Content uploaded by Kurt Kohn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kurt Kohn on Oct 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
This is an Original Manuscript of the article published by Taylor & Francis in
Asian Englishes, 24:2 (2022), 119-131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2022.2056795
Please quote from the published version.
Global Englishes and the pedagogical challenge of developing one's
own voice
Kurt Kohn, University of Tübingen (Germany)
The Standard English (SE) preference firmly anchored in many English teachers’
attitudes and practices has been identified as a major problem hindering speaker-
learners from developing competence for emancipated Global Englishes (GE)
and English as a lingua franca (ELF) communication. In this article, the focus of
attention shifts from the Standard English input to what learners are actually
allowed, encouraged and willing to do with it as they develop their own English
voice. In English language teaching (ELT), a normative and strict SE orientation
needs to be replaced by an open ‘MY English’ orientation. The argument is based
on a social constructivist understanding of communication and language learning,
according to which learners acquire their target language by actually creating
their own version of it in their minds, hearts, and behaviour. The goals and
processes involved are shaped by the speaker-learners’ requirements of
communicative and communal success, which reflect where they come from and,
most crucially, who they want to be. Against this backdrop, the article discusses
how ELT and GE/ELF can be reconciled by enabling speaker-learners of
different linguacultural backgrounds to use English as a pedagogical lingua
franca in intercultural virtual exchanges.
Keywords: English as a lingua franca; English language teaching; Global
Englishes; MY English; pedagogical lingua franca approach; personal
requirements of success; speaker satisfaction
2
1. Context and pedagogical concerns
The fundamental differences between the common ELT classroom and communication
under Global Englishes (GE) and English as a lingua franca (ELF) conditions are as
striking as they are obvious. ELT’s monolithic and normative preference for Standard
English (SE) stands in stark contrast to the plurilithic nature of English around the
world and the rich variation, strategic creativity and multilingual heterogeneity of
GE/ELF communication (Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Jenkins, 2015; Tupas & Renandya,
2021; Seidlhofer, 2011). Many teachers are experiencing the diversity inherent in the
Englishes they encounter and in their own individual English repertoires and uses with
self-doubt and feelings of insecurity. More often than not, they find themselves caught
between an SE orientation and more libertarian practices in actual communication
(Bayyurt et al., 2019; Hall, Wicaksono, Liu, Qian, & Xiaoqing, 2017; Sadeghpour &
Sharifian, 2017, 2019). Similar experiences have been observed among students in
tertiary education (Boonsuk & Fang, 2020; Sung, 2020) and high school students (Liu,
Zhang & Fang, 2021). Findings suggest that raising students’ awareness of GE/ELF
may lead to a more positive attitude towards GE/ELF variation (Boonsuk, Ambele &
McKinley, 2021; Fang & Ren, 2018).
The pedagogical implications of this controversial condition as well as
principles and measures for helping students cope with the challenges of GE/ELF
communication and competence development (Blair, 2020) have been proposed and
discussed under complementary and overlapping concepts, in particular, Teaching
English as an International Language (TEIL) (Matsuda, 2012, 2019; Marlina, 2018),
Global Englishes for Language Teaching (GELT) (Fang & Widodo, 2019; Rose &
Galloway, 2019; Rose, McKinley, & Galloway, 2020), ELF-aware pedagogy (Bayyurt
& Sifakis, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2019; Sifakis, 2017; Sifakis et al., 2018), and English
3
Medium Instruction (EMI) (D’Angelo, 2019). These pedagogical frameworks focus on
multi-linguacultural GE/ELF variation while emphasizing the dysfunctionality of ELT’s
normative SE orientation. Particular attention is given to GE/ELF-aware
communication skills from accommodation to negotiation of meaning and co-
construction to translanguaging, that is, to how ‘ELF users habitually adjust their
language to make it more appropriate for their interlocutors instead of aiming to
produce standard native English’ (Jenkins, in press; see also Canagarajah & Kimura,
2018; Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2011; Vettorel, 2019).
However, an important question remains to be answered: where in the ever-
expanding maze of GE/ELF variation do speaker-learners find pedagogical orientation
and guidance for developing their own voice in English? In this connection, the
Englishes taught in the ELT classroom play a key role. Dogancay-Aktuna & Hardman
(2018) review the options discussed in the literature and confirm ‘the absence of widely
accepted alternatives to established models of English to guide the teaching of English
as a plurilithic language’ (p. 78). But why this focus on alternatives to established
models? Seidlhofer’s (2011) discussion of the relationship between ELF communication
and the language taught in the classroom shows the issues involved from a different
angle. Emphasizing that decisions concerning the language taught do not follow in any
simple and straightforward way from observed manifestations of ELF communication,
she states:
What really matters is that the language should engage the learners’ reality and
activate the learning process. Any kind of language that is taught in order to
achieve this effect is appropriate, and this will always be a local decision. So what
is crucial is not so much what language is presented as input but what learners
make of it, and how they make use of it to develop their capability for languaging.
The pedagogic significance of an ELF perspective is that it shifts the focus of
attention to the learner and the learning process. (p. 198, emphasis added)
4
By placing ‘the learners’ reality’ and ‘the learning process’ at the centre, Seidlhofer
prepares the ground for a sea-change in GE/ELF-aware pedagogy away from arguing
about the appropriate input language – which ‘will always be a local decision’ – to a
focus on speaker-learners as emancipated agents of their own communication and
learning.
In the following chapters, I will further explore this line of thought. With
reference to a social constructivist explication of making a language one’s own (section
2), I will discuss what needs to change in ELT to help speaker-learners develop their
GE/ELF competence (section 3) and how this can be achieved by implementing English
as a pedagogical lingua franca (section 4).
2. MY English – about making a language one’s own
Speaker-learners’ ownership of English is often seen as depending on the extent to
which they ‘consider themselves legitimate speakers’ (Norton, 1997), that is, speakers
who feel confident and justified to judge what is possible and acceptable in discourse.
This kind of ownership is typical of Kachru’s (1985) Inner Circle speakers, but it has
also been attested for speakers from the Outer Circle (Higgins, 2003). For many Outer
Circle and in particular Expanding Circle speakers, however, confidence and self-
assurance is not part of their English identity, which most tellingly shows in their
orientation towards a teacher as final arbiter. An altogether different and pedagogically
most relevant conceptualization of ownership is the one offered by Widdowson (1994).
It focuses on speaker-learners as language users and emphasizes their communicative
capability for learning and using the language ‘not just as a set of fixed conventions to
conform to, but as an adaptable resource for making meaning’ (p. 42). According to this
view, true proficiency goes hand in hand with non-conformity: ‘You are proficient in a
5
language to the extent that you possess it, make it your own, bend it to your will, assert
yourself through it rather than simply submit to the dictates of its form’ (p. 42).
Ownership in this sense of creative and non-conformative adaptation is not limited to an
elect group of speakers marked by birth or excellence; rather, it is part and parcel of
spreading the language through communicative use and thereby changing it to fit new
demands and purposes (see also Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 67).
Another argument for the creative and dynamic quality of language ownership
comes from a social constructivist understanding of communication and language
learning with attention to speaker-learners as principal agents in the process of making
the target language their own (Kohn, 2018a). When acquiring an English target
repertoire, speaker-learners can only achieve this by creating their own version of it in
their minds, hearts and behaviour. It is MY English for them whether they are aware of
it or not – and they do not necessarily feel confident and self-assured either. In this
connection, it should be noted that the social constructivist quality of MY English
applies to the acquired repertoire in its entirety regardless of conformities or non-
conformities with a target or reference model.
The processes involved in MY English construction are first of all individual
and guided by speaker-internal criteria, but they are also grounded in social practice.
This close interaction between the individual and the social is reflected in the forces that
influence and shape speaker-learners’ repertoire acquisition through MY English
development. Particularly relevant are, e.g., mono/multi-linguacultural background,
attitudes, motivation and effort, communicative contact, and pedagogical input. What is
more, the social constructivist perspective draws attention to the crucial influence of the
personal requirements of communicative and communal success speaker-learners
impose on their own communicative performance and, in extension, on their own
6
learning. More or less sensitive to the respective communicative context and situation,
relevant requirements may concern, e.g., expressing one’s own meaning intention, being
understood and understanding others, conforming with certain linguistic-communicative
conventions, or building cooperative and empathetic rapport. As mediators between
communication and learning, these requirements of success play a key role as beacons
of orientation and guidance for speaker-learners’ MY English communication and
learning. They are at the heart of their autonomous agency and ownership and serve as
ultimate guardians of their MY English satisfaction. Speaker-learners’ requirements of
success indicate who they want to be in their communicative and communal exchanges,
where they want to go in their learning, and how much they are willing to invest. Their
requirements actually shape the competence they eventually achieve.
3. ELT for emancipated GE/ELF competence development
In this section, it is my aim to show that the social constructivist MY English
perspective offers a conceptual-pedagogical basis for reconciling ELT’s preference for
an SE orientation with the challenges of preparing speaker-learners for the fluid
diversity and variation of GE/ELF communication (Kohn, 2019). It should be noted that
SE is not foregrounded because of any assumed inherent qualities but simply because of
its dominant role in current ELT practices. Depending on local linguacultural
preferences, other varieties of English might be more acceptable as the language taught,
and my argument would be equally valid. To clarify the issues involved in making ELT
with its SE orientation meet the needs of GE/ELF competence development, it is
necessary to unpack the various challenges ELT is facing in this respect. Particularly
relevant are ELT’s linguacultural scope and the pedagogical objectives of teaching for
comprehension and teaching for production. For each of these complementary and
7
overlapping challenges, the question of which English is appropriate as the language
taught raises different pedagogical issues and their own answers.
An essential part of the GE/ELF critique concerns ELT’s generally limited
linguacultural scope with its focus on native-speaker contexts, values, and attitudes
often bordering on native-speakerism. Textbook-related issues regarding, e.g.,
interacting characters, situations and topics have been extensively discussed in the
GE/ELF community. Pedagogical suggestions emphasize acknowledging diversity and
linguacultural localization measures that support speaker-learners’ linguistic-
communicative and cultural authentication and identity building (Guerra & Cavalheiro,
2019; Lopriore & Vettorel, 2019; Rose & Galloway, 2019; Sifakis et al., 2018; Siqueira
& Matos, 2019; Vettorel, 2021) A notorious weakness in ELT localization concerns
insufficient recognition and involvement of local non-native speaker teachers (Dewey,
2020; Fang, 2018; Llurda, 2018).
As regards teaching for comprehension, it is important to expose speaker-
learners to the kind of English they are likely to encounter in their real world
interactions. The challenge is to familiarize them with unaccustomed phonetic-
phonological, lexical, morphological, or syntactic expressions as well as with unusual
ways of textual organization. In our modern communities of global communication,
however, it is not always possible to anticipate which Englishes people might be faced
with. But there is more, regardless of the variety of English they are familiar with,
speaker-learners ‘both naturally and instinctively put the linguistic resources at their
disposal to pragmatic use and so act on their communicative capability’ (Widdowson,
2015, p. 371). More specifically, they engage in innovative grammatical and lexical
variation beyond conventionalized variation rules thus exploiting ‘the hitherto
unexplored possibilities in […] the virtual language’ (p. 368). It is because of this
8
pragmatic quality of production that the range of GE/ELF variation is open-ended.
Exposure for comprehension practice thus needs to include helping speaker-learners
develop and refine their inferential comprehension skills so as to be better able to cope
with unforeseen comprehension problems as they arise (Sperber & Wilson, 1995).
Teaching for production involves shifting from understanding the language of
others to the language speaker-learners wish to develop and use themselves. In this
connection, Kiczkowiak and Lowe’s (2018, p. 23) suggestion to expose ‘learners to a
wide range of language models, so that they are adequately prepared for the diversity of
Englishes they will encounter outside the class’ remains vague and potentially
misleading. While their advice is relevant for comprehension learning, it is not helpful
for production learning. Widdowson’s (2004) distinction between discourse as a
pragmatic event and text as its verbal record clarifies this issue. As it stands, the
diversity observed in GE/ELF communication is a characteristic of the textual surface
of other people’s more or less felicitous engagement in GE/ELF discourse. This surface
is by its very nature a heterogeneous, incomplete and instable reflection of underlying
repertoires, strategic uses and impromptu pragmatic creativity. As such, it may provide
occasional inspiration for production, but as an overall production model, it does not
offer speaker-learners reliable guidance as to how to appropriate English for their own
communicative and communal reality.
What is needed is a revaluation of the pedagogical status and role of an SE target
orientation for developing one’s GE/ELF production competence. Quite obviously,
successful GE/ELF communication does not depend on choosing SE as the target
language model – nor does it depend on choosing any other specific variety of English.
How would it otherwise be possible for speakers of all kinds of Englishes, from native
to second to foreign, to participate successfully in GE/ELF interactions? Rather, the
9
question is whether an SE target model is harmful for GE/ELF competence
development, as is often claimed or implied in the literature. The answer depends on the
pedagogical approach taken in ELT. Traditionally, ELT has a deeply ingrained
preference for measuring success in learning for production in terms of how well
speaker-learners manage to emulate the target repertoire. Even in communicative
language teaching contexts, which usually come with a more tolerant attitude towards
target conventions, a better match of the learning output with the teaching input tends to
be rewarded. From a social constructivist perspective, such a strict normative
orientation towards an SE target repertoire is evidence of an implicit, possibly
subconscious assumption of language learning as a quasi-behaviouristic copying and
cloning process. It is this normative strictness – regardless of the chosen target language
– that is inappropriate for GE/ELF production and for English production in general.
The problem in ELT is not having SE as a target repertoire. Rather, referring once again
to Seidlhofer (2011, p. 198), what counts is what speaker-learners are allowed and
enabled to do with it in their communication and learning. Replacing a strict, normative
SE orientation by ‘an open, social constructivist one provides room for an emancipatory
MY English development guided and monitored by the speaker-learners’ socially
mediated requirements of communicative and communal success’ (Kohn, 2020a, p. 6).
With this move, it becomes possible to reconcile ELT and its SE orientation with the
diversity essentially characteristic of GE/ELF communication. The emancipatory
project of GE/ELF pedagogy thus shifts from liberating speaker-learners from SE to
empowering them to make it their own. It is their social constructivist capability for MY
English communication and learning that incorporates the possibility of non-native
speaker emancipation.
10
Regarding successful communication and learning, it is important to note that
speaker-learners are also often confronted with requirements that are imposed on them
from the outside, both in natural communication and in ELT contexts. In natural
communication, relevant external requirements may derive from the special conditions
and purposes of the communicative situation, in particular, from the interlocutors’
communicative needs and expectations. In ELT contexts with their emphasis on
learning goals and assessment criteria set by the curriculum and the teachers, external
requirements of success may be even stronger and more explicit. From a social
constructivist perspective, it should be noted that external requirements of success
impact speaker-learners’ MY English development only in so far as they have been
internalised, regardless of whether they originate outside or inside of ELT contexts.
Raising speaker-learners’ awareness of their personal requirements of communicative
and communal success and helping them incorporate initially external requirements and
make them their own is an essential precondition of successful learning.
The social constructivist MY English perspective requires ELT teachers to
acknowledge and respect their speaker-learners’ autonomy and support them in their
endeavour and struggle for an emancipated attitude and behaviour towards the language
taught. Most crucially, this involves helping them become aware of the social
constructivist nature of communication and learning, its potential for emancipation,
their own and their partners’ situated requirements of success, and the need to negotiate
both requirements and related behaviours through empathetic cooperation.
4. A pedagogical lingua franca approach
Devising recommendations for a social constructivist perspective on GE/ELF
competence development is one thing; implementing them in sustainable pedagogical
11
practice is quite another. Over the past years, various studies have shown the learning
benefits of GE/ELF interactions with international university students outside class in
face-to-face contact (Redmer, 2021; Sung, 2018) or increasingly in online arrangements
(Bosso, 2021; Dendenne, 2021; Hagely & Wang, 2020; Ke, 2016; Ke & Cahyani,
2014). In our own case studies in connection with a social constructivist
reconceptualization of ELT in secondary schools, the focus is on a pedagogical lingua
franca (PLF) approach (Kohn, 2018a, 2020a; Kohn & Hoffstaedter, 2017). It involves a
shift from teachers and students reflecting on observed GE/ELF performance to taking
part in their own GE/ELF interactions in a pedagogical setting, preferably in blended
learning integration with regular course activities. The essential idea of a PLF approach
is to enable speaker-learners of different linguacultural backgrounds to meet and
communicate with each other using their shared target language English as a
pedagogical lingua franca. This setup is applicable to other target languages as well and
can be seen as an extension of communicative language teaching with a heightened
potential for authentication. Speaker-learners are at the centre as primary agents of
emancipated GE/ELF communication and learning. Teachers are involved as
moderators and mentors developing their own expertise in close pedagogical interaction
with their students. Three issues are particularly relevant for further explorations: (a)
ways of implementation, (b) pedagogical effects and benefits, and (c) the pedagogical
support required.
Considering the linguacultural homogeneity often characteristic of ELT classes
in secondary schools, sustainable implementation of a PLF approach with its required
linguacultural diversity is not trivial. In case studies supported by the European
Erasmus+ project TeCoLa (http://tecola.eu) and its predecessor project TILA
(http://tilaproject.eu), we used intercultural virtual exchanges (O’Dowd, 2021) for
12
implementing PLF interactions outside the classroom. The participants were secondary
school students and their teachers from European countries and Taiwan. The virtual
exchanges were supported by telecollaboration tools such as BigBlueButton
videoconferencing, the TeCoLa 3D virtual world, or the digital wall Padlet. Due to the
common imbalance between the languages taught in secondary schools, English was the
preferred target language, but French, German and Spanish were represented as well.
Most of the online exchanges were organized in small groups or pairs of students, who
met outside class hours and, if possible, from home instead of from the school’s
computer room so as to ensure communicative privacy (Kohn & Hoffstaedter, 2015).
The task focus was on conversations about everyday topics such as breakfast, fashion or
waste disposal. Each virtual PLF exchange was accompanied by a project member
providing on-the-job coaching regarding the PLF approach, exchange management, task
design and tool support. More information about the telecollaboration tasks and tools
used as well as access to teacher guides and case study reports are available in the
Teacher Resources section of the TeCoLa project website.
Performance analyses and reflective interviews with the students and teachers
involved show that virtual PLF exchanges create intercultural contact zones in which it
is possible for foreign language learners to engage in authentic GE/ELF communication
as speakers (Gijsen, 2021; Kohn & Hoffstaedter, 2017). Doing their best to understand,
produce, and interact according to their capabilities and guided by their requirements of
success, the students become aware of the linguistic-communicative and intercultural
variation of GE/ELF encounters and of the challenges and objectives for GE/ELF
competence development. By recognizing themselves in the performance of their
partners, they gain confidence in their MY English creativity and emancipation
potential. Most significant in this connection is an increase of speaker-learner agency in
13
terms of communicative participation, negotiation of diverging requirements of success,
thematic appropriation, collaborative languaging, and empathetic rapport building.
Together, these qualities are interpreted as evidence of emergent non-native speaker
emancipation with speaker satisfaction as a key driving force (Kohn & Hoffstaedter,
2017; Kohn, 2020b; see also Ke, 2016; Ke & Cahyani, 2014; Sung, 2018).
To make a PLF approach relevant for speaker-learner emancipation, it is
essential that the teachers involved embrace a social constructivist view on ELT. This
ensures that they see their speaker-learners as agents of their own English development,
grant them the space they need to appropriate the language taught, and acknowledge the
pivotal pedagogical role of their requirements of communicative and communal success
in this process. In addition, and most importantly, our case study explorations also
revealed speaker-learners’ need for pedagogical mentoring (Kohn, 2020b). Relevant
measures concern helping them
• learn from their own communicative GE/ELF experience through reflective
practice,
• improve their GE/ELF-related strategies for comprehension, production and
interaction,
• become aware of their personal requirements of success,
• adapt their requirement profile to the current communication and learning
context including appropriating external requirements,
• establish cooperative and empathetic rapport with their communication partners,
• explore and trust their (non-native) speaker creativity to develop their own voice
in English.
Another, most interesting pedagogical mentoring need was revealed by our case study
14
on monitoring for successful communication in virtual PLF exchanges (Kohn, 2020b).
The study uses performance data from six pair exchanges between Dutch and German
secondary school students completing a learning path on waste avoidance in the
TeCoLa virtual world (see also Gijsen, 2021). The communication monitoring moves
they engaged in mainly focused on self-centred comprehension and production
monitoring. Highest attention was given to production problems while many obvious
comprehension problems seemed to go unnoticed. Partner-oriented monitoring was
generally rather weak, which also shows in the large number of comprehension checks
triggered by speaker-learners’ own production problems instead of by their partner’s
suspected lack of understanding. Their partners’ production problems were seldom
addressed. Further evidence of weak partner orientation comes from a low frequency of
expressions of empathetic rapport and an entire lack of explicitly signalled rapport
monitoring. Considering everyday communication with its ‘wait and see’, ‘let it pass’
and politeness strategies, all this is perfectly normal. From a pedagogical perspective,
however, it should be noted that speaker-learners’ conservative use of communication
monitoring also reduces the learning benefits they might gain from their PLF
interactions. Pedagogical mentoring could help encourage speaker-learners to engage in
what they would consider excessive monitoring by ordinary communication standards.
More empirical studies in different educational and linguacultural contexts are needed
to further explore the potential and challenges of the pedagogical lingua franca
approach and of the pedagogical mentoring required (see also Bosso, 2021; Gijsen,
2021).
5. Concluding remarks
A social constructivist understanding of communication and language learning has
15
made it possible to unpack ELT’s preference for SE by distinguishing between a strict,
normative orientation and an open, MY English orientation. This distinction points to
the urgent need for teachers to acknowledge their students’ ‘natural right to an
emancipated non-native speaker identity’ and to encourage and enable them ‘to develop
a true sense of ownership and agency as speakers of English’ (Kohn, 2018a, p. 14).
It is this turn to an open, social constructivist SE orientation that creates the
conceptual framework within which it becomes possible for ELT to open up to GE/ELF
communication and help speaker-learners face the challenges involved and acquire their
own voice in English. They are able to achieve this because of their adaptive capability
for language and communication and their requirements of communicative and
communal success as beacons of orientation and guidance; and they are helped along by
a pedagogical lingua franca approach applied through blending intercultural virtual
exchange with in-class activities. An SE orientation has its place in this process, always
providing it is locally accepted as an educational choice.
The social constructivist perspective also offers a theoretical basis and
complementary justification for Siqueira’s (2020, p. 379) argument for ‘decolonizing
ELT through ELF’. The conceptualization of English language learning as the creation
of MY English mirrors speaker-learners’ ‘latent agentive capacity’ (Kumaravadivelu,
2016, p. 81), and it emphasizes their right to their own English. Whether their MY
English development leans towards Inner Circle, Outer Circle or Expanding Circle
manifestations of English is orchestrated by the speaker-learners’ striving for
satisfaction within the range of their socio-culturally mediated requirements of
communicative and communal success.
The successful implementation of a social constructivist revision and enrichment
of ELT largely depends on suitable measures of teacher education (Rose & Galloway,
16
2019; Selvi & Yazan, 2021; Zein, 2019). The challenges involved are quite ambitious
because of the complex and diverse strands of expertise that need to be considered and
combined to achieve optimal results. First of all, this concerns raising awareness of the
nature of GE/ELF communication in all its multi-linguacultural, creatively
heterogeneous and strategic qualities (Grazzi, Lopriore & Siqueira, 2020; Sifakis et al.,
2018); see also the European Erasmus+ project ENRICH: English as a Lingua Franca
Practices for Inclusive Multilingual Classrooms (http://enrichproject.eu). In addition,
teachers should learn to
• critically reflect on their teaching practices from a social constructivist MY
English perspective (Kohn, 2018a, 2019),
• design and manage pedagogical lingua franca exchanges in virtual interaction
environments and in cooperation with partner teachers (Kohn, 2020a),
• monitor their students’ performance to provide adequate pedagogical mentoring
support (Kohn, 2020b).
Last but not least, it should be emphasized that best and sustainable outcomes are likely
to be achieved if teacher training workshops are embedded in continuous on-the-job
coaching activities.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Acknowledgements
Part of the study has been supported by the European Erasmus+ project TeCoLa (Grant
agreement: 2016-1-NL01-KA201-022997). The article reflects the views of the author, and the
European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.
17
References
Bayyurt, Y., & Sifakis, N. C. (2015). Developing an ELF-aware pedagogy: Insights
from a self-education programme. In P. Vettorel (Ed.), New frontiers in teaching
and learning English (pp. 55–76). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Bayyurt, Y., Kurt, Y., Öztekin, E., Guerra, L., Cavalheiro, L., & Pereira, R. (2019).
English language teachers’ awareness of English as a lingua franca in
multilingual and multicultural contexts. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics,
5(2), 185–202.
Blair, A. (2020). Developing 'ELF competence' in language learners and teachers. In E.
Grazzi, L. Lopriore, & S. Siqueira (Eds.), New trajectories in teacher education:
ELF awareness and pedagogical implications in ELT classrooms [Special issue].
Estudos Linguisticos e Literarios, 65, 5–29.
Boonsuk, Y., & Fang, F. (2020). Perennial language learners or competent language
users: An investigation on international students’ attitudes towards their own
and native English accents. RELC Journal, 1-16. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0033688220926715
Boonsuk, Y., Ambele, E. A., & McKinley, J. (2021). Developing awareness of global
English: Moving away from ‘native standards’ for Thai university ELT. System,
99. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.system.2021.102511
Bosso, R. (2021). Exploring virtual communication in English as a lingua franca
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Philological and Cultural
Studies, University of Vienna, Vienna.
Canagarajah, S., & Kimura, D. (2018). Translingual practice and ELF. In J. Jenkins, W.
Baker, & M. Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua
franca (pp. 295–308). London: Routledge.
Dendenne, B. (2021). Telecollaborative writing within an Algerian EFL context:
Insights from the Ibunka2019 project. Language Related Research, 12(3), 151–
186.
Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2012). Analysing English as a lingua franca. London:
Continuum.
D'Angelo, J. F. (2019). From Learners to users: Reframing a Japanese university
curriculum towards a ‘World Englishes Enterprise’-informed English as a
18
medium of instruction model. In F. Fang, & H. P. Widodo (Eds.), Critical
perspectives on Global Englishes in Asia: Language policy, curriculum,
pedagogy and assessment (pp. 123–140). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dewey, M. (2020). English language teachers in context: Who teaches what, where and
why? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of World Englishes (2nd
ed., pp. 609–623). London: Routledge.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S., & Hardman, J. (2018). Teaching of English as an International
Language in various contexts: Nothing is as practical as good theory. RELC
Journal, 49(1), 74–87.
Fang, F. (2018). Native-speakerism revisited: Global Englishes, ELT and intercultural
communication. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 13(2), 115–
129.
Fang, F., & Ren, W. (2018). Developing students’ awareness of Global Englishes. ELT
Journal, 72(4), 384–394.
Fang, F., & Widodo, H. P. (Eds.). (2019). Critical perspectives on Global Englishes in
Asia: Language policy, curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Gijsen, L. (2021). Task engagement in virtual pedagogical lingua franca
communication. Theoretical and empirical studies on English language learning
and teaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Humanities,
University of Utrecht, Utrecht.
Grazzi, E. (2020). The social role of ELF to enhance intercultural communicative
competence and intercultural citizenship in ELT. In E. Grazzi (Ed.), An
interdisciplinary approach to English as a lingua franca [Special issue]. Status
Quaestionis, 19, 83–104.
Grazzi, E., Lopriore, L., & Siqueira, S. (Eds.). (2020). New trajectories in teacher
education: ELF awareness and pedagogical implications in ELT classrooms
[Special issue]. Estudos Linguisticos e Literarios, 65.
Guerra, L., & Cavalheiro, L. (2019). When the textbook is not enough: How to shape an
ELF classroom? In N. C. Sifakis., & N. Tsantila (Eds.), English as a lingua franca
for EFL contexts (pp. 117–131). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Hagley, E., & Wang, Y. (Eds.). (2020). Virtual exchange in the Asia
‑
Pacific: research
and practice. Voillans, France: Research-publishing.net.
19
Hall, C. J., Wicaksono, R., Liu, S., Qian, Y., & Xiaoqing, X. (2017). Exploring
teachers’ ontologies of English: Monolithic conceptions of grammar in a group
of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 87–109.
Higgins, C. (2003). ‘Ownership’ of English in the Outer Circle: An alternative to the
NS-NNS dichotomy. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 615–644.
Jenkins, J. (2015). Repositioning English and multilingualism in as a lingua franca.
Englishes in Practice, 2(3), 49–85.
Jenkins, J. (in press). Accommodation in ELF: Where from? Where now? Where next?
In I. Walkinshaw (Ed.), The pragmatics in English as a lingua franca. Findings
and developments. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English
language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk, & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in
the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ke, I. (2016). Deficient non-native speakers or translanguagers? Identity struggles in a
multilingual multimodal ELF online intercultural exchange. In C. C. M. Sung
(Ed.), Asian perspectives on English as a lingua franca and identity [Special
issue]. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 26(2), 280–300.
Ke, I., & Cahyani, H. (2014). Learning to become users of English as a lingua franca
(ELF): How ELF online communication affects Taiwanese learners’ beliefs of
English. System, 46, 28–38.
Kiczkowiak, M., & R. J. Lowe (2018). Teaching English as a lingua franca. The
journey from EFL to ELF. Peaslake, UK: Delta Publishing.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2019). From EFL to ELF. The time is right. In S. Zein (Ed.), Teacher
education for English as a lingua franca. Perspectives from Indonesia (pp. 191–
202). London: Routledge.
Kohn, K. (2018a). MY English: A social constructivist perspective on ELF. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca, 7(1), 1–24.
Kohn, K. (2018b). POA meets ELF in intercultural telecollaboration. Chinese Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 244–248.
Kohn, K. (2019). Towards the reconciliation of ELF and EFL: Theoretical issues and
pedagogical challenges. In N. C. Sifakis, & N. Tsantila (Eds.), English as a lingua
franca for EFL contexts (pp. 32–48). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
20
Kohn, K. (2020a). A pedagogical lingua franca approach: Emancipating the foreign
language learner. LEARN Journal, 13(2), 1–14.
Kohn, K. (2020b). Foreign language teaching from a pedagogical lingua franca
perspective. In E. Grazzi (Ed.), An interdisciplinary approach to English as a
lingua franca [Special issue]. Status Quaestionis, 19, 55–72.
Kohn, K., & Hoffstaedter, P. (2015). Flipping intercultural communication practice:
Opportunities and challenges for the foreign language classroom. In J. Colpaert,
A. Aerts, M. Oberhofer, & M. Gutiérez-Colón Plana (Eds.), Task design &
CALL (pp. 338–345). Antwerpen: Universiteit Antwerpen.
Kohn, K., & Hoffstaedter, P. (2017). Learner agency and non-native speaker identity in
pedagogical lingua franca conversations: Insights from intercultural
telecollaboration in foreign language education. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 30(5), 351–367.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the
subaltern act? TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 66–84.
Liu, H., Zhang, X., & Fang, F. (2021). Young English learners‘ attitudes towards China
English: Unpacking their identity construction with implications for secondary
level language education in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1080/02188791.2021.1908228
Llurda, E. (2018). English language teachers and ELF. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker, & M.
Dewey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 518–
528). London: Routledge.
Lopriore, L., & Vettorel, P. (2019). Perspectives in WE- and ELF-informed ELT
materials in teacher education. In N. C. Sifakis, & N. Tsantila (Eds.), English as
a lingua franca for ELF contexts (pp. 97–116). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Marlina, R. (Ed.). (2018). Teaching English as an International Language (TEIL):
Realistic or idealistic? [Special issue]. RELC Journal, 49(1).
Matsuda, A. (Ed.). (2012). Principles and practices of teaching English as an
international language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Matsuda, A (2019). World Englishes in English language teaching: Kachru's six
fallacies and the TEIL paradigm. World Englishes, 38(1-2), 144–154.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly,
31, 409–429.
21
O'Dowd, R. (2021). What do students learn in virtual exchange? A qualitative content
analysis of learning outcomes across multiple exchanges. International Journal
of Educational Research, 109, 1–13.
Redmer, G. (2021). After class: Students’ social use of English as a lingua franca
(ELF). Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 16(1), 37–51.
Rose, H., & Galloway, N. (2019). Global Englishes for language teaching. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, H., McKinley, J., & Galloway, N. (2020). Global Englishes and language
teaching: A review of pedagogical research. Language Teaching, 54(2), 157–
189.
Sadeghpour, M., & Sharifian, F. (2017). English teachers’ perceptions of world
Englishes: The elephants in the room. Asian Englishes, 19(3), 242–258.
Sadeghpour, M., & Sharifian, F. (2019). World Englishes in English language teaching.
World Englishes, 38(1-2), 245–258.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Selvi, A. F., & Yazan, B. (Eds.). (2021). Language teacher education for Global
Englishes. A practical resource book. London: Routledge.
Sifakis, N. C. (2017). ELF awareness in English language teaching: principles and
processes. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 288–306.
Sifakis, N. C., Lopriore, L., Dewey, M., Bayyurt, Y., Vettorel, P., Cavalheiro, L.,
Siqueira, S., & Kordia, S. (2018). ELF-awareness in ELT: Bringing together
theory and practice. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 7(1), 155–209.
Siqueira, S. (2020). ELF with EFL: What is still needed for this integration to happen?
ELT Journal, 74(4), 377–386.
Siqueira, S., & Matos, J. V. G. (2019). ELT materials for basic education in Brazil: Has
the time for an ELF-aware practice arrived? In N. C. Sifakis, & N. Tsantila
(Eds.), English as a lingua franca for ELF contexts (pp. 132–156). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sung, C. C. M. (2018). Out-of-class communication and awareness of English as a
lingua franca. ELT Journal, 72(1), 15–25.
22
Sung, C. C. M. (2020). Exploring language identities in English as a lingua franca
communication. Experiences of bilingual university students in Hong Kong.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(2), 184–197.
Tupas, R., & Renandya, W. A. (2021). Unequal Englishes. Re-envisioning the teaching
of English in linguistically diverse classrooms. In H. Lee, & B. Spolsky (Eds.),
Localizing Global English. Asian perspectives and practices (pp. 47–62).
London: Routledge.
Vettorel, P. (2019). Communication strategies and co-construction of meaning in ELF:
Drawing on ‘Multilingual Resource Pools’. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 8(2), 179–2010.
Vettorel, P. (2021). World Englishes, English as a lingua franca and ELT materials. A
critical perspective. In Y. Bayyurt, & M. Saraceni (Eds.), Bloomsbury World
Englishes. Vol 3: Pedagogies (pp. 59–74. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Widdowson, H. .G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377–
389.
Widdowson, H. G. (2015). ELF and the pragmatics of language variation. Journal of
English as a Lingua Franca 4(2), 359–372.
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Zein, S. (Ed.). (2019). Teacher education for English as a lingua franca. Perspectives
from Indonesia. London: Routledge.
23
Table 1. Type your title here. Obtain permission and include the acknowledgement
required by the copyright holder if a table is being reproduced from another source.
Figure 1. Type your caption here. Obtain permission and include the acknowledgement
required by the copyright holder if a figure is being reproduced from another source.
