhu Hua
Intercultural Communication and ELF
1 Points of departure, disciplinary affinities and

research agenda
To understand where Intercultural Communication (IC) and ELF converge or
diverge, I shall start with matters that are essential in understanding these
two fields, i.e. how they started in the first place, which disciplines they are
primarily affiliated with, and what their past and current main research agenda is.
IC, as a field of enquiry, is primarily concerned with how people from different
cultural backgrounds interact with each other, and what impact such interactions
have on group relations as well as individuals’ identity, attitude and behaviour.
Since its founding in the post-second-world-war period, IC has witnessed several
noticeable paradigm shifts. It has come a long way from its initial concerns with
national security and associations with organizations such as SIETAR (Society for
Intercultural Education and Training Research) and Peace Corps and with business
education, corporate sponsorship and international market practices in the early
days. Its research agenda has broadened up from a focus on achieving under-
standing and pursuing and promoting common ground cross-culturally to a
more historically situated and politically sensitive examination of perceived
and constructed similarities and differences.
There were two noticeable ‘turns’ in IC research. One was the comparative
culture-as-nationality approach dominant in the 1980s and 90s in which one
culture (used almost synonymously with nationality) is compared with another
using some general constructs (e.g. Hofstede 1991). This approach has been
taken up by many intercultural training materials and is still influential in inter-
national business literature. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the field of
IC has diversified itself and shifted away from the culture-as-nation paradigms.
Noticeable trends include a continued interest in deconstructing cultural differ-
ences and membership, through studies on interculturality (e.g. Sercombe and
Young 2010; Dervin and Risager 2015). Scholars from a number of disciplines
such as sociolinguistics, critical discourse studies, education, ethnicity studies,
communication studies, diaspora studies, etc. have called for a critical examina-
tion of the way larger structures of power (e.g. situated power interest, historical
contextualisation, global shifts and economic conditions) and politicised identities
Zhu Hua, Birkbeck College, University of London

172 Zhu Hua
(e.g. race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, religion, socio-economic class) impact on

intercultural communication (e.g. Nakayama and Halualani 2010; Piller 2011). IC
as a field has many challenges and critiques. The most challenging and funda-
mental issue is the potential problem of circularity and reification in isolating a
situation to study as intercultural communication (Scollon, Scollon, and Jones
2012, and Zhu Hua 2015a for further discussion on this issue).
In contrast, ELF, as a field of study, is relatively new. It has been defined
by Seidlhofer (2011: 7) as “any use of English among speakers of different first
languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often
only option”. It is primarily interested in understanding interactions in English
as a lingua franca among participants with different ‘lingua-cultural’ back-
grounds (Jenkins 2006: 164). With most of its scholars having a firm footing in
applied linguistics, language learning and teaching, intercultural pragmatics or
sociolinguistics, ELF has a relatively clear focus or research agenda. These are:
questioning native speaker authority, understanding the dynamics of ELF usage
and form and function in ELF, and reconceptualising English as an international
language (Seidlhofer 2011). As a young field, ELF is gaining momentum and
presence, in particular with regard to business and academic settings (see the
review in Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011). Meanwhile, it has received its fair
share of critiques, in particular, with regard to the concept and definition of
ELF (e.g. the recent debates in Applied Linguistics, see O’Regan 2014; Widdowson
2014; Baker, Jenkins, and Baird 2014).
2 Points of convergence and collaboration

Whilst IC and ELF differ from each other in points of departure, disciplinary
affinities and research agenda, they share an interest in interaction and commu-
nication among participants from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
In many ways, lingua franca communication is a specific case of intercultural
communication in which participants, with diverse cultural backgrounds, com-
municate in a shared language, i.e. English. Both Canagarajah (2013) and Baker
(2015), for example, have argued that ELF is intercultural. Below, I shall discuss
four (interrelated) areas where I believe ELF and IC converge and collaborate,
drawing from my own encounters with ELF as an applied linguist working
mainly in the field of intercultural communication and multilingualism.
The first area is the conceptual position taken up by ELF researchers on the
legitimacy of ELF. ELF research does not measure language use against a native
speaker’s norm (e.g. Seidlhofer 2001, 2011). It treats the linguistic output of non-
native speakers as legitimate language use, not as an unfinished product. It has
been demonstrated that ELF speakers tend to focus on efficiency, relevance, and
economy of learning (Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011) rather than native-like
correctness. Existing research evidence feeds into the critical debates over who
the so-called ‘native speaker’ is, the nature of the second language user (e.g.
Cook 2002) and the role of ‘authentic’ language and ‘native speaker’ model in
language teaching (e.g. Kramsch 1998; Widdowson 2003; Davies 2004). The ELF
position on delinking the native speaker norm and language use is not only
liberating but also conducive in understanding problems in intercultural com-
munication. Many non-native speakers have internalised the belief that the
native speaker English is the ideal and desirable model for language learning
and feel frustrated by their inability to express their ideas in the way ‘native
speakers’ do (Seidlhofer 2001; Jenkins 2006). In fact, ELF studies help to reveal
that part of the problems in everyday social interaction involving speakers of
different lingua-cultural backgrounds lie in native English speakers’ inability to
accommodate their communication strategies towards non-native speakers of
English. In my work with Emma Sweeney (Sweeney and Zhu 2010), we found
that although native speakers use a wider range of communication strategies
(e.g. more non-conventionally indirect strategies), they are only partially success-
ful in accommodating non-natives speakers. Accommodative moves are not used
consistently and sometimes accommodation on one level resulted in divergence
on another level. When probed later about potential intercultural communication
problems, native English speakers’ responses indicated a general awareness of
the need to adjust one’s language for non-native speakers, but many of them
either underestimated the extent of the problems or lacked the tools they
needed to accommodate effectively.
The second area of convergence and collaboration between the two fields is
exploring how participants with differing lingua-cultural backgrounds negotiate
meaning in intercultural encounters. In general terms, IC focuses more on mis-
or non-understanding and ELF on understanding (cf. Pitzl 2005). ELF studies
have demonstrated heterogeneous yet cooperative nature of lingua franca
communication. Participants speak the shared language with different degrees
of proficiency and varied contextual knowledge. But despite its “heightened
variability” (Dewey 2009) and “inherent fluidity” (Seidlhofer 2009a: 240), partic-
ipants get on with interactions: they possess “an extraordinary ability to make
sense in situ” (Firth 1996: 256), pay attention to the “ad hoc, situated negotiation
of meaning” (Seidlhofer 2009a: 242), focus on communicative efficiency rather
than linguistic accuracy (Ehrenreich 2010), and are prepared to accept ambiguity
and arbitrary solutions among participants in informal talks (Meierkord and
Knapp 2002). The studies along this line have been helpful in uncovering features
of intercultural interactions which have been very much under-researched.
174 Zhu Hua
Earlier IC studies have identified several factors contributing to misunderstand-

ing including mismatch in contextualisation and framing (e.g. Gumperz 1992),
differences in conversation style (e.g. Bailey 1997), pragmatic mismatch (e.g.
Thomas 1983), differences in point-making style (e.g. Garcez 1993), among others.
Recently, Roberts and her colleagues (Roberts 2011; Roberts and Campbell 2006)
have argued that ineffective intercultural communication is not due to ethnicity
per se, but sometimes caused by lack of awareness of professional and institu-
tional discourse as well as lack of socialisation into the norms and assumptions
of this activity. This new line of investigation complements the ELF findings on
the dynamics of interactions and questions the focus on misunderstanding or
non-understanding which has been taken for granted in IC early research.
In addition, the extraordinary resourcefulness of the non-native speakers
demonstrated through ELF research and the latest research in IC itself challenge
the founding principles of IC research and raise new questions about norms
of communication. IC was founded on two assumptions: a) culture impacts on
behaviour and b) problems in communication between people from different
cultural backgrounds are often, if not all the time, caused by cultural differences
(otherwise known as a cultural account approach). It, therefore, begs the ques-
tions: to what extent the problems people encounter in so-called intercultural
interactions are ‘cultural’, and whether the notion of (cultural) communicative
norms is still relevant and for whom (researchers or participants themselves)?
Above all, it raises the questions of what culture is and whether the way it
is used in IC and ELF is valid. This is the third area where IC and ELF research
converge.
Culture is used frequently in everyday life as if its meaning is shared and
undisputed. But within academic enquiries, the term is one of the most con-
tentious and controversial. Throughout the history of IC studies, how culture is
defined is closely associated with the important paradigmatic shifts as discussed
at the beginning of the chapter. For example, the ‘compositional approach’
defines culture as a collection of things such as knowledge, experience, beliefs,
values, attitudes, etc., shared by a group of people which ties with the culture as
nationality approach (a selection of examples can be found in Zhu 2014); the
interpretive approach goes for a semiotic ‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973) in
uncovering what culture is; the action approach argues that culture is not an
entity, but an active process of meaning-making and discovering (Street 1993:
25); and the critical approach sees culture as power and ideological struggle
(e.g. Halualani and Nakayama 2010; Piller 2011). Recently, Canagarajah (2013:
207) has identified differences between modernist and postmodernist approaches
to culture. He proposes that for the modernist, culture is objective, primordial,
homogeneous, closed, essentialist, deterministic, centered, self-contained, pure,
separated, and native, while for the postmodernist, culture is reflexive/relative,

constructed, conflictual, emergent, plural, negotiated, fluid, dispersed, mixed,
in contact, and performed.
To find a way of getting around the contentious nature of the notion of
culture, alternative concepts have been used or made available. As Atkinson
and Sohn (2013: 670) point out, “notions like discourse, power, agency, habitus,
ideology, small cultures, critical multi-culturalism and identity have served not
just as tools to critique the culture concept, but also to indicate some of what
culture was originally intended to describe, although presumably in more valid
and non-discriminatory ways”. Another approach is to problematise the term
culture, a point well-argued in Belcher and Nelson (2013: 6) when they assert
that culture only becomes a concept of value “when it is probed, problematized,
and decoupled from overgeneralisations about ethnicities and languages”.
These two approaches typify the recent debates within IC and ELF on the issue
of culture. Some researchers have argued that lingua franca communication
is free of the culture typically associated with the language in the sense that
lingua franca is a “mere tool bereft of collective cultural capital” (House 2003:
560). For ELF researchers such as Baker (2009), culture is pertinent, complex
and fluid and should be “conceived as liminal, emergent resources that are in a
constant state of fluidity and flux between local and global references, creating
new practices and forms in each instance of intercultural communication”
(Baker 2009: 568). For scholars following the Interculturality approach (see Zhu
Hua 2014, 2015a), aspects of cultural identities can be made relevant or irrele-
vant to interactions through the interplay of language use and social relation-
ship. The key is to negotiate the degree of alignment between self-oriented and
other-ascribed identities.
It is the very notion of negotiation that brought IC and ELF together – the
fourth area of convergence. Researchers from both fields have come to consensus
that negotiation is key to intercultural or lingua franca communication. Cogo
(2010) argues that the norms in ELF are neither pre-established nor exonorma-
tively imposed. Instead, they are “negotiated by its users (mutual engagement)
for specific purposes (joint enterprise) by making use of members’ lingua-
cultural resources (shared repertoire)” (Cogo 2010: 296). The work on the use of
idiomatic expressions by Seidlhofer (2009b) and Pitzl (2009, 2012) offers examples
of how negotiation provides a mechanism for participants to make sense of
expressions that do not conform to conventional native-speaker idiomatic usage
and, at the same time, to co-construct new and temporary idiomatic expressions.
In my recent work (Zhu Hua 2015b), I have argued along similar lines that nego-
tiation of cultural frames of reference and identity is the key means of engage-
ment in intercultural and lingua franca communication, given the variability in
176 Zhu Hua
discourse, heterogeneity in linguistic and cultural backgrounds and uncertainty

in frames of references.
To conclude, I have presented four areas where I believe IC and ELF con-
verge, complement or challenge each other. The special issue edited by Susanne
Ehrenreich and Marie-Luise Pitzl (2015) is the latest attempt to explore links
and points connections between these in IC and ELF. In recent years, both IC
and ELF scholars have begun to turn their attention to the role of power and
inequality in communication (e.g. Guido 2008, 2012; Piller, 2011). As Baker
(2015: 37) puts it: “Communication, including intercultural communication and
ELF, is never neutral; there are always participants, purposes, contexts and
language choices, none of which are neutral and all of which involve negation
and power relationships”. Anecdotally, in the recent AILA World Congress 2014
held in Brisbane Australia, I was very much struck by power issues in high-
stakes interactions discussed in the colloquium organised by Barbara Seidlhofer
on the theme of Rethinking ‘English in high-stakes encounters: The significance of
English as a lingua franca. I was nicely surprised to find Barbara Seidlhofer and
Henry Widdowson among the audience of the colloquium jointly organised by
Claire Kramsch and myself on the theme of Symbolic power and conversational
inequality in intercultural communication. Another area of convergence in the
future perhaps?
References
Atkinson, Dwight & Jija Sohn. 2013. Culture from the bottom up. TESOL Quarterly 47(4). 669–
693.
Bailey, Benjamin. 1997. Communication of respect in interethnic service encounters. Language
in Society 26(3). 327–56.
Baker, Will. 2009. The cultures of English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 43(4). 567–592.
Baker, Will. 2015. Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Baker, Will, Jennifer Jenkins & Robert Baird. 2014. ELF researchers take issue with ‘English as a
lingua franca: An immanent critique’. Applied Linguistics 36(1). 121–123.
Belcher, Diane & Gayle Nelson. 2013. Why intercultural rhetoric needs critical and corpus-
based approaches: An introduction. In Diane Belcher & Gayle Nelson (eds.), Critical and
corpus based approaches to intercultural rhetoric, 1–6. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013. From intercultural rhetoric to cosmopolitan practice: Addressing
new challenges in lingua franca English. In Diane Belcher & Gayle Nelson (eds.), Critical
and corpus based approaches to intercultural rhetoric, 203–226. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Cogo, Alessia. 2010. Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznań
Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46(3). 295–312.
Cook, Vivian (ed.). 2002. Portraits of the L2 User. Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Davies, Alan. 2004. The native speaker in applied linguistics. In Alan Davies & Catherine Elder
(eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics, 431–450. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dervin, Fred & Karen Risager (eds.). 2015. Researching identity and interculturality. London:
Routledge.
Dewey, Martin. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implica-
tions. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and
findings, 60–83. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Ehrenreich, Susanne. 2010. English as a business lingua franca in a German multinational
corporation: Meeting the challenge. Journal of Business Communication 47(4). 408–431.
Ehrenreich, Susanne & Marie-Luise Pitzl (eds.). 2015. Teaching ELF, BELF, and/or intercultural
communication. [Special issue]. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1).
Firth, Alan. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘Lingua Franca’ English and
Garcez, Pedro D. M. 1993. Point-making styles in cross-cultural business negotiation: A micro-
ethnographic study. English for Specific Purposes 12(2). 103–120.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. London: Hutchinson.
Guido, Maria G. 2008. English as a lingua franca in cross-cultural immigration domains. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Guido, Maria G. 2012. ELF authentication and accommodation strategies in crosscultural immi-
gration encounters. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2). 219–240.
Gumperz, John. 1992. Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles
Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon, 229–252.
Halualani, Rona. T. & Thomas K. Nakayama. 2010. Critical intercultural communication studies:
At a crossroads. In Thomas K. Nakayama & Rona T. Halualani (eds.), The handbook of
critical intercultural communication, 1–16. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hofstede, Geert. 1991. Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
House, Juliane. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Socio-
linguistics 7(4). 556–578.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a
lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 157–181.
Kramsch, Claire. 1998. The privileges of the intercultural speaker. In Mike Byram & Mike
Fleming (eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama
and ethnography, 16–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meierkord, Christiane & Karlfried Knapp. 2002. Approaching lingua franca communication.
In Karlfried Knapp & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua franca communication, 9–28.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Nakayama, Thomas K. & Rona T. Halualani. (eds.). 2010. The handbook of critical intercultural
communication. Malden, MA.: Wiley-Blackwell.
O’Regan, John. 2014. English as a lingua franca: An immanent critique. Applied Linguistics
35(5). 533–552.
Piller, Ingrid. 2011. Intercultural communication: A critical introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
178 Zhu Hua

business context. Vienna English Working Papers 14(2). 50–71. httpsː//anglistik.univie.
ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views0502ALL_new.
pdf (accessed 7 July 2015).
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2009. ‘We should not wake up any dogs’: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In
298–322. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2012. Creativity meets convention: idiom variation and re-metaphorization in
Roberts, Celia. 2011. Institutional discourse. In James Simpson (ed.), The Routledge handbook
of Applied Linguistics, 81–95. London: Routledge.
Roberts, Celia. & Sarah Campbell. 2006. Talk on trial. Job interviews, Language and ethnicity.
Research report for Department for Work and Pensions. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.
gov.uk/20130128102031/http:/research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/summ2005–2006/
344summ.pdf (accessed 7 July 2015).
Scollon, Ron, Susan W. Scollon & Rodney H. Jones. 2012. Intercultural communication. A dis-
course approach, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009a. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009b. Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua
franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2). 195–216. [Special issue] on The pragmatics of
English as a Lingua Franca, Juliane House (ed.).
Press.
Sercombe, Peter & Tony Young (eds.). 2010. Communication, discourses and interculturality.
[Special issue]. Language and Intercultural Communication 11(3).
Street, Brian. 1993. Culture is a verb: Anthropological aspects of language and cultural pro-
cess. In David Graddol, Linda Thompson & Mike Byram (eds.), Language and culture,
23–43. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sweeney, Emma & Hua Zhu. 2010. Accommodating toward your audience. Do native speakers
of English know how to accommodate their communication strategies toward non-native
speakers of English? Journal of Business Communication 47(4). 477–504.
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4(2). 91–112.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2014. Contradiction and conviction. A reaction to O’Regan. Applied Lin-
guistics 36(1). 124–127.
Zhu, Hua. 2014. Exploring intercultural communication: Language in action. London: Routledge.
Zhu, Hua. 2015a. Interculturality: Reconceptualising cultural memberships and identities. In
Fred Dervin & Karen Risager (eds.), Researching identity and interculturality, 109–124.
London: Routledge.
Zhu, Hua. 2015b. Negotiation as the way of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca
communication: Frames of reference and interculturality. Journal of English as Lingua
Franca 4(1). 63–90.
Claire Kramsch
Multilingual identity and ELF
Foreign language teachers like myself, who teach languages other than English,
are ambivalent towards English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). On the one hand, I
wouldn’t be writing these words in English if I couldn’t count on many of my
readers having learned English and using it as a lingua franca. I wouldn’t even
know the significance of ELF if I had not learned enough English myself to read
what Barbara Seidlhofer wrote about it in her many eloquent writings in English
on the topic (e.g., Seidlhofer 2011). On the other hand I wouldn’t appreciate
Barbara’s friendship if we could not speak German with one another and if we
didn’t share similar multilingual identities. This essay is an attempt to come to
grips with the paradoxes of the multilingual and the ELF condition.
1 From English-as-a-native-language to English-

as-a-lingua-franca
In Lost in translation (1989), when the Polish immigrant Eva Hoffman, then a
graduate student at Harvard, falls in love with Tom, an American student from
Texas, she is seduced by his English and by his native way of talking. “This is
one of Tom’s solos”, she writes,
his riff – that all-American form, the shape that language takes when it’s not held down by
codes of class, or rules of mannerliness, or a common repertory of inherited phrases. [. . .]
Tom invents himself with every phrase, for every phrase is a surprise to himself; he
swerves into digressions that go on forever, conducts whole jam sessions with himself,
sparks off metaphors as if they were encoded in his chromosomes. [. . .] This is America,
where anything is possible, and this slip-and-slide speech, like jazz, or action painting, is
the insertion of the self into the space of borderless possibility (Hoffman 1989: 218–219).
Clearly, the English of a native speaker, that she sees inscribed in Tom’s
genes, is here imbued with mythical dimensions associated with all the stereo-
types about America as the land of wide open spaces and endless possibilities.
Eva finds in these new spaces a way of escaping the boundaries of her Polish
language and culture and the other languages she has learned along the way:
French, Russian, Yiddish. American English is the language that embodies all
Claire Kramsch, University of California, Berkeley

180 Claire Kramsch
her adolescent dreams of freedom and power – not her educated Polish, nor her
ability to speak several languages. The scene she describes is set in the early
seventies, the height of modernity. American or British English was the key to
success.
Today, even though Tom could still make Polish girls swoon over his native
riff, most learners of English want to enter into contact and connect with multi-
ple native and non-native ‘friends’ on Facebook and Twitter and are less keen on
imitating Tom’s native speech. English as a native language (ENL) has become
much less relevant to the overwhelming majority of English speakers in the
world for whom English is not a native language but a lingua franca (ELF).
And the tireless efforts by Seidlhofer (2001, 2004), Brutt-Griffler (2002), Jenkins
(2007), Seidlhofer and Widdowson (2009), Pitzl (2010) and many others to have
that reality acknowledged and responded to by English language educators
have done an immense service to the profession. Some, like Canagarajah, have
even seen in ELF a shift toward a more cosmopolitan attitude.
Much more than the community affiliations that separate them, people in late-modernity
are influenced by the common global interests that interconnect them. The term [. . .]
cosmopolitanism captures the new negotiations taking place between people. It helps us
focus on connections, not just differences; multilayered affiliations, not unidimensional
identities; and contact rather than community [. . .] Cosmopolitanism [helps] us move
beyond the restrictive starting point based on bounded communities to focus on multi-
faceted and polyvalent negotiations in the interstices of groups and institutions (Canagarajah
2013: 212).
Here we find the lure of the open frontier and the limitless opportunities it
seems to offer.
For both ENL and ELF learners, there is an element of subversion associated
with English, a need to escape social, cultural, and institutional constraints, not
necessarily to join a community with established traditions, nor even an estab-
lished social group, but to find new individual freedoms and new sources of
creativity. After all, Eva Hoffman was inspired to become a writer in English,
she lectures in English and has settled in London, not Cracow. While English
in modern times could make you fall in love with a Brit or an American, and
possibly settle down in the UK or the US, English as a lingua franca is not
attached to any particular place. It can enable you to fill your address book
with hundreds of ‘friends’ and contacts, to travel around the world, to affiliate
yourself with many different people and have the exhilarating feeling of living
as a cosmopolitan at the planetary level.
Thus English offers two different kinds of high, indeed, two different ways of
being multilingual. In the first case, the sexiness of the foreign, the desire of the
Other as Other and the thrill at passing for one of “them” (Kramsch 2009b:
Ch. 3). In the second case, the attraction of wide open spaces – geographical
spaces, cyberspaces, the desire to conquer them and to negotiate ways of popu-
lating them. It is tempting to see in ELF the actualization on a global scale of the
myth of what Leo Marx called The machine in the garden (Marx 1964). In the
same way as English embodied the European dream of a transatlantic North
American Garden of Eden to be populated and exploited through modern tech-
nology, so does English as a lingua franca embody the world’s dream of global
commerce, connectivity, and co-constructed identities to be realized through
internet technology. Similar dreams, and similar (post)colonialist ambitions, but
with different results.
Lingua franca English has led to a removal of the English native speaker
model. We are all multilinguals now. We speak many different Englishes depend-
ing on whom we affiliate ourselves with, whom we want to please and what we
want to talk about: variation, diversity, multiplicity, change. But the greater the
linguistic diversity, the greater the need for some sort of English as a lingua
franca. It is said that ELF is a flexible form of a global language that can express
all local realities (Widdowson 1994), but some have suggested a division of
labor. Werner Hüllen (1992) and Edmondson and House (1998) have argued that
English should remain the language of science, commerce and industry, while
other languages should retain their specificity for culture, tradition, and history.
But what about the language of politics? ELF nowadays is used not only by
nation-builders with democratic ideals but has become also the language of
international terrorists and global jihadists. Does English only represent liberal
democratic values, with their focus on democratic dialogue and negotiation, or
does it also express other political values, such as the French republican demo-
cratic values, the Russian Christian orthodox values, or Arabic Islamic values,
that cannot be easily “negotiated”? Shouldn’t one be able to speak or read
French, Russian and Arabic to really understand those different political uni-
verses? Indeed, ELF provides contacts, connections, alignments and affiliations,
collaborations, support, solidarity, but it can only bring people together and
provide a forum for the negotiation to come. The people, then, have to go
through the laborious task of disentangling the linguistic symbols that divide
them. As Mary Louise Pratt writes, citing Clifford Geertz: “The path to appre-
hending the cultural imagination of another people [. . .] runs not behind the
interfering glosses that connect us to it, but through them” (Pratt 2002: 30). I
want to take as an example of this process a multilingual research project that
used another lingua franca, French, and the challenges and opportunities it
offered the researchers.
182 Claire Kramsch
2 An example: Lingua franca and plurilingual

identities in a research team
In 2002, a research project conceived by Geneviève Zarate from the Institut
National des Langues et des Cultures Orientales in Paris, Danièle Lévy from the
Universitá de Macerata in Italy, and myself set out to explore the multilingual
dimensions of the teaching and learning of foreign languages in various parts
of the world (Zarate, Lévy, and Kramsch 2008). It brought together some 90
researchers from 60 different institutions in 20 countries to research multi-
lingualism . . . multilingually. The lingua franca of the group was French, but
the group members’ command of the French language varied enormously, and
a great deal of informal translation went on at our meetings among researchers
who used all the multilingual resources available among them to negotiate the
meaning of the concepts under discussion. What did the French speakers mean
by acteur social, métissage, what did the English speakers mean by agency,
hybridity? After the initial illusion that having a common lingua franca would
solve all our problems, if only we were willing to explain, paraphrase and trans-
late from one code to another, some of us came to realize that there was a whole
world of silent presuppositions, taken-for-granted assumptions among us that
were all the more untranslatable as we did not even suspect that they needed
to be translated. A continuum of identifications, emotional attachments, historic
resonances, loyalties and allegiances, experiential memories and aspirations,
condensation symbols and stereotypes came to the fore. They required an
unusual amount of reflexivity among researchers. We were acutely reminded of
Bourdieu’s statement: “The implementation of the principle of reflexivity is one
of the most efficient ways to put into practice the internationalism that science
presupposes and promotes” (Bourdieu 1993: 264).
On a practical level, French as a Lingua Franca (FLF) made a knowledge of
several languages unnecessary; it obviated the need to engage in intercultural
communication. As House and Edmondson once said, intercultural competence
is superfluous, since a lingua franca enables people to negotiate meanings and
come to a consensus “for all practical purposes” as to how a common task is
to be done on the basis of necessary and sufficient mutual understanding
(Edmondson and House 1998). In the case at hand, FLF, spoken with different
accents, grammars and vocabularies, served a crucial role. Without FLF, this
project would have never come to light. But without our various plurilingual
identities there would have been no project. A deeper understanding of issues
and definition of tasks (not only what and how, but also why and what for?)
required a multiperspectival approach that FLF could not alone provide. In
particular it required a more indepth comparative grasp of one language as

seen from the perspective of another (e.g., understanding Engl. agency from the
perspective of Fr. acteur social, grasping Fr. republican democracy through the
lens of Engl. liberal democracy, see Kramsch 2009a). It required putting oneself
in another person’s shoes and for that no one was in a better position than any
other: native speakers because they underestimated the sociohistorical relativity
of their words, speakers of FLF because they believed a lingua franca to be,
by definition, universal. Both kinds of speakers risked not being able to even
imagine what it was that the other might not understand.
The team decided to accept an offer to have the Précis du Plurilinguisme et
du Pluriculturalisme translated into Chinese by Fu Rong from the University of
Foreign Studies in Beijing and his team of outstanding translators. A meeting
between the French and the Chinese teams, again using French as a lingua
franca, brought to discussion the same kind of linguistic and philosophical chal-
lenges we had encountered originally, but with added political and ideological
dimensions (Zarate, Gohard-Radenkovic, and Fu Rong 2015)
For example, the two teams had to struggle with how certain terms, like
diaspora transnationale and voix/contrevoix should be translated. The first
referred to ethnic groups living abroad, the second to the final section of each
chapter that presented pro and contra arguments on the theme of the chapter.
These two terms were readily translatable as 跨国移居 kuaguoyiju or ‘national
groups residing abroad’ and 正调-反调 zhengdiao-fandiao or ‘polyphony’ respec-
tively. But such translations glossed over the political debates over whether dia-
spora Chinese, say in Australia, are Australian or part of a Chinese ‘national
group’, and they avoided the problem of Western dichotomous thinking (voice/
countervoice) vs. Chinese preference for plurality (polyphony). Similarly, the
French term politiques de littéracie (‘literacy policies’) that is already an American
transplant into French got translated into Chinese as 扫盲教育政策 saomang-
jiaoyuzhengce or ‘education of the people in reading, writing, and arithmetic’,
thereby losing some of its policy-related connotations. And the concept of
mobilité so dear to Europeans got translated into Chinese as 大学生国际校际交流
daxueshengguojixiaojijiaoliu or ‘interuniversity student exchanges’ to clearly
demarcate it from other mobilities, such as that of vagabonds and other
vagrants from poor backgrounds roaming the Chinese countryside. Finally the
Chinese researchers settled for a scientifically legitimate and politically neutral
title for the book itself. The title Précis du plurilinguisme et du pluriculturalisme
was translated as 多语言和多文化思想概论 duoyuyan he duowenhuasixianggai-
lun or ‘Introduction to the ideas of linguistic and cultural plurality’ which
allowed the Chinese to be at once faithful to the French original and to distance
184 Claire Kramsch
themselves from it by reporting on “ideas”, i.e., thoughts and reflexions, that

were distinctly born elsewhere.
What this example of French as a lingua franca shows is that it is not
the lingua franca itself that enables people to collaborate and to come to a
negotiated consensus on the best way to solve a common task. What often seems
to be due to the use of a common code, e.g. ELF, comes in fact from common
ways of conceptualizing issues or a common logic of inquiry acquired by speakers
of English who have been educated and trained at anglosaxon universities in
the UK, the U.S., Australia or New Zealand, or who have been in contact with
researchers from those universities, and who therefore share a common way of
conducting research. When this common experience does not exist, as in the
case of the multilingual team of researchers mentioned above, the lingua franca
can only serve to flag the incompatibilities, highlight the challenges, and
increase the urgent need of dialogue. But this dialogue has to grapple with the
arduous disentanglement of multiple languages, including the lingua franca
itself. As the two research teams observed: “It is not because two languages
could be considered close to one another, as are French and English, or belong-
ing to the same linguistic family, that the cultural and conceptual universes they
vehiculate are necessarily close. They may on the contrary prove to be very dis-
tant in the way they ‘cut up reality’” (Zarate, Gohard-Radenkovic, and Fu Rong
2015: 269). Without the need to identify what was amenable to transposition,
translation and appropriation and what needed to remain untransposable or
untranslatable, what could be bridged and what could not, this team would not
have been able to capture the conceptual mediation and re-mediation processes
necessary not only to work in multilingual research teams but to conduct new
and innovative scientific research.
3 The symbiotic relationship of multilingualism

and ELF
If a lingua franca is “a language used for communication between two or more
groups that have different native languages” (OED), by definition English as
a lingua franca cannot exist without the other languages from which it draws,
including English as a native language. ELF can provide individuals a stage for
negotiation, but it alone cannot provide long-term commitment. Without the
emotions/empathy that goes with a deeper understanding, negotiation risks
becoming a struggle for power and influence, competition or popularity contest.
Long term commitment can only come from investment both in individual success
and in the success of others. Between the capacity that ELF offers individuals to
make connections, enter into multilayered affiliations and acquire multidimen-
sional identities, and the commitment to others evidenced through the struggle
with their language and with the worldviews expressed through that language,
there is a remarkable symbiotic relationship between ELF and multilingualism.
Call that relationship the “habits of the heart” of our global era. As Bellah et al.,
following de Tocqueville (1969 [1835]: 287), considered individualism and com-
mitment to be the two contradictory, and yet complementary habits of the heart
of American life (Bellah et al. 1985), so we could say that ELF and a multilingual
identity come from the same habit of the heart. Both try and connect people
who speak different languages and lead to their peaceful coexistence. But with-
out multilingualism, ELF risks remaining a tool for individual survival and
advancement; without ELF multilingualism might remain a scattered polyglottism
of the elites. Together they can be seen as the necessary complement to one
another in our era of globalization.
References
Bellah, Robert, Richard Madsen, William Sullivan, Ann Swidler & Steven Tipton. 1985. Habits
of the heart. Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. Concluding remarks: For a sociogenetic understanding of intellectual
works. In Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma & Moishe Postone (eds.), Bourdieu. Critical per-
spectives, 263–275. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. World English. A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013. From intercultural rhetoric to cosmopolitan practice: Addressing
new challenges in Lingua Franca English. In Diane Belcher & Gayle Nelson (eds.), Critical
and corpus-based approaches to intercultural rhetoric, 203–226. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Edmondson, Willis & Juliane House. 1998. Interkulturelles lernen: Ein überflüssiger Begriff.
Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 9(2). 161–188.
Hoffman, Eva. 1989. Lost in translation. A life in a new language. New York: Penguin.
Hüllen, Werner. 1992. Interkulturelle Kommunikation – was ist das eigentlich? Der fremdsprach-
liche Unterricht 26(7). 8–11.
sity Press.
Kramsch, Claire. 2009a. La circulation transfrontalière des valeurs dans un projet de recherche
international. Le Francais dans le Monde 46. 66–75.
Kramsch, Claire. 2009b. The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marx, Leo. 1964. The machine in the garden. Technology and the pastoral ideal in America.
186 Claire Kramsch
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2010. English as a lingua franca in international business: Resolving mis-
communication and reaching shared understanding. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller.
Pratt, Mary Louise. 2002. The traffic in meaning: Translation, contagion, infiltration. Profession.
25–36.
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Henry G. Widdowson. 2009. Conformity and creativity in ELF and learner
English. In Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Sabine Braun & Sylvia Kalina (eds.), Dimensionen der
Zweitsprachenforschung. Dimensions of Second Language Research, 93–107. Tübingen:
Gunter Narr.
de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1969 [1835]. Democracy in America. Translated by George Lawrence, ed.
by Jacob P. Mayer. New York: Harper & Row.
Widdowson, Henry. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2). 377–389.
Zarate, Geneviève, Danièle Lévy & Claire Kramsch (eds./éds.) (2008). Handbook of multilingual-
ism and multiculturalism/ Précis du plurilinguisme et du pluriculturalisme. Paris : Editions
des archives contemporaines.
Zarate, Geneviève, Aline Gohard-Radenkovic & Fu Rong. 2015. Le Précis du plurilinguisme et
du pluriculturalisme: Une recherche internationale face au triple défi d’une conception
plurilingue, d’une édition en français et d’une traduction en anglais et en chinois. In
Jessner Ulrike & Claire Kramsch (eds.), The multilingual challenge. Cross-disciplinary per-
spectives, 239–269. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Juliane House
ELF and translation
ELF and translation are two areas of inquiry which have interested me for the
past decades, so I am trying in this chapter to relate the two. I dedicate this
chapter to my colleague and friend Barbara Seidlhofer, who has done so much
to make the field of ELF research a respectable line of inquiry in the scientific
community.
One of the most influential trends in the use of languages today is the ever-
growing spread of ELF worldwide. This situation has also consequences for the
practice of translation. A recent breakdown by source languages (i.e., languages
from which a translation emanates) by the European Commission’s Directorate-
General for Translation (DGT) (2009) shows that as many as 72.5 % of source
texts translated by the DGT (including those originating outside the Commis-
sion) were drafted in English (by comparison: 11.8% in French, 2.7% in German).
The English texts were frequently written by speakers who are ELF users. Given
this enormous global spread of ELF, one wonders whether this might constitute
a threat to translation. This is however not the case. The very same phenomena
that have caused ELF to grow have also had an enormous influence on transla-
tion. Globalization processes that led to the global presence of ELF use have also
led to a continuing massive increase in translations worldwide. Alongside the
impact of globalization on the world economy, international communication and
politics, translation has also become much more important than ever before.
Information distribution via translation today relies heavily on new tech-
nologies that promote a worldwide translation industry. Translation plays a crucial
and ever-growing role in multilingual news writing for international press net-
works, television channels, the Internet, the World Wide Web, social media,
blogs, Wikis etc. Today, the BBC, Al Jazeera International, Russia Today, Deutsche
Welle, Press TV and many other globally and multilingually operating TV channels
heavily rely on messages to be translated into many different languages. Whenever
information input needs to be quickly disseminated across the world in different
languages, translations are indispensible. Translation is also essential for tourist
information worldwide and information flow in multinational companies, where
ELF is now often replaced by native languages to improve sales potentials.
There is also a growing demand for translation in localization industries.
Software localization covers diverse industrial, commercial and scientific activities
ranging from CD productions, engineering, testing software applications to
Juliane House, Hamburg University

188 Juliane House
managing complex team projects simultaneously in many countries and lan-

guages. Translations are needed in all of these. Indeed, translation is part and
parcel of all worldwide localization and glocalization processes. In order to
make a product available in many different languages it must be localized via
translation. This process is, of course, similar to what I have early on (House
1977) referred to as cultural filtering, an essential practice in one type of transla-
tion which I have called covert translation. Briefly, a covert translation is a trans-
lation which enjoys the status of an original text in the receiving lingua-culture,
and is not marked pragmatically as a translation at all. In order to meet the
special needs of the new addressees, the translator must take different cultural
presuppositions into account and create an equivalent speech event in the target
culture. In order to achieve this, a cultural filter will be applied (cf. also House
2015 for an up-to-date description).
Producing a localized, i.e. culturally filtered and translated, version of a
product is of course essential for opening up new markets for the product in
question, since immediate access to information about a product in a local lan-
guage increases its demand. An important off-shoot is the design of localized
advertising, again involving massive translation activity. Translation can thus
be said to lie at the very heart of the global economy today: it tailors products
to meet the needs of local markets everywhere in processes of glocalization.
Translation is also increasingly propelled by the World Wide Web, whose
development has spread the need for translation into e-commerce globaliza-
tion. And the steady increase of non-English speaking Web users naturally also
boosts translation. Another factor explaining the growing importance of transla-
tion is e-learning. The expansion of digital industries centered around e-learning
and other education forms spread over the Web in many different languages
again shows the intimate link between translation and today’s global economy.
In sum, globalization has led to a veritable explosion of demand for translation.
Translation is therefore not simply a by-product of globalization, but an integral
part of it. Without translation, the global capitalist consumer-oriented and
growth-fixated economy would not be possible. Therefore, we cannot really say
that ELF has threatened the importance of translation.
Not everybody, however, shares this positive assessment between ELF and
translation. For instance, Mary Snell-Hornby, a prominent translation scholar,
deplores “the hazards of translation studies adopting a global language” (Snell-
Hornby 2010: 18). She presents the reader with examples of defective translations
into English reputedly taken from millions of texts “displayed or published world-
wide [. . .] intended to pass as English” (Snell-Hornby 2010: 18). Snell-Hornby
uses the terms “Globish/American/British” (GAB), “Eurospeak”, “McLanguage”
or even “Global English” (used here, idiosyncratically, with a negative connota-
tion) to designate “the reduced, interference-bound system of verbal com-

munication based on a low common denominator of the English code basically
comprehensible to those with some knowledge of English” (Snell-Hornby 2010:
18). While the use of ELF may be acceptable to her in the case of very simple
communication (e.g. SMS, chats, blogs, etc.), according to Snell-Hornby it is
of no use in more sophisticated forms of communication – including those
involved in the publication of scientific knowledge. As English has increasingly
asserted itself in academic circles over the last decades, a need has arisen for
scholarly publications and academic conference presentations to be either
written in English in the first place or translated into English by non-native ELF
speakers. Differences in communicative norms between English and other
languages are likely to be disregarded by academics forced to write in ELF and
translators translating from and into ELF. As a result, according to Snell-Hornby,
texts written and/or delivered by ELF users often fail to comply with standard
lexico-grammatical choices or widely held rhetorical conventions in English,
thus making ELF communication difficult to follow.
As part of her critique of ELF, Snell-Hornby discusses the role the dominance
of ELF plays in conferences and publications. Foremost among the effects of this
dominance is supposed to be the exclusion of many scholars who are not com-
petent enough in ELF from academic discourse. To overcome the “stultifying
effect of immensely complex cultural and linguistic material being monopolized
by a single language” (Snell-Hornby 2010: 19), Snell-Hornby admonishes us to
speak out against this trend by respecting the integrity of speakers of other
languages encouraging them to use their L1.
In a response to Snell-Hornby, I have argued (House 2010) that ELF is never
a defective, but a fully functional means of communication, and that the argu-
ments put forward against ELF come close to an appeal for an outdated pre-
scriptive English native norm. More importantly, the claim that ELF speakers’
written and oral contributions to journals and conferences etc. are ‘exceedingly
difficult’ to follow is not based on empirical research. On the contrary there are
voices in the field of translation studies who explicitly welcome the use of ELF
in translation. For instance, Maria Tymoczko (2005) has placed the rise of ELF at
the centre of the increasing internationalization of the field, which means that
“[e]ver more scholars from developing nations are active in the discipline profes-
sionally, publishing articles and contributing to conferences, as well as teaching
translation in their home countries” (Tymoczko 2005: 1086).
Further, Snell-Hornby’s examples of ‘bad translations’ (e.g. ‘Please bump
your head carefully’ instead of ‘Mind your head’) are for me no valid argument
against the role played by ELF in translation, but simply as evidence of the
incompetence of individual translators!
190 Juliane House
While research on ELF has gone some way towards challenging negative
perceptions of communicative practices involving the use of ELF, translation
scholars (if we take the example of Snell-Hornby), as well as translator trainers
and translation industry players continue to perceive ELF translation as a dubious
form of mediation. At the centre of this stance are the following assumptions,
that non-native speakers of English can never match the output of an English-
native translator, and, by extension, the commonly held position across Euro-
pean universities that translator training programmes should focus on fostering
students’ direct translation skills, i.e. their ability to translate into their mother
tongue. Ultimately, the debate on the professional and academic recognition of
ELF translation has been framed largely in terms of directionality, i.e. direct vs.
inverse translation.
Beeby Lonsdale (2009) explores the complexity of factors that have informed
the debate on directionality practices in translation studies since the 1950s
explaining the relative dearth of translations into a non-mother tongue. Beeby
Lonsdale’s list of factors include the degree of proximity between the lingua-
cultures that trainee translators must learn to mediate; the size of the pool of
professional translators available to work in each direction of certain language
combinations in a given translation market; and, less frequently, idiosyncratic
ideological conditions dictating that official translators should work into a foreign
language – thus assuring the political allegiance of translators responsible for
shaping the international community’s perception of their country through their
translations.
But traditional attitudes towards translation into a non-native tongue have
changed in recent decades through the impact of globalization and the ubiquity
of new communication technologies and, with these, the growing use of ELF as
the most important language of administration, education and business in many
multilingual countries. This new scenario can be said to have been instrumental
in developments that support the generalization of translation by ELF users
into ELF. Among factors facilitating this development are first and foremost the
centrality of processes of economic and cultural globalization and ‘interna-
tionalization’ – understood as generalizing a product so that it can handle
multiple languages and cultural norms, without the need for any change. In
today’s global economy, companies seeking to market their goods and services
globally often start by translating their brochures and websites into English.
Insofar as these texts translated into English are normally intended for interna-
tional consumption, the fact that translators are ELF users is often found to be
negligible.
A large proportion of translation projects in the digital economy are carried
out by teams of professionals under the supervision of a project manager, who
identifies the project’s specific requirements, organizes a project plan, and secures
and manages technological and human resources to successfully complete
and deliver the project. Within these teams, translation into ELF is increasingly
common, as the fact that translation problems can be addressed during the
‘wind-up’ or final stage of the project. The involvement of ELF users as translators
in collective projects involving translations into ELF is particularly frequent in
cases where quality testing involves pragmatic revisions, where the English-
native revisers approach the translation as an independent text assessing only
the extent to which it adheres to target readers’ expectations. There is no accept-
able reason why translators should be restricted to translating only into their L1,
because what we see most frequently in today’s translation scenarios is a team
collaboration of competent ELF professionals and qualified native-speaker lin-
guistic and stylistic advisers, translations into ELF can be just as successful as
those produced by native speakers of the target language.
From a business perspective, we can see that rising translation costs incurred
today by businesses public institutions have prompted some clients to commis-
sion new types of translation that do not require native speaker competence in
the target language. This is the case in the European Commission, where clients
need to state explicitly the purpose that the translation is meant to serve.
Among the five types of translation that clients can choose from (i.e. ‘basic
understanding’, ‘for information’, ‘for publication’, ‘for EU image’, and ‘legisla-
tion’), at least the first two can be competently translated by professionals work-
ing out of their native language into English. As Wagner (2003) argues, such a
distinction should be extended to other professional contexts. In her opinion, an
increased awareness of a purpose-driven approach to the commissioning and
execution of translators would help “to avoid misunderstandings between trans-
lators and their clients” (Wagner 2003: 99).
Over the last two decades, pedagogical advances in the field have tried to
take on board some of these changes. Task-based approaches to translator train-
ing and other student-centred models fostering the development of professional
competences have been particularly instrumental in facilitating the acquisition
of skills required to translate into a non-mother tongue – not least the capacity
to recognize which genres they can translate competently and how to efficiently
prepare for this task (cf. Kelly 2007). Enhancing trainees’ documentation com-
petences through a range of electronic resources to familiarize them with key
lexical, phraseological or generic features of specialized English texts and devel-
oping students’ computer literacy in relevant ways have also emerged as peda-
gogical priorities for trainers of translation into English as a foreign language.
But while translation into ELF has substantially consolidated its presence, the
assumption underpinning the debate on this form of mediation that translators
192 Juliane House
should adhere to the expectations of native-English readers, rather than those of

readers using ELF, is still wide-spread. Much more research needs therefore to
be done in the relation between translation and ELF in the future.
References
Beeby Lonsdale, Alison. 2009. Directionality. In Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha (eds.), Routledge
encyclopedia of translation studies, 2nd edn, 84–88. London & New York: Routledge.
European Commission. 2009. Translating for a multilingual community. Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
House, Juliane. 1977. A model for translation quality assessment. Tübingen: Narr.
House, Juliane. 2010. A case for ‘Globish?’ The Linguist December 2010. 16–17.
House, Juliane. 2015. Translation quality assessment: Past and present. London & New York:
Routledge.
Kelly, Dorothy. 2007. Translator competence contextualized. Translator training in the frame-
work of higher education reform: In search of alignment in curricular design. In Dorothy
Kenny & Kyongjoo Ryou (eds.), Across boundaries: International perspectives on transla-
tion studies, 128–142. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2010. Mind the GAB. The Linguist June/July 2010. 18–19.
Tymoczko, Maria. 2005. Trajectories of research in translation studies. Meta 50(4). 1082–1097.
Wagner, Emma. 2003. Why international organizations need translation theory. In Luis Pérez
González (ed.), Speaking in tongues: Language across contexts and users, 91–102. València:
Universitat de València.
Cornelia Hülmbauer
Multi, pluri, trans. . . and ELF: Lingualisms,
languaging and the current lingua franca
concept
1 Multi
21st century lives are plural lives. They are shaped by and geared towards plurality.
Communication-wise this does not only mean that we are confronted with
an unprecedented range of methods and contexts to transfer messages, but
also that the linguistic resources involved are more diverse than ever. In 2008,
Aronin and Singleton therefore portray multilingualism as “a new linguistic
dispensation”, basing their claim on both the scale and the significance of
the phenomenon in today’s world: “the crucial difference between current and
‘historical’ multilingualism lies in the degree to which multilingualism is or
was integral to the construction of a specific social reality [. . .] whereas vital
societal processes and salient characteristics of contemporary society are in-
separably linked with multilingualism, ‘historical’ multilingualism was typically
supplementary in nature.” (Aronin and Singleton 2008: 12; cf. also Stavans and
Hoffmann 2015: chapter 4, who likewise point to “new multilingualisms”).
The fact that plural language usage cannot be marginalized but that it is
indeed central to globalized contexts is nowadays met with growing acceptance
on a structural and procedural level. Scholars have not been quite as ready to
integrate the new complexities into theoretical concepts however. Acknowledg-
ing multilingualism as such, these concepts have tended to break down the
multiplicity of resources into additive notions of more or less complete language
entities stringed together. In this, language has been either treated as a rela-
tively fixed code among a group of speakers or, if declared private matter, at
least compartmentalized according to ways of acquisition or level of proficiency.
The High Level Group on Multilingualism (2007), for instance, depicts multi-
lingualism as “the ability of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to
engage, on a regular basis, with more than one language in their day-today
lives. In this context, a language is defined neutrally as a variant which a group
ascribes to itself for use as its habitual code of communication” (High Level
Cornelia Hülmbauer, Austrian Academy of Sciences

194 Cornelia Hülmbauer
Group on Multilingualism 2007: 6). Attempting a more differentiated perspective,

Kramsch (2009: 17) gives the following definition:
Under ‘multilingual’ subject, I include people who use more than one language in every-
day life, whether they are learning a foreign or second language in school, or speaking two
or more languages in daily transactions, or writing and publishing in a language that
is not the one they grew up with. In most cases, they will have acquired one or several
languages as a child, and learned the others in various formal or informal settings. They
might not know all these languages equally well, nor speak them equally fluently in all
circumstances. (Kramsch 2009: 17)
While both conceptualizations still stem from a relatively additive perspec-

tive towards multilingualism, the latter already pays tribute to the individual
actor as a carrier of particular linguistic resources. Indeed, providing an over-
view of definitions of multilingualism, Cenoz (2013) points to the recent focus
on the multilingual speaker as tied to the notion of repertoire as an expression
of both an individualized and more holistic approach towards the phenomenon.
2 Pluri
Especially foregrounding the speaker, a distinction has been made by some
scholars, mostly in EU contexts, between multilingualism as referring to the
societal level and plurilingualism as an individual phenomenon. According to
this distinction, plurilingualism “refers to languages not as objects but from the
point of view of those who speak them. It refers to the repertoire of varieties of
language which many individuals use, and is therefore the opposite of mono-
lingualism; it includes the language variety referred to as ‘mother tongue’ or
‘first language’ and any number of other languages or varieties” (Council of
Europe 2007: 8).
What is noticeable here is that, first of all, despite the reference to indi-
viduals’ repertoires and the declared renunciation from the ‘language object’,
the definition stays bound to the idea of languages as codes. At the same time,
it explicitly opens up a second dichotomy, namely of plurilingualism and mono-
lingualism. Also Cenoz (2013) in her summary of different notions of multi-
lingualism tends to concentrate on the difference between monolinguals and
multilinguals: “Multilingual [or, according to the definition above, plurilingual]
speakers, unlike monolinguals, have the possibility of using elements from the
different languages at their disposal” (Cenoz 2013: 12). The rigorousness of this
claim is fundamentally compromised, however, if one considers that it is merely
Lingualisms, languaging and the current lingua franca concept 195
grounded on the rather blurry and in any case artificial lines between what
counts as ‘a language’ and what as ‘a variety’:
Even in the case of so-called monolingualism, a speaker is exposed to many different forms
of his language, and this has undeniable linguistic consequences. For example, a mono-
lingual child exposed to his dialect and also the standard dialect imparted via schooling
will come to have competence in both varieties [. . .] In the case of multilingualism, this
reality is confounded and multiplied. (Rothman and Iverson 2010: 24)
A multiplication of complexity has indeed been observed in communicative

practices. This is why in the last couple of years descriptions of contemporary
language usage have also been related to Vertovec’s (2007) notion of super-
diversity, a diversification of diversity against which conceptualizations of multi-/
plurilingualism involving rigid language categories do not hold (cf. e.g.
Blommaert and Rampton 2011). The individual’s repertoire in this paradigm is
depicted as a fluid set of flexibly combinable resources whose origins or allo-
cations are not of primary relevance. This also calls for a reconsideration of
what counts as language knowledge and proficiency in super-diverse times
(cf. Blommaert and Backus 2011). The notion of a super-diverse repertoire does
not only legitimize the integration and utilization of what has earlier been devalued
as ‘partial knowledge’, thereby resonating earlier, more radical visions of bi-/
multilingualism such as the following: “Everyone is bilingual. In saying this,
I make the assumption that there is no one in the world (no adult, anyway)
who does not know at least a few words in languages other than the maternal
variety” (Edwards 1994: 56). Thinking in terms of repertoires also involves a shift
of perspective away from binary categories such as mono- and multilingualism
towards a continuum of linguistic diversity and an acknowledgement of lan-
guage knowledge and usage as being inherently flexible.
3 Trans
The concept of super-diversity has emerged on the basis of new patterns of
enhanced mobility in society. While the diversification in this notion is initially
triggered by geographical and technological movement, in its consequences we
are experiencing mobility also in terms of linguistic ‘transgressions’. Some of
these might not even be perceived as border crossing, i.e. as a transfer of resources
from an assumed ‘language framework a’ to another ‘language framework b’,
but as a most natural, integrative thing to do in a given communicative context
with the availability of a particular set of resources. Some cases however might
necessitate more deliberate negotiation and appropriation. Constellations of

both actors and resources tend to be unpredictable in globalized contexts and
conventionality is thus not a useful, since often unilateral, category: “while ‘the
other’ used to be relatively well known and rather predictable in earlier migration
patterns, ‘the other’ now has become entirely unpredictable, and little can be
presupposed with respect to the cultural, linguistic and other features of ‘the
Other’” (Blommaert and Backus 2011: 4).
In a super-diverse world, it is not only migration in the traditional sense we
are dealing with, but continuous transit, both in term of actual and virtual
movements. With ‘the other’ in the resulting diversified encounters coming as a
dark horse, it needs special efforts to arrive at meaningful communication. It is
at this point where super-diversity ties in with the notion of cultural translation
(Bhabha 1994) which subsumes processes of dynamic and reciprocal generating
of meaning by actors in diversified environments. Cultural translation proposes
“ein nicht-dichotomisches Übersetzungsmodell [. . .] das keine festen Pole mehr
annimmt, sondern die Wechselseitigkeit des Transfers sowie Zustände des Immer-
schon-Übersetztseins hervorhebt” [a non-dichotomous model of translation which
does not assume fixed poles but which foregrounds the reciprocity of transfer as
well as states of always-already-being-translated]” (Bachmann-Medick 2006: 246;
my translation) and in this sense makes ‘translation’ itself a productive, trans-
formative process. Emerging within super-diverse contexts, the products of such
translatory processes – i.e. particular form-meaning relations – are then just as
ephemeral as the speaker and resource constellations they are based on. While
still partly being associated with primary origins or prior usages, linguistic ele-
ments from the individuals’ repertoires tend to be mobilized in flexible, ever-
changing ways that are much more regulated by the requirements of a particular
situation than by externally-defined structures. Language as a system of signs
is in flux, confronting the actors with moments of transdifference (Breinig and
Lösch 2002), a temporal state of unallocability with elements oscillating between
categories – without completely disregarding these categories however. States
of transdifference are thus considered “als Vorbedingung für einen kreativen
Umgang mit Elementen verschiedener Kulturtraditionen [a precondition for the
creative handling of elements from different cultural traditions]” (Lösch 2005: 39;
my translation) which involves a continuous reinterpretation of these elements.
4 ELF
With a general increase in cultural plurality and subsequent linguistic fluidity,
one tendency seems to stand out as more homogenous than super-diversity
would suggest: “There exists near consensus on two major trends in current
global sociolinguistic developments: 1) the unparalleled spread of the use of

English as an international language; and 2) a remarkable diversification of
languages in use. These two trends are seen to be developing simultaneously
and appear to be in contradiction with each other” (Aronin and Singleton 2008:
3). English as a lingua franca (ELF) has often been treated as a counterpart to
linguistic diversification, the second side of the globalization coin, together
with the ‘Mc Donaldization’ of material and cultural goods. ELF communication
is not a franchising enterprise, however. Neither is it the opposite of multi-
lingualism.
In 2007, Barbara Seidlhofer postulates: “the most crucial concern for [. . .]
English in Europe in the 21st century will be to understand how English func-
tions in relation to other languages” (Seidlhofer 2007: 148). And indeed, while
treating ELF next to English as a foreign language (EFL) and within an Englishes
framework in its beginnings, current ELF research is getting more and more
entangled with multilingualism (cf. e.g. Dorn et al. 2014; Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer
2013; Vettorel 2014) and superdiversity research (cf. e.g. Baird, Baker, and Kitazawa
2014; Cogo 2012). What links ELF to multilingualism is not only shared communica-
tive contexts, but also structural patterns and strategic processes that find parallels
in both phenomena. Just like other diversified forms of encounters, ELF is essen-
tially a “communication of constellations” (Hülmbauer 2013: chapter 4) in the
sense that actors need to cope with unpredictabilities and asymmetries of
resources. First of all, this concerns what Seidlhofer (e.g. 2002, 2009) calls
“unilateral idiomaticity”, i.e. asymmetries that are linked with conventionality.
The unpredictability does not stop at English however, since neither do the
actors’ repertoires. An immediate relevance of plurilingual resources here might
seem counter-intuitive at first glance. After all ELF starts with a capital E, and
the defining aspect of the concept lingua franca is shared language. One has
to consider nevertheless that, given the – also concept-defining – difference in
participants’ lingua-cultural backgrounds, ELF communication represents a site
of language contact. This kind of contact is more complex and productive than
the term itself would lead us to think. According to Seidlhofer, it “is misleading
on two counts. In the first place, languages do not come into contact on their
own accord but only through their users, and then they do not only come into
contact but converge and merge” (Seidlhofer 2011: 112).
These reflections then also tie in with the repertoire approach recently taken
in multilingualism research which focuses on the individual actors and their
flexibly mobilized resources. ELF speakers have been shown to make strategic
use of non-English elements by, for example, integrating them relatively un-
altered into communicative stretches (cf. Klimpfinger 2009; Pietikäinen 2014),
feeding them into creative idiomaticities beyond the conventionality of encoded
languages (cf. Pitzl 2012) or exploiting cognates on a translingual level (cf.

Hülmbauer 2011b).
The DYLAN book, a collected volume emerging from five years’ work in
a European project dedicated to diverse forms of multilingualism (cf. DYLAN
online) in which Barbara Seidlhofer was crucially involved as a team leader of
the transversal ELF research task (cf. DYLAN RT 4.2. online), assembles various
perspectives on the topic. In their conclusion to the book, Berthoud, Grin and
Lüdi (2013) point to six fundamental aspects that crystallized from the project’s
multiplex investigations: 1) doing away with the notion of one-language-at-a-
time, 2) acknowledging that surface monolingualism might still be shaped by
underlying multilingual elements, 3) viewing communication strategies as
complimentary rather than exclusive, 4) considering the concepts of mono- and
multilingualism as the two extreme poles on a continuum, 5) distinguishing
between individual and collective/institutional concepts of multilingualism, 6)
reconceptualising the notion of lingua franca as a flexible communicative mode
rather than a fixed code. It again seems symptomatic that ELF is here integrated
into reflections about multilingualism and at the same time stands out as a
separate point (cf. also Rindler Schjerve and Vetter 2012). This reflects the fact
that lingua franca communication is probably one of the most prominent examples
of our societies’ general tension between stability and variability (cf. Hülmbauer
2011a). While functioning as a means towards coping with diversification, it is
affected by and plays on diversification processes itself – a development that
Rymes summarizes as “diversity principle”: “Massive circulation of language
and messages has not led to homogenization of language and communication,
but to a massive diversification. This is captured in what I call ‘The Diversity
Principle’: The more widely circulated a communicative element is, the more
highly diverse the interactions with it will be” (Rymes 2014: 10, original emphasis).
By inversion of the argument one could also say that the more diversifiable a
communicative element is, the more widely circulated it can be. In any case, as
a lingua franca that is being used on a global scale ELF, with English as a kind
of “open-source code” (Seidlhofer 2012: 404), is flexibly adjusted to varying con-
texts and constellations and integratively related with the whole set of resources
available to the actors in a given situation. Accordingly, Cogo (2012) points to its
connections with super-diversity.
In this understanding, diversity then is not only brought about by mobilities,
it also implies dynamics – in terms of a continuous emergence of constellations,
a fluidity of structures and a forcefully processual moment to language usage. In
other words: “Language is a verb” – a catchphrase Barbara Seidlhofer came up
with while brainstorming in the DYLAN project’s dissemination team – which
multilingualism researchers proper and ELF researchers can definitely agree
on (and which eventually made its way onto the front of one of the postcards
designated to spread the essence of the DYLAN findings to the general public,
cf. DYLAN 2011). ELF research, too, is thus confronted with issues of complexity
(cf. Baird, Baker, and Kitazawa 2014; Larsen-Freeman, this volume) and situa-
tionality (cf. Hülmbauer 2011a), of multifarious communicative manifestations
which as such cannot be pinned down but nevertheless seem to follow inherent
logics and consistencies that are as convincing as they constitute ‘customized’
language in use (cf. also the notion of virtual language by Widdowson, this
volume).
5 Languaging
What we can observe, in the communicative sphere just as in others, are natural
selection, appropriation and thus individualization processes in the face of
plurality. When approaching diversified language use, questions to be asked
cannot refer to separate language units, but need to take a more holistic and
flexible perspective relating to which resources are available, and which are
made relevant in what ways. The concept of “languaging” as it is elaborated on
by Jørgensen (2008) endeavours to pay tribute to these aspects: “Language users
employ whatever linguistic features are at their disposal to achieve their com-
municative aims as best they can, regardless of how well they know the involved
languages; this entails that the language users may know – and use – the fact
that some of the features are perceived by some speakers as not belonging
together” (Jørgensen 2008: 163). What can be observed in this description of
language use is that it neither assumes an externally fixed set of features nor a
predefined notion of competence. Greater or lesser completeness of acquisition
of ‘languages’ does not play a role. On the contrary, the possibility of integrating
bits and pieces regardless of their ‘original’ contexts into unconventional com-
binations and amalgamations is a vital factor of the languaging process, with
the coherence of elements being established online.
Fusing the translingual (or “polylingual”, as Jørgensen calls it) of linguisti-
cally diversified contexts with the processual aspect of language use, then, we
arrive at a perspective of translanguaging from and towards ELF – not in its
more restricted conceptualization of (allowing for) using more than one lan-
guage, mostly in educational contexts, as introduced by Creese and Blacklegde
(2010) or Garcia (2009), but following Li Wei’s (2011) vision of a “translanguag-
ing space”: “It is a space where the process of what Bhabba (1994) calls ‘cultural
translation’ between traditions takes place; it is not a space where different iden-
tities, values and practices simply co-exist, but combine together to generate
new identities, values and practices” (Li Wei 2011: 1223). The translation concept
is applicable here in at least two ways (cf. Hülmbauer 2015), namely as 1) a
languaging process of individuals, i.e. their appropriating of resources for a
particular communicative context, but also as 2) languaging between interac-
tants, i.e. their establishing of common linguistic ground and negotiating mean-
ing. It is thus an approach to cultural elements by which translation at the same
time means interpretation. Meaning construction is thus viewed as a reciprocal,
circulatory process between actors, giving equal weight to language production
and comprehension while not assuming that either the ways of meaning deriva-
tion or the assumptions about a particular sign need to be congruent between
these actors. In translanguaging then also various communicative modes like
lingua franca and lingua receptiva (cf. Rehbein, Ten Thije, and Verschik 2012), as
proposed by Backus et al. (2013) in their notion of “inclusive multilingualism”,
appear to be intertwined rather than activated separately (cf. Hülmbauer 2014).
With hardly any fixed micro-linguistic features to hold on to, but instead
faced with indefinite, multidirectional possibilities of tying elements into mean-
ingful units, translanguaging individuals find themselves embedded in what
seems like post-structural linguistic spheres: “there are many aspects of ELF
that can be said to characterize it as a postmodern phenomenon: it can be
described as a hybrid, fragmented, contingent, marginal, indeterminate use of
language” (Seidlhofer 2011: 75). Indeed, consulting post-structuralist theory, one
does not have to dig deep to find striking parallels with trans-/languaging
phenomena (cf. Hülmbauer 2013: chapter 4). Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987 [1976])
“rhizome”, for example, entails central characteristics that equally apply to ELF:
It refers us to a diversity of non-hierarchized ways of linking, to plurality that
goes beyond singular objects, to breaks and transgressions as something natural
and indeed productive, and to a general decentredness and unencodability.
Phenomena that match such a description are extremely hard to grasp; their
micro-manifestations tend to be both unpredictable and ephemeral in nature.
Considering the discourse of fluidity and transgression running through the
studies on linguistically diversified communication, it thus seems that, all of
a sudden, the basic object of linguistic analysis, ‘the language’, has broken
away: “What constitutes a language, and in particular ‘English as a global
language’, is necessarily a discursive construct in need of deconstruction”
(Seidlhofer 2011: 15; cf. also Widdowson 2012). The friction of ‘languages’ as
artificial categories vis-à-vis real language usage as something fundamentally
more complex is of course nothing new. Nor has it started to be problematic for
analysis only in super-diverse times. In their unprecedented pace and level of
complexity, ELF and other forms of diversified communication just point us
much more forcefully than any linguistic phenomenon before to the ‘rhizomatic’
characteristics that all language usage shares to a greater or lesser extent. They
provide us with the opportunity to fine-tune our analytical perspectives towards
linguistic diversity as a continuum rather than a category, since after all “the use
of features from different sources is something we all do. We just have access
to a smaller or wider range of different sources, and therefore our behaviour
involves less or more varied features. [. . .] The behaviour is fundamentally the
same, we are all languagers” (Jørgensen 2008: 170, 169). Irrespective of the kind
of ‘lingualism’ the linguist is assuming to perceive – be it multi, pluri, trans
or ELF, the languager will probably be best approached as a very individual,
specialized practitioner.
References
Aronin, Larissa & David Singleton. 2008. Multilingualism as a new linguistic dispensation.
International Journal of Multilingualism 5(1). 1–16.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2006. Cultural turns: Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften.
Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Backus, Ad, Durk Gorter, Karlfried Knapp, Rosita Schjerve-Rindler, Jos Swanenberg, Jan D. Ten
Thije & Eva Vetter. 2013. Inclusive multilingualism: Concepts, modes and implications.
European Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(2). 179–215.
Baird, Robert, Will Baker & Mariko Kitazawa. 2014. The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as
a Lingua Franca 3(1). 171–196.
Berthoud, Anne-Claude, Francois Grin & Georges Lüdi. 2013. Conclusion. In Anne-Claude Berthoud,
Francois Grin & Georges Lüdi (eds.), Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism, 429–436.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The location of culture. London: Routledge.
Blommaert, Jan & Ad Backus. 2011. Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity.
Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacy 67. 1–26.
Blommaert, Jan & Ben Rampton. 2011. Language and superdiversity: A position paper. Working
Paper in Urban Language & Literacies 70. 1–22.
Breinig, Helmbrecht & Klaus Lösch. 2002. Introduction: Culture, economy and identity locations –
Representations of difference and transdifference. In Helmbrecht Breinig, Jürgen Gebhardt &
Klaus Lösch (eds.), Multiculturalism in contemporary societies: Perspectives on difference
and transdifference (Reihe A – Erlanger Forschungen 101), 11–36. Erlangen: Universitätsbi-
bliothek Erlangen.
Cenoz, Jasone. 2013. Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33. 3–18.
Cogo, Alessia. 2012. ELF and super-diversity: A case study of ELF multilingual practices from a
business context. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2). 287–313.
Council of Europe. 2007. Guide for the development of language policies in Europe. Executive
version. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Guide07_Executive_20Aug_EN.doc (ac-
cessed 23 March 2015).
Creese, Angela & Adrian Blackledge. 2010. Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A
pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal 94(1). 103–115.
Deleuze, Gilles & Felix Guattari. 1987 [1976]. Rhizome. (transl. by Brian Massumi). In Gilles
Deleuze & Felix Guattari, A thousand plateaus, 3–28. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis
Press.
Dorn, Nora, Martina Rienzner, Brigitta Busch & Anita Santner-Wolfartsberger. 2014. “Here I find
myself to be judged”: ELF/plurilingual perspectives on language analysis for the determi-
nation of origin. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2). 409–424.
DYLAN. 2011. Set of postcards. http://www.dylan-project.org/Dylan_en/dissemination/final/
postcards/postcards.php (accessed 12 January 2015).
DYLAN. online. http://www.dylan-project.org (accessed 12 January 2015).
DYLAN RT 4.2. online. http://dylan.univie.ac.at (accessed 12 January 2015).
Edwards, John. 1994. Multilingualism. London: Penguin.
Garcia, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
High Level Group on Multilingualism. 2007. Final report. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/
lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf (accessed 3 February 2015).
Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2011a. English as a lingua franca (ELF): A mode and its implications. In J.
Normann Jørgensen (ed.), A toolkit for transnational communication in Europe (Copenhagen
Studies in Bilingualism 64), 43–68. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2011b. Old friends? – Cognates in ELF communication. In Alessia Cogo,
Alasdair Archibald & Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Latest trends in ELF research, 139–161. New-
castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2013. The real, the virtual and the plurilingual – English as a lingua
franca in a linguistically diversified Europe. Vienna: University of Vienna PhD dissertation.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2014. A matter of reception – ELF and LaRa compared. Applied Linguistics
Review 5(1). 273–295.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2015. Diversifizierter Sprachgebrauch als translinguales Übersetzen.
Sprache und Literatur 112. 43–53.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2013. English as a lingua franca in European multi-
lingualism. In Anne-Claude Berthoud, Francois Grin & Georges Lüdi (eds.), Exploring the
dynamics of multilingualism, 387–406. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jørgensen, J. Normann. 2008. Polylingual languaging around and among children and adoles-
cents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5(3). 161–176.
Klimpfinger, Theresa. 2009. ‘She’s mixing the two languages together’ – Forms and functions
of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.),
English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 348–371. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cam-
bridge Scholars Press.
Kramsch, Claire. 2009. The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, Wei. 2011. Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities
by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics 43(5). 1222–1235.
Lösch, Klaus. 2005. Begriff und Phänomen der Transdifferenz: Zur Infragestellung binärer
Differenzkonstrukte. In Lars Allolio-Näcke, Britta Kalscheuer & Arne Manzeschke (eds.),
Differenzen anders denken. Bausteine zu einer Kulturtheorie der Transdifferenz, 26–49.
Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
Pietikäinen, Kaisa. 2014. ELF couples and automatic code-switching. Journal of English as a
ELF. Journal of English as a lingua franca 1(1). 27–55.
Rehbein, Jochen, Jan D. Ten Thije & Anna Verschik. 2012. Lingua Receptiva (LaRa) – Remarks on
the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(3).
248–264.
Rindler Schjerve, Rosita & Eva Vetter. 2012. European multilingualism. Current perspectives
and challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Rothman, Jason & Michael Iverson. 2010. Independent multilingualism normative assertments,
where art thou? In Madalena Cruz-Ferreira (ed.), Multilingual norms, 33–51. Frankfurt/
Main: Peter Lang.
Rymes, Betsy. 2014. Communicating beyond language. Everyday encounters with diversity. New
York: Routledge.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2002. The shape of things to come? Some basic questions about English
as lingua franca. In Karlfried Knapp & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua franca com-
munication, 269–302. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2007. Common property: English as a lingua franca in Europe. In Jim
Cummins (ed.), International handbook of English language teaching, 137–153. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua
franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2). 195–215.
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2012. Anglophone-centric attitudes and the globalization of English. Journal
Stavans, Anat & Charlotte Hoffmann. 2015. Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Vertovec, Steven. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethical and Racial Studies 30.
1024–1054.
Vettorel, Paola. 2014. English as a lingua franca in wider networking. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Section C: Policy, pedagogy and ELF

Guy Cook
Cosmopolitan combat: Politics, teaching
and interpreting
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
W. B. Yeats
1 Concentric circles
In an anti-immigration speech, Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence
Party (UKIP), said he felt “awkward”, when leaving central London by train, to
hear no English being spoken, but only other languages1. His remark played to
an endemic xenophobia among a significant section of the monoglot British
electorate, whose support is also courted by an anxious Conservative Party2
keen to keep the “little England” vote, and whose views are echoed and exacer-
bated by the reactionary British press: “Britain is full up and fed up. Today join
your Daily Express Crusade to stop a new flood of Romanian and Bulgarian
migrants”3.
Such sentiments are not the monopoly of the self-confessed right, however.
In the nominally centre-left British Labour government of Tony Blair, Home
Secretary David Blunkett, expressed concern that “in as many as 30% of Asian
British households, according to the recent citizenship survey, English is not
spoken at home”, and suggested that more use of English would “help overcome
the schizophrenia which bedevils generational relationships”4.
Insularity, however, is not just for islands. The renaissance of narrow nation-
alism is – paradoxically – international. Analogous views are expressed by the
resurgent right across the continental EU – Austria’s Freedom Party, France’s
Front National, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, Norway’s Progress
Party, and many others – all mustering alarming levels of support. Ambushed
by their success, the cosmopolitan consensus of postwar Europe is in retreat.
1 The Guardian 28 February 2014.

2 I am writing this in February 2015 before the UK general election in May.
3 Daily Express 31 October 2013.
4 Blunkett, David. What does citizenship mean today? The Observer. 15 September 2002.
Guy Cook, King’s College London

208 Guy Cook
Intolerance of diversity, wanting to associate only with people one perceives

as being of one’s own kind, is of course by no means confined to the EU. The
same sentiment is evident when, reporting casualties, US sources seem to value
“American lives” over others, in Russia’s new imperialism, in Israel’s treatment
of Palestinians, in ISIL’s macabre brand of intolerant “internationalism”.
In all of these movements, as in the Nazism which they echo to various
degrees, there is an incessant appeal to “purity” – of “our land”, “our blood”,
“our forefathers”, “our people”, “our heritage”, and, of course, “our language”:
whether it be the Arabic of the Holy Q’ran, the Russian that marks out ethnic
enclaves in post-Soviet states – or the threats to French dramatically described
on the web pages of l’Académie Française5.
Notre langue rayonne certes sur tous les continents, plus de trois cents millions d’hommes
la parlent, mais son destin dans notre pays désespère nos compatriotes qui chaque jour
en appellent à l’Académie. La langue française est triplement menacée, disent-ils, par la
langue anglaise qui insidieusement la dévore de l’intérieur ; par nos élites qui en font un
usage affligeant, enfin et surtout menacée d’être ignorée par les nouvelles générations à
qui l’école n’apporte plus les moyens de l’apprendre.
[Our language certainly shines on all continents. More than three hundred million people
speak it. But its fate in our country causes despair among our compatriots who daily
appeal to the Academy. French is triply threatened, they say: by the English language
that insidiously devours it from within; by our élites who use it so badly; and lastly by
the new generations for whom school no longer provides the means to learn it.]
Other than the opening reference to the international reach of French, such
sentiments have, ironically, nothing particularly French about them. They could
easily be transferred to rhetoric about more or less any national language on
earth. Yet despite the proclaimed international use of French, the quandary for
the French purist is increasingly different in kind from that facing advocates of
English. In the English-speaking countries, this appeal to the purity of the lan-
guage has a peculiar dimension which French and all other erstwhile interna-
tional languages are fast losing. Not only, self-evidently, is English not threatened
by English, it is not threatened by any other language either. For the UK, USA and
other English-speaking countries, the solution cannot be just a case of closing the
borders, stamping out the use of other languages within them, as Farage seems to
desire. Nor can it be the instigation of revised school curricula to preserve a
perceived purity of past forms, though that is happening too. This is precisely
because it is English, not French or any other language, which now “rayonne
5 http://www.academie-francaise.fr/la-reconquete-de-la-langue-francaise (accessed 23 February

2015).
certes sur tous les continents”, traverses all borders, and would remain beyond
the control of even the most draconian ultra-nationalist governments which may
soon be with us in Europe. English is spoken and learned all over the world. Its
speakers can no longer pretend to the ownership of their language in the same
way as speakers of less distributed languages (Widdowson 1994), even French.
There are consequently, for those who see English as under attack, three
separate threats. Farage is concerned about the first, various other reactionary
pundits by the second and third. The first is the presence of other languages
within the UK, an index of the extent of immigration; the second is an envisaged
threat to the putative purity of English through “sloppy” usage. Yet another
threat, from a reactionary nationalist standpoint, is the change to English out-
side the UK borders, English as it is spoken increasingly throughout the world
by non-native speakers. This is English as a Lingua Franca, the subject of this
festschrift, and an area of study initiated and led by the scholar to whom it is
dedicated, Barbara Seidlhofer.
2 An analogy with monolingual ELT

Reflecting on the growth of narrow nationalism in the UK, I am continuously
puzzled by two things.
The first puzzle is the extent of electoral support for it when most people I
meet seem to despise it. This reflects, I suppose, the narrowness of my own
experience and social circle. My friends tend to share my views – that is partly
why they are my friends. With neighbours and relatives who think otherwise, I
maintain an illusion of concord by avoiding certain topics. At work, my collea-
gues and students are by definition people with higher educational qualifications
or in the process of obtaining them, and, as tolerance and open-mindedness still
accompany education, these qualities are still fundamental to academic work.
They are certainly widespread among the English language teachers I have taught
on MA courses in British universities for many years, both those teachers visiting
the UK from other countries, and those working within the UK. Almost unani-
mously, such teachers espouse a cosmopolitan view, advocating cross-cultural
tolerance and the virtues of multilingualism. This is hardly surprising. Most
teachers of English are motivated by a curiosity about other cultures, other
places, other languages. They want to find out about other voices, not to silence
them. And they applaud the egalitarian outlook on languages and cultures
which is inherent in the applied linguistics they study.
210 Guy Cook
The second puzzle is how, given their general cosmopolitanism, English

language teachers have, at least until very recently, swallowed an idea of good
English language teaching which echoes Nigel Farage’s wish to hear only
English on the train. For over 100 years, cutting-edge English language teaching
theory has been based on the premise that students’ own languages should not
be heard in the English-language classroom. There should be no own-language
explanation or discussion, and certainly no translation, either for its own merit
or usefulness, or as an aid to learning. It is a view which goes back to the direct
method of the Berlitz schools (where at one time teachers could be fired for
translating a single word); it was lent emperor’s clothes by eccentric early
theories of second language acquisition applied to language teaching (no correc-
tion, no translation, second language is not influenced by the first), and has been
implicit in almost every mainstream ELT orthodoxy of the 20th century, up to and
including communicative and task-based language teaching, both of which are
relentlessly monolingual. Although this monolingual practice was based on
an honest belief in its pedagogic effectiveness, how did the ELT profession,
apparently so dedicated to tolerance and diversity, not see in direct method an
echo of political chauvinism? (Significantly both direct method and SLA are
predominately Anglo-American creations.) Surely a demand for only English in
the classroom echoes one for English Only outside it. “This is America. When
ordering speak English!” proclaims a shop sign6. “English Yes, Spanish No”,
say demonstrators’ placards. As in society at large there is strong support, in
the English-language classroom, for a monolingual rather than bilingual envi-
ronment. Other languages should not be heard.
3 The visibility of interpreters

The presence of more than one language is inherent in the language classroom.
If it were not, there would be no need for language learning at all. It is also
inherent in the nation state, for there are no states without indigenous linguistic
minorities or immigrant speakers of other languages. Even isolated North Korea,
from which statistics on languages other than the national Korean are unavailable,
is known to have around 51,000 Chinese speakers7. Teachers and politicians who
desire a monolingual environment are fighting a losing battle when they attempt
to make it a reality.
6 http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251961 (accessed 23 February 2015).

7 http://www.ethnologue.com (accessed 23 February 2015).
The impetus to forge an artificial monolingual experience out of a multi-

lingual reality is not only confined to teaching and politics, however. Even in
interpreting, an act which is inherently internationalist and multilingual, there
are milder echoes of the attempt to make an essentially bilingual activity seem
more monolingual.
Contemporary professional interpreting is dominated by two contrasting
practices, consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, which mirror to a degree
the contrast between bilingual and monolingual approaches to interlingual
communication elsewhere. In consecutive interpreting the speaker pauses from
time to time, and waits for the interpretation. Here, the recipient cannot but
be aware of the other language, of the presence of the interpreter, and of the
process of interpretation. In simultaneous interpreting, on the other hand, the
interpreter sits out of sight in a booth, listening to the source through her head-
phones, and speaking her interpretation into a microphone, to be relayed to the
headphones of the audience. The original words, the person of the interpreter,
the act of interpretation, are all kept as far as possible from the attention of the
listener – even though in practice this cannot be absolute. The listener’s act
of putting on and wearing the headphones and selecting the language keeps
the fact of interpretation present, and in practice many audience members will
listen sometimes to the interpretation, sometimes to the original, depending
on their knowledge of the two languages. Of course, simultaneous interpreting
enables interpretation to take place from several languages at once, and is
therefore a practical necessity at many international meetings. Nevertheless,
the implicit criterion of success is that this listener should experience the inter-
pretation as though it were an unmediated original. An unintended consequence
is to push the sound of the original language into the background.
Until fairly recently, moreover, a widespread principle of both practices
was that interpreting should always be into the interpreter’s native language.
Where English is concerned this has the unfortunate side effect of bolstering
the ascendancy of native over non-native English although, as studies of ELF
have demonstrated, the expertise and communicative success of many non-
native speakers equals or exceeds that of many native speakers. When this prin-
ciple is followed, the audience of an interpretation into English hears the voice
of a native English speaker, thus further distancing the presence of any other
language: this despite the fact that native speakerness does not entail either a
greater facility to move between the two languages, nor a better command of
appropriate English for interpretation. With the exception of some larger inter-
national organisations, including the United Nations, this old principle is no
longer widely enforced, though the reasons for its demise are more to do with
cost and convenience than principle; those listening to an interpretation into
212 Guy Cook
English are now as likely to hear a non-native-speaker as a native-speaker voice.

In this regard, English as a lingua franca has made more inroads into interpret-
ing than into English language teaching. Even where the presence of an actual
other language is eclipsed by the paraphernalia of simultaneous interpreting, at
least an ELF voice may be heard.
4 Shared ground: Simultaneous interpreting and

monolingual teaching
Awed by the stern preceptor’s face, mine eye
Fixed with mock study on my swimming book
Samuel Taylor Coleridge
There is an analogy to be drawn between simultaneous interpreting and mono-

lingual language teaching. Here there is also an illusion – even a delusion –
that the other language has been eliminated. As Widdowson (2003: 150) points
out in an advocacy of the “bilingualization” of English language teaching:
“while in the classroom the teachers try to keep the two languages separate,
the learners in their own minds keep the two in contact”. The banishment of
all reference to the students’ own languages, in other words, is only apparent,
just like the absence of the other language in simultaneous interpretation. The
stricture is doomed to failure. Away from “the stern preceptor’s gaze”, students
will still seek out translations and explanations – in bilingual dictionaries,
from friends, on Google – to compensate for the frequently incomprehensible
deep-end of the monolingual lesson or book, which, taught by a stern mono-
lingualist, swims all too often mysteriously before their eyes.
5 The morality of ELF

My face in thine eye, thine in mine appears
John Donne
Nationalist political programmes, ELT mainstream practices, and simultaneous

interpreting all distance the voices of other languages. Whether within the
nation’s borders, within the walls of the ELT classroom, or through the head-
phones, it is only English which should be heard, with native-speaker English
preferred over other varieties. But this is increasingly impractical and outdated.
Politically, it is hard to see how one could make a North Korea out of Britain
without also bringing penury and disadvantageous cultural isolation. In lan-

guage teaching, there is a strong case, as I have argued elsewhere, for regarding
translation and use of the students’ own languages as not only an aid to
language learning but also an end in itself (Cook 2010; Hall and Cook 2012). In
the contemporary world, students need to negotiate and switch between English
and other languages, not only to operate exclusively within English. The banish-
ment of students’ own languages seems to have been motivated more by expedi-
ency and commercial and political agendas, than by any scientific, pedagogic,
or educational justification.
Monolingual English language teaching has been presented as more efficient
and more ‘real’, as bringing learners into immediate contact with the language
they are seeking to learn, without any apparently unnecessary intermediate
paraphernalia of grammar rules or translation exercises. It seems to have replaced
an antiquated and traditional approach to language teaching. In a similar way,
simultaneous interpreting, especially when done into English, with its greater
speed, shorter history, and sophisticated equipment, may also seem more effi-
cient and ‘real’ than slower and more cumbersome alternatives, and consequently,
like monolingual teaching, enjoys a high prestige. It originated less than 100
years ago. (Though often claimed to have been first used at the Nuremberg trials
at the end of World War Two, it had in fact been used much earlier, at meetings
of the Comintern in the Soviet Union as early as 1928 [Gofman 1963]).) Despite
these origins, it now seems, with its speedy efficiency and modern technology,
more in tune with the ethos of a slick businesslike globalised world intent on
the use of English for neoliberal economic purposes. Yet there is a strong case
for saying that consecutive interpreting gives a much truer picture of the com-
municative event, and maintains, where English is the target language and the
audience for the interpretation is native English speakers, the presence of other
languages in a way which they can so easily overlook, especially when the inter-
preter’s voice is a native speaker’s.
6 ELF and own language use

And fashionable madmen raise
Their pedantic boring voice.
W. H. Auden
I have drawn attention to similarities between right-wing rhetoric about national

languages, monolingual English language teaching, and simultaneous interpret-
ing. This is not to say for a moment that advocates or practitioners of the last
two necessarily share the ideology of the first. But in a world where linguistic
214 Guy Cook
and cultural diversity may be diminished by the global reach of English, we

should be aware how these practices, however innocuous they may seem, can
contribute, albeit unwittingly, to the diminution of diversity. If you disagree
with Nigel Farage, and feel that the sounds of different languages on a London
train are a good thing, then why seek to silence the other languages of learners,
or of speakers whose words are to be rendered into English?
In English language teaching, one way of combatting the harm done by
decades of monolingualist domination is through the re-introduction of transla-
tion and other bilingual activities. An additional and compatible way is to allow
not only different languages into the classroom, but the Englishes of non-native
speakers too, thus echoing the move, in both simultaneous and consecutive
interpreting, away from the outdated principle that the interpreter should always
work into their native language.
These non-native voices are not the frozen ‘pure’ variety mythologised by
reactionary politicians, but the living international English of the contemporary
global world. They are English as Lingua Franca, so ably theorised, documented
and described by the recipient of this volume. Her pioneering advocacy of ELF,
as a concept and as a reality, as a legitimate means of teaching and goal for
learners, has met with the same arrogant dismissal as that of a return to trans-
lation and own-language use in language teaching. Extraordinarily, ELF is
misconceived as a force of reaction, “an ideologically conservative project”
(O’Regan 2014: 540), when it is actually a force for cosmopolitanism and a
defence against nationalist chauvinism and intolerance. For ELF is a moral and
political as well as an academic concept.
This is no cause for surprise. For clear thinking and accurate description of
the kind found in Barbara Seidlhofer’s work are moral forces in a world threatened
by irrational xenophobic prejudice. Good academic research is at odds with the
insularity and narrow-mindedness which goes with the politics of monolingualism
and linguistic ‘purity’. As the leading thinker about ELF, Barbara Seidlhofer has
given us a field of study to place against the forces of reaction.
References
Cook, Guy. 2010. Translation and language teaching: An argument for reassessment. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gofman, E. 1963. K istorii sinkhronnogo perevoda. Tetradi perevodchika [Towards a history of
simultaneous interpreting. Translation notebooks]. Moscow. http://e-repa.ru/files/tetradi-
1963-gofman.pdf (accessed 23 February 2015).
Hall, Graham & Guy Cook. 2012. Own language use in language teaching and learning: The
state of the art. Language Teaching 45(3). 271–308.
O’Regan, John P. 2014. English as a lingua franca: An immanent critique. Applied Linguistics
35(5). 533–552.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Elaine Tarone
Learner language in ELF and SLA1
The area of applied linguistics I know best is research on second language
acquisition (SLA) and its implications for second language education; as I shall
show, there is an interesting relationship between the learner language pro-
duced in unrehearsed communication in SLA and the language produced in
ELF (Seidlhofer 2011). In sharing SLA research with language teachers over the
years, I have relied on Canale’s (1983) framework of communicative competence,
which identifies four components of knowledge that L2 learners must acquire:
– Grammatical competence, focused on sentence structure (accuracy and
complexity)
– Discourse competence, focused on suprasentential information structure,
including function-form relationships
– Sociolinguistic competence, focused on politeness and appropriateness in
social context
– Strategic competence, focused on use of alternative linguistic and non-
linguistic structures to effectively achieve communication goals.
There has been a major tendency of classroom language pedagogy (particu-

larly foreign languages) over the years, to focus primarily or even exclusively on
the first component, and particularly on sentence-level accuracy. This focus, I
argue, has been damaging to second-language learners’ development of overall
communicative competence, but most particularly to their development of
strategic competence, which is the essential ability to creatively and flexibly
draw upon a range of different target language forms and expressions in order
to reach a communicative goal.
Tarone and Yule (1989: 53–54) framed the problem this way:
Among many second language learners there seems to be a tendency to assume that all
native speakers employ some uniform and fixed system of expression in their use of the
language. [. . .] It is difficult to know where these assumptions come from. They may be
fostered by the perfect sentences produced by characters in textbooks, or by the complete
mastery evinced by their native-speaking teacher, or perhaps by the premium placed
on uniquely correct forms required in answer to questions on typical proficiency tests.
Whatever the cause, one drawback of such assumptions is that learners may perceive the
1 My thanks to Bonnie Swierzbin for comments on a draft of this chapter. Errors are my own.
Elaine Tarone, University of Minnesota

218 Elaine Tarone
task of self-expression in the second language as one requiring uniquely correct forms and
structures. In other words, the learners may believe that there is one correct way to express
an idea in the second language, and until they learn ‘it’, they will only commit errors. To
avoid such errors, many learners simply keep quiet, possibly trusting that the transition
from perfect silence to perfect proficiency will eventually occur.
To counteract this erroneous assumption, Tarone and Yule describe a study

in which 50 native speakers of English were asked to write narratives of events
depicted in a series of four pictures, addressed to someone who hadn’t seen
those events. No two narratives used identical vocabulary and syntactic struc-
tures; indeed, there were 50 different ‘right answers’ to this communicative
problem. In other words, there is inherent variability in proficient language
performance when speakers are focused on reaching a communicative goal.
This variability is the essence of strategic competence, which is the flexible and
creative use of linguistic and nonlinguistic structures in order to effectively
reach one’s communicative goal. Strategic competence is the ability to engage
in a divergent and open-ended communicative process, where there are many
possible solutions. This clearly contrasts with the convergent ‘one right answer’
process invoked in trying to produce sentence-level accuracy.
Today I would argue with even more force than we did in 1989 that a singular
pedagogical focus on sentence-level accuracy in classroom instruction is down-
right damaging to language learners’ development of communicative competence
in general and strategic competence in particular. The problem is the convergent
focus on one correct answer. Indeed, most of the workshops and classes I offer
language teachers now keep coming back to this same issue: Language teachers
spend far too much time and energy trying to get their students to produce
sentence-level grammatical accuracy, where there’s just one assumed norm and
one right answer; they spend far too little time on activities where learners can
apply their creative and adaptive ability to use L2 elements in unrehearsed oral
interaction to make themselves understandable to their addressees. Strategic
competence is in fact the dimension of communicative competence that is used
by learners of any L2 (whether Chinese, Korean, Spanish, English, etc.) in inter-
action with anyone in situations outside of classrooms when they are singularly
focused on using the language to effectively communicate across linguistic
divides – and not on simply demonstrating mastery of sentence-level accuracy.
That this is primarily the dynamic shaping ELF has been shown in Seidlhofer
(2011), Pitzl (2012), and many others. As Widdowson (this volume) says: “What
ELF use reveals so clearly is the on-line enactment of the actual process of
adaptive variability and therefore the essential pragmatics of communication.”
Or, to quote Seidlhofer (2011: 8): “ELF has taken on a life of its own, in principle
independent to a considerable degree of the norms established by its native

users.”
It is in this area of adaptive variability and strategic competence that my
work in SLA intersects in interesting ways with ELF scholarship. In my classes
and workshops for teachers of many languages, I am trying to help them see
the essential importance of opportunities for students’ “on-line enactment of
the actual process of adaptive variability”, as Widdowson (this volume) puts it,
in their use of the language they are learning. In Tarone and Swierzbin (2009),
in order to do this, we video-recorded six adult learners of English as a second
language all doing the same six communication tasks with no preparation or
rehearsal (including the task referenced above in Tarone and Yule 1989: 53–54).
Following standard SLA research practice, we transcribed the learners’ speech,
and then we engaged teachers in activities to show how they could look at
learner language in terms of error analysis, developmental sequence analysis,
corrective feedback and scaffolding in interaction, strategic competence, and
CAF (complexity-accuracy-fluency) analysis.
In using these materials, I have found the speech performance of two of
those English language learners (given the pseudonyms Antonio and Rodrigo)
to be particularly illustrative of the contrast between Canale’s first component,
sentence-level accuracy, and the other three components of language learners’
communicative competence. The domains of ELF and SLA seem to overlap
in the case of these learners, thereby shedding powerful light on such issues
as translanguaging (García 2014), the impact of social context on SLA (Tarone
and Liu 1995), and the tyranny of the ‘one right answer’ pedagogical focus on
accuracy, instead of on strategic competence, which entails the ability to generate
many alternative ways of saying something.
When we recorded them, these brothers, Antonio, aged 29, and Rodrigo,
aged 28, had earned five-year law degrees from a university in Mexico City,
where they then had been practicing human rights law. They had had little
opportunity to speak English in school, though they had apparently been lectured
to about English grammar there. We discovered, however, in interviews with the
brothers that before they had arrived in the U.S., in carrying out their profession
as human rights lawyers in Mexico City they had apparently been using English
as a lingua franca to communicate with their clients who did not speak Spanish:
Example 1: Rodrigo & Antonio use ELF in their law office

1 I: Can you say a little bit about your job, and why speaking [English] is
2 important with your job?
3 A: Yeh I, I work in, in human rights. In Mexico, I, worked in human rights.
220 Elaine Tarone
4 I: Mmhm.
5 A: so I, I need speak, eh because, the people, throughout, my office, and,
6 don’t, eh eh, in, I, how you say in, m, don’t use Spanish, eh fo-for all,
7 there are, eh people, the the other, other countries, so, I need speak
8 English.
(Tarone and Swierzbin 2009: 135)
At the time they were recorded, Antonio and Rodrigo had been in the U.S. a
very short time (Antonio for 22 days, and Rodrigo 36 days). Two weeks before
recording, both had begun study in an intensive English program, placing
in the very lowest level speaking class possible. When we selected Rodrigo
and Antonio to be video-recorded for this project, their instructor in the lowest
level English class in the intensive English program told us that he thought our
communication tasks would be far too difficult for them to do with no prior
language preparation, and that we ought to recruit higher-level English learners
instead.
Rodrigo and Antonio performed six different unrehearsed oral tasks, the last
of which we called the Comparison Task. For this task, they were seated side by
side, looking together at photos of two houses taken in different neighborhoods,
one middle class and one low-income. Their instructions were: Look at these
photos together. Who do you think lives in these houses? What is their social class?
What do these houses tell you about the cultural values of the society? Their oral
response appears in Example 2 below (you can also see this performance on
video in the DVD from Tarone and Swierzbin 2009).
Example 2: Rodrigo and Antonio do the Comparison Task
1 A: Eh this house, eh eh show me, that that eh, the the the people, the
2 property, are, maybe eh they, eh, they had a a a good job, eh,
3 because, eh the house, eh show it.
4 It’s it’s it’s big, it’s it’s clean, eh, there is a car, and and, this eh house
5 it’s it’s it’s small, it’s no clean, em I I I think I think so.
6 R: Yes, is correct, I think so, too. Eh, this house eh eh eh, show, eh,
7 the the the, poor, poorer money, I don’t know, I I, this house, show,
8 there are very money and this house no. This house is, is,
9 it’s a good house but, eh, is better this house and and and,
10 and the in all world, in Mexico, in United States, in other countries, yes
11 I I I eh, um, I am, m, is is, em, show, eh, different. . .
12 A: Different classes, different. . .

13 R: Different classes, social classes. . .
14 A: Yeah.
15 R: Is in United States, is the same in in other countries
(Tarone and Swierzbin 2009: 138)
When we show this interaction in video form to language teachers, we ask

them: So, was their instructor right? Were these learners able to do this task, or
not? Of course, the answer to our question is that it depends: Which component
of the communicative competence framework do we use to look at their speech?
– Grammatical Competence. To evaluate this we use a standard SLA frame-
work to describe CAF: the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of the English
sentences produced by these learners. The consensus is clearly that their
sentence-level accuracy is not very good, across several levels: phonology2,
morphology, syntax, and vocabulary. If accuracy were our sole criterion (as
it would be on many tests and in many formal classrooms), then we would
have to say their instructor was right: They do not produce accurate sentences
in English L2 when performing this task under conditions of no prior instruc-
tion, rehearsal, or practice. Their fluency is also very low; they speak slowly,
and very haltingly, with many pauses and false starts. These long pauses are
in fact obviously painful for language teachers in our workshops to witness;
they empathize, seemingly wanting to jump in and “help” when the learner
is plainly struggling to express an idea. However, complexity is – fittingly –
more complicated. Each low level learner produced a syntactically complex
sentence at the beginning of their first turn – where they relied on simple
sentences on other tasks (more on this below). In terms of lexical complexity
(operationalized as variety of words used), they clearly either don’t know or
have trouble producing the abstract vocabulary that they need and that
would be readily available to them in their native language, words such as
wealth, middle class, and low economic level. The learners’ generally poor
showing in the area of grammatical competence suggests rather complete
failure, if this is the sole criterion for communicative competence. But it is
not.
– Discourse Competence. To evaluate this component we ask, do the learners
provide the requested information in well-organized discourse across sentences,
using clear linguistic signals to mark that organization? Here, Rodrigo and
2 Indeed, a returned Peace Corps EFL teacher initially assumed, based on Rodrigo’s accent,
that he was uneducated (Tarone and Swierzbin 2009: 9).
222 Elaine Tarone
Antonio are actually more successful than learners on the DVD judged to
have much higher grammatical competence. Rodrigo and Antonio are, after
all, lawyers, who know about the importance of providing evidence for
hypotheses. They offer a clear hypothesis as to the socioeconomic class of
the people living in each house, and clearly list evidence for that hypothesis
in an organized way, using effective linguistic devices to link their evidence
to their hypothesis. For example, the information structure of Antonio’s first
sentence can be diagrammed as in Table 1:
Table 1: Information structure and form/function links in Antonio’s speech
Evidence Linguistic link Hypothesis
this house → show me [= verb of logical connection] → they had a good job
↓
because [= causal connector]
↓
the house show it
it’s big
it’s clean
there is a car
Again, Rodrigo and Antonio are lawyers, and presumably well trained in the
structure of logical argument linking evidence to hypotheses. They are able
to organize and linguistically structure information in this task well even
when working with a limited range of vocabulary and simple syntax. The
cognitive complexity of the logical argument that learners are asked to
provide in this task – linking facts to hypotheses – consistently results in
greater syntactic complexity in their speech, across proficiency levels. In
every case, learners produce more complex sentences on this Comparison
task than in a preceding Jigsaw task where they identify three things the
same and three things different between the houses (for this they need only
simple sentences like it’s white or there are 3 windows).
– Sociolinguistic Competence. Brown and Levinson (1987) view politeness as the
expression of a speaker’s intention to mitigate potentially face-threatening
acts towards another. Viewed this way, we can see at least two sensitive
examples of sociolinguistic competence in Example 2. The first occurs in
line 9, where Rodrigo mitigates the potential threat of his evaluative com-
parison to the face of the imagined occupants of the second house (or to
the imagined American audience of the videos) by saying, it’s a good house,
but . . . . The second example is more complex, and occurs across lines 10 to
13. In this part of the interaction, Rodrigo goes to great effort – with substantial
expressions of disfluency and struggle (not to mention a nice example of

co-construction and scaffolding in lines 11–13, where the learners say more
together than either can say separately) – to mitigate the potential face
threat to his audience (American videographers, researchers, and future
video watchers) of his statement that the houses are evidence of socio-
economic disparity in the U.S. His mitigation message is simply that socio-
economic disparity is universal, not just a property of U.S. culture. But of
course because his lexicon does not include the terms socioeconomic disparity
or universal, the utterance he ends up with is articulated as: different social
classes . . . is in the United States, is the same in other countries. While not
grammatically accurate, this utterance does demonstrate his sociolinguistic
competence.
– Strategic Competence. Recall that this is the ability to generate alternative
ways of effectively getting a message across. We have already seen examples
showing that Rodrigo and Antonio have this ability and use it well. In terms
of vocabulary, we’ve seen that when they need (and do not know) an
expression such as well-off (in lines 1–2) they produce not just one, but
several alternative expressions: they had a good job (line 2) and very money
(line 8). When the target expression is something like economic disparity
they say this house . . . show . . . the . . . poorer money (lines 6–7) and this
house show there are very money and this house no (lines 7–8). When they
want to communicate universally they say in all world, in Mexico, in United
States, in other countries. What is striking about these communication
strategies is that they effectively leverage simple, fairly concrete vocabulary
to communicate much more abstract concepts by means of creative organi-
zation of the information in the discourse through a process of generating
multiple paraphrases. Speakers who have this kind of creative adaptability
in variation are not speakers who give up speaking when they can’t find
exactly the right word or ‘correct expression’. They have strategic com-
petence: the ability to enact “the actual process of adaptive variability and
therefore the essential pragmatics of communication” (Widdowson, this
volume).
A fact that should not escape us is that Rodrigo and Antonio’s ESL teacher,
in judging their communicative potential solely in terms of their low grammatical
competence, could never have known what they were capable of doing with
English, because he would never have asked them to do communicative tasks
that he thought they were not carefully prepared for. In this sense, it is worth
asking language teachers to consider whether current textbooks and pedagogies,
224 Elaine Tarone
in their over-emphasis on accuracy as the sole criterion for success, actually

restrict – create a glass ceiling on – classroom students’ development of com-
municative competence, even their development of syntactic complexity, a core
feature of grammatical competence. If Rodrigo and Antonio had never been
allowed to try the Comparison task, they would never have had occasion to
produce the complex sentences they did, and we might have never known they
were capable of that. Too much focus on accuracy leads learners to produce
simple, but accurate sentences. Trying to produce more complex sentences
almost always temporarily reduces accuracy, and too many classroom students
unfortunately believe that accuracy is all that matters.
Finally, we should note that Rodrigo and Antonio enrolled in intensive
English classes because they were not satisfied with their level of proficiency
but wanted to acquire higher levels of professional proficiency in English. Spe-
cifically, they wanted to expand the grammatical and discourse dimensions of
their communicative competence. In this sense, their goal was to be able to use
English professionally, both as a lingua franca, and with native and near-native
speakers of English.
Most importantly, the case of Rodrigo and Antonio provides a cautionary
tale, warning against over-idealizing any single component of communicative
competence. This tale has proved to be particularly effective in workshops de-
signed to help all language teachers recognize the value of strategic competence
(and the limitations of grammatical competence). As one teacher recently said of
Rodrigo and Antonio at the end of such a workshop, “They make me aware that
I’ve been operating with a deficit framework, focusing only on what my students
can’t do. Now I want to look at them differently, in terms of what they can do, if
I can just give them a chance to show me.”
References
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Canale, Michael. 1983. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.
In Jack Richards & Richard Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, 2–27. New York:
Longman.
García, Ofelia. 2014. Countering the dual: Transglossia, dynamic bilingualism and translanguag-
ing in education. In Rani Rubdy & Lubna Alsagoff (eds.), The global–local interface, lan-
guage choice and hybridity, 100–118. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Press.
Tarone, Elaine & Bonnie Swierzbin. 2009. Exploring learner language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tarone, Elaine & Guo-Qiang Liu. 1995. Situational context, variation and SLA theory. In Guy
Cook & Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in
honour of H.G. Widdowson, 107–124. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, Elaine & George Yule. 1989. Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tim McNamara and Elana Shohamy
Language Testing and ELF: Making the
connection
The construct of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) reflects the reality that many
facets of the contemporary world (international education, business, tourism,
research, international negotiations, academic exchange, school language teach-
ing, immigrant education, among many others) require interaction in English
among people who do not share it as a first language. This constitutes a watershed
moment in the definition of English for second/foreign language learners
(Seidlhofer 2011). For many years native speakers’ English, in its varieties in
many English speaking countries, has been viewed as the target and the ideal
form for second/foreign language learners to attain as a goal, which in most
cases is neither feasible nor necessary. English, a world language, is now used
by a large number of speakers in the world, given its status as the current lingua
franca, and hence is being used by its speakers in different forms and shapes,
regardless of whether they were born to the language or not. Legitimizing and
accepting the different contemporary status and ways of using English is a major
turning point in the field of language learning. For those who are not native
speakers it presents a liberation, from an imposed and inappropriate goal to
what it is realistic to achieve.
In our short paper we will attempt to extend the meaning of ELF to an area
in which it has still been insufficiently addressed, that of testing and assessment
of ELF. This is despite long-standing calls for the reform of assessment in the
light of ELF by researchers in ELF and assessment. A notable early call was
that of Seidlhofer (2003), who pointed out how problematic the view of com-
munication is which is enshrined in the construct of the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe 2001). The CEFR is a particu-
larly significant target, as it currently defines language knowledge and language
levels, and thereby determines the construct of language assessments not only
in Europe but increasingly throughout the world. Assessments worldwide are
increasingly ‘linked’ to the CEFR in order to gain acceptability within national
educational and immigration policy, and in the marketplace. The wording of
the CEFR assumes that communication by learners will only be with native
speakers, who are enshrined as privileged interlocutors in the exchanges –
Tim McNamara, University of Melbourne

Elana Shohamy, Tel Aviv University
228 Tim McNamara and Elana Shohamy
witness the extraordinary statement defining conversational ability at B2 level:

“Can sustain relationships with native speakers without unintentionally amusing
or irritating them or requiring them to behave other than they would with a native
speaker.” (The CEFR continues to be a target for ELF researchers – see the recent
papers by Hynninen 2014 and Pitzl 2015.)
Significantly, calls such as Seidlhofer’s for fundamental changes in the
construct underlying English language assessments to reflect the reality of ELF
came first from those outside language testing (Seidlhofer 2003, 2011; Jenkins
2006, 2007) and only later from language testers themselves (Harding 2012;
McNamara 2012, 2014; Shohamy 2014), and in fact the response from most lan-
guage testers has not always been sympathetic to the challenge represented by
ELF (Taylor 2006; Elder and Davies 2006). As testing and assessment have a
major impact on the definition of the construct of language and its learning
and teaching (Shohamy 2001, 2006), there is an urgent need for a match
between testing/assessment and the definition of the ELF construct. This is so
since the validity of testing/assessment is dependent on how well the test or
assessment procedures tap the construct. The argument we make here is that
so far there is a limited match between the two, and we endorse and renew the
call for a greater alignment, which will require dramatic changes in assessment
methods, procedures and theory.
The ELF construct poses major questions for the field of language testing. It
challenges its traditional approach of regarding the performance of the native
speaker as the primary reference point of development, and raises the issue of
the nature of the development of competence in ELF communication. While
ample attention has been given to ELF in trying to understand its deeper layers
and theories, its construct, there is less attention to methods of assessing ELF
and in particular to the criteria by which differing levels of proficiency in
ELF can be determined. Hence, critical language testing (Shohamy 2001, 2006)
insists on asking questions such as
– Do language tests reflect the most updated and current views of “what it
means to know a language” in plurilingual societies, given the development
of new and expanded views of language which are more contextual, for
example ELF, translanguaging, bi- and multilingualism, and multimodality?
– Are we setting realistic goals in terms of levels of proficiency, given the
dynamic and fluid nature of language?
– Is it appropriate to use “the native speaker” as the goal and criterion for per-
formance on language tests? Is it fair to compare the language proficiency of
second language learners with that of native speakers? Are second language
learners capable of acquiring ‘native’ language proficiency?
– Do tests relate equally to all learners? Immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers
and other marginalized populations?
Language Testing and ELF: Making the connection 229
Language testers are required to address current definitions of language and

the diverse situations of language learning and use. In fact not only ELF but
other recent approaches to the definition of language such as “translanguag-
ing” (García and Li Wei 2014) and “bi-multi-poly-languaging” (Jørgensen 2008;
Jørgensen et al. 2011) represent such conceptualizations. This is so since new
“Englishes” are constantly being created in dynamic and personal ways result-
ing in ELFs, hybrids, fusions and mixes of English with L1s, L2s, L3s, etc, flow-
ing over local, regional and transnational spaces, and the multiple language
uses in cyber space. Yet surprisingly English is still viewed mostly within the
language testing field in homogeneous terms, which means a view of the native
speaker as the only correct criterion, and rejecting code mixing or non-native
varieties. This is so in spite of the fact that immigrants and minority groups in
particular continue to use, rely on, depend on, trust and build on their L1 and
other languages throughout their lives (Shohamy 2011, 2014). This is also notice-
able in immersion programs in Africa and Asia where mixed codes are the
norms (Kirkpatrick 2010, 2012).
Recent research has begun to consider in depth the challenges raised by
ELF for assessment. In a study relevant to the assessment of general proficiency,
Sato (2014) examined the criteria by which linguistic laypersons (people without
training in linguistics or language teaching), both native and proficient non-
native speakers (IELTS 6.5 and above), evaluated and commented on the oral
performance of speakers of English as a second language on a number of
general proficiency tests: monologue performances on the Spoken English Test
of the College English Test in China, and paired oral performances on the
Cambridge suite of English proficiency tests. He found substantial differences
from the criteria used in existing tests, which focus in the main on mastery of
the various aspects of the language system – grammar, vocabulary, phonology,
prosody – together with performance dimensions such as fluency. While these
features of performance were also mentioned as relevant by the lay informants,
conformity to a native speaker standard was not relevant if communicative goals
were successfully attained – in other words, proficiency mostly mattered if
it was a barrier to communication. Moreover, other aspects of communicative
performance were also highly valued. These included interactional competence,
the quality of the content of the speech, body language, and the level of con-
fidence displayed by the participant. Sato’s (2014) study clearly indicates what
a radical change in assessment from the perspective of ELF is needed, recognizing
the aspects that are necessary for successful ELF communication; the criteria by
which communicative success is judged need to be changed accordingly.
In another recent study, Kim (2012; see also Kim and Elder 2009, 2015)
shows how difficult it may be to achieve such a change. Kim studied miscom-
munication in English as a lingua franca in aviation, a very high stakes context.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which regulates international
civil aviation, has long recognized that ELF is the medium of communication in
the profession, and has instituted a number of compulsory procedures to ensure
the communication is effective. These include the use of a restricted code of
fixed phraseology for routinely occurring situations, and the requirement to use
simple English and to cooperate in negotiating the message in situations that
are out of the ordinary through slower speech, the avoidance of colloquialisms,
indicating lack of comprehension and seeking clarification. Kim analysed mis-
communication in ELF involving pilots (native and non-native speakers of
English) and air traffic controllers (Korean non-native English speakers) at Seoul
international airport, including a ‘near miss’ incident on the ground in which
plans narrowly avoided a collision. Recordings and transcripts of the interac-
tions concerned were commented on in detail by two groups of informants,
experienced Korean pilots and experienced Korean air traffic controllers. They
were asked to explain what had happened and what had led to the miscommu-
nication. Language proficiency was occasionally, but rarely seen as a factor; the
far more frequent causes were the unpreparedness of the native speaker and
other highly proficient speakers to conform to the ICAO rules for communication
(use of phraseology, use of simple English) on the one hand, and inexperience
and poor professional judgement on the other, leading to unnecessarily elaborate
series of turns in a prolonged interaction. The responsibility for successful com-
munication is therefore clearly joint, and involves more factors than language
proficiency, as has been shown also in many other studies of ELF. We need there-
fore to embrace in assessment that aspect of communicative competence which
Hymes (1972) calls “ability for use”, where non-linguistic cognitive factors (here,
aviation expertise) and non-cognitive factors (preparedness to accommodate
speech, preparedness to conform with regulations) play a crucial role (Widdowson
1989). In referring to the classic discussion of Hymes (1972) we are not intending
to absolve Hymes from the criticism of other, narrower, aspects of his con-
ceptualization of communicative competence which are incompatible with the
insights of ELF research, as Widdowson (2012) has pointed out.
In stark contrast to Kim’s findings and their implications for policy, ICAO
has recently introduced a policy requiring all pilots and air traffic controllers in-
volved in international aviation to be tested in English and to reach a minimum
professional standard (ICAO 2010); this has led to threats to the jobs of the most
experienced, older aviation personnel, whose English is more likely to be
limited, but whose vast experience was shown to be a major factor in effective
ELF communication. More significantly, native English speaking aviation personnel
are exempted from testing altogether, even though the study by Kim (2012)
shows that their communicative behaviour contributes significantly to risk. The

ICAO policy-making body is dominated by native speakers of English. A proper
understanding of aviation communication as ELF communication means that all
participants should be tested for their effectiveness in ELF communication,
which is not only a question of language proficiency. But it is clear that the
resistance of native speakers to this requirement means that the implementation
of ELF-informed testing will be a political issue, not just an academic one.
While ELF refers to English only, Shohamy (2011) has called for expanding
the notion of ELF to other languages, certainly those considered today to be
lingua francas such as Spanish, Chinese, Arabic and others. Language tests of
these lingua francas should promote the need to think differently about the
construct, given its varieties. In fact given the notion of hybridity and trans-
languaging or the ‘non-native variety’ of any language, tests need to match these
varieties as reaching a native speaker level is neither possible nor desirable. The
traditional view of language proficiency of the second/foreign language learner
is also reflected in tests which are given to immigrants in schools where test
takers are expected to reach native-like proficiency, an impossible task even
after many years in the country. Levin and Shohamy (2008) show that it takes
immigrant children 9-11 years to perform academically like native speakers, and
most never reach that level in the first generation, especially in accent. New
evidence is emerging nowadays demonstrating that bilingual tests whereby
both L1 and L2 are combined in the same test provide an effective accommoda-
tion for second language learners (Shohamy 2011).
Many challenges emerge, then, when it comes to the testing/assessment of
ELF. We urgently need further research on questions such as:
– What are the differences between ELF and “translanguaging” and bi-multi-
lingual communication and multi-modality?
– How are these manifested with regard to different competences in the different
phases of ELF learning and use?
– How do different ELF users utilize L1, L2 and L3 in production vs. processing?
– How is ELF manifested when students are allowed to use comprehension
and communication strategies (e.g. pictures are encouraged and they are
not penalized for utilizing their L1 in free expression)?
– How can we use the ample research available on ELF to create different
assessment and rubrics?
– How can we convince the stakeholders, language testing institutions, teachers,
parents, principals, to adopt tests reflecting these new constructs when the
native variety is still so dominant and powerful?
Current tests serve existing power relations, and are obsolete in terms of the
reality of the use of English in the contemporary world. In their understanding
of the construct of language use, they are not based on how languages are used,
but on how languages should be used (Seidlhofer 2011). We look forward to the
development of creative ways for applying ELF and other broader contextual
traits that will reflect a fuller repertoire of individuals’ and groups’ languages.
Such tests will represent a revolution in language assessment, the biggest chal-
lenge in language assessment since the introduction of communicative language
testing in the 1970s (McNamara 2014). Such tests also promise to be more ethical,
to create better impact and to expand the understanding of real language use in
the contemporary space.
References
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,
teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elder, Cathie & Alan Davies. 2006. Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 26. 282–301.
García, Ofelia & Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education.
Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harding, Luke. 2012. Language testing, World Englishes and English as a lingua franca: The
case for evidence-based change. Invited keynote address at CIP Symposium 2012, Univer-
sity of Copenhagen, Denmark, 1 November.
Hymes, Dell. 1972. On communicative competence. In John B. Pride & Janet Holmes (eds.),
Sociolinguistics: Selected readings, 269–293. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Hynninen, Niina. 2014. The Common European Framework of Reference from the perspective
of English as a lingua franca: What we can learn from a focus on language regulation.
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). 2010. Manual on the implementation of ICAO
language proficiency requirements (2nd edn.). Montréal, Canada: International Civil Avia-
tion Organization.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. The spread of EIL: A testing time for testers. ELT Journal 60(1). 42–50.
sity Press.
Jørgensen, J. Normann (ed.). 2008. Polylingual languaging around and among children and
adolescents. [Special issue]. International Journal of Multilingualism 5(3).
Jørgensen, J. Normann, Martha S. Karrebæk, Lian M. Madsen & Janus S. Møller. 2011. Poly-
languaging in superdiversity. Diversities 13(2). 32–54.
Kim, Hyejeong. 2012. Exploring the construct of aviation communication: A critique of the ICAO
language proficiency policy. Melbourne: University of Melbourne PhD thesis.
Kim, Hyejeong & Cathie Elder. 2009. Understanding aviation English as a lingua franca: Percep-
tions of Korean aviation personnel. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 32(3). 23.1–
23.17.
Kim, Hyejeong & Cathie Elder. 2015. Interrogating the construct of aviation English: Feedback
from test takers in Korea. Language Testing 32(2). 129–149.
Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2012. English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33(4). 331–344.
Levin, Tamar & Elana Shohamy. 2008. Achievement of immigrant students in mathematics and
academic Hebrew in Israeli school: A large scale evaluation study. Studies in Educational
Evaluation 34. 1–14.
McNamara, Tim. 2012. At last: Assessment and English as a lingua franca. Plenary address
at the 5th International Conference on English as a lingua franca, Boğaziçi University,
Istanbul, 24–26 May.
McNamara, Tim. 2014. 30 years on – Evolution or revolution? Language Assessment Quarterly
11(2). 226–232.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2015. Understanding and misunderstanding in the Common European Frame-
work of Reference: What we can learn from research on BELF and Intercultural Communica-
tion. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 4(1). 91–124.
Sato, Takanori. 2014. Linguistic laypersons’ perspective on second language oral communica-
tion ability. Melbourne: University of Melbourne PhD thesis.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2003. A concept of international English and related issues: From ‘real
English’ to ‘realistic English’? Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division DG
IV – Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/
linguistic/Source/SeidlhoferEN.pdf (accessed 7 July 2015).
Press.
Shohamy, Elana. 2001. The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests.
London: Pearson.
Shohamy, Elana. 2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.
Shohamy, Elana. 2011. Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting construct valid assess-
ment policies. The Modern Language Journal 95(3). 418–429.
Shohamy, Elana. 2014. Critical language testing and English as a lingua franca. How can one
help the other? Plenary address at the 7th International Conference on English as a lingua
franca, DEREE – The American College of Greece, Athens, 4–6 September.
Taylor, Lynda. 2006. The changing landscape of English: Implications for language assessment.
ELT Journal 60(1). 51–60.
Widdowson, Henry G. 1989. Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics
10(2). 128–137.
Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Ute Smit
Content and Language Integrated Learning
and ELF
1 Introduction
As this volume illustrates most vividly, the multiplex uses of English as a lingua
franca have become identified as applied linguistic research topics in practically
all walks of 21st century life: in institutionalised or non-institutionalised settings;
amongst multilingual interlocutors in all kinds of locations, including virtual
ones; for formal to informal communicational purposes, and within various
domains, such as tourism, business, politics or education. As regards the latter,
ELF can be of immediate, communicational relevance when multilingual students
and teachers resort to English as their only shared language, but it impacts also
in a largely pedagogical, future-oriented way: In view of the (imagined) com-
municational needs of future ‘global citizens’, English language proficiency has
become an essential pedagogical aim for all students, and educational institu-
tions have increasingly shown interest in the use of English for educational
purposes across subjects. A lately highly successful approach in this context
is Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL; Coyle, Hood, and Marsh
2010).
The term which has recently been taken up in Asia, Latin America and
Australia, was coined in Europe in the 1990s, its conception being programmatic
rather than descriptive. The main aim has been to instil an innovative impetus
into foreign language education and so to further the multilingual goals of
European language policy (e.g. European Commission 2008). In the interest of
moving multilingual education into the mainstream of European education
systems, a name was coined that was unencumbered by connotations of “elite”
or “subtractive” bilingualism. In view of recent calls to define CLIL more pre-
cisely in order to differentiate it from related notions such as Content-Based-
Instruction or Immersion (e.g. Cenoz, Genesee, and Gorter 2014), we would like
to underscore our view of CLIL as a language policy notion that reflects socio-
political goal-setting rather than it being a pedagogical notion that specifies
detailed characteristics of an educational programme. In short, CLIL serves as
an umbrella for diverse educational practices at all educational levels (Dalton-
Puffer et al. 2014).
Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Ute Smit, University of Vienna

236 Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Ute Smit
Despite the variability of programmes and practices that gather under the
CLIL-umbrella, a number of family resemblances can be identified among
them. CLIL classes are typically timetabled as content-lessons, taught by content
teachers according to content-subject curricula, and thus assessed by content-
subject criteria (Dalton-Puffer 2011). Also, the emergence of CLIL programmes is
typically characterised by bottom-up and top-down pressures appearing to push
in the same direction. We are using the word ‘appear’ here, because the con-
flation of interests may in part be virtual: European language policy and CLIL
advocacy build on the principle of linguistic diversity, aiming, as it were, to
realise the principle of the multilingual citizen per se. Bottom-up interests and
their stakeholders, however, have in fact tended to interpret the formula “L1
plus two foreign languages” as “L1 plus the language of wider communication
= English” (cf. Eurobarometer 2012), reflecting the status of English in today’s
world, as has been accounted for from diverse angles in the ELF literature
(Jenkins 2014; Mauranen 2012; Seidlhofer 2011; Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca). It is thus the function and status of English as a shared European and
world language which has fuelled the adoption and implementation of CLIL,
so much so, that for the vast majority of CLIL programmes it would in fact be
accurate to speak of Content and English Integrated Learning (CEIL) (Dalton-
Puffer, Nikula, and Smit 2010; Seidlhofer, Breiteneder, and Pitzl 2006).
In other words, CLIL as it is currently practiced worldwide is unthinkable
without the status of English as the world’s most widely used lingua franca.
Our aim in this paper is thus to consider in more detail the implications of CEIL
for foreign language education policies and for the learning and use of English
at the crossroads of it functioning as a foreign language, as a language for
specific purposes and as a lingua franca.
2 CEIL and education: The case of Austria

In the interest of focus in this short contribution, we use Austria as a case along
which we discuss the impact of CLIL/CEIL on language education policy. Our
understanding of language policy is that of a juncture of documents, practices
and stakeholder perceptions (Spolsky 2004), a juncture which is characterised
by frequent tensions and contradictions between de iure and de facto conditions
(Johnson 2013), as we shall see also in our discussion of the Austrian example.
In terms of acquisition planning for foreign languages in general, Austrian
documents make a generic distinction between “first” and “second” foreign lan-
guage (in terms of when, how much and to whom they are taught), but make no
prescription as to which of the languages mentioned (English, French, Italian,
Russian, Spanish, Czech, Slovenian, Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, Hungarian, Slovak,

Polish) must or must not function in one of the roles (e.g. BMBF 2004). Educational
statistics, on the other hand, tell us that 97% of Austrian school leavers have
learned English, while only 10% have (also) learned any of the other languages
from the pool of possible foreign languages (de Cillia and Haller 2013). That is to
say, English is the de facto “first foreign language” almost without exception.
This is the foil against which one must consider the impact of CLIL.
As in numerous other countries, CLIL is practised in Austria at all three
levels of education, primary, secondary and tertiary. We shall, however, make a
general distinction between school-level and university level implementations
because of the different effect various factors like governance, recruitment of
students, disciplinarity etc. take in them (Smit and Dafouz 2012). The difference
is expressed in the terminological distinction of CLIL vs. EMI (English Medium
Instruction), but we shall use CLIL as a cover term in this contribution for reasons
of brevity (Fortanet-Gómez 2013).
Apart from simply stating that “foreign languages may be used as medium
of instruction” (Austrian School Law 1986, §16(3); our translation), Austrian
national school law provides no predefined models or guidelines as to when,
by whom, for whom, how and how much foreign-language medium instruction
(CLIL or de facto CEIL) may or should be implemented. This results in a plurality
of practices ranging from full bilingual strands to short-term projects.
At primary level (years 1–4) CLIL functions, first and foremost, as an inten-
sification of the minimalist compulsory foreign language provision starting in
year 1, which is largely in English. CEIL initiatives offered by individual primary
schools can be quite intense, but documentation is generally scarce (Buchholz
2007). The integrated nature of CEIL follows naturally from the class-teacher
system, choice of language relying on the foreign language competences the
class-teacher possesses and often drawing on native speakers as support teachers.
At lower secondary level (years 5–8) CLIL lessons can be introduced along-
side regular “first foreign language” provision, but now relying on the subject-
teacher principle, which gives CLIL a clearly content-driven character. A plurality
of models is united by the aim of providing learners with an additional context of
use of English as shown by research studies (e.g. Dalton-Puffer 2007; Gierlinger
2015; Mewald 2007). Joining a ‘CLIL-class’ is normally a matter of choice on the
part of parents and/or pupils and so leads to a creaming effect within and across
schools, as CLIL attracts academically stronger children.
At upper secondary level (years 9–12/13) the Austrian education system
has a range of school-types with different curricula some of which prescribe a
specific ESP focus (e.g. business, tourism, technology) in EFL lessons. Most stu-
dents will now be studying a second or third foreign language. This late start,
however, renders the use of the “second foreign language” as medium of

instruction an unrealistic choice, which means that English continues to be the
dominant CLIL language. Unlike many other countries, where CLIL often ceases
in grade 10 in order to prepare students for national school-leaving exams in the
national language, no such backwash effect seems to be observable in Austria
until now; rather, it has been possible for CLIL students to take the final oral
exam of a CLIL subject in English.
When moving from compulsory education to the tertiary level, we can iden-
tify one shared feature of most Austrian higher educational institutions (HEIs):
Despite their generally autonomous status, they concur in having minimalistic
language regulations that identify German as main institutional language in
terms of administration, teaching and research. With the increasing relevance
of internationalisation, the de facto policies have widened to include English,
especially for the areas of teaching and research. In contrast to HEIs in other
countries, e.g. in Finland, these bilingual practices still await explicit recogni-
tion as language policies that affect the institution as a whole. In light of the
central relevance given to mobility, extant regulations at the University of
Vienna for instance recommend adapting the teaching programme to accommo-
date international students, mainly through changing the medium of instruction
for individual courses or for whole, largely post-graduate programmes (University
of Vienna 2015: 39–42). In view of the fact that the overwhelming majority of these
courses are offered in English, the official wording of “in einer Fremdsprache
[in a foreign language]” (University of Vienna 2015: 34, authors’ translation) is
worth mentioning. It demonstrates the widely observed “invisibility of English”
(Saarinen and Nikula 2013) in tertiary de iure language policies that arguably re-
flects the dilemma experienced between the European call for multilingualism
and the (perceived) necessity of bilingualism consisting of German as national
language of education and English as overpowering language of academia, which
in turn comprises the double role of (international) disciplinary language and of
lingua franca. Given the increasing numbers of non-German speaking teachers
and students, this double role intensifies the imagined usefulness of English as
vehicular language for future needs – so central to compulsory education – by
adding in situ communicational needs of local and international interlocutors.
3 Some implications of ELF for language

education policies
Based on this brief account of the diversified Austrian realities of CLIL/CEIL
across educational levels, we will now turn to four central concerns worthy of
further discussion:
– conceptual relations between ELF, EFL and ESP;

– functions of English in CEIL from an etic perspective;
– relevance of English for students from an emic perspective;
– consequences for educational language policies.
The first point is linked to the afore-sketched picture that offers insights into
the complexity of how English functions in CEIL practices. Instead of fulfilling
only one of the often-cited functions of second/foreign language (ESL/EFL), of
language for specific or academic purposes (ESP/EAP) and of lingua franca
(ELF), we see English as fulfilling all of these in dynamic and diverse combina-
tions. This is not only because educational realities are of necessity situation-
specific and thus highly flexible, but also because they foreground the interplay
of various language-related dimensions: (a) the interlocutors and their shared
language repertoire; (b) the communicational aims within the institutional setting;
and (c) the pedagogical aims of language and content teaching and learning.
Depending on the constellation of the participants in CEIL settings, English
varies in its communicative role from being the only lingua franca for a group
of students and teacher(s), to being a second or foreign language for interlocutors
who also share German as their main educational language. The distinction
between second and foreign language could be used further to emphasise that
bilingual scenarios differ with regard to the role English is perceived to fulfil
within the group, a distinction that goes hand in hand with the degree of
regularity of actually using English as well as with the participants’ subjective
perceptions. Given the institutionalised content-focus in all forms of CEIL,
English is used for the communicational aims of the respective content subject.
Depending on educational level and specification, the English used will thus be
of a more general purposes kind (esp. at primary level) to a more specific or
academic kind (esp. at tertiary level), thus closer to EAP/ESP with education
progressing. Finally, the pedagogical aims of language learning vary from
explicit and foregrounded to implicit and backgrounded, with many gradations
in-between. While the resulting complex interplay of functions and types of
language use will definitely require more detailed elaborations, it clearly shows
that CEIL requires a conceptual embedding that combines ELF, ESL/EFL and
ESP/EAP.
Such conceptual considerations emphasise that CEIL widens the purposes
that English is put to in educational contexts, which leads to the second con-
cern, functions of English in CEIL from an etic perspective. By executing subject
content communicational needs in English, CEIL diversifies the relevance of the
language in school life. For the students, this means that, in addition to the role
of language learner intrinsic to EFL classes, they are positioned as language
users of English, a position central to ELF communication. Apart from the more
diversified self as English user-cum-learner this might create, and the motiva-
tional potential this can create (Ushioda and Dörnyei 2009), CEIL practices
also form a bridge to out-of-school experiences of most students (Berns, de Bot,
and Hasebrink 2007; Schwarz 2013). Although, due to their institutional nature,
schools and universities can only indirectly integrate such spare time experiences
partially made in ELF contexts, the role of English language users will be rein-
forced by CEIL practices and, with the focus on content topics, transposed into
the respective subject or disciplinary domain. If, furthermore, CEIL practices are
experienced as sustainable, they will make the use of English into a ‘normal’
part of school life. While this has the potential to change an otherwise mono-
lingual school climate into a bilingual one, it also foreshadows the normality of
bilingual work life, combining the L1 with ELF (e.g. Cogo this volume), that
many students will encounter in the future.
Turning to the emic perspectives of participants – our third concern – it
must not be forgotten that CLIL in Austria is, as indeed it tends to be everywhere
else, optional and voluntary. The motivation to take on this extra challenge is
nevertheless strongly instrumental and linked with the perceived usefulness
and competitive edge of “knowing English really well” in life outside of school,
thereby fitting well to similar evaluations recorded in business settings. Such
views are voiced particularly clearly by teachers and students at the Colleges of
Art, Craft and Technology:
“a vocational school trains for the job and with all this globalization it is actually unthinkable
to manage without English” (content-teacher)
“they won’t speak German everywhere where I‘ll work in the future” (student)
(Dalton-Puffer et. al 2008; translated from German)
In the interviews just quoted, identity construction of participants as English

users for whom the L2 has become an integral part of their selves (“just say it in
English as if it was German”) is evident (see also Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer, and
Smit. 2013). Additionally, the shared status of users of English as a second or
foreign language seems to have the effect on teachers and students that they
perceive their relationship as more symmetrical (Hüttner, Dalton-Puffer, and
Smit 2013; van Lier 2001). This complements ELF classroom discourse studies
(e.g. Björkman 2013; Smit 2010), showing that English language expertise is
shared by all participants.
Our discussion of CEIL so far has made it evident that the dominance of
English has had a huge and lasting impact on de facto educational language
policies, with the extreme popularity of CEIL being the most obvious indicator.
In the Austrian context, this has even led to an unexpected alteration in policy
traditions: While CLIL had always rested on voluntariness alone, recent curricular
changes have introduced an obligatory CEIL element for all Colleges of Art, Craft
and Technology (BMBF 2011), seemingly responding to the (imagined) urgency of
English for future professionals in technical fields. Future developments will show
whether this measure of enforced CEIL will lead to the intended improvements
in subject-relevant English language proficiency.
As regards foreign language education policies, CEIL has sometimes been
seen as a potential threat to EFL teaching on the one hand and, on the other, to
the spectrum of foreign languages on the whole. While it might be early days
to come up with a definitive evaluation on either of these points, it seems fair
to say that the thinning out of language teaching has indeed been felt on the
tertiary level (Stegu, Winkler, and Seidlhofer 2013). On primary and secondary
levels, however, CEIL has not led to changes in the foreign language timetables,
most likely reflecting its structural anchoring in content lessons (e.g. Hüttner
and Smit 2014). This might also be one of the reasons why CEIL has not had
any direct influence on the spectrum of foreign languages being taught at
schools. Beyond the purely administrative level, the separation of CEIL from
foreign language teaching could also be interpreted as an indication of a grow-
ing understanding in wide circles of the population that gaining proficiency in
English has become a generally required part of education in the 21st century
(e.g. Grin 2001).
4 Conclusion
As argued in this contribution, the ever increasing use of English as the lingua
franca of multilingual interlocutors in diverse communicational situations has
lastingly changed the status of English in schools in Austria, Europe and across
the globe. While fuelling Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and
making it into one of the most popular educational innovations in the last 20
years (Eurydice Network 2006; Wächter and Maiworm 2014), the global spread
of English and its socio-political relevance has narrowed CLIL to Content and
English Integrated Learning (CEIL), thus re-interpreting the European recom-
mendations supporting multilingualism as regulations enabling bilingualism by
combining the national language with English. At the same time, this bilingual
medium of instruction policy goes hand in hand with different realisations along
the educational trajectory, reflecting diverse communicational and language
learning needs. Generally put, they develop from being mainly English foreign
language learning at the primary level, via dynamically changing combinations
of language learning and subject specific language use at secondary level, to
academic and disciplinary oriented communication in lingua franca settings at

the tertiary level.
Despite such disparities across educational levels and realities, the dominance
of English in CLIL persists and underscores its unique position in and out-of-
school. This reveals that de facto educational policies recognise that English is,
and should be treated as, different from other foreign or second languages, an
idea that Barbara Seidlhofer suggested more than a decade ago (Seidlhofer
2003).
References
Austrian School Law. 1986. httpsː//www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblPdf/1986_472_0/1986_472_0.
pdf (accessed 5 May 2015).
Berns, Margie, Kees de Bot & Uwe Hasebrink (eds.). 2007. In the presence of English media and
European youth. New York: Springer.
Björkman, Beyza. 2013. English as an academic lingua franca. An investigation of form and
communicative effectiveness (Developments in English as a Lingua Franca 3). Boston &
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
BMBF. 2004. Lehrplan für AHS Oberstufe. Lebende Fremdsprache (Erste, Zweite). httpsː//www.
bmbf.gv.at/schulen/unterricht/lp/lp_ahs_os_lebende_fs_11854.pdf?4dzgm2 (accessed 5
May 2015).
BMBF. 2011. Allgemeines Bildungsziel, schulautonome Lehrplanbestimmungen, didaktische
Grundsätze und gemeinsame Unterrichtsgegenstände an den Höheren Technischen und
Gewerblichen Lehranstalten. http://www.graphische.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/
Lehrplan-Pflichtgegenstaende-HTL-allgemeiner-Teil-Anlage-1.pdf (accessed 7 May 2015).
Buchholz, Barbara. 2007. Reframing young learners’ classroom discourse structure as a
preliminary requirement for a CLIL-based ELT approach. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Ute
Smit (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classrooms, 51–78. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Cenoz, Jasone, Fred Genesee & Durk Gorter. 2014. Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and
looking forward. Applied Linguistics 35(3). 243–262.
Coyle, Do, Philip Hood & David Marsh. 2010. CLIL. Content and Language Integrated Learning.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2007. Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)
classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 2011. Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to
principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31. 182–204.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Julia Hüttner, Silvia Jexenflicker, Veronika Schindelegger & Ute Smit.
2008. Content and language integrated learning an Österreichs Höheren Technischen
Lehranstalten. Forschungsbericht. Vienna: Universität Wien & Bundesministerium für
Unterricht, Kultur und Kunst. http://www.htl.at/fileadmin/content/clil/Executive_final_
mit_titelblatt.pdf (accessed 5 May 2015).
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Tarja Nikula & Ute Smit. 2010. Charting policies, premises and
research on content and language integrated learning. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Tarja
Nikula & Ute Smit (eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms, 1–19.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Ana Llinares, Francisco Lorenzo & Tarja Nikula. 2014. ‘You can stand
under my umbrella’: Immersion, CLIL and bilingual education. A response to Cenoz, Genesee
& Gorter (2013). Applied Linguistics 35(2). 213–218.
de Cillia, Rudolf & Michaela Haller. 2013. English und. . . ? Vorschulisches und schulisches
Sprachenlernen in Österreich. In Rudolf de Cillia & Eva Vetter (eds.), Sprachenpolitik in
Österreich: Bestandsaufnahme 2011, 142–174. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Eurobarometer. 2012. Special Eurobarometer 386. Europeans and their languages. http://ec.
europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm (accessed 24 May 2015).
European Commission. 2008. Multilingualism: An asset for Europe and a shared commitment.
In Communication of the European Commission, 1–15. http://europa.eu/legislation_
summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/ef0003_en.htm (accessed 5 May
2015).
Eurydice Network. 2006. Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) at school in Europe.
Brussels. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/thematic_studies_archives_en.php
(accessed 5 May 2015).
Fortanet-Gómez, Inmaculada. 2013. CLIL in higher education. Towards a multilingual language
policy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gierlinger, Erwin. 2015. ‘You can speak German, sir’: On the complexity of teachers’ L1 use in
CLIL. Language and Education 29(4). 347–368.
Grin, François. 2001. English as economic value: Facts and fallacies. World Englishes 20(1). 65–
78.
Hüttner, Julia, Christiane Dalton-Puffer & Ute Smit. 2013. The power of beliefs: Lay theories and
their influence on the implementation of CLIL programmes. International Journal of Bilin-
gual Education and Bilingualism 16(3). 267–284.
Hüttner, Julia & Ute Smit. 2014. CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning): The bigger
picture. A response to: A. Bruton. 2013. CLIL: Some of the reasons why . . . and why not.
System 41 (2013): 587–597. System 44. 160–167.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2014. English as a lingua franca in the international university. The politics of
academic English language policy. London & New York: Routledge.
Johnson, David Cassels. 2013. Language policy. London: Palgrave.
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF. Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cam-
Mewald, Claudia. 2007. A comparison of oral language performance of learners in CLIL and
mainstream classes at lower secondary level in Lower Austria. In Christiane Dalton-Puffer
& Ute Smit (eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classrooms, 139–178. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.
Saarinen, Taina & Tarja Nikula. 2013. Implicit policy, invisible language: Policies and practices
of international degree programmes in Finnish higher education. In Aintzane Doiz, David
Lasagabaster & Juan Manuel Sierra (eds.), English medium instruction at universities.
Global challenges, 131–150. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Schwarz, Marlene. 2013. Learning with Lady GaGa & Co: Incidental EFL vocabulary acquisition
from pop songs. Vienna English Working PaperS 22. 18–48. httpsː//anglistik.univie.ac.at/
fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/VIEWS_22_2013_Schwarz.pdf (accessed 5 May 2015).
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2003. A concept of ‘international English’ and related issues: From ‘real
English’ to ‘realistic English’?. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SeidlhoferEN.
pdf (accessed 5 May 2015).
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: University Press
Oxford.
in Europe: Challenges for applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26. 3–
34.
Smit, Ute. 2010. English as a lingua franca in higher education. A longitudinal study of class-
room discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Smit, Ute & Emma Dafouz. 2012. Integrating content and language in higher education. An
introduction to English-medium policies, conceptual issues and research practices across
Europe. In Ute Smit & Emma Dafouz (eds.), Integrating content and language in higher
education. Gaining insights into English-medium instruction at European universities.
AILA Review 25. 1–12. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Spolsky, Bernard. 2004. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stegu, Martin, Regina Winkler & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2013. Fremdsprachenunterricht an Univer-
sitäten, Fachhochschulen und Pädagogischen Hochschulen. In Rudolf de Cillia & Eva
Vetter (eds.), Sprachenpolitik in Österreich: Bestandsaufnahme 2011, 175–201. Frankfurt
am Main: Peter Lang.
University of Vienna. 2015. Universität 2020. Entwicklungsplan. httpsː//www.univie.ac.at/
rektorenteam/ug2002/entwicklung.pdf (accessed 4 May 2015).
Ushioda, Ema & Zoltán Dörnyei. 2009. Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: A theo-
retical overview. In Zoltán Dörnyei & Ema Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity
and the L2 self, 1–8. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
van Lier, Leo. 2001. Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues of equality and symmetry.
In Christopher Candlin & Neil Mercer (eds.), English language teaching in its social con-
text. A reader, 90–107. London: Routledge in association with Macquarie University and
The Open University.
Wächter, Bernd & Friedhelm Maiworm (eds.). 2014. English-taught programmes in European
higher education: The state of play in 2014. Bonn: Lemmens.
Closing the gender gap: The role of English
1 Introduction: English as a lingua franca in

higher education
Transnationalism has significantly increased the numbers of international students
representing a variety of cultures and languages who undertake their college edu-
cation in the U.S. According to the annual report of the Institute of International
Education (2014), 886,052 international students enrolled in American higher
education institutions in 2013–2014, up 8.1% from the preceding year. Students
from Asia top the list, comprising over half of the total number.
For many of these students, attaining higher education provides not only
social and economic rewards but a more subtle and deeper sense of cultural
transformation of becoming a multilingual self, including learning English
(Kramsch 2009). As Kramsch (2009: 4) indicates, acquiring another language
equips students with “the potential medium for the expression of their inner-
most aspirations”. Recent research has focused attention on the transformative
processes of using English as a global or lingua franca (Brutt-Griffler 2002;
Seidlhofer 2011). Seidlhofer (2011: 96) points out that accomplished ELF users
“develop both a sense that the language is theirs to use and a heightened capa-
bility to accommodate” its functional usefulness.
Such insights help shed light on the question of gender that has increas-
ingly occupied scholars’, as well as society’s, attention. According to Piller and
Takahashi (2006), for example, Japanese women’s learning English (or going
abroad) has a strong tendency towards the active reenactment of their gendered
subjectivities. They employ the Japanese concept of akogare, “a bundle of desires –
for a ‘Western’ emancipated life-style [. . .] for mastery of English” (Piller and
Takahashi 2006: 78). That is, learning English (or going abroad) carries an
important consequence for women to resist normative gender roles reinforced
in their L1 context. For such female learners, English creates the space to break
away from gender conventions and shape different subjectivity and new sym-
bolic possibilities (cf. Kramsch 2009).
In this contribution, we examine gender from a transnational perspective
taking into account quantitative data and case studies from a variety of Asian
countries to show how female students break gender conventions and inequality
Janina Brutt-Griffler and Sumi Kim, The State University of New York at Buffalo
246 Janina Brutt-Griffler and Sumi Kim
in the process of English learning and use. Second, we show that Asian female
students do not only create a new speech community of English users but also
construct English as gender-neutral terrain in the L2 setting. Looking at female
students from this standpoint, they can be viewed as “active agents in the
process of creation of world English” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 107).
2 Asian women in tradition: Gender in Asian

contexts
In Asian contexts, as elsewhere, sociocultural and religious beliefs have been
strongly grounded in conservative understandings of how women and men
should be positioned within societies. Confucianism1 is one of the most influen-
tial cultural correlates of hierarchical gender systems in East Asian countries
(Rainey 2010; Tu, Hejtmanek, and Wachman 1992). In particular, Confucian
philosophies in East Asian countries have led to strict social orders that have re-
sulted in centuries of gender inequality. In Japan, for instance, this is illustrated
in old sayings like ‘earthquake (jishin), thunder (kaminari), fire (kaji), and father
(oyaji)’, which refer to the most fearful things in order in Japanese society. When
it comes to gender norms, the proverb connotes patriarchal authority and gender
role expectations of men as an ideal father’s image in the traditional Japanese
family (see Wagatsuma 1977: 200). On the other hand, traditional Japanese
women’s role has been represented by the view of ‘a good wife and wise mother’
(ryosai kenbo) (see Lebra 1998). It underscores the conservative norms for women
as a wife who takes responsibility for domestic affairs as well as a mother who
looks after her children. Similarly, in China and South Korea, within the tra-
ditional cultural system, both housekeeping and rearing children have been
primarily deemed as the traditional virtues of women in the family, which sym-
bolize the conventional notion of ‘a wise mother and good wife’ (Chinese xianqi
liangmu; Korean hyonmo yangcho)2 (see Fengxian 2012; Lee 1998). It has been
long assumed that men’s status has been high and authoritative, whereas women’s
position has relatively remained in the domestic sphere subordinate to that of
men (Tu, Hejtmanek, and Wachman 1992: 7).
The dramatic economic and social changes such as industrialization, capi-
talism, modernization, and globalization have brought substantive transforma-
tion in the traditional patriarchal system of the Asian countries, including a
1 In this study, we focus on East Asian cultures based on Confucianism.

2 In general, the notions of ‘a good wife and wise mother’ and ‘a wise mother and good wife’
have been used interchangeably.
remarkable expansion of educational and employment opportunities (see Brinton

2001). Local political ideologies in each country3 have further attempted to chal-
lenge the gender inequity embedded in women’s lives. Despite the leap forward,
there has been a growing awareness of ongoing gender inequalities, found, for
example, in the higher attendance of women at community colleges in Japan
(e.g. Anzai and Paik 2012). Such gender-stereotyped practice has been consistent
with a labor market in which women face significant difficulties in finding
adequate (or full-time) employment (e.g. Cooke 2010; Yu 2002). It is also expe-
rienced in their difficulties attaining more highly paid positions within large
companies (e.g. Nemoto 2013).
The World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Report4 (2014) identifies a number
of severe gender disparities between women and men prevalent across Asia.
Most Asian countries scored relatively low, including Japan (ranked 104 out of
142 countries) and South Korea (117). Asia’s persistent gender gap raises funda-
mental questions about the role of education, including the acquisition of the
global language – English – in enhancing the conditions of women in Asia.
3 Asian women in transition: The role of English

and construction of a macroacquisition
community
Applied linguists have long understood how English users appropriate and
adapt the language to meet their communicative needs (e.g. Brutt-Griffler 2002;
Seidlhofer 2011; Widdowson 1994). This contribution extends this line of research
in examining English as a site for seeking gender equity. It adopts Brutt-Griffler’s
(2002) framework that highlights how English is used and developed by diverse
levels of a society through macroacquisition, which refers to “the acquisition of a
second language by a speech community” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 138). This demands
reconceptualization of local and functional varieties of English (cf. Seidlhofer
3 The sociopolitical principles of the socialist system of China (see Parish and Busse 2000) and
economic policy of Japan, so-called Abenomics (see Song 2015) are major local policies in order
to promote women’s social and economic participation.
4 The World Economic Forum has been publishing the Gender Gap Report since 2006. The
Report combines data on four criteria, i.e. economic participation and opportunity, political em-
powerment, educational attainment, and health and survival. The scores are interpreted as the
percentage of the inequity between men and women. The higher the percentage is, the more
equal the genders are, and vice versa.
2011; Widdowson 1994) as the outcome of social second language acquisition,

when “the speech community not only acquires the language but also makes
the language its own” (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 137; cf. Widdowson 1994). Brutt-Griffler
(2002) theorizes the new paradigm of English change and spread as resulting
from the functional agency of its non-native speakers.
The concept of macroacquisition allows us to further rethink identities,
among them gender and gendered identities, including those in the L2 class-
room. From this perspective, the work of Brutt-Griffler (2002) on macroacquisi-
tion and Seidlhofer (2011) on English as a lingua franca allows us to explore
the ways in which gender is a generative variable. Through our data analysis,
we will show that there is a community of female learners who comprise a
macroacquisition speech community, who express their agency through learning
English within transformative transnational gender practice. We will show that
this is in part due to the unfulfilled expectations of gender equality in their
own societies.
The analysis is based on research on gender perceptions, learning, and use
of English among a sample of 281 university students (both male and female)
from Asian countries. A mixed method inquiry comprising survey question-
naires5 and semi-structured interviews was adapted in order to develop “a better
understanding of a research problem than either quantitative or qualitative data
by itself” (Creswell 2012: 22). All of the participants were pursuing under-
graduate college studies in an American university. In the first stage, 281 Asian
international students responded to questions regarding their attitudes and
beliefs toward gender norms and roles across the domains of family, work, and
education. Subsequently, they responded to questions about their perception of
the role of gender in interactions in English classroom where they were learning
and using English.6 A previous study (Kim 2016) was expanded and data re-
analyzed to examine how if at all, Asian female participants challenge norma-
tive gender ideologies present in their L1 linguaculture and socialization while
developing academic English in the L2 context. Towards this end, we also
selected five case studies with female students and conducted semi-structured
interviews and classroom observations.
5 The 20-minute questionnaire survey comprises five-point Likert-type scale survey items, rang-
ing from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). For consistency of interpretation, we as-
signed the highest score to express the most egalitarian view and the lowest score to express
the least egalitarian view on the questions in the survey.
6 A factor analysis was conducted to check whether or not each of the sub questions are corre-
lated and are available to be aggregated to reveal each of the four variables that is the degree of
having an egalitarian view on family, education, work, and classroom interaction. Thus, the
higher factor score means the student has a more egalitarian position on the perceptions of
gender roles and norms in each area.
4 Results
4.1 Emergence of a gender based community and its
relevance to learning English and interaction in the
English classroom
4.1.1 Main effects for gender in family, work, and education
As seen in Table 1 (see Appendix A), statistical data analysis indicates the main
effects for gender are significant in all three domains: family (F(1,273) = 72.753,
p < .001), work (F(1,273) = 85.965, p < .001), and education (F(1,273) = 54.810,
p < .001).7 The mean difference of gender in “family”, “education”, and “work”
are 1.03, 1.07, and .96, respectively. It reveals that on average female inter-
national Asian students have a more egalitarian perception of gender roles in
family, education, and work than male international Asian students. Figure 1
presents this main trend, which differentiates the students’ perceptions across
all national groups and gender across the three societal domains.8 Except in
the cases of Japanese groups, the confidence interval (CI) shows a wider range
attributable to the smaller sample sizes of the Japanese female and male groups;
the three graphs illustrate that the bars of female students in the three societal
domains are located higher than the bars of male students across three nationality
groups. It shows the overall trend of all female students having a more egalitarian
view on gender roles and norms in family, work, and education, than male students
across nationality groups.
Asian international undergraduate students studying in the U.S. hold different
perceptions regarding gender norms and roles in family, education, and work,
depending upon their own gender. Figure 1 reveals that regardless of their
national origin, female students articulate those attitudes and expectations and
as such form a gender based community, distinctive, separate from male stu-
dents, and borderless.
7 A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to examine whether there is any sig-
nificant difference among nationalities, or difference between genders, and also significant
interaction between gender and nationality with respect to the students’ perceptions of gender
norms and roles in three domains: family, education, and work. In addition to the main effects
for gender in family, work, and education, our analysis also resulted in a significant main effect
for nationality across the three domains: family (F(3,273)=19.888, p<.001), work (F(3,273)=13.271,
p<.001), and education (F(3,273)=8.425, p<.001). There is only one significant interaction
between gender and nationality with respect to the gender norms and roles in the domain of
work (F(3,273)=2.686, p<.05). In this paper, we focus on the main effects for gender in family,
work, and education.
8 In the graphs, the circular points indicate the sample mean values of the female group, and
square points indicate the sample mean value of male groups across four nationalities. The bars
indicate that we are 95% confident that the true population mean is in the given range.
250
Figure 1: Students’ perceptions of gender norms and roles across nationality and gender
4.1.2 Relevance to learning English and interaction in the English classroom
Our analysis further sought to examine whether such gender based communities
have any relevance to the English language classroom where much of the learn-
ing and language use occurs among the students with different L1s, hence
presenting a site for ELF interactions. Does gender matter in such a context? To
answer this question, we conducted a t-test to compare the students’ perceptions
of gender and its relation to classroom interactions.9 Table 2 (see Appendix B)
displays the results of the t-test. It shows that there is a statistically significant
difference in the perception of gender norms on classroom interaction for females
(M = .33, SD = 1.00) and males (M = –.24, SD = .93), t(279) = 4.91, p < .001. The
result reveals that female students have more egalitarian norms of interaction in
comparison to male students.
In terms of communication patterns and gender roles in the classroom,
there are statistically significant differences for the following three variables: (1)
“physical cues” for females (M = 2.65, SD = 1.03) and males (M = 2.04, SD = .72),
t(201.7) = 5.55, p < .001; (2) “gender of the interlocutor” for females (M = 2.82,
SD = 1.02) and males (M = 2.24, SD = .76), t(211.4) = 5.24, p < .001; and (3)
“one’s own culture” for females (M = 3.21, SD = 1.11) and males (M = 2.56, SD =
.91), t(227.1) = 5.23, p < .001. Taken together, these results reveal that female
students give higher mean scores to the three variables than male students do.
Hence, such differences indicate that, first, the male student group perceives
communication as being more affected by gender due to physical cues such as
dress, voice, and so on, than the female subjects. Second, it shows the males are
more aware of the gender of the person with whom they communicate. Lastly,
the results indicate that the male student group perceives that there are certain
attitudes about gender roles in the classroom that are influenced by their culture
more than the female student group.
4.2 Qualitative exploration and exit from gendered identities
4.2.1 Participants for qualitative study
Our qualitative exploration of gender and its intersections with English lan-
guage learning included five Asian female students.10 Three participants, Lien,
Wei, and Zhen, were enrolled in the same writing course in Spring 2013; the
9 A t-test was performed to compare the students’ perceptions of gender norms on classroom
interaction and three items of communication patterns in male and female groups.
10 All are pseudonyms.
other two participants, Shu and Yumiko, were enrolled in a writing course in Fall
2014. They were from China, Japan, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The age range of the
participants was from 18 to 26, with an average of 20.8 years old. All participants
were unmarried and childless. Two participants were business majors, and the
rest of the majors included accounting, chemistry, and nursing. They included
two freshmen, two sophomores, and one Junior.
4.2.2 Interview procedures
All students were interviewed twice; interviews ranged from approximately

40 to 60 minutes. Interviews were conducted in English.11 All recordings were
manually transcribed into a question–answer format for open coding (Strauss and
Corbin 1998). After the transcriptions of interview data, certain recurring themes
were identified and categorized across participants as a cross-case analysis.
4.2.3 The results of qualitative data analysis
For the five female students, the primary goal of L2 learning was noticeably con-
nected to (re)constructing gender identities from the ones rooted in their L1
circumstances. For the female students, L2 learning constituted a new space
to break gender ideologies imposed by the older generation. Furthermore, L2
learning helped the students to move away from culturally gendered pragmatics,
i.e. language and speech styles. Mastering high-level L2 proficiency in the class-
room was viewed as a path towards pursuing their future life goals and self-fulfill-
ment to be professionals in their field of study.
4.2.3.1 Exit from gendered identities: Yumiko and Lien

For our Japanese participant, Yumiko, her English learning experiences in the
U.S. made her think critically about her gendered roles as well as gendered
pragmatics of language use. According to Yumiko, it was imperative to act and
speak in accordance with the ideal social values in Japan. She recalled, “as a
daughter, [my parents] want me to be polite and modest, not wild, but they
wanted my brother to be polite but brave and wild”. Yumiko was socialized
differently than her brother by having instilled in her how to act as a Japanese
woman, whose speech styles and behaviors are more polite and less powerful
than men. She states:
11 English, Japanese, and Korean languages were used in interviews with Yumiko.
I was shy and polite but very talkative when I spoke Japanese. So whenever I talk much
in Japanese, my mom said to me, ‘礼儀正しい態度で、丁寧な言葉で話すように。reigi
tadashii taido de, teineina kotoba de hanasu youni, [‘Speak courteously in a polite
manner’]’ and my mom sometimes gave me a demonstration with a very high, feminine
tone. Like my mom, my parents’ generation tends to take women’s silence and moderation
as a moral virtue for granted.
(interview with Yumiko, October 10, 2014)
It seems that Yumiko learned to play the role of the daughter as well as the
role of a traditional Japanese woman from her mother. In the English-speaking
context she felt emancipated from gender-specific constraints. She realized that
she could depart from the gender constraints imposed upon her by Japanese
usage. She expressed her desire to expand the space she used English to open:
I wanted to meet [my classmates] to learn their cultures and languages. When I speak with
them. . . I cannot express it exactly. . . I feel. . . 自由 ( jiyu, [‘freedom’]) . . . freedom? I think it
is the best way to explain my feeling. For example, as I told you before, there are many
restrictions in my native culture and language in terms of speaking like ‘a very Japanese
woman’. You know, I am a girl so I have to speak like a woman. In fact, if I keep in mind
that ‘I must be shy and quiet’ when I interact with my classmates in English, I might feel
some restrictions on getting along with them because, as my mom taught me, I have to
speak very courteously and softly.
Yumiko relates how the English she uses to liberate her from oppressive cul-
tural gender norms provides her with a sense of liberation from those cultural
and linguistic conventions. She cannot conceive of transferring those Japanese
conventions to English.
Speaking English like speaking Japanese is very weird. I can say English gives me freedom
to behave and say something. So I am so attracted to English. I like speaking English
[more] than Japanese.
In a similar way, Lien, a Vietnamese participant, reflects on the value of

English learning and use in the U.S. while looking back into her childhood. She
narrates, “when I was young, my parents had told me that ‘you should act and
speak like a girl, help your mother and sisters, and hang out with female
friends’. My parents seemed to think that my brothers and I had a different role
as a daughter or a son”. Through English use, however, she gained a new sense
of self.
When I speak English fluently, I feel that I am no more a Vietnamese woman or a non-
native English [speaker]. [. . .] No matter where I came from, no matter who I am, I am a
student here. Girls and boys are the same in the classroom in the U.S.
(interview with Lien, March 24, 2013)
These cases illustrate Asian female English users striving to express their new
identities, the gender equality suppressed in their own lingua cultures.
4.2.3.2 English learning and the pursuit of the gender equality in their life
trajectories
Our study also speaks to the significant value of English for Asian female students
in their pursuit of professional development. They aim to establish themselves
as students whose high-level English proficiency places them on an equal foot-
ing with their male counterparts in education and in the professions.
Zhen, one of our Chinese participants, expresses her hopes to live her life
the way she wants in pointing out that “men and women are much more equal
in the U.S. than in China”. She declares:
When it comes to learn or communicate in English, I want to be a very energetic learner.

This is very important for me because I have an unchallengeable plan for my future. That’s
getting a secure job like a tax accountant and living in the U.S. So English is an utmost
skill in my life to fulfill my future.
(interview with Zhen, March 22, 2013)
Similarly, Wei, another Chinese participant, treasures her English-infused

life as an international student. Her experience of inequitable treatment in
comparison to her brother in her male-dominated family triggered her interest
in finding employment in the U.S. This was her personal motivation towards
developing high-level English proficiency.
I have two big dreams. One is to be a nurse. The other is to be a nurse in the U.S. To purse
my own dreams, the most obvious thing to be the best is to improve my English profi-
ciency. [. . .] I’m a female. I’m a non-native English speaker. Why not?
(interview with Wei, March 27, 2013)
Shu, a Taiwanese participant, also perceived pursing her life goal in the U.S.
as a challenge to gender inequality that prevails in Taiwan, particularly in the
field of chemistry, her academic major. She emphasizes that the knowledge of
English helps women to surmount the gender inequality facing them today.
I want to believe my life in the U.S. would be much better than [in] Taiwan. I agree that
U.S. society seems to support gender equality, especially in my academic major. For this
reason, I would like to live here. [. . .] English ability is important in a tight job market,
especially for girls. We need to have certain advantages to overcome social beliefs like
women are weak and less competitive.
(interview with Shu, October 14, 2014)
These narratives reveal that each of the participants has similar motivations
and aspirations with respect to English. Learning English and developing a high
level of proficiency are intertwined with assuming genderless subjectivities and
pursuing their professional fulfillment.
5 Conclusion
Our analysis shows that Asian female students consistently have an acute
awareness of the gender inequality that has prevailed in the Asian societies in
which they grew up. The statistical analysis shows the foundational basis for
the construction of a new macroacquisition speech community that has a gender
and linguistic basis and yet is borderless. Asian female students hold more
gender egalitarian views than male students regarding the roles and obligations
in societal domains such as family, work, and education. This major finding
bears important implications for classroom interactions in English. Our analysis
shows that female students exhibit more equitable and gender-neutral attitudes
towards communication patterns in the classroom.
The results of the qualitative study provide further explanatory data, show-
ing that Asian female students’ lives are shaped by gender inequality associated
with cultural and social relations in their L1 contexts. They are motivated, there-
fore, to alter their gendered status from weakness to empowerment through
learning English in an overseas higher education setting. As such, we observe
a new process of putting in practice what Seidlhofer (2011: 96) writes as one of
distinctive features of English users “exploiting and exploring the meaning
potential of the language”. Asian female students cultivate their agency in
English in order to challenge gendered practices in language use.
The findings in this study raise interesting questions. Will English increas-
ingly take on the function of a gender-neutral language that provides a site
for the global struggle of women for equality? If so, we cannot lose sight of the
reason. It is not the notion of linguistic imperialism that now belongs to a
bygone era. It is, rather, because English language learners like the subjects
of this study have used it as a medium within which to reclaim the identities
suppressed in their own cultures. Brutt-Griffler (2002) already called attention
to the ways in which English embodies the goals and aspirations of global com-
munities in search of liberation rather than empires seeking to oppress. We
might expect going forward that none will surpass that of the half of humanity
comprised of women.
References
Anzai, Shinobu & Chie Matsuzawa Paik. 2012. Factors influencing Japanese women to choose
two-year colleges in Japan. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 36(8).
614–625.
Brinton, Mary C. (ed.). 2001. Women’s working lives in East Asia. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Brutt-Griffler, Janina. 2002. World English: A study of its development. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Cooke, Fang Lee. 2010. Women’s participation in employment in Asia: A comparative analysis
of China, India, Japan and South Korea. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 21(12). 2249–2270.
Creswell, John W. 2012. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantita-
tive and qualitative research, 4th edn. Boston: Pearson.
Fengxian, Wang. 2012. The ‘good wife and wise mother’ as a social discourse of gender. Chinese
Studies in History 45(4). 58–70.
Institute of International Education. 2014. Top 25 places of origin of international students,
2012/13-2013/14. Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. http://www.
iie.org/opendoors (accessed 10 July 2015).
Kim, Sumi. 2016. The paradox of gender in a transnational space: Persistence and resistance of
gender identity among Asian international undergraduate students in the English learning
context. Buffalo, NY: The State University of New York at Buffalo PhD dissertation.
Kramsch, Claire. 2009. The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lebra, Takie Sugiyama. 1998. Confucian gender role and personal fulfillment for Japanese
women. In Walter H. Slote & George A. De Vos (eds.), Confucianism and the family, 209–
227. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lee, Kwang Kyu. 1998. Confucian tradition in the contemporary Korean family. In Walter H.
Slote & George A. De Vos (eds.), Confucianism and the family, 249–264. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Nemoto, Kumiko. 2013. When culture resists progress: Masculine organizational culture and its
impacts on the vertical segregation of women in Japanese companies. Work, Employment
and Society 27(1). 153–169.
Parish, William L. & Sarah Busse. 2000. Gender and work. In Wenfang Tang & William L. Parish
(eds.), Chinese urban life under reform, 209–231. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piller, Ingrid & Kimie Takahashi. 2006. A passion for English: Desire and the language market.
In Aneta Pavlenko (ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and represen-
tation, 59–83. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Rainey, Lee Dian. 2010. Confucius and confucianism: The essentials. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Press.
Song, Jiyeoun. 2015. Economic empowerment of women as the third arrow of Abenomics. Journal
of International and Area Studies 22(1). 113–128.
Strauss, Anselm & Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and proce-
dures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Tu, Weiming, Milan Hejtmanek & Alan Wachman (eds.). 1992. The Confucian world observed: A
contemporary discussion of Confucian humanism in East Asia. Honolulu: East-West Center
Press.
Wagatsuma, Hiroshi. 1977. Some aspects of the contemporary Japanese family: Once Confucian,
now fatherless? Daedalus 106(2). 181–210.
World Economic Forum. 2014. The Global Gender Gap Report 2014. http://reports.weforum.org/
global-gender-gap-report-2014 (accessed 10 July 2015).
Yu, Wei-hsin. 2002. Jobs for mothers: Married women’s labor force reentry and part-time, tem-
porary employment in Japan. Sociological Forum 17(3). 493–523.
Appendix A
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and F values of students’ perceptions of gender norms
and roles in family, education, and work by nationality and gender
Nationality Gender
China Korea Japan Others Females Males (N) (G) NxG
Item (n = 139) (n = 45) (n = 26) (n = 71) (n = 120) (n = 161) F(3, 273) F(1,273) F(3,273)
Family1 M .32 –.62 –.22 –.16 .59 –.44 19.888*** 72.753*** 2.122
SD .98 .89 .97 .88 .87 .86
Work2 M .27 –.58 –.05 –.13 .61 –.46 13.271*** 85.965*** 2.686*
SD .92 1.07 .84 .99 .77 .91
Education3 M .21 –.52 .03 –.09 .55 –.41 8.425*** 54.810*** 1.232
SD .99 .96 .86 .97 .83 .92
Note: 1Students’ perceptions of gender roles and norms in Family. 2Students’ perceptions of
gender roles and norms in work. 3Students’ perceptions of gender roles and norms in
education. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Appendix B
Table 2: Results of t-test of the means on the students’ perceptions of gender norms in class-
room interaction, and three items of communication pattern for female and male
Gender
Female Male Mean difference t df
Norms in classroom interaction .33 –.24 .57 4.91*** 279.0

(1.00) (.93)
Physical cues1 2.65 2.04 .61 5.55*** 201.7
(1.03) (.72)
Communication Gender of the 2.82 2.24 .58 5.24*** 211.4
pattern interlocutor2 (1.02) (.76)
One’s own 3.21 2.56 .65 5.23*** 227.1
culture3 (1.11) (.91)
Note: 1Gendered communication due to physical cues. 2Cognizant of the gender of the person
when communicating. 3Certain attitudes toward gender roles derived from my culture exist.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Standard deviations appear in parentheses below means.
Joseph Lo Bianco
The Seidlhofer Effect: Gaining traction for
ELF in language planning and educational
change
While preparing this paper I observed the following:
At the steamy and crowded visa issuing office of the Republic of the Union of
Myanmar, in central Bangkok, Thailand, a long line of Thais and tourists wait
patiently to lodge their application for a short-term entry permit to visit Myanmar.
In between writing installments to this paper about Barbara Seidlhofer and her
immense contribution to our understanding of how communication is achieved in
situations such as these, I found myself finalizing an application for a multi-entry
visa, and observing the interaction of Myanmar officials with the mass of intending
visitors to their country. The default language is English, very occasionally some
use some Thai, some of the officials are Thai nationals and they can identify a
Thai name on the application and switch to Thai for a greeting, but often revert
to English to transact the exchange. In truth, the default is clearly ELF, and this is
its natural home. There is even rarer use of Burmese, since few co-nationals seek
visas. The routines of negotiating a visa involve pointing to signs written in Thai,
Burmese and English, multilingual greetings and negotiation, code-switching to
English even in Thai or Burmese-begun conversations, and prominent use of
English terms or phrases. English technical terms function like nominal baubles in
the flow of talk: “Work is Prohibited!”, reads one officer loudly to the drumbeat of
an official stamp, then directly to the applicant “No Work!”. Work is Prohibited
lays down the law, and fulfills the man’s duty, No Work, communicates the
message. Functional ELF and formal English co-exist in a dynamic diglossia, but
they are both embedded in talk in Thai and Burmese.
The routines and practices of ordinary conversation in multilingual settings
require systematic study, such as Barbara Seidlhofer would do, and not casual
observation, as I have done, but even casual observation confirms that English
here is a tool under the control of users devising and negotiating its patterns and
rules for their immediate needs. In this hot and steamy Bangkok room, Myanmar
officials talk to Thais, Japanese, New Zealanders, Australians, Norwegians, Portu-
guese and Taiwanese. The shared working assumption is that a code of relatively
unproblematic communication, day in day out, at the morning application lodging
session, and the afternoon visa retrieval session, is available to them all and that it
Joseph Lo Bianco, University of Melbourne

260 Joseph Lo Bianco
is ‘some kind of English’. No one calls it ELF, or anything other than English. But it
isn’t any inner circle English, the norms of this English, its words and the overarch-
ing communication pattern of which this ‘some kind of English’ is a part, is, essen-
tially, ELF. An official reproached an applicant at one stage (I didn’t hear the
initial communication) with: “Just, say in English”. Even for Southeast Asian
neighbours, Myanmar and Thailand, one of which proclaims its defeat of British
colonial control and the other boasts its resistance to it; ELF serves quotidian
dealings on official business of state.
1 Scholarly research and practical effects

What are some policy and political consequences of knowledge generation
in English as a lingua franca (ELF) (Lo Bianco 2014)? The question points to
more general links, actual and potential, between scholarly work of academic
researchers, with its increasingly refined concepts and empirical grounding,
and the practical effects of the almost ubiquitous use of English as an auxiliary
language across the world, a kind of unplanned Esperanto. It is these links that
I discuss in this chapter, drawing on aspects of language planning theory to try
to understand connections between academic ideas and practical action.
If we take a broad definition of language planning, we need to include both
its textual form, meaning the laws and regulations enacted on language ques-
tions, and the processes of debate and argument that surround the textual,
which we can call the discursive form of language planning. The picture won’t
be complete without including the actual practices of language use, since these
influence both debate and law making.
Some processes of academic argument and language practice solidify into
language policy, i.e., into settled positions such as official determinations and
powerful procedures on questions of language (Lo Bianco 2010a, 2010b). Making
academic knowledge count in the powerful domains where official language
decisions are made can be likened to traction, i.e., to gaining a secure footing
in an argument and influencing the eventual practical outcome of a policy
conversation.
2 English neutrality: qu’est que c’est?

English in its global role can’t claim the pristine neutrality that Esperanto would
and does, since English carries within its grammatical sinews the imprint of its
Gaining traction for ELF in language planning and educational change 261
cultural and territorial origins (Wierzbicka 2006). When taught as a foreign lan-
guage, learners are invited to access the cultural codes of its grammar, native
communication forms, and its canonical literature. In ‘second’ rather than
‘foreign’ language teaching of English, cultural content is often treated as an
obstacle to effective mastery, rather than an object of study in its own right.
ELF displaces attention away from inherited culture to the culture in interaction
of practical functional usage of English by speakers, regardless of their formal
competence levels.
Typically, in English taught as a foreign language, EFL, the culture of Anglo-
and other native Englishes is not only not neutral; it is a key attractor to its
study. It is precisely the particularity of English the learner wishes to access,
the teacher wishes to impart, the curriculum designers promote. Typically, in
English taught as a second language, ESL, the inherited culture of and in
English, its predisposing meanings and nuances, its quirks, as it were (Macpherron
and Randolph 2014), are there to be explicitly targeted to enhance comprehension
and effective communication.
Proponents of invented languages often rely on a neutrality claim. Essen-
tially this holds that an artificial or invented language is neutral and a natural
human language can never be neutral due to its historical roots, native speakers
and institutions, but also because there are asymmetrical associations between
native speakers and new learners. These asymmetries are of various kinds, such
as the fluency advantage, the norm setting privilege, the correctness judging
authority that native speakers enjoy over non-native speakers. In addition to
these powerful ways that native speakers are positioned in relation to new
learners there are many costs involved in language mastery which new learners
must bear but native speakers rarely need to; expenditures of time, money, but
also of opportunities forgone, often into adult years, of formal study. There are
also wider economic benefits that accrue to native institutions, publishers,
teachers and societies, which profit from through provision, certification, assess-
ments and cultural production.
Many intellectuals, most famously the inventor of Esperanto, Ludwig Zamenhof,
from the middle of the 19th century all across Europe could perceive that a global
age was imminent. The idealists among them devoted themselves to invent-
ing forms of communication suitable for such a world. Mostly imagined their
invented solution would be an auxiliary code of communication to neutralize
the clear advantages of a natural language with its native speakers and institu-
tions, invariably that of a more powerful nation and its individuals. The lan-
guage planning the many inventors engaged in however has failed to furnish
the world with a convenient, neutral, widely accepted auxiliary language, and
instead language politics, imperial history, global economic and unequal tech-
nological arrangements in the world have favoured the emergence of a natural
language, English, with all its asymmetries of power and privilege to occupy the
functions of the widespread lingua franca. Under these circumstances it is
inevitable that questions, of ‘neutrality’ and bias will continue to be raised and
calls made for a more equitable and ‘neutral’ communication order. What is or
could be the role of ELF in such a context?
3 Towards ELF
Barbara Seidlhofer’s work is present in this context in a ‘scientific’ way, but it
also shapes the language planning being done to reconcile and accommodate
to the new language arrangements of our world, language planning processes
that must continue for some generations into the future. Academic work ‘shapes’
practice, through processes of traction, as discussed below. Seidlhofer’s work
has deeply influenced world thinking on the fact that English has garnered this
role of widespread if not yet fully global auxiliary code of communication,
and her focus on ELF is an acknowledgement that it isn’t – and can never be –
neutral in the way the idealist language inventors of the 19th century thought a
shared and common language of humanity should be. While contemporary
global English cannot be described as ‘shared and common language of humanity’,
it has the largely uncontested role of the predominant lingua franca. This fact,
and this role, and its unplanned (though certainly not un-promoted and not
disinterested global function, see Phillipson 1992), creates ethical as well as
scholarly questions, and poses deep challenges for global language policy.
In her teaching and research on discourse analysis, corpus linguistics,
sociolinguistics, pragmatics and phonology, Barbara Seidlhofer has addressed a
wide range of mainstream academic linguistic questions, such as pronunciation
and summarization but she has ranged well beyond these for example, examining
controversies in applied linguistics (Seidlhofer 2003). However, she is most
recognized and has had most impact with regard to this precise problem of
how to understand English as a lingua franca (Seidlhofer 2011). It is these
questions and challenges that Barbara Seidlhofer’s work on ELF has brought
into prominence both in her own writing and as the founding director of the
Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), funded by the Austrian
Science Fund (FWF) from 2005 to 2013, to facilitate the empirical analysis of
naturally occurring spoken ELF, a domain where the problem of how to account
for culture, advantage and neutrality abounds.
4 Language planning’s everywhere

Even if it lacks a precise and conscious purpose such as the clear mandate of
VOICE, the assembling of corpora is always an act of language planning; explicit
knowledge of language and especially of its natural, functional tendency towards
variation generates descriptive concepts and interpretations of phenomena that
influence how communication is understood and represented. If these scholarly
characterisations gain traction, they percolate beyond academic life and scholarly
discussions. An explicit language planning process to influence practice in educa-
tion, publishing, or formal policy would sponsor mechanisms to allow academic
distinctions, terms, concepts and so on to reorganize the existing stocks of knowl-
edge, conceptual systems and ultimately the practices and policies of non expert
policy makers. The entry point to those conversations must be the concrete
problems of contemporary language usage, of intercultural and international
communication, which of course range well beyond any kind of English alone,
and will always be located in multilingual contexts, posing problems in lan-
guage education, language use and language policy.
The slow transfer of knowledge, from language focused research to domains
whose focus of activity is not language, but the transaction of business, the
imparting of skills, the production and marketing of entertainment, the enforce-
ment of law or the delivery of health and medical services, is a process of
making explicit knowledge of language count. In these domains, English is not
only an auxiliary language, but communication itself is perceived to be instru-
mentally organized, in the service of disciplines, professions or activities with
their own rich stocks of concepts, concerns and categories of understanding.
The move from language to ‘practice’ requires gaining a hearing, being enfran-
chised to speak and be heard. The most direct route to this role, in other words,
the fastest way to influence policy, is evaluate practice. When academics are
invited to evaluate practice the voice of the researcher can gain authority by
being admitted to policy making conversations. A credible critique of practice
in the terms important to the professional field requires researchers to stick
close to their mastery of knowledge, their technical skill. Occupying a voice
and a presence in policy conversations requires being admitted through having
consequential knowledge. Policy conversations are a particular kind of discus-
sion. A policy conversation can be seen as a search for solutions, and a search
for solutions follows from an acceptance of what constitutes the problem. At its
most conventional, policy making is a process of responding to named, agreed
problems.
5 Influencing policy conversations

A policy conversation usually comprises two types of interlocutors, either directly
present or through delegates: a non-elected official and an elected representative.
The official participates on the basis of the responsibility they hold for implement-
ing decisions taken by political authorities. Elected officials participate in policy
conversations on the basis of the sovereignty citizens entrust in them through
elections. Neither official nor politician claims, or desires, expertise in the way
a scholar is associated with expertise, i.e. expertise arising directly from research
they conduct, supervise or otherwise produce or possess.
Policy conversations gravitate around problems that arise in interaction
between citizen subjects and their political representatives, and are reviewed or
modified when rival political representatives challenge current arrangements.
This process of challenging current arrangements occurs in the agitational space
of discursive politics, that is argument around change, and it involves struggle
for political advantage. Gaining advantage confers the authority to engage in
decision-making. Yet the politician, having gained this authoritative role exercises
it, usually, ‘on advice’ sourced from the non-elected official, whose expertise is
usually generic in nature and premised on delegation from the sovereign citizens.
Politicians, of course, additionally source advice from ideology producers and
enhancers in their political constituencies, their party, the party committee, the
party platform, and then interpret the multiple sources of these according to
their own interests, needs and abilities, and what the non-elected official systems
allow. The latter are constrained by the need to meet criteria of efficiency and
effectiveness in the management of public finances, in the running of authorized
programs. Some areas of policy that involve language questions are education,
immigrant selection, and visa issuing, marketing and conducting foreign trade,
citizenship processes, innovation and labour market planning.
In academic circles there is a tendency to repudiate policy conversations
as instrumentalist or crudely political, by which is meant interest-laden or even
corrupt. These are contrasted with the substantive and qualitative domain of
scholarly life. This depiction relies on a classic binary, the dichotomy between
technical and political domains. Yet few fields of endeavor are wholly technical
or wholly political, and the outcome of some decades of general policy analysis
shows clearly that rather than a dichotomy, for the most part, there is a fused
continuum between purely technical and purely political extremes. Policy con-
versations and decision-making processes in general are typified by elements of
information, ideology and interests (Weiss 1983). No actor within these processes
is wholly characterized by and few conversations are devoid of elements of
knowledge, even when their prime focus is how to wield power, make decisions,
deploy resources and gain advantage for having done so.
6 Policy conversations involving ELF

Barbara Seidlhofer’s approach to language study has been to focus squarely on
variation, on linguistic diversity, how to account for it, describe it, and what the
consequences of the inevitability of such variation are for systems of education,
publishing or governance. Many discussions in applied linguistics are animated
by concern that globalisation will lead to linguistic and cultural homogeniza-
tion. In her work Seidlhofer (2008b: 33.1) addresses these concerns directly:
“diversity is a necessary consequence of language spread, in the sense that
English will naturally vary as it is appropriated and adapted to serve the needs
and purposes of communities other than those of Inner Circle native speakers”.
Throughout the large body of her writings it is clear that she is a variationist,
for whom language variation is unavoidable, being a result of the multiple
contexts and purposes of its use and the identities of its users, and it is also
clear that ELF is not a transitional stage to a better learned, more masterful,
and native-like English for the millions of its speakers across the world. This
latter claim, in truth an empirically demonstrated fact, is a radical challenge to
conventional ways to think about language.
This is true for any language of course, but the global role of English makes
things more complicated. English will continue to have its proud past owners,
its native speakers, who must increasingly accept that they don’t own global
English. Unlike an invented language, English as international language involves
and will also involve co-existing variant and the original canonical forms, which
themselves are also developing.
In the policy conversations that increasingly arise around global English the
message from Seidlhofer and her colleagues is a direct challenge to what is
taken to be the proper way to think and talk about language. ELF, like any lan-
guage put to diverse uses will, through the process of appropriation by new
speakers, in new contexts and for new purposes, be made to adapt, the form
will bend to the function, to serve needs of communities far away in time, place
and culture from the originating and ‘natively using’ communities in the “Inner
Circle”.
This ELF is “democratized and universalized in the ‘exolingual’ process of
being appropriated for international use” (Hülmbauer, Böhringer, and Seidlhofer
2008: 27). But what does it really mean to say that a language has been “demo-
cratized”? To claim that a language has been universalized is more readily com-
prehensible; this describes a spatial distribution sufficient that the language is

encountered all over the globe and in many fields. To say that a language has
been “democratized” requires substantial reflection. Are communicative norms
or wider codes of any language, are its standing and use, ever “democratic”?
In the seminal work of Braj Kachru (1990 [1986]) and his three circles of
English the expanding or outermost circle was characterized as “norm depen-
dent”, whereas the inner circle, of old native speakers, was a “norm providing”
source. Seidlhofer and other ELF scholars argue that this norm supply system
breaks down in relation to ELF because users don’t rely on, absorb, acknowledge
or even are aware of native norms. Instead such users deploy spoken ELF in what
are locally and immediately functional ways. Generating, and negotiating effective
communicative norms in situ that serve the situated purpose makes such speakers
not imperfect learners of standard or native speaker English, but competent, fully
developed users of ELF, which is one part of their multilingual communicative
repertoire. ELF therefore can only be understood within multilingual settings,
not as a subtractive or replacing code but a supplemental resource in contact
situations.
In this conception, Seidlhofer’s (2011) sophisticated conception of variation,
ELF is a meaning-making resource for polyglot individuals in multilingual settings,
which bolsters communication. In this way ELF intensifies and diversifies the
number and range of conversations and exchanges that are possible across
many boundaries of incomprehension that would otherwise exist. The knowledge
that ELF is available to speakers fosters efforts at communication since the expec-
tation arises that communication practically anywhere is possible. In this sense
ELF is a social semiotic resource of the global era, but one that is embedded in
an already richly diverse multilingualism.
This is a different, though compatible, notion from the critique of the role
of Anglo-English in academic scholarship that is posed in Wierzbicka (2006)
or, more radically, in Wierzbicka (2014). Wierzbicka’s aim is not to “dethrone
English in contemporary scholarship and other areas of global communication
[. . .] [but] an attempt to dethrone English as the putative language of human
cognition” (Wierzbicka 2014: 196). This dethroning would not deny a role for
“mini or minimal English”, acceptable as “the paramount auxiliary language of
interpretation, explanation, and intercultural communication” as opposed the
“historically shaped Anglo-English” which should not be accepted as the “voice
of Truth and Human Understanding” (Wierzbicka: 2014: 196). These rejections
are of the “conceptual prison” of Anglo-centrism, and what Wierzbicka is calling
for as “minimal English” is not the same as a sociolinguistically grounded and
variationist ELF, instead it is built from “semantic primes”, a small number of
semantic universals, and other categories of words to combat Anglo and Euro-
centric conceptualisations. ELF, as a meaning making pragmatic resource, a

portable auxiliary ability which ELF researchers observe, describe and account
for, however, shares some spiritual common ground with Wierzbicka’s intended
de-centering.
7 Gaining Traction
ELF scholars define English functionally rather than formally, and usually cite
information about the unprecedented scale or indisputable extent of English’s
status as global lingua franca, and especially that non native speakers greatly
exceed the number of native speakers who use the language. These are premises
for the culturally substantive claim of “dissociation” of the language from its
originating cultural matrix, its “lingua-cultural roots” (Hülmbauer, Böhringer,
and Seidlhofer 2008: 25).
But what are the language planning consequences of ELF research? What
do ELF’ers desire to see change from the empirical documentation of how
English as a lingua franca operates, and especially their demonstration that its
norms and procedures are under the control of its competent, and multilingual,
users?
Academics are increasingly called upon to make their research count. The
insistence of this demand suggests a reproach against ivory tower isolation.
Yet, at least within the human sciences, how do we understand what making
research, i.e., new knowledge, ‘count’, actually means? The term I use for this
is the traction potential of knowledge. Traction potential describes the likely
impact of new academic knowledge when it is introduced into policy-making
discussions.
There are vast spaces of the world where forms of Arabic, Malay, Chinese,
Spanish, Portuguese, Wolof, Swahili and other languages, and smaller environ-
ments where far more circumscribed ones, function with lingua franca character-
istics. ELF is one linguistic resource among these others, with complex relations
between source English and other languages, and the lingua franca functions
of those other languages, and therefore form only one element in the communi-
cation repertoire of multilingual communities and polyglot individuals. Nor do
interactants lack other tools to facilitate communication, including mobile,
immediate online translation devices and apps.
Contemporary views of language policy and planning pay considerable
attention to processes of discursive change, especially how argument shapes
thinking about the deployment of public resources, in areas such as what
research receives funding, or publishing decisions, admission procedures for
university study, or immigration rules and regulations. This, in turn, involves

understanding the roles of interactants not as undifferentiated communicators,
but as agents with different positions, i.e. policy makers, be they public officials
in a ministry of government or publishing agents responsible to a board of
directors and shareholders, or owners, concerned therefore with a competitive
market for sales and profits. Each of these has his or her own stocks of knowl-
edge and operates with unique purposes. Academic scholars who, too often in
my view, imagine themselves as having no interests, or being aligned merely
with a search for truth and knowledge, are however perceived by policy makers
to have clear interests. These interests can be ideological in nature or relate to
personal advancement, professional pride, satisfaction, or commercial profit.
While it is simplistic to imagine researchers as devoid of interest or ideology,
their primary orientation and presence in policy conversations tends to be around
furnishing information, or knowledge, whose purpose is usually to reorganize
existing understandings of the problem being discussed or to chart new direc-
tions and in some way to inform decision making.
Possibly the earliest tangible sign of substantial traction is the take up of
terminology from academic/scholarly settings and conversations to the realm of
politics and policymaking. This transfer of terms is a kind of code switch, allow-
ing the more precise meanings of researched knowledge to take root in the more
agitational space of policy decision-making.
8 In conclusion
ELF must make room for itself by carving space in a crowded field: those who
advocate standard language, those who repudiate English and its growing
international functions, and also those who merely fear that recognition of its
international functions or even substantial research on ELF lends policy and
political legitimacy to the domination of global communication by English.
In a 2010 article, suggestively entitled “Giving VOICE to English as a lingua
franca”, Seidlhofer (2010) asks whether English is a national language applied
globally and therefore subject to critique as linguistic domination, or a new
vehicle of communication. Steering a path between this Scylla and Charybdis
choice, she moves from Graddol’s (2006) conception of ELF as a new language,
deftly weaving through the conceptual and terminological profusion of these
discussions, between a ‘domination position’ and a ‘historical process’ position.
These positions are stances as much as evidence based findings, and are con-
cerned with the origins of the current state of the world’s communication
regime. Seidlhofer goes on to make the point that ELF is a “naturally adaptive
process of language dynamics” (Seidlhofer 2010: 151), and the naturally occurring
speech events that make up VOICE, effectively represent a ‘policy’ result.
In some of her work Seidlhofer (2008a, 2009) steps into that space where
the technical seeks to shape the political. These articles accelerate her traction
potential by directly focusing on the problems of global communication and
the policymakers’ dilemma, but they also mark out the distinctive voice of the
researcher, entering discussions about what is to be done after research evi-
dence has been accumulated, research that sustains a strong finding about the
locally controlled resource of ELF. Here the roles of researcher, practitioner and
policy maker or rather policy ‘influencer’ are along a single continuum.
In common with other researchers, probing into how ELF works for Seidlhofer
(2008b: 33.3) involves “investigating variation as the process of the adaptive use
of linguistic resources” in empirical documentation of how speakers actually
use the language, what strategies and moves they make in their interpersonal
interactions. The clear aim is not to document linguistic forms that settle into
some kind of standard, which is partly why ELF researchers repudiate the idea
that ELF can be seen as a ‘variety’ of English, but rather to explore its pragmatic
functioning to establish meaning and serve the strategic purposes of those
using/appropriating ELF in real world communication events (Seidlhofer 2008b).
These documentations expose the ‘emic’ or insider view of the linguistic
form, and serve to bolster Seidlhofer’s view that these speakers make English,
in its lingua franca manifestation, work for them, their purposes and needs,
and that in this process more than communication of messages occurs. Instead,
ELF communication also is found to carry, signal and even create social and
personal identities for its users. Pragmatic and discourse variation is premised
on a view that norms are not stable, but are plastic and malleable, and therefore
are changed, transformed, subverted in the process of communication and iden-
tity negotiation and identity display.
ELF is sometimes misunderstood, or misrepresented, as serving a promo-
tional function on behalf of English as an international language. ELF researchers
therefore, or in any case, devote considerable attention to the activity of change
and adaptation of received norms to serve situated needs and purposes defined
by interactants without reference to, often without awareness of, and certainly
with little concern for, issues of deviation, or standards held up by ‘native speakers’
of English. They also stress ELF as an additive resource used by multilinguals
to expand their communication possibilities. The clearest enunciation of these
points comes in Seidlhofer’s (2008b) response to a position paper on global
communication which challenges ELF (Clyne and Sharifian 2008).
A major challenge for researchers who want to ‘leave the lab’ and influence
policy is to negotiate the sometimes hostile terrain of politicised administration
and public policy formulation. Many language planners study interaction between
the professional communities of knowledge generators and decision makers,
effectively an intercultural encounter not unlike an interaction between different
ethnic cultures. Notions from inside ELF research are gaining traction in policy
conversations. ELF research has demonstrated the adaptability, innovation,
communicative dexterity, flexibility and resourcefulness of ELF communication.
In this work, and throughout all her work, we can identify growing traction for
key ideas in ELF: a true and impressive Seidlhofer effect, relevant to both the lab
and Bangkok visa office.
References
Clyne, Michael & Farzad Sharifian. 2008. English as an international language, challenges and
possibilities. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31(3). 28.1–28.16.
Graddol, David. 2006. English Next. Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a
foreign language’. London: British Council.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia, Heike Böhringer & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2008. Introducing English as a lingua
franca (ELF): Precursor and partner in intercultural communication. Synergies Europe
3. 25–36. http://gerflint.fr/Base/Europe3/hulmbauer.pdf (accessed 12 July 2015)
Kachru, Braj. 1990 [1986]. The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-
native Englishes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Lo Bianco, Joseph. 2010a. The importance of language policies and multilingualism for cultural
diversity. International Social Science Journal 61(199). 37–67.
Lo Bianco, Joseph. 2010b. Language policy and planning. In Nancy H. Hornberger & Sandra Lee
McKay (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education, 143–176. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Lo Bianco, Joseph. 2014. Dialogue between ELF and the field of language policy and planning.
Mcpherron, Paul & Patrick T. Randolph. 2014. Cat got your tongue? Teaching idioms to English
learners. Alexandra, VA: TESOL Press.
Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (ed.). 2003. Controversies in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2008a. Standard future or half-baked quackery: Descriptive and pedagogic
bearings on the globalisation of English. In Claus Gnutzmann & Frauke Inteman (eds.),
The globalisation of English and the English language classroom, 2nd edition, 159–173.
Tübingen: Narr.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2008b. Of norms and mindsets. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics,
31(3). 33.1–33.7.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2010. Giving VOICE to English as a lingua franca. In Roberta, Facchinetti,
David Crystal & Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.), From international to local English – and back
again, 147–163. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Seidlhofer, Barbara 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 Online). Director:
Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka. http://voice.univie.ac.at
Weiss, Carol. 1983. Ideology, interests and information: The basis of policy positions. In Daniel
Callahan & Bruce Jennings (eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis, 213245.
New York: Plenum Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2014. Imprisoned in English: The hazards of English as a default language.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Afterword
Marie-Luise Pitzl
Expanding frontiers: Prospects on the
creativity of ELF
If you have dreams then you have to follow your dreams and you have to try and you’ll have to
expand frontiers and if you don’t try then you can’t succeed
(VOICE 2013: EDsed363:162)
The utterance above is made by a professor of art history to explain a famous

artist’s conceptualization of (and reasoning for) art, a domain many people tend
to association with creativity. In the seminar recorded in the Vienna-Oxford Inter-
national Corpus of English (VOICE), she (i.e. the professor) repeatedly emphasizes
the artist’s desire to push back and expand frontiers and argues for the necessity
of art to do (or be) something that would go beyond what was considered doable
at the time, to make a reality things that were previously unperceivable, as she
puts it (VOICE 2013: EDsed363:314). In addition to pointing out qualities of art as
a creative enterprise, the speaker herself also linguistically engages in pushing
back frontiers of ‘English’ lexis in an ELF interaction: Producing the word unper-
ceivable, she uses the building blocks of morphology to create a new word that –
at least as far as dictionaries of English are concerned – does not exist (yet).
Linguistic creativity (like creating new words) and domain-specific creativity
(like creating works of art) have something in common in this sense; they both
move beyond the frontiers – or norms and conventions – of what is normally
done and what has existed before. In order to achieve this, they (partly) rely on
existing norms (like morphology or artistic techniques), but then expand – and
possibly shift – these norms through their creative application (cf. Pitzl 2012,
2013). In doing so, they open up new, previously unoccupied, linguistic or artis-
tic and/or conceptual spaces.
In addition to linguistic creativity (i.e. creativity in language use), creativity
within a particular domain is, of course, not just the prerogative of art or music
or the literary writing of novelists and poets. Any scientific discipline – and thus
also linguistics – is a domain in this sense1. Science and research are areas that
1 A domain in this sense is “any particular sphere of culture, e.g. a scientific discipline,
which is governed by a currently accepted set of rules and norms” (Pitzl 2011: 44, summarizing
Csikszentmihalyi’s 1999 concept of domain). Many other chapters in Sternberg’s (1999) volume
on creativity, written by specialists of psychology, also make use of domain for their research on
creativity or creative individuals (e.g. Boden 1999; Policastro & Gardner 1999; Weisberg 1999;
cf. Pitzl 2011: 41-43, Pitzl 2013: 6).
Marie-Luise Pitzl, University of Vienna

276 Marie-Luise Pitzl
are, per definition, geared towards bringing forth new insights and expanding
frontiers. We expect scholars to work with what has come/existed before – in
order to move beyond it.
Elsewhere I have discussed approaches to and proposed conceptualizations
of creativity, in particular of linguistic creativity (Pitzl 2012, 2013), and talked
about how – and to what extent – ELF interactions contain instances of such
linguistic creativity, for example in relation to the use of idioms and metaphors
(Pitzl 2009, 2012) and lexis (Pitzl, Breiteneder, and Klimpfinger 2008). And of
course other ELF researchers, including Barbara Seidlhofer, the honouree of
this volume, have also concerned themselves with what counts as creative in
ELF and how this might best be conceptually approached (see e.g. Seidlhofer
2011: 96-107; Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2006, 2009).
In this short closing chapter, my goal will not be to engage with these
discussions of linguistic creativity in ELF and to relate them to descriptive ELF
findings. Instead, I will offer a brief attempt to adopt a more meta-perspective
on ELF, and on the creativity of ELF, as a field in (applied) linguistics. The term
ELF – similar to other terms like Second Language Acquisition (SLA) – therefore
refers to the linguistic phenomenon as well as to its study in this chapter.
Considering the creativity of ELF as a field also means to acknowledge the role
of Barbara Seidlhofer, who, through her outstanding work, her personality and
qualities as an applied linguist, is not only responsible for the fact that a volume
on ELF (like the present one) can exist (see Jennifer Jenkins’s and Joseph
Lo Bianco’s contributions in this volume, for example). She is also responsible
for the fact that Ruth Osimk-Teasdale and myself have been in the privileged
position to edit this book. As was pointed out in the introduction, this volume
has been compiled to pay tribute to her essential role in ELF actually becoming
a field in applied linguistics. It is this, i.e. the fact that ELF exists a field of
research in linguistics today, that is in itself an instance/act of domain-related
creativity.
Many contributions in this volume centrally address that ELF research has
expanded (and continues to expand) conceptual frontiers in that it prompts us
to go beyond ‘normal’ and established categories in linguistics. ELF forces us to
reassess many concepts usually taken for granted. The chapters by Widdowson,
Ritt and Larsen-Freeman, for example, are evidence that ELF cannot but prompt
the question ‘What is a language (anyway)?’. Like Seidlhofer (2009: 39) herself
adequately predicted a few years back: “The emergence of ELF holds the exciting,
if uncomfortable, prospect of bringing up for reappraisal many of the self-evident
truths that linguists have been relying on for the last 50 to 100 years”. Hence, it is
not surprising that several chapters (e.g. Jenkins, Mauranen, Schneider, Trudgill)
concern themselves with the fact that the investigation and description of ELF
brings linguists face-to-face with the insight that “[i]t does not make much sense
[. . .] to talk about a monolithic variety as such: a variety can be treated as if it
were a monolith, but this is a convenient fiction, for the process of variation
itself never stops” (Seidlhofer 2006: 46).
Variation – and with it multilingualism – is at the heart of ELF as a field. As
many contributors point out, ELF draws attention to the fact that the ‘mono-
lingual’ speaker with seemingly perfect flawless native competence was always
a rather poor (and contrived) model for language use – and especially for
‘foreign’/second language learning. Concepts like ‘the native speaker’, which
used to be mainstream linguistics a number of decades ago, are now gradually
being replaced by alternative views; and ELF is partly responsible for this. ELF
as a field strives to provide new models and concepts (for language use and
language users) that are closer to the realities of communication in the age of
migration, international business, facebook, and global politics in the second
decade of the 21st century. And by calling for and offering new prospects, ELF,
as a domain in linguistics, is creative.
One key aspect, discussed in many chapters in this book, is that ELF is intri-
cately linked not just with ‘English’ but with multiple ‘languages’, with all kinds
of different ‘cultures’ (with a small c) and with theories of multi-/plurilingualism
(see, for example, the chapters by Cogo, Cook, Guido, Hülmbauer, Kirkpatrick,
Kramsch, Lopriore, Zhu Hua). This multilingual focus of ELF concerns actual lan-
guage use, but is also of crucial importance in relation to individuals’ identities.
Thus, many contributions make use of similar concepts (such as translanguag-
ing) to emphasize this point and thereby illustrate that ELF is part of a bigger
shift in perspective that has happened/is happening in applied linguistics: We
are gradually beginning to realize that multilingualism is the norm, not the
exception. This is to say, it is not only ELF as a field of study that is creative; it
is applied linguistics that is being creatively expanded by many new areas – and
ELF is one of them, an influential one.
A number of contributions in this volume further indicate the creativity of
ELF as a field in relation to expanding the frontiers of pedagogy. In many ways,
the chapters by Kohn, McNamara & Shohamy, Tarone and others are responses
to Barbara Seidlhofer’s (2001) call for ‘Closing the conceptual gap’ and re-thinking
common assumptions in English language teaching (ELT) in light of ELF. Scholars
now stress the relevance of a lingua franca pedagogy as a logical continuation
of Communicative language teaching (CLT), emphasize the need for new ways
of assessment in light of ELF and stress the importance of speakers’/learners’
capabilities (i.e. what they can do) in teaching/learning contexts. Many of these
issues have been raised before by others. But it is in recent years that we are
reaching a general consensus about them – in relation to ELF.
278 Marie-Luise Pitzl
With the invaluable expertise of so many scholars, this interdisciplinary

volume provides evidence of the creativity of ELF as field in applied linguistics.
It makes visible how widespread and diverse the questions are that ELF prompts
us to ask and it tackles the tricky intersections and points of connections with
other areas of study. Being intended for publication in spring 2016, only fifteen
years after Seidlhofer’s ‘Conceptual gap’ article in 2001, the impact that ELF
research has had in this relatively short period of time is really quite remark-
able. The honouree of this volume, Barbara Seidlhofer, is one of the people
who is mainly responsible for the creativity of ELF and has triggered lots of
perspectives and prospects for ELF research. It is hoped that the chapters that
have been collected here follow and continue this tradition and help us to
expand frontiers in (applied) linguistics.
References
Boden, Margaret A. 1999. Computer models of creativity. In Robert Sternberg (ed.), Handbook
of creativity, 351–372. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1999. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity.
In Robert Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of creativity, 313–335. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2009. “We should not wake up any dogs”: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In
299–322. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2011. Creativity in English as a lingua franca: Idiom and metaphor. Vienna:
University of Vienna PhD Thesis.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2013. Creativity in language use. In Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.),
Handbook of pragmatics. 2013 Installment, 1–28. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise, Angelika Breiteneder & Theresa Klimpfinger. 2008. A world of words: Pro-
cesses of lexical innovation in VOICE. Vienna English Working PaperS 17(2). 21–46.
httpsː//anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/
Views/views_0802.pdf (accessed 9 July 2015).
Policastro, Emma & Howard Gardner. 1999. From case studies to robust generalizations:
An approach to the study of creativity. In Robert Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of creativity,
213–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2006. English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn’t. In
Rani Rubdy & Mario Saraceni (eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles, 40–
50. London: Continuum.
Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Henry Widdowson. 2006. Creative incompetence. In Frauke Intemann
& Frank G. Königs (eds.), Ach!texte – Didak-Tick der (modernen, unmodernen und
außerirdischen) Sprachen. Eine etwas andere Festschrift für Claus Gnutzmann zum 60.
Geburtstag (und zu allen weiteren), 143–154. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.
Seidlhofer, Barbara & Henry Widdowson. 2009. Conformity and creativity in ELF and learner
Englishes. In Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Sabine Braun & Sylvia Kalina (eds.), Dimensionen
der Zweitsprachenforschung. Dimensions of Second Language Research. (Festschrift for
Kurt Kohn), 93–107. Tübingen: Narr.
Sternberg, Robert (ed.). 1999. Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka. http://voice.univie.ac.at
Weisberg, Robert W. 1999. Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In Robert
Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of creativity, 226–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barbara Seidlhofer
A select bibliography
Books
2011 Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1995 Approaches to summarization: Discourse analysis and language education. Tübingen:
Narr.
1994 (with Christiane Dalton). Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edited books and journals

2014 (co-edited with Maria Grazia Guido). 2014. Perspectives on English as a lingua franca:
Theory and practice. [Special issue]. Textus. English Studies in Italy 27(1).
2010 (co-edited with Roberta Facchinetti & David Crystal). From international to local English –
and back again. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
2009 (co-edited with Karlfried Knapp). Handbook of foreign language communication and
learning (Handbooks of applied linguistics 6). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(co-edited with Margie Berns). Symposium: Englishes in world contexts. Perspectives
on English as a lingua franca. [Special issue]. World Englishes 28(2). 190–269.
2003 Controversies in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1999 Pronunciation in teacher training. [Special Issue]. Speak out! 24.
1998 (co-edited with Robert de Beaugrande & Meta Grosman). Language policy and lan-
guage education in emerging nations (Advances in discourse processes 63). Stamford,
CT: Ablex.
1995 (co-edited with Guy Cook). Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Articles
2016 ELF: English in a global context. In Kumiko Murata (ed.), Exploring ELF in Japanese aca-
demic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications,
17–28. London & New York: Routledge.
2015 ELF-informed pedagogy: From code-fixation towards communicative awareness. In
Paola Vettorel (ed.), New frontiers in teaching and learning English, 19–30. Newcastle
RESPONSE to Berns’ review of ‘Understanding English as a lingua franca’. World
Englishes 34(2). 303–306.
The global significance of ELF. WASEDA Working Papers in ELF 4. 28–36.
282 Barbara Seidlhofer
(with Nora Dorn, Claudio Schekulin & Anita Santner-Wolfartsberger). Research perspec-
tives on English as a lingua franca. In Sabine Coelsch-Foisner & Herbert Schendl (eds.),
Contact and conflict in English studies (Austrian studies in English volume 104), 57–88.
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
2014 (with Maria Grazia Guido). 2014. Introduction. English as a lingua franca: Theory and
practice. Textus. English Studies in Italy 27(1). 7–16.
2013 Hegemonie oder Handlungsspielraum? English als Lingua Franca in der Wissenschaft.
In Reinhard Neck, Heinrich Schmidinger & Susanne Weigelin-Schwiedrzik (eds.),
Kommunikation – Objekt und Agens von Wissenschaft (Wissenschaft. Bildung. Politik.
16), 178–185. Wien, Köln & Weimar: Böhlau Verlag.
Pronunciation teaching. In Michael Byram & Adelheid Hu (eds.), Routledge encyclopedia
of language teaching and learning, 560–564. London & New York: Routledge.
(with Margit Ammer, Brigitta Busch, Nora Dorn, Martina Rienzner, Anita Santner-
Wolfartsberger, Walter Schicho & Karlheinz Spitzl). Ein umstrittenes Beweismittel:
Sprachanalyse als Instrument der Herkunftsbestimmung in Asylverfahren. Juridikum.
Zeitschrift für Kritik, Recht, Gesellschaft 3. 281–297.
(with Cornelia Hülmbauer). English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism. In
Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi (eds.), Exploring the dynamics of
multilingualism: The DYLAN project (Multilingualism and diversity management 2),
387–406. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(with Martin Stegu & Regina Winkler). Fremdsprachenunterricht an Universitäten,
Fachhochschulen und Pädagogischen Hochschulen. In Eva Vetter & Rudolf De Cillia
(eds.), Sprachenpolitik in Österreich: Bestandsaufnahme 2011 (Sprache im Kontext
40), 175–201. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
2012 Anglophone-centric attitudes and the globalization of English. Journal of English as a
Corpora and English as a lingua franca. In Ken Hyland, Meng H. Chau & Michael Hand-
ford (eds.), Corpus applications in applied linguistics, 135–149. London & New York:
Continuum.
Preface. In Geraldine Ludbrook & David Newbold (eds.), English lingua franca: Contexts,
strategies and international relations: Papers from a conference held at Ca’Foscari
University of Venice, October 2011, 11–12. Venice: Cafoscarina.
The challenge of English as a lingua franca. Anglistik: International Journal of English
Studies 23(1). 73–86. [Special issue] on Focus on teaching English, Joachim Appel &
Friederike Klippel (eds.).
(with Nora Dorn). English as a lingua franca. The Year’s Work in English Studies 91(1).
119–135.
(with Jennifer Jenkins & Anna Mauranen). Editorial. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca 1(1). 1–3.
2011 Conceptualizing ‘English’ for a multilingual Europe. In Annick De Houwer & Antje
Wilton (eds.), English in Europe today: Sociocultural and educational perspectives,
133–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(with Herbert Schendl). In aller Munde: Englisch als europäische Verkehrssprache. In

Peter Cichon & Michael Mitterauer (eds.), Europasprachen, 61–76. Wien, Köln & Weimar:
Böhlau Verlag.
2010 Giving VOICE to English as a lingua franca. In Roberta Facchinetti, David Crystal &
Seidlhofer, Barbara (eds.), From international to local English – and back again, 147–
163. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
DYLAN – Language dynamics and management of diversity. Forschungsprogramm und
Fragestellungen eines Verbundprojektes. In Cornelia Hülmbauer, Eva Vetter & Heike
Böhringer (eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit aus der Perspektive zweier EU-Projekte. DYLAN
meets LINEE (Sprache im Kontext 34), 59–72. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Lingua franca English: The European context. In Andy Kirkpatrick (ed.), The Routledge
handbook of World Englishes, 355–371. Abingdon: Routledge.
2009 Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Inter-
cultural Pragmatics 6(2). 195–215.
Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua
franca. World Englishes 28(2). 236–245.
Orientations in ELF research: Form and function. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta
(eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 37–59. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
(with Margie Berns). Perspectives on English as a lingua franca: Introduction. World
Englishes 28(2). 190–191. [Special issue] on Perspectives on English as a lingua
franca, Barbara Seidlhofer & Margie Berns (eds.).
(with Margie Berns, Yasukata Yano & Marko Modiano). Perspectives on English as
a lingua franca. In Thomas Hoffmann & Lucia Siebers (eds.), World Englishes –
Problems, properties and prospects. Selected papers from the 13th IAWE Conference,
369–384. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(with Cornelia Hülmbauer & Heike Böhringer). Introducing English as a lingua franca
(ELF): Precursor and partner in intercultural communication. In Chantal Cali, Martin
Stegu & Eva Vetter (eds.), Enseigner – apprendre – utiliser le francais langue interna-
tional en Europe aujourd’hui: Pour une perspective comparatiste, 25–36. Vienna: Gerflint.
(with Karlfried Knapp & Henry Widdowson). Introduction: Developing foreign language
communication: Principles and practices. In Karlfried Knapp & Barbara Seidlhofer
(eds.), Handbook of foreign language communication and learning (Handbooks of
applied linguistics 6), 1–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
(with Henry Widdowson). Conformity and creativity in ELF and learner English. In
Michaela Albl-Mikasa, Sabine Braun & Sylvia Kalina (eds.), Dimensionen der Zweit-
sprachenforschung. Dimensions of Second Language Research. (Festschrift for Kurt
Kohn), 93–107. Tübingen: Narr.
(with Henry G. Widdowson). Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a
lingua franca. In Kumiko Murata & Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Global Englishes in Asian
contexts: Current and future debates, 26–39. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
2008 Of norms and mindsets. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 31(3). 33.1–33.7.
(with Heike Böhringer & Cornelia Hülmbauer). The language policy of the DYLAN project.
In Josef Hochgerner & Irena Cornejová (eds.), Communication in international R & D
projects. A perspective from the social sciences and humanities, 41–52. Brno: Spolec-
nost pro odbornou literaturu – Barrister & Principal.
(with Henry G. Widdowson). Visions and delusions. Language proficiency and edu-
cational failure. In Sabine Doff, Friederike Klippel & Werner Huellen (eds.), Visions of
languages in education, 207–213. Berlin & New York: Langenscheidt.
2007 Common property: English as a lingua franca in Europe. In Jim Cummins & Chris Davison
(eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, 137–153. New York:
Springer.
English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Sabine Volk-Birke & Julia
Lippert (eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings, 307–318. Trier: Wissenschaft-
licher Verlag Trier.
(with Henry G. Widdowson). Idiomatic variation and change in English: The idiom
principle and its realizations. In Ute Smit, Stefan Dollinger, Julia Hüttner, Gunther
Kaltenböck & Ursula Lutzky (eds.), Tracing English through time: Explorations in lan-
guage variation (Festschrift for Herbert Schendl, Austrian Studies in English vol. 95),
359–374. Wien: Braumüller.
2006 English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn’t. In Rani Rubdy & Mario
Saraceni (eds.), English in the world: Global rules, global roles, 40–50. London:
Continuum.
(with Angelika Breiteneder & Marie-Luise Pitzl). English as a lingua franca in Europe:
Challenges for applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26. 1–34.
(with Ulrike Pölzl). In and on their own terms: The ‘habitat factor’ in English as a lingua
franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177. 151–176.
(with Henry Widdowson). Creative incompetence. In Frauke Intemann & Frank G.
Königs (eds.), Ach!texte – Didak-Tick der (modernen, unmodernen und außerirdischen)
Sprachen. Eine etwas andere Festschrift für Claus Gnutzmann zum 60. Geburtstag (und
zu allen weiteren), 143–154. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.
(with Henry G. Widdowson). Reversions. A modest proposal for the adoption of a
radically innovative corpus-based approach to the teaching of poetry in English for
students who have the misfortune not to be native speakers of that language. In Alwin
Fill, Georg Marko, David Newby & Hermine Penz (eds.), Linguists (don’t) only talk about
it: Essays in honour of Bernhard Kettemann, 79–92. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
2005 Englisch als lingua franca und seine Rolle in der internationalen Wissensvermittlung.
Ein Aufruf zur Selbstbehauptung. In Sabine Braun & Kurt Kohn (eds.), Sprache(n)
in der Wissensgesellschaft. Proceedings der 34. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für
Angewandte Linguistik, 27–45. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Key concepts in ELT: English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59(4). 339–341.
English as a lingua franca. In A.S. Hornby (ed.), Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary
of current English, R 92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Language variation and change: The case of English as a lingua franca. In Katarzyna
Dziubalska-Kolaczyk & Joanna Przedlacka (eds.), English pronunication models: A
changing scene, 59–75. Bern: Peter Lang.
Standard future or half-baked quackery? Descriptive and pedagogic bearings on the

globalisation of English. In Claus Gnutzmann & Frauke Intemann (eds.), Globalisation
and the English language classroom, 155–169. Tübingen: Narr.
2004 Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 24. 209–239.
2003 Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2003. A concept of international English and related issues: from
‘real English’ to ‘realistic English’? Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 1–28. http://www.
coe.int/T/DG4/Linguistic/Source/SeidlhoferEN.pdf (accessed 14 November 2015).
English for Europe, or European English? In Rüdiger Ahrens (ed.), Europäische Spra-
chenpolitik. European Language Policy, 123–138. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag
Winter.
(with Jennifer Jenkins). English as a lingua franca and the politics of property. In
Christian Mair (ed.), The politics of English as a world language: New horizons in post-
colonial cultural studies (Cross/cultures: Readings in the post/colonial literatures in
English 65, ASNEL Papers 65), 139–154. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
(with Herbert Schendl & Henry G. Widdowson). Weltsprache Englisch – Bedrohung
oder Chance? In Hans-Jürgen Krumm & Peter Cichon (eds.), Sprachenvielfalt. Babylonische
Sprachverwirrung oder Mehrsprachigkeit als Chance?, 269–278. Innsbruck: Studien-
Verlag.
(with Henry G. Widdowson). House work and student work: A study in cross-cultural
understanding. In Nicole Baumgarten, Claudia Böttger, Markus Motz & Julia Probst
(eds.), Übersetzen, interkulturelle Kommunikation, Spracherwerb und Sprachver-
mittlung – das Leben mit mehreren Sprachen. Festschrift für Juliane House zum 60.
Geburtstag, 114–126. Bochum: AKS-Verlag. http://zif.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/jg-08-2-3/
beitrag/Seidlhofer_Widdowson1.htm (accessed 22 November 2015).
(with Henry G. Widdowson). The virtue of the vernacular: On intervention in linguistic
affairs. In David Britain & Jenny Cheshire (eds.), Social dialectology. In honour of Peter
Trudgill, 299–309. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2002 Habeas corpus and divide et impera: ‘Global English’ and applied linguistics. In
Kristyan Spellman Miller & Paul Thompson (eds.), Unity and diversity in language
use. Selected papers from the annual meeting of the British association for applied
linguistics held at the University of Reading, September 2001, 198–217. London:
Continuum.
Pedagogy and local learner corpora: Working with learning-driven data. In Sylviane
Granger, Joseph Hung & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds.), Computer learner corpora,
second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (Language learning &
language teaching 6), 213–234. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
The shape of things to come? Some basic questions about English as a lingua franca.
In Karlfried Knapp & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua franca communication, 269–
302. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
(with Anne Burns). 2002. The study of spoken language in applied linguistics. In
Norbert Schmitt (ed.), Introduction to applied linguistics, 211–232. London: Arnold.
2001 Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2). 133–158.
Brave new English?. The European English Messenger 10(1). 42–48.

Making the case for a corpus of English as a lingua franca. In Guy Aston & Lou Burnard
(eds.). Corpora in the description and teaching of English, 70–85. Bologna: Cooperativa
Libraria Universitaria Editrice.
Pronunciation. In Ronald Carter & David Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge guide to teach-
ing English to speakers of other languages, 56–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Towards making ‘Euro-English’ a linguistic reality. English Today 17(4). 14–16.
(with Jennifer Jenkins). Bringing Europe’s lingua franca into the classroom. In Alan
Pulverness (ed.), IATEFL 2001 Brighton Conference Selections, 87–90. Whitstable: Inter-
national Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language.
(with Jennifer Jenkins). Teaching English as a lingua franca for Europe. Guardian
Weekly, 18 April 2001.
(with Henry G. Widdowson). Ideas inc: Localisation and cross-cultural pedagogy. In
Rosita Schjerve-Rindler (ed.), Europäische Integration und Erweiterung: eine Herausfor-
derung für die Wissenschaft, 445–456. Napoli: Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici.
(with Henry G. Widdowson). Making it real. On the sources of authority and expertise
in language teaching. In Manfred B. Sellner (ed.), Fremdsprachendidaktik und Zweit-
spracherwerb im Kontext, 65–76. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
2000 Mind the gap: English as a mother tongue vs. English as a lingua franca. Vienna
English Working PaperS 9(1). 51–68. httpsː//anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_
upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/VIEW00_1.pdf (accessed 4 November 2015).
Going non-native? Do we need a new model for teaching EFL? ELT News 42. 61–68.
Operationalizing intertextuality: Using learner corpora for learning. In Lou Burnard &
Tony McEnery (eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective. Papers
from the third international conference on teaching and language corpora (Lodz Studies
in Language 2), 207–223. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Pronunciation teaching. In Michael Byram (ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching
and learning, 488–491. London: Routledge.
Where the buck stops: Approximations in applied linguistics. In Claudia Riemer (ed.),
Kognitive Aspekte des Lehrens und Lernens von Fremdsprachen. Festschrift für Willis J.
Edmondson zum 60. Geburtstag, 12–25. Tübingen: Narr.
1999 Double standards: Teacher education in the expanding circle. World Englishes 18(2).
233–245.
(with Gunther Kaltenböck). Task-based teaching: What’s in it for pronunciation? Speak
Out! 24. 9–15. [Special Issue] on Pronunciation in teacher training, Barbara Seidlhofer
(ed.).
(with Henry G. Widdowson). Coherence in summary: The contexts of appropriate dis-
course. In Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk & Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and
written discourse (Pragmatics and beyond new series 63), 205–219. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
1998 Intertextuality and interlanguage: Learners as reflective practitioners. In Guy Aston et
al. (eds.) Teaching and language corpora 1998. Proceedings of the TALC conference,
July 1998, 165–170. Oxford: Keble College.
Some weird (but wonderful) ways into suprasegmentals. Speak Out! 22. 40–44.
(with H.G. Widdowson). Applied linguistics, pragmatics, and language pedagogy. In
Robert de Beaugrande, Meta Grosman & Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.), Language policy
and language education in emerging nations (Advances in discourse processes 63),
3–14. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
1997 Access as appropriation: Lessons from reformulation in L2 pedagogy. In Heikki Nyyssö-
nen & Leena Kuure (eds.), Principles of accessibility and design in English texts, 23–
33. Oulu: Dept. of English, University of Oulu.
Rethinking teacher education: Setting an agenda for applied linguistics. Vienna English
Working PaperS 6(2). 53–62. httpsː//anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_
anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/views972.pdf (accessed 4 November 2015).
1996 ‘It is an undulating feeling. . .’. The importance of being a non-native teacher of
English. Vienna English Working PaperS 5(1&2). 63–80. httpsː//anglistik.univie.ac.at/
fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/views96.pdf (accessed 4
November 2015).
(with H. G. Widdowson). Poetic translation and language pedagogy. In Werner Delanoy
& Lothar Bredella (eds.), Challenges of literary texts in the language classroom, 125–
143. Tübingen: Narr.
1995 Die Rolle der Native Speakers im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Eine kritische Bestands-
aufnahme. In Rudolf de Cillia & Ruth Wodak (eds.), Sprachenpolitik in Mittel- und
Osteuropa, 217–226. Wien: Passagen Verlag.
Pronunciation awareness: Some thoughts on pronunciation in teacher education: A
focus on appropriateness rather than correctness. Speak Out! 16. 12–16.
(with Guy Cook). An applied linguist in principle and practice. In Guy Cook & Barbara
Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Studies in honour of
H.G. Widdowson, 1–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(with Christiane Dalton-Puffer). Appropriate units in pronunciation teaching: Some
programmatic pointers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1). 135–146.
1994 (Foreign language) teachers and foreign (language teachers). In Saran Kaur Gill (ed.),
Proceedings of the International English Language Education Conference, 145–154.
Kuala Lumpur: Language Centre, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Sum and substance: Some aspects of doing applied linguistics. Vienna English Working
PaperS 3(1). 44–54. https://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/
weitere_Uploads/Views/views941.pdf (accessed 4 November 2015).
(with Christiane Dalton). Is pronunciation teaching desirable? Is it feasible? In Sue
Sebbage & Tim Sebbage (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International NELLE Con-
ference, 15–27. Hamburg: NELLE.
1993 (with Christiane Dalton). Pronunciation teaching: Lessons from lexicogrammar. Pro-
ceedings of the Second Conference of the European Society for the Study of English
(ESSE), 1–9. Bordeaux, September 1993.
(with Gunther Kaltenböck). English Pronunciation and the German-speaking learner.
SpeakOut! 12. 15–19.
1991 (with J. Akoha, Zuzana Ardo, John Simpson, & Henry G. Widdowson) Nationalism is an
infantile disease. (Einstein) What about native-speakerism? BAAL Newsletter 39. 21–
26.
1990 Summary judgements: Perspectives on reading and writing. Reading in a Foreign Lan-
guage 6(2). 413–424. Also published on microfiche by ERIC Clearinghouse Language
and Linguistics, 1991.
1986 Cohesion in Austrian learners’ English. Wiener Beiträge zur englischen Philologie 80.
221–236.
1984 (with Herbert Schendl & Otto Weihs). 1984. Development of university English teaching
(DUET) – ein Konzept möglicher Hochschullehrerfortbildung in Fachbereich Anglistik.
Zeitschrift für Hochschuldidaktik 4. 617–634.
Corpora and corpus documentation

2013 VOICE. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version POS XML 2.0).
Director: Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Stefan Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale,
Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka & Nora Dorn.
VOICE. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online). Director:
Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka & Nora Dorn. http://
voice.univie.ac.at.
(with Ruth Osimk-Teasdale & Michael Radeka). VOICE part-of-speech tagging and lem-
matization manual. Vienna. http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/documents/VOICE_tagging_
manual.pdf (accessed 30 November 2015).
(with Ruth Osimk-Teasdale & Michael Radeka). VOICE POS Online. Using VOICE Online.
Vienna. http://univie.ac.at/voice/help/pos (accessed 30 November 2015).
2011 VOICE. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 1.1 online). Director:
Majewski, Ruth Osimk & Marie-Luise Pitzl. http://voice.univie.ac.at.
VOICE. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 1.1 XML). Director:
Majewski, Ruth Osimk & Marie-Luise Pitzl.
2009 VOICE. 2009. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 1.0 online).
Director: Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Angelika Breiteneder, Theresa Klimpfinger,
Stefan Majewski & Marie-Luise Pitzl. http://voice.univie.ac.at.
VOICE Project. 2009. Using VOICE Online. Vienna. http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/help
(accessed 30 November 2015).
2007 VOICE Project. “Mark-up conventions”. VOICE Transcription Conventions [2.1]. http://
www.univie.ac.at/voice/documents/VOICE_mark-up_conventions_v2-1.pdf (accessed 30
November 2015).
VOICE Project. “Spelling conventions”. VOICE Transcription Conventions [2.1]. http://
www.univie.ac.at/voice/documents/VOICE_spelling_conventions_v2-1.pdf (accessed 30
November 2015).
Index
accommodation 16, 35, 49, 50, 142, 163, content and English integrated learning,
164–165 see CEIL
– failure 50, 53, 55 content and language integrated learning,
– inability (of native speakers) 173 see CLIL
accuracy 217, 218, 219, 221, 224 chunks 24
ACE (Asian Corpus of English) 14, 20, 22, 78 CLIL (content and language integrated
adaptation 35, 140, 142, 143 learning) 87, 235–238, 240, 241
applied linguistics CLT (communicative language teaching) 87,
– and ELF (as a field within) 1, 2, 78, 84, 115, 89, 92, 277
139, 172, 235, 276, 277, 278 code 33–36, 40, 52, 143, 182, 184, 189, 193,
– and globalization 265 198, 230, 261, 262, 266
– new insights through ELF 21 code-switching 97
– and norms 25 – in ELF 63, 126, 165
– and teachers’ attitudes 209 – in medieval England 126
approximation 24 – see also multilingual resources
Arabic 63, 119, 181, 208, 231, 267 coding possibilities, see encoding principles
Asian Corpus of English, see ACE commitment, see multilingual identity
assessment 72, 83, 90, 97, 227–230, 231– communicative capability 82
232 communicative language teaching, see CLT
asylum seekers 52, 228 communicative norms 63, 166, 174, 266
attitudes 39, 41, 42, 62–63, 91, 106, 134, – differences in 189
135, 180, 190, 248, 249, 251, 255 – see also cultural norms
autopoietic 140 community of practice 16, 110
competence
backstage (and frontstage) communica- – communicative 82, 87, 92, 166, 217, 218,
tion 42, 44–45 219, 221, 224, 230
Bahasa Indonesia, as a lingua franca 99 – discourse 217, 221–222
BELF (Business English as a Lingua – ELF 91, 228, 231
Franca) 39–42, 45–47 – grammatical 217, 221, 222, 223, 224
BNC (British National Corpus) 21, 156, 157 – interactional 229
Bologna declaration 57 – intercultural 182
Bonin Islands 117–118 – linguistic 71, 134, 162
British National Corpus, see BNC – native-speaker 31–32, 80, 82, 143, 191,
brute facts, see facts 211, 277
Business English as a lingua franca, see – non-native speaker 190
BELF – sociolinguistic 217, 222–223
– strategic 89, 217, 218–219, 223, 224
CEFR (Common European Framework of complex adaptive system 139
Reference) 83, 227–228 complexity 40, 195, 199, 221, 222, 224
– in Japan 83 complexity theory 139, 140
CEIL (content and English integrated conventions 52, 53, 89, 90, 189, 253, 275
learning) 236–237, 238–242 conversation analysis 52–53, 161, 162–163
Common European Framework of Reference, – findings regarding ELF 164–166
see CEFR corpora 19–26, 32, 77–78, 109, 263
290 Index
– see also ACE; BNC; ELF corpora; ELFA; ICE; – as a field 2, 3, 14–15, 16–17, 171–173, 175,
ICLE; VOICE; WrELFA 214, 276–277, 278
corporate language 40–41, 44 – and historical linguistics 123, 124, 126–
corpus linguistics 19–20, 26, 109 127, 129, 136–137
– frequencies in 24 – label 132–133, 134
– native speaker orientation 19 – and language planning 71–73, 79–82,
creativity 88–90, 91, 93, 110, 123, 141, 142, 260, 262, 265–270
165, 180, 196, 197, 217, 275–278 – legitimacy 172, 268
– domain-specific 275–276 – and new-dialect formation 117, 120
– of ELF as a field of study 276–278 – and pedagogy 15–16, 36, 72, 87, 89–94,
– and innovation 141–142 191, 235, 239, 277
– in language learning 218, 223 – reconceptualization 14, 16
– linguistic 275–276 – research network 15
– norm-following and norm-developing 127, – in spoken communication 22, 25, 44, 61,
142 107, 162, 165, 166, 262
culture 63, 101, 171, 174–175, 181, 209, 251, – and second language acquisition, see SLA
253, 254, 255, 261, 262, 265, 270, 277 – and translation 187, 188–189, 190, 191,
– cultural filter 188 192, 214
– cultural norms 101, 174, 190 – users 7, 15, 24, 34, 49, 72, 78, 82–84, 110,
– cultural schemata 53 140–143, 187, 189–191, 231, 245
– cultural translation 196, 199 – and World Englishes, see World Englishes
– in written communication 22, 26, 40, 45–
dialect 115, 119, 120 47, 107, 187, 189
dialogue 52, 181, 184 ELFA corpus 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 61, 78, 131
diversity 22, 163, 165, 181, 236, 239–240, ELT (English language teaching) 36, 72, 73,
241, 265, 266 80, 81, 84, 87–93, 209–210, 212, 213,
– in BELF 39–41, 43–44, 45 214, 277
– intolerance of 208, 210, 214 EMI (English medium instruction) 57, 58–60,
– superdiversity 40, 45, 195, 196–197, 198, 61, 63–64, 71, 77, 79, 81–82, 84, 237
200, 201 encoding principles 33–35, 36
– see also variation English
Dutch 43, 93 – conceptualization of 20–21, 40, 84, 90,
DYLAN project 3, 198, 199 132, 247
dynamic model 110, 111 – perceived threats to 209
– roles of 40, 71, 89, 90, 91, 238, 239, 247,
EFL (English as a foreign language) 84, 108, 255, 262, 265, 266
237, 239, 241, 261 – see also standard English; standard
ELF (English as a lingua franca) language
– in academic settings/contexts 59, 60–61 English-taught programs, see ETPs
– awareness of 72, 73, 79–80, 81, 88–89, English as a foreign language, see EFL
91, 93, 131, 165, 173 English as a lingua franca, see ELF
– in business, see BELF English as a lingua franca in academic
– communities 22, 109 settings (ELFA), see ELFA corpus
– conceptual gap 2, 14, 102, 277, 278 English as a native language, see ENL
– controversies 71, 123, 131, 262 English as a second language, see ESL
– corpora 16, 19–26, 78, 109, 131, 263 English language teaching, see ELT
– in digital communication 22, 166, 190–191 English medium instruction, see EMI
Index 291
ENL (English as a native language) 21, 90, HE (higher education) 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64,
118, 179–180, 184, 211, 266 238, 245, 255
– belief in authenticity 80 historical linguistics 20, 123–124, 126, 137
– culture(s) 63
– descriptions 14 ICE (International Corpus of English) 21,
– data 24 109
– idiomatic expressions 110 ICLE (International Corpus of Learner
– non-standardness 26 English) 21, 109
– practices 25 identity 42, 47, 51, 53, 79, 140, 171–172,
– readers 192 180–181, 200, 240, 265, 277
– decreased relevance of 180 – communal 35
– speakers 25, 26, 108 – cultural 175
– variation in 36 – European 71
ESL (English as a second language) 106– – multilingual 179, 182, 185
107, 108–111, 119, 120, 149, 219, 223, – negotiation of 175, 269
229, 239, 261 ideology 47, 71, 183
Esperanto 260, 261 – of diversity 46
ETPs (English-taught programs), in – and gender 248, 252
Europe 57, 58 – influence on communication practices 42
– of monolingual teaching 213–214
facts, brute and institutional 133–136 – one language at a time 41, 44, 46, 47
FDG (functional discourse grammar) 149– – in politics 213–214, 247, 264, 268
152 – standard language 123, 127
French 98, 116, 117, 124, 125, 126, 179, 208– – in translating 190, 213–214
209, – of written language 45–46
– as a lingua franca 59, 93, 181, 182–184 immigration 49, 209, 227, 268
– as official language 43 individualism 180, 185
– as a school subject 87, 92, 98, 236 innovation
– values 181 – in Bonin Islands English 118
– as working language 43, 44, 187 – in ELF 125, 142, 143, 270
frontstage (communication), see backstage – lexical 124–125
functional discourse grammar, see FDG – in medieval Latin 124–125
– in SLA 142, 143
gender – see also creativity
– in Asia 245, 246–247, 249, 252–254, 255 institutional facts, see facts
– and English language learning 251 interactional practices 164, 166
– identities 245, 248, 252, 254, 255 intercultural communication 14, 49–50, 51,
– see also ideology 87, 91, 92, 111, 171–176
German 45, 59, 92, 179, 187, 240 interlanguage 142–143
– as institutional language 238 International Corpus of English, see ICE
– as a lingua franca 93 International Corpus of Learner English, see
global perspective 21 ICLE
globalization 40, 78–79, 106, 185, 187, 188, internationalization 59, 60–61, 63, 101–102,
190, 197, 246, 265 189, 190, 238
– sociolinguistics of 21, 110 interpreting 41, 210, 211–212, 213, 214
Greek, as a lingua franca 51, 98, 116, 140 Italian 2, 43, 44, 51, 236
292 Index
JELF (Journal of English as a lingua languaging 44, 45, 46, 47, 90, 199–200,
franca) 14, 17, 78, 106, 115, 129 219, 228, 229, 231, 277
Latin 52, 98, 117, 126, 132
language acquisition, L1 148 – as a lingua franca 116–117, 118, 123, 124–
– see also SLA 125
language change 22, 72, 136, 142, 147, 148 lexical borrowing, in medieval England 125,
language contact 44, 60, 105, 109, 115, 125– 126
126, 147, 149, 197 lingua franca core (LFC) 15
language education lingua franca communication 172, 173,
– in Europe 70 175
– foreign 2, 69, 235 lingua franca pedagogy 87, 92–93, 94
– in Japan and East Asia 77, 78, 82 lingua franca(s) 79, 97, 99, 182, 200, 231
– second 217 – characteristics 115–117, 197, 198, 267
language education policies 72, 238 – historical perspective 123
– in Europe 69, 70 – testing 231
– impact of CLIL/CEIL 236, 241 – see also Bahasa Indonesia; French;
language learning 91, 98–99, 142, 217–218, German; Greek; Latin; Putonghua
219, 223–224, 241, 277 logic of inquiry 184
– ELF-aware 93
– model for 173 macroacquisition 72, 247–248, 255
– social constructivist understanding of 90, Middle English 123, 125
92, 93 migration 49, 50, 54–55, 69–70, 196
– and translation 213 – schemata 53, 55
language learners 35, 88 – see also immigration; unequal migration
– awareness of ELF 73, 78, 93 encounters
– and L1 212, 214 minimal English 266
– and L2 users 19, 108 miscommunication 41
– and norms 90–91, 107, 108, 142–143 – in aviation 230
– preparation for being ELF users 82, 83– – in migration encounters 50, 52–55
84, 91, 92 – misunderstanding 49, 50, 52, 61, 62, 174,
– and pronunciation 15, 83 191
– and World Englishes 105, 109 – non-understanding 173, 174
– see also competence monolingual 42, 97, 102, 119, 194–195, 209–
– see also “my English” condition 211, 212–214, 240, 277
learner corpora 19, 21 – ideology 45
– vs. ELF corpora 23, 77–78, 109 – norms 101
learner language, and ELF 21–22, 34, 36, – texts 125–126
109 multicultural 72, 101, 102, 106, 133
language planning 72, 259–263, 267 Multicultural London English 118–119
language policy/policies 57, 235, 240, 260, multiethnolect 119
262, 263, 267 multilingual contexts 40, 97, 117, 120, 126,
– corporate 40, 41 190, 259, 263, 266
– in Europe 61, 63, 70, 71, 235, 236 multilingual education 71–73, 182, 235
– in higher education 61, 63, 238 multilingual medieval England 123, 125
– in Japan 78–80, 84 multilingual language policy 43, 235
– concerning multilingualism 70, 266, 267 multilingual resources 43, 44, 47, 165, 182
language testing, see testing multilingual repertoire(s) 16, 266
Index 293
multilingual speaker(s) 21, 101–102, 125– – varieties 117, 119, 229, 231
127, 184, 194, 235, 236, 241, 267 non-native speakers 2, 14, 26, 80, 88, 92,
multilingualism 106, 123, 182, 193–195, 93, 99, 101, 108, 124, 161, 162, 174, 211,
209, 228 224, 227, 229, 230, 267
– as corporate communication 43 nonteleological view of language 139–140,
– and ELF 184–185, 197–198, 266, 277 143
– inclusive 200 non-transparency, see transparency
– individual 125 norms, see communicative norms; cultural
– historical 123, 125, 193 norms; native speaker norms
– policies 69–71, 238, 241
– societal 125, 193 own language use 213–214
– symbolic 44
phraseology
– see also plurilingualism
– and creativity 141
“my English” condition 90
– phraseological patterns 25, 35
– phraseological units 24, 34
native speaker 101
plurilingual 69, 71, 72, 182, 197, 228
– communities 35
plurilingualism 194–195
– concept 277
politics 181, 207, 211, 214, 262, 264, 268
– corpora 78
postmodernist 174–175
– intuition 19, 20, 25, 229
post-structural 110, 200
– English 32, 90
power relationships 50, 52, 176, 232
– ideology 45
proficiency 97, 143, 165, 173, 195, 217–218,
– language 21, 92, 107–109, 116, 141, 161,
224, 229, 235
162, 175, 179–180, 187, 189, 211, 221,
– levels of 23, 60, 62, 108, 109, 163, 193,
227, 261
222, 252, 254
– norms 32, 36, 53, 77, 78, 80–81, 83, 92,
– levels in ELF, criteria 228
143, 181, 219, 228, 261
– subject-relevant 241
– teachers 80, 237
– tests 229, 231
– usage 32, 33, 36
pronunciation 14–16, 83, 164, 262
– see also competence
Putonghua, as a lingua franca 99
native speakers 2, 14, 26, 41, 45, 83, 108,
117–118, 119, 162, 173, 183, 191, 213, recipient design 165
218, 224, 227–228, 229, 230, 231, 261, reflexivity 182
265–266 repair 164
negotiation 184, 195–196, 213, 227, 259 repertoire(s) 44, 45, 175, 194, 195, 197–198,
– in intercultural communication and 239, 266, 267
ELF 175 – see also multilingual repertoire(s)
– of identity display 175, 269 responsible tourism 49–53
– of meaning 88, 101, 163, 164, 173, 182, – see also asylum seekers; migration
200, 230 rhizomatic (characteristics of language)
– of norms and values 181, 266 200–201
non-native Russian 2, 179, 181, 208, 237
– English 21, 105, 107, 131, 211
– data 22, 162 second language acquisition, see SLA
– language 92, 109, 117, 119, 190, 227 SLA (second language acquisition) 21, 32,
– teachers 72 108–110, 139, 210, 217, 221, 248, 276
– usage 162, 163, 166 – and ELF 142, 217, 219
294 Index
Spanish 15, 45, 92, 116, 219, 231, 267 variability

– as a school subject 87, 237 – adaptive 32–33, 35–36, 218–219, 223
speech community 16, 32, 50, 72, 110, 131, – in BELF 39
142, 246–248, 255 – in ELF 73, 107, 108, 163, 165, 166, 173,
standard English 31, 33, 90, 123, 153, 154 175–176
– correctness 88, 89 – in L1 use 24
– forms 34 – in proficient language use 218
– orientation 89–91 – and standardization 126
– vs ‘real English’ 31, 32 – and virtual language 33
standard language 33, 34, 101, 124, 141, variation
268 – in ELF 49, 51–52, 181, 266, 277
– see also ideology – in BELF 39–40
standardisation 123–124, 126 – and language change 123, 126
superdiversity, see diversity – in medieval England 126
– as a natural tendency of language 263,
talk-in-interaction 161 265, 277
teacher education 2, 71, 72, 73, 91, 209, – and norms 32, 36, 99, 107–108, 126, 269
219, 221 – and virtual language 36
– ELF-aware 88–89 – see also diversity
telecollaboration 91–94 variety 32, 110–111, 115, 119, 124–125, 131,
testing 80, 227–228, 230–231 134–136, 147, 195, 214, 231, 277
traction potential of knowledge 267, 268, – conceptual problems 32–33
269, 270 – used in course books 72
transdifference 196 – ENL varieties 14
transfer – issues in relation to ELF 16, 40, 131, 140,
– of cultural aspects 49, 52, 56, 253 149, 247, 269
– of L1 into a lingua franca 50, 52, 107, 109, – L2 varieties 21, 22, 120
116–117, 118, 119 – lingua franca variety 118
translanguaging, see languaging – mother-tongue varieties 117
translation – nativized varieties 52, 107, 109, 117
– in the classroom 98, 210, 212, 213, 214 – non-standard varieties 32, 126, 158
– costs 41, 191 – pre-standard varieties 123
– covert 188 – and World Englishes 105, 106, 110
– cultural 196, 199–200 Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of
– and digital industries 188 English, see VOICE
– and ELF 187–188, 190, 191 virtual language 33–35, 36, 199
– in lingua franca interactions 43, 182, 183, VOICE (Vienna-Oxford International Corpus
184 of English) 3, 14–15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24,
– into a non-native language 189, 190, 191 25, 26, 49, 61, 77, 78, 88, 102, 109, 147,
transnationalism 245 154, 155, 156, 157, 262, 269, 275
transparency 110, 116, 147, 148–149, 152–
153, 154, 155, 157, 158 word class shifts 23–24
World Englishes, and ELF 16, 78, 105–111
understanding in ELF 49, 99, 163, 164, 165, – conceptual setting 106–108
173, 191, 263 – historical relationship 105–106
– see also miscommunication – structural similarities 110
unequal migration encounters 49–56 WrELFA (Written ELFA corpus) 20, 22, 24

English As A Lingua Franca - Perspectives and Prospects - Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

English As A Lingua Franca - Perspectives and Prospects - Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

English As A Lingua Franca - Perspectives and Prospects - Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marie-Luise Pitzl and Ruth Osimk-Teasdale (Eds.

Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

6 2016 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

Marie-Luise Pitzl & Ruth Osimk-Teasdale

I Perspectives on the study of ELF

Maria Grazia Guido

II The study of ELF in a wider context

Section B: Multilingual/-cultural perspectives and ELF

Section C: Policy, pedagogy and ELF

Tim McNamara and Elana Shohamy

Christiane Dalton-Puﬀer and Ute Smit

Janina Brutt-Griﬄer and Sumi Kim

Beyza Björkman is Associate Senior Lecturer at Stockholm University, Depart-

Janina Brutt-Griﬄer is a Professor in Foreign/Second language learning at the

Alessia Cogo is Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at Goldsmiths, University of

Guy Cook is Professor of Language in Education at King’s College, London. His

Christiane Dalton-Puﬀer is Professor of English Linguistics at the University of

Cornelia Hülmbauer is an applied linguist specialising in ELF and linguistic

three monographs: The Phonology of English as an International Language (OUP

Jagdish Kaur is a Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics,

Evelien Keizer is Professor of English linguistics at the University of Vienna.

pedagogy as well as translation and interpreting. His overall theoretical approach

Claire Kramsch is Emerita Professor of German and Aﬃliate Professor of Educa-

Andy Kirkpatrick is Professor in the Department of Languages and Linguistics

Diane Larsen-Freeman is Professor Emerita of Education, Professor Emerita of

Joseph Lo Bianco is Professor of Language and Literacy Education in the

Lucilla Lopriore is Associate Professor at Roma Tre University, holds an MA

Anna Mauranen is Professor of English at the University of Helsinki. Her recent

Tim McNamara is Professor in the School of Languages and Linguistics at the

Kumiko Murata is Professor of English and Applied Linguistics at the School of

Ruth Osimk-Teasdale worked as a full-time researcher for the Vienna-Oxford

Marie-Luise Pitzl is Postdoc/Assistant Professor in English Applied Linguistics

Nikolaus Ritt is Professor of Historical English Linguistics at the University of

Herbert Schendl is retired Professor in English linguistics at the University of

Edgar W. Schneider holds the Chair of English Linguistics at the University of

Elana Shohamy is Professor of Language Education at Tel Aviv University

Ute Smit is Associate Professor at the Department of English Studies, University

Elaine Tarone is Distinguished Teaching Professor, and the Director of the

Trobe University. He is the author of Dialects in contact; New-dialect formation:

Henry Widdowson in earlier years taught at the universities of Edinburgh,

Zhu Hua is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Communication and Head of

My interest in ELF was ﬁrst sparked in a seminar held in 2005 by Barbara

1 The present volume

Marie-Luise Pitzl and Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, University of Vienna

In the ﬁrst contribution, Jennifer Jenkins combines her long-standing

of geographical parameters in relation to ‘English’ and ELF at universities. Lucilla

task performed by adult beginning learners, Tarone demonstrates that dimen-

1 I am adopting the somewhat unconventional practice of referring to Barbara Seidlhofer by

Jennifer Jenkins, University of Southampton

4 Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliqué (AILA) ELF Research Network (http://

ELF pronunciation, but in ELF’s development as a whole. And although peda-

Finally, it would not be possible to discuss Barbara’s massive contribution

2 How did we get to corpora of ELF?

Anna Mauranen, University of Helsinki

other meetings, sessions, conferences, and all kinds of collaboration around

3 Compiling a corpus of ELF

authenticity, and interactivity (for a detailed account, see Breiteneder et al.