Is ELF a variety of English?

7 Pages·0.32 MB·English

by  Prodromou L.

S0266078407002088a:ET90 PAGES 01-64 29/5/07 10:02 Page 47
Is ELF a variety of English?
LUKE PRODROMOU
A critical discussion of ‘English as a lingua franca’ (ELF) as
both a novel phenomenon and in relation to ELT methodology
THIS ARTICLE discusses recent attempts to plished speaker of English which does not
describe English as a lingua franca (ELF). In it, make L1-user norms the yardstick for expertise
I will consider claims made for ELF as a variety (cf. Jenkins 2006a; Seidlhofer, 2005). All such
of English ‘with a life of its own’, which is said arguments have had a positive impact in help-
to be emerging among users of English for ing the ELT profession challenge stereotypes of
whom it is not their mother tongue. I examine ‘correctness’ and recognise the specific needs of
a number of weaknesses in the case made for L2-users of EIL (English as an International
ELF by a school of thinking in mainland Language), which are not the same as those of
Europe, focusing on: the role of the native L1-users.
speaker in ELF; the relationship between ELF There are, however, several points in the ELF
and Standard English; and the search for a position that are more controversial. The aim
grammatical common core for contexts in here is to identify some of the inconsistencies
which English is used as an international lin- in the ELF case and suggest ways of moving
gua franca. The article draws on research forward in a joint effort to disentangle ELF
which suggests that the aspect of Standard from unnecessary L1-user norms, while retain-
English which may be inappropriate for ELF is ing any features of English as it is currently
not in the grammatical system but the area of codified that can serve the purpose of its users
idiomaticity. I conclude with a consideration of in an international context.
the pedagogic implications of the ELF debate. I will argue that the choice before us is not
[Note When using the terms ‘native’ and between complete dependence on ‘native-
‘non-native’ I put them in inverted commas to speaker’ norms, on the one hand, and on the
indicate that I do not subscribe to the deficit other a self-contained ‘variety’ of international
view of L2 use that these terms are often asso- English with a new set of norms. We can
ciated with. My preferred terms are ‘L1-user’ instead choose as our classroom target a set of
and ‘L2-user’.] ‘strategies and processes of language negotia-
tion’ (Canagarajah, 2006:210). This ‘negotia-
tion’ will involve, through English, not only
Introduction
communication in a transactional sense but
ELF scholars have recently expressed concern
that it should not be seen within a deficit
framework (cf. Jenkins 2006a, 2006b), and
LUKE PRODROMOU has published articles in ELT
that L2-users of English as a lingua franca
journals and has written over twenty textbooks. He
should not be penalized when they do not con-
has also written ‘Dealing with Difficulties’ (Delta,
form to a ‘native’ ‘standard’ (cf. Seidlhofer,
with L. Clandfield). He is the author of ‘Smash’, a
2005). Such scholars have argued persuasively course for young learners, and co-author of
that one reason for a breakdown in communi- ‘Attitude’ (Macmillan). He obtained his Ph.D from
cation in ELF contexts is ‘unilateral idiomatic- the University of Nottingham. He has degrees from
ity’: when one speaker uses an idiomatic the universities of Bristol, Birmingham, and Leeds,
expression that others do not know. Finally, it and is a Visiting Fellow of Leeds University
is argued that researchers need to establish (Metropolitan). He currently teaches in a private
language institute in Thessaloniki, Greece.
empirically a means of defining an accom-
DOI: 10.1017/S0266078407002088
English Today90, Vol. 23, No. 2 (April 2007). Printed in the United Kingdom © 2007 Cambridge University Press 47
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 Mar 2009 IP address: 161.53.147.4
S0266078407002088a:ET90 PAGES 01-64 29/5/07 10:02 Page 48
also understanding and the promotion of per- In order to facilitate my argument, I will
sonal identity. The fulfilment of these strate- refer to the approach to EIL represented by Sei-
gies and processes through ELF will require a dlhofer (2005) and Jenkins (2006a) as ELF.
richer use of language resources than those This acronym will stand for what is emerging
suggested so far in the description of a ‘gram- as an identifiable school of thought – ‘English
matical common core’, in the work of ELF as a lingua franca’ – revolving round the work
scholars such as Seidlhofer and Jenkins. of these scholars. This approach to English
In particular, I will argue that users of ELF tends to theorize and investigate interaction in
will need to draw on those resources of Stan- international contexts which does not involve
dard English grammar which have already ‘native-speakers/L1-users’ of the language (cf.
been appropriated in World Englishes by L2- Jenkins, 2006a, 2006b).
users and which are therefore not to be identi- I will use EILto refer to the use of English in
fied exclusively with ‘native-speaker’ norms. an international context as a lingua franca
The area of Standard English which has not between people who do not share the same L1,
been appropriated by L2- users – be they users includingL1 speakers of English when they are
of English in ESL contexts or EFL contexts – is a using English with L2-users. That is, I will use
specific kind of culturally opaque idiomaticity. EILwhen I need a superordinate term for both
Research suggests that not only are certain ELF and EIL, as EIL is the more general term of
aspects of idiomaticity difficult to acquire (see, the two.
for example, Arnaud & Savignon, 1997) but
can also lead to pragmatic failure and what
The main problems with ELF
Seidlhofer describes as ‘unilateral idiomaticity’
(2004:220). (1) The conflating of World Englishes (WEs)
A perspective on EIL, moreover, which and ELF
recognises the usefulness of Standard English
ELF scholars frequently compare what they see
grammar but questions the role of culturally-
as an emerging variety of international English
loaded lexical items and especially idioms, is
– ‘ELF’ – with the rise of World Englishes in ter-
consistent with the requirement referred to by
ritories where English is a second language:
Alptekin (2002) that teachers in ELF contexts
‘[T]he past 15 years has undoubtedly seen
should be ‘successful bilinguals with intercul-
some progress in terms of an emerging consen-
tural insights’. In other words,a variety of Eng-
sus both among WEs and ELF researchers’
lish that legitimizes ‘errors’ or an over-simpli-
(Jenkins, 2006a:173).
fied grammar, as Seidlhofer and Jenkins seem
Leung puts forward similar arguments,
to do, is unlikely to meet the aspirations of
asserting that ELF is becoming a ‘recognisable’
learners and teachers (cf. Timmis, 2003).
variety with a ‘life of its own’ (2005:135–136),
The EFL debate has very important peda-
while Seidlhofer says ELF ‘has taken on a life of
gogic implications and needs to address the
its own’ – Seidlhofer, 2004:212) and argues
issue head-on: What are teachers to say to their
that ELF, like WEs, is in the process of ‘nativiza-
students when they are preparing to use Eng-
tion’. Jenkins reinforces the argument that ELF
lish in their international contacts or preparing
and WEs are similar phenomena when she
to take examinations which will have interna-
refers to speakers of ELF are ‘members of an
tional recognition? At the end of the day, our
international community’ who are ‘entitled...to
scholarly deliberations and laboratory research
transform their linguistic world’ (Jenkins,
will have to confront the realities of English in
2006b:45).
the classroom and in the world and will, above
The arguments put forward in favour of a
all, need to motivate learners and meet their
separate norm-generating international vari-
aspirations.
ety of English along the lines of indigenized
varieties of English, are based on a number of
Terminology fallacies. The following criteria for the exis-
tence of new varieties of language are fre-
The first controversy involves the semantic
quently put forward:
content of the term ‘ELF’ itself, since the
acronym is used as an umbrella to shelter mul- ● the appearance of regular patterns of
tiple meanings and pragmatic intentions, not language use which have become accepted in
all of them consistent with each other. a particular speech community
48 ENGLISH TODAY 90 April 2007
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 Mar 2009 IP address: 161.53.147.4
S0266078407002088a:ET90 PAGES 01-64 29/5/07 10:02 Page 49
● standardization of these patterns However, the spirit of the ‘native-speaker’
● the existence of widely accepted norms haunts ELF by its very absence; it is always
● codification of the variety and its use in hovering in the background, like a slightly
writing malignant presence, exerting a ‘norming effect’
(Cf. Kachru, 1985; McArthur, 1998;
(Leung, 2005:128) and obliging L2-users to
Melchers & Shaw, 2003).
‘defer’ to its dictates (Jenkins, 2006a:174); and
Indigenized varieties have been in use in spe- ‘natives are always lurking’ (Seidlhofer,
cific speech communities for a long time and 2002:204). Thus, the language in which the
have begun to be described in ways which iden- ‘native-speaker’ is conceptualised by ELF schol-
tify ‘endonormative’ patterns of use, acceptable ars risks ‘demonizing’ a very large group of ELF
and essential to large sections of the population users. The dismissive attitude towards the
that use them. The speech community of EIL ‘native-speaker’ in relation to ELF is captured
contains diverse and often contradictory lin- in the following statement from Widdowson
gua-cultural groups; it embraces multitudes of (1994:385):
L1- and L2-users of English. ELF is, in essence,
[Native speakers] have no say in the matter…
different from the speech communities of terri-
[T]hey are irrelevant. The very fact that English
tories where English is a second language; it is
is an international language means that no
difficult to see how these groups are going to nation can have custody over it.
converge in linguistic terms.
Seidlhofer (2005) echoes this position on the
The only way around this problem for ELF
‘irrelevance’ of the native-speaker to ELF and
scholars is to posit a homogeneity in the inter-
extends the critique to Standard English (SE),
national community which does not exist and
which is identified with ‘nativeness’
to exclude the ‘native-speaker’: Jenkins refers
(2005:163). While we can agree that neither
to ‘an international community consisting
the ‘native-speaker’ nor ‘nativeness’ (if such an
largely of NNS like themselves’ (2006b:45).
essence exists) are appropriate norms for EIL, it
That ‘largely’ conceals 380 million ‘NSs’ (Crys-
is more difficult to argue that native-speakers
tal, 1997) – hardly Jenkins’s ‘small minority’
as users of EIL are ‘irrelevant’ to the way inter-
(2006a:161). Jenkins herself reminds us that
national Englishes are shaped.
WEs are characterised by adjectives such as
Jenkins does accept that ‘native-speakers’
‘nativized’, ‘indigenized’, and ‘institutionalized’
play a minor role in ‘ELF’ (2006a:161), but this
(Jenkins, 2006a:159), which clearly do not
‘small minority’ of L1 users will ‘have to follow
describe EIL. In nativized Englishes we see a
the agenda set by ELF speakers’ and use any
broad consensus on which forms of the lan-
language items which may have been ‘codified’
guage are acceptable or represent a norm.
in ELF. Later in the same article, Jenkins gives
Codification suggests the possibility that these
the reader an indication of the ‘potential
forms and their meanings may be brought
salient features’ of ‘ELF lexico-grammar’
together in dictionaries and grammars.
which, presumably, the L1 user of ELF ‘will
Clearly, it is premature to say this is the case
have to follow’ (as in the list that follows here,
with EIL.
from Seidlhofer 2004:220):
If the existence of ELF varieties is an emerg-
ing tendency, there is little published evidence 1 She look very sad.
to support such a claim. What has been pub- 2 a book who I like
lished (Seidlhofer, 2004) is based on a small 3 [omission of articles]
sample of users of ELF which does not amount 4 They should arrive soon, isn’t it.
to evidence that there are common norms in 5 How long time?
6 advices; informations
‘Euro-English’, and even less so in the huge range
7 I want that we discuss about my dissertation.
of contexts in which English is used globally.
Jenkins’s use of the modal form have to (indi-
cating obligation) suggests that ELF is a one-
The fallacy of the absent ‘native-
way street; she would apparently seek to pro-
speaker’
mote Seidlhofer’s list as core items for L1 and
The ‘pure’ form of ELF excludes L1-users from L2 users of ELF alike. The very act of listing
the description: ‘ELF researchers specifically ‘common core’ items in a supposedly emerging
exclude mother tongue speakers from their ‘variety’ of international English suggests the
data collection’ (Jenkins, 2006a:161). potential for codification of these forms, which
IS ELF A VARIETY OF ENGLISH? 49
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 Mar 2009 IP address: 161.53.147.4
S0266078407002088a:ET90 PAGES 01-64 29/5/07 10:02 Page 50
will collectively constitute the ‘agenda’ of the possession of the English some time ago’:
majority of ELF users, an agenda which all and Salman Rushdie (as quoted in Singh et al:
sundry ‘will have to follow’. 2002:216).
The suggestion that the forms identified by Moreover, when one identifies the whole of
Jenkins and Seidlhofer constitute examples of English as it has been codified with ‘native-
a common core for all users of ELF ignores not speaker norms’, what scope is there for the
only the L1-user but also the millions of ‘inner concept of ‘appropriation’ of SE at the hands of
circle users’ for whom the inclusion of the 3rd the L2-user? Empowerment involves making
person singular ‘s’, the distinction between who the maximum use of the linguistic resources at
and which,and the use of tags does not present our disposal, including local and standard vari-
a problem of acquisition. eties, and, if we want to wrest some of the L1-
Rather than set up a code which all users of users’ power from them in the ELF sphere,
ELF have to follow, it is surely time that we ‘English is linguistic capital and we ignore it at
recognised the diversity among users and the our peril’ (Canagarajah, 2006:205).
multiplicity of uses to which English is put While the fiction of a homogeneous ‘stan-
worldwide and think in terms of varied dard English’ is rightly exposed by ELF, at the
processes of interactionrather than a single pre- same time the concept is presented, determin-
scriptive model,which is what the ELF core is in istically, as a defining feature of the ‘native-
danger of becoming (as suggested by the speaker’; it is treated as a unitary, indivisible
modality of the argument). quality of ‘nativeness’. I would however argue
ELF scholars have articulated a strong cri- that SE is subject to appropriation through the
tique of Anglocentric corpus linguists who agency of its users. That the SE grammatical
exclude L2-users of English from their data and core is a norm for ‘native-speakers’ does not
then proceed to issue pedagogical prescrip- exclude it from being a norm for L2 users of the
tions on the basis of such restricted data. ELF, language. By ‘SE grammatical core’ I refer to
however, risks making the same mistake, but the lexico-grammatical system minus native-
in reverse. speaker accents, lexical items that are distinc-
tive in various ways (such as according to
region or profession), and, most especially,
The role of Standard English
idioms, which are culturally elusive and
A concomitant position to that of the ‘irrele- opaque. It is to the idiomatic aspect of the com-
vance’ of the ‘native-speaker’ is that Standard mon core for ELF to which we now turn.
English (SE) is itself ‘difficult to justify’ in the
context of ELF, where the majority of users are
Idiomaticity and the common core
‘non-native speakers’. SE is an ‘anachronism’
and therefore an inappropriate model for ELF Standard English, in all its contradictory vari-
(Seidlhofer, 2005:159). ety, includes particular areas of idiomaticity
However, we need to clear up the confusion and collocation which have been shown by
arising from identifying ‘SE’ exclusively with researchers to be resistant to second-language
the ‘native-speaker’. The conflating of ‘native- acquisition (such as kick the bucket, a red her-
speaker’ with ‘Standard English’ conceals the ring, and to lift a blockade): ‘Can non-natives
fact that Standard English, barring certain reach native-like proficiency with respect to
items of vocabulary and idiomaticity, has been rare words and complex lexical units? The
in use for a long time in indigenized varieties, answer would seem to be yes in the first case
at least in the written medium and educated and no in the second’ (Arnaud & Savignon,
usage. In other words, the grammatical core of 1997:167).
Standard English has been appropriated by Aijmer (1996) points out that even proficient
users of English in Asia and Africa and is L2-users have difficulty identifying what is
indeed no longer the property of the ‘native- grammatically correct but non-idiomatic. In
speaker’. As many core elements of Standard contrast to the difficulty of idiomaticity in SLA,
English are already an integral part of World there is ample empirical evidence that SE core
Englishes and EIL (especially in the written grammar is not particularly difficult for most
medium), the question of imposing its ‘norms’ learners to acquire. Indeed, L1 users of the lan-
does not arise, because the horse has bolted: guage are surrounded by countless examples
‘The English language ceased to be the sole of superb L2-users of ‘standard’ English gram-
50 ENGLISH TODAY 90 April 2007
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 Mar 2009 IP address: 161.53.147.4
S0266078407002088a:ET90 PAGES 01-64 29/5/07 10:02 Page 51
mar. It would be condescending to say that It is important to ponder the implications of
competence in this area has been imposed on this statement for classroom practice, bearing
such users and that, henceforth, they need to in mind that ‘ELF varieties’ are said to be made
be dissuaded from deferring to this core gram- up of ‘unproblematic’ forms such as She look
mar on the assumption that such forms are an very sadand a book who I like.
embodiment of ‘native-speaker’ norms. Jenkins extends her argument beyond
This would be to reify language and indeed teaching to argue that the current testing of
the concept of the ‘native-speaker’ and to treat English should draw on such ‘unproblematic’
English, in all its manifestations, as if it had an forms because they reflect the ‘sociolinguistic
essential unbreakable bond with its L1-users. It reality of learners’ use of English (2006a:168),
is, however, in the area of idiomaticity that but she does not refer to any research into the
even proficient L2-users of English fail – quite ‘sociolinguistic reality’ of ELF users. There is,
understandably, given the cultural nature of however, some empirical research into learn-
many idioms – to achieve accurate and appro- ers’ attitudes towards ‘native-speaker norms’
priate use (cf. Medgyes, 1994). (for example, Timmis 2003). This research
Research suggests that, outside of total does not lend support to the idea that L2-users
immersion in the socio-cultural matrix of an find their ‘sociolinguistic reality’ reflected in
idiom-generating speech community, it is diffi- the kind of reduced common grammatical
cult for an L2-user to acquire, under classroom core, as described and prescribed by ELF.
conditions, productive L1-like idiomatic com- Indeed, ‘most learners would probably...
petence of the ‘colourful’ variety. This, how- object to being taught by English language
ever, does not exclude individual learners from teachers who deliberately distance themselves
acquiring, outside the classroom, a productive from the native speaker model’ (Gnutzmann,
competence in L2-like idiomaticity, reflecting 1999:160).
the speaker’s own local socio-cultural matrix. Given the likely attitudes of students, would
(For a summary of research into idiomaticity it be fair to encourage them to believe that
and the L2 user, see Wray, 2002.) these ‘unproblematic forms’ were not only
Unlike certain kinds of cultural idioms, the ‘characteristic of their own variety of English’
grammatical core is not tied exclusively to the (Jenkins, 2006a: 168) but also an adequate
culture of the L1-user or to conditions of lan- resource for meeting their communicative
guage acquisition which privilege the L1-user. needs in the globalized communities of which
Thus, it is a mistake to equate the whole of they are a part? Let us look at some of the ped-
Standard English with ‘native-speaker norms’, agogic implications of the ELF position.
just as it would be a mistake to impose highly
native-centric idioms (and pronunciation) on
Correction strategies in the
the diverse community of ELF users.
classroom
To restrict the teaching of core SE forms in
favour of the ELF common core (as it is emerg- In practical terms, do teachers consciously
ing from the writings of Seidlhofer and Jenk- expose learners to forms such as those in Seidl-
ins) would be to throw out the grammatical hofer’s list or do they correct such errors when
baby with the phonological and idiomatic they occur? If these ‘unproblematic forms’
bathwater. were to be accepted, say, as legitimate in infor-
mal speech, does the teacher then have to train
students to avoid them in formal writing? Is
In the classroom: from descriptive to
the ‘reduced’ form of ELF (She look sad...)
prescriptive
equally unproblematic in speech and writing,
Writers on EFL bemoan the ‘insistence on “cor- in informal conversation, and in business
rect” grammar’ in examinations and in class- meetings and conference presentations? Stu-
rooms which they see as a kind of “linguicism”, dents’ own use of language and creativity with
the arbitrary valuing of “NS” forms over those the language should be the starting point of a
of “NNS”’ (Jenkins, 2006b:43). In order to non-judgemental methodology, but it would
combat this ‘linguicism’ it is suggested that be irresponsible to encourage learners to
teachers begin exposing ‘less proficient learn- assume that they can do without standard
ers’ to a range of ‘ELF varieties’ (Jenkins, forms of the language.
2006a:174).
IS ELF A VARIETY OF ENGLISH? 51
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 Mar 2009 IP address: 161.53.147.4
S0266078407002088a:ET90 PAGES 01-64 29/5/07 10:02 Page 52
The role of the teacher user in the composition of ELF ‘would simply
mean ignoring reality’
What kind of teachers do we need to train stu- – Knapp (2002:221)
dents in ELF? For students to learn to manage
The core grammar of Standard English is not
ELF conversations in all their unpredictable
the whole of ELF but it is a part of the pattern
variety, they need to have realistic models of
in the carpet. Students should be introduced to
proficient users doing the same thing. Their
these larger patterns, which will help to equip
teacher is the most important model they will
them to cope with the diverse encounters of
encounter, at least in the initial stages of SLA.
which EIL is made up. This will involve expos-
The teacher is a model to which students can
ing them to an amplified form of their own
reasonably aspire. If we are to replace the
emerging English rather than a simplifiedEng-
omnipotence of the L1-user in teaching and
lish. The classroom is a rehearsal for the out-
testing with a convincing alternative, we need
side world and students should be empowered
the kind of teachers Alptekin refers to as ‘suc-
to deal with the diversity beyond the classroom
cessful bilinguals with intercultural compe-
and to make the most of this diversity in their
tence’.
effort to achieve communication and under-
If students perceive their teacher as having
standing.
an inadequate command of a prestigious form
of the language, it will be all the more difficult
for the L2-user teacher to provide a viable Conclusion
alternative to the hegemony of the ‘native-
The suggestion that the ELF grammatical core
speaker’. It is, therefore, hard to imagine a
should be applied pedagogically may or may
teacher of L2-users who is not reasonably com-
not be valid, but the point I have sought to
petent in Standard English grammar but may
make here is that this position is the logical out-
be less comfortable in the obscure cultural ter-
come of embarking on a rhetorical project that
rain of idioms.
sees ELF as a ‘variety’ somehow equivalent to
indigenized varieties. It is a strategy that arbi-
trarily leaves out of the reckoning a large group
Varieties inside and outside the
of EIL users: L1-users of English. At the same
classroom
time, it presents a homogeneous view of ELF
Will students be exposed only to their own users, many of whom have appropriated stan-
‘varieties’ or will they inevitably come across dard forms of the language.
traditional standard varieties, be they ESL or Finally, ELF slides imperceptibly from a
ENL in origin? legitimate description of variety in the use of
Students cannot be insulated from the core language to a position that puts the prescrip-
grammar of Standard English, nor can they be tive cart after the descriptive horse. It makes a
insulated from L1-users of ELF; they will be model out of the muddle of deviant forms to be
aware that, outside the classroom (in the found in ELF. In the end, ELF risks sending the
media and on the internet), there is such a student stuttering on to the world stage, with
thing as SE core grammar. In the real world, in limited resources. Denigrating core standard
contrast to the classroom, an L2/L2 conversa- English grammar only serves to strengthen the
tion can become an L2/L1 exchange from one power of those who already ‘have’ standard
moment to the next. English grammar.
English has gone forth and multiplied, prolif-
Students should be ready to transfer their
erating into ‘nativized’ and ‘international lin-
knowledge and competence in the underlying
gua franca’ Englishes. Heteroglossia reigns
deep structure of their variety to the other
varieties they will confront (including standard supreme, with all the potential for innovation
American and British English) that such multiplicity entails (cf. Bakhtin,
– Canagarajah (2006:210) 1981). At the end of the day, it may not matter
whether new forms of English evolve into so-
Descriptions of EIL need to recognise that
called ‘varieties’, as long as these varieties are
international communication is not a unitary
not seen as fixed models cut off from outside
concept but is made up of ‘constellations where
monolingual native speakers, fully competent influences.
bilinguals, near-natives and non-native The global and diverse nature of EIL sug-
speakers interact’; to ignore the role of the L1- gests, on the one hand, that there is no place
52 ENGLISH TODAY 90 April 2007
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 Mar 2009 IP address: 161.53.147.4
S0266078407002088a:ET90 PAGES 01-64 29/5/07 10:02 Page 53
for undisputed L1 authority over the English World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca.’ In
language(s); on the other hand, it seems to be Tesol Quarterly40/1:157–181.
going against the grain to seal off whole ––. 2006b ‘The spread of EIL: A testing time for testers.’
In ELT Journal60/1, pp. 42–49.
stretches of linguistic territory and stick up a
Kachru, B. 1985. ‘Standards, codification and
sign that says ‘No Trespassing’ when we are
sociolinguistic realm: The English language in the
unable to restrain the free contact of languages outer circle.’ In R. Quirk & H. Widdowson, eds,
and cultures in today’s world. Any ‘models’ or English in the World.Cambridge: University Press.
‘processes’ of English that we decide to work Knapp, K. 2002. ‘The fading of the non-native speaker.
with must be capable of accommodating the Native speaker dominance in lingua franca
situations.’ In K. Knapp, K. & C. Meierkord, eds,
diversity and linguistic creativity that all lan-
Lingua Franca Communication. pp. 217–244.
guage users are heir to. m
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Leung, C. 2005. ‘Convivial communication:
References recontextualizing communicative competence.’ In
International Journal of Applied Linguistics15, pp.
Alptekin, C. 2002. ‘Towards intercultural 119–144.
communicative competence in ELT.’ELT Journal McArthur, T. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge:
56/1: 57–64. University Press.
Arnaud, P., & S. Savignon. 1997. ‘Rare words, complex Melchers, G., & P. Shaw. 2003. World Englishes.
lexical units and the advanced learner.’ In J. Coady, London: Arnold.
J. and T. Huckin, eds, Second Language Vocabulary Seidlhofer, B. 2004. ‘Research perspectives on teaching
Acquisition, pp. 157–200. Cambridge: University English as a lingua franca.’ In Annual Review of
Press. Applied Linguistics24, pp. 200–239.
Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination.Austin ––. 2005. ‘Standard future or half-baked quackery?’ In
Texas: University of Texas Press. C. Gnutzmann & F. Intemann, eds, The Globalisation
Canagarajah, S. 2006. ‘An interview with Suresh of English and the English Language Classroom, pp.
Canagarajah.’ In Rubdy, R. & M. Saraceni, eds, 159–173. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
English in the World.Continuum. 200–212. Singh, M., P. Kell, & A. Pandian. 2002. Appropriating
Crystal, D. 1997. English as a global language. English. New York: Peter Lang.
Cambridge: University Press. Timmis, I. 2003. ‘Corpora, context and classroom: The
Gnutzmann, C., ed. 1999. Teaching and learning place of spoken grammar in ELT.’ Unpublished PhD
English as a global language. Tübingen: thesis, University of Nottingham.
Stauffenburg. Widdowson, H. 1994. ‘The ownership of English.’ In
Jenkins, J. 2006a. ‘Current perspectives on teaching TESOL Quarterly28/2, pp. 377–389.
IS ELF A VARIETY OF ENGLISH? 53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 30 Mar 2009 IP address: 161.53.147.4