English as a Lingua Franca: interpretations and attitudes

Abstract

  The phenomenon of English as a lingua franca (ELF) has become the subject of considerable debate during the past few years. What emerges from much of the discussion, however, is that there seems to be a good deal of uncertainty as to what, precisely, ELF actually is, and how it relates to the much more firmly established field of world Englishes (WE). This paper therefore begins with an explanation of my own interpretation of both WE and ELF. It goes on to focus primarily on ELF. First, I examine two frequent and diametrically opposite reactions to ELF: one that it promotes monolithicity and denies pluricentricity, the other that it promotes too much diversity, lack of standards, and an approach in which ‘anything goes’. I then consider the attitudes implicit in the second of these positions, and, using data drawn from recent ELF research, go on to explore the possible effects of these attitudes on the identities of ELF speakers from Expanding Circle countries. The paper ends on an optimistic note, with evidence from participants in the European Union's Erasmus Programme1 that demonstrates how first-hand experience of ELF communication seems to be raising their awareness of its communicative effectiveness.

Full text

World Englishes, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 200–207, 2009. 0883-2919
English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes
JENNIFER JENKINS∗
ABSTRACT: The phenomenon of English as a lingua franca (ELF) has become the subject of considerable
debate during the past few years. What emerges from much of the discussion, however, is that there seems
to be a good deal of uncertainty as to what, precisely, ELF actually is, and how it relates to the much
more firmly established field of world Englishes (WE). This paper therefore begins with an explanation
of my own interpretation of both WE and ELF. It goes on to focus primarily on ELF. First, I examine
two frequent and diametrically opposite reactions to ELF: one that it promotes monolithicity and denies
pluricentricity, the other that it promotes too much diversity, lack of standards, and an approach in which
‘anything goes’. I then consider the attitudes implicit in the second of these positions, and, using data
drawn from recent ELF research, go on to explore the possible effects of these attitudes on the identities of
ELF speakers from Expanding Circle countries. The paper ends on an optimistic note, with evidence from
participants in the European Union’s Erasmus Programme1that demonstrates how first-hand experience of
ELF communication seems to be raising their awareness of its communicative effectiveness.
WORLD ENGLISHES AND ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA
As is well known to readers of this journal, the study of WE has been in progress for
several decades, and apart from the fact that the plural, ‘Englishes’, still occasionally
causes raised eyebrows among non-linguists, there seems to be a general acceptance
of what the field entails. My own use of the term ‘world Englishes’ is thus one that
is likely to be non-controversial for most scholars of WE in that it refers to all local
English varieties regardless of which of Kachru’s three circles (Kachru 1985) they come
from. All, according to this interpretation, are bona fide varieties of English regardless
of whether or not they are considered to be ‘standard’, ‘educated’, and the like, or who
their speakers are. In other words, my interpretation does not draw distinctions in terms of
linguistic legitimacy between, say, Canadian, Indian, or Japanese English in the way that
governments, prescriptive grammarians, and the general public tend to do.
The only possible area of controversy that I can see here, then, is that some WE scholars
may not consider Expanding Circle Englishes as legitimate varieties on a par with Outer
and Inner Circle varieties. Yano, for example, argues: ‘In Japan, English is not used by the
majority, nor is it used often enough for it to be established as Japanese English’ (2008:
139). For reasons concerning their historical origins and current patterns of use, Expanding
Circle Englishes are still perceived, even by some WE experts, as norm-dependent: that
is, as ‘interlanguage’, or ‘learner English’, of greater or lesser proficiency depending on
their proximity to a particular Inner Circle variety.2
Moving on to ‘English as a lingua franca’,3in using this term I am referring to a
specific communication context: English being used as a lingua franca, the common lan-
guage of choice, among speakers who come from different linguacultural backgrounds.4
∗Dept of Modern Languages, School of Humanities, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK. E-mail:
j.jenkins@soton.ac.uk
C
2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation C
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA.

English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes 201
In practice this often means English being used among non-native English speakers from
the Expanding Circle, simply because these speakers exist in larger numbers than En-
glish speakers in either of the other two contexts (see e.g. Crystal 2003; Graddol 2006).
However, this is not intended to imply that Outer or Inner Circle speakers are excluded
from a definition of ELF. The vast majority of ELF researchers take a broad rather than
narrow view, and include all English users within their def inition of ELF. The crucial
point, however, is that when Inner Circle speakers participate in ELF communication, they
do not set the linguistic agenda. Instead, no matter which circle of use we come from,
from an ELF perspective we all need to make adjustments to our local English variety
for the benefit of our interlocutors when we take part in lingua franca English commu-
nication. ELF is thus a question, not of orientation to the norms of a particular group of
English speakers, but of mutual negotiation involving efforts and adjustments from all
parties.
At its simplest, ELF involves both common ground and local variation. On the one hand,
there is shared linguistic common ground among ELF speakers just as there is shared com-
mon ground among the many varieties of the English that are collectively referred to as
‘English as a native language’ (ENL). ELF’s common ground inevitably contains linguistic
forms that it shares with ENL, but it is also contains forms that differ from ENL and that
have arisen through contact between ELF speakers, and through the influence of ELF
speakers’ first languages on their English. On the other hand, ELF, like ENL, involves
a good deal of local variation as well as substantial potential for accommodation – the
scope for its users to adjust their speech in order to make it more intelligible and appro-
priate for their specific interlocutor(s). This can involve, for example, code-switching,
repetition, echoing of items that would be considered errors in ENL, the avoidance
of local idiomatic language, and paraphrasing (see Cogo and Dewey 2006; Kirkpatrick
2008).
The common ground in ELF is being identified in the speech of proficient speakers
of English. While the majority of speakers providing data for analysis come from the
Expanding Circle, ELF databases usually also include Outer Circle speakers, and most
also include Inner Circle speakers. However, in the case of the Inner Circle, numbers
are restricted to ensure that they do not distort the data with a surplus of ENL forms
or (unwittingly) act as norm-providers, making the other speakers feel under pressure
to speak like them. VOICE (the Vienna–Oxford International Corpus of English), for
example, allows up to 10 per cent of native speakers to be present in any interaction.
ELF researchers are as interested in the kinds of linguistic processes involved in ELF
creativity as they are in the resulting surface-level features, and these processes, such as
regularisation, have already been found to operate in ways similar to those that occur in
any other language contact situation (see also Lowenberg 2002). Examples of features
resulting from these processes are likely to include the countable use of nouns that in ENL
are considered uncountable (e.g. informations,advices), and zero marking of 3rd person
singular -s in present tense verbs (e.g. she think,he believe; see e.g. Breiteneder 2005). At
present there is insufficient evidence for researchers to be able to predict the extent of the
common ELF ground. And it is also likely that researchers working on ELF in different
parts of the world, e.g. the VOICE and ELFA (English as a Lingua Franca in Academic
Settings) teams in Europe (e.g. Seidlhofer, Breiteneder, and Pitzl 2006; Mauranen 2006),
and Deterding and Kirkpatrick in Southeast Asia will identify different branches of ELF,
just as there are different branches of ENL such as North American English, Australian
C
2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation C
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

202 Jennifer Jenkins
English, British English and so on, and different sub-varieties within these. But at present
it is still too early to say.
Two further provisos need stating in relation to ELF research. Firstly, ELF distinguishes
between difference (i.e. from ENL) and deficiency (i.e. interlanguage or ‘learner language’),
and does not assume that an item that differs from ENL is by definition an error. It may
instead be a legitimate ELF variant. This does not mean, however, that all ELF speakers
are proficient: they can also be learners of ELF or not fully competent non-learners,
making errors just like learners of any second language (see Jenkins 2006). At present it
is still to some extent an empirical question as to which items are ELF variants and which
ELF errors, and depends on factors such as systematicity, frequency, and communicative
effectiveness. Sufficient patterns have nevertheless emerged for ELF researchers to be in a
position to make a number of hypotheses about ELF, including the two features described
in the previous paragraph.
The second proviso is that even if and when ELF features have been definitively iden-
tified and perhaps eventually codified, ELF researchers do not claim that these features
should necessarily be taught to English learners. In other words, they do not believe either
that pedagogic decisions about language teaching should follow on automatically from
language descriptions or that the linguists compiling the corpora should make those deci-
sions. In this, ELF corpus researchers take a rather different approach from compilers of
most corpora of British and American English (often, oddly, referred to as ‘real’ English),
who tend to transfer their findings immediately to English language teaching publications
for circulation all round the Expanding Circle, without seeing any need for the mediation
of pedagogic and sociolinguistic considerations.
TWO POSITIONS ON ELF
ELF is seen as non-controversial and is taken for granted by many professionals working
internationally (businesspeople, technicians, and suchlike), although their positive orienta-
tion is rarely verbalised, let alone published. By contrast, it is the negative responses to ELF,
coming primarily from within the field of English studies, which are most often published.
Those who criticise ELF tend to orient to one of two (curiously opposing) perspectives
on English. First, a number of scholars working within the field of WE argue that ELF is
monolithic and monocentric, a ‘monomodel’ in which ‘intercultural communication and
cultural identity are to be made a necessary casualty’ (Rubdy and Saraceni 2006: 11).
This seems to me to be a strange interpretation of ELF, as it is Inner Circle models such
as ‘standard’ British and American English and their respective ‘standard’ accents, RP
(Received Pronunciation) and GA (General American), that are monomodels and which
regularly make casualties of Expanding Circle speakers’ identities. And this was certainly
borne out in the words of the Expanding Circle speakers who participated in interviews
with me for my recent research project (Jenkins 2007, and see below).
In fact it seems to me that ELF’s pluricentric approach is precisely why those who
favour a monolithic approach to the English of its second language speakers – i.e. those
who take the second and opposite perspective to the WE critics of ELF – object to ELF
so much. According to this second perspective, ELF lacks any standards and by default
exhibits errors wherever it departs from certain Inner Circle Englishes (usually British
and American). According to this position, ELF and EFL (English as a foreign language)
are one and the same. No distinction is made between English learnt for intercultural
C
2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation C
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes 203
communication (ELF) – where native English speakers may be, but often are not, present
in the interaction – and English learnt specifically for communication with English native
speakers (EFL).5
If people wish to learn English as a ‘foreign’ language in order to blend in with a
particular group of its native speakers in an Inner Circle environment or because of a
personal aspiration to acquire ‘native-like’ English, then that is their choice, and of no
concern to ELF researchers provided that the choice is an informed one. However, this
is a completely different linguacultural context from the one that ELF researchers are
investigating. The problem is that because the monolithic position on ELF conflates it
with EFL, those who subscribe to this position believe that any differences from native
speaker English in the speech of ELF speakers have exactly the same status as differences
from native speaker English in EFL speakers: that is, they are by definition deficiencies
rather than legitimate ELF variants. It is worth reminding ourselves at this point that the
people who have this ideological frame of mind used to say the same sorts of things about
Outer Circle Englishes such as Indian English, Lankan English, and Singapore English –
that they were interlanguages rather than legitimate varieties of English with their own
norms of use. Now they have simply transferred their attention and derogatory comments
to ELF.
UNDERLYING ATTITUDES AND THEIR POTENTIAL EFFECTS
Turning to attitudes, the language that people use when they put forward the second
perspective outlined at the outset – that ELF means errors and ‘anything goes’, and that it
is simply interlanguage – is often very revealing. For one thing, the language tends to be
emotive. These are three typical examples (emphases added in each case):
•Sobkowiak (2005: 141) describes an ELF approach to pronunciation as one that
will ‘bring the ideal [that is, Received Pronunciation] down into the gutter with no
checkpoint along the way’.
•Prodromou, in several similarly worded articles, describes ELF as ‘a broken weapon’
and its speakers as ‘stuttering onto the world stage’ (e.g. 2006: 412).
•Roy Harris, referring, in a letter to the Times Higher Education Supplement (14
September 2007, p. 14), to the fact that Korean Airlines had reportedly chosen to
use French speakers of English, rather than British or American English speakers,
because Koreans found the English of the French more intelligible, makes this
comment: ‘I couldn’t care less what kind of English Korean Airlines inflict on their
passengers.’
The derogatory nature of the kinds of language used in comments such as these demon-
strates the strength of antipathy towards ELF forms among supporters of ENL. And
although it is not possible to make direct causal links between such attitudes and ELF
speakers’ identities, the staunchly native English speaker ideology that underpins these
attitudes, and also pervades much of the English language teaching material available in
Expanding Circle countries, seems to be exerting an influence on Expanding Circle En-
glish teachers and their learners. This was suggested, for example, by a questionnaire study
of Expanding Circle English speakers’ attitudes towards English accents that I conducted
(see Jenkins 2007: ch. 6). The results showed that an attachment to ‘standard’ Inner Circle
C
2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation C
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

204 Jennifer Jenkins
native speaker models remains firmly in place among many non-native English speakers,
despite the fact that they no longer learn English to communicate primarily with its native
speakers.
The respondents even showed little sign of acknowledging the fact that Outer Circle
Englishes are now, in the main, firmly established varieties with their own norms. Thus,
they rated Indian English as poorly as Chinese and Japanese English for both acceptability
and pleasantness, and only slightly higher for correctness. Meanwhile, they consistently
oriented most positively to ‘standard’ British and American English accents, not only
in relation to the ‘correctness’ and ‘pleasantness’ variables, but also for ‘acceptability for
international communication’. This is surprising, given the increasing evidence that British
and American accents are not the most easily intelligible in lingua franca contexts because
of their copious use of features of connected speech such as elision, assimilation, and weak
forms.
Similarly, the questionnaire respondents evaluated non-native English accents according
to their proximity to these two Inner Circle accents. This meant that they were reasonably
well disposed towards a Swedish English accent, which they referred to as ‘native-like’,
‘natural, like native speakers’, etc. On the other hand, they made extremely pejorative
comments about the accents they perceived as furthest from native English accents, par-
ticularly China English, Japanese English, and Russian English accents. For example, the
Japanese English accent was described as ‘weird’ and ‘menacing’, the China English as
‘quarrel-like’ and ‘appalling’, and the Russian English as ‘heavy’, ‘sharp’, and ‘aggres-
sive’. The respondents even volunteered these kinds of comments about the accent of their
own first-language group, making them, in Lippi-Green’s (1997: 242) words, ‘complicit
in the process’ of their own subordination.
I was surprised by the extent of the negativity towards non-native English accents
demonstrated in many of the responses to my questionnaire study. However, things were
less clear-cut and polarised, and more explanatory, in the interview study (mentioned
above) that I conducted in parallel. In this study, most of the participants, themselves
young teachers of English, expressed a fair degree of ambivalence and even conflicted
feelings about their English. On the one hand, they felt some kind of obligation to acquire
‘near-native’ English accents, by which they meant near-(North) American or British
English, in order to be seen – and to see themselves – as successful English speakers and
teachers. So at one level they were unable to separate the notion of good English from the
notion of an Inner Circle native speaker ‘ideal’. This is not surprising in view of the point
made above about the ideological underpinnings of much of the material that is available
to them: course books, teaching manuals, applied linguistics writings, and so on, whose
negative effects on their confidence are doubtless enhanced by comments of the sort made
by the likes of Sobkowiak.
On the other hand, the participants also expressed the desire to project their own local
identity in their English, and some of them even felt themselves to be part of a community
of lingua franca English speakers, and to share a common identity with other ELF speakers.
This supports Seidlhofer’s point: ‘Alongside local speech communities sharing a dialect, we
are witnessing the increased emergence of global discourse communities, or communities
of practice sharing their particular registers, with English being the most widely used code’
(2007: 315).
According to my interview participants, the freedom to express their own local and ELF
identities in their English would give them greater confidence as both English speakers and
C
2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation C
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes 205
English teachers. It seems clear, then, to paraphrase Rubdy and Saraceni (2006: 11), that
these interview participants felt their identities were casualties of the pressures on them
to learn American or British English, and that the opposite would be true if ELF became
acceptable and those pressures were removed. The following five extracts are typical of
the ambivalent and ‘conflicted’ comments they made (see Jenkins 2007 for full details):
Taiwanese English speaker: ‘I really feel bad about this you know, I feel like I have to lose my identity.
I’m a Taiwanese person and I should feel comfortable about this, and I just feel that when I’m speaking
English, I will want to be like a native speaker, and it’s really hard, you know.’
Japanese English speaker: ‘Yes, that’s lots of contradiction in the view. So in theory I can understand
varieties of English and non-native accent, it’s good, it’s accepted as far as intelligibility exists. But at a
personal level still I’m aiming at native-like speaking.’
Italian English speaker: ‘The materials they have, it’s mainly videos and tapes, it’s all native speakers’
accents, so that’s the only model they have. Maybe if more materials around was with different accents and
non-native speaker accents, then it’s like recognizing, it’s like codifying, it’s like accepting it worldwide.’
China English speaker: ‘First of all I am Chinese. I don’t have to speak like American or British, it’s like
identity, because I want to keep my identity, yeah. [...] I feel that it’s quite conflicted for me because
I feel happy when they say okay you have a native accent, but erm if they cannot recognize from my
pronunciation and they think that okay, you are def initely American, I don’t feel comfortable because I
am indeed a Chinese.’
Polish English speaker: ‘I’ve still got a little bit of linguistic schizophrenia ... I know that I don’t need
to speak like a British person, but because I’ve been taught for so many years that I should do it, when I
hear, let’s say, someone speaking British English like a nice RP pronunciation, I like it.’
The fact that most of my interview participants seem to have reached a point at which
they no longer consider it, at least in theory, a foregone conclusion that it is essential to
imitate ENL speakers in order to communicate effectively in ELF contexts of use is cause
for optimism for ELF researchers. In this, there seems to be something of a divide between
these younger Expanding Circle English users and those from older generations such as
Sobkowiak (see above), with the younger ones being more likely to have experienced ELF
communication at first hand, and (perhaps partly for this reason) being more receptive to
ELF in theory and to (English) language change in general. Further evidence of younger
English speakers’ more favourable orientations to ELF can be found in data collected by
Peckham, Kalocsai, Kov´
acs, and Sherman (2008) among Erasmus students in Hungary
and the Czech Republic. For example, a German participant in their study says:
I liked very much with the English here to speak English with non-native speakers. It’s the funny new
words or new pronunciations that emerge and then you just keep those because you like them so much
and not important anymore to say in the right way, and even more fun to create this new language.
This German student still considers her differences from ENL to be errors (not ‘right’), but
she is clearly aware of the creative potential of the kind of English she produces with other
non-native speakers. The next student, a French speaker, takes the same deficit approach
to the kind of English he speaks as compared with ENL (which he calls ‘real English’),
but is also well aware of its communicative value:
C
2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation C
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

206 Jennifer Jenkins
Erasmus English is totally different than the real English, but it’s like we have different accents, we
use these words and it’s not correct at all, it’s like quite awful sometimes [laughs] but it’s good, we can
understand each other.
A third student, also French, again considers her English to be faulty by comparison
with ENL (‘I don’t speak perfectly English’) but is aware of the major advantage of being
bilingual and the major disadvantage (‘it’s not my problem’) of being monolingual:
I was really embarrassed in the beginning. I was like ‘oh, I’m really sorry for my level’ because I was
ashamed I think. And now I don’t care about the native speaker because most of them don’t speak any
other language, so it’s not my problem, I don’t speak perfectly English but I speak some other language.
Finally, an Italian student points out how effective ELF communication is, and the fact
that it tends to be English native speakers who are the source of problems:
I see that if I’m in the middle of people that are not English and they’re speaking English and so there is
no problem understanding them, probably my obstacle was that to understand like really English people
talking.
Regardless of their perspective on their English and whether they still perceive their
differences from ENL as errors, all these younger English speakers seem at least to
appreciate their advantage as bilingual speakers of English in ELF communication contexts,
and to view the claim that effective communication in English involves deferring to ENL
norms as a fiction – something that WE research has, of course, long demonstrated.
Finally, as the purpose of the original workshop at the 2007 IAWE Conference in
Regensburg (of which my current paper formed a part) was to explore similarities and
differences in orientation to English of WE and ELF scholars, I will end with a short
comment on this topic. Over the past few years, ELF research has often been seen as
having a very different agenda from WE research. However, it seems to me (and always
has done) that world Englishes and English as a lingua franca have a lot more that draws
them together than sets them apart. And, to quote myself, ‘we need to find ways of bringing
WE and ELF scholars together in recognition of their shared interests, whatever their circle
or research focus’ (Jenkins 2006: 175). The colloquium organised by Margie Berns and
Anne Pakir at the IAWE conference in Regensburg in 2007, the first of its kind bringing
together WE and ELF scholars, was thus a very important first step in this direction, and I
look forward to much future collaboration of this kind.
NOTES
1. The Erasmus Programme is a European Union education and training programme that enables students to study and
work abroad, as well as supporting collaboration between higher education institutions across Europe.
2. Arguments such as Yano’s ignore the fact that there are established English varieties in some Outer Circle countries
where ‘English is not used by the majority’, but is the preserve of a largely elite educated minority.
3. ELF is sometimes known as EIL (English as an international language). However, to avoid confusion with other uses
of the word ‘international’ (e.g. ‘International English’ is sometimes equated with North American English), most
researchers prefer ‘ELF’. This is also generally preferred to the term ‘lingua franca English’, as the latter implies the
existence of one single lingua franca variety of English, which is most certainly not the case.
4. Note that by ‘communication context’ I am not referring to any specific geographical context. ELF communication,
in this interpretation, is not tied to any particular geographical area, but is defined by who the participants are and
how they orient to English.
C
2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation C
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes 207
5. Note that I normally use the term ‘native English speaker’ to refer to both Inner and Outer Circle speakers. But because
those who subscribe to the second position outlined above reserve ‘native speaker’ for the Inner Circle, I am using it
in this sense in this part of my discussion.
REFERENCES
Breiteneder, Angelika (2005) The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: the case of third person -s.Vienna
English Working Papers 14, 3–26.
Cogo, Alessia, and Dewey, Martin (2006) Efficiency in ELF communication: from pragmatic motives to lexico-
grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5, 59–94.
Crystal, David (2003) English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deterding, David, and Kirkpatrick, Andy (2006) Emerging South-East Asian Englishes and intelligibility. World Englishes
25, 391–409.
ELFA website: www.uta.fi/laitokset/kielet/engf/research/elfa
Graddol, David (2006) English Next: Why Global English May Mean the End of English as a Foreign Language. London:
British Council.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2006) Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16,
137–62.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, Braj B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the Outer Circle. In
Randolph Quirk and Henry G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and
Literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, Braj B. (2005) Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press.
Kirkpatrick, Andy (2008) English as the official working language of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN): features and strategies. English Today 94, 27–34.
Lippi-Green, Rosina (1997) English with an Accent. London: Routledge.
Lowenberg, Peter (2002) Assessing English proficiency in the Expanding Circle. World Englishes 21, 431–5.
Mauranen, Anna (2006) Spoken discourse, academics and global English: a corpus perspective. In Rebecca Hughes (ed.),
Spoken English,TESOL and Applied Linguistics (pp. 143–58). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Peckham, Don, Kalocsai, Karolina, Kov´
acs, Em¨
oke, and Sherman, Tamah (2008) English and multilingualism, or English
only in a multilingual Europe? In Languages in a Network of Excellence in Europe, unpublished project report, Work
Package 7.
Prodromou, Luke (2006) A reader responds to J. Jenkins’s ‘Current perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English
as a Lingua Franca’. TESOL Quarterly 41, 409–13.
Rubdy, Rani, and Saraceni, Mario (eds.) (2006) English in the World: Global Rules,Global Roles. London: Continuum.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2007) English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Sabine Volk-Birke and Julia Lippert
(eds.), Halle 2006 Proceedings (pp. 307–18). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
Seidlhofer, Barbara, Breiteneder, Angelika, and Pitzl, Marie-Luise (2006) English as a lingua franca in Europe: challenges
for applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26, 3–34.
Sobkowiak, Włodzimierz (2005) Whynot LFC? In Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk and Joanna Przedlecka (eds.), English
Pronunciation Models: A Changing Scene (pp. 131–49). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
VOICE website: www.univie.ac.at/voice
Yano, Yasukata (2008) Comment 5 in the Forum on Colingualism. World Englishes 27, 139–40.
C
2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation C
2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.