See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322976210

English as a Lingua Franca

Chapter · February 2018

CITATIONS READS

8 15,795

2 authors:

Roby Marlina Zhichang Xu

SEAMEO-RELC Monash University (Australia)
25 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   313 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Principles and Practices of Teaching English as an International Language View project

Teaching Academic Writing in Context View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roby Marlina on 08 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 English as a Lingua Franca
ROBY MARLINA AND ZHICHANG XU

­The Intellectual and Social Context

The worldwide spread of English, its predominant use in diverse international

economic and cultural arenas, and the dramatic expansion of electronic commu-
nication have allowed the language to achieve the status of an international
­language or a global lingua franca. This international status of English generates
four major implications for ELT professionals to consider. First, as a global lingua
franca, the legitimate speakers of English are no longer exclusively the so-called
“native-English” speakers (NESs) from what Braj Kachru, a key scholar in World
Englishes, has classified as inner-circle countries where English is an official and
a national language. These legitimate speakers of English also come from c­ ountries
where English is an institutionalized language or outer-circle countries, as well as
a foreign language or expanding-circle countries (see world englishes). They
acquire English within their bilingual and multilingual repertoires, use English
and other languages in multilingual contexts, and use English to communicate
predominantly with other bilingual and multilingual speakers of English. In fact,
it is widely agreed that the predominant speakers of English today are these
­bilingual and multilingual speakers of English who should be viewed as users
rather than learners. Second, the changing demographic background of English
and the natural process of languages in contact have also brought changes to the
form of language, contesting the notion of English as a monolithic and unitary
concept. Thus, English is now a plurilithic language with diverse and complex
pronunciations, grammars, vocabulary, d ­ iscourse and pragmatic conventions,
and cultural conceptualizations. Third, thanks to the explosion of advanced
­information technologies in today’s postmodern globalization era, the cultural
and linguistic backgrounds of the interlocutors with whom people communicate
in English are often unknown. What is known is that today’s communicative
exchanges take place between speakers whose cultural and linguistic back-
grounds are diverse and complex. The variety(ies) of English being used, and the
languages being used are also unpredictable and therefore diverse. Within
­communicative exchanges between users of English from diverse linguacultural

The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, First Edition.

Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0667

V1_lbp-e.indd 1 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 2 English as a Lingua Franca

backgrounds, it is not uncommon to observe how they employ various strategies

from their multilingual and perhaps multidialectal repertoire to negotiate
linguistic and other differences to ensure mutual intelligibility and effective
­
­communication. Fourth, as English is now widely recognized as an international
lingua franca and used for intercultural communication, native-speaker norms
and accuracy/correctness are seen as less relevant and important than having the
ability to employ various communicative skills and strategies to negotiate mean-
ings and reach mutual understanding among English as a lingua franca (ELF)
speakers.
In response to this changing sociolinguistic nature of English, scholars in
applied linguistics have called for the need for a reconceptualization of the
English language. Different schools of thought have emerged to challenge the
purist and elitist view of conceptualizing and teaching English. In addition to
world englishes, ELF, a vibrant area of inquiry in applied linguistics as well
as a “movement,” has provided applied linguists and ELT professionals with a
“picture” of the changing nature of the English language and its implications
for communication in English as well as the teaching and learning of English.
In fact, ELF was initially identified and advocated in the early 1980s by two
scholars from Germany, Werner Hüllen and Karlfried Knapp, who claimed (a)
the importance and relevance of ELF in teaching English and (b) the need to
conduct further research studies on the formal and functional aspects of ELF
that teachers could incorporate into their teaching. In the late 1990s, several
scholars outside Germany—Alan Firth, Juliane House, and Jennifer Jenkins—
attempted to “revitalize” ELF. Due to some terminological and methodological
inconsistencies, their work received only minor attention and interest from
applied linguists and ELT professionals until the birth of the groundbreaking
empirical publication by Jennifer Jenkins in 2000 on ELF pronunciation, and
the conceptual work of Barbara Seidlhofer in 2001 that strongly called for the
need to describe linguistic features and practices of users of English, particu-
larly from expanding-circle countries where English does not have a histori-
cally established presence. This call has resulted in a considerable number of
English corpora in different sociocultural settings: Vienna Oxford International
Corpus of English (VOICE) in Vienna; the Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca
in Academic Settings (ELFA) in Helsinki, Finland; Alpine-Adriatic Corpus in
Austria; and the Asian Corpus of English (ACE) in Hong Kong. Not only do
these corpora aim to show the pluralizing nature of English, but also to criti-
cally challenge a deficit perspective of linguistic features and practices that
may be different from those of NESs. These corpora have also generated
­pedagogical implications that question the validity and relevance of the native-
speakerism-based approach to teaching and learning English. Today, ELF is
highly relevant to a number of disciplines including contact linguistics, socio-
linguistics, cognitive linguistics, genre theories, bilingualism and multilingual-
ism, intercultural communication, World Englishes, English as an international
language, language education, language change and variation, historical
­linguistics, and language planning and policy.

V1_lbp-e.indd 2 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 English as a Lingua Franca 3

­Major Dimensions

“English as a lingua franca” has been predominantly used by prominent scholars

and researchers in the field to refer to the following. First, it refers to an intercul-
tural communicative setting in which speakers from different linguistic and cul-
tural backgrounds use English as the medium of communication. Second, it refers
to the various communicative strategies or practices that those speakers employ in
intercultural communicative contexts. Third, it is a paradigm or an area of inquiry
in applied linguistics that advocates the following:
●● As English has internationalized and diversified, so have the users who are
predominantly bilinguals, multilinguals or translinguals whose English and
their plurilingual repertoire are creatively and strategically used in engaging
collaboratively in meaning-making in an international communication context.
●● The term “English as a lingua franca” does not suggest that certain users of
English are included or excluded from communication. Nor does it promote a
single monolithic variety of English being used as the exclusive or “core” model
for communication. Thanks to the forces of globalization, neither the linguacul-
tural backgrounds of the users of English nor the varieties of English encoun-
tered in today’s social communicative contexts are known and “predictable.”
What is clear, however, is that these contexts are characterized by variations in
linguistic practices and cultural behaviors.
●● All varieties of English should be accepted in their own right. No varieties of
English, be they native or non-native, should be viewed and approached from
­deficit perspectives. As English has become an international lingua franca, the
ownership of English is shared among all users of English. There is also a shift from
ownership to access in the sense that it is not about who owns English, but who has
access to the linguistic and cultural resources associated with the English language.
●● Underpinned by the theories of language contact and evolution, code-
switching, code-mixing, code-meshing are a natural phenomenon of
­languages in contact, and bilingual and multilingual pragmatic resource.
●● In language pedagogy, teaching a single monolithic variety shall not be the goal.
Awareness of language variation and change, and learners having the agency to
choose the variety(ies) of English suitable for their own needs, interests, and aspi-
rations should be emphasized in ELF-driven English language lessons, curricula,
and programs. Critical reflections on ELF-related concerns and assessment of
their appropriateness to the teaching contexts and practices can be incorporated
into a language teacher-education program to enlighten ELF-aware teachers.

­Changes Over Time

In understanding ELF and its advocated ontological and epistemological assump-

tions, it is crucial to understand the term “lingua franca” which is often used as the
basis for conceptualizing, researching, and teaching ELF. The term is not a recent

V1_lbp-e.indd 3 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 4 English as a Lingua Franca

innovation or a newly coined concept. Originally, lingua franca was employed to

refer to an Italian-Provençal-lexified pidgin with elements of Arabic, French,
Greek, Persian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish, which was used by early
Crusaders and tradesmen as a trade language in the Levant, on the eastern
Mediterranean coast, from the time of the Crusades until the 19th century. As a
result of the difficulty the Arab Muslims in the area had in distinguishing among
the different European nations, the Crusaders who were non-Muslims were
referred to as the “Franks” who spoke “Frankish Tongue,” that is, “lingua franca.”
In the 19th century, the above definition was no longer appropriate because the
English language had spread widely across many geographic, social and cultural
areas, and thus had had contact with many different world languages. Today, the
term has also become elastic, leading to various conceptualizations of ELF. An
explicit highlight of the differences in the definitions of lingua franca is important
in order to avoid misrepresenting how ELF is conceptualized by the majority of
ELF scholars.
On one hand, lingua franca is defined and understood as a common language or
medium of communication between people of different mother tongues, for whom
it is a second language. Based on this definition, ELF is defined as a contact
­language between people who do not share a common mother tongue or a national
language, and who choose to use English as the foreign language of communica-
tion. According to this perspective, ELF communication does not involve NESs
since English is not a “foreign” language to these speakers. In other words,
ELF communication takes place between bilingual/multilingual and bicultural/­
multicultural users of English, for none of whom English is the dominant mother
tongue. On the other hand, scholars who prefer to conceptualize lingua franca as
any code used as a medium of communication between speakers of different first
languages, view ELF as a common means of communication for speakers of differ-
ent first languages. Challenging the former perspective, this perspective of ELF
advocates that ELF communication also involves NESs because English is also
one  of those different first languages, and that globalization has increased the
frequency of transplanetary contacts between users of English from diverse
­
­lingual-cultural backgrounds. However, in ELF communication, NESs are likely
to  be the minority and will need to learn to understand the use of English that
may be different from theirs. Thus, no one speaker or group of speakers is more
superior and linguistically privileged than the other. It is this conceptualization
of  ELF, as opposed to the former, that is shared and advocated by most ELF
researchers (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011).
To further understand how ELF is conceptualized by the majority of ELF schol-
ars and researchers, there is also a need to raise the following questions that have
sparked controversies in the field: (a) is ELF a single monolithic distinct variety of
English spoken by expanding-circle users of English? and (b) is the ELF project
promoting and advocating a single “core” variety of English? Critics claim that
“Yes” is the answer after having observed ELF empirical studies that refer to ELF
as a legitimate emerging variety of English, and that aim to “describe ELF varieties
and identify systematic differences between these and NS [native speaker]

V1_lbp-e.indd 4 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 English as a Lingua Franca 5

varieties” (Jenkins, 2004, p. 8) or “provide comprehensive and reliable descriptions

of salient features of ELF… [which will be used as a] basis for an eventual
codification” (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 215). The use of phrases in the discourse of the
ELF movement such as “written ELF,” “spoken ELF,” “ELF speakers,” “using
English as a lingua franca,” and a particular skill being constituted as “correctness
in ELF” further confirms the view of ELF as a single monolithic variety of English
spoken or collectively practiced by a group of speakers of English whose English
is not their mother tongue. Not only has ELF been viewed as utopian and imprac-
tical, but several critics have also critiqued its promotion of an essentialist view of
­language and its potential in creating a binary opposition of a legitimate versus
illegitimate variety of English especially in language teaching. Others have also
argued that the features of a “core” variety of English or “lingua franca core”
­promoted by ELF scholars is based on English used by native-English speakers,
making it not entirely free from native-speaker centeredness.
Echoing the dynamic nature of knowledge, ELF research directions, and hence
the advocated ontological and epistemological assumptions, have shifted.
Specifically, ELF has changed from “a system or structure-oriented approach to a
more phenomenological or practice-oriented approach” (Ferguson, 2012, p. 177).
The former, which is more characteristic of early ELF research and approach,
­conceptualizes ELF “as an emergent or potential variety, distinct certainly from L1
Standard English, which might eventually be codified once sufficient descriptive
research had been carried out” (Ferguson, 2012, p. 177). Contesting the promotion
of a reified view of language highlighted by the ELF critics, the recent ELF research
and approach are based on the latter approach, which emphasizes the contingency,
heterogeneity, variability, and flexibility in the way plurilingual individuals use
English linguistic resources. Although many ELF research studies still continue to
explore the linguistic features and practices of users of English from diverse
­linguacultural backgrounds in ELF communication, the aim or orientation is no
longer to show distinctive characteristics of a particular variety of English used by
a group or groups of speakers with an eventual aim of some kind of codification,
but to investigate the processes underlying the choice of features used in ELF
interactions. In other words, the interest is not in the “product” or what speakers of
diverse linguacultural backgrounds do or say, but in the “process” or how they
creatively draw on their communicative strategies and plurilingual repertoire in
response to the immediate communicative needs. The details of the findings from
the ELF empirical studies are discussed in the next section of this entry.
In addition, though the findings of the ELF empirical studies have been gener-
ated from research projects conducted in various geographical locations, ELF
scholars argue that they should not be taken as having an association with English
of those locations with a pedagogical implication that it should serve as the model
for language teaching and learning. Rather, the findings should be read as present-
ing creative and innovative use of English and other languages (through code-
mixing, code-switching, and code-meshing) in a communicative context that is
multilingual and multicultural in nature. An important message that ELF research-
ers and scholars aim to convey is that even though the phonological, lexical,

V1_lbp-e.indd 5 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 6 English as a Lingua Franca

s­ yntactical, or discourse and pragmatic strategies found in ELF communicative

settings may be different from those of the so-called NES varieties of English, they
are not to be conceptualized and treated as inferior to NES varieties of English,
interlanguage errors, or L1 interference, but as variants or differences. When
­certain groups of speakers overuse or underuse, avoid, or simplify certain struc-
tures or expressions, these are not necessarily indicative of having limited knowl-
edge or resources at a particular stage of interlanguage. Rather, they need to be
seen as communicative strategies.
In the context of teaching, ELF is no longer about promoting a single monolithic
core variety of English used by expanding-circle users of English in an interna-
tional context. Neither is it about rejecting the relevance of NES varieties of English.
An ELF perspective of English language education advocates the importance of
raising students’ awareness of language variation and change, and giving students
the right to choose varieties of English that are suitable and relevant to their own
sociocultural contexts. In addition, English language education is not conceptual-
ized as the exclusive teaching of the English language per se to the students, but as
facilitating the learners to become effective bilingual or multilingual speakers or
users of English plus their first language(s). In language teacher-education or
­ELF-aware teacher-education, student-teachers should be engaged in a critical
reflection on their beliefs on ELF-related issues in the hope that they can ultimately
transform their convictions on those issues. This can be done by exposing
­students to reading literature in ELF and critical pedagogy and allowing them to
conduct action-research projects in which the appropriateness and relevance of
ELF-related concerns to their teaching contexts and practices are critically
reviewed.

­Current Emphases in Work

This section presents the current emphases and findings in ELF research. Research
on ELF ranges from defining ELF, describing features of ELF (for example, lexico-
grammar, syntax, discourse, and pragmatics) and patterns for ELF communica-
tion, to communication strategies, interactional pragmatics, and English language
teaching. There has also been research on regional ELF studies such as ELF in
European (EU) countries and Southeast Asian nations (ASEAN). For example,
researchers on the ACE have traced the development of English in the ASEAN
area and explored the implications of ELF and teaching the national languages of
ASEAN states for multilingualism in the region.
The current literature on ELF studies shows the following research areas: (1)
levels of ELF analysis, for example, lexicogrammar, phonology, and pragmatics in
academic English, grammatical variability, syntax in ELF communication, and
cultural conceptualizations; (2) the relationship between the functions and forms
of ELF; (3) sources and nature of ELF (mis)communication; (4) ELF and language
policy; (5) context-dependent cultural forms, practices, and frames of reference
through ELF; (6) ELF for specific purposes; (7) the role of the native speaker in

V1_lbp-e.indd 6 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 English as a Lingua Franca 7

ELF; (8) the relationship between ELF and Standard English or English language
standards; (9) broad areas of corpus-based ELF research: theoretical, descriptive,
pedagogical, ideological, and application; and (10) modified terms of ELF such as
English as an acrolectal lingua franca, English as an academic lingua franca, lingua
franca English (LFE), and translingua franca English.
A review of relevant selected current ELF research reveals its major findings and
emphases. One of the interesting findings about ELF research is how researchers
describe what ELF is. Apart from discussions on whether ELF is a variety of
English and who constitute legitimate speakers of ELF, there is also a view that
ELF should be regarded as the “zone” of the three Kachruvian circles overlapping,
or “a fluid, everchanging fourth space” (Prodromou, 2010, p. xiv). As a fourth space
of interacting circles, ELF is being developed by both native and non-native speak-
ers, locally and internationally. ELF has been rigorously researched at different
linguistic levels, for example, lexicogrammar, phonology, discourse, and pragmat-
ics. It has proved especially prevalent in domains such as business English,
­academic English, and English for specific purposes.
In terms of ELF syntax, some researchers argue that it is unlikely that ELF pos-
sesses a homogeneous form of syntax. “At the informal level, ELF is a syntactically
heterogeneous form of English which is characterized by: (1) overwhelming cor-
respondence to the rules of L1 Englishes; (2) transfer phenomena, developmental
patterns and nativized forms; and (3) simplification, regularization and leveling
processes” (Meierkord, 2004, p. 128). In academic context, non-native-like usage of
morphosyntactic structures may not result in overt disturbance in dialogic speech.
Despite the fact that ELF may not have a homogeneous form of syntax, some
researchers are still in search of a grammatical common core for contexts in which
English is used as an international lingual franca, particularly in mainland Europe.
In terms of the form and function of ELF, there has been a contestation regarding
which has received more emphasis in research. Some researchers argue that there
has been more emphasis on the form of ELF than its function. Others respond by
stating that ELF is “an umbrella term that encompasses all types of communica-
tion among bilingual users of English in the expanding circle, but allows for local
realizations as well as extensive use of accommodation strategies and code switch-
ing” (Cogo, 2008, p. 58). To deal with the contestation between the form and
­function of ELF, some scholars, for example Suresh Canagarajah and Alastair
Pennycook, have explored and proposed different concepts, which are lingua
franca English (LFE) and translingua franca English. The distinction between ELF
and LFE is in their way of conceptualizing language. LFE views language as a
living dynamic, moving, and unpredictable organism as opposed to a static and
tightly knit system. Hence, ELF tends to be perceived as a preexisting variety of
English while LFE does not exist as an established language system, but it emerges
when individual speakers of English interact with one another. There is not much
meaning attached to a form unless the form serves a particular function in an
actual language practice.
Research has also been conducted regarding the sources and nature of
­misunderstanding in intercultural communication in ELF. Misunderstandings in

V1_lbp-e.indd 7 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 8 English as a Lingua Franca

ELF communication are rarely attributed to differences in the ELF interlocutors’

cultural backgrounds. Instead, the major sources of many of the misunderstand-
ings in ELF communication can be traced to ambiguity in the interlocutors’ utter-
ances, mishearing, and lack of world knowledge, which are also sources of
misunderstandings in intracultural communicative exchanges. To deal with mis-
understandings in ELF communication, ELF users of English employ a range of
pragmatic strategies. Based on an analysis of phone conversations between Danish
export managers and their clients, Alan Firth has observed how ELF users of
English work together to ensure mutual understanding despite the presence of
nonstandard usage of English as well as unintelligible utterances. In particular,
they employ a “let-it-pass” strategy where nonstandard usage and unintelligible
utterances are unquestioned; and a “make-it-normal” strategy, when nonstandard
usage is considered to be normal and is reformulated if it severely impedes
­comprehension of messages.
The majority of ELF research is empirical and corpus-based. There are primarily
three types of research involving an ELF corpus: descriptive, application, and theo-
retical. To make sense of how ELF works and operates in different contexts usually
requires a good database of naturally occurring data, or ELF corpora. Apart from the
corpora mentioned at the beginning of this entry, that is VOICE, ELFA, and ACE,
there are also other corpora compiled by researchers for specific research purposes
such as the million-word corpus of examples of formal, written acrolectal English
used by foreign workers in the UAE (Boyle, 2011). The results from this corpus study
suggest that the patterns of use of nonfinite complement clauses and of transitive
and intransitive verbs, in particular, are beginning to change and that the changes
are systematic. In addition, there is also another empirical corpus-based investiga-
tion of how ELF speakers use the marker you know in interaction. This study puts
forward the strong hypothesis that ELF use of you know is critically different from the
way in which NS use it in that ELF speakers use you know predominantly as a self-
serving strategy for purposes of creating coherence and “fumbling for words” in
order to gain time for getting their m ­ essage across (Juliane, 2009, p. 171).
In terms of ELF and language policy, there has been rigorous research in recent
years in Europe and a wider global academic community. English has been used
in the European Union over the past decades as the de facto lingua franca. Therefore
researchers argue that governments and language policy makers should acknowl-
edge the usefulness of English in its role in the European Union (EU), and that
instead of ignoring what is happening in practice, they should build English into
EU language policy (Cogo & Jenkins, 2010). In addition, with international
­universities turning to English on their websites, English has also been regarded as
the lingua franca of the global academy in relation to English language policies
and practices in these universities (Jenkins, 2014). Research in this area is ongoing;
for example, a collaborative project involving ten countries investigating linguistic
diversity and ELF communication on international university campuses has been
carried out. The preliminary findings from the project reveal that those interna-
tional universities lack critical thinking about the language of the universities’ staff
members and students. The so-called native-English speaking academic staff

V1_lbp-e.indd 8 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 English as a Lingua Franca 9

members and those at the management level show minimal awareness of the dif-
ficulties that non-native English speaking students may have operating in their
second or third language. Attitudes, beliefs, and practices that may be interpreted
as parochial and ethnocentric are also evident. Thus, more in-depth investigations
will need to be conducted, and the implications for language policies and practices
will be shared at annual ELF conferences.
In terms of ELF use in the academic context, current research has suggested that
cultural forms, practices, and frames of reference through ELF in an academic c­ ontext
may be viewed not as a priori defined categories, but as adaptive and emergent
resources which are negotiated and context-dependent. Therefore, ELF needs to move
beyond the traditionally conceived target language–target culture relationship to
incorporate an awareness of dynamic hybrid cultures and academic skills to success-
fully negotiate among participants within the international a­ cademic community.
As far as implications for ELT are concerned, relevant ELF research has addressed
issues regarding the nexus between ELF and TESOL vis-à-vis English language
standards and Standard English. The notions of competence and proficiency have
been critically revisited and revised. The goals of teaching English have also been
redirected towards developing knowledge, attitudes, and skills that are appropri-
ate for learners’ communicative, sociocultural, and sociolinguistic contexts. A
competent multilingual user of English, rather than the so-called native-English
speaker, has been suggested as the role model for English language learners. It is
the social responsibility of English language educators to use the aforementioned
suggestions to inform their English language learning materials or classroom
teaching. To help them do that, English language teacher-education programs will
need to incorporate research findings from ELF projects as well as arguments put
forward in ELF that can help raise student-teachers’ awareness of the recent
changes to the use of English and its implications for teaching and learning. For
example, based on a research study on lexical variation among World Englishes
users for ELF communication, English teachers and students in various classroom
and cultural contexts need to be aware that (1) common English words may not
share identical meanings among World Englishes speakers; (2) meanings of
English words change and vary in accordance with ELF contexts; (3) World
Englishes speakers co-construct and negotiate meanings in ELF communication;
and (4) there is a high degree of fluidity and dynamism in the meaning-making
process, particularly involving connotative meanings of lexical items used by
World Englishes speakers for ELF communication (Xu & Dinh, 2013). In fact,
many accredited language teaching awards have already made explicit reference
to ELF, Global Englishes, or both. Several research projects that interview English
language teachers who have been engaged in discussing ELF perspectives in their
teacher-education course have revealed their acknowledgment of the dynamic
and ever-changing nature of the English language, and their critical views of the
native-speaker orientation to teaching English. Some teachers have expressed how
the ELF-oriented classroom discussions have boosted their self-esteem and confi-
dence as English language users and therefore, teachers. Some have shown great
enthusiasm in putting the theoretical aspects of ELF into practice by proposing to

V1_lbp-e.indd 9 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 10 English as a Lingua Franca

develop language teaching materials and pedagogical strategies that aim to raise
their students’ awareness of the pluralization of English. However, there are those
who still hold onto or prefer to believe in a native-speaker oriented view of English
language use, learning, and teaching.
A new dimension of ELF research has emerged, and it is about how ELF is
employed in virtual networks where English works as a lingua franca. Studies on
this topic have shown how ELF bloggers deploy an array of resources to their expres-
sive and interactional aims, combining global and local communicative practices.
ELF has generated a wide range of research. However, there has been a predic-
tion that English is going to be the last lingua franca, that no triumph of any lan-
guages or lingua francas is permanent, and that all languages rise and fall (Ostler,
2010). It is no exception that English, like all previous lingua francas including
Arabic, Greek, Latin, Persian, and Sanskrit, will cease to function as a lingua franca.
It can be argued that in the future as in the past, linguacultural landscapes will
change in line with political, economic, and sociocultural realities. In the next
­section of the entry, we explore the future directions for ELF research.

­Future Directions in Research, Theory, and Methodology

Although ELF has made significant epistemological contributions to applied

­linguistics and ELT, there are a number of gaps that still need further exploration
and clarification.
First, the data from the ELF projects and their implications are mostly based on
spoken interactions. Data from written interactions are still relatively insufficient
to the extent that convincing implications can be drawn. Despite several ELF
works on writing in an ELF context and its pedagogical implications, as well as the
corpus of written English as a lingua franca in academic settings (WrELFA) that is
currently being assembled at the University of Helsinki, there is still a major gap
in ELF research that needs further investigation. It is likely to be an important
investigation with significant practical implications because the pluralistic con-
ceptualization of English and of writing in English still has not yet been welcomed
by tertiary educators, language practitioners, and academic “literacy brokers”
such as proof-readers or publishing editors who, driven by the native-speakerist
ideologies, still insist on conformity to conventional expectations of academic
writing as well as NES varieties of English.
Second, critics of ELF projects have raised concerns about the representation of
the speakers of English from diverse linguacultural backgrounds whose spoken or
written communicative strategies are used as the source of data for ELF projects
and therefore the premise on which they formulate their claims. They have ques-
tioned whether these selected speakers of English are in any way representative of
the actual population of speakers of English and the situations in which they actu-
ally use English on a global scale is unsure. Specifically, the data for VOICE and
ELFA corpora are predominantly based on the usage of “a narrow range of
bilingual elites in globally rarefied international business, education, research, and

V1_lbp-e.indd 10 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 English as a Lingua Franca 11

leisure domains” (O’Regan, 2014, p. 8). In other words, the communicative strate-
gies as well as the linguistic and cultural practices documented in those corpora
are likely to be strategies and practices of the bilingual cosmopolitan elite users of
English who have luxurious access to social, linguistic, cultural, and economic
capital. Those who do not possess high quotients of economic capital do not have
the opportunity to have their linguistic or cultural practices and strategies included
and represented in the corpora. Therefore, the ELF movement has overlooked “the
responsibility of capitalism—particularly in the guise of neoliberalism—for gener-
ating global and national class stratifications and, as an ineluctable part of this, the
social prejudices attached to the forms of English which circulate within them”
(O’Regan, 2014, p. 8). The question that may need to be further addressed by schol-
ars in this area of inquiry is whether or not the ELF movement, like the advocated
ideology, truly puts everyone on an equal footing.
Third, although the findings from ELF empirical studies in the previous sec-
tion have convincingly illustrated how much English has changed, little has
changed in practice—specifically in teaching, publishing, and testing—so far,
which therefore demands further research. Since variation and fluidity have
been emphasized as the key characteristics of ELF, more research is still needed
to explore how these characteristics can be incorporated into teaching in ways
that can be accessed and digested by learners. In order to do so, voices of both
learners and teachers need to be made more audible when incorporating English
language variation into ELT. Even though there have been English language
teacher-education programs that have made explicit reference to ELF, many
English language educators or student-teachers have expressed their uncertainty
about or skepticism towards the idea of incorporating an ELF perspective into
their own classrooms. Although they appreciate the liberating ideology p ­ romoted
by the ELF movement, they still struggle to see how it can be implemented in
classroom teaching. Specifically, they experience difficulties in finding effective
and nonconfrontational ways to challenge deeply rooted, well-entrenched, and
institutionally recognized views and beliefs about language(s), standardness, a
language role model, language norms, and language pedagogy. This experience
has prompted some language educators and student-teachers to express their
preference for using the native-speaker model of language teaching as there is
already something “fixed” to which they can refer in their lesson development
and delivery. In light of this, there need to be further collaborative projects
between ELF academics, teacher-educators, and language teachers on the
­reexamination of the ontology of English promoted in the current pedagogical
strategies and curricular materials; and how these can be strategically modified
in order to reflect the local sociolinguistic landscape of English and the changing
nature of English. In order for this to happen, it is no longer sufficient to
­simply raise English language teachers’ awareness of the changing s­ ociolinguistic
reality of English. There is an urgent need for developing an ELF-aware teacher-
education program that offers student-teachers opportunities to critically reflect
on and discuss the existing beliefs, myths, or deeply rooted assumptions about
language using, language learning, and language teaching; to experience and

V1_lbp-e.indd 11 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 12 English as a Lingua Franca

apply theoretical knowledge of teaching the plurality of Englishes in a real

­classroom setting; and to evaluate how such knowledge can be implemented in
their own teaching context, classroom, or both (Marlina, 2017).
To develop an ELF-aware program or a curriculum, the availability of teaching
materials or resources for engaging student-teachers in changing their beliefs as
well as their teaching practices is crucial. In this case, support from the literacy
brokers is needed. However, though publishers have been relatively keen to pub-
lish books that discuss developments in ELF at the theoretical level, they still seem
to be relatively reluctant to publish works that would enable language educators to
put theory into practice. Thus, there needs to be more empirical evidence that
addresses this issue, and demonstrates whether academic publications in a range of
disciplines are moving towards a similar position on ELF. Even if there are already
publications that incorporate research findings from the ELF research studies, fur-
ther research on those published materials still needs to be carried out especially on
how English language variation, multilingualism, and users of English from outer-
circle and expanding-circle countries are portrayed and constructed. Currently,
differences in using English can be treated as “deficiencies” as opposed to a natural
outcome of languages and cultures in contact. Multilingualism may not always be
welcomed, and users of English from outer-circle and expanding-circle countries
are portrayed as learners rather than legitimate users of English.
Another major gap in “practice” that has not yet been sufficiently researched is
the adoption of an ELF perspective in language testing. Although there has already
been a proposal for ways to use ELF research findings to inform language assess-
ment, still little is known about whether the global examination boards, such as
TOEIC, TOEFL, Cambridge ESOL, and IELTS, are taking account of ELF, are will-
ing to engage in conversations with ELF researchers about incorporating ELF
research studies into their testing materials, or are even willing to revise their
materials, grading systems, and assessment criteria. The notions of correctness,
appropriateness, proficiency, and competence promoted by international English
language tests such as IELTS and TOEFL are still predominantly informed by the
ideology of native-speakerism. The test-takers’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds
as well as their communicative and expressive needs in the current, prospective, or
potential communicative settings are largely ignored. Thus, further research in
language assessment needs to take into account the global sociolinguistic reality of
English and devise approaches to test receptive and productive skills that are rel-
evant to that reality and to the test takers’ sociolinguistic and sociocultural realities.

SEE ALSO: Future of English; Glocalization of English; World Englishes

References

Boyle, R. (2011). Patterns of change in English as a lingua franca in the UAE. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 143–61.
Cogo, A. (2008). English as a lingua franca: Form follows function. English Today, 24(3), 58–61.

V1_lbp-e.indd 12 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM

 English as a Lingua Franca 13

Cogo, A., & Jenkins, J. (2010). English as a lingua franca in Europe: A mismatch between
policy and practice. European Journal of Language Policy, 2(2), 271–93.
Ferguson, G. (2012). The practice of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 177–80.
Jenkins, J. (2004). ELF at the gate: The position of English as a lingua franca. Proceedings of
the 38th IATEFL International Conference (pp. 33–42). Canterbury, England: IATEFL.
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English
as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), 281–315.
Juliane, H. (2009). Subjectivity in English as lingua franca discourse: The case of you know.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), 171–93.
Marlina, R. (2017). Practices of teaching Englishes for intercultural communication. In
A. Matsuda (Ed.), Preparing teachers to teach English as an international language (pp. 100–13).
Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Meierkord, C. (2004). Syntactic variation in interactions across international Englishes.
English World-Wide, 25(1), 109–32.
O’Regan, P. J. (2014). English as a lingua franca: An immanent critique. Applied
Linguistics, 1–21.
Ostler, N. (2010). The last lingua franca: The rise and fall of world languages. London, England:
Penguin.
Prodromou, L. (2010). English as a lingua franca: A corpus-based analysis. London, England:
Continuum.
Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 209–39.
Xu, Z., & Dinh, T.N. (2013). How do “WE” (World Englishes) make sense in ELF
communication? Words and their meanings across cultures. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 2(2), 365–88.

Suggested Reading

Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic
English language policy. London, England: Routledge.

V1_lbp-e.indd 13 stats
View publication 10/26/2017 7:58:05 PM