English as an Academic Lingua Franca

Developments in English
as a Lingua Franca 3

Editors
Jennifer Jenkins
Will Baker

De Gruyter Mouton
English as an Academic
Lingua Franca
An Investigation of Form
and Communicative Effectiveness

By
Beyza Björkman

De Gruyter Mouton
ISBN 978-3-11-027914-6
e-ISBN 978-3-11-027954-2
ISSN 2192-8177

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet
at http://dnb.dnb.de.

” 2013 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
앪
앝 Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
To Ella and Mikael, my wonderful family
Acknowledgments

This monograph takes as its basis my PhD project that I completed in June
2010. During the production of this manuscript, I have received invaluable
help from many colleagues, friends, and family.
First of all, I would like to thank De Gruyter Mouton for seeing the im-
portance of the topic and investing in this monograph. Birgit Sievert, Julie
Miess and Angelika Hermann patiently answered every question I had. The
editors Professor Jennifer Jenkins and Dr. Will Baker have helped me
shape this manuscript to the monograph you have before you today. Need-
less to say, any remaining errors are mine. I am especially grateful to Jen-
nifer Jenkins for being so supportive and helpful from the very early stages
of this project, when this book was only an idea.
The research project that forms the basis of this book was almost exclu-
sively financed by the language unit at the Technical Institute despite all
the financial hardships, and I am eternally grateful for this support. I will
not be able to mention any names here for purposes of anonymity, but I am
indebted to my colleagues for their hard work that generated the resources
for this project as well as their never-ending encouragement. I am also
grateful to the English Department at Stockholm University where I was a
doctoral student for letting me work on a topic that I knew was very im-
portant and for providing financial support for the final stages of the pro-
ject. I would also like to thank my colleagues at Roskilde University for the
feedback and help during my post-doc stay in Denmark.
I have benefited greatly from discussions with my PhD supervisor Pro-
fessor Philip Shaw, who has been extremely generous with truly inspiring
discussions and invaluable advice. Special thanks go to Professor Nils-
Lennart Johannesson for creating special characters so I could be true to my
Early Modern English source. Thanks also go to Christina Alm-Arvius,
Britt Erman, Rebecca Hincks, Nils-Lennart Johannesson, Elizabeth Keller,
Andy Kirkpatrick, Maria Kuteeva, Margareta Lewis, Magnus Ljung, Hans
Malmström, Gunnel Melchers, Alan McMillion, David Minugh, Jan Peder-
sen, Erik Smitterberg and Annelie Ädel. I have learned so much from them.
There are other colleagues who have helped me with feedback and encour-
agement. I cannot help but mention John Airey, Anne Kari Bjørge, Gibson
Ferguson, Gregory Garretson, Rachel Giora, Hartmut Haberland, Spencer
Hazel, Glenn Ole Hellekjær, Jennifer Jenkins, Anna Mauranen, Janus
Mortensen, Diane Pecorari, Elina Ranta, John M. Swales and Hedda Söder-
viii Acknowledgments

lundh. I must thank Jennifer Jenkins, Anna Mauranen and Barbara Seidlho-
fer separately for paving the way for numerous studies on ELF, for being
so supportive to us new ELF researchers, and for being so generous with
their expertise.
And finally my family whom I love tremendously. It is to you that I owe
everything. I have produced this monograph while taking care of my baby
girl Ella. I am deeply grateful to my husband Mikael for his sunny smile,
never-ending patience and encouragement, and for shouldering so much of
the household responsibilities. Without his help, I would not have been able
to complete this book. And our sunshine Ella… Thanks for coming into
my life and showing me what really matters. I dedicate this book to you
both.

Earlier versions of some of the text in this monograph, and some of my

thoughts and arguments, have appeared in the following papers that I have
produced. I am grateful to the publishers and editors below for permitting
me to include them in this book:

2012 Questions in academic ELF interaction. Journal of English as a Lin-

gua Franca 1 (1): 93–119.
2012 Investigating English as a lingua franca in applied science education:
Aims, methods and norms. In (Re-)Conceptualising LSP Research:
Methods and Aims, Linguistic Insights, Studies in Language and
Communication, Margrethe Petersen and Jan Engberg (eds.), 163–
187. Bern: Peter Lang.
2012 The grammar of English as a lingua franca. The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics, (ed.). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
2011 English as a lingua franca in higher education: Implications for EAP.
Ibérica 22: 79–100. Special Issue on EAP in Parallel language and
ELF Settings.
2011 Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways
of achieving communicative effectiveness? Journal of Pragmatics
43(4): 950–964.
2010 So you think you can ELF: English as a lingua franca as the medium
of Instruction. Hermes 45: 77–99.
2010 Spoken lingua franca English at a Swedish technical university: An
investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. Unpublished
PhD thesis. Stockholm University, Department of English.
2009 From code to discourse in spoken ELF. In English as a Lingua
Franca: Studies and findings, Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta
(eds.), 225–254. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.
 Acknowledgments ix

2009 English as a lingua franca at a Swedish technical university: An

effective medium? In Proceedings of the Annual BALEAP Confe-
rence: 'EAP in a Globalising World: English as an Academic Lingua
Franca‘. Whong, Melinda (Ed.), 11–19. Reading: Garnet Education.
2008 English as the lingua franca of engineering: The morphosyntax of
academic speech events. Nordic Journal of English Studies 7(3):
103–122.
2008 'So where we are': Spoken lingua franca English at a Swedish te-
chnical university”. English Today 24 (2): 11–17. Reprinted with
permission from Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Journals
Online.
 Contents

Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................1!
Introduction ...............................................................................................1!
1.1. English today ..................................................................................3!
1.2. English as the language of science and technology .......................6!
1.3. Globalization and English in higher education ............................13!
1.3.1. Ideological responses to globalization ..................................17!
1.3.2. Globalization and multilingualism in continental Europe ....18!
1.3.3. Globalization and multilingualism in Sweden ......................23!
1.3.4. The answer: English as a lingua franca .................................28!
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................31!
Previous research on ELF .......................................................................31!
2.1. The relevance of normative elements in ELF research ................32!
2.2. Work without normative elements: Pragmatics ...........................33!
2.3. Work including normative elements: Form .................................43!
2.4. When form and pragmatics meet .................................................52!
2.5. Attitude and irritation studies .......................................................54!
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................59!
Exploring an academic ELF setting in Sweden: The site .....................59!
3.1. An international university: Student and teacher body ................60!
3.2. Research questions and some important terms ............................62!
3.3. Research methodology and design ...............................................65!
Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................82!
Operating in a Swedish ELF site .............................................................82!
4.1. Dimension 1: Form ......................................................................82!
4.1.1. Commonalities of usage ........................................................82!
4.1.2. Non-standard usage vs. standard usage .................................94!
4.2. Dimension 2: Communicativeness ...............................................98!
4.2.1. Investigating overt disturbance .............................................98!
4.2.2. Analyses at discourse level: Pragmatic strategies ...............123!
4.3. Perceived communicativeness and attitudes: A survey of student
attitudes .............................................................................................138!
4.4. Summary of results ....................................................................141!
Chapter 5 ..................................................................................................147!
Theoretical and practical implications ..................................................147!
5.1. Discussion of the findings ..........................................................147!
5.2. Theoretical implications .............................................................160!
5.2.1. The status of ELF ................................................................160!
5.2.2. Norms and standards for speech .........................................173!
xii Contents

5.2.3. Good English .......................................................................176!

5.3. Practical implications .................................................................178!
5.3.1. Comprehension-facilitating lecturing behavior ...................179!
5.3.2. Support for lecturers and students who need to operate in
ELF settings ..................................................................................185!
5.3.3. Pedagogical applications: Issues for the language classroom
.......................................................................................................189!
Chapter 6 ..................................................................................................197!
Looking ahead .......................................................................................197!
6.1. Summary ....................................................................................197!
6.2. Notes for native speakers ...........................................................201!
6.3. The internationalization of higher education and language policy
practices .............................................................................................205!
6.4. ELF: Final remarks ....................................................................210!
Appendices ............................................................................................212!
Appendix 1: Sample lecture transcription .........................................212!
Appendix 2: Sample group-work transcription .................................219!
Appendix 3: Sentences used in the questionnaire .............................232!
Appendix 4: The observation protocol ..............................................234!
References ................................................................................................235!
Index .........................................................................................................261!
Abbreviations

ARS Audience Response System

BASE British Academic Spoken English
BNC British National Corpus
CANCODE Cambridge-Nottingham Corpus of English
CL Clause Level
CLIL Content and Language Integrated Learning
ELF English as a Lingua Franca
ELFA Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic
settings
ELT English Language Teaching
ENL English as a Native Language
ERASMUS European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of
University Students
IELTS International English Language Testing System
IA/P Interrogative Adverb/Pronoun
L1, L2 First language, Second language
LFC Lingua Franca Core
LLC London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English
MICASE The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English
NNS Non-native Speaker
NonS Non-standard
NP Noun Phrase
NS Native Speaker
PL Phrase Level
QLs Questions asked by Lecturers
QRLs Rhetorical Questions asked by Lecturers
QSs Questions asked by Students
SOV Subject-Object-Verb
SVA Subject-Verb Agreement
SVO Subject-Verb-Object
TESOL Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language
TSE Test of Spoken English
VOICE Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English
VSO Verb-Subject-Object
VP Verb Phrase
WO Word Order
WrELFA Written academic ELF
Chapter 1
Introduction

This book is about the widest use of English in the world today: English as
a lingua franca (ELF). ELF is defined as “any use of English among speak-
ers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative
medium of choice, and often the only option” (Seidlhofer 2011: 7). English
today is a lingua franca which brings millions together in a wide range of
communicative situations in numerous settings for a broad spectrum of
purposes. As you are reading these lines, a very large number of people
with different first languages are communicating through English as a lin-
gua franca in business meetings, in conferences and other academic discus-
sions, or sports activities, to name a few. Businessmen are busy trying to
land deals, academics are giving lectures or having research meetings, uni-
versity students are working out the details in their new institutions, and all
of this, they do through English as a lingua franca. English, in this sense,
has reached truly global dimensions no other language has come near be-
fore. It is used in a very large number of domains, spoken by millions of
people for different purposes. This is not to say that there are no other lin-
gua francas. Other languages are used as lingua francas centralized in par-
ticular regions in the world, such as Russian and Spanish; however, “it is
English and English alone that can reasonably claim to have become a
global lingua franca” (Van Parijs 2011: 11).
In the present context, ‘lingua franca’ is used in a different sense from
the original meaning of the term. The original term ‘lingua franca’ refers to
the oldest pidgin for which there is a reasonable amount of data for investi-
gation (Parkvall 2005). It has been suggested that the meaning of the term
comes from Arabic and Greek. Before the Crusades and during the Middle
Ages, Western Europeans were referred to as ‘Franks’ in Arabic and
‘Phrankoi’ in Greek during the times of the late Eastern Roman Empire. So
lingua franca was the language of the Franks, and it was a mixed trade lan-
guage used by the language communities around the Mediterranean to
communicate with others, as these comunities did not share a common
language. It consisted mainly of Italian mixed with Turkish, French, Greek,
Arabic, Portuguese and Spanish. It had limited vocabulary and grammar,
and it lacked verb tenses and case– it did however develop a past and a
future tense around the seventeenth century during its golden age (Corré
2 Introduction

2005). Pidginists have maintained that the earliest text in lingua franca goes
back to 1353, and there are traces of its use from the twentieth century.
This long period of time suggests that it may well be “the most long-lived
pidgin language we know of” (Parkvall 2005).
The original lingua franca had the same purpose with today’s lingua
franca English: It was used by speakers from different first language back-
grounds as a vehicular language. Those involved in trade had to sell and
buy goods through a common language, and with the Mediterranean lingua
franca, they were able to do so. There are important differences, however,
between the original lingua franca and today’s lingua franca English. To-
day’s lingua franca is obviously not a mix of languages, nor does it have
limited vocabulary or syntax the way the original lingua franca did. The
original lingua franca was mostly spoken, and not so often written, as it
was a contact language. When it was written, it was generally in early
opera libretti and ballads, and this was done generally to include exotic
elements in these works (Corré 2005). Otherwise, the original lingua franca
was merely a practical language and not a literary medium. This is unlike
today’s lingua franca English, which is used in several domains, both in
spoken and written form (see e.g. the WrELFA corpus project). Perhaps
most importantly, the original lingua franca was not expanded or nativized
anywhere (Parkvall 2005) unlike English, which is the native language of a
number of countries.
English is the only language in history to have countries where it is the
native language and to have become a truly global lingua franca. This is
surely a fascinating linguistic phenomenon. It is, however, not only a lin-
guistic phenomenon. English gained the lingua franca status as a result of a
series of political events and other significant historical developments, be-
coming the language of several domains, such as higher education.
In this introductory chapter, I will consider these developments, along-
side the reactions and ideological responses raised to one language gaining
such a powerful status. We will start by a brief review of some historical
developments and then move on to how English has become the language
of science and technology. Turning to reactions and ideological responses,
we will go through some of the arguments raised by concerned academics
who have been arguing for over a decade that ELF is simply about hegem-
ony, Anglification and the spreading of market economics, and that minor
languages are losing one domain after another against English. The chapter
will end with a brief introduction of English as a lingua franca, which is
 1.1 English today 3

another perspective one could adopt with regard to the widespread use of
English in Europe today.

1.1. English today

“…although the global spread of English as a lingua franca belongs

very much to the present, it needs to be put in perspective by refer-
ence to the past”. (Seidlhofer 2011: xi)

To be able to understand the phenomenon of English as a lingua franca, we

need to refer to the past and see the events that have led to English gaining
such a global status. To many, the nineteenth century was the time when
English first reached a strong global position. By the end of the nineteenth
century, Britain, with its many communities of English speakers settling
around the world along with trade, enabled English to become the world’s
lingua franca. Consequently, French declined outside its borders, and dif-
ferent varieties of English around the world emerged and were “partially
standardized” (Graddol 1997: 7). It was, however, the rise of the US as a
superpower in the world that bolstered the dominance of English. The US
quickly became the most powerful industrialized country because of its
natural and human resources, and the fact that it was not destroyed by war
unlike the countries in mainland Europe that had been war zones. As the
world’s third largest country with reference to population, it is the country
that has the largest group of native speakers of English in the world (Grad-
dol 1997: 8).
While the expansion of English to so many domains in the world is gen-
erally regarded as a result of the expansion of Great Britain with its colo-
nies and the dominance of the US after World War II, there are other factors
to consider. It is true that there are political developments that contributed
to the growth of English; however, the need to communicate knowledge
was a bigger factor. The growing needs of sharing and disseminating
knowledge in the twentieth century required a language for all communica-
tion to take place in. This was true for scientific and technical knowledge
dissemination as well as for other areas, such as for commerce and con-
sumer culture (Graddol 1997: 14).
English in the twenty-first century is used predominantly by three main
groups of speakers: Those who speak it as their native language, those who
speak it as a second (or additional) language and those who have learned it
as a foreign language. A classical view of these groups was expressed by
4 Introduction

Kachru as “inner circle”, “outer circle” and “expanding circles”, well

known to linguists (Kachru 1985). In the inner circle are countries where
English is the native language, i.e. the USA, the UK, Ireland, Canada, Aus-
tralia and New Zealand. The outer circle countries are those where English
has some historical significance and is spoken as the language of some or
all of the country’s institutions, e.g. Singapore, India, Nigeria, South Africa,
the Philippines. These two circles, however, do not represent the major
groups of speakers of English in the twenty-first century. The largest group
is the expanding circle countries, where English is a foreign language, e.g.
China, Japan, Poland etc. These countries do not have a history of being
colonized by any of the inner-circle countries, and English does not have
much intra-national function.

Inner circle,
320–380

Outer circle,
150–300

Expanding
circle,
100–1000

Figure 1.1. Approximate numbers of speakers in millions in inner, outer and ex-
panding circle countries (Kachru 1985; numbers from Graddol 1997).
Kachru uses the term “norm-providing” for inner-circle countries, “norm-
developing” for outer-circle countries and “norm-dependent” for the ex-
panding-circle countries. When the outer and expanding circles are merged,
we have before us the largest group of users of the English language in the
world. In a way, the numerical balance has shifted tremendously from the
inner circle countries to these two groups of countries. Today, English is
used predominantly by its non-native speakers as a lingua franca.
Much happened demographically in what is now almost three decades
as a result of globalization. Kachru’s description of the speakers in each
circle no longer reflects the reality of the linguistic situation in the world.
The Three Circles Model has undoubtedly been helpful in addressing the
different groups of speakers of English who use English for a variety of
 1.1 English today 5

functions. It provided a description of different types of users, thereby mak-

ing an important contribution to showing the changing balance of speakers
in the world by its inclusion of outer and expanding circles. However, the
model is now dated, and it falls short of accurately accounting for the true
heterogeneity of English today. It is very much a debated issue whether the
inner circle speakers should be norm-providing for the speakers in the other
two circles. The model, therefore, has been criticized for failing to show the
true dynamics of the usage of English today (Jenkins 2009). World Eng-
lishes and ELF researchers together point to a need for pluricentralism
(Bruthiaux 2003; Seidlhofer 2003). The applicability of the model has even
been contested on the grounds that the model “perpetuates the very inequal-
ities it otherwise aims to combat, such as the distinction between native and
non-native speakers” (Park and Wee 2009: 390).
Kachru however, never claimed these circles would stand against time
and against changes that take place as speakers move around the world for
a number of reasons and use English as a vehicular language. He himself
acknowledged this, that the Three Circles Model may be somewhat sim-
plistic and that it shows less awareness of the grey areas (Kachru 1985;
Rajadurai 2003: 113).
On the scale we are witnessing today, English is being used as the work-
ing language of many international domains. The twelve major internation-
al domains Graddol listed in 1997 have continued to use English increas-
ingly as their working language (Graddol 1997: 8):

1. Working language of international organizations and confer-

ences
2. Scientific publication
3. International banking, economic affairs and trade
4. Advertising for global brands
5. Audio-visual cultural products, e.g. TV, popular music
6. International tourism
7. Tertiary education
8. International safety
9. International law
10. In interpretation and translation as a relay language
11. Technology transfer
12. Internet communication
6 Introduction

A significance of Graddol’s list above is its inclusion of at least eight do-

mains that are so-called élite domains (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). As the num-
ber of people using English in the above domains keeps expanding, English
is likely to maintain its position as the most dominant foreign language
among the world’s languages.
The spread of English as the working language to so many of the
world’s élite domains has evoked a variety of reactions. These reactions
range from fascination to combative rejection. English as the most domi-
nant language has been investigated and debated widely (sections 1.3.1,
1.3.2 and 1.3.3); however, these investigations and debates have had politi-
cal issues rather than linguistic ones as their foci. The linguistic community
has been relatively slow in dealing with the unprecedented growth of Eng-
lish (Mauranen 2003: 513). Although much work has been done in the last
decade or so, detailed linguistic investigations are scarce. The extremely
dynamic nature of the speakers of English today, i.e. that they travel and
use English for a variety of purposes, makes it complicated to carry out
investigations. With the situation today, where English has no boundaries,
we need to explore the use and usage of English, we need more information
on how it is used in the domains where it serves as the working language,
but perhaps most importantly, we need to be able to cater for the needs of
all those from different language backgrounds who use it as a vehicular
language, as a lingua franca (ELF), so that we can help them compete on
equal terms. The vast number of its users and the domains in which it is
used bring a legitimate need for knowledge of the use of English as a lin-
gua franca.
The study used as the basis of the present monograph is an attempt to
contribute to the existing knowledge on the use of English today in one of
the aforementioned domains: Tertiary education. It investigates English in
an academic engineering setting as spoken by lecturers and students, by
those who use it as an academic lingua franca.

1.2. English as the language of science and technology

The presence of English in Europe today can be observed in many do-

mains. Scientific and technical domains are two such domains where Eng-
lish dominates over other languages (James 2000), and it is English only
that is now the dominant lingua franca of science and technology in the
world. Science is and has always been a global enterprise, and academic
 1.2 English in science and technology 7

communities are international by nature. A useful preliminary here is a

historical perspective.
This inherently international nature of science and technology is reflect-
ed in the number of languages that have been the lingua francas of science
and technology in history. The development has been somewhat different
for instruction and publication. When we look at the academy, we see that
different languages have been used in instruction and publication. With
regard to the language of instruction, up to the sixteenth century, Latin was
used.
As commonly known, Latin was the first international language of the
‘learned’ and retained its position until the seventeenth century (Lindberg
1984). The attitude to Latin in the eighteenth century is clear from the
quote that follows (Johnson 1706). Latin was the language of the learned,
and replacing it with another language was seen as extremely unlikely, if at
all possible:

!"#$ !"%&'($)$"*+,&%!)'$-)*.").&$/)*0$!"12$)#$3%&!&*#$+4$#2&$-)#+*$ 56*."&7$+4$

)$ #2+*.$ 68$ 9+.2#($ :0,)*#).&;$ !"#$ +8$ <&$ %&1&+,&$ #2&$ !&*&8=#$ 68$ 6#2&%$ >&*4$
-&)%*+*.?$ +*$ <2)#&,&%$ 3)%#$ 68$ @"%63&?$ /<2+12$ +4$ *6<$ #2&$ 6*'($ -&)%*&0$
A6%'07$B($+#$<&$+93)%#$#6$6#2&%4$#2)#$68$6"%$6<*;$52+4$6*1&$'6C?$<&$2),&$)4$
9)*($-)*.").&4$#6$'&)%*?$)4$#2&%&$)%&$D)#+6*4$+*$#2&$A6%'0$16*!=0&%)B'&$86%$
-&)%*+*.?$+8$<&$<+''$&+#2&%$'&)%*$68$#2&9?$6%$&E3&1#$#2&($!26"'0$'&)%*$68$"4;$
52&%&$)%&$6#2&%4?$<26$#26".2$#2&($#2+*F$!"12$)$-)*.").&$*&1&!!)%(?$(&#$#2&%&$$
+4$ *6$ D&1&!!=#($ #2&$ -)#+*$ #6*."&$ 9"C$ B&$ +#?$ B"#$ #2)#$ )*6#2&%$ 9+.2#$ 06$ )4$
<&''G$!"#$+*$#2&$9&)*$#+9&?$#2&%&$+4$*6$6#2&%?$B"#$#2)#$6*'(?$<2+12$+4$16996*$
#6$-&)%*&0$>&*$68$)''$H6"*#%+&4I$)*0$+#$<6"'0$B&$*6$!9)''$5%6"B'&?$+8$)#$)''$
3%)J+1)B'&?$#6$&C)B'+K$)*6#2&%;$$$

What Johnson said wasthought

What Johnson virtuallywasimpossible
virtuallyhappened:
impossibleLatin was abandoned
happened: Latin was
aboutabandoned
three hundred
about three hundred years ago, leaving its place tolanguages
years ago. Historically, there have been other other lan-
in theguages,
position
and then to English, which is now “the universal language” for to
English has today. Not surprisingly, when English started the
be used for education, it caused considerable controversy. If we look at the
dissemination of knowledge.
debates Historically,
back in the there
middle of been
have the seventeenth century,
other languages in thewe see three
position focal
English has
points: whether
today. to learn
For this Latin
reason, or the
perhaps notLatin vernacular,
surprisingly, when inEnglish
this case English,
started to be
first, used
whether to acknowledge
for education, the advantages
it caused of using
and still seems to beEnglish
causingand whether
considerable
to usecontroversy.
Latin to make English a legitimate choice (Mitchell, 2006:475).
Turning to the debates in the middle of the seventeenth centu- Lec-
turingry,inwethe
seevernacular
three focalwas forbidden
points: WhetherintoEurope in the
learn Latin Middle
or the Latin Ages and
vernacular,
through the Renaissance (Nastansky, 2004:49). Some scholars advocated the
use of the vernacular English, saying that it would be a very good skill to
have in the future (Aickin, 1693:28). The aim in doing so, ironically, was to
enable the public to have access to knowledge and obliterate the social divi-
sion generated by Latin between the common public and the élite.
8 1 Introduction

in this case English, first, whether to acknowledge the advantages of using

English and whether to use Latin to make English a legitimate choice
(Mitchell 2006: 475). Lecturing in the vernacular was forbidden in Europe
in the Middle Ages and through the Renaissance (Nastansky 2004: 49).
There were scholars who advocated the use of the vernacular English, for
the reason that it would be a useful skill to have in the future (Aickin 1967:
28). The aim in doing so was to enable the public to have access to
knowledge and obliterate the social division generated by Latin between
the common public and the élite. Subsequently, other languages did indeed
come into use, gradually making room for even more languages.
When it comes to the language of scientific research, up to the seven-
teenth century Latin dominated, slowly leaving space for other vernaculars.
This, however, happened much more slowly than it did for instruction.
Thereafter, both Latin and French were used. In the nineteenth century,
French, English and German were all used for science and technology in
international publication. The situation changed during the mid twentieth
century, and the language of international publication became mainly Eng-
lish with the increasing importance of international publication in the twen-
tieth and twenty-first centuries. These changes can be observed in the phil-
osophical transactions of the Royal Society between the years 1665 and
1990 (Figure 1.2, produced using the information given in Allen et al.).

100 English French German Latin Other

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 1.2. The language of cited materials in the Royal Society 1665–1990.
 1.2 English in science and technology 9

The Royal Society has been the centre of scientific activity in England
since it was officially founded by twelve philosophers in 1660 to promote
physico-mathematical experimental learning. Among its many activities are
supporting scientists and engineers, influencing science policy, debating
scientific issues etc.
As I mentioned above, after World War II, most of the world’s scientific
potential became localized in the US, mainly because of the fact that the
country was intact unlike the countries in Europe, which were all badly
damaged by the war (Graddol 1997: 8). World Wars I and II depended
heavily on science and technology, which resulted in increased scientific
activity during the war years. The US was able to preserve its scientific
foundation and structure since none of the battlefields were located in the
US, which in turn ensured its leadership in science and technology (Kaplan
2001: 11). In addition, more resources were available in the US, which
made it a popular destination for a large number of students and scientists
(Kaplan 2001: 10). Consequently, the US became the leading country in
scientific and technical publishing. Later on the “design, production and
dissemination” of scientific and technical knowledge was globalized; nev-
ertheless, the US has managed to keep its place in the center (Truchot 2002:
10).
However, there were additional reasons for the spread of English. It was
reasonable to ask people to learn three languages when German was domi-
nant in science, with English being important economically, and French
being influential in cultural spheres (Shaw 2005, 2008). Japanese scientists
did indeed learn three languages. With actual globalization however, which
is what is happening today, there are Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Indian
readers and more. With readers from a large number of countries, it became
more difficult to insist that everybody should learn three languages. This
being so, the extension of the international research community beyond
Europe would have required a common language to operate in even if there
had not been other external influences.
Since World War II, many scientific journals have adopted English as
their language instead of writing and publishing in their national language
(Graddol 1997: 9). Over 90 per cent of the articles in the major SCI data-
base are taken from journals that are published in English. European data-
bases also have this as common practice instead of leaving room for articles
written in European languages other than English (Truchot 2002: 10). Most
journals have switched to English for purposes of broad readership. Al-
ready in 1997, Swales reported on the change of language from Swedish to
10 1 Introduction

English-only in the last medical serial in Sweden, Läkartidningen (Swales

1997: 379). In short, as these examples show, for scientists today, publish-
ing findings automatically suggests writing the articles in English since
most journals, even in non-English speaking countries, require articles in
English (Murray and Dingwall 2001: 86). French-authored articles in Eng-
lish are cited much more frequently than the articles in French: “The 1978
English-language papers received about 57,600 citations from 1978–1982,
yielding a five-year impact rating—based on an SCI1 calculation — of 6.5
for the average paper. The French-language articles received 15,650, or a
five-year impact of 1.9” (Garfield 1989: 1). One of the consequences of
such practices is that publications in English are valued more than those in
other languages. This is true for Dutch and Scandinavian languages; read-
ers seem to value research articles that are in English more than those writ-
ten in Dutch or Scandinavian languages (Ammon 2001). This reported
trend certainly continues. In a recent study of bibliometric indicators for
research evaluation in Italy, Gazzola discusses using bibliometrics as a
performance indicator and states that doing so encourages Italian research-
ers to publish in English (Gazzola 2012). According to the three-year re-
search evaluation VTR (Valutazione Triennale della Ricerca) carried out
between 2001 and 2003, English dominates in hard sciences with 90 per
cent and economics with 80 per cent. 2The numbers also show that the out-
put for the VTR was in English in three fourths of all cases (Gazzola 2012:
141). Gazzola argues that using bibliometrics in this way functions as an
implicit language policy tool (see section 6.3 in this monograph for a dis-
cussion of language policies).
However, we should note that the situation described above is for publi-
cations aiming at an international readership. For national readerships,
there still may not be much reason to write in English. This distinction is
made clear in an investigation of a biliterate environment in a Danish busi-
ness school. The study found that applied disciplines need to communicate
nationally as well as internationally, which brings “a more complex mix of
genres and languages” (Petersen and Shaw 2002: 372). In other words, if
there is a strong reason to communicate scientific activity nationally, natu-
rally the choice is the local language.

1. Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia

(SCI) is an example of the most influential databases on science and technology.
2. The figures show that English is used much less in political science (30 per
cent), humanities (25 per cent) and law (10 per cent) (Gazzola 2012: 141).
 1.2 English in science and technology 11

Subsequent to the establishment of English as the language of publica-

tion, practices in scientific activity followed the same trend: English be-
came the main language to access scientific information, to take part in
discussion, symposia and congresses and to collaborate with other scholars
in the field. The use of English is promoted in academia and publications,
networks, programs and institutions. The scientific programs in the EU, for
example, operate entirely in English (Truchot 2002: 11).
Certainly, there have been reactions to the use of English as the only in-
ternational language. These reactions come from a wide range of countries.
Ammon groups them as countries

where the local languages have been lingua francas of science and
technology (e.g. French and German)

with the aim to achieve wide use of their L1s as international lan-
guages of science and technology (e.g. Japanese)

where the L1s have had only local use and do not/cannot aim for in-
ternational usage (e.g. Swedish)

where the L1s have not yet been modernized or have been modern-
ized to a very limited extent (e.g. Haus(s)a) (Ammon 2001: 348)

Among these four groups, the first three are of relevance to the present
monograph. The strongest reactions naturally come from the first group,
including the countries that have used their L1s as the international lan-
guages of science and technology. A group of full-time researchers in
France admitted to using English in a variety of situations, e.g. giving
presentations in English at international conferences, but they expressed
their concern regarding the use of English in laboratories and research cen-
ters (Truchot 2001: 321). Unlike other countries where international re-
searchers speak English with each other in a lab situation, this group was in
favor of preserving French as the language of operation. Another area
where they aimed to keep French alive was doctoral work. They preferred
postgraduate studies to take place entirely in French and theses to be writ-
ten in French. This study, which took place in 1984, was followed by a plan
to achieve language pluralism in France with the aim of performing high
quality science and yet keep it available to the citizens. This did not reach
great success however, perhaps not so strangely because 75 per cent of
12 1 Introduction

doctoral students in France came from other countries at the time (Truchot
2001: 322). Another, and a stronger approach was the adoption of the law
on the use of the French language in 1994 by the Parliament against the
dominance of other languages, specifically against English. Although there
were public protests, the law was maintained in the education domain. Re-
searchers were given the right to give conference presentations in French,
were obligated to provide a copy of the presentation document in French,
and all other documents had to have a French abstract. This was, neverthe-
less, quite marginal in comparison with the conference work in English. It
was also decided that French was to be the sole language of education,
exams and theses. However, despite these concerted efforts, the debate
seemed less alive in France already about a decade ago than it was in the
80s and 90s (Truchot 2001: 327). These efforts were criticized in a more
recent work (Wright 2006). Wright lists the three misconceptions in the
arguments used in the campaign to promote and protect French as: “(1) The
intrinsic qualities of a language are factors in the promotion of a language
as a lingua franca; (2) language policy making at national level can affect
language practices in international contexts; and (3) language diversity is
served by the promotion of another prestige lingua franca”. (Wright 2006:
35). (See Wright’s discussion for an elaboration of these misconceptions).
German is another language that once was a lingua franca of science
and technology. The situation of German today differs greatly from the
times it had the lingua franca position. According to Ammon, after World
War I, German was “banned from all international conferences”, and it
never gained its previous position back (Ammon 2001: 345). German
scholars have also had problems with publications in general when they
wanted to publish in German internationally (Ammon 2001: 345). (See
Darquennes and Nerde 2006 for the state of German as a lingua franca,
from the past to present).
There is work from countries outside the first group, as classified by
Ammon above. In the second group, where the countries might aim for
international use, Wu et al. reported from China, and Inoue from Japan
(Inoue 2001; Wu et al. 2001), where the situation is rather different. These
countries have never been colonized like some of the other countries in
Asia, which might be the main reason for wider use of L1 in China and
Japan. In China, English seems predominantly to be a language of writing
and not used widely for spoken communication. In Japan, there is a long
tradition of translating foreign technical terms into Japanese, which has
allowed Japanese researchers to do science in their native language without
 1.2 English in science and technology 13

relying on another language, strengthened by the availability of textbooks

and other reference materials in their language. This situation is expected to
change as higher education is becoming increasingly international; there is
an increasing intake of foreign students into Japanese universities (Inoue
2001: 468). (See Kawai 2007 for a detailed description of the position
English has in Japan today and implications of this for teaching).
The third group in Ammon’s classification includes the countries where
the L1s have always stayed at a national level, and among them is Sweden.
Swedish is one of the languages that have never reached outside its borders
for wide use within science and technology. Although it was used as the
language of higher education from some time in the middle of the eight-
eenth century (Gunnarsson 2001: 293) until education became globalized
about a decade ago, it was never a language that research could be pub-
lished in internationally. Naturally, Sweden being a relatively small country
and Swedish a small language, Swedish started to be challenged (see Chap-
ter 3 for information on Swedish higher education). This is construed by
some as leading to diglossia and Swedish being on its way to dying a natu-
ral death as an academic language, and measures are suggested if Swedish
is to be resuscitated as an academic language (Gunnarsson 2001: 312–313).
These views and worries, however, are not shared by others (Berg et al.
2001; Josephson 2004; Murray and Dingwall 2001: 106;).
Already a decade ago, more researchers reported from Switzerland
(Dürmüller 2001), Finland (Haarman and Holman 2001), Hungary
(Medgyes and László 2001), Sweden and Switzerland compared (Murray
and Dingwall, 2001), Russia (Kryuchkova 2001) and Belgium (Willemyns
2001) among others, with only slightly varying results. A decade or so later,
English is increasingly being used in international publication, international
conferences, general academic activity and higher education within science
and technology.

1.3. Globalization and English in higher education

If we go back to the list of the twelve major domains of English (section

1.1), place seven is taken by tertiary education (Graddol 1997: 8). The rea-
son more and more countries are choosing English-medium higher educa-
tion seems obvious: The scene described above and the globalization of
studies.
14 1 Introduction

A considerable number of changes have already taken place, specifically

but not only, in Europe within tertiary education, and English is being used
increasingly often. Student exchange programs within the EU result in
changes especially at the Master’s level: A growing number of programs
are offered in English to allow students to receive education in countries
other than that of their origin. The development of additional programs in
English is reported to be under way in several countries in continental Eu-
rope, allowing students from all over the world to participate. This expan-
sion of use of the English language undoubtedly has advantages; student
and staff exchanges are much easier, collaboration between universities is
livelier than ever, and job opportunities are plenty.
English is the language of science, academia and the professions. There
is a growing trend of using English in general in European tertiary educa-
tion (Cenoz 2006). Tertiary education in science and technology is, natural-
ly, following this general trend. There is an additional reason for science
and technology to adopt English as the medium of instruction in a large
number of programs. As discussed in the previous sections, English is also
the language of scientific publications and activity. Consequently, technical
universities and institutes are responding to demands from students and
industry by introducing English in tertiary education as the medium of in-
struction.
Among the aims of the Bologna Process is “to make European Higher
Education more compatible and comparable, more competitive and more
attractive for Europeans and for students and scholars from other conti-
nents” (European commission), and the main aim of the Bologna process is
stated as “to establish a common European area for higher education by
2010” (Swedish Agency for networks and Cooperation in Higher Educa-
tion). Today, in 2012, we can see that this aim seems to have been reached
to a great extent with student exchange programs. Creating a ‘common
area’ requires a common language, and since English is the most widely
studied language, it is the best-known second language. Consequently, the
‘common’ European area for higher education has evolved in such a way
that English has become the ‘common language’. Although it is not stated
anywhere that this common language has to be ‘English’, it is the natural
choice. There are obvious advantages in making English the medium of
instruction: Mobility, employability and competitiveness/attractiveness,
which are all among the objectives of the Bologna Declaration (European
Commission 2009).
 1.3 Globalization and English in higher education 15

Universities today are more than ever advertising their multilingual pro-
grams and courses. They have several main reasons for doing so. First, they
want to recruit more students. Secondly, it improves their public image and
chances of competition in the education market. There are idealistic reasons
as well, such as promoting multilingualism, creating world-citizens and
strengthening internationalization locally (van Leeuwen and Wilkinson
2003: 11). Finally, there may be educational reasons like offering new de-
grees. Among these, it is likely that institutional survival, as Wilkinson
calls it, plays a pivotal role. If the local market is too small, if the income
that can be generated from international students will constitute a substan-
tial income for institutions, learning and teaching through an additional
language becomes an attractive option. Many universities worldwide are
introducing programs where English is the medium of instruction. The
number of students going abroad to study for one year or extended periods
is increasing so dramatically that some countries have been reportedly con-
sidering making changes to their laws to stimulate this movement even
further (Kruseman 2003: 7).
Changing the medium of instruction from the local language to another
language makes a number of changes necessary to the curriculum, the as-
sessment and the general organization of education. One such change is the
arrival of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). CLIL entails
the teaching of content and language in connection with each other instead
of as separate components (van Leeuwen 2003). Language learning, there-
fore, is not an add-on, rather a part of the teaching of content. In this ap-
proach, students acquire language and content together. Naturally, CLIL
requires very close collaboration of content and language teachers. A wide
range of benefits are likely to be gained by CLIL programs, namely,

building intercultural knowledge and understanding, developing intercultur-

al communication skills, improving language competence and oral commu-
nication skills, developing multilingual interests and attitudes, providing
opportunities to study content through different perspectives, allowing
learners more contact with the target language, not requiring extra teaching
hours, complementing other subjects rather than compete with them, diver-
sifying methods and forms of classroom practice and increasing learners’
motivation and confidence in both the language and the subject being
taught” (European Commission 2012)

The impact of globalization on higher education institutions throughout the

world has been much discussed (sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2). Some see the
globalization of higher education as creating a level playing field where
16 1 Introduction

scholars and students from different countries are functioning together,

sharing and disseminating knowledge, allowing higher education institutes
to reach the aims mentioned above. On the other hand, there are those who
see it as a basis of inequality (sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, e.g. Ljosland 2007;
Phillipson 1998).
Major higher institutions have a history of being highly dominant with
regard to production and dissemination of knowledge, unlike smaller insti-
tutions with smaller budgets and fewer resources, which try to co-exist with
them. Important academic institutions are, consequently, in richer countries
and not in developing countries. Funding, libraries, access to major net-
works and qualified scholars are typically available in these larger institu-
tions (Altbach 2004: 7). In this sense, globalization might be seen as auto-
matically posing a disadvantage for developing countries (Altbach 2004: 7;
Rodrik 1997 and 1999; Stiglitz 2002). At the same time, it should be noted
that globalization does not necessarily create inequality. Countries like
China, India or Brazil have benefited considerably from globalization fi-
nancially, e.g. outsourcing, call centers etc. Having said that, apart from
economic matters, there are also linguistic ones. Major higher education
institutions and leading international journals operate in English-speaking
countries, such as the US, the UK, Australia and Canada. The role of the
language surely affects higher education policy and the work atmosphere of
scholars and students.
This kind of globalization is certainly not unprecedented in academia.
Although it has been suggested that the emergence of a world language is a
“wholly new phenomenon” (Coleman 2006: 1), this is not entirely true.
Universities have always been international. Students have always travelled
to prestigious institutions to get the best education. Similarly, scholars have
always been able to work in foreign countries where there was expertise in
their fields or have provided expertise where they have moved. As I have
touched upon in the previous section (section 1.2), historically, we know
that there have been other languages in the position English has today.
The situation English is in now is unprecedented since this time it is on
a global scale; however, communication and information technology are
also on a global scale. In an age of such global communication and collabo-
ration, higher education institutions worldwide cannot distance themselves
from scientific collaboration. For collaboration and mobility to be possible,
a common language is required. English is used internationally in academia
for the same purpose: To bring scholars and students together so they can
create, share and disseminate knowledge. Those who are critical of the
 1.3 Globalization and English in higher education 17

growth of English claim that although English is supposed to bring people

together, it does the opposite by creating gaps and inequality in today’s
academia.
Graddol said more than a decade ago that the higher education sector
would become “increasingly complex” and refered to credit transfer, ac-
creditation and hybrid courses such as “engineering through English”,
which would result in new practices between institutions in the world
(Graddol 1997: 45). This has certainly been happening in continental Eu-
rope and elsewhere. These practices and developments are likely to contin-
ue, and they will continue to enable even a greater number of students to
study in other countries. As long as English remains as the leading lan-
guage in technology and science, the situation is likely to put pressure on
tertiary education to adjust itself.
A distinction needs to be drawn at this point between the language of
publication and the language of instruction. There have always been lan-
guages of publication, but only when a language becomes the vernacular
and is used in instruction, do matters get complicated. English has been the
lingua franca of science and education in publication for some time now
(section 1.2). Concerns started to be raised only when it started being used
in instruction.
There are surely advantages of using English in instruction in higher ed-
ucation. However, English, being both the language of publication and
now, increasingly, the language of instruction, has gained a much more
powerful position. On this, there are two main concerns: If English is used
in instruction instead of the local language, the local language might be
threatened and if students cannot study in their native language but in Eng-
lish, they might not be able to learn as effectively as they would in their L1.
These concerns have been expressed in numerous studies (section 1.3.2); a
number of scholars from Europe have focused exclusively on whether this
unprecedented growth of English is threatening the languages of Europe or
not. I will cover these concerns in the following sections.

1.3.1. Ideological responses to globalization

One of the words that is used very frequently in discussions of globaliza-

tion is ‘dominance’. There are two ways of interpreting the term ‘domi-
nance’. As Ammon points out, dominance could simply mean the wide-
spread use and acceptance of a language with contrast to other languages
18 1 Introduction

(Ammon 2001:v). It could also be perceived as the superiority of all the

values and cultural attachments that can accompany a language. The latter
interpretation of the term has been the center of some of the ideological
responses to globalization. Central to our interest in the present monograph
are reactions from scholars in continental Europe and Sweden, which will
be covered in the next two sub-sections (sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3).

1.3.2. Globalization and multilingualism in continental Europe

Two main issues are raised in studies on the wide use of English instead of
the local language. One of these has been the possible effects of the use of
English on national languages and multilingualism, which has been dis-
cussed in a number of research projects as well as concerted efforts in the
form of conferences. The second question these studies raise is whether the
use of English has a negative effect on learning, and if so, whether it is
avoidable. I will now consider these two issues.
The main discussion in the first question has been threefold: Is English
really a neutral lingua franca or a dominant language that takes its toll on
multilingualism, or both?

Whether or not English affects multilingualism negatively has been ad-

dressed amply in the literature. There are scholars who warn about the neg-
ative effects the widespread use of English might have on local languages
and the diglossia it might cause. One of the leading scholars who have
questioned the widespread use of English as a lingua franca is Phillipson.
In numerous publications, he has argued that English is anything but a neu-
tral lingua franca (Phillipson 2008). Behind the spread of English, he
claims, is deliberate ‘Englishization’ and linguistic imperialism (Phillipson
1999). This he gets from Bourdieu, for whom Englishization is synony-
mous with “symbolic imperialism and linguistic hegemony” (Phillipson
2006b: 3). For Phillipson, preference for English as the medium of educa-
tion in higher education solely because the textbooks are in English is a
“recipe for diglossia” (Phillipson 1998: 274). His work draws attention to
the linguistic diversity Europe has had in history and how English affects a
number of areas, such as science, culture and education. He calls for lin-
guistic equality for all citizens of the EU if the EU is to be a union that
provides equal political and democratic opportunities for all. He sees the
 1.3 Globalization and multilingualism in Europe 19

product of English as a lingua franca, or ‘lingua frankensteinia’ as he terms

it, as a phenomenon that is linked to economic systems and the US, sup-
ported by certain ideologies among other things (Phillipson 2008: 261). In
an earlier paper, he warns that English might be threatening the other lan-
guages in Europe (Phillipson 2006a: 1). Phillipson is also critical of the
objectives of the Bologna Declaration, where languages do not come up
once and that there is not one mention of bilingualism or multilingualism in
the document (Phillipson 2006a: 16). He adds that ‘internationalization’
stands for ‘English-medium education’ in the Bologna process.
This kind of perspective finds some support in research. Perhaps not so
surprisingly, some of this support comes from Germany and Norway. Ger-
man, as I discussed briefly in section 1.2, was once the holder of a strong
position, and Norwegian, being a relatively small language, is not tradition-
ally used in many domains. According to Mühleisen, the advantages of
using English as the dominant language in academia and scientific activity
are negligible compared to its serious consequences: Global diglossia and
possible loss of languages together with the knowledge that is present in
works in these languages. Two major concerns in this perspective are mak-
ing knowledge available to all and continuing scientific activity in other
languages (Mühleisen 2003: 117). The suggested solution is translation.
Warnings about diglossia come from Norway as well. Some have argued
that the dominant position of English is taking Norway to diglossia. Con-
cerns were raised by Norwegian scholars, and consequently the Nordic
Council of Ministers investigated the possible effects of English and
whether a diglossic situation was under way for Norway (Tislevoll 2001).
The report of this investigation was judged to be “inconclusive” in a more
recent study (Ljosland 2007: 395). The fact that Norwegian is only used
marginally in some domains in higher education has been seen as leading to
‘subtractive learning’ (Brock-Utne 2001: 221). The increase of borrowed
words in Norwegian from English in academia, bureaucratic settings and
technology, the sale of literature in English instead of Norwegian, recruit-
ing staff who cannot speak Norwegian, the increasing number of Master’s
courses in English and the prestige and financial benefits of publishing
internationally in English have been reported as some of the factors leading
to diglossia and eventually, possibly, to the loss of Norwegian in a large
number of domains (Brock-Utne 2001: 121). It is argued that, if a language
is abandoned, it will no longer be able to cater for the needs of its speakers
in the domains where it has been abandoned (Brock-Utne 2001: 231).
20 1 Introduction

More recent studies that investigated the use of English in Norwegian

academia has been even more critical towards English and reported Nor-
way to be on its way to a definite diglossia (Ljosland 2007, 2008, 2011). In
these studies, Ljosland mentions doctoral work, and reports that English is
seen as more prestigious than Norwegian in PhD thesis writing. Research-
ers in Norway see the advantages of writing their theses in English: Easier
employability and establishing for themselves a position in their fields. The
majority of the researchers that took part in the study had not even reflected
on the choice of language since English was the natural choice. The results
of the study show clearly that English is favored over Norwegian in scien-
tific publications as the medium of instruction, and that it finds political
support. English is the high-status (H) language in Norway today, leaving
Norwegian as the low-status (L) language in some respects. Since PhD
theses are high status publications, the preferred language for them is the H
variety, which is English. Although there are still fields where writing a
PhD thesis in Norwegian is acceptable, English dominates in the majority
of fields. Academic communities are seen as different from other social
uses of the English language in the sense that the former are easier to regu-
late by law. If it were necessary, the government could introduce laws to
promote parallel usage of English and Norwegian in academia (Simonsen
2005: 249). With all being said, this is not fully realistic concerning the
internationalization of higher education. Ljosland’s results are not unex-
pected, either, since PhD theses in Norway do not have a tradition of being
written in Norwegian, especially not in natural sciences.
It is clear from the reactions covered in the previous two paragraphs that
in this kind of perspective, the focus is on resisting English, thereby Eng-
lishization as it is seen in the mentioned studies, and not necessarily on the
needs of those that need a common language to operate in, e.g., scholarly
activity (Mauranen 2005: 271). Some of these criticisms are made regard-
less of what kind of English might be the one used for international com-
munication (Mauranen 2005: 271). One such recent work is Van Parijs’
work on linguistic justice (Van Parijs 2011). 3
Although Van Parijs is in favor of (English as) a lingua franca for the
sake of egalitarian global justice, he argues that one lingua franca creates
injustice, simply due to the fact that those who have the lingua franca, in
this case English, get it for free unlike those who need to acquire it with

3. See Björkman 2012b for a review of Van Parijs 2011.

 1.3 Globalization and multilingualism in Europe 21

much effort, time and money. In his monograph, Van Parijs offers a number
of policies to combat this type of linguistic injustice, including a linguistic
tax on Anglophone countries in order to subsidize the learning of it by non-
native speakers and the banning of dubbing altogether. Surely, the most
provocative measure he proposes is the idea of imposing a linguistic tax on
native speakers. He sees this necessary to achieve linguistic justice and to
compensate those who have had to learn English as a foreign language. He
further argues that non-Anglophone countries need to be protected by the
linguistic territoriality principle (Van Parijs 2011: 133), which refers to
native language groups in multilingual countries having the right to give
their language the official language status in their territory in domains such
as public administration, education etc. Van Parijs sees this principle central
to linguistic justice.
Various studies, however, have challenged the claims that English poses
a serious threat to local languages. An early survey carried out on the po-
tential language choice of the citizens of the EU states investigated the role
of English and questioned whether it could be the lingua franca of the EU
(Labrie and Quell 1997). The study was a large-scale European survey and
contacted members of the younger and older generations. The results
showed a general increase in the use of English and its dominance in gen-
eral, but altogether, an English-only Europe was seen as very unlikely (La-
brie and Quell 1997: 22). This did not automatically suggest that multilin-
gualism would be on the increase; however, there was not enough evidence
to say that the local languages were under threat. In a more recent study, the
same assumption was challenged. House argued against the so-called lan-
guage loss due to the omni-presence of English (House 2003a). She made a
distinction between ‘languages for communication’ and ‘languages for
identification’. House argued that those who speak English in lingua franca
situations are very unlikely to regard it as a language of identification (see
however section 5.2 in the present monograph for quotes that show that
ELF can also be used by non-native speakers to signal their non-native
speaker identity) (see section 6.3 for a brief discussion of ELF being a tool
to express culture and identity). English does have a very strong position in
the EU, but this is by no means a formal and official condition. According
to House’s distinction of languages for identification and communication,
English would not be a threat (House 2003a: 562). She supports this by
presenting empirical research findings from three different research pro-
jects carried out in Hamburg. The results of these three studies suggest that
English could not be threatening the local language: Native norms were
22 1 Introduction

followed in translation, ELF interactions showed L1 presence, and L1 was

included in English-medium instruction (House 2003a: 571). House sug-
gests that instead of fighting the already powerful position of English or
welcoming it without looking into its possible effects, we should accept
hybridity and using English creatively (House 2003a: 574). Whether we
welcome English without considering its effects or not, as long as the inter-
nationalization of higher education continues, and as long as English re-
mains the most well-known second language, it is here to stay.
More studies have argued that English does not pose a particular threat.
In a study of the case of English in Switzerland, no such effects of English
were found to be under way (Demont-Heinrich 2005). Switzerland is an
interesting setting for such studies since it is a multilingual setting. Multi-
lingualism in Switzerland has survived despite the increasingly strong posi-
tion English has in the country. To a great extent, this is seen as a conse-
quence of the protection and establishment of multilingualism as one of the
basic components of the Swiss national identity by the government
(Demont-Heinrich 2005: 66). This indicates that these speakers can speak
English when needed and at the same time keep their multilingual national
identity.
Now let us turn to the second question I mentioned in the beginning of
this section: Does the use of English have a negative effect on learning in
the university-instruction domain, and if so, is this avoidable? Concerns are
raised about domain loss and diglossia and the teaching and learning of
content when students are taught in a foreign language. This is a question
raised in a smaller number of studies compared to the studies on the first
question. There has been relatively little work on this matter, some of
which come from outside Europe (Gerber et al. 2005; Neville-Barton and
Barton 2005), and some from the Netherlands (Klaassen 2001; Vinke
1995). The general findings of these studies point to negative effects of
changing the medium of instruction from the local language to English
(Gerber et al. 2005; Klaassen 2001; Neville-Barton and Barton 2005; Vinke
1995) with the exception of one study of longitudinal nature which found
that the negative effects of learning in a foreign language actually disap-
peared within the same year (Klaassen 2001). This is certainly an important
finding, as most higher education programs are spread through at least two
years.
 1.3 Globalization and multilingualism in Sweden 23

1.3.3. Globalization and multilingualism in Sweden

Some of the studies on the effects of globalization focused on the situation

in Sweden. The same type of questions have been raised in these studies:
Whether English has a negative effect on the local language Swedish, lead-
ing to diglossia and domain loss, and whether the use of English affects the
teaching and learning negatively.
It is quite natural that voices are raised about the preservation of Swe-
dish since Swedish is a small language with about nine million speakers
only. On this, there are two views. According to the first view, Swedish is
either on its way to being lost because of its increasingly limited use, losing
to English. According to the second view, there might be some restricted
loss of Swedish, but this is not likely to change the position Swedish has
whereever it is used.
Among those who questioned the dominance of English in Sweden is
Hyltenstam. He argues in an early work that the dominance of English in
higher status domains, e.g. academia, threatens Swedish and it might even
lead to a social split in society where English is used in high-status domains
and Swedish in low-status ones (Hyltenstam 1999). Hyltenstam fears that
English might take over in Sweden in government affairs as a consequence
of its position in the EU, leading to the death of Swedish. Skutnabb-Kangas
and Phillipson are two other scholars who have similar concerns. They
discuss the neutrality of English as a vehicular language and the equality of
the other 11 official languages4 of the EU and refer to this neutrality as a
myth (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 2000). In their perspective, similar
to what Phillipson covered in other work (section 1.3.1.), English is by no
means an equal language for people from all backgrounds. It may be open-
ing doors to some, but it certainly closes them to many others (Skutnabb-
Kangas and Phillipson 2000: 71). The term ‘language spread’, they argue,
is not an accurate reflection of what is happening to English. To Skutnabb-
Kangas and Phillipson, it is a misleading term since it suggests no doers of
the action. Calling it a world language is equally misleading and is inap-
propriate practice, they say, since it ignores all the citizens of the world
who do not speak English.
An essential preliminary in any discussion of ‘language spread’ is
Widdowson’s very useful dichotomy of ‘language spread’ and ‘language

4. At the time of their publication.

24 1 Introduction

distribution’ (Widdowson 1997). Language spread is defined as “the virtual

language being spread and in the process variously actualized” whereas
“the distribution of the actual language implies adoption and conformity”
(Widdowson 1997: 139). The two processes, Widdowson explains, differ
greatly from each other with respect to their nature. Language spread wel-
comes adaptation (not conformity) whereas, as noted here, distributing a
language suggests adopting a set norm and conforming to it. In this sense,
the two processes cannot co-exist (Widdowson 1997: 139). What
Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson are concerned about, in this respect, is
language distribution and not language spread.
In another study carried out after Hyltenstam and Skutnabb-Kangas, the
two possible consequences of the dominance of English in Sweden are
given as domain loss in Sweden and ‘genre death’ (Gunnarsson 2001). Eng-
lish seems to be used not only in academia but in the streets of Sweden as
well. Hult reported that English is appropriated in daily conversation in the
streets of Sweden, so it is used in public and interpersonal domains as well
as high status domains (Hult 2003: 60, 2007).
The assumption that English is a threat to Swedish does not find support
from all. Among those who have investigated the use of English in Sweden
are scholars who have analyzed the use of English in different domains. A
study that investigated how and to what extent English is used in Sweden’s
élite domains showed that English is not used exclusively; it is actually far
from being fully dominant functionally, and it is not likely to affect lan-
guage ideology in the élite domains it appears in (Berg et al. 2001). There-
fore, diglossia is not the most appropriate term for what Sweden is going
towards linguistically (Berg et al. 2001: 315).
If we consider the influence of English in Swedish, we see three main
areas: Borrowing words from English, the phenomenon of code-switching
and domain loss (Josephson 2004: 7). The present monograph is not direct-
ly concerned with any of these areas although it looks at a domain said to
have been lost. Among the three areas mentioned, domain loss is possibly
the most serious one (Josephson 2004: 12), which makes a discussion of it
useful here. Domain loss takes place when a language can no longer be
used in a specific domain. It is important to note that although it is the lan-
guage that does not get to be used in a certain domain, it is the speakers of
that language that suffer from its serious consequences (Josephson 2004:
13). Therefore, it is suggested that it is not the efforts to “save and keep a
language intact” that should take precedence but the social situation of the
individuals who find themselves in complex situations where they cannot
 1.3 Globalization and multilingualism in Sweden 25

use the domain language effectively. Josephson draws attention to those

situations where speakers cannot fully perform because they cannot use
their mother tongue in that domain (Josephson 2004: 14). In a way, this
resembles the social division generated by Latin between common public
and the élite (section 1.2). This social dimension needs to be handled with
caution.
The term domain loss, I believe, should be used with caution. There are
domains Swedish has never had; such a domain is Information Technology.
Since Swedish, or any language, cannot have lost a domain it has never
had, those who are discussing domain loss (e.g. Gunnarsson 2011) must be
concerned about the inability to extend Swedish to a certain domain. In this
sense, domain loss is a misleading term.
While warning us about domain loss, Josephson sees little reason to be
concerned about the Swedish language in the foreseeable future. Among
the reasons for this are the high literacy rate in the country, relatively large
numbers of Swedish speakers in and outside Sweden as well as comprehen-
sive descriptions of its rules for spelling, stable syntax and sentence formu-
lations (Josephson 2004: 14). Josephson, referring to the five stages of lan-
guage loss from a ‘domain’ point of view, says that Sweden is in stage 1
and possibly 2, but also that there is little reason to think that this will con-
tinue:

Stage 1: English becomes the dominant language in a number of

domains, e.g. in natural sciences.
Stage 2: The position and dominance of English in some domains
become stabilized. It becomes common knowledge that English is
the language that is used in these domains instead of the mother
tongue.
Stage 3: English becomes the dominant language in many or all
domains, which causes a large population of people to be bilingual.
Stage 4: English with a Swedish influence becomes the norm and
this becomes a variety.
Stage 5: This variety divides itself to variations of it, which makes
the Swedish English even more established as the standard lan-
guage.

Josephson says Swedish has slowly started to move into the territory of
Stage 2; however, this information is from 2004. It is hard to gauge degrees
26 1 Introduction

of such stabilization, but eight years later, especially looking at higher edu-
cation, e.g. in engineering, we see that Swedish is in Stage 2.5
None of the studies I have mentioned in this section so far have been
carried out recently, with the exception of Hult’s dissertation work from
2007 (Hult 2007). Why this is so is unclear, and to my knowledge, has not
been discussed elsewhere. However, there are possible reasons. First of all,
most concerns are about the use of English in élite domains. There is now
empirical research that shows that using English does not necessarily
threaten multilingualism or the local language in certain settings, e.g. high-
er education settings. Using English as a medium in a university program
does not automatically mean there is no room for the native languages of
the lecturers and students in that setting. Söderlundh, in her ethnographic
study of English-medium programs in Sweden, reports that lecturers and
students do use English as a de facto lingua franca in their interactions, but
they use other languages as well, depending on their needs (Söderlundh
2012: 87). In fact, this is her main finding. Her observations show that par-
ticipants choose the language depending on their local or social needs,
choosing the “path of least linguistic resistance”, in turn displaying sub-
stantial variation in their use of languages (Söderlundh 2012: 105). She, in
a way, shows how global polices are adapted locally by the participants in
that setting, which she highlights in the title of her study6. Söderlundh’s
paper is from a journal special issue that has as its topic the language
choice in the international university.7 Other papers in the same special
issue (e.g. Risager 2012), either explicitly or implicitly, show the multilin-
gual nature of English-medium universities. While the editors Haberland
and Mortensen are critical towards “an unquestioning acceptance of Eng-
lish as the ‘natural choice’ of language in a world with increased transna-
tional contacts”, they end their introduction to this special issue by saying

5. Bolton and Kuteeva’s survey results from Stockholm University show clearly
that the use of English in the Sciences “is a pragmatic reality for both teachers
and students alike” (Bolton and Kuteeva 2012: 444).
6. Global policies and local norms: Sociolinguistic awareness and language choice
at an international university. See References for further details.
7. This special issue is an outcome of the 2008 conference on transnational student
mobility, organized by the CALPIU (Cultural and Linguistic Practices in the In-
ternational University) research center. The conference led way to two other
publications: An edited volume (Preisler et al. 2011) and a journal special issue
(Björkman 2011).
 1.3 Globalization and multilingualism in Sweden 27

that “the situation in academia in the present “cannot be described as Eng-

lish swamping all the other languages, marginalizing them or making them
redundant” (Haberland and Mortensen 2012: 5). In this sense, it does not
seem like there is much reason to be concerned when it comes to the lin-
guistic diversity of international university settings, as long as there is a
wide spectrum of languages in play.
The reason for fewer studies on the perceived threat of English could al-
so be that those concerned have shifted their focus to language policy doc-
uments, some of which are rather ‘L1 protective’. Language policy issues
are not central to the present monograph; however, they are highly relevant
in that the results of research on ELF from university settings should be
factored in the design and implementation of language policies. I will dis-
cuss these issues in Chapter 6.
Turning to the second question, whether the use of English as the medi-
um of instruction affects learning negatively, has been discussed but re-
searched to a rather limited extent. If we look slightly outside the Swedish
frame at the studies carried out in Scandinavia, we see some work concern-
ing higher education in the form of surveys which deal with the extent to
which a second language is used in educational situations or have focused
on the language learning effects of such teaching (Hellekjær and
Westergaard 2003; Tella, Räsänen and Vähäpassi 1999; Wilson 2002).
When it comes to Sweden, there has been some work on how students learn
in English as opposed to learning in their mother tongue Swedish. In
Airey’s thesis on the teaching and learning of physics in Swedish and Eng-
lish, the subjects reported no significant difficulty with English as the me-
dium of instruction. Nor did they think that the choice of language was
important. Despite what they said, Airey’s investigation showed that they
were less able to explain disciplinary concepts in English, to interact in
lectures as they asked and answered fewer questions in lectures given in
English, or to take notes and follow the lecture simultaneously (Airey
2009). Apart from Airey’s study, there are two smaller studies on the effects
of language on learning (Karlgren and Hansen 2003; Söderlundh 2004).
Both these studies have looked into written work. Their conclusions are
very similar: Students are greatly disadvantaged by having to read in an-
other language. Söderlundh showed that students who received tuition in
Swedish reached a deeper understanding of the content compared to the
ones who were subjected to English (Söderlundh 2005).
28 1 Introduction

1.3.4. The answer: English as a lingua franca

As I mentioned in the introductory notes to this chapter, there is another

perspective one could adopt with regard to the widespread use of English in
Europe today. Using English in a number of international domains does not
have to mean Englishization or Americanization nor does it have to be
linked to linguistic imperialism, provided that efforts are made in validating
and legitimizing its use by its non-native speakers. This brings the need to
describe its use by its non-native speakers from different L1 backgrounds
in international settings. This area is defined as English as a Lingua Franca
(ELF), when English is used by those who need it as a vehicular language
to communicate with each other.
ELF usage must be investigated for a number of reasons, the first of
which is theoretical (Mauranen 2005: 273). ELF has the same purpose with
pidgins and creoles (see the beginning of this chapter), which is the im-
portant purpose of enabling communication for speakers of different L1
backgrounds. In this sense, for this theoretical reason, it deserves to be
studied just like pidgins and creoles. We have already seen from the ELF
research available so far that the results and benefits of ELF research fall
nothing short of the interesting results of research on pidgins and creoles
(Chapter 2). ELF speakers come from highly diverse backgrounds, and the
number of speakers who use English as a lingua franca will only continue
to increase. This creates a complex linguistic scene, which is worthy of
detailed descriptions.
ELF does have the same purpose with pidgin and creoles; at the same
time, there are important differences between the two kinds of contact lan-
guages (see section 1.1). ELF differs also from the use of English as a na-
tive language (ENL). In this sense, it needs to be studied for linguistic de-
scriptions to be available (Mauranen 2005: 273) and to be able to observe
these differences. We need to see the kind of variations from ENL usage,
adaptations to it and creativity in ELF usage. With these variations, adapta-
tions and creative usage, ELF has already challenged dated norms, such as
native speaker as the ideal target. ELF settings are by nature heterogeneous.
Accordingly, in today’s heterogeneous world, we need heterogeneous lin-
guistic models (Canagarajah 2006: 211). With linguistic descriptions of
ELF available, it already has been to some extent, and will be even more so
in the future, possible to understand how communicative effectiveness can
be achieved and what the norm should be for ELF settings.
 1.3 Globalization and multilingualism in Sweden 29

With more information available, it will be possible to equip those who

need to operate in ELF settings with the skills they need to achieve com-
municative effectiveness. In academic settings, which is the focus in the
present monograph, there is a great need for descriptions of the type of
communication that takes place in international university settings, to be
able to provide the support needed for students and lecturers. Academia
lends itself nicely to such detailed linguistic investigations, as it is and has
always been international by nature (Mauranen 2012:1). Most academic
settings are of a high-stakes nature where individuals from different L1
backgrounds need a well-functioning common language to meet the de-
mands of academia. Most academics do research, solve problems and de-
vise solutions, present their research in international conferences, publish
their findings in international journals and network in a number of ways
with other researchers, and teach. Students in higher education settings
attend lectures, work in groups with other students on tasks that have been
assigned to them, and they present their work in spoken or written form.
The demands on academics and students are high when performing these
acts and interacting with each other while doing so, and all these acts can
be performed by means of a common language that functions as a lingua
franca among these individuals. Such dynamic use of the language for such
important purposes further make academic settings ideal for linguistic in-
vestigations.
Any university with aspirations to become truly international will need
to understand the dynamics of international communication, in this case,
communication among people of different L1 backgrounds. With proper
descriptions of ELF, it will be possible to do this in a number of ways. One
way is EAP/ESP instruction for students and teachers. ELF research will
provide information on what to prioritize, and deprioritize, in the EAP/ESP
classroom. Another way is through better decisions made at higher levels,
presupposing that there is awareness of the importance of language issues
and interest in bettering the every day lives of lecturers, students and other
personnel who need to operate through the medium of English. Decision
makers at higher levels will be provided with more information regarding
the type of communication that takes place in international university set-
tings, resulting in better decisions, provided that this information is com-
municated to them. Such important decisions mainly deal with providing
support for staff and students, setting university English language require-
ments for admission, and producing language policy documents.
30 1 Introduction

With this monograph, I provide a detailed description of ELF usage in

an academic setting and explore the ways in which speakers achieve com-
municative effectiveness, thus adding to existing knowledge on ELF.
Chapter 2
Previous research on ELF

In the preceding chapter, I gave a brief review of the journey English has
had in becoming the language of science and technology after Latin and
other languages. I also discussed the notion of globalization briefly along
with ideological reactions to globalization in the world and in Sweden, the
setting of the present monograph. I turned, at the end of the chapter, to the
English as a lingua franca (ELF) perspective and argued that globalization
does not necessarily mean Englishization or Americanization. Clearly,
when saying so, I do not mean to deny the colonial past or capitalist present
that English has (see Seidlhofer 2011: xi). When speakers of different L1
backgrounds communicate through ELF however, they do not seem to be
under much influence of its native cultures; they communicate without
“becoming anglicized–if anything, they are ‘de-anglicizing’ their English’”
(Seidlhofer 2011: xi). I hope to show this clearly with the several accounts
of ELF interactions I present in Chapters 4 and 5. Most ELF speakers in
high-stakes situations are focused on the result rather than the process; they
simply want to get the job done. The use of English by its non-native
speakers must be legitimized and validated, and ELF usage needs to be
described thoroughly for several reasons I mentioned in the previous chap-
ter.
In this chapter, I will provide an overview of some of the most signifi-
cant ELF studies from recent years. My aim here is not to provide an ex-
haustive overview including all ELF studies to date from all levels of lan-
guage, which would be close to impossible because of the growing output
of publications on ELF, especially in the past decade. Instead, I will focus
on the dimensions, modes, settings and domains that are of immediate rele-
vance to the present monograph.
Since the appearance of the first ELF studies (Jenkins 2000; Mauranen
2003; Seidlhofer 2001), the proliferation of investigations that have been
carried out on different aspects of it has been dramatic. The increasing use
of English as a lingua franca in a wide range of settings opens up possibili-
ties for carrying out studies of a varying nature. Documenting these differ-
ent types of studies is, therefore, no easy matter. The literature could be
reviewed by taking any of these aspects as organizational criteria: Dimen-
sion (form, pragmatics etc.), mode (speaking, writing etc.), countries (dif-
32 2 Previous research on ELF

ferent L1s), domains (business, technology etc.), levels of proficiency, me-

dia of communication (phone conversations, e-mails etc.), purposes, topic
type or method of data collection/analysis. The work that has been done in
the field so far has focused generally on more than one of these aspects;
therefore, it is hard to draw sharp distinctions.
The review I will provide here will thus be organized with reference to
the normative elements. After a brief discussion on what normative ele-
ments refer to, our focus will first be on work without normative elements,
i.e. studies on pragmatics, and then we will shift to works including norma-
tive elements, i.e. studies on form. Later on, I will discuss studies that have
combined pragmatics and form, followed by attitude and irritation studies.

2.1. The relevance of normative elements in ELF research

Those who speak English as a lingua franca throughout the world are in a
constant state of flux, the number of first languages is enormous, and there
is frequent contact in English among speakers of other L1s. For optimal
communicative effectiveness, different ELF situations need to be described,
outlining general tendencies and commonalities of usage, providing infor-
mation for those who need to function in such settings on a daily basis. We
do know that speakers from the outer circle speak their own variety of Eng-
lish (Kachru 1982), but the ones that are in the expanding circle display a
large variety of usage, and the way these speakers use English too needs to
be investigated in its own right.
Such an investigation within speech can be carried out either contras-
tively or descriptively. If we consider the different dimensions mentioned
in the previous section, it is quite natural that work on the morphosyntactic
dimension needs to be done contrastively. Most studies investigating dif-
ferent elements within morphosyntax have taken the native speaker produc-
tion as the yardstick, which is not a waterproof approach. The native speak-
er yardstick does not always lend itself to reliable comparisons, because
there are forms used by native speakers that are considered non-standard
according to prescriptive grammars. Examples of such forms are Heads and
Tails a.k.a. Pre- and Post-dislocation (section 4.1). These forms are perfect-
ly common forms within speech but are not parts of language instruction
since they are not standard forms in written discourse (Mauranen 2007). So
in cases where the yardstick is not the native speaker, simply because the
non-native speaker group is extremely heterogeneous or because there is no
 2.1 The relevance of normative elements 33

comparable corpus, comparisons have been made with the written standard
(Carter and McCarthy 2006: 164; Simpson et al. 2002). Applying the writ-
ten standard to speech is undoubtedly highly questionable (section 5.2), but
it seems to be the practice when no other standard is available.
Another question regarding norms is how unitary ELF usage is. Re-
search results from different settings document commonalities, but differ-
ences are observed in different dimensions. It is unlikely that an informal
conversation at a train station somewhere in Europe (James 2000) would be
similar to what speakers would do in an academic setting in Scandinavia,
such as the current setting here. Therefore, the requirements for successful
communication should be rethought with reference to different settings,
levels of proficiency, activities etc.

2.2. Work without normative elements: Pragmatics

Most of the research into ELF has been descriptive. A part of this descrip-
tive work has been carried out on the level of pragmatics. Some of the ear-
lier works on ELF actually were within pragmatics, arising from the need
to understand how non-native speakers of English communicate with each
other. These descriptive studies were carried out mostly without normative
or comparative elements. However, some studies have made references to
how native speakers communicate in similar situations. It is important to
point out that these studies included comparative native corpora to observe
what native speakers do in similar situations and in principle not because
what native speakers do should be the norm for ELF speakers to adhere to.
In this section, we will examine ELF research within pragmatics from early
days to present day.
The first studies that focused on ELF pragmatics were carried out dif-
ferently compared to the more recent empirical ELF studies (see a discus-
sion on this in Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011). Among the earliest of
these pragmatic studies were by Firth (Firth 1990, 1996) and House (1999).
In Firth’s study, Danish export managers’ and their clients’ business tele-
phone conversations were investigated through conversation analysis. The
conversations are strictly work-related, focusing on the buying and selling
of food and micro-electronics. Firth’s general findings showed that these
business lingua franca conversations were perfectly normal, meaningful
and ordinary. The speakers in the audio-recorded data have two main aims:
To sell the goods through successful talk and meanwhile make the talk
34 2 Previous research on ELF

normal and ordinary despite the occurrence of grammatical infelicities such

as unidiomatic clause constructions along with prosodic and pronunciation
variants (Firth 1996: 242). It is of particular interest that a misunderstand-
ing occurs in one of the conversations between two speakers and that nei-
ther of these speakers seems to reveal any awareness of it, possibly because
their main aim is the selling and buying of the goods.
The main difference between this study and empirical ELF work today
is the approach to ELF usage: Firth investigated NNS communication and
demonstrated that despite the non-standard usage by low-proficiency ex-
port managers and their clients and despite their non-native speaker status,
they were able to communicate with each other effectively. Firth’s take on
ELF is thus the use of English by low-proficiency speakers and how they
use English successfully as a lingua franca despite their non-native usage,
taking native usage as the ideal target (see Jenkins 2011: 928; Jenkins,
Cogo and Dewey 2011: 286 for criticisms of this take on ELF). This is
quite a difference from more recent empirical ELF studies, where the na-
tive/non-native dichotomy has been shown to be an unreliable yardstick
(e.g. Björkman 2011).
Firth’s study showed, however, a number of strategies which the speak-
ers in this ELF business situation made use of when they communicated
with each other. The first of these is termed the Let-it-pass strategy, where
speakers let an unclear word or utterance pass. They choose to avoid a po-
tentially problematic situation and prioritize building a common ground
before they ask for any clarification. The second strategy is the Make it
normal strategy. Such a case can be identified by the hearer treating the
speaker’s non-standard usage as normal. The hearer focuses on the content
instead and produces reformulations of the other’s opaque usage. There
were very few cases of what is known as other repair, which would mean
focusing on the form and not the message the speaker wants to convey in
the conversation. On the basis of the observations from the material, it is
suggested that these interactions have a quality of interactional robustness,
i.e. this kind of interaction seems to be robust and can withstand non-
standard production. The interactants do “interactional work” as Firth terms
it and focus on communicative effectiveness (Firth 1996: 256). A study that
was carried out after Firth’s first work (1990) also analyzed business phone
conversations between speakers of different European L1s (Gramkow An-
dresen 1993)4. The findings reported similar cooperativeness between
speakers, focusing on the message and not the form. The speakers in ELF
conversations seemed to adopt their own style.
 2.2 Work without normative elements 35

Firth’s work was followed by House’s study on misunderstandings in

intercultural communication (1999). House focused on a classroom setting
to study ELF communication; however, the setting was a simulated one set
up for research purposes and did not lend itself to authentic communica-
tion. The participants did not really feel the need to communicate most
likely because of the nature of the setting where there was nothing at stake.
They did not engage in serious conversation or use the strategies that we
now know are used frequently in spoken ELF communication to achieve
effectiveness (see e.g. Björkman 2011; Kaur 2009; Mauranen 2006b).
House suggested the concept of pragmatic fluency in this study and stat-
ed that pragmatic fluency did not require conforming to ENL norms and
that ELF speakers can be pragmatically fluent in their own ways without
following ENL patterns. The five different performance criteria for prag-
matic fluency were suggested to be (House 1999: 151):

1. Appropriate use of routine pragmatic phenomena

2. Ability to initiate topics and topic change, making use of appropriate
routines
3. Ability to “carry weight” in a conversation
4. Ability to show turn-taking, replying/responding
5. Appropriate rate of speech, types of filled and unfilled pauses, frequen-
cy and function of repairs

Another study that made reference to native usage was Meierkord’s

(2000). Meierkord analyzed small talk conversations among non-native
speakers of English who all used English as a lingua franca (Meierkord
2000). The corpus comprised conversations of a total of 13.5 hours in a
student hall of residence in Great Britain, with speakers from 17 different
first language backgrounds. The findings show differences on the level of
pragmatics from the native speaker varieties BrE and AmE with reference
to discourse structure and politeness phenomena. This work is not com-
parative, i.e. the investigation is not of two comparable corpora, but refer-
ences were made to general native-speaker usage. Lingua franca speakers
did not seem to link their opening phrases to the “core phase” of the con-
versations. Pauses instead were rather frequent, especially before the con-
versations end, to make the transition clear (Meierkord 2000: 7). The par-
ticipants’ preference for safe topics is also striking, e.g. life in the hostel,
meals, jobs, or their university classes. Most topics were changed after less
than 10 turns. Another interesting finding was the occurrence of overlap,
36 2 Previous research on ELF

which varied greatly according to the speakers. One aspect of the partici-
pants’ speech that was reminiscent of that of native speakers was back-
channeling behavior, albeit with the addition of supportive laughter. The
specific characteristics of ELF conversations in this setting then can be
summarized as the lack of linking closing and opening phases of conversa-
tions to the main part of the conversation, preference for safe topics, the
presence of long pauses within and in-between turns, the use of politeness
phenomena and backchanneling similar to NS usage. Meierkord concludes
by saying that the linguistic behavior of the participants in her study seems
to be shaped by two main principles, namely participants wishing to save
face and participants supporting each other with supportive discursive be-
havior in the form of backchanneling, supportive laughter and excessive
use of cajolers (Meierkord 2000: 10). This appears to indicate that ELF
small-talk communication can be characterized by cooperativeness rather
than by ineffectiveness or misunderstandings, which Firth’s, House’s and
Meierkord’s studies have in common.
Further investigation of pragmatic fluency investigated along with the
‘habitat’ factor (Bourdieu 1991) in ELF interactions and cultural identity
show that where the interaction takes place is decisive on the significance
of culture for communication (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006). Pölzl and Seid-
lhofer define habitat as “the setting which interlocutors recognize as their
own” (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006: 155). They investigated the setting with
specific reference to House’s first and fourth performance criteria men-
tioned earlier here. The setting investigated was the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan, and the participants were Arabic speakers at the Department of
Modern Languages, interacting in their own habitat in the form of sponta-
neous talk. The study is somewhat atypical as regards its subjects and set-
ting: Arabic speakers speaking English in Jordan. The subjects transferred
their native language communicative norms to their ELF-like interaction.
They displayed a high rate of speech and frequent overlap and code-
switching, which was not perceived as irritating or inappropriate by the rest
of the participants. The overall conclusion is that although ELF is the use
of English by speakers of different L1s, local pragmatic norms apply in
interactive situations where speakers are mainly from one culture. In the
case of this study, all the speakers were from the same culture, and the in-
teractions took place in their homeland. Pölzl and Seidlhofer refer to this
situation and suggest that the speaker can make himself/herself more at
home in the foreign language if the setting is the home territory. They point
to the habitat factor as an important socio-psychological effect of a speech
 2.2 Work without normative elements 37

event (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006: 172). Their findings are in accordance
with earlier findings mentioned here: Speakers in ELF situations do not
need to conform to ENL culture, and due to the heterogeneous nature of
these situations, they generally cannot rely on their own culture either, but
they do if they can (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006: 173). From this type of
study, one could perhaps extrapolate that the interactional patterns adopted
by mainly or only Europeans might be difficult for other cultures. It seems
like speakers keep their cultural identities by the type of linguistic behavior
described above. More recent studies that have followed report similar
results (Cogo 2010; Klimpfinger 2009). Especially code-switching as a
strategy has been reported to be a way of signaling cultural identity (see
Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2011). In addition to these cultural studies,
some recent work has focused on how speakers from different backgrounds
communicate using ELF (Kaur 2011; Pullin Stark 2009). These studies
have focused on the speakers’ turn-taking behavior (Kaur 2011) and ob-
served supportive behavior, willingness to achieve common ground and
interactional support that enables effective communication (Kaur 2011;
Pullin Stark 2009).
Another strategy mentioned among those employed by ELF speakers is
repetition (Cogo 2009; Lichtkoppler 2007; Mauranen 2006b). Mauranen
mentions repetition along with clarification and self-repair as proactive
strategies that ELF speakers use. Lichtkoppler identifies three types of rep-
etition with reference to the scale of fixity: Exact repetition (a.k.a. verbatim
or full repetition), repetition with variation (a.k.a. non-exact repetition or
partial repetition) and paraphrasing (Lichtkoppler 2007: 43–44). In this
investigation of conversations recorded at the office of a student exchange
organization, a number of types of repetition were observed and grouped
according to their functions, i.e. repetition for time-gaining, utterance de-
veloping, repetition for prominence, repetition that ensures accuracy, repe-
tition that signals listenership and establishes cohesion. All these types of
repetition are reported to have three main functions, namely helping the
participants with language production, supporting mutual understanding
and enabling participants to show their attitudes and opinion (Lichtkoppler
2007: 59). Similarly, Kaur shows how the university students in her Malay-
sian corpus employ repetition (along with paraphrasing) as a frequently
used strategy to communicate effectively, especially after long silences,
short responses and overlaps (2009). Björkman’s university corpus reveals
similar results (2011); engineering students use repetition often to make
themselves understood and to ensure that the message has been received. It
38 2 Previous research on ELF

can be suggested on the basis of these findings then that repetition is a

strategy ELF speakers employ frequently to make successful conversations
despite differences in culture and language backgrounds.
A plethora of reports on the communicative effectiveness of ELF speak-
ers have been produced over the last fifteen years. An investigation of in-
ternational students’ interactions in simulated meeting situations showed
that the students in these meetings were able to communicate in a pattern
which at first seemed chaotic but then proved to be quite systematic
(Lesznyák 2002). The students seemed to develop a dynamic topic man-
agement skill, which enabled them, without much trouble, to find common
ground and make decisions.
A critical question to address is obviously the issue of understanding
and the resolution of non-understanding in ELF settings. One might expect
that interaction in a language which is non-native for all participants would
be ineffective or at least inefficient. However, the findings from the litera-
ture reveal otherwise. A study providing examples from a business setting
indicated that ELF speech in business settings seemed to be characterized
by interactional and pragmatic effectiveness (Pitzl 2005). Pitzl defines un-
derstanding as “not a passive ability, but an interactive and jointly con-
structed process which is dynamic and cooperative and which all partici-
pants of a conversation continuously engage in” (Pitzl 2005: 52). So under-
standing is constructed by the joint efforts of the speaker and the listener.
As much as this is true for any type of spoken interaction, it has been re-
ported as a typical characteristic of ELF interaction (Firth 1996; Meierkord
1996, 2002; Seidlhofer 2001). In this study, the speakers had a relatively
successful way of asking for clarification when non-understanding oc-
curred and they did so without interrupting the communication. The ones
who provided clarification also seemed to be able communicators and gave
precisely the right kind of information needed for the interaction to contin-
ue (Pitzl 2005: 14).
The communicative effectiveness of speakers in ELF situations finds
support in research based on ELFA data (www.eng.helsinki.fi/elfa). Mis-
understandings overall were not as common as one would perhaps expect
them to be in ELF situations (Mauranen 2006b). As mentioned briefly ear-
lier, what appeared to be characteristic of ELF interactions was the effort
put into preventing misunderstanding through self-repairs, clarifications
and repetitions. However, when misunderstandings did occur, the clearest
signals that indicated them were direct questions, repetitions of problematic
items and other, more indirect signals of misunderstanding, i.e. minimal
 2.2 Work without normative elements 39

incomprehension signal “mhm?” repetition of a single item and some ques-

tions. Misunderstandings were resolved by the frequent occurrence of self-
repairs, co-construction, repetition and clarifications, all of which are lin-
guistic signs of the effort ELF speakers put into the situation (Mauranen
2006b: 146). It is interesting to note that there were no cases of interactive
grammatical correction; however, there were self-repairs that were refor-
mulations of grammar. This seemed to be a difference between ELFA data
and the data from the MICASE corpus including mostly native-speaker
speech that some of the findings were compared to (Simpson et al., 2002).
The MICASE data included no syntactic reformulations but rather para-
phrases of longer statements. Based on these findings from ELFA data in
general, it is maintained that ELF speakers spend considerable effort to
ensure mutual understanding (Mauranen 2006b: 146).
Data from the ELFA corpus demonstrate further that both economy and
creativity are qualities of lingua franca English along with explicitness
through (self)-rephrasing and topic negotiation (Mauranen 2007). When the
results were compared with MICASE, it became clear that rephrasing
markers occurred many times more often than in NS speech. ELF speakers
used fewer rephrasing markers, e.g. I mean, but they used them much more
often than the speakers in MICASE data (Mauranen 2007: 49). Another
difference lay in the choice of expression for rephrasing. The ELF speak-
ers’ choice was different from that of the MICASE speakers, and this was
not the most written-discourse-like one as might be expected but a very
everyday one. It is interesting to note that most of this rephrasing deals
with form and not meaning. When an utterance is rephrased, the chances
that the utterance will be understood increase, and ELF speakers use re-
phrasing in order to achieve clarity and comprehensibility (Mauranen 2007:
257). According to Mauranen, another way to increase explicitness was
topic negotiation, usually arising from the need to achieve successful inter-
action. Finally, discourse reflexivity, or metadiscourse (discourse about
discourse), helps speakers achieve organization within their utterances as
well as helping the speakers to achieve clarity and explicitness. Mauranen’s
findings show that discourse reflexivity occurs together with hedging ex-
pressions in ELFA data, which corresponds to what happens in native
speaker conversation in MICASE data (Mauranen 2007: 258).
All in all, in the studies we have looked at so far here, we see that
speakers in ELF settings use a variety of strategies to communicate effec-
tively. They have been reported to do so even through phonological tools.
A study on experimental ELF interactions has shown that participants pay
40 2 Previous research on ELF

attention to pitch cues both as a signal of potential “trouble source” and as a

means to indicate that negotiation or repair has taken place (Pickering
2009: 235). The study, revisited recently with naturally-occurring ELF data
(Pickering and Litzenberg 2011), provides further support that speakers in
ELF interactions use intonational signals as a resource to communicate
effectively in interaction. Although these two studies did not have ques-
tions as their focal point, they provide evidence that intonation can be an
important resource in ELF interactions.
Some studies in ELF pragmatics differ from the ones mentioned above
in terms of their results. A small number of studies reported on elements of
ineffectiveness in communication. A study reported from nine simulated
sales negotiations performed by ten international business students and
eighteen professional negotiators from different countries, and investigated
interactional safe talk and personal pronouns (Planken 2005). Interactional
safe talk is known as an important element of creating and maintaining rap-
port (Aston 1993: 226). The student negotiators had much fewer instances
of initiated safe talk unlike the professional negotiators who initiated safe
talk frequently. Moreover, the professional negotiators initiated safe talk in
all three stages of the negotiation, i.e. opening, bargaining and closing
whereas the student negotiators did so only in the opening and closing
stages if at all (Planken 2005: 389). Another difference between the two
groups of negotiators has to do with the highly personalized style the stu-
dent negotiators adopted (Planken 2005: 399). The professional negotiators
had occasional instances of personalized style in the opening and closing
stages of the negotiations; they otherwise maintained their professional
style. However, the data in this study came from simulated business negoti-
ations performed by students, and it is therefore not surprising that students
who are engaged in an activity had a more personal style unlike the profes-
sionals’ in similar situations. Because the data came from a simulated situa-
tion that was set up for research purposes and not from an authentic com-
munication situation, it is best to interpret the results accordingly. In addi-
tion, these results tell us something about the speakers’ negotiation skills
and not necessarily about ELF usage.
Another setting where communicative ineffectiveness was observed was
internal communication from two companies, Swedish and Finnish, two
corporate mergers with Swedish and Finnish as their native languages and
English as the lingua franca for communication with each other (Salminen,
Charles, and Kankaanranta 2005). The initial aim of this study was to ex-
plore how the employees were coping with cultural and linguistic challeng-
 2.2 Work without normative elements 41

es. The employees’ daily discourse was also investigated in meetings and
e-mail messages. Terming the discourse BELF, Business English Lingua
Franca, Salminen et al. point to its complex nature. It was suggested by
some earlier research that ELF is or can be cultureless (e.g. House 1999),
and the ‘culture irrelevance hypothesis’ by House suggested that national
and native language and culture adherence are eclipsed in ELF interaction
(House 1999). The approach adopted in Salminen, Charles and Kankaan-
ranta’s study is, however, that speakers in BELF settings do have a cultural
background they bring to the communicative situation, as also discussed by
Meierkord (Meierkord 2002). A survey was conducted in both companies
with reference to the communicative environment, followed by interviews.
To investigate whether the phenomena reported by the questionnaire results
and the interviews were apparent in their discourse, four video-recorded
meetings of a total of nine hours were studied. The BELF in this study
helped communication in some cases because it has no native or non-native
speakers, or learners; however, it did not ensure communicative effective-
ness since there were other elements at play. ELF was not found to be free
from culture or ownership as suggested by some in ELF literature (House
1999), and differences of cultural perceptions were observed in the dis-
course. This is similar to the arguments made by Pölzl and Seidlhofer, that
culture does play a role, but its role depends on the setting in which the
interaction actually takes place (Pölzl and Seidlhofer 2006). Some of the
differences mentioned by the participants in the questionnaire and inter-
views were observed particularly in meetings. E-mail correspondence,
however, displayed similarities across the two language/culture groups
rather than differences (Salminen, Charles, and Kankaanranta 2005: 418).
Another study on negotiations, carried out at a German university setting
where English is used as a lingua franca, reports similar results (Knapp
2011). On the surface, participants appear to be effective communicators of
the subject matter through ELF, but as soon as a range of speech acts are
involved, complications may arise. Negotiations and resolving issues re-
sulting from ineffective negotiations constitute examples of such speech
acts. The contradictory results within the pragmatics of ELF settings might
be related to the nature of the settings in which these studies were carried
out.
In addition to all the studies mentioned above, recent journal special is-
sues have been dedicated to ELF pragmatics (House 2009; Björkman
2011). Two interesting articles from House’s special issue deal with the
discourse marker you know (House 2009) and chunking in ELF (Mauranen
42 2 Previous research on ELF

2009). House shows that ELF speakers use the discourse marker you know
differently from native speakers: Instead of using it to relate to other speak-
ers in conversation, they use it to highlight a certain topic, to introduce a
new topic and to announce what they are going to move on to next. In other
words, they use it as a discourse-organizing tool. Mauranen’s work in the
special issue focuses on the notion of chunking, creating phraseological
patterns used to manage interaction. The results show that speakers in the
ELF setting described approximate their usage of chunks to conventional
forms, but they also use these chunks, especially the longer variable units,
in unconventional forms. These unconventional forms however are never
so variable that comprehensibility cannot be ensured. In addition, the regu-
larity in the usage of these unconventional forms is interesting, showing
that the speakers do not use these non-standard chunks randomly.
The second journal special issue (2011) on ELF pragmatics differs from
the first one in terms of its special focus: It focuses only on ELF in the in-
ternational university. Compared to social settings, in instructional dis-
course, the demands on communicators are considerably higher. The high-
stakes nature of instructional settings is a key issue here. In particular, us-
ing another language than one’s own for high-stakes communication re-
quires heavy investment in the communication process. Any lack of com-
munication or steering away from the topic would lead to the incompletion
of the task, and this would adversely affect the performance of the students
and/or the teachers involved. Therefore, the aim in real high-stakes interac-
tion is to communicate in a practical and functional fashion and achieve the
desired outcome. In such settings, one needs to acquire an appropriate
pragmatic competence to achieve effectiveness in communication. The
authors in the special issue focus on several important notions, such as the
definition of the successful English user (as ‘skilled user’ in Jenkins 2011
and as ‘effective communicator’ in Björkman 2011), what being an ‘inter-
national’ university should entail at different organizational levels (Björk-
man 2011, Haberland 2011, Jenkins 2011, and Knapp 2011), ownership
issues (Haberland, Jenkins), the ways in which speakers in academic ELF
settings strive to communicate successfully (Hynninen 2011 through ‘me-
diation’, Björkman 2011, through a variety of pragmatic strategies) as well
as concerns regarding the importance of cultural and linguistic elements in
successful ELF communication (Knapp 2011, Ljosland 2011). What the
articles have in common is the definition or description of the ‘effective
speaker’: Not someone whose spoken production is similar to or near a
native speaker’s but someone who is pragmatically competent (Björkman
 2.2 Work without normative elements 43

2011, Jenkins 2011). Some of the ways of achieving such pragmatic com-
petence are described as using a variety of strategies (Björkman 2011) and
mediation (Hynninen 2011). The strong message that arises from the spe-
cial issue is that calling a university ‘international’ should have implica-
tions for the language policy documents in such settings, expressed explic-
itly in Jenkins’s article (see also section 6.3 on language policy).

2.3. Work including normative elements: Form

In comparison to the great interest in a large number of studies on ELF

pragmatics, a relatively smaller number of studies have been carried out on
describing ELF as a language form, and a small part of the research has
been text-oriented. Earlier studies have pointed to a need for research on
the efficiency of ELF communication (House 2003a), the need to describe
salient features and to develop descriptive work in general in ELF (Jenkins
et al. 2002; Seidlhofer 2004) as well as the need for description and codifi-
cation and how ELF is used in European educational settings (House
2003a; Seidlhofer 2004). Significant developments have taken place in the
last five years, and systematic efforts are now made to record what is going
on linguistically in ELF situations, especially as a result of the corpus work
(e.g. ELFA and VOICE) and the consequent PhD projects.
Work on form differs from work on pragmatics with regard to the use of
norms. The yardstick for non-native speakers of English has almost exclu-
sively been the native speaker ideal when it comes to phonological and
morphosyntactic features. What is interesting about ELF usage is its diver-
gence from the varieties previously described. It is precisely the native
speaker as the ideal for international settings that is challenged by ELF
research, calling for a need for prescription based on descriptive norms that
are appropriate for international use.
Some of the work on ELF linguistic forms has focused on phonology.
Jenkins’s groundbreaking work on phonology is now well known to those
both in and outside the field (Jenkins 2000, 2002). Phonological problems
constitute an area known to create a great number of intelligibility prob-
lems. Jenkins’s description of L2 speech and assessment of which phono-
logical features cause intelligibility problems and which do not has provid-
ed us with the core and non-core areas of English phonology, respectively,
the set of sounds one needs to produce correctly in order to achieve intelli-
gible speech, and the sounds that are not essential for intelligibility. The
44 2 Previous research on ELF

aim behind Jenkins’s study is pedagogical and twofold. First, the norm for
speakers of English had always been native-speaker pronunciation, which
is not an attainable goal for all speakers of English. The norm needed to be
based on empirical evidence from appropriate speakers. The native speaker
as the ideal target is unrealistic for many international speakers of English.
The second issue concerns the standpoint in the study, which is one of the
most critical parts of this work: Non-native-likeness is described as unprob-
lematic and variation is acceptable as long as the speaker produces the core
sounds correctly. According to the results of the study, based partly on
recordings and partly field observation, the core areas are (Jenkins 2000:
159):

• The consonantal inventory with the following conditions: Rhotic [!]

[used] rather than other varieties of /r/ [i.e. rhotic, and using an approx-
imant realization of /r/] Intervocalic /t/ rather than [!]
Variations of [!], [!] and [!] allowed Approximations to core consonant
sounds permissible (provided that the pronunciation does not cross the
boundaries to another phoneme, allophonic variations within phonemes
are allowed e.g. Spanish /v/ vs. [!] in word initial position)
• Other phonetic requirements: Aspiration of the fortis plosives /p/, /t/ and
/k/ Fortis/lenis differential effect on preceding vowel
• Consonant clusters: No omission of sounds in word initial consonant
clusters. Omission permissible in middle and final clusters (only if they
comply with native English rules of syllable structure)
• Vowel sounds: Maintenance of distinction between long and short vow-
els L2 regional variation acceptable (provided that it is consistent), [!!]
to be kept
• Tonic/Nuclear stress: Nuclear stress production and placement used
appropriately to signal meaning

The non-core areas, namely the areas that do not impede communication
in English as an International Language (EIL) settings, are:

• The consonant sounds [!] and [!] and the dark allophone [!]
• Vowel quality provided that the usage is consistent
• Weak forms
• Assimilation (in two consecutive words, the assimilation of the final
sound in the first word to another sound due to the initial sound in the
second word)
 2.3 Work including normative elements: Form 45

• The direction of pitch movements regardless of what it signals, e.g.

grammatical meaning or attitudes
• Placement of word stress in general
• Stress-timed rhythm

The analyses of sounds that cause intelligibility problems surprisingly

did not include areas that people regard as specifically ‘English’, e.g. the
sounds [!] and [!] and the dark allophone [!]. Substitutes for these sounds,
such as /f, v/ or /s, z/ or /t, d/ for /[!], [!]/ were permissible, not to mention
that such variations are present in native varieties of English (Seidlhofer
2002: 26).
Although Jenkins said herself that the LFC was not intended as a lan-
guage production model but was a set of guidelines for effective use, this
work created considerable debate. The debate was taken even further by
questions regarding teaching pronunciation without native-speaker models,
the impression a heavy accent might give and the effects it may create,
whether the Lingua Franca Core (LFC) is merely an excuse for mediocre
language use, why imposing LFC on students would be right if presenting
them with Received Pronunciation (RP) or General American (GA) is un-
justified, whether one could or should try to teach an accent which is no-
body’s native accent, and finally, whether there are any other alternatives to
achieving a model that is suitable to those who speak English in interna-
tional settings. These questions have been central to the debates among
those who have expressed concerns against a common core (Sobkowiak
2005; Szpyra-Kozlowska 2003) and those who see it as a useful tool
(Björkman 2012a; Dalton-Puffer et al. 1997; McKay 2002; Walker 2001a,
2001b, 2005, 2010). Those who have criticized the LFC have not done so
on empirical grounds but rather with native English language ideology
while those who have replicated Jenkins’s study have found support for
what is outlined in the LFC (Deterding and Kirkpatrick 2006; Osimk 2009;
Rajadurai 2007) with the exception of Walker, who has identified a few
areas where the LFC needs to be modified only slightly (Walker 2010).
Listener factors are as important as speaker factors that other work has
focused on (e.g. Jenkins 2000). The responsibility for successful interaction
is naturally not solely with the speaker since intelligibility is not the speak-
er’s or the listener’s task; it is interactional between the two (Smith and
Nelson 1985b: 333). A study on phonology within the international use of
English also focuses on intelligibility issues and outlines the variables af-
fecting intelligibility and comprehensibility, which are speaker and listener
46 2 Previous research on ELF

factors (Pickering 2006). Among the speaker factors are phonology and
accentedness, while the listener factors are experience with variation in the
phonology of the target language and listener attitudes. It is suggested that
intelligibility of certain forms is directly proportional to familiarity with
those forms (Pickering 2006: 224). Moreover, a listener who is willing to
understand a speaker will find it easier to achieve intelligibility and will
find that speaker intelligible (Pickering 2006: 226). Some other listener-
related factors are familiarity with the accent, willingness, familiarity with
the context and topic or simply tiredness or background noise. In the re-
view of all these factors, the use of a NS model for pronunciation is some-
what dated since it has limited relevance in a world where English is used
much more widely among its NNSs. As noted earlier in this chapter, in
NNS-NNS interaction, speakers employ a variety of communication and
accommodation strategies that aid the conversation, and they adjust their
language to the situation, in pursuit of optimal communication. According
to Pickering, these strategies are unique to ELF settings, and they may
clash with the way native speakers negotiate meaning (Pickering 2006:
227).
Pickering’s findings accord with other studies that investigate accents of
English in specific ELF settings in different countries. A study on accents
in Finnish textbooks emphasizes the benefits of a more realistic model for
speakers in ELF situations and draws attention to the importance of famil-
iarizing Finnish learners of English with a variety of accents since they
speak English mostly with other NNSs (Kivistö 2005). According to the
investigation, there are few NNS accents in the textbooks studied, and that
textbook writers seem ambivalent about including any NNS accents at all
in their work. Another study that investigated phonological features in one
of its parts reports on the phonological features of German students’ Eng-
lish and maintains that their variations do not impede comprehensibility
(Erling and Bartlett 2006).
Phonology plays a prominent role in comprehensibility and has been de-
scribed as the “greatest single barrier to successful communication” (Jen-
kins 2000: 83). It lends itself to such investigation rather readily since it is a
closed system, unlike syntax, where possibilities of production are virtually
infinite.
Within investigations of ELF form, there has been some work on phra-
seology and idiomaticity. Idiomaticity has been reported not to have much
relevance for the ELF speaker (Jenkins 2000: 220). It has been defined as a
characteristic of L1 English, i.e. a feature that is present in native speakers’
 2.3 Work including normative elements: Form 47

speech, and also a feature where native and non-native Englishes diverge
(Seidlhofer 2001). The term ‘unilateral idiomaticity’, coined by Seidlhofer,
refers to the phenomenon where the interlocutor, an L1 speaker, uses an
opaque idiomatic expression that the non-native speaker fails to understand
(Seidlhofer 2001: 136).
It has been suggested that native speakers, as a part of ELF situations,
may need to make adjustments to their idiomaticity to be understood by the
non-native speakers they interact with (Prodromou 2003: 47). Advanced
non-native speakers too have a certain degree of idiomaticity that they
make use of, sometimes with a certain divergence from the original idiom.
This divergence may be essential for their cultural identities and therefore
perfectly legitimate. Idiomaticity becomes a problematic issue only if the
set norm is L1 idiomatic usage (Prodromou 2007a: 23). The same author
investigated idiomaticity in another study and pointed to the relationship
between ENL and ELF (Prodromou 2007b). The data came from a corpus
of naturally-occurring second language interaction where the investigation
focused on idiomaticity and the effects it has for L1 and L2 speakers. The
study suggests that idiomaticity depends on the goal the speaker has set for
himself/herself. Most ELF speakers avoid opaque usage with which they
are not familiar. Those who speak English in lingua franca situations gen-
erally have a good sense of judgment of where their boundaries are when it
comes to employing idiomaticity. They do not use phrases that might lead
to pragmatic failure (Prodromou 2007c: 38).
Although the findings of these earlier studies on idiomaticity are in
agreement with more recent studies, the difference in approach is most
striking. These studies, unlike the more recent studies, have approached
ELF as a type of usage that needs native-speaker English as a yardstick.
This is not an appropriate approach to describe ELF usage for two reasons.
First of all, most speakers in ELF settings do not speak it to communicate
with native speakers. Therefore, their first agenda is not to be understood
by native speakers of English but to be understood by a wide range of
speakers from different L1s. Second, ELF deserves to be studied and de-
scribed in its own right independent of ENL norms.
Speakers in ELF settings employ idiomaticity creatively in ways that are
clear and transparent to speakers from different L1 backgrounds. This was
shown successfully in a more recent study (Pitzl 2009). Pitzl shows, first of
all, that idiomatic expressions are used very differently in ELF usage com-
pared to ENL usage. While in ENL, idiomatic expressions are used as fixed
idioms, in ELF settings, speakers use them creatively and innovatively, e.g.
48 2 Previous research on ELF

We should not wake up any dogs instead of the conventional Let sleeping
dogs lie. As we can see in this example, functionality in the ELF form of
this idiomatic usage has not been affected. The meaning is preserved while
the form is flexible.
Some studies investigated other lexical phenomena within ELF form.
Lexical vagueness is one of these phenomena, investigated in a study based
on ELFA data (Metsä-Ketelä 2006). The expression more or less was first
analyzed qualitatively and then quantitatively through statistical analyses to
compare the results with MICASE data. The results showed that the ex-
pression was quite frequent in the ELFA data, and it occurred more in
monologic speech events than in dialogic ones. The comparative part of the
study showed that non-native speakers made more use of this expression. It
also seemed to have three main functions, namely “minimizing, comparing
similarities and approximating quantities” (Metsä-Ketelä 2006: 141).
The earlier scarcity of research on ELF form can perhaps be explained
by the lack of large corpora. The release of two important corpora which
are free for use by researchers has changed this situation tremendously and
has already provided researchers with substantial data, resulting in studies
of ELF form that have focused on syntax and lexis, the two other elements
that are important for optimal communication. A useful and important pre-
liminary here, before moving on to studies on morphosyntax, is a review of
these corpora that provided data for large-scale investigations on form.
The Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE;
www.univie.ac.at/voice) was the first corpus of ELF to be started, led by
Seidlhofer with recordings of about 1 million words of mainly English
produced by speakers of continental European languages from professional,
educational and informal settings. Projects based on this corpus have re-
vealed valuable information on ELF settings, predominantly with reference
to lexico-grammar. At the time of writing, VOICE includes recordings of
an estimated 1250 ELF speakers with approximately 50 different first lan-
guages, and comprises a wide spectrum of speech events from different
domains, functions and participant roles, i.e. interviews, press conferences,
service encounters, seminar discussions, working group discussions, work-
shop discussions, meetings, panels, question-answer sessions and conversa-
tions. VOICE corpus became an open corpus, available online in May 2010
for all researchers.
The English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings corpus (ELFA;
www.eng.helsinki.fi/elfa) from Finland was started two years after the
VOICE corpus but was the first one to be finished. It is the largest corpus
 2.3 Work including normative elements: Form 49

work on ELF usage in academic settings. It supplies authentic data from

naturally-occurring speech events, and these are crucially high-stakes aca-
demic events. ELFA contains 1 million words of transcribed speech of
approximately 131 hours of recorded speech and has 650 speakers from 50
different first languages. The high-stakes nature of the recordings is a key
issue, because it ensures that speakers actually want to and need to achieve
the communicative goal set for the situation and that not being able to do so
would be consequential for them.
VOICE and ELFA corpus projects bear striking similarities with each
other. They have only naturally-occurring speech and both have led the
way to a number of doctoral projects that have already started contributing
to knowledge of the usage of English in ELF settings. They are of similar
sizes and are naturally both results of teamwork. The main difference, as
mentioned briefly above, is that the ELFA corpus is a corpus of academic
encounters only and does not include social types of talk, in contrast to the
VOICE corpus. It comprises data from a range of disciplinary domains, the
distribution of which are 29 per cent social sciences, 19 per cent technolo-
gy, 17 per cent humanities, 13 per cent natural sciences, 10 per cent medi-
cine, 7 per cent behavioral sciences and finally, 5 per cent economics and
administration. The VOICE corpus on the other hand comprises speech
events from professional and leisure domains as well as educational do-
mains. So in this sense, VOICE is a broader project with more speakers
from different domains. It has led to a number of projects in lexico-
grammar, but it does not offer data from a large number of educational
domains like the ELFA corpus.
The most recent corpus project on ELF is ACE: The Asian Corpus of
English. The compilation of this corpus started in Hong Kong with Andy
Kirkpatrick as the team leader. The corpus is currently being compiled
across East and Southeast Asia (Kirkpatrick 2010, 2012). The addition of
this corpus to VOICE and ELFA enable comparisons of ELF usage be-
tween European settings (VOICE, ELFA) and Asian settings (ACE).
Some of the earlier work based on VOICE data reported observations of
ELF usage (Seidlhofer 2004). Although these findings are not based on
quantitative data and were “hypotheses of usage” (Jenkins, Cogo, and
Dewey 2011: 289), they constituted the set of ELF features as candidates
for commonalities known to many today (Seidlhofer 2004). Among these
commonalities are (Seidlhofer 2004: 240): 8

8. See Section 5.1, Table 5.1 for a brief discussion of these commonalities.
50 2 Previous research on ELF

Dropping the third person -s

The interchangeable use of the relative pronouns which and who
The non-standard usage of articles in general
Invariable tag questions, e.g. isn’t it? No?
Redundant prepositions, e.g. study about
High frequency of some verbs of “high semantic generality” e.g. do, have,
make
Using that clauses instead of infinitive clauses, e.g. I want that... Increased
explicitness, e.g. black color

Seidlhofer’s study did not offer a list of features that resulted from em-
pirical research; however, it served another very important purpose: It pre-
sented non-standard usage as variants instead of deviant forms of usage.
Some of the features that were proposed as commonalities above found
support from studies that are based on empirical data. To begin with, in an
investigation of the third person -s in group discussions of representatives
of the EU and national agencies of higher education, there were 29 cases of
the third person singular -s and 15 cases of superfluous –s (Breiteneder
2005). However, almost 80 per cent of all cases followed standard norms.
The study suggests that the variation in the use of the third person -s might
be explained by the relation between some linguistic and extra-linguistic
features. The linguistic features causing the omission of third person -s or
the overgeneralization of it are summarized as collective head nouns (e.g.
“ministry decide”), coordination (e.g. “the institutions and the network
thinks”) and an indefinite expression (e.g. “everybody talk about this”).
With reference to the extra-linguistic trigger, Breiteneder mentions the
speakers’ focus on interaction and the content rather than on form. This
kind of usage, she adds, shows parallelisms with New Englishes, some
pidgins and creoles. Breiteneder, however, does not mention varietal differ-
ences in her discussion of the linguistic features, e.g. the way collective
nouns are dealt with in BrE and AmE.
Another item in the list of commonalities is the invariable question tag.
This item, along with some other non-standard usage, is investigated in
another study where the data are made up of four hours of naturally-
occurring ERASMUS student conversations of two different types: Casual
talk and advisory talk (Hülmbauer 2007). The results are quite similar to
the ones in the previously mentioned study, namely that correctness and
effectiveness do not go hand in hand, and such variations of usage in ELF
situations are natural developments that are based on effectiveness
(Hülmbauer 2007: 29).
 2.3 Work including normative elements: Form 51

Extended use of the progressive aspect, though not one of the features
listed by Seidlhofer, was reported to be one of the commonalities in ELF
usage (Björkman 2008a, 2008b; Ranta 2006). Speakers in ELF situations
often seem to opt for the progressive form instead of the simple form even
when the situation requires the simple form, e.g. referring to scientific and
engineering phenomena where the results are always the same provided the
conditions are kept (Björkman 2008a, 2008b). The results of both studies
indicate that this feature is employed by speakers of different L1s. Compar-
ative work based on the ELFA and MICASE corpora showed that speakers
in ELF situations used the progressive form in a larger variety of contexts.
However, it was actually used in a “standard-like” way in 87 per cent of all
the cases (Ranta 2006: 111).
Another study related to tense usage reported from a German university
where students display a variation of tense and aspect usage (Erling 2002);
however, the reason, as suggested in the results, was not because the stu-
dents lack that particular usage in their L1 but because it simply was not
essential for communication (Erling 2002: 11). This suggests that the stu-
dents in Erling’s study dropped the features that were not necessary for
communication irrespective of their absence or presence in their L1. In a
broader study carried out in the same setting, Erling and Bartlett examined
attitudes and motives of university students studying through the medium
of English to features of phonology, lexico-grammar, i.e. article use, time,
tense and aspect, expressing condition, adverbs and prepositions (Erling
and Bartlett 2006). In the investigation made through interviews, student
essays and questionnaires, they find a wide range of non-standard features.
The variation in the features investigated was dealt with similarly: Non-
standard norms should be accepted on the basis of communicative effec-
tiveness, which relates to the phenomenon of new Europeanism. This new
Europeanism brings within the need to accept non-standard forms based on
comprehensibility (Erling and Bartlett 2006: 22).
Another study that focuses on the syntactic variation in the use of Eng-
lish in international settings analyzed 22 hours of naturally-occurring inter-
actions and reported both unsystematic and systematic grammatical choices
that the speakers made (Meierkord 2004). The results of this study indicat-
ed a surprising 9 per cent only of divergent usage, i.e. usage that did not
conform to the prescriptive norms of English. This study differs from the
others mentioned in this section in terms of its approach to the source of
non-standardness in that the divergent usage was investigated in terms of
L1 backgrounds. The finding that is of highest relevance to the present
52 2 Previous research on ELF

study is the set of underlying patterns in usage that coincide with patterns
in New Englishes, e.g. patterns such as not marking plurality (Meierkord
2004: 113). Meierkord describes informal ELF as a heterogeneous lan-
guage form that is heavily shaped by speakers’ L1 backgrounds. In addi-
tion, she claims transfer phenomena, developmental patterns and nativized
norms as well as simplification, leveling and regularization strategies char-
acterize ELF speech (Meierkord 2004: 129).
In another study, Meierkord analyzed 24 hours of informal student con-
versations, half of which came from a student hall of residence in Great
Britain and the other half from interactions at the University of Erfurt. A
total of 74 speakers took part in the study, who came from a wide range of
linguistic backgrounds with varying levels of competence in English, and
English was not the first or the dominant language for any of them. The
study analyzed the speakers’ lexicon, and the results showed that the
speakers had few phrasal verbs or idioms in their speech, and the lexicon
presented itself as more culturally neutral (Meierkord 2005: 101). The lexi-
con also seemed unstable and heterogeneous, varying according to the in-
dividuals having the conversations. Meierkord suggests that for the lexicon
to show stability, the individuals would have to have had regular interac-
tions in a stable group of participants (Meierkord 2005: 101).
It is certainly striking that at least three studies, Breiteneder (2005),
Ranta (2006) and Meierkord (2004), report fairly low percentages of non-
standard syntax. Whether this is generally true or not is unclear since few
studies have provided information on frequency. To address this issue, the
present study includes a section where standard and non-standard syntactic
features are weighed against each other systematically (section 4.1).

2.4. When form and pragmatics meet

The ELF work that started with pragmatics moved towards issues on form,
and the relationship between form and pragmatic issues became a favorite
topic for analysis. It has been argued that the two need not and cannot be
separated. It has been suggested that there is an inherent link between lexi-
co-grammar and pragmatics and that users’ lexico-grammatical choices are
determined by pragmatic motives (Cogo and Dewey 2006). Investigations
of the variation in lexico-grammar caused by pragmatic needs and the inter-
relationship between the two are significant elements in understanding the
dynamics of ELF interaction. In other words, it was the area between lexi-
 2.4 When form and pragmatics meet 53

co-grammatical variation and communicative effectiveness that called for

further investigation. This was highlighted by Seidlhofer (2009a) as the
need and challenge to move from a description of common ELF features to
determining what functions the features fulfill in communication.
A study carried out on the micro-scale has looked at dyadic conversa-
tions, group discussions and seminar presentations at King’s College Lon-
don in terms of both pragmatic and lexico-grammatical issues, using data
from two studies (Cogo and Dewey 2006). The two studies were merged,
and the results presented valuable insights from two micro corpora with
regard to how ELF speakers in the relevant setting communicated, i.e. what
kind of pragmatic strategies they employed and what changes they made to
the language to achieve optimal communication. Their conclusions suggest
that speakers’ pragmatic motives, added prominence, reinforcement of
position, increased explicitness and exploiting of redundancy, often caused
changes in their choice of lexico-grammar (Cogo and Dewey 2006: 87).
The lexico-grammatical features earlier presented by Seidlhofer (2004)
(section 2.3) occurred in these two micro corpora with the exception of one
feature only, which was using that clauses where the verb is expected to be
in the infinitive, e.g. I want that-. From the analyses of both pragmatic and
lexico-grammatical features, Cogo and Dewey conclude that the two are
interconnected and the changes made to lexico-grammar arise from prag-
matic communicative needs, which they refer to as efficiency of communi-
cation, added prominence, reinforcement of proposition, increased explicit-
ness and exploiting redundancy (Cogo and Dewey 2006; Dewey 2007).
The authors emphasize further that speakers in ELF settings make adjust-
ments to form and use strategies to “enhance prominence” and “increase
explicitness”, and they do so by adapting the language to the communica-
tive situation (Dewey 2007). In their monograph, Cogo and Dewey (2011)
focus on additional high frequency features in ELF lexico-grammar. The
most common features include collocations, articles and prepositions.
These studies show clearly that one of the aims of ELF research has
been to show that form and function are inseparable (Cogo 2008: 60), and
to be able to understand the relationship between form and function, it is
necessary to investigate both areas thoroughly first. Cogo and Dewey re-
stated this key point in their more recent study (2011). It is not the features
themselves that are key but for what functions the features are employed.
54 2 Previous research on ELF

2.5. Attitude and irritation studies

Another question of relevance to ELF research is how non-standard lan-

guage patterns are perceived by those that need to operate in ELF settings.
There has been much research about what speakers in ELF settings do
when they interact with each other, but work is still scarce when it comes to
speaker/listener relations and reception and receptive skills in general. As
noted earlier, the responsibility for successful interaction rests with the
listener as much as with the speaker.
The importance of speaker reactions was recognized by much earlier re-
search with the aim of assessing the direct effect of non-standard language,
based on native speaker ratings of non-native errors (Albrechtsen et al.
1980; Burt 1975; Hultfors 1986; Johansson 1975; Ludwig 1982; Olsson
1977). These studies, naturally (due to date), were not carried out in ELF
settings; however, they form the foundation of attitude and irritation work,
which is why they have been included here. The aim in such earlier work
was to find out what types of grammatical errors were more serious and
irritating than others. This type of research treated non-standard production
by non-native speakers as ‘interlanguage’9 or ‘learner language’ (Selinker
1972, 1992), and started with studies that investigated comprehensibility of
learner language, which were studies on ‘error gravity’ and ‘tolerance
tests’.
A problem with such investigations was the inherent subjective nature
of attitude studies. Attitudes are abstract and cannot be observed easily,
which leaves the researcher with one main way of obtaining data, namely
asking the interlocutors to judge comprehensibility and irritation. This un-
doubtedly generates subjective data and puts the validity of such investiga-
tions into question, which is a problem that was recognized in earlier stud-
ies. When it comes to meaning, interlocutors can only make guesses as to
what the speaker intended to say, and concerning language form, they
might choose to avoid reactions they feel would be unfavorable (Al-
brechtsen et al. 1980: 367). Subjective methods should, therefore, be sup-
ported with objective methods that show participant comprehension as
opposed to what they think they understand. The studies that investigated
the direct communicative effect of learner language have done so by either
basing the study on the researcher’s analysis of the code, the interlocutors’

9. The term ‘learner language’ will be used throughout in the present study for its
transparency.
 2.5 Attitude and irritation studies 55

subjective description of reactions to different levels of production, or the

researcher’s objective description of the interlocutors’ subjective reaction
(Albrechtsen et al. 1980: 367). The subject, a non-native speaker, produces
an utterance and the interlocutor, a native speaker, reacts to it. See Table
2.1 for a summary of the direct communicative effect of learner language
(Albrechtsen et al. 1980: 367):

Table 2.1. Analyses of the direct communicative effect of learner language, table
taken from Albrecthsen et al. (1980: 367).

A B C
Researcher’s objective Interlocutor’s description Researcher’ s objective
description of the code of description of the
interlocutor’s

1 Pronunciation Reaction to Reaction to

2 Grammar 1 Code 1 Code
3 Lexis 2 Message 2 Message
4 Discourse 3 Personality 3 Personality

Comprehensibility of Comprehensibility of
4 Pronunciation 4 Pronunciation
5 Grammar 5 Grammar
6 Lexis 6 Lexis
7 Discourse 7 Discourse

Going back to the literature, we see that Burt (1975) studied A2, Jo-
hansson (1975) A2, B1 and C1, Olsson (1977) A2 and A3 as well as C5
and C6. Albrechtsen et al. (1980) investigated the correlations between B1,
B2 and B3.10 According to these studies, the direct effect of non-standard
production on interlocutors could be that the message does not get decoded
if the interlocutors are distracted by the non-standard nature of the utter-
ance. This could be due to irritation (Johansson 1975).
The results of these studies were somewhat contradictory. Some sug-
gested it was the number of errors that was important rather than type of
errors (Burt 1975; Galloway 1980; Olsson 1977) whereas some judged

10. The present study deals with A2, A3 and A4 and B1, B5 and B6.
56 2 Previous research on ELF

lexical errors in general as more serious (Johansson 1978). Studies at a later

date raised concerns at the accent level, that it is the speaker’s accent and
the stereotype of his/her accent that is decisive as to whether the errors in
that speaker’s speech “enhance or hinder second language oral communica-
tion” (Delamare 1996: 292). Regardless of their varying results, such stud-
ies led to other investigations that focused on the effects of learner lan-
guage on the interlocutor, always conceived of as a native speaker of Eng-
lish (Albrechtsen et al. 1980: 366).
Error analysis studies of the 1980s measured native speakers’ reactions
to non-native speakers’ non-standard production with the exception of a
few studies that included non-native reactions to non-native speech (e.g.
Fayer and Krasinski 1987). Even some much more recent work looked at
native speakers’ reactions toward non-native production (Munro and Der-
wing 1999). Today’s ELF situation requires a new approach. Most speakers
of English today are non-native speakers, and they use English to interact
with other non-native speakers much more frequently than with native
speakers. This is certainly true when it comes to many domains in conti-
nental Europe. It would thus be of interest to learn how speakers in ELF
settings feel about non-standard production. What communicates well and
what kind of attitudes do they have towards non-standard production? Few
investigations so far have focused on reactions to non-standard production
by NNSs.
Similarly, the investigations towards the use of English in continental
Europe have been scarce. One of these few studies reported from Germany
on students’ attitudes towards the increasing use and role of English in
Germany (Erling 2004). The attitudes in this study were not towards lin-
guistic forms since the focus was on macro attitudes which are more politi-
cal than purely linguistic. Nevertheless, the investigation was carried out in
an ELF setting and documented micro attitudes as well, i.e. students’ atti-
tudes. The results showed that the macro fears and worries indicated by the
media were not reciprocated by the students in a university setting. Stu-
dents’ attitudes to varieties of English revealed their preference for native
varieties as models, but there was noticeable tolerance for what is termed
‘regional variety’, i.e. English in the mouths of German speakers.
Erling and Bartlett (2006) studied the same setting and examined these
students’ attitudes and motives with reference to English. The findings of
the study showed three clear groups of students: The pro-US group, the
pro-British group and the pro-lingua franca group. The pro-lingua franca
group was subjected to further investigation. Among the linguistic behavior
 2.5 Attitude and irritation studies 57

of this group are making adjustments to the language depending on the

purposes they have, showing their identities through English and claiming
ownership of the language, seeing themselves as legitimate users of the
language. Erling and Bartlett (2006) bring up the native/non-native dichot-
omy in connection with this notion of legitimacy, originating from Bakhtin
(1981) and Bourdieu’s work (1991). Speakers of non-native varieties of
English lack symbolic capital. First, their habitus, i.e. way of being, is in-
fluenced by the local culture and history of symbolic capital. Secondly,
there is the second language they aim to incorporate in this symbolic capi-
tal, and thirdly, there is the linguistic marketplace in which the speakers
operate. Erling and Bartlett define Europe, or New Europe, as the linguistic
marketplace with new types of symbolic capital. In this community, the
speakers can “cash in their new symbolic capital of being new Europeans”
(Erling and Bartlett 2006: 33). The new linguistic marketplace is said to be
an area of new symbolic capital without demands for L1 Englishes.
Apart from studies that have investigated attitudes towards the use of
English, there have also been a few studies that have focused on attitudes
towards usage of English. One comprehensive study of this kind is Jen-
kins’s monograph on attitude and identity in ELF settings (Jenkins 2007).
Jenkins takes into consideration the attitudes of teachers to both speech and
writing in this work, with a special focus on attitudes to ELF accents based
on large-scale questionnaire results on correctness, acceptability, pleasant-
ness and familiarity of ELF accents. From the responses, BrE and AmE
emerge as “unshakable”, the correctness or status of which were not ques-
tioned (Jenkins 2007: 179). They were preferred by the respondents in all
respects. This appears as the most interesting finding of the questionnaire:
“...despite the massive shift in the use and users of English over recent dec-
ades, many and perhaps the majority of teachers of English in the expand-
ing circle countries continue to believe that ‘proper’ English resides in cer-
tain of its ‘ancestral homes’, principally the UK and the US” (Jenkins 2007:
188). Although not in the same comprehensive scale, there have been other
studies on teachers’ (Decke-Cornill 2003; Grau 2005; Sifakis and Sugari
2005; Timmis 2002; Zacharias 2005) and learners’ attitudes to teaching and
learning other varieties rather than standard native varieties respectively
(Adolphs 2005; Friedrich 2000; Hakala 2007; Matsuda 2003; Shim 2002;
Timmis 2002). However, there is very little on speakers’ attitudes in what
are authentic ELF situations and not language-learning situations.
Since it is mostly other non-native speakers who interact with non-
native speakers in ELF settings, it is appropriate to focus on non-native
58 2 Previous research on ELF

speakers’ reactions towards non-standard production at different levels. A

part of the present work addresses this issue among others (see section 4.3).
Chapter 3
Exploring an academic ELF setting in Sweden:
The site

This monograph started with a description of the position of English today

and provided a brief historical account of how it has become the language
of science and technology. This brought the discussion to the notion of
globalization with respect to higher education and multilingualism, and
then to the reactions when one language gains such a powerful status. As
we saw, there are strong reactions evoked by the fact that English has this
position. After devoting a chapter to these important issues, in Chapter 2, I
provided an overview of ELF studies that are of highest relevance to the
present study with regard to normative elements, starting with work with-
out normative elements on pragmatics, and then moved on to work includ-
ing normative elements on form. After a brief section on pragmatics meet-
ing form, I gave a review of some significant attitude and irritation studies.
As the mentioned studies show clearly, ELF research is thriving with pro-
jects carried out at different linguistic levels from a variety of settings. At
the same time, there is still need for more work on ELF used in academic
settings. Although academic ELF has been described in a number of studies
(e.g. Mauranen 2012; Smit 2010), academia is a domain that will certainly
continue to become increasingly international, and there is more work to be
done.
In this chapter, I will undertake the task of describing the academic ELF
setting in Sweden that I set out to explore. With a detailed description, I
hope to provide for those who may be less informed about ELF a descrip-
tion of a typical academic ELF setting, and for those who are well-
informed, offer a possible point of comparison with their ELF settings.
After this, our focus will move onto the research methodology and design
that form the basis of the study. For purposes of transparency and clarity, I
will explain all the steps of the research methodology as I took them during
the field study.
60 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting in Sweden

3.1. An international university: Student and teacher body

The present study focuses primarily on form and discourse and investigates
the morphosyntax of spoken English as the academic language in Sweden
and the pragmatic strategies speakers use. Sweden is an interesting setting
for such an investigation, because it is one of the leading countries when it
comes to English-medium tuition in continental Europe. There were 123
reported English-taught programs in Sweden already in 2007, which made
the country number four on the list of the leading countries in continental
Europe as providers of English-medium tuition (Wächter and Maiworm
2008: 29). This increased to 401 programs in 2011, putting the country in
the third place after the Netherlands and Germany with 812 and 632 pro-
grams respectively (Institute of International Education).
Up until relatively recently, Sweden was one of the few countries that
did not require tuition fees from incoming students. This changed, howev-
er, when the Swedish government passed a law in spring 2010 outlining
tuition and application fees for students outside EU/EEA countries. This
change already took effect in the 2011/2012 academic year, causing a ma-
jor decrease in the number of incoming students. The Swedish government
says the fees were introduced for quality assurance purposes, in other
words, to be able to attract top students instead of being a favorite destina-
tion for students who might simply be seeking free tuition. Another reason
was to reallocate Swedish tax payers’ money to universities that already are
or on their way to becoming centers of excellence.
This development, needless to say, has caused serious debate in Swe-
den. A major argument in the debate has been that the student body in the
country will be much less diverse, attracting students only from rich coun-
tries. In addition, some universities fear they will lose up to 80 or 90 per
cent of their foreign students. Especially at universities and institutions
where foreign students have been the majority, the new situation is likely to
cause major changes in the student population. Some groups of students are
exempt from these fees however. Exchange students can still receive free
tuition, since their studies are financed by agreements between their home
countries and Sweden. Doctoral programs will also continue to be tuition-
free. In addition, scholarships have been introduced to be able to continue
attracting students from non-EU/EEA countries (Swedish National Agency
for Higher Education).
Despite the tuition fees and the possible decrease in the number of for-
eign students, studying in English is still seen as a natural step by the ma-
 3.1 An international university 61

jority of students and scholars in Sweden to plan and prepare for an interna-
tional career. Natural sciences, technology and engineering are the fields
that have been most extensively anglicized. Gunnarsson and Öhman point-
ed out already more than a decade ago the position English has in Swedish
universities, showing that English is very widely used in engineering, natu-
ral sciences and medicine (Gunnarsson and Öhman 1997). At the time of
writing, the most recent sources report that 65 per cent of all Master’s pro-
grams in the country are offered in English (Salö 2010: 11). The situation is
similar at the post-graduate level; about 87 per cent of all doctoral theses in
Sweden are written in English (Salö 2010: 21). And among the European
countries that offer the highest number of English-medium programs, Swe-
den is the only country that has engineering and technology as the most
represented subject areas (Institute of International Education) unlike the
other countries that have business and economics as the most represented
areas, e.g. France.
The present investigation was carried out at tertiary level. The university
in question, which I will call the Technical Institute throughout, is respon-
sible for a substantial proportion of Sweden’s technical research and engi-
neering education. Students are offered a wide range of subjects and fields
to choose from, ranging from natural sciences to architecture, industrial
planning, work science and environmental technology. The annual report
from 2012 shows approximately 4,600 employees, approximately 14,000
students enrolled in undergraduate programs and over 1,700 in postgradu-
ate level programs. In 2011, there were 1,535 exchange students and a large
number of international master’s students at the Technical Institute. This is
a change from 1,700 exchange students in 2009, one year before the tuition
fees took effect.
In the university’s policy of internationalization report, communicating
effectively in English is mentioned as an absolute requirement. English is
used extensively in this setting, to allow for academic mobility of students
and scholars and to prepare students for the global job market, among other
reasons. As a consequence, there is a large number of exchange students
and foreign scholars at the Technical Institute who speak English to com-
municate with each other. Swedish is the medium of instruction in the first
three years, which is then replaced with English in the subsequent two
years for purposes of internationalization. English is the only language of
instruction in international Master’s programs and higher levels. Doctoral
theses are almost exclusively written in English.
62 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting in Sweden

The Technical Institute also introduced a Language Policy document in

2011. One of the important points in the document is that it states clearly
the position English has as a global lingua franca today. Otherwise, the
document aims to raise student and staff awareness of language-related
issues. It is also stated that the document is meant as an aid to help the
Technical Institute in their effort to become a multilingual academic set-
ting. We will look more closely into language policy issues in Chapter 6
(see section 6.3)

3.2. Research questions and some important terms

The previous section has shown that the Technical Institute is a highly in-
ternational setting where English is used as a language franca on a daily
basis. I set out to investigate the nature of ELF usage in this setting:

• What, if any, are the morphosyntactic commonalities of non-standard

usage in monologic and dialogic speech event types studied in the ELF
setting examined?
• Which of the commonalities found are the same as those described in
the literature?
• What kind of morphosyntactic non-standard usage results in overt dis-
turbance in spoken ELF communication?
• Which of the pragmatic strategies described in the literature are found in
this setting?
• What kind of morphosyntactic non-standard usage is perceived as irri-
tating by speakers in ELF situations?

In the initial stages of the present investigation, the hypotheses for each
research question were as follows:

• There will be commonalities of morphosyntactic non-standard usage

across the two different speech event types.
• The commonalities will be similar to the ones described in the literature.
• Non-standard usage per se will not lead to overt disturbance. It is more
likely that the combination of different types of non-standardness will
create opacity in communication.
• There will be similarities between the pragmatic strategies in the present
study and those described in the literature; however, it is likely that
 3.2 Research questions and important terms 63

there will be even more and different types of strategies used by the
speakers in this setting, as the nature of interaction is very high-stakes in
academic settings.
• There will be some irritation towards non-standardness.

The following terms will be used throughout this work and are therefore
necessary for the understanding of the entire investigation. As they are also
used in the description of methods in this section, it is best to include them
here before going into research methodology and design in the next section.
They are listed below in the order of frequency, from the most frequent to
the least frequent:

Standard/non-standard vs. incorrect: The term non-standard refers to

what is traditionally considered incorrect in English usage according to
prescriptive grammar books. It should be borne in mind at all times dur-
ing the reading of this work that the term standard is not synonymous
with native-speaker usage (the term non-standard will be elaborated on
later in this section). The term incorrect is generally representative of
the Second Language Acquisition (SLA) approach and is not relevant to
ELF settings.

Setting, speech event, situation and context: The term setting is the
broadest of these four terms. It is used to refer to the place of interest,
i.e. in the case of the present study, the Technical Institute. The term
speech event is used in the sense used in MICASE (Simpson et al.
2002), simply as types of speech. Situation is narrower; there are many
communicative situations in a speech event. Context is a segment in a
situation, e.g. a context where two students are discussing a term.

Disturbance vs. breakdown: The term disturbance refers to any turbu-

lence during the communication process. It is unlike breakdown, which
traditionally suggests that communication does not take place. In this
sense, breakdown refers to a more severe problem during the communi-
cation process and is a bigger claim to make for a researcher. Disturb-
ance is indicated by confirmation checks, repair requests and general re-
quests for clarification through direct questions and repetition of trou-
blesome items. The present investigation has studied overt disturbance
only. Checking covert disturbance would require a different set of
methods through which the comprehension of the subject matter is test-
ed.
64 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

Irritation: The term irritation has been used here in the same sense it
was used in the studies from the late seventies and early eighties (see
Chapter 2). It refers to the listener-friendliness of a particular feature
and attitudes towards it.

Variety: The term variety has been used here to refer to autonomous va-
rieties in the traditional way it is used in World Englishes research
(Melchers and Shaw 2003: 28). A variety, therefore, can be codified and
is consistent in terms of usage within itself.

Intelligibility vs. comprehensibility: Some studies have used the term in-
telligibility synonymously with comprehensibility (Alptekin 2007: 267;
House 1999; Kuo 2006: 216). In the present study, the term intelligibil-
ity is used to refer to the understanding of a word on the phonetic and
phonological level only (Jenkins 2000), and for the understanding of
content matters, the term comprehensibility is used. I believe that the
reader will benefit from a distinction made between these two terms
since the present study deals in part with both recognizing the sounds,
i.e. intelligibility, and recognizing meaning, i.e. comprehensibility.
Some earlier studies have made a similar distinction between the terms
intelligible, i.e. recognizable, and comprehensible, i.e. recognizable in
terms of meaning (Smith and Nelson 1985a11).

High-stakes: The term has been used in the present study to refer to sit-
uations where there are consequences for speakers in the case of com-
municative turbulence and where it is critical for the speaker to convey
the message to the audience, e.g. a high-stakes situation. A consequence
of communicative turbulence in the present setting may be not being
able to complete a group-work project, solve a problem, getting low
grades or even failing a course.

11. Smith and Nelson (1985a) go into interpretability in addition to intelligibility

and comprehension. They explain interpretability as being able to understand
the speaker’s intentions, which has not been included in the present study.
 3.3. Research methodology and design 65

3.3. Research methodology and design

My aim in the present study was to investigate form and communicative

effectiveness of ELF usage in spoken academic discourse. Clearly, this is a
multi-layered research project which included several methodological de-
tails and decisions. This section will focus on the methods used to collect
and analyze authentic spoken data from the academic setting in the present
study in the order they were employed in the investigation. An essential
preliminary here is the description of the methodology.
The present study has used primary data and employed a variety of
methods to obtain a detailed picture of the usage of English as a lingua
franca at the institutional site. We will first visit the general research tradi-
tions and a main binary distinction of research methodology.
A distinction is often made between qualitative and quantitative re-
search. Basic as it may be, a good balance of both qualitative and quantita-
tive methods contributes to the richness of data in the present work instead
of only quantitative or qualitative data. Support comes from scholars who
believe that a mixed methods approach “offers additional benefits to the
phenomenon at question” instead of using only qualitative or quantitative
methods (Dörnyei 2007: 47). The indistinguishability of these two research
traditions was discussed also in some early work (Reichardt and Cook
1979).
To start with, quantitative methods are known to be relatively fast and
economical in terms of labor (Guilloteaux 2007: 123). They generally yield
data that are reliable, replicable and generalizable. Qualitative methods, on
the other hand, are more investigatory in the sense that they result in de-
scriptive information. It is true that qualitative methods generally have a
limited number of participants, but they provide the researcher with data
that give a more nuanced view of the context. Another aspect to consider
when it comes to the differences between quantitative and qualitative anal-
yses is the selection of data. In quantitative research, points of investigation
are generally preset whereas qualitative research is largely data-driven. In
qualitative research, researchers do not work with preset analytical catego-
ries. This is practiced in order to avoid missing features that might be of
interest.
So, in the present study, using methods only of a quantitative nature
would not yield rich and variable data that would be detailed enough with
possibly important features going undetected, and qualitative methods only
66 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

would limit the study to a small, insufficient number of participants, which

would not allow for the generalizability of the results.
It is often the case that methods chosen for a certain type of investiga-
tion in a field mirror those of earlier studies. In some cases, the research
field may be making use of mainly one or two methods, where data at other
levels may go undetected. Discussing or considering other methods or
combinations of methods, or carrying out parallel studies using different
methods, can be a useful practice (Gustafsson et al. 2006). To obtain as
much information as possible from a setting, it is useful to combine a set of
methods.
In the interest of generating maximally useful data, I made a decision to
combine the advantages of both methods in a two-phase design where there
was first a partly-quantitative phase that involves a large sample, the aim of
which was to identify certain points of interest. This phase was followed by
a section where the points of interest were investigated qualitatively in a
subset of the large sample. Some previous studies have been designed in
this manner (Dörnyei 2001), and similar methods have been employed in
other studies, e.g. analyzing a small portion of a large corpus in an effort to
make generalizations over a large population yet obtain detailed infor-
mation (Charles, Pecorari, and Hunston 2009; Guilloteaux 2007: 124), or
analyzing a big corpus and making deductions about a specific part of it to
measure corpus adequacy (Nixon 1972).
The present study adopted a similar two-phase approach. This two-
phase approach can perhaps best be explained by another binary distinc-
tion, namely ‘extensive’ and ‘intensive’ analyses, as discussed by Sayer
(Sayer 1992: 243). I carried out the investigation of the large corpus exten-
sively, and analyzed a subset of it intensively. The present study reports
from a new, unexplored ELF environment with the aim of contributing to
the existing knowledge of ELF in general and usage of English as a lingua
franca in academia in particular. This required a large sample of recordings
including a relatively large number of speakers that would allow for mak-
ing general deductions from this ELF environment in particular. However,
due to the nature of this work, data collection and analyses were handled by
me as the only researcher, which naturally made it impossible for all the
speech event recordings to be transcribed. Keeping this in mind, I made a
combination of first extensive, and then intensive analyses, forming the
two-phase nature of this study.
For the extensive analyses of the large corpus, i.e. the entire material, I
spotted all the instances of non-standard use along with an observation
 3.3. Research methodology and design 67

protocol (Appendix 4) and transcribed them in their contexts, including

their uptake. This, needless to say, was a laborious task. When doing so, I
avoided having preset analytical categories in order not to miss other im-
portant data. The transcribing of the large corpus was done selectively, i.e.
all the instances of non-standardness were transcribed. This allowed for
getting information on usage on the entire corpus, a larger scale than is
usually possible in research carried out by a single researcher. Since the
instances were later on quantified, the extensive analyses are partly quanti-
tative. In addition, I fully transcribed four lectures and four group-work
sessions, resulting in a corpus of 46,662 words. I analyzed this subset in-
tensively. This approach allowed for investigations at the discourse level in
the selected speech events as well as for counting the number of standard
features as opposed to non-standard features, both being useful additions to
the study. Not only did this approach yield more data and details but it also
provided the study with more transparency and clarity along with the pro-
portion of instances of a given feature which deviated from standard forms.
The combination of extensive and intensive analyses allowed the study
both to outline general practices in morphosyntactic usage by the subjects
and to give information on frequency and variability.
Let us now turn to the several stages the study went through as it pro-
gressed from extensive to intensive analyses, which I will explain in chron-
ological order.

Data collection

My initial aim here was to collect primary data to find representative ELF
speech by lecturers and students in the setting. In order to make sure the
speech patterns would be as representative as possible of this specific ELF
setting, I contacted several departments. Inevitably, the selection of de-
partments was limited in part by their availability. Later, I recorded the
lecturers that showed an interest in the investigation and responded posi-
tively, which provided the study with the lecture recordings. I found more
lecturers through networking with the ones who had taken part in the study
at an earlier stage, and this contributed to the number of lecture recordings.
These together constitute the pool of primary data. In addition, a part of the
lecture recordings came from already recorded lectures from a group of
departments. These recordings were accompanied by the slides of the lec-
turers that could be viewed while listening to the sound files.
68 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

The lecturers that took part in the study had students from a wide range
of linguistic backgrounds in their classes (see Table 3.1). I visited and car-
ried out field analyses through recording and observation, which I will
elaborate on later here in this section. A majority of the students from these
intact classes agreed to take part in the study and to be recorded further for
research purposes. So that the data would mirror the ELF situation as much
as possible, I included all students in these intact classes; no selection of a
certain profile of students was made.
The lecture recordings total 42 hours and 44 minutes and the group-
work sessions, 28 hours and 41 minutes. There were 21 lectures given by
13 different lecturers, 14 of which were recorded by me. The group-work
sessions total 24 group-work sessions from seven different courses, includ-
ing 48 speakers. Altogether, the corpus captures an estimate of 502,000
words. There were nineteen L1s in total and 60 speakers, presented in Ta-
ble 3.1:
Table 3.1. The first languages and number of speakers in the present study, includ-
ing the language typology for each language.
LANGUAGES Exchange Ethnically Ethnically Lecturers
students non-Swedish Swedish
students students
Arabic (SVO,VSO) - 3 1
Bengali (SOV) - - 1
Catalan (SVO) 1 - -
Chinese (SVO) 4 - -
English (US) (SVO) 1 - -
Finnish (SVO) 1 - -
French (SVO) 5 - -
German (SVO, OVS) 2 - 2
Greek 3 - -
Icelandic (SVO) 1 - -
Italian (SVO) 2 - -
Persian (SOV) - 1 -
Punjabi (SOV) - 1 -
Russian (SVO) 1 - 1
Somali (SOV) - 1 -
Spanish (SVO) 2 3 1
Swedish (SVO, OVS) - - 11 7
Turkish (SOV) 1 2 -
Uzbek (SOV) 1 - -
25 11 11 13
 3.3. Research methodology and design 69

The subjects come from different first language backgrounds that belong to
seven different language families with different sentence structure, namely
Afro-Asiatic (Semitic: Arabic; Cushitic: Somali), Altaic (Turkish and Uz-
bek), Indo-European (Germanic: Swedish, German, Icelandic; Italic:
French, Italian, Spanish, Catalan; Hellenic: Greek; Slavic: Russian; Indo-
Iranian: Punjabi, Bengali, Persian), Uralic (Finnish) and Sino-Tibetan
(Chinese). There was also one native speaker of English from the United
States.
Half of the speakers that took part in the study were exchange students
from different countries. For exchange students, the language of interaction
tends to be solely English, both in their social encounters in Sweden and in
similar academic settings (Caudery, Petersen, and Shaw 2008). These sub-
jects were all near-zero beginners of Swedish. Some chose to study the
local language by taking language courses; however, most of them contin-
ued interactions in English throughout their stay in Sweden. A quarter of
the students were Swedish with Swedish as their mother tongue. These
Swedish students speak English in academic settings and Swedish in social
encounters. The remaining quarter is made up of ethnically non-Swedish
students, i.e. Swedish citizens who have another home language than Swe-
dish. These students speak another language than Swedish at home, Swe-
dish in daily interaction, and English in their lessons. Their first language
backgrounds covered a wide range, none being predominant over the oth-
ers. When it comes to lecturers, approximately half were Swedish (54%),
and the other half were speakers of other languages (46%). The foreign
lecturers had varying degrees of competence in Swedish, and English was
the only language they used in academic settings.
The students who volunteered for the recording did not receive compen-
sation for their services. I offered feedback to the lecturers who volunteered
for the study, provided that the feedback stage would be subsequent to the
recording of their and their students’ speech. Most of them chose to get
feedback and discussed English as the medium of instruction in depth. The-
se data were not included in the results of the investigation.
Another important matter was to ensure that the picture of the lingua
franca usage at this university would be comprehensive and representative.
For this reason, I made an effort to include several departments in the study
and made arrangements to carry out recordings in five different depart-
ments. As we can see from the departments (Table 3.2), the present investi-
gation dealt with spoken discourse in Applied Science only. The depart-
ments included all work with the application of knowledge from one or
70 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

more fields to solve practical problems, and the applications of the work
they carry out lie within different areas in society. The subject areas ranged
from chemical reaction engineering to rocket science.

Table 3.2. The departments included in the investigation.

Departments included in the
Investigation

Electrical engineering

Industrial Engineering and Management Energy technology

Machine design
Communication Systems
Information and Communication Technology
Computer and Systems Science
Electronic, Computer
and Software Systems
Chemical Science and Engineering Chemical Engineering and
Technology
Chemical Reaction Engineering
Energy Processes
Engineering Sciences Aeronautical and Vehicle
Engineering

Recording

Let us now turn to the recording of the data, undoubtedly a very important
stage when analyzing spoken discourse. There is a considerable number of
significant events in a classroom situation where many potential speakers
are present. It is useful that the researcher does the recordings him-
self/herself rather than merely acquiring them from elsewhere in studies of
this nature. Other studies that base their findings only on already-recorded
speech events risk losing data that could be important in the analysis stage.
My primary aim, naturally, was to perform the recording in an unobtrusive
way. However, for ethical reasons, I informed all the subjects prior to the
recordings.
 3.3. Research methodology and design 71

Digital audio-recording has been the main method of data collection

here. I recorded the data straight into the computer through a free cross-
platform audio editor called Audacity (Audacity), using WAV and MP3
formats. WAV files require very large memory space up to about
85 000 000 bytes/ about 81 MB for a one-hour recording. However, they
give the researcher good quality for formant analyses for phonetic analyses
if need be. MP3 formats are compressed WAV files and take up much less
space. Space precludes elaboration of further technical details of recording
here.
‘Observation with protocol’ was another data collection method em-
ployed in this investigation along with the digital recording of both lectures
and group-work sessions. Being present during the recording allows the
researcher to truly observe the speech event. It is valuable to have an ob-
servation scheme to facilitate analyses to distinguish between different
types of classroom activity and identify linguistic features of interest. For
the observation in this study, I developed a simple observation scheme by
adopting the COLT model (Communicative Orientation of Language
Teaching) (Spada and Frölich 1995) scheme to the academic setting here
(Appendix 4).
As any researcher carrying out research including human beings, I also
needed to ensure research ethics, as any research involving human beings
can have short- or long-term implications for society. The present study
adhered to the rules and regulations of the Swedish Research Council
(Swedish Department of Education 1999). I followed the guidelines below:

The name of the specific institutional site will not be mentioned

in the thesis or in the publications that will result from the re-
search, to protect the interests of the subjects and others that may
be affected by the research.

The names of the subjects were kept strictly anonymous in data

archiving. Special codes were used for the speech events, which
cannot be traced back to the speakers.

Any other sensitive information regarding the subjects was kept

strictly confidential. Only information that is useful for the inves-
tigation was kept, which is whether they had had extended stays
in an English-speaking country, their first language, and whether
they were bilingual or multilingual.
72 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

All the subjects confirmed in writing that they are volunteers.

The subjects were given the right to withdraw even after the re-
cording had taken place.

I, as the researcher, agreed that the sound files obtained from the
recordings were not going to be made available to the general
public online.

Categorizing the speech events

The next decision in the research design was to select and categorize the
speech events. This can be done in different ways in different corpora. One
way of dividing speech events up is taking location into account. The MI-
CASE corpus, for example, includes sixteen different types of speech
events, divided into two main groups: Classroom events and non-classroom
events. The classroom events comprise small and large lectures, discussion
sections, lab sections, seminars and student presentations whereas the non-
classroom events include advising sessions, colloquia, i.e. departmental or
university-wide lectures, panel discussions or workshops, dissertation de-
fenses, interviews for research purposes, meetings, office hours, service
encounters, study groups, tours and tutorials (Simpson et al. 2002). How-
ever, what are subsumed under ‘non-classroom events’ in the MICASE
corpus have proven to take place in classrooms in the corpus compiled for
the present study. For example, student group-work, termed ‘study groups’
in MICASE, often takes place in classrooms in this Swedish setting with or
without the presence of a teacher or a teaching assistant. Although students
work on their own on a task they have been assigned, they do the work in
classrooms. The present study uses the terms ‘monologic’, e.g. lectures,
and ‘dialogic’, e.g. student group-work, to refer to the speech events rec-
orded.
Another way of organizing speech events is by taking interactivity into
account. The ELFA corpus (www.eng.helsinki.fi/elfa), at the time of writ-
ing, comprises a number of types of speech events, e.g. lectures, seminars,
conference presentations, etc. (Mauranen 2006a). The only ‘language’ re-
lated classification in the present corpus has been interactivity, namely the
distinction between monologic and dialogic speech events. The speech
events in this study have been classified by taking interactivity into consid-
 3.3. Research methodology and design 73

eration, as in monologic and dialogic speech events, referring to lectures

and student group-work respectively.
The data in the present study come from authentic high-stakes technical
speech from content courses, i.e. non-language-teaching settings. A typical
example is the student group-work where the students working on a project
together need to solve a problem, come up with a plan or system to better
the existing situation etc. This can be compared to social speech where
disturbance in communication has no or few consequences (Meierkord
2000), or to simulated ELF interaction where the participants feel as though
they can change the topic at their convenience (House 2002a, 2002b). In
the case of a student group project, however, any lack of communication or
steering away from the topic would lead to the incompletion of the task,
which would adversely affect the course performance of the students in-
volved. So the aim in real high-stakes interaction is to communicate in a
practical and functional fashion and get to the desired outcome. This allows
for observations of real communication.
All the recordings in this study are from naturally-occurring academic
speech, contrary to practices in some previous work where set-up tasks for
research purposes are used to generate data (e.g. Mollin 2006). Another
point that distinguishes the present study from some of the earlier work is
the fact that group-work as a genre has been included in the investigation.
Such highly interactive speech events are quite rich in terms of examples of
usage and therefore reveal considerable data that are not necessarily ob-
servable in other speech events. Such authentic group-work sessions have
not been the target of small-scale individual research projects, most proba-
bly due to the difficulty of data collection. They are more typical of large
corpora where a team of researchers is assigned to data collection. The
inclusion of two extremely different speech event types should help cover
many aspects of the ELF setting at hand.

Identifying non-standard usage

The next step was to identify non-standard usage. I identified and tran-
scribed the cases that did not follow prescriptive norms in terms of syntax,
phonology and lexis as ‘non-standard’. I used the ELFA transcription guide
to transcribe the selections. However, the size of the material yielded a
large pool of data, which would not lend itself to intensive analyses. This
presented a need to restrict the points to be investigated. I gathered all the
74 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

cases of usage that dealt with morphology and syntax in a list for further
categorization, leaving phonology out of the main investigation (but see
section 4.2.1 on question intonation).
It was necessary to identify what kind of usage was to count as morpho-
syntactic. Any usage that is not exclusively morphosyntactic usage was
discarded from the investigation. An example of this is:

i found this /!!s/ results,

where this could either be a case of phonologic non-standardness, the

speaker’s failure to produce /!iz/ or lack of agreement between the pronoun
and the plural noun. So any usage that could be the result of phonologic
non-standardness rather than morphosyntactic non-standardness was left
out.
Broad variation among native varieties of English led to the exclusion of
some features. It is very hard, even impossible, to point to standard usage
where native speakers show variation. An example of this kind of usage is
the area of prepositions, where there is variation between the British and
American varieties. Prepositions were excluded from the study not only for
variety differences but also because we simply cannot be sure what mean-
ing is intended in some usage of prepositions. Another example of this kind
of usage is the usage of the quantifiers ‘amount’ and ‘number’. Some na-
tive speakers, especially of US English, do not hesitate to use the noun
‘amount’ to quantify countable nouns whereas some other native speakers
limit their usage only to uncountable nouns. See an example below from
the corpus:

amount of persons

Another example of such a case is the existential ‘There is’ construction,

which is commonly used in native varieties regardless of the subject.

There is really some interesting success stories.

There is a lot of clashes already.

This usage would be described as ‘unacceptable’ in prescriptive gram-

mar books (e.g. Fowler 1859) and as ‘informal’ in descriptive ones (e.g.
Quirk et al. 1985), but it is frequently observable in native usage. Unlike in
other studies where this feature has been included in the investigation, the
present study excluded this feature because it is observable in native speech
 3.3. Research methodology and design 75

and the ‘There is’/‘There are’ structures are used variably. The study care-
fully excluded cases where such differences were observed.
The researcher’s possible lack of content knowledge or disciplinary tra-
ditions is another important factor to mention in such studies. Some disci-
plinary traditions and conventions are reflected in speakers’ usage of cer-
tain structures. For example, some terms are always used without a definite
article in the field of Information Technology:

...if the prediction table is not as large as main memory then

there will be...
...even if we get it from the instruction cache and not from main
memory for the prediction table we need not have this

In case of lack of familiarity with such practices, it is easy to misidentify

some usage as non-standard. A typical indicator of such usage here was the
teachers’ consistent usage of a feature. I made an effort to be wary of such
specific usage as much as possible, e.g. by consulting subject specialists.

Categorizing all non-standard usage

After all the instances of non-standard usage were listed, it was time to
categorize all non-standard usage and draw distinctions that are systematic.
The categorization applied here is shown in Figure 3.1:

Morphological!!
Categorization
of findings
Noun phrase
Phrase level
Syntactic Verb phrase
Clause level

Figure 3.1. The categorization of the findings.

76 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

It was important to have a clearly delimited scope, but equally important

was to have a level of delicacy to allow for the majority of non-standard
features to be included. The categories could not be so delicate that there
would be too few instances in each category. The categories were devised
so that a majority (75%) of the instances would be included. This practice
resulted in the categorization shown in Figure 3.1.
Related to categorizing non-standard usage was selecting features for
further study and dealing with incidentalism, which can be a common prob-
lem in corpus studies (Swales 2002). To overcome this obstacle and to
make sure only features that are frequent enough were included in the find-
ings, a set of criteria was applied to each feature: The feature had to be used
by five speakers of different L1s in both types of speech events and for a
minimum of ten times. Only the features that met these criteria were in-
cluded in the findings.
Equally important was to check standard usage vs. non-standard usage.
In order to have an idea of the frequency of the non-standard features in
comparison with the standard structures that the speakers produced, I ana-
lyzed the four lectures and four student group-work sessions that I had
transcribed for the intensive analyses. For each category (such as ‘subject-
verb disagreement’) I noted all possible instances of non-standardness, e.g.
all finite verbs, and compared the number of actual instances with that fig-
ure. I chose to do so, because I had observed variability of realization of
these features during the recording and preliminary transcribing stages.
Below are some examples of this:

… in this floating unit four bits are quite enough, one, two, three
and so on up to and including eleven four bits is enough to en-
code that… (taken from lecture, variability in agreement)

...i still don’t understand what what are the physics..... what is
the physics behind this idea of putting a mass in front of the...
(taken from group-work, variability in agreement)

Another reason for documenting standard forms along with non-standard

forms was reported variability in early ELF literature (Jenkins 2000) and in
other ELF studies that came about a decade later (Firth 2009b). This varia-
bility, also observed here, alone calls for a thorough check of standardness
versus non-standardness. Something that is certainly striking and makes it
even more important to have a review of non-standardness is the surpris-
ingly low percentage of non-standardness reported in usage in some stud-
 3.3. Research methodology and design 77

ies: Breiteneder (2005), 20 per cent; Meierkord (2004), 9 per cent; Ranta
(2006), 13 per cent. If non-standardness is so low in comparison with usage
that conforms to prescriptive norms, can we talk about a set of features that
cut across a wide range of settings? Why do some of the features seem to
be identical with the features of learner language and New Englishes? Are
these features then unique to the usage of English in ELF settings? For
better understanding of ELF settings, these questions must be addressed.
The present study aims to answer these questions in addition to the main
research questions. The inclusion of this section will enable the study to
show to what extent the discourse was characterized by variability, and if
so, how stable the non-standard features were in the material, which would
not be possible to obtain from the extensive analyses.

Checking for overt disturbance

At this stage of the study, it was time to check for overt disturbance in the
speech events and categorize the features as either ‘disturbing’ (D) or ‘non-
disturbing’ (ND), indicating respectively whether the features cause overt
comprehension problems or not.
I examined the sound files carefully through listening by paying atten-
tion to the surrounding discourse and confirmation checks, repair requests
and general requests for clarification through direct questions and repetition
of troublesome items since such items are considered important indicators
of misunderstanding in ELF research (Lappalainen 2001; Mauranen 2006a:
132).
It is relatively easy to spot overt disturbance in student group-work.
Even if they choose not to reveal problems in comprehension, miscommu-
nication or lack of comprehension becomes apparent at a later stage of the
group-work since, in such an event, they fail to get to the intended out-
come. Lectures are, however, much harder, if not impossible, to analyze
when it comes to comprehension. The present study relies predominantly
on questions with regard to checking overt disturbance, both those raised
during lectures and group-work. Questions are both direct and indirect sig-
nals of misunderstanding (Mauranen 2006a: 132–133). Other than ques-
tions, confirmation checks, requests for repair and clarification are consid-
ered signals of misunderstandings (Mauranen 2006a: 124).
The general view of verbal communication is that understanding is gen-
erally not signaled (Mauranen 2006a: 128), except perhaps with backchan-
78 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

neling and nodding. However, if only overt disturbance is taken into ac-
count and investigated, the only behavior that is investigated is of a retro-
spective kind (Mauranen 2006a: 131). To get a better picture of the situa-
tion, speakers’ prospective behavior should also be taken into account, and
to do so, speakers’ proactive talk should be considered (Mauranen 2006b:
131), which has been reported to be a prominent feature of ELF interaction
(Mauranen 2006b: 135). In other words, what speakers do to avoid disturb-
ance in communication to ensure information exchange is of great rele-
vance. The present study investigates the discourse level by looking closely
at the pragmatic strategies used by the speakers in both lectures and student
group-work, and by doing so, goes beyond form.
In the event of detecting overt disturbance, the study investigated the
feature/s causing overt disturbance in depth in terms of morphosyntax and
phonology if necessary. If analyses at other levels become necessary, e.g.
analyses at the phonological level, I opted for the more advanced sound
program Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2005) instead of Audacity, which
was used during the recording stage. Praat allows for advanced speech
analysis and speech synthesis, labeling and segmentation, speech manipula-
tion, algorithms and has good graphics that are easy to read.
After the investigation of non-standard morphosyntactic forms, the em-
phasis was put on the discourse level for further examination. This part of
the investigation was designed subsequent to the completion of the first
stage of this investigation. Because, during the recording stage, communi-
cation seemed to take place virtually without much disturbance despite
frequent and considerable divergence from standard forms, it was quite
likely that there were discourse strategies where meaning was negotiated or
clarified among the speakers. Moreover, in order not to limit the work only
to those cases where disturbance in communication is overtly recognized
by the speaker(s), it was necessary to investigate the usage of discourse
strategies and thereby look at ‘prospective behavior’ as well as ‘retrospec-
tive behavior’ (Mauranen 2006b: 131), also discussed by Kaur as preventa-
tive and remedial strategies respectively (Kaur 2009: 109).
To reach a better understanding of the material at hand and to see
whether a similar argument could be made, I analyzed the four lectures and
four group-work sessions that I had transcribed earlier to ensure objectivity
and to investigate variability in depth, to look into the number of occur-
rences of clarification strategies used by the speakers. Penz’s study (2008)
on multicultural English-medium seminars at the European Center for
modern languages was the starting point here, because her data show paral-
 3.3. Research methodology and design 79

lelisms with the data in the present project: The multicultural nature of the
setting, it being a specialized corpus, the incorporation of group-work dis-
cussions and data collection methods (participant observation and record-
ing). The same criteria have been applied here. The pragmatic strategies
investigated are comments on terms and concepts, on details and content of
task, on discourse structure, signaling importance, comment on intent and
common ground, with the additions of backchanneling, repair and repeti-
tion.

Perceived communicativeness and attitudes survey

In a later stage of the present study, I investigated perceived communica-

tiveness and attitudes towards non-standard morphosyntactic forms by
means of a survey. I designed this survey after personal communication and
interviews that revealed irritation towards non-standard English, from both
the lecturers’ and students’ point of view. In other words, the survey was
designed to see how common irritation was and what perceived communi-
cativeness was like in this setting.
This part of the study is different from the other parts with regard to da-
ta collection. The data came from an experimental situation and not from
authentic communication. Although this might seem like compromising the
quality of the general data here, it was important to get data on irritation
since constant irritation can adversely affect communication. It was sug-
gested as early as in the 1980s that comprehensibility and irritation are
“intricately linked” (Ludwig 1982).
When investigating attitudes and irritation in general, the problem the
researcher faces is that the object is not observable (Albrechtsen et al.
1980). This requires a subjective data collection method, namely surveys
and questionnaires where the subject himself/herself expresses an opinion
on the point of investigation. This study investigated how ‘irritating’ or
‘non-irritating’ a feature was to examine attitudes and listener-friendliness
using the data that were obtained through a survey, which is in a way a
‘tolerance test’. The method adopted here was to describe and report the
interlocutors’ description of communicativeness and attitudes (objective),
which has been regarded as a way to make attitude and irritation studies
more objective (Chapter 2). When it comes to preparing the questionnaire
sheet, I used a tripolar semantic differential scale (Osgood et al. 1957) for
perceived communicativeness and attitudes. The information obtained from
80 3 Exploring an academic ELF setting

semantic differential scales is regarded to be highly generalizable, which is

the reason for applying this scale in the present study.
The design of survey was subsequent to the investigation of the non-
standard morphosyntactic structures that were discovered in the investiga-
tion. I chose two or three sentences containing each non-standard feature
(Appendix 3). Because most authentic sentences included more than one
non-standard example of different types of morphosyntactic usage, I had to
avoid exclusively authentic speech in some utterances, leaving only one
non-standard example of usage in order to direct the respondents to a cer-
tain structure. Apart from this, I made sure not to manipulate the utterances
in terms of form or lexis. The next issue had to do with the recording
stage. I had two non-native speakers of English with indeterminate non-
native accents read the sentences into Audacity for recording which later
made up the two different voices of the survey. One of the speakers was a
native speaker of Swedish with a slight Swedish accent, and the other, a
native speaker of German with a slight German accent. These two speakers
were chosen to be representative of the type of English that is most fre-
quently heard in the setting. In order to avoid getting responses on accents
or the speaker’s voice instead of the intended morphosyntax, some groups
listened to Speaker A and some, Speaker B, reading the same sentences
from the material. The number of groups listening to each speaker was kept
equal.
I first piloted the survey with a group of respondents, all engineering
students in the same setting. The piloting was undertaken to ensure the
validity of the questionnaire in general and to make sure it would function
effectively during the administration stage. According to the information
obtained, some minor changes were required to the questionnaire as regards
questionnaire design, especially to get the respondents to focus on the
points of interest instead of other points that might stand out, e.g. unfamil-
iar words or unintelligible pronunciation of a word. The piloting stage also
produced useful data on respondents’ views on speaking like native speak-
ers (Chapter 5).
In the administering stage, I selected courses with English as the lan-
guage of instruction. After receiving information about the present research
project, they all volunteered to spend some of the classroom time on this
survey (convenience sampling). The respondents simply listened to the
sentences and ticked the corresponding response on the questionnaire sheet
under perceived communicativeness and irritation. Extra space was provid-
 3.3. Research methodology and design 81

ed for those who wanted to write down additional comments. This com-
pleted the data gathering stages.
Chapter 4
Operating in a Swedish ELF site

4.1. Dimension 1: Form

In the previous chapter, we looked at the different methods used to generate

data for the study in the present monograph. In this chapter, we will exam-
ine the results, starting with this section on analyses in the form dimension,
moving later on to the results on the communicativeness dimension. Final-
ly, we will consider the results of the survey.
With regard to form, the results regarding the phrase level will be fol-
lowed by the results of the clause level. For a clear picture, the results for
both levels in both lectures and student group-work sessions will be sum-
marized in a tabular fashion. Finally, a comparison will be provided of the
non-standard forms in the data with respect to standard production per
hour.

4.1.1. Commonalities of usage

We will start by considering the results in the phrase level, starting with
the noun phrase (NP). The features found matching the frequency criteria
(section 3.1) were ‘Not marking the plural on the noun’, ‘Article usage’,
and ‘Double comparatives/superlatives’.
One of the most interesting features perhaps is ‘Not marking the plural
on the noun’, considering the importance and frequency of quantity bundles
in engineering (Biber 2006: 170–171). In other words, engineers deal with
numbers on a daily basis, and one would expect exact quantification to be
critical, which would be reflected in their use of quantification. In the sam-
ple, many speakers seem to indicate the plural meaning merely by numbers
or by adverbs or determiners before the noun but leave the noun itself
without an inflexion. There were 159 instances of this type of usage in the
lectures (3.3/hr) and 44 instances in student group-work (1.6/hr).
This type of non-standard usage seems to occur in two different patterns
in the material. In the first type, the speakers use quantifiers to indicate
plural meaning. Some examples of this are given in (1–18):
 Dimension 1: Form 83

(1) They have a range from 50 to 500 meter. Above 500 meter you have
to consider Pelton turbines
(2) Typically you want to have five kilogram of oxygen.
(3) They are compatible even below 5 meter.
(4) Here there are two type of equations.
(5) I know one turbine with 1328 meter.
(6) In our department we have three gasifier.
(7) …two different reactor: reactor X and reactor Y.
(8) We have three three three kind of reaction.
(9) So we have two more condition for…
(10) We have four parameter.
(11) You can have ten glass vessel like we did.
(12) … 4 cubic meter.
(13) He said you can reduce from 8000 hour per year to 6000 hour per
year.
(14) You need to make sure it is 200 degree.
(15) It is always ten digit.
(16) And these are the destinations. Seven different destination.
(17) Waterpower is very old. Hydroelectricity is 125 year.
(18) It produces 700 megawatt for 11 months a year.

As the examples above show, this usage is found both with regular nouns
and units of measurement. In the second type, general quantifiers are used
to indicate plural meaning, again without plural marking on the noun (19)–
(27):

(19) In many many case you can gasify it.

(20) … all the dynamic part.
(21) There are some difference between conventional…
(22) We have maybe several conclusion.
(23) You have several unknown.
(24) You also get a lot of infrastructure problem from wind turbines.
(25) ..., because we would need all the detail from the new equipments...
(26) You can actually compare several process and improve the use of
the utilization and make it more…
(27) In a couple of years I will have it in all three hydropower station.

Apart from the two types exemplified above, there were some ambiguous
cases where the type of non-standardness was not clear-cut. These cases are
84 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

unlike the cases where non-standardness can be observed at once in the NP.
In such cases, I had to make a decision on what type of non-standard usage
the instance had. Items (28) and (29) below are such cases. In (28), we
cannot be sure whether the non-standardness is unmarked plural or zero
article. Another example of such a case is (29) where the usage could be
unmarked plural or lack of subject-verb agreement:

(28) …just to get result.

(29) Maybe there are some thing to improve.

In such ambiguous cases, I studied the context closely, and I categorized

the item as seemed most appropriate.
The second non-standard usage in the noun phrase level deals with arti-
cles. Article usage can be deviant in terms of form or usage. There are two
forms of the indefinite and definite articles in English, i.e. a/an and /!!/
/!i/, preceding consonants and vowels respectively. Not choosing the right
form between the two alternatives for the definite or the indefinite articles
might be regarded as leading to the same type of non-standardness. So say-
ing ‘/!!/ efficiency’ instead of ‘/!i/ efficiency’ and ‘a efficiency curve’
instead of ‘an efficiency curve’ could be treated as falling into the same
category of non-standardness. Nonetheless, an arbitrary decision was made
to treat use of the incorrect allomorph a/an as morphosyntactic and incor-
rect forms of the as a pronunciation difficulty analogous to mispronuncia-
tion of other words, misplaced stress, etc. This is in line with treatment of
misplaced stress in words like content or present. Because the aim in this
section of the present study is to investigate morphosyntax only, the pho-
netic distinction for the definite articles has been excluded here.
The following are examples where the article is simply in the wrong
form (30–35):

(30) You will have a efficiency curve…

(31) I have a exam then.
(32) So if you have a engine made for ethanol…
(33) This is a typical comparison between a old runner and a new runner.
(34) Duration curve is a important concept in hydrology.
(35) If you have a extremely efficient compressor…

The second type of non-standardness deals with usage, which has two sub-
categories. First there are articles that are superfluous, as in (36)–(42):
 Dimension 1: Form 85

(36) You can use it in the different ways.

(37) Pure hydrogen comes from the natural gas.
(38) So question, what is renewables? Anybody can define the renewabil-
ity?
(39) If you don’t have the rainy climate it doesn’t work.
(40) Bodies still exist but in the different form.
(41) If you go to the Belgium, all the highways are lit.
(42) The Einstein…

There are also cases where the article is missing, exemplified in (43)–(55):

(43) From those figures, you can have! idea what reasonable speed run-
ner size is.
(44) You can add timing interphase for ! memory system.
(45) Who has paid for the infrastructure? That’s always! interesting
question.
(46) But they have! very good subway system.
(47) It’s not !effective solution.
(48) We come to !important conclusion.
(49) It’s not that good !picture.
(50) That solution is exactly !same solution.
(51) So you got to be careful when you place the cells on !roof.
(52) This is !argument they make.
(53) You can find !discussion about the activation.
(54) Even though there are thousands of people working in wind power, it
is still very much !immature industry.
(55) I made a remark about !internal grid.

Altogether, there were 182 cases of non-standard article usage in the

lectures (3.8/hr) and 41 in student group-work (1.5/hr).
The last group of features at the noun phrase level, ‘double compara-
tives/superlatives’, includes adjective phrases such as “much more safer”,
“much more cheaper”, “much more higher”, “more bigger”, “much more
clearer”, “more stronger”, “more shorter”, “the most cheapest, “the most
highest”, etc. There were relatively few cases of this type of non-standard
usage in the corpus: Eight instances only in the lectures (0.2/hr) and 17
(0.6/hr) in student group-work.
86 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

Turning from the noun phrase level to the verb phrase level (VP), we
see three different types of non-standard usage, namely ‘Subject-verb
agreement’, ‘Tense and aspect issues’ and ‘Passive voice’.
Non-standardness in subject-verb agreement (SVA) is a feature often
found in L2 use. This type of non-standard usage occurs in two different
patterns: The singular subject not agreeing with the verb and the plural
subject in disagreement with the verb. Cases (56)–(67) are some instances
of the first type:

(56) I will talk about how a turbine operate in the system.

(57) I call this A, which is a function of past history, what a catalyst have
seen in its life.
(58) One of the drawbacks is the amount of fluid this require.
(59) So you end up with a nice mechanism which do not really contain
the surface…
(60) There is a further method which are sensitive to porosity in rocks.
(61) What is dangerous is when the flow continue to another part of the
surface where the pressure is slightly above the vapor pressure.
(62) So the cost of electricity then come down to x kilowatt hour.
(63) As you see, drilling cost increase (not) linearly.
(64) We could also get destruction of the catalyst, mechanical destruction,
which mean that we would actually spend the catalyst.
(65) Chlorophyll generate the electrons.
(66) The generation depend on...
(67) If you’re in a country that do not have these kind of statistics,…

Some examples of the second type, the verb not agreeing with the plural
subject, are as follows, in (68)–(80):

(68) However, the runner blades was not that good developed.
(69) Angle of the runner blades are reduced.
(70) All the different turbine types forms a curve.
(71) And many many parameters is affecting this one.
(72) Then comes Kaplan turbines.
(73) People gets mad because they want water there.
(74) That’s what essentially the electrons does.
(75) When the instruction window and the reorder buffer gets full…
(76) I will show you overhead pictures to explain how they works.
(77) Inorganic materials is very very poor in efficiency.
 Dimension 1: Form 87

(78) Two simulators I haven’t talked about here is A-sim and I-sim.
(79) I think all the creatures has two kind of activity.
(80) If incentives changes, the market can change…

There were 140 cases of subject-verb disagreement in the lectures (3/hr)

and 59 in student group-work (2.1/hr).
The most frequent feature when it comes to tense and aspect issues is
the progressive, again a common feature in ELF usage (Ranta 2006). This
is unlike native speaker academic discourse, for which the “simple aspect is
overwhelmingly the preferred option” (Biber 2006: 63). At the same time,
it has been shown that the progressive has been increasing for several hun-
dred years and continues to do so (Smitterberg 2005). The speakers in the
present setting often make sentences to refer to scientific or technical phe-
nomena that are always true or valid, and despite this, they use the progres-
sive instead of the simple form, as in (81)–(94):

(81) A Francis turbine is using the whole turbine equation.

(82) Typically the energy of the sun is emitting…
(83) In water turbines the water is flowing along buckets before it leaves
the runner.
(84) My idea is to explain how this board is working.
(85) But is that increase reflecting that we are dealing with a limited
resource?
(86) How much rain are you getting per year?
(87) A power system is called a power system, because it is using differ-
ent generator systems.
(88) Do you understand how this is working not what it is but how it is
working?
(89) If the result is showing that one machine is better than the other…
(90) Remember that part of the heating in Sweden is coming from…
(91) But I don’t think so, if you go out you see a lot of trees which is
living there.
(92) So in average it is producing…
(93) … the Francis turbine, which is the most famous turbine worldwide.
It is producing more power than any other turbine type.
(94) An asynchronous generator is depending on the net.
88 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

Examples like (95)–(97), where the simple form is used instead of the
standard progressive form, were infrequent in the data even though they are
typical of Swedish learner language (Smitterberg 2007):

(95) Now I talk about optimized turbine with large…

(96) You guys follow me?
(97) We write about different things.

Altogether, there were 145 cases of non-standard tense and aspect usage in
the lectures (3/hr) and 36 in student group-work (1.3/hr).
The third group at the VP level contains usage where passive voice
would be expected. Although used much more frequently in engineering
discourse than in other university registers, the passive voice is rare in spo-
ken university registers (Biber 2006: 65). Correspondingly, there are few
occurrences of deviant passive voice in the present material. However,
there are enough cases to meet the criteria (98)–(106):

(98) And the plates get heat up very quickly.

(99) They are not directly affect by these concentrations.
(100) It can be happened that sometimes…
(101) What does it mean by molar fraction vapor?
(102) I think it’s a rather huge project that built underground.
(103) But we affect by the flow.
(104) Are we asking in the computer lab to find the minimum mass?
(105) When is this decision made what is going to include in this system.
(106) Certain steels are not corrode very quickly in alcohol environment.

There were 14 cases of non-standard passive voice usage in the lectures

(0.3/hr) and 11 in student group-work (0.4/hr).
We will now turn to the second main section in the syntactic analysis
and consider the results in the clause level. The features found matching the
frequency criteria were ‘Non-standard question formulation’, ‘Word Order’
and ‘Negation’.
Non-standard question formulation is the first usage we will consider in
the clause level. In the present study, I will use the term ‘question’ instead
of ‘interrogative’ in classification and throughout. The reason for this is
that the term interrogative is a way of classifying utterances by using struc-
tural criteria, i.e. that there is some change in intonation, that there is syn-
tactic change in the sentence and finally, that there are insertions of words,
 Dimension 1: Form 89

such as interrogative adverbs/pronouns, tags, etc. (Ultan 1978). In the pre-

sent material, there are cases that do not follow any of these criteria but that
are functionally questions, which is why structural data do not suffice and
the term ‘interrogative’ is not fully appropriate in this case. In this study, I
have defined questions functionally, following Quirk et al.’s definition, i.e.
“utterances that seek information” (Quirk et al. 1985). The term ‘question’,
therefore, is more appropriate here.
There are two main types of questions, namely ‘Wh-questions also
known as ‘Open questions’ and ‘Yes/No questions, also known as ‘polarity
questions’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 808). I will refer to them as Wh-questions
and Yes/No questions throughout. In Wh-questions, there are many possi-
ble answers that the question can generate while in Yes/No questions, two
answers are possible: ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
There are many cases of non-standard question formulation of various
types in the corpus as exemplified in (107)–(136), observed both in Wh-
and Yes/No questions. See (107)–(124) for non-standard Wh-questions:

(107) Why is such a difference in the diagram here between the blue and
the red then?
(108) So what kind of plant you have to consider?
(109) Why is not good to combust directly?
(110) Why this quotation only on one side?
(111) Why it is X but not X0?
(112) In the outlet…What we have in the outlet?
(113) Why the function looks like that?
(114) How many pages they have?
(115) Where we are?
(116) What other equation I would use?
(117) Why it is like this?
(118) What means two pages?
(119) Why we place it there?
(120) Which kind of the vortex we should have?
(121) How many graphs we have?
(122) How many pages you will work on this?
(123) Why has ASTRA 18 hours?
(124) So you started classification from which point you started?

In (107)–(124) above, different types of complexities are mixed: Missing

‘there’ (107), missing ‘it’ (109), missing copula (110) and issues related to
90 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

the usage of ‘do’ (113, 118, 121, 124). The rest of the non-standardness
deals with word order (115, 116, 117, 120, 122).
(125)–(136) below are instances of Yes/No type questions, many of
which are Declarative questions, i.e. questions with declarative word order:

(125) Either one or two we have?

(126) Then I remove it?
(127) Anybody knows what is black liquor?
(128) We should go through every topic?
(129) Also J’s part after my part?
(130) Then I should remove it?
(131) You know what the main difference?
(132) T11 is the combustion?
(133) Refer to a real accident do you mean?
(134) You just start measuring more early?
(135) Anyone knows why you wouldn’t see that?
(136) So anybody can read the first sentence?

In (125)–(136) above, there are declarative questions (126, 130, 132,

134, 136), questions that deal with reported speech (127) and questions
missing a verb (131). From these examples, it seems that speakers in ELF
settings sometimes disregard question word order and other complexities.
They ask questions mainly by using interrogative adverbs/pronouns e.g.
what, why in Wh-questions and follow the declarative sentence word order
in Yes/No questions. This type of usage is present mainly in the dialogic
material in the present study. It is highly likely that the speech event type is
the main factor behind this: In group-work, speakers often raise questions
to complete the task whereas in lectures, it is not so often that the lecturer
directs questions to the floor. This type of deviance differs from all others
discussed here since it is the only one that overtly disturbs communication
and leads to repetition and rephrasing in some cases (section 4.2).
There were 20 cases of non-standard question formulation in the lec-
tures (0.4/hr) and 62 in student group-work (2.2/hr).
Non-standardness in questions are often word-order related. We will
now turn to word order problems that are not in direct questions. The mate-
rial has examples of non-standard word order, most of which have to do
with indirect speech such as the ones in (137)–(153):
 Dimension 1: Form 91

(137) One of them is energy; another is how fast can you recover.
(138) Still we have to find out what sources do we have on this bus.
(139) Here you see how does it look like.
(140) We have to look at what did we here.
(141) The system shows what kind of a system are you going to be using.
(142) So I had to find out where is the registers.
(143) Salinity can affect what kind of material can you use and what type
of X can you use.
(144) It depends on what do you have and what your needs are and so on.
(145) So that’s more or less what was it.
(146) Then you know how much is the flow.
(147) Here you see in terms of plant size, how does it work and how does
it look like?
(148) You get a feeling of how is the cost developing for wind power.
(149) We can’t judge how solid is the ground.
(150) Maybe my problem I don’t know what does this mean.
(151) I don’t know what is the aim.
(152) You should mention what X is in your text because everyone doesn’t
know what is it.
(153) The degradation of the EPI is proportional to how long will you
keep it at high temperature.

The above examples (137)–(153) are all non-standard reported questions

and all deal with indirectness. Of course, there were other cases of non-
standard word order in the material such as in (154)–(156) below. Howev-
er, they were infrequent.

(154) You are able to carry directly gas.

(155) You cannot produce directly alcohol from potatoes.
(156) ... to supply oil enough.

There were 38 cases of non-standard word order in the lectures (0.8/hr) and
23 in student group-work (0.8/hr).
Another category that meets the frequency criteria is negation. The type
of non-standardness in negation is what one might call absence of raised
negation from the subordinate clause to the main clause. This usage seems
to be common especially in the dialogic material with some examples also
in the monologic material, as in (157)–(168):
92 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

(157) I think it is not right to plot these in the same diagram.

(158) I think it’s not a proper way to describe it.
(159) This point is supposed to not move.
(160) I think my X is not OK here.
(161) But that caught fire not because of the hydrogen.
(162) I think he won’t be here.
(163) I think they cannot be…
(164) Do you have any nons that lead not to 0 here?
(165) No this can’t be. That would be not ten minutes.
(166) It has not always a low complexity.
(167) It is a not very good generator.
(168) It looks not good.

There were 13 cases of non-standard negation in the lectures (0.3/hr) and

20 in student group-work (0.7/hr).
The third area of non-standardness in the form dimension deals with
morphology. Non-standard morphology forms only a small part of the pre-
sent investigation. The commonalities here have been categorized as ‘Non-
standard word formations’, ‘Analytic comparative’ and ‘Non-standard plu-
ral forms/Countability’. The speakers produce forms as in examples below
(169)–(175):

(169) discriminization
(170) forsify
(171) levelize
(172) unlogical
(173) boringdom
(174) inofficial
(175) argument (verb)

Within morphology, there are also instances of the analytic comparative,

such as in (176)–(181):

(176) more narrow

(177) more cheap…more easy
(178) more clear
(179) more stiff
(180) more tiny
(181) more close
 Dimension 1: Form 93

I have grouped non-standard plural forms, such as in (182)–(191) also un-

der morphology.

(182) Instead of showing how much liters will pass through,…

(183) … how many energy I need…
(184) We did very much things.
(185) I don’t know why you guys had less samples.
(186) One unit has very much disadvantages.
(187) … to give you an idea of how much efforts...
(188) … how many hydrogen you have around these carbons.
(189) That’s getting less students.
(190) He has a very good statistics about it.
(191) And many people say the belt gear it’s much simpler and less prob-
lems that can occur.

Some of the cases were overlaps between ‘article usage’ and ‘not marking
the plural on the noun’. Example (190) above is an example of such a case.
This example could be subsumed under ‘incorrect article’ or ‘non-standard
plural’. I treated such uses of the indefinite article as cases of ‘non-standard
plurals/countability’. I categorized cases with the definite article however,
such as examples (41) and (42), as cases of non-standard article usage since
there is no countability issue in these cases.
Altogether there were 58 cases of morphological non-standard usage in
the monologic material (an average of 0.4/hr) and 48 in the dialogic part
(an average of 0.6/hr). Considering the size of the material, there are few
cases of divergence from standard usage of morphology per hour.
Providing per hour figures may not necessarily allow for a comparison
with findings from other studies where the figures are given per number of
words. This is naturally a consequence of carrying out extensive analyses
(Chapter 3), which I would not have been able to do had I employed other
methods. However, to mitigate this, I have provided figures per number of
words for the intensive analyses in the present study (section 4.1.2).
Table 4.1 shows the number of occurrences for each feature as exempli-
fied above, in the noun phrase (NP), verb phrase (VP) and clause level
(CL). The figures show clearly that the phrase level is richer in terms of
non-standard usage compared to the clause level. The figures also show
how little non-standard usage there is of morphology in comparison with
syntax:
94 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

Table 4.1. The number of non-standard (NonS) morphosyntactic features found in

the monologic (M) and dialogic (D) corpus.

Non-standard morphosyntactic features M D !

Syntax PL NP
Not marking the plural 159 44 203
Article usage 182 41 223
Double comparatives/superlatives 8 17 25
VP
Subject-verb agreement 140 59 199
Tense and aspect issues 145 36 181
Passive voice 14 11 25
CL
Non-standard questions 20 62 82
Word order 38 23 61
Negation 13 20 33

Morphology NonS word forms 6 10 16

NonS analytic comparative 18 16 34
NonS plural forms/countability 34 22 56

In this section, we have seen that the present lingua franca corpus has a
number of non-standard morphosyntactic features. This is, however, not
unique to ELF usage (Chapter 5). A corpus of native speech would turn up
such non-standard usage as well (section 3.3). The implications of the re-
sults in the form dimension will be elaborated on in Chapter 5.

4.1.2. Non-standard usage vs. standard usage

Subsequent to the previous steps, I decided to calculate the average number

of occurrences per 60 minutes of the non-standard morphosyntactic fea-
tures in both the monologic and dialogic parts of the corpus. The following
table, Table 4.2, shows these. The figures are relatively low, which indicat-
ed that the majority of the morphosyntactic constructions in the material
actually conformed to standard forms.
In addition to the figures per hour, I carried out intensive analyses and
manually counted all the cases of standard and non-standard usage in the
four lectures and four group-work sessions that I had fully transcribed ear-
 Dimension 1: Form 95

lier (Chapter 3). This was considerable manual work, but it allowed for
comparisons of standard vs. non-standard usage. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 show
the numbers and percentages of the standard and non-standard features in
the monologic and dialogic corpus respectively.

Table 4.2. The number of occurrences of the non-standard morphosyntactic fea-

tures found both in the monologic (M) and dialogic (D) corpus.

Non-standard morphosyntactic features M D

(/hr) (/hr)
Syntax PL NP
Not marking the plural 3.3 1.6
Article usage 3.8 1.5
Double comparatives/superlatives 0.2 0.6
VP
Subject-verb agreement 3 2.1
Tense and aspect issues 3 1.3
Passive voice 0.3 0.4
CL
Non-standard questions 0.4 2.2
Word order 0.8 0.8
Negation 0.3 0.7
Morphology NonS word forms 0.1 0.4
NonS analytic comparative 0.4 0.6
NonS plural forms/countability 0.7 0.8
Table 4.3. The number of occurrences of the non-standard (NS) and standard (S) morphosyntactic features found in the monolog-
ic corpus. NA: Not applicable.

Lecture 1 Lecture 2 Lecture 3 Lecture 4

S NS S% NS S NS S% NS S NS S% NS S NS S% NS
% % % %
Marking the 29 3 91 9 25 0 10 0 21 1 95 5 43 5 90 10
plural
Articles 270 7 97 3 455 15 97 3 361 5 99 1 514 6 99 1
Compara- 8 0 100 0 15 0 100 0 30 0 100 0 24 1 96 4
tives/
Superlatives
SVA 183 6 97 3 405 4 99 1 324 2 99 1 541 10 98 2
Tense and 187 2 99 1 469 4 99 1 333 5 99 1 563 19 97 3
aspect
Passive 36 2 95 5 16 0 100 0 24 3 89 11 35 0 100 0
voice
Question 7 1 88 13 8 0 100 0 9 1 90 10 11 0 100 0
formulation
Negation 47 2 96 4 38 0 100 0 66 1 99 1 46 1 98 2
Analytic 10 0 100 0 15 0 100 0 7 0 100 0 10 0 100 0
comparative
Plural forms/ 49 3 94 6 69 2 97 3 173 0 100 0 171 6 97 3
countability
Totals 826 26 NA NA 1515 25 NA NA 1348 18 NA NA 1958 48 NA NA
Table 4.4. The number of occurrences of the non-standard (NS) and standard (S) morphosyntactic features found in the dialogic
corpus. NA: Not applicable.

Group-work 1 Group-work 2 Group-work 3 Group-work 4

S NS S% NS S NS S% NS S NS S% NS S NS S% NS
% % % %
Marking the 9 2 82 18 49 7 88 13 10 1 91 9 11 5 69 31
plural
Articles 391 2 99 1 161 12 93 7 504 6 99 1 187 21 90 10
Compara- 36 0 100 0 17 1 94 6 12 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
tives/
Superlatives
SVA 441 8 98 2 511 6 99 1 554 0 100 0 266 11 96 4
Tense and 478 1 100 0 519 1 10 0 555 0 100 0 278 0 100 0
aspect
Passive 10 0 100 0 10 1 91 9 23 0 100 0 1 1 50 50
voice
Question 15 3 83 17 63 0 100 0 42 7 86 14 15 12 56 44
formulation
Negation 62 2 97 3 130 0 100 0 103 1 99 1 54 3 95 5
Analytic 30 1 97 3 14 0 100 0 8 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
comparative
Plural forms/ 26 0 100 0 61 1 98 2 65 0 100 0 21 2 91 9
countability
Totals 1498 19 NA NA 1535 29 NA NA 1876 15 NA NA 833 55 NA NA
98 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

Tables 4.3 and 4.4 show all the morphosyntactic features in the data with
the exception of word order and word forms. This was done due to reasons
of practicality. As the figures show, non-standard features were not fre-
quent in the data. Although there is more non-standardness in the student
group-work sessions, the standard forms are much more common overall.
I will discuss the implications of these results in further detail in Chap-
ter 5.

4.2. Dimension 2: Communicativeness

This section focuses communicativeness in the present study: First where

communicativeness is not achieved, and next, by which means it is
achieved when it is achieved. As touched upon in the methods section, in
spite of the divergence from standard forms, there were very few cases of
overt disturbance in the material. More significantly, among all the forms
analyzed closely, only non-standard formulation of questions resulted in
overt disturbance in communication and affected communicative effective-
ness. This naturally calls for a detailed investigation, which I will provide
in the immediate section (4.2.1). From overt disturbance, we will turn to
how speakers in the present setting seem to achieve communicative effec-
tiveness by using pragmatic strategies (4.2.2).

4.2.1. Investigating overt disturbance

Since questions proved to be critical for communication and they were the
only features that caused disturbance when produced in a non-standard
way, I made a decision to expand the study and include phonological anal-
yses to explore questions in more depth. When investigating questions,
undoubtedly, question intonation shoulders an important responsibility.
Therefore, a phonological investigation proved necessary.
For the phonological analyses of question intonation, I investigated ex-
amples of questions that caused overt disturbance, questions that did not
cause disturbance as well as questions that seemed to cause disturbance for
extra-linguistic reasons, e.g. content-related reasons, phonologically. As I
had planned at the outset of the study for possible phonological analyses
(Chapter 3), I used the program Praat (Boersma and Weenink 2005). I
made a separate sound file for each question, opened them in Praat win-
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 99

dows and got the program to draw the pitch contours in a different window.
From these windows, I was able to study the pitch contours separately for
the cases of Yes/No questions and Wh-questions. My aim here was to in-
vestigate what role question intonation
played in the registering of a question by the listener if the speaker
makes use of question intonation.
Questions were present predominantly in the dialogic part of the materi-
al. This is quite natural since lectures, which are almost exclusively mono-
logic speech events, do not usually have frequent instances of interaction
but mostly questions that are posed by the lecturer to the audience. The
following instances are all examples of non-standard questions from the
dialogic material. In some of the cases including questions, non-standard
questions were paraphrased (192), or repaired by the speaker (193)–(194),
changed slightly and repeated (195), or simply repeated in the same form
(196):

(192) <S1> how is the length of this . i mean how many pages you
will work on this . i mean if you count for how much part in
your work </S1>
<S2> ahh , just two or three pages i think </S2>

(193) <S1> it is given </S1>

<S2> huh </S2>
<S1> is it given </S1>
<S2> yes </S2>

(194) <S1> we should go through every topic </S1>

<S2> mhm </S2>
<S1> should we go through every topic </S1>
<S2> not this one this one we already have </S2>

(195) <S1> on the outlet , what we have on the outlet </S1>

<S2> mhm , huh </S2>
<S1> (in) the outlet what we have </S1>
<S2> (xx) </S2>

(196) <S1> so what other equation i would use </S1>

<S2> yeah </S2>
<S1> what what other equation i would use </S1>
100 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

<S2> this one </S2>

In (192) we have an example of a paraphrased question. S1 first asks the
question by saying “how is the length of this” and then paraphrases to “how
many pages you will work on this”, followed by “I mean if you count for
how much part in your work”. S1 tries to provide clarification marked by “I
mean”, which he does twice. In (193) and (194) we have declarative ques-
tions, i.e. “it is given” and “we should go through every topic”. S1s, i.e.
speakers numbered 1, repair their questions by applying standard syntax
when they ask the questions for the second time, which provides them with
the answers. In (195), S1 repeats the question he asks in the first turn in a
slightly different form to get an answer and changes from “in the outlet
what we have in the outlet” and “in the outlet what we have”. When he
rephrases the question, he topicalizes “in the outlet”, which seems to be an
important piece of information in this interaction. He gets an answer after
this rephrasing. In (196), we see the same form repeated by S1 with basi-
cally no change in syntax, i.e. “so what other equation I would use”. How-
ever, there is something S1 does differently when she asks the question for
the second time: She makes changes to her prosody, which is generally a
key difference between a declarative statement and an interrogative, apart
from syntactic differences.
At this point, questions appeared as significant features in ELF com-
munication in the analyses. The initial research questions did not cover this
area, and it would not have been logical to include previous research on
questions in Chapter 2. I will undertake this task here.
Asking questions, which is a speech act, may involve a variety of lexi-
cal, syntactic and prosodic means (van Heuven and van Zanten 2005).
Among these, prosodic means play an important role in identifying ques-
tions. It is true that languages differ considerably with reference to inter-
rogativity in terms of sentence melody. However, it has been suggested that
most languages include some type of high pitch somewhere in the question,
indicating interrogativity (Bolinger 1989; Lindsey 1985; van Heuven and
Zanten 2005). In comparative studies on word and sentence prosody, find-
ings have shown that interrogativity is always accompanied by the use of
high pitch either locally, i.e. distributed somewhere in the utterance or
globally, i.e. present throughout the utterance (van Heuven and Haan 2000;
van Heuven and van Leyden 2003). So, it is common to use final rise in
questions; however, it also has been suggested that it is by no means com-
pulsory (Hirst 1998: 65).
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 101

To have a closer look into questions, we will consider Yes/No questions

and Wh-questions separately:
In Yes/No questions, there are three characteristics that tell declarative
statements from interrogatives: Global characteristics, recurrent patterns
and local characteristics (Hirst and Di Cristo 1998: 25). A pitch contour
that is defined as global is placed on the entire utterance or on a part of it.
US English, Swedish, Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish, Hungarian, Western
Arabic, Vietnamese and Thai are examples of languages where utterances
have global characteristics that differentiate interrogatives from declarative
statements. There are also recurrent patterns that one can tell questions by,
i.e. recurring pitch patterns on stressed parts in the utterance, such as in
French. Finally, there are local characteristics, and this is best recognized
by the high final rise in an utterance. It was reported long ago that about 70
per cent of a large sample of languages, i.e. almost 250, have utterance-
final rising pitch (Bolinger 1978). In the same investigation, the remaining
30 per cent had globally higher pitch, i.e. higher general pitch in the entire
question compared to declaratives, for interrogatives than for declaratives.
Wh-questions, on the other hand, are generally similar to declaratives
rather than to Yes/No questions in terms of pitch patterns. In English, both
Yes/No and Wh-questions have been reported to have falling intonation
almost as often as they rise (Bolinger 1998: 50).
There seem to be two possible cues for Yes/No questions and three for
Wh-questions: Interrogative adverbs/pronouns (in Wh-questions only),
syntax (especially word order) and intonation. To start with, in the present
data in Wh-questions, we see that interrogative adverbs/pronouns are gen-
erally in place. The second cue is syntax. In this material, there is consider-
able non-standardness in question word order in both Wh- and Yes/No
questions (e.g. 115, 116, 117, 120, 122), missing ‘there’ (e.g. 107), missing
‘it’ (e.g. 109), missing copula (e.g. 110) or issues related to the usage of
‘do’ (e.g. 113, 118, 121, 124) (section 4.1.1). The third cue is intonation.
Although it has been suggested that rising intonation in questions in Eng-
lish is not compulsory in native speaker usage (Hirst 1998: 65), the plausi-
ble assumption is that it is most likely to be helpful to the listener, especial-
ly to those who use English as a lingua franca, where there are different
types of non-standardness and complexities in speech.
Despite varying results on the necessity of rising intonation to indicate
interrogativity, the lack of question intonation when combined with other
non-standardness in morphosyntax may be one of the factors that leads to
disturbance in communication. Very often in the material, the non-standard
102 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

syntax in the questions was accompanied by flat intonation. It may be that

it is a combination of non-standard syntax and lack of clear question into-
nation that creates opacity for the interlocutors.
The following is a Praat window, showing the pitch contour for “it is
given” (193) in Figure 4.1. It should be noted that the pitch range is tradi-
tionally set at 75–300 Hz for male voices and 100–500 Hz for female voic-
es, which is what I have done in the present study.
it_is_given0
0
300

255

210
Pitch (Hz)

it is given

165

120

75
0 0.1361 0.2721 0.4082 0.5443 0.6804
Time (s)

Figure 4.1. The pitch contour for the question “it is given”.
The pitch contour for “it is given” is quite flat as Figure 4.1 shows. During
the conversation, S2 cannot register the question. S1 repeats the question,
this time with standard syntax, i.e. “is it given” and with clear rising intona-
tion on the word “given” (Figure 4.2):

is_it_given
0.00779516564
300

255 given

210
Pitch (Hz)

is it

165

120

75
0 0.1662 0.3325 0.4987 0.6649 0.8312
Time (s)
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 103

Figure 4.2. The pitch contour for the question “is it given”.
Notice the difference between 0.4082–0.5443 in Figure 4.1 and 0.4987–
0.9949 in Figure 4.2. It is not clear whether it is the corrected syntax or the
clear rising intonation that helps S2 register the question. However, two
cues are present in the second version of the question, which are both likely
to have helped the listener register the question.
In (194), the case is somewhat similar. The pitch contour here indicates
that S1 is asking a question with non-standard syntax, i.e. “we should go
through every topic” and then repairs it, i.e. “should we go through every
topic” after S2 asks for repetition. The first time the speaker does this, the
word order is non-standard, but there is rising intonation on different parts
of the sentence. By doing so, the speaker has one of the two cues present,
rising intonation, with a mean pitch of 139.6 Hz. See Figure 4.3 for the
pitch contour of “we should go through every topic”:

we_should_every_topic0
0.0126262547 2.3753288
300

255

we should topic
210
Pitch (Hz)

go through every

165

120

75
0 0.4751 0.9501 1.425 1.9 2.375
Time (s)

Figure 4.3. The pitch contour for the question “we should go through every topic”.

The second time S1 asks the question, he corrects the syntax of the ques-
tion to “Should we go through every topic?” and keeps rising intonation
(mean pitch 148.4 Hz), and in doing so, he has two of the three cues pre-
sent: Rising intonation and standard syntax. It is highly likely that these
two cues help the listener register the question. The pitch contour is shown
in Figure 4.4:
104 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

should_we_2_
0.0121882556
300

255 topic

210
Pitch (Hz)

should we go through

165
every

120

75
0 0.3318 0.6636 0.9953 1.327 1.659
Time (s)

Figure 4.4. The pitch contour for the question “should we go through every topic”.

In (195), S1 asks the question “what we have on the outlet”, and when do-
ing that, he has two of the three cues present: The interrogative pronoun
“what” and rising intonation. The do has been omitted. There is some rise
in intonation (1.001–1.252), as shown in Figure 4.5 below:

ELF_Question_1
0.0041107636
300

255

210
Pitch (Hz)

what we have on the out let

165

120

75
0 0.2503 0.5007 0.751 1.001 1.252
Time (s)

Figure 4.5. The pitch contour for the question “what we have on the outlet”.
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 105

This question with non-standard syntax does not get a response. S1 repeats
the question, but he does not make any changes to the syntax or the intona-
tion. However, he topicalizes “(in) the outlet”, which is an important piece
of information. The importance of this piece of information is signaled by
his repetition of it in the first utterance. Topicalization is an explicitness
strategy (section 4.2.2), so S1 most probably wants to be more explicit and
uses topicalization as a tool to achieve explicitness, a tool available to him
at the time of speech in the conversation. He might not have been able to
correct the syntax or have clearer question intonation. The pitch contour of
the question in its second form, “in the outlet what we have”, is shown in
Figure 4.6:

what_we_have
0.00955361448
300

255

210
Pitch (Hz)

in the out let what we have

165

120

75
0 0.2601 0.5201 0.7802 1.04 1.3
Time (s)

Figure 4.6. The pitch contour for the question “in the outlet what we have”.

In (196), S1 repeats the question “so what other equation I would use” after
getting a response which clearly is not the answer to the question. The non-
standard syntax is kept in the repeated version. There is a change in pitch,
however. See the pitch contour of the question the first time S1 asks it in
Figure 4.7, and the second time she asks the same question in Figure 4.8:
106 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

equation_1
0
500

415

330
Pitch (Hz)

so what other

245
equation I would use

160

75
0 0.3095 0.619 0.9284 1.238 1.547
Time (s)

Figure 4.7. The pitch contour for the question “so what other equation I would
use”.
The pitch contour of the repetition, “what other equation I would use” is
shown in Figure 4.8:

equation_2
0.0106954087
500

415

330
Pitch (Hz)

what other equation I would use

245

160

75
0 0.4024 0.8048 1.207 1.61 2.012
Time (s)

Figure 4.8. The pitch contour for the question “what other equation I would use”.

The second time S1 asks the question there is a clear rise (a rise from a
maximum pitch of 193.8 Hz and a mean pitch of 168.4 Hz to a maximum
pitch of 238 Hz and a mean pitch of 200.5 Hz). It seems reasonable to as-
sume that this is the speaker’s attempt to make the question clear. Subse-
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 107

quent to the repetition with rising intonation, S2 appears to register the

question.
Question intonation, as suggested, is important for the question to be
registered by the listener. So in some cases, despite non-standard syntax, if
the intonation is sufficiently clear, the message seems to be conveyed to the
listener. Excerpt (197) below is another example of such a case. S4 asks a
question to S3 on line 1, with non-standard syntax but clear question into-
nation. S3 registers the question immediately and answers on line 3. See
Figure 4.9 for the pitch contour.

(197) <S4> why you always miss the lecture , sorry just curious </S4>
<S3> (curious) er sometimes i have some other lectures </S3>
<S4> but other lectures there’s some conflict in the timetable
</S4>
<S3> yeah </S3>
<S4> mhm </S4>

Elf-_why-QI
0.00988847232
500

420
Pitch (Hz)

340
why you
always miss the lecture
260

180

100
0 0.4911 0.9822 1.473 1.964 2.456
Time (s)

Figure 4.9. The pitch contour for the question “why you always miss the lecture”.

In (197), S4 provides S3 with the interrogative adverb and question intona-

tion (mean pitch 203 Hz), thereby providing the listener(s) with two cues.
S4 asks another question on line 5, following up on the answer she got
from S4 to her previous question. This time the question is a Yes/No ques-
tion in the form of a declarative: “but other lectures there’s some conflict in
the timetable” (line 3) (Fig. 4.10):
 108 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

declarative_QI
0
500

420
Pitch (Hz)

340
lectures in the timetable
but other there is some conflict
260

180

100
0 1.001 2.002 3.003 4.004 5.004
Time (s)

Figure 4.10. The pitch contour for the question “but other lectures there’s some
conflict in the timetable”.

Although the syntax is not in the form of an interrogative, the rising intona-
tion in the utterance is clear (mean pitch 211.5 Hz), between 4.004 and
5.004 Both questions asked by S4 in (197) are immediately registered by
S3.
Another example of a Wh-question where the syntax is non-standard,
but the question intonation is present (mean pitch 207.8 Hz) is “what means
two pages” on line 3:

1 (198) <S1> two pages conclusion it’s too much </S1>

2 <S2> yeah i mean if i can conclude something in one paragraph i
3 am gonna write my conclusions there what means two pages
4 (…….) you can imagine i was trying to add words and phrases
5 everywhere </S2>
6 <S1> @yeah@ <S1>
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 109
what_means_two_pages
0
300

255 what means

Pitch (Hz)

210
two pages
165

120

75
0 0.2322 0.4644 0.6966 0.9288 1.161
Time (s)
Figure 4.11. The pitch contour for the question “what means two pages”.

The following is another example of a Yes/No question with non-standard

syntax but with some rising intonation:

(199) <S1> and also J’s part after my part here </S1>
<S2> yeah yeah </S2>

The question has non-standard syntax, but there is local question intonation
at the end of the utterance (3.214–4.017) and a mean pitch of 207.8 Hz.
part
0
500

420
and also J’s part here
Pitch (Hz)

340
after my part
260

180

100
0 0.8034 1.607 2.41 3.214 4.017
Time (s)
Figure 4.12. The pitch contour for the question “and also J’s part after my part
here”.
110 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

In all the examples given in this section, it seems that the presence of as
many of the three cues as possible is very helpful, but in some cases when
the intonation is sufficiently clear, the question is registered and communi-
cation takes place without overt disturbance although other cues are miss-
ing.
It is interesting that there should be overt disturbance in Wh-questions.
This deserves special attention. The presence of an interrogative ad-
verb/pronoun is a clear signal of a question in an interaction. It has also
been suggested that the first words in an utterance are easily registered in
comparison to the words that come later on (Giora 1988). In this respect,
non-standard syntax in Yes/No questions or declaratives that are meant as
questions with no question intonation are riskier than Wh-questions. How-
ever, this does not seem to be the case in the present study. As the previous
section explained, registering the question seems to be much easier for the
listener if all the three cues are present. The interrogative adverbs/pronouns
alone do not ensure communication without overt disturbance when dealing
with questions.
The duration of an interrogative adverb/pronoun in a question is another
matter that needs to be taken into account. The interrogative adverb or pro-
noun is the first word in the utterance and has considerably shorter duration
in comparison to the other words in the question and the total duration of
the question. To show this, I measured the duration of each interrogative
adverb/pronoun in the Wh-questions given. See the following figures for
the interrogative adverb/pronoun (IA/P) durations in comparison to the
total duration (TD) in the Wh-questions given above:
Table 4.5. The interrogative adverb/pronoun IA/P duration and the complete utter-
ance duration in the Wh- questions.
Question IA/P dura- TD of IA/P duration as a
tion /secs utterance percentage of TD
What we have on the outlet 0.143 1.252 11%
What other equation I would 0.067 1.547 4%
use
Why you always miss the 0.223 2.451 9%
lecture
What means two pages 0.239 1.161 20%
Why it is black 1 and 2 12 0.220/0.183 1.153/0.825 19%/ 22%

12. This question will be mentioned later in this section.

 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 111

As the IA/P duration figures in Table 4.5 show, the interrogative ad-
verbs/pronouns take up between 4 per cent and 22 per cent of the entire
question in the examples given above, an average of 14.1 per cent. This
surely depends on the length of the question; nevertheless, the figures give
one the idea of how short the duration of an interrogative adverb/pronoun
can be in a question, even in very short questions. In addition, the first
words in an utterance are more likely to be missed than the subsequent
words due to any number of reasons, e.g. lack of attention, background
noise and unpreparedness for the utterance. Along with the non-
standardness in syntax and intonation, it is perhaps not so surprising that
the interrogative adverbs/pronouns do not or cannot prevent disturbance.
Another point may have to do with the intonation of Wh-questions. Wh-
questions have been reported to have falling intonation as often as rising
intonation (Hirst 1998: 64). This is so even when used by native speakers;
Wh-questions lack rising intonation. The combination of non-standard syn-
tax, the short duration of the interrogative adverb/pronoun and falling into-
nation, which are three different types of complexities for the listener, can
very well lead to overt disturbance in communication.
The overall conclusion here then could be that speakers in ELF situa-
tions, because of other types of non-standardness in their interactions, need
extra-explicit intonation to register and convey interrogativity.
It was important during the analysis stage to attempt to make a distinc-
tion between overt disturbance caused by linguistic elements and disturb-
ance caused by extra-linguistic elements, i.e. content-related issues in this
case. Undoubtedly, especially in group-work where the students are work-
ing on challenging tasks, many content-related issues arise which can lead
to disturbance in communication.
The three excerpts below (200–202) are examples of cases where overt
disturbance is caused by extra-linguistic elements. In (200) and (201) be-
low, the question has standard syntax and the question intonation is there;
nevertheless, there is overt disturbance. The reason for such kind of dis-
turbance surely could be any number of reasons such as lack of attention
from the listener etc., but it is likely that it is the difficulty of the content
that leads to such cases of disturbance. In excerpt (200) below, S1 is asking
a question on pressure change on lines 1 and 2. S2 responds on line 3 by
saying “this one”, which shows that he registered the question. Her ques-
tion is not registered with the intended meaning, however, and she repeats
it along with some explanation on lines 4 and 5. Getting the response “ok”
to her Yes/No type of question, she actually labels her speech act by saying
 112 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

“no it’s a question” on line 7. This is followed by laughs from both speak-
ers, leading finally to S2’s attempt to answer the initial question on lines 8
and 9:

1 (200) <S1> but will will the pressure change be be the same with the
2 equation </S1>
3 <S2> this one </S2>
4 <S1> no the pressure change , the outcoming pressure will it
5 be the same in for different (pros) </S1>
6 <S2> ok </S2>
7 <S1> no it’s a question @@ </S1>
8 <S2> @@ , /öö/ it’s supposed to be change
9 but…</S2>

ELF-_ss-QI
0.0165951372
500

420

340
Pitch (Hz)

but will will the pressure change be be the same with the equation
260

180

100
0 0.8204 1.641 2.461 3.282 4.102
Time (s)

Figure 4.13. The pitch contour for the question “but will the pressure change be be
the same with the equation”.
Figure 4.14 shows the second question in excerpt 200, “outcoming pressure
will it be the same in for different (pros)”, lines 4 and 5:
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 113

question_formulation_11
0
500

420
Pitch (Hz)

340
the outcoming pressure will it be the same in for different pros
260

180

100
0 0.8181 1.636 2.454 3.272 4.09
Time (s)

Figure 4.14. The pitch contour for the question “outcoming pressure will it be the
same in for different (pros)”.

If we look at what happens a few minutes later in the same recording, ex-
cerpt (201) below, the same two speakers encounter another case of overt
disturbance in communication:

1 (201) <S1> yeah but this is the total inlet flow isn’t it </S1>
2 <S2> only . no <S2>
3 <S1> ah is this in comparison one one flow one total flow
4 in comparison with one other total flow </S1>
5 <S2> yeah <S2>
6 <S1> is it </S1>
7 <S2> it’s a question also <S2>
8 <S1> @@ i think let me see let me see </S1>

In (201), the question “yeah but this is the total inlet flow isn’t it” (line 1)
has standard (as opposed to non-standard) syntax. The question is only
signaled by a tag question, i.e. “isn’t it” (line 1). In addition to standard
syntax accompanied by the tag question, the speaker has rising question
intonation (mean pitch 183.6Hz). See Figure 4.15.
 114 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

ELF-_with_question_intonation0
0
500

420
Pitch (Hz)

340
yeah but this is the total inlet flow isn’t it
260

180

100
0 0.5576 1.115 1.673 2.23 2.788
Time (s)

Figure 4.15. The pitch contour for the question “yeah but this is the total inlet flow
isn’t it”.

So despite all the three cues being present, i.e. the standardness in syntax,
the presence of question intonation and the question tag, which further sig-
nals that a question is being asked, the message is not successfully con-
veyed to S2. This suggests that there are likely to be extra-linguistic factors
at play here, e.g. lack of knowledge of subject matter.
A third example of a question causing overt disturbance due to extra-
linguistic elements is the question “but why the function looks like that”
(line 1) below (202).

1 (202) <S1> but why the function looks like that </S1>
2 <S2> huh </S2>
3 <S1> try to put the F1 on the other side , Fn or something </S1>
4 <S2> on the other side </S2>
5 <S1> mhm </S1>
6 <S2> but we are not defining X3 </S2>
7 <S1> ok </S1>
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 115

ELF_question_2
0.00646584587
300

255
Pitch (Hz)

210
but why the
function looks like that
165

120

75
0 0.4203 0.8406 1.261 1.681 2.101
Time (s)
Figure 4.16. The pitch for the question “but why the function looks like that”.

There is some final rise in intonation at the end (1.681–2.101), with a mean
pitch of 161.6 Hz. Although some rise is expected locally in the question,
in native usage, Wh-questions have been reported to have falling intonation
virtually as often as rising intonation (Hirst 1998: 64). So, in this respect,
the intonation in these questions cannot be described as non-native-like.
The speaker provides the listener with two of the three cues, some rising
intonation and the interrogative adverb. Despite this, the listener needs
some help with the question. S1 provides S2 with some assistance on the
subject matter instead of repetition, correction or rephrasing. The issue is
resolved through clarification of the subject matter. S2’s response “but we
are not defining X3” (line 7) indicates that S1’s question was unexpected in
terms of the task the speakers are working on. So, the overt disturbance in
the question was probably not caused by non-standardness in linguistic
elements but by an unexpected question in the course of the group-work
exercise.
Finally, we will discuss cases where there is no overt disturbance de-
spite non-standardness. When the speaker prepares the listener(s) for the
question to come by giving sufficient contextual clues, even if the syntax is
non-standard and the question intonation is not identifiable, communication
does take place, the question is registered by the listener(s) and the speaker
gets an answer to his/her question, as in (203):
 116 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

1 (203) <S1> i am surprised look to the colors here . all of them in

2 black only do you have an idea why </S1>
3 <S2> mhm </S2>
4 <S1> why it is black </S1>
5 <S2> /öö/ </S2>
6 <S3> (xx) @@ </S3>
7 <S1> why it is black , you see </S1>
8 <S2> because they are not running the (metafile) </S2>
9 <S1> yeah </S1>
10 <S2> this is ASF </S2>
11 <S1> exactly </S1>
12 <S2> this is back-up or something <S2>
13 <S1> so we should /öö/ run it from (xx) </S1>
14 <S3> mhm </S3>

In extract (203) above, S1 first draws the listeners’ attention to the colors
and prepares the listener (line 1). He then makes a declarative statement,
saying they are all black (line 1). Then he asks a standard question with
some embedding, but this does not seem to be registered by S2 or S3 (line
4). He repeats his question, this time with non-standard syntax by saying
“why it is black” (line 7). This question would not be non-standard in terms
of syntax if it were part of the first turn (lines 1 and 2; Do you have an idea
why it is black?); however, in isolation, the syntactic structure is non-
standard. Another feature of this question is the absence of rising intonation
(mean pitch 146.6 Hz, maximum pitch 184.6 Hz). See Figure 4.17 below:
why-black_short
0
300

255
Pitch (Hz)

210
it is black
why
165

120

75
0 0.2254 0.4508 0.6763 0.9017 1.127
Time (s)
Figure 4.17. The pitch contour for the question “why it is black” on line 4.
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 117

The second time S1 raises the same question (line 7), he keeps the non-
standard syntax, but seems to pay more attention to intonation. This is visi-
ble in the pitch contour when he asks the same question for the second
time, with rising pitch on “black” (0.4949–0.6598), with a mean pitch of
156.8Hz and a maximum pitch of 197.9Hz, as shown in Figure 4.18 below:
black_2
0
300

255
it is black
Pitch (Hz)

210
why
165

120

75
0 0.165 0.3299 0.4949 0.6598 0.8248
Time (s)

Figure 4.18. The pitch contour for the question “why it is black” on line 7.
When he asks the question for the second time, there is clearer rising into-
nation on the word “black”, a rise from a mean pitch of 154.8 Hz in the first
question (line 4) to a mean pitch of 174.8 Hz in the second question (line
7). See Figures 4.19 and 4.20 for the pitch contour of “black” in the first
(line 4) and second (line 7) utterances:

black-1 black-2
0.000473295355 0
300 300

255 255
Pitch (Hz)

Pitch (Hz)

210 210

165 165

120 120

75 75
0 0.08045 0.1609 0.2413 0.3218 0.4022 0 0.05963 0.1193 0.1789 0.2385 0.2982
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 4.19. The pitch contour of Figure 4.20. The pitch contour of
“black” on line 4. Mean pitch: 154.8 “black” on line 7. Mean pitch: 174.8
Hz. Hz.
118 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

The same is true for the interrogative adverb “why”. See Figures 4.21 and
4.22 for the pitch contour of “why” in the first and second utterances,
showing a rise from a mean pitch of 141.2 Hz in the first question (line 4)
to a mean pitch of 172.8 Hz in the second question (line 7):
why_1 why_2
0.000266223634 0
300 300

255 255
Pitch (Hz)

Pitch (Hz)
210 210

165 165

120 120

75 75
0 0.04525 0.0905 0.1358 0.181 0.2263 0 0.03925 0.07849 0.1177 0.157 0.1962
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 4.22. The pitch contour of

Figure 4.21. The pitch contour of
“why” on line 7. Mean pitch: 172.8
“why” on line 4. Mean pitch: 141 Hz.
Hz.

Subsequent to these changes, he gets an answer from S2, which he agrees

to (lines 9–13). Following this, he can suggest a course of action toward
solving the problem they are working on as a group “so we should /öö/ run
it from (xx)” (line 13).
If we look at the number of standard and non-standard questions in stu-
dent group-work, we get to the following figures:

Table 4.6. The number of standard and non-standard questions in the four group-
work (GW) sessions and whether they have cause disturbance or not.

S/NS Number of Overt Disturbance

questions
GW1 S 11 -
NS 1 -
GW2 S 56 -
NS 5 -
GW3 S 52 -
NS 5 1
GW4 S 13 -
NS 17 2
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 119

The conclusion we arrive at from the figures in Table 4.6 is that it is not
questions in general that cause overt disturbance; the non-standard ques-
tions seem to cause overt disturbance. In the four group-sessions, none of
the standard questions caused overt disturbance. The non-standard ones,
however, led to overt disturbance in three cases.
The finding that non-standard questions were the only features that
caused overt disturbance indicates that questions per se are important real-
time signals that show comprehension or disturbance. In this respect, the
differences between lectures and student group-work are also likely to be of
importance.
To investigate these differences, I decided to investigate further the
eight speech events that I had transcribed fully for Stage 7 of the present
study. The following table, Table 4.7, shows the frequency of questions in
the four lectures and four speech events:

Table 4.7. Questions per speech event in lectures (L) and group-work (GW) and
questions per hour.

Lectures Group-work
L1 L2 L3 L4 GW1 GW2 GW3 GW4
Questions per 16 7 11 9 12 61 57 30
speech event
Questions per 21.3 9.3 14.6 12 16 81.3 76 40
hour

The figures in Table 4.7 show that questions in lectures are much less fre-
quent than in student group-work. A subsequent issue regarding lectures is
how often students ask questions compared to lecturers. In student group-
work, naturally, it is the students who ask questions to each other. In lec-
tures, however, it could be either. To investigate whether it is lecturers or
students who ask more questions, I examined the eight speech events. It
was equally necessary to distinguish rhetorical questions lecturers usually
ask in teaching from authentic questions. Table 4.8 shows the percentage of
questions asked by the students (QSs) and questions asked by the lecturers
(QLs) in lectures and distinguishes rhetorical questions (QRLs) from genu-
ine questions (QGLs) asked by the lecturers.
120 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

Table 4.8. Questions asked by the lecturers (QLs) and the students (QSs) in the
four lectures along with the rhetorical questions asked by the lecturers.
L1 L2 L3 L4
N=16 N=7 N=11 N=9
QSs 4 0 2 7
(25%) (18.2%) (77.7%)
QLs QGLs 6 3 0 0
(37.5%) (42.8%)
QRLs 6 4 9 2
(37.5%) (57.1%) (81.8%) (22.2%)

The second row, QLs, shows the percentage of questions asked by the lec-
turers and what percentage of the lecturers’ questions were rhetorical
(QRLs). The figures show, first of all, the percentage of the questions in the
four lectures that were asked by the students, the rest being the questions
asked by the lecturers. Among the questions asked by the lecturers, only 30
per cent of the questions were regular questions, as in (204) below:

1 (204) <S1> why do you think we use catalysts , in the first place ,
2 do you have any idea about that why would we use a catalyst
3 .
4 <FOREIGN> varför ska man använda katalysator
5 </FOREIGN>, is there any point . well it’s not really totally
6 obvious </S1>

In (204), the teacher pauses only for 2–3 seconds to get an answer to the
question why catalysts need to be used (line 1). Following this, he reformu-
lates the question (line 2) and immediately after repeats the same question
in Swedish (line 3). These efforts together indicate that he does want to get
an answer to his question from the students. He pauses for another 3–4
seconds (line 4) after he asks the question in different ways and in two dif-
ferent languages, which again indicates that he is waiting for an answer.
When no student answers the question, he acknowledges this by saying
“well it’s not really totally obvious” (lines 4 and 5).
Example (205), is another case of a regular question:

(205) <S1> and and that of course involves other parts and which oth-
er parts could that be could be interesting in the design of cata-
lytic reactor , apart from the catalyst isn’t life just about chemi-
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 121

cal reactions are there anything more in life , is there </S1>

<S3> mixing </S3>
<S1> mixing very good point </S1>

(206) and (207) below are examples of rhetorical questions:

1 (206) <S1> that’s considered a bad idea <P:20> and why is it a bad
2 idea well , branches occur frequently so it will , very quickly
3 happen that , the processor will have to branch another time .
4 here </S1>

In (206), the lecturer asks the question “why is it a bad idea” (lines 1–2)
and answers the question himself (line lines 2–4) without waiting long
enough for the students to give an answer. In (207), the lecturer asks the
question “what can happen” (line 5) and answers it immediately without
any pause (line 6).

1 (207) <S1> for the prediction table we need not have this , how come
2 , well the worst thing that can happen is this case we are to be
3 we are to execute this branch instruction but we’re looking at
4 the prediction bit corresponding to this instruction because
5 they use the same prediction bit in the table what can happen
6 well the prediction can be the same no problem </S1>

In (208), the lecturer first asks the question ‘why’ (line 4) and answers the
question himself immediately without a pause (line 4). In the next sentence,
he uses the word ‘endothermic’ and asks his next rhetorical question “what
means endothermic” (lines 5 and 6). He explains the meaning of the term
by answering his own question (the rest of the excerpt):

1 (208) <S1> the most interesting part of this process is that final the
2 final result carbon-monoxide plus pure hydrogen as a high
3 energy value much higher than the mixture of methane and
4 water much higher than the methane itself why because the
5 (process) is very very endothermic what means endothermic
6 the (xx) it needs heat so process swallows heat you must
7 supply energy in terms of heat from (xx) this energy is usually
8 supplied in the industrial processes by burning some part of
9 the methane if you supply that energy with a very very low
10 quality fuel then you would have an (energy) upgrade here
122 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

11 because this mixture has actually upgraded the energy coming

12 from the solid fuel </S1>

From the figures given in tables 4.7 and 4.8, it is clear that questions are
not very frequent in lectures. Previous research has shown that students ask
and answer fewer questions in lectures given in English, and the results of
this section of the present study confirm this (Airey 2009). Lecturers also
ask few questions compared to the students in interactive group-work ses-
sions. An important addition to the present study is the section on the fre-
quency of rhetorical questions asked by the lecturers.
This concludes the section on question intonation in the present investi-
gation. The results of the intensive phonological analyses on questions can
be summarized as follows:

• Non-standard syntax in question formulation can cause overt disturb-

ance in ELF settings.

• When syntax is non-standard in questions and causes overt disturb-

ance, question intonation helps achieve meaning and register the ques-
tion.

• There are three cues that help the listener register a question in Wh-
questions (i.e. the interrogative adverb/pronoun, syntax and question
intonation, and two for Yes/No questions, i.e. syntax and question in-
tonation.

• The failure to register a question can be caused by extra-linguistic

issues such as issues related to content.

• If there is enough contextual information in a situation, the question

can get registered despite non-standard syntax and the absence of
question intonation. Earlier research has shown the importance of
shared contextual knowledge, i.e. shared disciplinary knowledge, in
ELF communication (Mauranen 2007).

• The findings appear to suggest that, despite what native speakers tradi-
tionally do, rising question intonation helps speakers ask and answer
questions in ELF settings.
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 123

4.2.2. Analyses at discourse level: Pragmatic strategies

In the present study, in an effort to investigate the material as thoroughly as

possible, I wanted to go beyond form and investigate pragmatic strategies.
At the outset of the study, I used Penz’s study (2008) on multicultural, Eng-
lish-medium seminars at the European Center for modern languages as a
starting point due to parallelisms with the data and methods in the present
project (Chapter 3): The multicultural nature of the setting, using a micro
and specialized corpus, the incorporation of group-work discussions, and
the data collection methods (participant observation and recording). I ap-
plied Penz’s criteria here to the best of my ability. However, since there
always are borderline cases, the numbers given in the present section must
be realized as approximations.
I investigated pragmatic comments on terms and concepts, details, in-
tent, discourse structure, discourse context and common ground alongside
backchanneling, repair (self- and other-repair), repetition (for emphasis,
repetition due to disfluency and repetition of others’ utterances). The study
includes analyses of both prospective and retrospective usage in order to
provide the reader with a better picture of the pragmatic strategies in the
corpus. The pragmatic comments on discourse structure comprise both
prospective usage, i.e. pointing forward in the speech event, and retrospec-
tive usage, i.e. referring back to an earlier part of the speech event and
summarizing. In addition to these strategies, I have investigated pre-
dislocation/fronting and post-dislocation/tails, which I will discuss sepa-
rately later on. Previous research has shown that these are elements of ex-
plicitness that help speakers achieve communicative effectiveness (Mau-
ranen 2007), which is why it was important to incorporate them into the
present study. In addition, topic abandonment was important in investigat-
ing the high-stakes nature of the speech events and in observing whether
linguistic elements were causing topic abandonment. The number of cases
for each feature in the four lectures and four group-work sessions are pre-
sented in Table 4.9:
124 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

Table 4.9. The pragmatic strategies used in the four lectures (L) and four group-
work sessions (G).
PRAGMATIC L1 L2 L3 L4 G1 G2 G3 G4
STRATEGIES
Comment on
terms and concepts 7 2 9 1 0 5 0 0
Comment on
details and content of 0 45 18 24 11 6 21 7
task
Comment on discourse
structure 2 16 8 7 23 4 4 0
Comment on discourse
content 22 17 23 16 21 43 11 0
Comment on signaling
importance 5 7 6 9 0 4 0 5

Comment on intent 7 14 2 1 20 5 6 0
Comment on common
ground 149 110 33 0 46 83 107 149

Backchanneling 4 4 3 5 102 217 246 208

Repair Self 7 9 0 4 20 5 4 12

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Repetition Emphasis 0 17 27 3 9 26 4 12

Disfluency 10 60 23 75 125 103 76 80

Other 2 3 0 1 14 7 10 5

! 215 304 152 146 391 508 489 478

Because there may be differences among the speakers of speech rate, all the
figures have been normalized (per 10,000 words). Topic abandonment has
been excluded from Table 4.9 since it is not a discourse strategy but a dis-
course phenomenon.
The ‘L’s from this point onwards will refer to figures and examples of
usage by the lecturers, and ‘S’s will refer to figures of student usage and
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 125

examples from student usage. Although there are some parallels between
the two speech event types with regard to the type of pragmatic strategies
used, there are some differences worthy of attention.
The results given in Table 4.9 above show, to start with, that there are
very few cases of pragmatic signaling with regard to explaining terms and
concepts. Examples of such usage are as follows, in (209)–(213), where
speakers explain terms and concepts to the listener(s):

(209) <L1> what is steam reforming , this is as i already mentioned a very

very commercial way to produce hydrogen </L1>
(210) <L1> why because the process is very very endothermic what means
endothermic the (xx) it needs heat so process swallows heat you
must supply energy in terms of heat from </L1>
(211) <L1> solvolysis is another example of a possible method it is not
commercial that’s another approach to try to produce liquid directly
from solids er what is it it’s some kind of dissolving of the wood
with the acid organic solvents at a certain condition </L1>
(212) <S1> i can ask them if they have have a lease a lease program </S1>
<S2> lease </S2>
<S3> lease like you </S3>
<S1> rent </S1>
<S3> rent </S3>
<S2> rent </S2>
<S2> yeah but what is the </S2>
<S1> <FOREIGN> leasa </FOREIGN> i don't know </S1>
<S3> lease is in english she should know </S3>
(213) <S4> what's null space </S4>
<S1> null space is </S1>
<S2> he said that er but you have a matrix like this er </S2>
<S4> mhm </S4>
<S2> you want to (xx) this matrix well this is er this has to be the
the the base what's it called is it a base for the (xx) </S2>
<S4> yeah ok </S4>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S2> ok and er you want the image of you have how to explain
that you have a space (you) n by n matrix ok it just n and space like
n by n </S2>
126 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

The second type of pragmatic comment deals with the details and content
of the task. In this example, the speaker comments on the task, specifically
on the instructions of the task. This seems to be a frequently employed
technique in student group-work sessions. In (214), a student is comment-
ing on how unsure s/he is about the details and content of task. In (215) and
(216), students are discussing the content of the task they are working on.
In (217), a student raises a question regarding the content of the task.

(214) <S1> i don’t know if we’re supposed to know the code during the
lab i think we’re just supposed to know it so we can model it later
</S1>
(215) <S2> and then just invert it and then solve the problem but i don’t
see the point here of introducing i mean that’s that’s mathematical
stuff that’s </S2>
<S1> yeah , no u don’t think it’s got anything to do with physics it’s
just a mathematical , i think so at least does anyone agree or diagree
</S1>
<S3> i agree </S3>
<S1> because well that’s the way i interpret it it’s just a way of mak-
ing physics come into mathematics in a good way </S1>
<S2> of course but er i mean why do we do that why do we do an-
other way it’s another way to [solve] the problem but </S2>
<S1> [yeah] </S1>
<S2> what’s the point of it (xx) and it doesn’t (xx) anything to just
make it more </S2>
<S1> yeah </S1>
<S2> difficult </S2>
<S1> yeah </S1>
<S3> doesn’t it make it more general </S3>
(216) <S1> ok we’re supposed to know the code well enough what code
didn’t get it @@ </S1>
<S3> @@ (xx) </S3>
<S2> the code er at the er </S2>
<S1> the lab codes </S1>
<S2> yes yes yes </S2>
(217) <S4> what are we supposed to do </S4>

The next pragmatic strategy included both prospective and retrospective

signaling of discourse structure. Examples (218)–(224) show how speakers
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 127

make discourse structure explicit by pointing forward in the speech event,

thereby showing discourse structure prospectively:

(218) <L1> we will start the third iteration of the loop </L1>
(219) <L1> i would like to move on to branch prediction . ok so moving
onto branch prediction </L1>
(220) <L2> but one thing is er which i will explain soon is that using
a catalyst er you will normally decrease the reaction temperature
</L2>
(221) <L2> i will talk a little about mechanisms and (xx) i will talk about
how we can relate this to reactor design because that’s like the ulti-
mate goal for for using this type of calculations </L2>
(222) <L2> just before break i would like to say couple of words </L2>
(223) <L3> part we will concentrate now is how to make fuel out of bio
mass direct combustion goal the first step is gasification of biomass
now we start from a solid fuel and gasify it </L3>
(224) <L4> i will explain in a few seconds what green certificates are
</L4>

The following examples, (225)–(236), show how speakers make discourse

structure explicit to the listener by referring back to previous points in the
speech events and summarizing, thereby commenting on the discourse
structure retrospectively:

(225) <L1> where were we we have executed two , no that’s wrong we

haven’t executed anything yet but we have issued two complete
i iterations of this this small loop , nothing has been executed re-
ally because the memory unit hasn’t delivered load data </L1>
(226) <L1> a few minutes ago i said that </L1>
(227) <L1> you have now seen one way of er handling renaming an out-
of-order execution </L1>
(228) <L1> following the one i pointed out </L1>
(229) <L2> we now produced the b </L2>
(230) <L2> to summarize the first part of the lecture here <COUGH> i
would say the catalyst … </L2>
(231) <L3> pyrolysis you have touched upon a little bit last time with
<NAME> anaerobic digestion </L3>
(232) <L3> this is as i already mentioned a very very commercial way to
produce hydrogen </L3>
128 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

(233) <L3> if we go back to the options in biomass conversion so we saw

that </L3>
(234) <L4> er that’s what i just tried to explain </L4>
(235) <L4> i tried to emphasize this one before </L4>
(236) <L4> ok coming back to the fixed quotes combined with green
certificate trading </L4>

The next strategy investigated is pragmatic comment on discourse content,

which can be seen as labeling the speech act, as follows (237)–(241):

(237) <S1> yeah that’s my question <S1>

(238) <S1> that’s what i asked myself </S1>
(239) <S4> i had the same question my in my mind when i read that be-
cause it’s </S4>
(240) <S3> so i don’t know i i agree with you </S3>
(241) <S2> yeah yeah i see the (point) but] i am just wondering what
could be the the the complicated </S2>

A pragmatic strategy that is relevant to discourse context/content is about

signaling importance, which is a strategy used predominantly by the lectur-
ers. Below, (242)–(250) are some examples from the corpus:

(242) <L1> decoder it is important that incorrect (xx) codes are never
delivered to the processor because then it will go away and exe-
cute instructions </L1>
(243) <L1> it is noteworthy that instruction are taken from the …</L1>
(244) <L2> one thing which is very important er from an industrial point
of view is that you normally will end up with a more selective
system meaning that you will produce less by-products </L2>
(245) <L2> i would say the heat exchange is very important clear physi-
cal process </L2>
(246) <L2> er but there’s a very important point here it’s to er we really
doesn’t change the equilibrium in a reaction </L2>
(247) <L3> methanol is a very important first step product in many many
oil industries </L3>
(248) <L3> of course the most important thing is economy </L3>
(249) <L4> some other very important thing is actually you have to con-
nect wind turbines whenever possible </L4>
(250) <L4> this is the main discussion at the moment for all the offshore
windfarms </L4>
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 129

The next pragmatic comment is on intent, which in a way is labeling the

speech act. The speakers sometimes make the intent explicit as done in the
examples below, (251)–(253):

(251) <S1> yeah i just wanted him to repeat that </S1>

(252) <S1> this was what i wanted </S1>
(253) <S1> because i just wanted to know how how you motivate contin-
uous equations of motion </S1>

The speakers in group-work sessions often have pragmatic comments on

common ground, where they comment on what they need to do together as
a group (254)–(258):

(254) <S1> we have to check the distillation process </S1>

(255) <S1> then we need batches for four cubic meter then then it’s not
(downscaled) any more </S1>
(256) <S1> so basically what we need to think about is cause everyone
got one about point two kilos right </S1>
(257) <S1> yes but we want to compare them the experiment </S1>
(258) <S1> yeah we can have this as the lecture topic and the extra re-
quest </S1>
<S3> true </S3>

The study, in addition to the pragmatic comments and strategies above,

includes backchanneling, repair, repetition, topic abandonment and pre-
and post-dislocation. The rest of this section will give examples of such
usage from the present material:
Backchanneling is the acknowledgement of what the other speaker has
said, found often in the group-work sessions here, as shown in examples
(259)–(263) below:

(259) <S2> it means we can only have flutter results with computers
</S2>
<S3> yeah </S3>
(260) <S2> it should derive at once you'll have some kind of </S2>
<S1> yeah </S1>
(261) <S1> i said really two thousand dollars he said yeah i said for the
whole for the whole unit </S1>
<S2> yeah yeah yeah </S2>
130 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

(262) <S1> i don't know maybe he said so under four cubic meters and he
said it's eight not four </S1>
<S2> yeah yeah i know i know </S2>
<S1> mhm </S1>
(263) <S2> but i think it’s right because when you when you are in a
plane you can see that the wing is is vibrating it’s not going so it’s
right that </S2>
<S3> mhm </S3>

When it comes to repair, the second present investigation set out to study
both self- and other-repair. There were, however, quite strikingly, no cases
of other-repair in the eight speech events that were fully transcribed. The
following, (264)–(274) are all examples of self-repair:

(264) <S1> but it should be less , lower </S1>

(265) <S3> yeah you see flutter is , on the real part everything is zero
it’s flutter , that is not really unstable not really stable to be (xx) so
, let me see now label </S3>
(266) <S1> well perhaps you can insert more constrange constraints in
this matrix and we use the matrix to collect all the constraints [in er
visualized visual visibly] </S1>
(267) <S1> you add points on so here down here you end up at the wing
tail i guess so it's the first one it's the wing root the wing tip sorry
no wing root wing root </S1>
(268) <L2> and er there were others er innovating , innovators such as er
<NAME> for example studying the heterogeneous process </L2>
(269) <L3> why is that why can it can it stick to the why can’t it stick to
the surface </L3>
(270) <L3> but there is are also examples </L3>
(271) <L3> it’s still very very interesting but we have a long time long
way to go to make it commercial </L3>
(272) <L1> so this reservation station enables its right signal and reads
data of the bus and stores it in the reservation station the other loca-
tions just sinently silenty </L1>
(273) <L1> we are predictly correct predicting correctly every time
</L1>
(274) <L1> it will requires it will require two mispredictions again before
we change the prediction </L1>
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 131

The examples given above show different types of repair by the speakers:
most of the self-repairs are repairs of linguistic elements (264–266, 268–
272, 274). There are, however, also repairs of occasional slips of the tongue
(273) and repair that seems to be related to content (267).
Repetition is the next pragmatic phenomenon I will consider here. It dif-
fers from the rest of the strategies as regards its nature: It is a formal cate-
gory. The cases of repetition found in the transcripts were categorized as
‘repetition for emphasis purposes’, ‘repetition of disfluencies’ and ‘repeti-
tion of parts of others’ utterances’. Cases of repetition for backchanneling
purposes, e.g. “yeah yeah”, have been excluded from the repetition figures
for reliability purposes. (275)–(282) below are examples of repetition for
emphasis, often indicated by ‘very’:

(275) <L2> if you have a homogeneous process it’s very very tricky to
separate er er the catalyst from the the product solution </L2>
(276) <L3> upgrade it liquid to gaseous fuels and the very very commer-
cial standard process of today </L3>
(277) <L3> why because the process is very very endothermic </L3>
(278) <L3> it should be handled very very very very carefully </L3>
(279) <L3> that’s why we cannot use really hydrogen now because it’s a
very very very very poor energy per volume ratio </L3>
(280) <S1> it's the wing root the wing tip sorry no wing root wing root
</S1>
(281) <S1> it's nothing it's nothing </S1>
(282) <S3> it’s very strange it’s very strange </S3>

The following, (283)–(288) are examples of repetition that seem to have

been caused by disfluency:

(283) <S2> yeah yeah if i am if i am [right] </S2>

(284) <S1> and i said i said yeah i am sitting in front of a picture for the
whole thing and i said only two thousand he said yeah </S1>
(285) <S1> if it's it's reasonable if they can they can provide us with three
hundred units </S1>
(286) <S1> and then he said you can speculate for the sensitivity analysis
the degradation is safety if you if you if you take a hundred hun-
dred degrees over </S1>
(287) <S3> we can so we can connect now can you connect the </S3>
(288) <S4> it's it's for water water treatment </S4>
132 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

The last type of repetition was repetition of parts of others’ utterances, as

shown in the examples below. (289)–(290) are examples from student
group-work, and (291) and (292) are from lectures:

(289) <S4> everything which is in that (half plane) is stable </S4>

<S3> stable </S3>
(290) <S1> but we didn't we didn't understand that the buildings was
included and the equipment was included </S1>
<S2> everything </S2>
<S1> everything </S1>
(291) <S> erm , the err what is it called <FOREIGN> alltså efter in-
struktionen , jag kommer inte </FOREIGN> <P:05> </S>
<L> this picture </L>
<S> yeah , reorder buffer </S>
<L> reorder [buffer] </L>
<S> [where is that] , is that in this picture </S>
<L> where is the reorder buffer mhm <P:23> it’s not there </L>
(292) <L> are there anything more in life , is there </L>
<S> mixing </S>
<L> mixing very good point </L>

The final set of features investigated as discursive strategies are ‘pre- and
post-dislocation’ and ‘fronting’. The reason for doing so was the fact that,
despite the negatively charged term ‘dislocation’, these usages are common
in native usage and are typical features of spoken language (MICASE;
Mauranen 2007: 253). They have been described as explicitness strategies
(Mauranen 2007). They occur frequently in academic speech and are used
to topicalize or highlight information both by native and non-native speak-
ers. The present study treated pre- and post-dislocation as explicitness
strategies.
In the ELFA data, the basic construction is: (Demonstrative+) NP1+ co-
referential subject pronoun1 (Mauranen 2007: 254). Although this is not the
only construction in the present study, there are many examples of it, espe-
cially in the monologic material. (293)–(299) below are examples of regu-
lar fronting or heads (also termed ‘topicalization’, in e.g. Meierkord 2006:
24). The topicalized pieces of information are given in bold:
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 133

(293) And what n1 is I don’t know.

(294) The batch you have to use always 75% of.
(295) Or function pipe is it also called.
(296) So these three types of crust I mentioned.
(297) What is endothermic you already know.
(298) The char residue you can recycle and use as energy.
(299) Why you can’t get more than 59% I will explain on Wednesday.

(300)–(311) below are examples of pre-dislocation. The reason the follow-

ing examples under ‘Pre-dislocation’ but not ‘Fronting’ or ‘Heads’ is that
the pronoun is present, unlike the case in the examples (294)–(299) above.
It should be noted that others have not made this distinction and have
termed both constructions as ‘headers’ (Carter and McCarthy 2006: 192–
194). However, I believe that distinguishing the two types might be neces-
sary. My aim here is only to show the difference between the two construc-
tions and not to make any prescriptive claims.

(300) This report we’ll do it later.

(301) The composition of the liquid it’s the same.
(302) All these chemical reactions they are reversible.
(303) The size of the runner and the size of the turbine it is decided by
the flow.
(304) Because the heat peak you need electricity for that.
(305) So the weak combination of things that’s what we don’t want
them to happen.
(306) And these guys they claim that for example ether which could
replace diesel fuel.
(307) But these type of uses you can have it anywhere else in Sweden.
(308) The reaction turbine it basically works with pressure difference.
(309) So biomass it cannot supply alone all fuel and food needs of the
ever growing population in the world.
(310) Natural gas we can replace it by biogas.
(311) So having a fixed structure it doesn’t work in most places.

Pre-dislocations and headers were more frequent than post-dislocations and

tails in the material, which is in line with what was reported by Maybaum
and Swales (2006). Their investigation on MICASE data showed that only
13 per cent of the dislocations in total in the MICASE material were post-
dislocations. In the present material, post-dislocations and tails make up
134 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

about 15 per cent of the monologic examples and 13 per cent of the materi-
al in total. This seems to indicate that pre- and post-dislocations are genre-
related, which makes it hard to claim that they constitute an ELF feature.
I applied the same principle to the cases of pre-dislocation and headers
here: When the pronoun is present, it is termed ‘post-dislocation’, and
when it is not present, it is called ‘tails’. The following are some examples
of post-dislocations (312)–(315) and tails (316)–(319):

(312) This could be 80 per cent the margin efficiency.

(313) Well it is not so emission-free hydropower.
(314) So this is very important the design the specific design of the free
board.
(315) What is the problem when it gets too big the vessel?
(316) You have very big parts of it flatland.
(317) But you manage much better the float control.
(318) Because you are putting at risk the safety.
(319) Here you see very clear the natural gas supply.

Although it is not a strategy, topic abandonment as a discourse phenome-

non has been included in the present investigation. There were very few
cases of topic abandonment in this corpus. The following, (320) and (321)
are two examples of topic abandonment. In the first extract taken from a
group-work session, S4 and S1 are wondering why S3 does not attend the
lectures (lines 1 and 2). S3 answers their questions for a while but then
abandons the topic. S/he does not answer S1’s comment “but you’re busy”
on line 13, and S4 moves on to talking about another topic on line 14, i.e.
what time it is in China:
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 135

1 (320) <S4> i have (further) part to write at the same time . why you
2 always miss the lecture sorry just curious </S4>
3 <S3> yes sometimes i have some other lectures </S3>
4 <S4> other lectures there’s some conflict in the timetable </S4>
5 <S3> yeah and sometimes </S3>
6 <S4> but it’s impossible for all time there’s a conflict for all
7 lecture maybe you don’t want to have lecture you don’t want to
8 attend this </S4>
9 <S3> yes sometimes </S3>
10 <S1> it’s not interesting to you </S1>
11 <S4> @@ </S4>
12 <S3> it’s but </S3>
13 <S1> but you’re busy </S1>
14 <S4> what’s the time now oh it’s from china time </S4>

The following, (321), is another extract from a group-work session where

two speakers, S4 and S3, start talking about another subject than the con-
tent at the end of the group-work. Perhaps the most interesting point in this
conversation is that S3 appears to agree that he is from Greece on line 3
although he is from Cuba. He does so most probably because he does not
understand what S4 says on lines 1 and 2, and uses “yes” as a filler, in an
attempt to let the matter pass. S3 later on in the conversation has to aban-
don the point because he cannot make a contribution to this conversation on
Greece after line 13. The topic dies out after line 18, and S1 moves on to
another topic:

1 (321) <S4> (xx) we just talk about there’s some island in Greece
2 you’re from greece </S4>
3 <S3> yes </S3>
4 <S1> we should prepare a chair for the teacher </S1>
5 <S3> @@ </S3>
6 <S4> this one this one this one is for the teacher i will stand
7 beside you </S4>
8 <S1> i think (xx) other chair </S1>
9 <S4> mhm i think (greece) is a country (full of) charming
10 </S4>
11 <S3> mhm </S3>
136 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

12 <S4> (full of) charming and that’s why the greece refer to that
13 kind of how to say </S4>
14 <S1> greece </S1>
15 <S4> greece yes beautiful yes greece </S4>
16 <S1> but er i have never been to greece </S1>
17 <S4> <NAME> have been to there he says he recommend to
18 be there (later) </S4>
19 <S1> (yesterday) we write the teacher </S1>
20 <S4> yesterday </S4>
21 <S1> invite the teacher to our group </S>

In her discussion of the Let-it-pass principle, House says ELF interactants

first “pretend to understand”, provided that “they are not forced to reveal
their non-understanding at some later stage of the talk” (House 2003b:
141). In cases like (321) above where non-understanding does not have
serious consequences, ELF interactants can let it pass, but this is very dif-
ferent in discussions of content matters where the stakes are high.
Unlike in the two examples above taken from small talk, the subjects
generally did not abandon the topic in high-stakes spoken exchange on
content. Extract (322) below is an example where three students are work-
ing on a group task, calculating the cost of a project. This is a convergent
task, i.e. there is only one correct answer. When S2 and S3 think S1 has
made an incorrect statement on line 5, they react strongly (lines 6 and 7).
S2 and S3 try to explain what they mean to S1 (lines 10–13), but S1 does
not seem to be convinced (line 14). S2 and S3 give further explanation
(lines 15–17). Nevertheless, S1 pursues what he said earlier (line 18). S3
finally code-switches to Swedish in an effort to convey to S1 that s/he is
wrong (lines 22 and 23):

1 (322) <S1> but does this include material </S1>

2 <S2> no , material , you’re doing that </S2>
3 <S1> yeah but i mean for reference </S1>
4 <S2> no </S2>
5 <S1> i think it include(d) in here </S1>
6 <S2> nej [no, no no no] </S2>
7 <S3> [no, no no no] no no nooo </S3>
8 <S1> but why should they include everything when , without
9 </S1>
10 <S3> because material </S3>
11 <S2> it’s it’s to each process </S2>
 4.2 Dimension 2: Communicativeness 137

12 <S3> yeah </S3>

13 <S2> you’ve been doing </S2>
14 <S1> yeah but no, this is for <NAME OF A COMPANY>
15 </S1>
16 <S3> yeah yeah but but it depends </S3>
17 <S2> no it’s not in this case </S2>
18 <S3> no </S3>
19 <S1> no it’s for <NAME OF A COMPANY> </S1>
20 <S3> yeah but this is not material that’s what you’ve been cal-
21 culating . come on </S3>
22 <S1> this is for <NAME OF A COMPANY> </S1>
23 <S3> i know this is why we <NAME OF STUDENT> <FOR-
24 EIGN> det var därför vi har gjort det här materialkostnaden
25 </FOREIGN> </S3>
26 [That’s why we have calculated the material cost]
27 <S1> yeah but but because </S1>

So in the example above, speakers do not abandon the topic, most likely
because there would be consequences of this kind of abandonment for the
project work, which would show in the calculations. Clearly, the members
of the project team need to be in agreement as to what and how to calculate.
Overall, in the present study, not all speakers employed a wide range of
pragmatic strategies. While speakers in group-work sessions very frequent-
ly made use of these strategies, the lecturers had fewer instances of such
usage in their speech. Since these differences were observable in the anal-
yses, a decision was made to investigate the differences between the two
speech event types in terms of pragmatic strategies.
An investigation of the two speech event types in the eight speech
events transcribed earlier revealed some important differences. Pragmatic
strategies were abundant in group-work while the situation was different
for lectures (this section, Table 4.9). The figures provided in Table 4.9
show that the group-work sessions investigated are richer than lectures with
regard to pragmatic strategies. The absence of some linguistic phenomena
in lectures is due to the nature of lectures as speech events, such as back-
channeling. Nevertheless, the overall numbers are higher in group-work. I
will discuss these interesting differences between these two spoken genres
in Chapter 5.
138 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

4.3. Perceived communicativeness and attitudes: A survey of student

attitudes

In this section, we will look at the results of the attitude survey. Table 4.10
shows all features that met the criteria and were therefore commonalities in
the present material and one hundred respondents’ reactions toward these
non-standard features (Chapter 3). Since my aim here was to see what per-
ceived communicativeness was like among the respondents and what de-
gree of irritation there was toward each non-standard morphosyntactic
commonality, I divided the table into two main sections: Communicative-
ness and Attitudes. The columns ‘Perfectly OK’ and ‘Comprehensible but
wrong’ have been merged in the ‘Communicativeness’ results. Similarly,
the columns ‘Not irritating at all’ and ‘Somewhat irritating’ have been
merged under ‘Attitudes’. This was done in case the respondents had been
steered by the wording of the questionnaire towards more irritation in the
experiment.

Table 4.10. The results of the attitude survey in percentages.

Feature Communicativeness Attitudes
Incomprehensible
Comprehensible

Very irritating
No irritation

Word order 71 29 72 28
Question formulation 83 17 77 23
Countability/Plural forms 80 20 80 20
Passive voice 80 20 81 19
Negation 89 11 81 18
Subject-verb agreement 73 27 85 15
Analytic comparative 80 20 86 14
Articles 76 24 87 13
NonS word formulation 85 15 88 12
Tense usage 81 19 90 10
Double comparatives/ superlatives 97 3 91 9
Not marking the plural 88 12 91 9
 4.3 The survey 139

The figures show that category ‘very irritating’ is not a frequent answer.
However, it seems to indicate a general pattern of irritation. Table 4.10 has
been sorted according to what the respondents thought was very irritating,
from the highest to the lowest figure. It is interesting that non-standard
question formulation, which is the only feature that seems to disturb com-
munication, is also high up on the irritation scale. The only feature that is
more irritating than non-standard question formulation is word order. Both
these categories are actually concerned with the order of constituents in a
sentence.
Respondents who express their irritation towards the divergent forms
reported here had interesting quotes in the space provided on the question-
naire sheet “I feel my comprehension of all these incorrect sentences is
problem-free but it is quite annoying with such basic grammar mistakes
and I hope I won’t have lecturers with this poor English grammar”.
Some were quite critical of their teachers, criticizing their general profi-
ciency of English although there were no remarks on the survey on whether
the non-standard forms had been produced by teachers or students. Some
complained about their teachers’ English: “The teachers’ English isn’t that
good, leading to difficulties listening to what they are saying, rather than
how they are saying it. (the student’s own underlining)”, ”I wish those giv-
ing lectures in English would go through some sort of training before tak-
ing on something like this.” and ”Understanding bad English is challeng-
ing.”.
For others, the subject matter was the only important point, and lan-
guage was not an issue. Some of the respondents thought what they had
heard was perfectly natural and it mirrored the type of speech they were
exposed to frequently: “I do not understand what this (this task) is about
this sounds like any professor talking that is deep in thought. So as long as
you understand it is ok.” And some pointed to the importance of subject
matter instead: “I just care about the course itself, benefits that I get de-
pends on the topics of the course.”
Undoubtedly, this survey differs from the rest of the study in terms of
data where only naturally-occurring speech has been analyzed. It is im-
portant to note that in an experimental situation, there is certainly more
focus on form than there would be in a real-life situation. In this sense, this
part of the present research project did not investigate attitudes towards
authentic naturally-occurring speech. However, it investigated the reactions
to the forms produced in naturally-occurring speech in the same setting,
which brings it much closer to authenticity than perhaps would be possible
140 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

in a survey. The results show that there is some irritation towards non-
standard forms.
Figure 4.23 has been arranged according to the band ‘incomprehensi-
ble’, from the feature that was reported as the least incomprehensible to the
one that is the most incomprehensible. The graph, along with all the graphs
in this section, was prepared using raw figures.

()*+),-./"01" 2*345"67-"01" 84,39:*);)4<=6.)"

##!"
#!!"
'&!"
'%!"
'$!"
'#!"
'!!"
&!"
%!"
$!"
#!"
!"

Figure 4.23. The distribution of perceived communicativeness of the non-

standard morphosyntactic commonalities.

The results show what students say is comprehensible or incomprehensible,

discussed in Chapter 3. As can be seen from Figure 4.23, the highest fea-
tures on the incomprehensibility scale were subject-verb agreement, article
usage and word order. The rest, from highly ‘incomprehensible’ to perfect-
ly OK were pre- and post-dislocation, passive voice, tense usage, non-
standard word formulation, issues related to countability and plural forms,
analytic comparative, not marking the plural on the noun, non-standard
question formulation, negation and double comparative and superlatives.
The following figure, Figure 4.24, shows the reported results on irrita-
tion, arranged from the least irritating to the most irritating. As the figure
demonstrates, the highest reported irritation was caused by word order,
passive voice and question formulation while the lowest irritation scores
 4.3 The survey 141

belonged to double comparative and superlatives, the analytic comparative

and not marking the plural. The significance of these responses will be
discussed in Chapter 5.

>3-"=**=-?-=45" @"6=-"=**=-?-=45" A)*/"=**=-?-=45"

'&!"
'%!"
'$!"
'#!"
'!!"
&!"
%!"
$!"
#!"
!"

Figure 4.24. The distribution of irritation towards non-standard morphosyntactic

commonalities.

4.4. Summary of results

Let us now briefly summarize the results of the study by revisiting the re-
search questions. The following are the research questions which the pre-
sent investigation had as its starting point (section 3.2), followed by the
answers based on the results of the analyses:

(i) What, if any, are the morphosyntactic commonalities of non-standard

usage examined?

The results of the present investigation showed commonalities of morpho-

syntactic non-standard usage across the two different speech event types.
So the first hypothesis that there would be overall commonalities in the
material was confirmed.
142 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

(ii) Which of the commonalities found are the same as those described in
the literature?

The results are in general in line with the features described in the litera-
ture. However, there are some differences between what has been described
in the literature earlier and what the results here maintain as commonalities.
Not all the commonalities reported in the literature were found in the pre-
sent study. This indicates that the hypothesis that the commonalities found
here would be similar to the ones in the literature was only partially con-
firmed. First, there are features that were discarded here that the earlier
literature reported on, e.g. prepositions. The present study excluded prepo-
sitions from the analyses for reasons discussed earlier (Chapter 3). Second-
ly, there are features that were not sufficiently frequent to be included in
the list of commonalities, e.g. invariant question tags, redundant preposi-
tions and the relative pronouns which and who used interchangeably, i.e.
which used for people and who for non-living things. Finally, there are
features found in the current study that met the criteria and proved to be
commonalities but had not been reported on in the literature earlier, i.e.
non-standard question formulation and unraised negation. See Table 4.11
for a comparison of the features presented by Seidlhofer as hypotheses of
usage (2004: 220) and the ones reported here:

Table 4.11. A comparison of morphosyntactic features described in the earlier

literature and features found in the current study. NA stands for ‘Not
Applicable’ since these features were not included in the investiga-
tion. Y stands for ‘Yes’ and N for ‘No’.

Features from earlier literature Features found in this setting

(Seidlhofer 2004: 220)
Dropping the third person -s Y

N
The interchangeable use of the
relative pronouns which and who

Invariable tag questions, e.g. isn’t it? No? Some cases, NA

NA
Higher frequency of some verbs of “high
semantic generality” e.g. do, have, make
 4.3 The survey 143

Features from earlier literature Features found in this setting

(Seidlhofer 2004: 220)
Increased explicitness, e.g. black color Some cases. Increased explic-
itness, expressed through:
1) Heads and Tails, Pre-
and Post- dislocation13
2) Unraised negative.
3) Repetition
Non-standard question formu-
— lation

The results in the present study were included on the basis of a strict set of
criteria. It is uncertain what kind of criteria were applied to the commonali-
ties reported in previous literature. I took Seidlhofer’s list of “regularities
that point to at least some hypotheses” (Seidlhofer 2004: 220) here as a
point of comparison. Seidlhofer maintained herself that the theses and sem-
inar projects conducted on VOICE data “have brought to light certain regu-
larities that at least point to some hypotheses, which in turn are proving
useful for formulating more focused research questions” (Seidlhofer 2004:
220). Since then, several studies on ELF usage have been carried out,
showing commonalities of different types (Chapter 2). It is argued here that
the differences between the findings in earlier literature and the present
study are likely to have been caused by methodological differences. The
present study applied a strict set of criteria to all the features found in the
material, resulting in a list of features as candidates of commonalities.
Overall, when the results on form are considered, the features found in
the present study could be subsumed under the following categories in
terms of their communicative effectiveness: (1) Non-standard usage that
leads to overt disturbance in communication, i.e. non-standard question
formulation (2) Successful reductions of redundancy, e.g. not marking the
plural on the noun and (3) Devices that increase comprehensibility and
create extra explicitness, e.g. unraised negative, pre- and post-dislocation,
heads and tails, and finally (4) Other non-standard features that do not in-
terfere with communication. Categories (2) and (3) seem to be strategies

13. Mauranen’s 2007 paper included Heads and Tails (Mauranen 2007: 254), and
several ELF studies have included repetition as an explicitness strategy, e.g.
Mauranen 2006b; Lichtkoppler 2007; Cogo 2009, as discussed in Chapter 2
here.
144 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

speakers in lingua franca settings employ to get the message across. In this
respect, transparency seems to be a characteristic of usage of English in
settings where it is used as a lingua franca. The form features seem to be
based on functionality. In other words, those features that do serve a func-
tion seem to be preferred by speakers in lingua franca settings whereas
those that are redundant are dropped. A feature is kept if it does not inter-
fere with communication, if it aids communication and is functional.

(iii) What kind of morphosyntactic non-standard usage results in overt dis-

turbance in spoken ELF communication?

The only overt disturbance caused by non-standard morphosyntax was in

fact caused by non-standard syntax, namely non-standard question formula-
tion. This type of usage created overt disturbance that could be observed by
the parties involved. However, the results also demonstrate that it might be
a combination of factors, i.e. question intonation, the presence or absence
of the interrogative adverb/pronoun and syntax, that causes overt disturb-
ance and not solely syntax. The results here indicate that the listener needs
more than one cue to register a question, confirming the hypothesis that it
would be more likely that the combination of different types of non-
standardness would create some opacity in communication.

(iv) Which of the pragmatic strategies described in the literature are found
in this setting?

The discourse and pragmatic strategies investigated here were clarification

of terms and concepts, clarification of details and content of task, comment
on discourse structure, discourse context, intent and common ground, and
backchanneling, repetition (other) and topic abandonment. As I touched
upon earlier, topic abandonment was not regarded as a strategy but a phe-
nomenon of interest in the communication process. The lectures and stu-
dent group-work revealed differences in the use of these strategies. As hy-
pothesized, the group-work sessions were much richer than the monologic
lectures. The backchanneling and ‘other repetition’ in the lectures were
limited to the very few questions raised, as is generally the case in mono-
logic speech. An interesting finding was that there was no topic abandon-
ment in either lectures or group-work with the exception of topic abandon-
ment in social talk (section 4.2.2). The fact that topic abandonment was
found in social talk only and not in any discussion of the content signals the
 4.3 The survey 145

high-stakes nature of the speech events in the present material. In addition,

there were heads (fronting) and tails and pre- and post-dislocation, and I
have argued here that they serve as discourse strategies speakers use in
order to achieve extra explicitness.
There were similarities between the discourse and pragmatic strategies
mentioned in the literature and the ones found here (section 4.2.2). At the
same time, there are some differences due to the nature of the situation.
One of the studies that investigated characteristics of ELF discourse prior
to the present study looked at data from recordings done at the European
Centre for Modern Languages, from group discussions concerned with
European language education (Penz 2008). These group-discussions were
carried out by people who were probably not very familiar with each other
or the practices from each other’s settings, which indicates the absence of a
strong common ground with the exception of the common aim they had for
the task. The current investigation is different by its very nature. Both
speech event types in the present investigation have a relatively strong
common ground shared by the participants. In lectures, students have ac-
cess to the course book, lecture notes if any and information regarding the
course, and lecturers are familiar with the subject matter. In group-work
sessions, students together have sufficient contextual information. All the
students involved had the same frame of reference, had received instruc-
tions on the task or the expected outcome of the group-work, knew about
the task they were working on to a lesser or greater extent and had course
books. There are more pragmatic strategies in the current material based on
common ground compared to earlier studies and fewer strategies on clarifi-
cation of terms and concepts. Apart from these differences, the pragmatic
strategies reported in the literature and the ones here were similar, confirm-
ing the hypothesis.

(v) What kind of morphosyntactic non-standard usage is perceived as irri-

tating by speakers in ELF situations?

The results of the survey on perceived communicativeness and irritation

revealed the types of non-standard morphosyntactic commonalities that
were perceived as ‘perfectly ok’, ‘comprehensible but wrong’ and ‘incom-
prehensible’ along with ‘not irritating at all’, ‘a bit irritating’ and ‘very
irritating’. The features that the respondents rated as highest on the incom-
prehensibility scale were subject-verb agreement issues, article usage and
word order. The features that scored the highest on the irritation scale were
146 4 Operating in a Swedish ELF site

word order, passive voice and question formulation. These results show
that the hypothesis was confirmed due to reported irritation towards some
non-standard forms.
The results here are overall in line with the findings of earlier ELF re-
search in the sense that there is a considerable number of cases of non-
native-like usage but very few cases of overt disturbance in communication
based on morphosyntax.
The next chapter, Chapter 5, will include a detailed discussion of these
findings.
Chapter 5
Theoretical and practical implications

5.1. Discussion of the findings

In the previous chapter, I reported the results of the study in each dimen-
sion, namely, form, communicativeness and perceived communicativeness
and attitudes. The findings presented in the previous chapter have a number
of theoretical and practical implications for different parties, which I will
discuss in the present chapter. However, before doing so, a prerequisite is a
discussion of the results pertaining to the three dimensions of the study,
reported in Chapter 4 previously. I will undertake this task here, starting
with the form dimension.
Form is one of the main areas that should be investigated when attempt-
ing to describe and analyze language usage. Correct understanding of lan-
guage requires a certain level of knowledge of form. In a discussion on
variation in form, the background of the subjects must be taken into ac-
count. The subjects in the present study come from a large variety of first
language backgrounds from a range of different language types, as is the
case in lingua franca settings by definition (Table 3.1). Another factor has
to do with the admission of students to the present setting. Since admission
requirements traditionally consider central exam scores only (see the dis-
cussion on this later on in this chapter, section 5.2), and since these exams
do not all include the testing of certain productive spoken skills, there is
little or no information on students’ speaking skills. Due partly to this fac-
tor and partly to the wide range of first language backgrounds, the subjects
have varying degrees of oral proficiency, as in most lingua franca settings.
In such a diverse setting, one would expect certain deviance from standard
forms. As I mentioned earlier here (Chapter 2), variability has been regard-
ed as a characteristic of the usage of English as a lingua franca (Jenkins
2000).
The deviant usages would be described as learner language by second
language acquisition researchers. It is a fact that the lists of learner lan-
guage features, features of World Englishes and the features found in the
present study have some overlap. A quick run-through of five different
sources on the features of World Englishes (Crystal 1995; Mesthrie and
Bhatt 2008; Mesthrie et al. 2001), creoles (Crystal 1995; Mesthrie and
148 5 Theoretical and practical implications

Bhatt, 2008; Mesthrie et al. 2001) and learner language (Hultfors 1986;
Swan 1980) reveals forms that cut across these groups. See Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. The types of morphosyntactic variation found in the present setting, in
World Englishes features, creoles and learner language. Y stands for
‘Yes’ and indicates the presence of that particular feature.

This ELF World Creoles Learner

setting Englishes language
NonS question – – –
formulation
Pre- , Post- Y Y Y
dislocations/ (Mesthrie and Bhatt (Swan
Heads and Tails 2008: 81–82; Mes- 1980:498)
thrie et al. 2001:
307)
Double Y Y –
comparative/ (Mesthrie
superlatives and Bhatt
2008: 85)
Unraised nega- – – –
tion
Not marking the Y Y –
plural (Crystal 1995:
347; Mesthrie
and Bhatt
2008: 52)
Subject-verb Y Y Y
agreement (Crystal 1995:
347; Mesthrie
and Bhatt
2008: 65–66)
NonS analytic (Mesthrie and Bhatt – –
comparative 2008: 85)
NonS word Y – Y
forms (Hultfors
1986: 148)
Tense and as- Y Y Y
pect issues (Mesthrie and (Swan 1980:
Bhatt 2008: 414–430, 457–
60) 463; Hultfors
1986: 96)
 5.1 Discussion 149

This ELF World Creoles Learner

setting Englishes language
Passive voice Y Y Y
(Swan 1980:
407–414)
Word order Y Y /N Y/N
Question word Question word
order not order not
included. included.
(Mesthrie and (Hultfors
Bhatt 2008: 1986: 139)
78–81)
NonS Plural Y Y Y
forms/ Counta- (Mesthrie and (Swan 1980:
bility Bhatt 2008: 137,138;
52) Hultfors 1986:
59)
Article usage Y Y Y
(Hultfors 1986:
42–56)

Table 5.1 compares the findings in the present study that met the criteria
and were therefore commonalities with the features of World Englishes,
creoles and learner language as reported in four sources. What is of interest
are the features that run across the features found in the present study, in
World Englishes, creoles and learner language.
With regard to devices that increase comprehensibility and create ex-
plicitness, the present study has pre- and post-dislocations/heads and tails.
This is a feature that has been included in World Englishes, creoles and
learner language. Another example of usage that creates extra explicitness
is the double comparative and superlatives, which has been covered in
World Englishes and creoles. The last feature in this category is unraised
negation. The sources that were referred to here did not cover unraised
negation.
As regards reductions of redundancy, we see ‘not marking the plural on
the noun’, ‘subject-verb agreement issues’ and the ‘non-standard analytic
comparative’ in the present study. ‘Not marking the plural on the noun’ has
been covered in World Englishes and creoles, but not in the learner lan-
guage source consulted here. ‘Subject-verb agreement issues’ are present in
all the categories. ‘Non-standard analytic comparative’ is included in
150 5 Theoretical and practical implications

World Englishes in Mesthrie and Bhatt’s work (2008: 35), but not in the
sources for creoles and learner language.
The final category is about other non-standard features that are found in
the present investigation, namely, ‘non-standard word forms’, ‘tense and
aspect issues’, ‘passive voice’, ‘word order issues’, ‘non-standard plural
forms/countability’ and ‘article usage’. All these non-standard forms are
present in the sources consulted for World Englishes, creoles and learner
language, with the exception of non-standard word forms in creoles in the
source consulted. In addition, question word order is not included in the
sources for creoles or learner language.
The information given in Table 5.1 is by no means exhaustive, and it is
not a review of a large number of sources. My aim here was not to outline
all the features that run across all the reported features of World Englishes,
creoles and learner language, which would be beyond the scope of the pre-
sent study. Such an analysis would need to be much more detailed, cover-
ing several sources and would need to touch upon issues such as language
contact, variation and change, linguistic norms and their acceptability,
ownership of the language and expression of social identities (Seidlhofer
2009a: 236). I took the features in this study as the basis and checked them
against the features found by other sources in World Englishes, creoles and
learner language. Although this is a relatively quick run-through of few
sources, the overlaps that surface are interesting.
The reason for this overlap is not that these language forms are all the
same, but that the overlap is due to the demands of functional communica-
tion. A close analysis of the types of non-standard usage in the present set-
ting reveals more than merely non-standardness; there are tendencies such
as reducing redundancy and increasing explicitness. The results of the pre-
sent study in the form dimension are in compliance with the ‘functional
hypothesis’ and the Prague school of the ‘functional sentence perspective.
If a feature shoulders an important role in communication, i.e. if it is com-
municatively dynamic, it seems to be retained whereas in the opposite case,
it is omitted. It must be true that the diachronic source of these features is
learner language, but a closer look at them is crucial since lingua franca
settings are by nature not language-learning or language-teaching settings.
This review also answers the question whether ELF usage is sui generis,
a question raised in a number of studies (e.g. Firth 2009b). The features
that run across World Englishes, learner language and ELF settings show
clearly that ELF usage is formally not sui generis since none of these fea-
tures are unique to usage of English as a lingua franca. If ELF were sui
 5.1 Discussion 151

generis (a detailed discussion of this will follow in section 5.1), there

would be very large numbers of unique and consistent non-standard usage.
This is not the case in this setting. Apart from a few studies, there has been
little reported on this in ELF research.
Let us now discuss the findings of the communicativeness dimension of
the study. One of the most interesting findings here is overt disturbance
caused by non-standard question formulation.
It is crucial to first touch upon the main differences between questions
and assertions in an attempt to reach an understanding of the communica-
tive difficulties non-standard question formulation seems to create. Ques-
tions and assertions fulfill different functions. In the case of an assertion, at
the simplest level, the speaker states his knowledge of something and wish-
es to convey this piece of information to the listener. In questions, the
speaker is in need of a piece of information, and his/her main goal is to fill
the information gap by obtaining that particular piece of information. So
functionally, questions and assertions have different relations to the speaker
(Firbas 1976: 12). In the present study, I treated non-standard questions
together with all the other morphosyntactic features in its earlier stages but
dealt with them separately in the results (Chapter 4).
Because they fulfill the important function of asking for essential infor-
mation or providing the listener with the information s/he needs, a main
function in spoken academic discourse, the comprehension of questions is
much more critical than that of assertions. Although it has not been possi-
ble to report statistical results here, this suggestion can be safely made,
considering the results of the present study. Questions seem critical for the
further development of communication in this ELF setting.
The first part of the present study focused on non-standard morphosyn-
tax, and to continue in the same fashion, I will discuss the syntax of ques-
tions before the role intonation plays on the registering of a question. The
non-standard questions in the corpus compiled for the present study, as
explained before, were categorized traditionally as Wh-questions and
Yes/No questions. Let us first consider Wh-questions:
As discussed in Chapter 4 briefly, it might be unexpected that the Wh-
questions did not elicit the preferred response despite the presence of the
interrogative adverb/pronoun. There could be two different explanations for
this:
First, it may be that the interrogative adverb/pronoun goes unnoticed. It
was argued more than three decades ago in the literature that it is predomi-
nantly the interrogative adverb/pronoun that fulfills the function of express-
152 5 Theoretical and practical implications

ing the need for information (Firbas 1976: 12). In this respect, if the inter-
rogative adverb/pronoun goes unnoticed and the most critical element in
the question is absent, it is highly likely that the question is not registered.
The short duration of the interrogative adverb/pronoun compared to the
total duration of a question (Chapter 4, Table 4.5), the fact that the inter-
rogative adverbs/pronouns took up about an average of 14 per cent of the
questions studied here, shows that it may well have been that the listeners
missed them. Especially when combined with background noise, which is
quite usual in student group-work, initial words in an utterance may go
unheard. In addition, if there is no preparedness for a question in discourse,
there is an increased risk for missing the beginning of an utterance.
However, Firbas’s view is not undebated. An alternative explanation
could be that interrogative adverbs/pronouns have little semantic load and it
is the rest of the utterance that is crucial for the smooth flow of communi-
cation. It has been generally accepted that it is the final position in an utter-
ance that carries heavier semantic load (Giora 1985, 1988). So it may be
that speakers focus less on the first parts of an utterance and more on the
parts that come later, which plays down interrogative adverbs/pronouns.
It is necessary to refer to the Prague-school concept of functional sen-
tence perspective here. In the functional sentence perspective, all elements
contribute to communication, but they do so in different degrees. Some
elements are more dynamic than others in communication, and this notion
is termed ‘communicative dynamism’ (Firbas 1992: 7). Communicative
dynamism is regarded “an inherent quality of communication”, and it
“manifests itself in constant development towards the attainment of a
communicative goal; in other words, towards the fulfillment of a communi-
cative purpose” (Firbas 1992: 7). So, in this school of thought, every ele-
ment plays a role in this communicative goal and shows different degrees
of dynamism.
In the light of this information, I will argue that there might be a recency
effect in these questions that makes the later part of the questions more
critical for understanding than the interrogative adverb/pronoun, which
seems to further suggest that the presence of the interrogative ad-
verb/pronoun does not necessarily aid communication. So, it would be as
likely for a non-standard Wh-question to go unregistered as it is for a non-
standard Yes/No question. Since the present study is based primarily on
naturally-occurring communication and not speech events set up for re-
search purposes, there were no controlled experimental situations. There-
 5.1 Discussion 153

fore, it was not possible to measure precisely which elements in a question

caused overt disturbance.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, there appear to be three cues that help the
listener register a Wh-question: The interrogative adverb/pronoun, word
order and intonation. The ideal case for the listener would be to be provided
with all these three cues so the risk for disturbance is decreased. So the
importance of the interrogative adverbs/pronouns is not disregarded here.
They are one of the cues present for Wh-questions, but the probability that
they may go unnoticed or unheard is taken into consideration.
The second cue for the registering of Wh-questions is syntax. This se-
cond cue was not available for the listeners since only questions that had
been formulated with non-standard syntax were analyzed. There were dif-
ferent types of syntactic non-standardness in the material. The types of
non-standard syntax in Wh-questions found in the material are missing
‘there’ (107), missing ‘it’ (109), missing copula (110), issues related to the
usage of ‘do’ (113, 118, 121, 124) and issues related to word order (115,
116, 117, 120, 122) (Chapter 4, section 4.2.1).
Finally, there is the third cue, which involves intonation. Although in
English, both Yes/No and Wh-questions have been reported to have falling
intonation almost as often as they rise (Bolinger 1998: 50), the addition of a
third cue is most likely to help listeners register the question. The analyses
here maintain that rising question intonation is indeed an important cue,
and it is best to try and provide the listener with this cue in lingua franca
settings, regardless of what the practice is in native varieties of English.
In the case of Yes/No questions, the types of non-standard syntactic fea-
tures are declarative word order (126, 130, 132, 134, 136), issues related to
reported speech (127) and missing verbs (131). Syntax is only one of the
cues that may be available to the listener. While the listener has three cues
in Wh-questions, there are only two cues in Yes/No questions: Syntax and
intonation.
Some studies with their focus on teaching situations have suggested that
standard syntax alone suffices for a Yes/No question to be registered re-
gardless of intonation:

The intonation of yes/no questions in English language is not an essen-

tial issue for most learners. Although yes/no questions in English lan-
guage teaching are taught primarily in terms of intonation, it is clear
that, whatever the intonation, a fully-formed yes/no question remains a
question and will be interpreted as such. Thus, it appears that the gram-
matical form and communicative use of yes/no questions, which are de-
 154 5 Theoretical and practical implications

emphasized or ignored in most textbooks, are likely far more important

for learners of English. It is not unusual for even advanced students of-
ten to have trouble with both form and use. Inaccurate formation can
mask the fact that a question is being asked, often so much that listeners
are not sure how to respond. Lack of inversion and missing words or
auxiliaries can short-circuit a question far more effectively than lack of
rising intonation. (Levis 1999: 377) [!] The results indicate that intona-
tion of yes/no questions should be an unimportant issue in English lan-
guage teaching because intonation of these questions appear to play a
minimal role in the success of interactions between speakers from dif-
ferent varieties of English (Levis 1999: 373).

It is undoubtedly true that syntax is important in the registering of a Yes/No

question. In fact, in Yes/No questions, there are both auxiliary addition and
inversion (Firbas 1976: 18), acting as two syntactic cues for the listener.
However, Levis’s argument is based on differences of intonation patterns in
Yes/No questions in British and American English. Lingua franca settings
are highly diverse with a wide range of morphosyntactic non-standardness
and other complexities, and any other aid to help speakers become effective
communicators is of significance. What seems to be the point made by
Levis is that the differences between the British and American varieties of
English make it pointless to teach intonation to learners of English. He
suggests that one should rely on the stable syntax instead of question into-
nation, which varies in different native varieties of English. This may be
true for some learners of English, but Levis’s findings do not necessarily
apply to lingua franca settings. In ELF settings, syntax ceases to be a stable
element with all its added complexities, and the universal question intona-
tion remains as a more stable and therefore more reliable one.
Even regardless of the setting, the speaker who asks the question must
make his angle14 clear to the listener, and this is achieved by intonation.
Otherwise, the angle will be unknown to the listener (Firbas 1976: 13).
Recipients simply go by the signals given to them in a sentence, and mean-

14. Firbas uses the term ‘angle’ to refer to the differing values of importance in a
question. This piece of knowledge is not necessarily shared by the speaker and
the listener, and therefore, the speaker must make the important words in a
question clear to the listener by making use of intonation (Firbas 1976: 13).
 5.1. Discussion 155

ing is traditionally conveyed by means of a combination of prosodic and

non-prosodic features (Firbas 1992: 219). It has been claimed that in
Yes/No questions, if there is non-standard syntax, e.g. lack of inversion or
the auxiliary ‘do’, this needs to be compensated for by question intonation
(Firbas 1976: 18). Although it has also been argued that intonation cannot
operate on its own independent of other elements (Firbas 1992: 219), we
know that in new Englishes, e.g. in South African English, a question can
be signaled by only intonation rather than a change in word order (Mesthrie
et al. 2001: 313). The results of another study show that speakers of Singa-
pore English prefer SVO word order when it comes to syntax, and they
signal interrogativity by changes in intonation and using questions tags
(Williams 1990: 159).
The findings here reveal that intonation is equally important and there-
fore should be factored into any analysis of questions. The conclusion for
the Yes/No questions in the present material is the same as that for Wh-
questions. It seems best to try to provide the listener with all cues available,
but if the syntax is non-standard, intonation can shoulder the task of con-
veying the question to the listener on its own.
Let us now turn to the results of the discourse level.
The findings of the analyses at the discourse level clearly show that
speakers in ELF settings tend to use a wide range of pragmatic strategies
and comments to convey the message to the listener. There is empirical
evidence from ELF research that speakers in ELF settings make frequent
use of such strategies and thereby ensure communicative effectiveness
despite the at least equally frequent non-standardness in the form dimen-
sion (Cogo 2009; Kaur 2009; Mauranen 2006b). In this respect, pragmatic
strategies can be presumed to play a profound role in the communication
process and in preventing misunderstanding since significant communica-
tive efforts are made through these strategies. Insofar as it can be ascer-
tained, such proactive work prevents a large part of the potential disturb-
ance in group-work ELF interactions. It is through these strategies that
speakers in ELF settings achieve negotiation of meaning and communicate
a message successfully, which is supported by evidence in ELF literature.
Kaur reports in her study that despite the fact that there are frequent un-
grammaticalities in the data “the lack of communication breakdown is re-
markable for it reflects on the participants’ success in compensating their
lack of linguistic competence in the language with increased use of interac-
tional practices to bring about shared understanding” (Kaur 2009: 119).
156 5 Theoretical and practical implications

It is hard to determine to what extent it is the pragmatic strategies that

helped along the communication process in the present setting and to what
extent non-standard morphosyntax is simply insignificant. It is highly like-
ly, however, that it is the frequent use of these strategies that aid communi-
cative effectiveness in group-work sessions and prevent potential disturb-
ance despite the higher number of non-standard features in group-work
compared to lectures. As discussed in earlier sections (sections 3.3 and
4.2), pragmatic signaling plays an important role in the communication
process and in preventing misunderstanding since speakers do significant
work through these strategies (Mauranen 2006b: 131). It is very possible
that it is the frequent use of these strategies that ensures communicative
effectiveness in group-work and prevents disturbance despite the higher
number of non-standard features in group-work compared to lectures.
Lecturers seem to employ fewer pragmatic strategies in lectures than
students do in group-work when overall results are considered. This differ-
ence is not unexpected. Lectures are traditionally made up of long stretches
of speech, which does not allow for opportunities for pragmatic speech
(Flowerdew 1994: 11). In this regard, lectures do not have the same af-
fordance group-work sessions have. They are monologic speech events,
and it is only up to the lecturer to make use of these strategies. Group-
work, on the other hand, is by its very nature interactive with many in-
stances of turn-taking and plenty of opportunities for signaling understand-
ing or disturbance and negotiating meaning. This is one of the main differ-
ences between monologic and dialogic speech. So, naturally, there is little
or no backchanneling in a lecture since there is traditionally no backchan-
neling in monologues unless prompted by questions. There is also little or
no ‘other repetition’ in lectures since there is little or no ‘other talk’. Even
when these two features were excluded from the present investigation, the
group-work sessions here would have more instances of pragmatic strate-
gies than the lectures. The differences in the number of pragmatic strategies
between these two types of speech events, however, cannot solely be at-
tributed to the speakers, which indicates that the frequent occurrence of
pragmatic strategies in dialogic speech seems to be a genre feature.
In the speech events investigated for the present study, the two groups
of speakers had almost equal numbers of comment on discourse structure
and discourse content and repetition for emphasis purposes. Some of the
differences between the lecturers and students concerned backchanneling
and self-repair, of which there were more cases in the group-work sessions.
Some of the features are naturally genre features, i.e. features that are tradi-
 5.1. Discussion 157

tionally not found in monologic speech, e.g. ‘other repetition’. There were
also few cases of backchanneling in lectures. While the lack of backchan-
neling could be assigned to the nature of the speech event here, the lectur-
er’s use of questions and his/her preference for interaction is equally deci-
sive here. A lecturer can create opportunities for student interaction, e.g. by
asking questions, which in turn would create an equal number of opportuni-
ties for backchanneling.
Overall, however, even when the features that are typically not associat-
ed with monologic speech, e.g. other repetition, are excluded from the pre-
sent investigation, the group-work sessions appear to have more instances
of pragmatic strategies than the lectures. Students had more cases of ‘com-
ment on intent’, ‘comment on common ground’ and ‘repetition for empha-
sis’. This suggests that the lecturers in the present study paid less attention
to pragmatic strategies than the students. It is especially interesting that the
students made equally frequent use of repetition for emphasis as the lectur-
ers, signaling their efforts to convey the message. Perhaps more was at
stake for them, as they needed to complete the task in the group-work pro-
jects.
The results also seem to indicate that speakers with varying degrees of
proficiency and fluency are perfectly capable of making use of pragmatic
strategies. Although the speakers in the present study had morphosyntactic
non-standardness in their speech and disfluencies, they were able to make
frequent use of pragmatic strategies. This supports House’s notion of
pragmatic fluency and how it is not necessarily dependent on the speaker’s
proficiency (House 1996). Management of the form dimension of speech
was not decisive for one’s ability to make use of pragmatic strategies in the
present study, unlike what has been suggested in some studies (Pérez and
Macia 2002). Despite non-standardness of form, speakers in ELF settings
can, without much trouble, negotiate meaning and check their understand-
ing through these pragmatic strategies.
So, irrespective of whether the speech event is monologic or dialogic, it
is crucial that speakers in ELF settings create opportunities in spoken
communication to deploy pragmatic strategies. This naturally holds true for
any high-stakes spoken discourse, but it is argued here that such strategies
are of specific importance to speakers in ELF settings due to the added
complexities in the form dimension (Björkman 2009). Moreover, it would
not be unreasonable to expect the lecturer to pay more attention to convey-
ing the message to his/her audience. This, however, was not the case in the
speech events investigated here. Similar results have been reported in an-
158 5 Theoretical and practical implications

other study where only 60 per cent of the lecturers paid attention to prag-
matic signaling (Fahmy and Bilton 1990).
I will now discuss the results of the last section of the study on per-
ceived communicativeness and attitudes.
The survey on perceived communicativeness and attitudes, although it
was not naturalistic, was a valuable complement to the rest of the study.
One of the strengths of the survey lies in the nature of its respondents. The
survey aimed to investigate what speakers who speak English as a lingua
franca had to say about different types of non-standardness that were ob-
served in the same lingua franca setting. Unlike the irritation and attitude
studies of the 70s and 80s, non-native speakers’ attitude to other non-native
speakers’ production was investigated. In addition, the present question-
naire was based on the results of the present study and the respondents
were from the setting in question, unlike in other studies where respondents
from language classes expressed their opinion on non-standardness in lin-
gua franca settings (Kuo 2006: 218). It is likely that a group of people
studying English in a country where it is the native language will have as
their primary aim acquiring native-like English. The goals will differ con-
siderably for those who use the language mainly for vehicular purposes, i.e.
communicative effectiveness when speaking to other non-native speakers
in non-English-speaking countries.
The focus in the first part of the experimental survey was on perceived
communicativeness, i.e. what students reported as comprehensible and
incomprehensible. Undoubtedly, in surveys, one is left with what the re-
spondents choose to reveal, but in this case, what the respondents reported
as incomprehensible revealed important information on their attitudes. In
this sense, what they reported as incomprehensible gave additional infor-
mation on their attitudes towards non-standardness.
The three non-standard features that scored highest on the incomprehen-
sibility scale are subject-verb agreement, article usage and word order.
When it comes to reported incomprehensibility on subject-verb agreement
issues, it is suggested here that this result is purely due to affective factors
since this is a redundant feature and does not play a role in comprehensibil-
ity. As the student quotes also show (section 4.3), some of the respondents
perceived the non-standard forms as produced by lecturers only and ex-
pressed irritation although the survey was not about teachers’ production.
Students tend to be critical towards their teachers and expect ideal delivery
of the subject matter. They may have thought this type of basic non-
standardness would be unacceptable in a lecturer’s speech.
 5.1. Discussion 159

The second highest feature on the incomprehensibility scale is article

usage. The absence of articles and extra articles caused reactions among the
respondents. The situation in the case of articles is likely to be similar to
subject-verb agreement issues, i.e. respondents may have reacted to the
basic nature of this type of non-standardness.
It is interesting, however, that word order comes third right after sub-
ject-verb agreement and article usage, which is quite high on the incompre-
hensibility scale. This study earlier reported non-standard question formu-
lation as the only feature that caused overt disturbance, however, and one
of the elements that caused overt disturbance in questions is non-standard
word order.
When it comes to low scores on the incomprehensibility scale, the low-
est three scores are shared among double comparative and superlatives,
negation and question formulation. Double comparative and superlatives
and negation are both non-standard types of usage based on explicitness.
This appears to suggest that explicitness-based non-standardness was not
perceived as incomprehensible.
The second part of the survey focused on reported irritation towards
non-standard forms. Word order issues were the highest on the irritation
scale, followed by passive voice and non-standard question formulation. It
is striking that word order and non-standard question formulation issues
were among the three highest features on the irritation scale since it is pre-
cisely the combination of these two features and intonation that leads to
non-standard question formulation, being the only feature that caused overt
disturbance. Word order scored the third highest incomprehensible feature
in the survey, which gives these results more weight. This indicates that
what the respondents reported as incomprehensible were in fact some of the
features they were irritated to have been exposed to. Irritation towards a
speaker’s production can have a negative effect on communication and
should be factored in when investigating the communication process.
The lowest reported irritation was caused by double comparative and
superlatives, the analytic comparative and not marking the plural on the
noun. This strengthens the suggestion made earlier here that explicitness-
based non-standardness was not perceived as irritating or incomprehensible
by the respondents.
In addition, the consistency between the results regarding overt disturb-
ance and irritation seems to indicate in fact that the questionnaire was ef-
fective in measuring students’ overall attitudes. Having said that, the two
scales measured the same variable.
160 5 Theoretical and practical implications

In the next section, I will discuss the theoretical implications of these

findings.

5.2. Theoretical implications

From the results of the present study emerge some theoretical implications
pertaining to the status of English as a lingua franca, the norms and stand-
ards for spoken English and what the notion ‘good English’ appears most
strongly associated with in such settings. These notions are central to any
discussion of ELF.

5.2.1. The status of ELF

While discussing the issues regarding the status of ELF, I will be attempt-
ing to answer some of the most-debated questions regarding ELF that have
been brought up in several publications and discussions.
The first question deals with whether ELF speakers should be consid-
ered learners. Whether ELF speakers are learners of the language and
whether their production is equivalent to learner language have been topics
of much-heated debates. ELF researchers have strongly rejected this view
(Jenkins 2006b; Ranta 2009; Seidlhofer 2004) and discussed some of the
differences between ELF speakers and learners of English. Mauranen
summarizes the view shared by most corpus linguists as follows:

As a corpus linguist, I think it is sad that although corpus study has chal-
lenged the supreme status of the native speaker, it has not dropped the
ideal of native speaker intuition; it has in effect transferred the descrip-
tion of the native speaker from ideal competence to actual performance.
It is nevertheless still firmly the native speaker who holds the reins. On
the whole, despite the mixed feelings that ELF has aroused in English
linguistics, one thing is shared: The native is the “speaker”, while the
non-native is eternally the “learner” (Mauranen 2005: 272).

To be able to answer this question, one needs to consider the notions of

situation, code, self-image and intentionality. The attempts to answer this
question have included discussions of situation (Firth and Wagner 1997),
self-image and intentionality (House 2002a; Jenkins 2006b; Seidlhofer,
Breiteneder and Pitzl 2006) and partly, code (Breiteneder 2005; Meierkord
 5.2. Theoretical implications 161

2004; Ranta 2006). I will outline the main differences between the two
groups in the mentioned order, in the setting investigated here.
When it comes to situation, there are large differences between speakers
in ELF settings and formal learners of English. The ‘learner’ label all non-
native speakers seem to bear regardless of the situation is not justified. It is
argued yet again here that ELF speakers are not formal learners in the tradi-
tional sense, because there are important differences between the two
groups with regard to the setting, the level of the speakers, the norm, feed-
back and the way non-standardness is dealt with (see Table 5.2).

Table 5.2. Some differences between formal learners of English and speakers in
the present ELF setting.
Speakers in the present ELF
setting
Setting Authentic communicative situa-
tions
Level Most levels present (A2, B1,
B2, C1, C2)
Norm No overt norm
Feedback Little (other repair) or no nega-
tive feedback in case of non-
standard production
Dealing with Non-standardness that does not
non- interfere with communication or
standardness aids communication kept. Little
or no consequences in the form
dimension (language generally
not assessed).
Other Explicitness strategies added for
optimal communication
Formal learners of
English
Classroom situation
Homogeneous level
Norm presented
overtly
Negative feedback in
case of non-standard
production
Non-standardness not
kept= There are direct
consequences in the
form dimension (test-
ing: grades etc.)
-

Table 5.2 shows a skeletal view of some of the main differences be-
tween learners of English and speakers in the present ELF setting. The
differences are in the main areas of setting, level, norm and feedback. In
addition, non-standardness is handled differently in speaker and formal
learner groups. Finally, there are some behavioral differences by speakers
of English as a lingua franca, included in ‘Other differences’ below. These
together make up fundamental differences between speakers in ELF set-
162 5 Theoretical and practical implications

tings and those who have chosen to take language courses and are, in the
traditional sense, learners of English.
To start with, ELF settings are truly authentic communicative situations.
This is very different for formal learners of English whose only territory of
practice is the language classroom, with provided help from the teacher and
the textbook. The second issue deals with the level of proficiency of speak-
ers. In ELF settings, speakers come from a range of levels (Jenkins 2000:
73, 74). Due to admission requirements set by the universities, students are
almost never within the Common European Framework15 language level
A1; however, there are students who are within A2 or B1 in terms of speak-
ing skills. One hears different levels of proficiency in lingua franca set-
tings, ranging from A2 all the way to the highest level, C2. This is also
precisely why ELF is not and cannot be referred to as a level of proficien-
cy. Some ELF speakers are highly proficient while others may be com-
municating with difficulty. So, ELF has “its own cline of proficiency”
(Jenkins 2007: 30).
The situation is completely different for formal learners of English. Ide-
ally, learners are placed in groups in terms of their levels to make both the
teaching and the learning process more effective. It is not uncommon that
there is some range of levels in a learner group; however, the range is never
as large as that of lingua franca settings.
ELF settings are authentic usage settings; therefore, language is not of
primary concern. It is the task that has the participants’ main focus. In this
sense, no overt norm is imposed on ELF speakers. Naturally, this is very
different in language classrooms where the main aims are to become more
proficient users of the language and to achieve language complexity. For-
mal learners are always presented with a norm they are instructed, to which
they are expected to conform. As a direct consequence of this, they aim to
follow the norm they are prescribed to follow. If they fail to do so, there are
consequences for them in their learning situations, such as the grades of
achievement tests and negative feedback etc. Speakers in ELF settings, on
the other hand, aim for functionality before any other factor such as con-
forming to what may appear as the norm, accuracy or language complexity.
They pay attention to the functional bits of the language that helps them

15. The goal in the Common European Framework is native-like usage for any
language including English, which is not in accordance with the use of English
as a lingua franca. Therefore, it is not seen as relevant to ELF research where
the aim is communicative effectiveness.
 5.2. Theoretical implications 163

convey the message and do not pay particular attention to the redundancy
of English, as is clear from the results of the present investigation. There
are no consequences for them in the language dimension since they do not
get language feedback from content teachers unless their production is in-
comprehensible. In addition, because communicative effectiveness is their
main goal, they employ pragmatic strategies frequently to assure that com-
munication takes place.
In connection with the situation, one should also mention that learner
language is used to refer to an individual’s language development and is
inadequate for describing contact languages. In addition, the use of English
as a lingua franca is not about language improvement, and ELF users do
not necessarily have a continuum before them, unlike learners of English.
The sense of the term ‘learner’ here is the traditional sense of the word,
i.e. formal learner. Naturally, human beings are receptive to input. So, it is
perfectly possible that incidental learning may be taking place in ELF set-
tings, e.g. that speakers may be learning vocabulary from each other. It is
also equally likely that they may be learning non-standard forms from each
other. The following excerpt from the present corpus is an example of such
a case:

1 <S1> the methods , the results of the interviews </S1>

2 <S2> the analyses [!n!!l!!z!z] you mean </S2>
3 <S1> is that what it’s called <FOREIGN> analys </FOREIGN> </S1>
4 <S2> yeah analyzes [!n!"l!#z#z] yeah it’s analyzes [!n!"l!#z#z] you’re
5 analyzing the result </S2>

In the above extract, On line 2, S2 pronounces the word ‘analysis’ as

[!n!"l!"z!z]. This is not the way the word is pronounced. S1 asks whether
the word he is looking for is what is provided for him by S2 on line 3.
When he asks his question, he wants to make sure and provides S2 with the
Swedish equivalent of the word he is looking for: ‘analys’. S2 confirms
several times on lines 4 and 5 that the word S1 needs is [!n!"l!"z!z]. As a
result, S1 might walk away from this conversation, thinking the word he
needs to use for the Swedish word ‘analys’ is [!n!"l!"z!z].
In another example, one of the speakers attempts to correct another
speaker’s syntax but provides the speaker with another non-standard form:

1 <S1> the (phosphoric) acid </S1>

2 <S2> is not rised [!r!"z"d] </S2>
3 <S1> is not rise [!r!"z], just that the amount… </S1>
164 5 Theoretical and practical implications

On line 3, S2 corrects ‘rised’ and produces ‘rise’. Both forms are non-
standard, so there is no real correction or repair here. This excerpt is anoth-
er example of speakers providing each other with non-standard forms.
The second notion to consider is the code. The data here showed clear
overlaps between learner language and ELF code features. In this respect,
one could surely suggest that ELF commonalities are like learner language.
Code, however, is only one of the notions to consider when attempting to
answer the question whether ELF speakers are learners or not.
The third notion, the notion of self-image, is an important one. Apart
from learning that might result from correction, it is also possible that some
speakers in ELF settings have the additional goal of learning more English
and speaking more sophisticated English along with getting content educa-
tion. Especially in Scandinavia, where English is used in a large number of
domains, speakers might have this additional aim in mind. In other words,
some speakers might see themselves as learners of English. There is evi-
dence for this in the literature. A study that investigated exchange students’
behavior studying in Scandinavian universities showed that language im-
provement was among the aims of some of the exchange students. For
some students, English was a vehicular language while others saw Scandi-
navia as the second best setting to improve their English (Shaw, Caudery
and Petersen 2009). In this sense, it is up to the individual speaker whether
s/he is also a learner of English or not.
Connected with the notion of self-image is intentionality. Intentional
learning and incidental learning are two very different concepts. Naturally,
we are surrounded with different types of information at all times. Equally
natural is our inability to block information, which results in incidental
learning in most cases, i.e. learning indirectly in an unplanned manner as a
result of continuous input. Incidental language learning has been docu-
mented in different settings, e.g. a business setting where English serves as
a lingua franca shows that speakers reject the role of ‘learner’, but inci-
dental learning takes place in the course of communication (Firth 2009a).
This issue deserves a much more detailed discussion and a reference to
neurolinguistics than space and topic allow here, but in an attempt to brief-
ly explain the difference between incidental and intentional learning, we
can say that we pay attention to other things than what is learned in inci-
dental learning whereas in intentional learning, as the word suggests, our
consciousness is activated, with our focus on what we are learning. Another
important dichotomy is the one between intake and input. What speakers in
the present ELF setting are exposed to is content input, i.e. explicit and
 5.2. Theoretical implications 165

consciously perceived input of content, but possibly language intake, i.e.

implicit intake of language.
Is ELF usage learner language then? So far, I have discussed the nature
of speakers in ELF settings and aimed to show clearly the differences be-
tween learners of English and speakers who use English as a vehicular lan-
guage in real-life settings. Although it is clear from the discussion here so
far that ELF usage is not simply learner language, I will now expand on
why this term is not appropriate for ELF situations and speakers.
The first reason this term is unsuitable has to do with the very meaning
of the term. The term learner language is used to describe an individual’s
language proficiency and is temporal since, along with an individual’s lan-
guage proficiency, comes the continuum of development. ELF situations
are typically contact situations. Moreover, as I have mentioned in this sec-
tion earlier, ELF is not a level of proficiency. Undoubtedly, speakers can
get better at the language they need to use on a daily basis. However, nega-
tive learning can also take place, as we have seen in the two excerpts in this
section, which also should be taken into consideration. These factors alone
suffice to explain that the term should be used exclusively for learners.
There is evidence also from the form dimension of the present investiga-
tion that ELF usage is not learner language. Although there is some overlap
between ELF usage and learner language features (Table 5.1), learner lan-
guage research shows that learners act differently when it comes to lan-
guage production. It was shown by a study on twelve Chinese learners’
plural marking that informants applied the pluralization rule almost cate-
gorically in a limited set of prototypical expressions consisting of numerals
or quantifiers modifying plural nouns, with the NP functioning syntactical-
ly as an adverbial (Young 1991), and the subjects in general applied plural
marking to the nouns regardless of the quantifiers preceding the nouns.
Young’s results contradict the functional hypothesis, discussed earlier by
Kiparsky (1972), Guy (1981) and Littlewood (1981) among others. The
functional hypothesis, originating from creole studies and quantitative so-
ciolinguistics (Young 1991: 117), suggests that a feature is more likely to
be kept if it fulfills a function and more likely to be omitted if it carries
unimportant information. In the present study, as explained before, many
speakers indicate the plural meaning merely by numbers or by adverbs or
determiners before the noun but leave the noun itself without an inflexion
(section 4.1). This finding contradicts starkly with Young’s results. Young
himself explains that the results of his study are contrary to the functional
hypothesis he tested, and he suggests this hypothesis be rejected (Young
166 5 Theoretical and practical implications

1991: 155). In ELF settings, functionality plays a major role to the extent
that it seems to be decisive of usage whereas in learner language, learners
(in the classroom learning situation) have the primary aim of approximating
their production to native speaker production. This is a key difference in
the code.
In the piloting stage of the perceived communicativeness and attitudes
survey (sections 3.3 and 4.3), the respondents expressed their views on
approximating their spoken usage of English to native speakers’ as follows,
with original punctuation and use of capitals:

Speaking like a native speaker is not my aim, because

(i) the content (…) is more important, it is a technical topic. Clear de-
livery is the aim, not be like native speaker.

(ii) as long as the speaker is easy to understand and has a good

knowledge of English — in international contexts I don’t expect him
to sound like a native speaker.

(iii) the most important thing is to be understood.

(iv) it is difficult and I don’t think it is necessary as long as people un-

derstand what you say.

(v) I don’t want to sound like something I am not.

(vi) it’s nice with some variation.

(vii) it’s completely understandable that a non-native speaker doesn’t

sound like a native speaker.

(viii) be clear and precise is enough! Native speakers tend to speak too fast
for me, and always with some slang, which are hard to follow.

Investigating the question of approximating spoken usage to native speaker

production is a separate matter which I have excluded from the main study
here; nevertheless, the above quotes suggest that there is definitely some
awareness among the speakers in this setting of the importance of function-
ality in ELF settings. Their primary aim is to get the message across and
maintain clarity as opposed to conforming to native speaker standards.
They show that they are aware of the nature of international settings (quote
ii), by saying that they do not see it necessary for speakers to sound like
 5.2. Theoretical implications 167

native speakers in settings that are by nature international. In addition, they

seem to reveal other issues, such as identity (quote v) and variability (quote
vi) issues.
Another important question pertaining to the status of ELF is whether
ELF is sui generis or not. To be able to even attempt to answer this much-
debated question, one first needs to see how the term sui generis is defined
in the answers provided so far in the literature.
There appear to be two senses of the term sui generis in ELF literature:
First, a set of features unique to ELF, in other words the dictionary mean-
ing of the term, and ELF usage that deserves to be studied in its own right,
which is the way it seems to be used in some studies in ELF literature.
Those who use the term in its dictionary meaning seem to refer to the fea-
tures or strategies observed in ELF settings while those who prefer the se-
cond meaning appear to refer to ELF situations.
Jenkins, in a paper discussing the differences between ELF and SLA
states that ELF is indeed sui generis, and she seems to refer to the second
sense of the term as discussed here by saying “The essential point here is
that – as empirical research is already demonstrating – ELF is sui generis,
then ELF proficiency levels must also be sui generis” (Jenkins 2006a: 141).
In the introduction to a special issue on the pragmatics of ELF, it is
claimed that ELF is a “phenomenon sui generis” (House 2009: 141), and
the meaning of the term is similar to the way Jenkins uses it:

This special issue deals with the pragmatics of ELF. It contributes to

current conceptualizations and descriptions not the nature of ELF as
a phenomenon sui generis. The papers in this issue do not therefore
look upon English as a second or a foreign language to be measured
against an ideal native speaker norm, but as a special form of lan-
guage operating under different conditions than both native/native
and native/non-native interactions. (House 2009: 141)

What House seems to mean is that ELF does not need to be studied with
reference to second language or foreign language studies. The studies in the
issue mentioned regard ELF as a special form of language which should be
dealt with accordingly. Firth, in the same special issue, answers those who
say ELF cannot be sui generis because of its by mentioning variability as
one of the characteristics of ELF (Firth 2009b), using the first sense of the
term. Variability was mentioned by Jenkins earlier as a characteristic of
ELF usage (Jenkins 2000).
I will use the term in its dictionary meaning here. The answer I can pro-
vide to the question whether ELF is sui generis or not is limited to the form
168 5 Theoretical and practical implications

dimension. With regard to form, a comparison is made between the com-

monalities found in the present study, features of World Englishes, creoles
and learner language. In the light of this, it appears that ELF is by no means
sui generis. If the features are shared with varieties of English, it cannot be
claimed that the commonalities found in ELF usage form a unique set of
features. Among the thirteen non-standard features subsumed under the
four categories, i.e. non-standardness that causes overt disturbance, devices
that increase comprehensibility and create extra explicitness, reductions of
redundancy and other non-standard features, ten were shared with World
Englishes, nine with creoles and seven with learner language. This large
overlap shows without a doubt that ELF usage is not sui generis in the form
dimension. ELF literature has suggested that World Englishes and ELF are
not disparate paradigms (Cogo 2009: 59).
When it comes to the pragmatics of ELF settings, the issue is more
complicated. Pragmatics is not a relatively closed system like morphosyn-
tax, which makes it very hard to assess whether the pragmatic features seen
in ELF settings are sui generis or not. There is, however, little reason to
think that the pragmatic strategies (sections 4.2.2 and 5.1) observed in the
present corpus should be absent in other types of high-stakes interaction
where speakers strive to get the message across to be able to solve a prob-
lem together.
In this sense, ELF usage is not sui generis, or unique, if we go back to
the dictionary meaning of the term. Uniqueness, I will argue here, comes
with being different from the rest, in this case other types of usage. As ELF
is the global use of English, it is inclusive, and it is a type of usage that
includes, e.g. different L1 backgrounds, levels of proficiency, rather than
excludes. Accordingly, ELF usage will naturally have everything in it that
the speakers bring to the table, native and non-native, resulting in inclusion
rather than exclusion.
ELF does not need to be sui generis to receive the attention it deserves
to be studied separately from World Englishes, creoles and learner lan-
guage. In fact, the question seems to be receiving undeserved attention. It is
true that ELF has great similarities to the varieties mentioned, but ELF
situations are different from the situations in World Englishes, creoles and
learner language. For validity and reliability of any research, it should be
dealt with separately as a legitimate topic of research.
Another important question to address here is whether ELF is a variety
or not. The results of the present investigation show clearly that ELF usage
is not sui generis, and that variability is a characteristic of ELF usage. In
 5.2. Theoretical implications 169

fact, the commonalities in the present study were a minority at all times and
in both types of the speech events investigated. These results indicate that
ELF is not a variety, if it is the traditional meaning of the term variety to
which one intends to refer.
It is useful to refer to what is meant by the term variation. Quirk et al.
discuss five major types of variation with reference to varieties of English:
Region, social group, field of discourse, medium and attitude (1985: 16).
The first two types of variation refer to people using a certain variety be-
cause of living in a certain area, and they use a certain variety due to be-
longing to a group of social variation, e.g. variation with reference to edu-
cation, socioeconomic situation and ethnicity (Quirk et al. 1985: 17). The
last three types of variation are of specific interest here since they are de-
fined by language use. In the field of discourse, speakers have a certain set
of features available to them that they deploy within their field, be it their
profession, their interest or training (Quirk et al. 1985: 23). For the speak-
ers that took part in the present investigation, the field of discourse was
engineering. Variation with reference to medium, i.e. speaking and writing,
can be equally decisive of variability in one’s usage. Speaking is the natural
form of communication and is, needless to say, different from writing in
many respects. Finally, attitudinal variation refers to the formal and infor-
mal binary distinction in usage.
Regardless of the type of variation in usage, a set of solid features, re-
ferred to as ‘common core’ (Quirk et al. 1985: 16) is required that cut
across the entire variety. A common core or nucleus is present in all the
varieties so that, however esoteric a variety may be, it has running through
it a set of grammatical and other characteristics that are present in all the
others. It is this fact that justifies the application of the name ‘English’ to
all the varieties (Quirk et al. 1985: 16). In the sense of the term variety used
by Quirk et al. above, ELF usage documented in the present investigation
does not fulfill the requirements, for there is great variability of usage and
the ratio of non-standardness to standard features is relatively low. Based
on the results of the present study, ELF cannot be referred to as a separate
variety. Figure 5.1 adapted from Quirk et al. shows variability within a
variety on a scale from “relatively uniform” to “relatively diverse”:
170 5 Theoretical and practical implications

relatively uniform

Variation in
Any given variety
individual’s usage
of English
(ELF usage)

relatively diverse
(ELF usage)

Variation in
community’s usage
(ELF usage)

Figure 5.1. Variation within a variety (adapted from Quirk et al. 1985: 31).

If the variety is “relatively diverse”, then one could talk about diversity
within an individual’s usage and the community’s usage. The results of the
present investigation on ELF usage show relatively high diversity both
within an individual’s and the community’s usage, as marked in Figure 5.1.
The confusion and the debates around whether ELF is a variety are
caused by perhaps unintentional but careless usage of the term ELF and
suggestions of “teaching ELF” (e.g. Alptekin 2007; Kuo 2006; Sifakis
2007, 2009), which suggest that ELF is a variety, consisting of a set of
features that can be taught. ‘Integrating ELF into one’s teaching’ is not
synonymous with ‘teaching ELF’. It is important that the learners who will
use English as a lingua franca need to be made aware of ELF in general:
ELF should be integrated into the curriculum in the teaching of English
(see section 5.3), and the growth of English as a lingua franca needs to be
factored in English language teaching (Jenkins 2000; McKay 2002; Seid-
lhofer 2001; Widdowson 2003). In addition, undoubtedly, one can talk
about the ELF core, which has been the topic of Master’s theses (Noorman
2008). As phonology/phonetics are closed systems with a set of features, it
is possible to teach students the sounds one needs to produce correctly for
intelligibility. However, I will argue here one should talk about ‘teaching
ELF’ with caution, as it has ‘variety’ implications. Teaching an awareness
of ELF, of course, is an entirely different matter.
Naturally, commonalities of usage can be outlined provided that there is
a clear set of criteria (section 3.3), and that the ratio of non-standard usage
 5.2. Theoretical implications 171

to standard usage is shown clearly (section 4.1), as the present study strived
to do. However, the variability would have needed to be very low for ELF
usage to be regarded a variety. With the dynamic nature of its speakers and
the numerous L1 backgrounds, stability is unlikely to be found in ELF set-
tings. ELF research so far, including the present study, tells us that ELF
usage is variable and very context-bound. The usage will depend on who is
talking to whom, in what type of setting and for what purposes.
If ELF is not a variety, what is it and which term can be used to best de-
scribe it? In the light of what has been said, it is reasonable to suggest that
ELF is a functional term and not a linguistic one, i.e. it does not refer to a
set of codified features that show stability of usage, as discussed before in
literature (Kirkpatrick 2008: 28). ELF refers to a situation where speakers
from different L1 backgrounds use English as a vehicular language. This
definition does not presuppose the presence of a stable set of features that
can be codified with ease.
The notion of ‘speech community’ versus ‘discourse community’ is cer-
tainly of relevance to any discussion of variety. In the earliest definition, a
‘speech community’ was defined as a group that shares a set of linguistic
rules and conventions (Bloomfield 1933). In a less strict definition, it was
described as a group sharing a set of norms (Labov 1966: 7). There have
been other definitions of a ‘speech community’ since the first one; howev-
er, they all point to a relatively set group in terms of rules, norms and func-
tions. The concept ‘discourse community’ is much more suitable for de-
scribing communities that are in a relative state of flux (Bizzell 1982). Dis-
course communities, as Swales discusses them, are “centrifugal”, i.e. “sepa-
rating people into occupational or speciality-interest groups” and speech
communities, “centripetal”, i.e. “absorbing people” (Swales 1990: 24).
Swales continues with the characteristics of a discourse community:

1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.

2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its
members.
3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to
provide information and feedback.
4. A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in
the communicative furtherance of its aims.
5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some
specific lexis.
6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable
degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.
172 5 Theoretical and practical implications

The community in the present investigation seems to reflect the six charac-
teristics of a discourse community as described by Swales above. First, the
speakers in the present study have common goals they wish to attain (1).
Second, they have certain participatory mechanisms, i.e. lectures and
group-work sessions (2). Next, the speakers in the present ELF setting take
advantage of the “informational opportunities” (Swales 1990: 26), for they
are in high-stakes situations where they must ensure information exchange
(3). The next characteristic (4) refers to the adjustment of “topics, form,
function and positioning of discoursal elements” (Swales 1990: 26). The
speakers in the ELF settings described in the present study show certain
adjustments, as described in Chapter 4 and discussed here in Chapter 5. A
discourse community can also have its own lexis (5). Lexis, in this depth,
has not been a part of the present investigation. It is, however, common
knowledge that members of a speciality-group have their own jargon. Fi-
nally, the speakers in the present setting have a certain level of content,
owing to their shared background, and they display certain discoursal strat-
egies, pointing to what may be described as “discoursal expertise” (6)
(Swales 1990: 27), as discussed in sections 4.2.2 and 5.1.
In consideration of the evaluation made above, it is reasonable to sug-
gest the ELF community in the present setting is a discourse community
rather than a speech community. ELF usage is better relieved from pres-
sures of forming a variety and speakers in ELF settings, from the obligation
of belonging to a speech community. To repeat the conclusion of the dis-
cussion on the previous question, ELF usage is not a variety nor does it
need to be a variety to be studied separately from World Englishes, creoles
and learner languages. It is the largest use of the English language today by
legitimate discourse communities, and that fact on its own suffices for ELF
settings to be investigated thoroughly.
Where should ELF speech be sought? The fundamental differences be-
tween learners and speakers in ELF settings show clearly that if one aims to
undertake an investigation on ELF usage, the only place to do this is an
ELF setting and not language classrooms where language is the primary
concern for everyone involved. Learners in language classrooms will be
paying attention to as many aspects of the language as possible at all times.
Any research resulting from language classroom data will fail to show what
speakers in ELF settings do and the results arising from such research can-
not be extended to any other context than the language classroom (also
discussed briefly in Cogo and Dewey 2006: 65, Cogo and Dewey 2011),
 5.2. Theoretical implications 173

since it is not possible to simulate a real-time authentic speech situation. As

Schlegoff very rightly says in Wong and Olsher (2000):

The talk that learners are going to have to do when they’re not in the hot-
house of the classroom is situated in the real world where they have real
things to do, and that’s the talk that people ideally should be recording and
studying if they want to understand what the real world problems are for
those who are speaking a language that is not their native language. (Scheg-
loff 2000:122)

The settings and where data came from must be taken into account before
any research results are considered. If it is usage of English as a lingua
franca that one needs to investigate, the setting in which to undertake such
an investigation cannot and should not be a classroom setting. Compilation
of such spoken data is by no means straightforward; it is time-consuming,
complicated and costly. However, if we want to understand how lecturers
and students interact by using English as a lingua franca, we must investi-
gate lingua franca settings. In this sense, even set-up speech events where
speakers use English as a lingua franca can come closer to documenting
ELF usage than data collected in language classrooms.

5.2.2. Norms and standards for speech

I mentioned earlier in this study (section 3.3) that there is variation within
native varieties of English, and it is by no means easy to draw clear bound-
aries between what is standard and non-standard. Some features that are
considered incorrect can be observed in native speakers’ speech frequently.
When native speakers have non-standard usage in their speech, it is gener-
ally termed ‘variation’ whereas when non-native speakers have the same
usage, it is considered an ‘error’. This study aimed to show that non-native
speakers too can have variation in their speech, especially that the non-
standardness observed shows clear patterns of reducing redundancy and
increasing explicitness, both aimed for communicative effectiveness. In the
light of this, the important question for this study and all studies dealing
with the form of speech is what the standards are for speech.
If we approach the general concept of language as a set of rules, a clear
and solid set of rules to prescribe for standard usage of the language be-
comes necessary. What is considered standard in traditional grammar books
is traditionally based on written English. In other words, the standards for
174 5 Theoretical and practical implications

spoken English have long been set by written English and what would be
considered correct and therefore acceptable in written discourse. This is
recognized by the MICASE team, as one of the reasons for undertaking
such a project and thus as one of the ways MICASE “benefits (our) com-
munity”. The team expected that they would find “many divergences from
those described in current grammar and vocabulary books, which have
largely relied on introspection or on features of written texts” (Simpson et
al. 2002).
As Preisler says “By definition, a standard or norm seeks to minimize
diversity, and diversity is usually discouraged in the teaching of a written
standard” (Preisler 2011: xiv). Written norms are not appropriate for speak-
ing, for speech and writing are two very different types of discourse. The
fact that speech is generally impromptu and requires real-time production
and processing creates the biggest difference between these two types of
discourse with regard to one’s production. So evaluating a speaker’s com-
municative competence by his/her adherence to standard forms based on
writing would be a practice that is against the nature of speaking, it is un-
just to the speaker, and it is a practice that does not comply with the way
natural speech is.
This has been discussed in earlier work. Brazil’s work was important
since it was a prominent work in discussing spoken grammar, i.e. a differ-
ent model for speech rather than using the same model for speech and writ-
ing although he does not provide a detailed description of spoken grammar
(Brazil 1995). His work was supported by Carter and McCarthy, who dis-
cussed the inappropriateness of standard grammars for speech since they
were based on writing (Carter and McCarthy 1995). The CANCODE pro-
ject (Cambridge-Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English), mainly led
by Carter and McCarthy, was compiled with the aim of enabling the study
of “spoken grammar in particular relation to different genres of speech”
(Carter and McCarthy 1997: 8).

Most importantly, too, such a project design allows insights to be devel-

oped concerning differences and distinctions between spoken and writ-
ten language use, with particular reference to grammar. The major con-
temporary grammars of the English language are largely based on writ-
ten examples; the new data are exemplifying common, ‘standard’ pat-
terns of use alongside patterns more familiar from written-language-
based grammar. For example, new data […] reveal key interpersonal
functions in the use of tense, modality, ellipsis, deixis and clause struc-
ture; the crucial role of spoken discourse markers, acting as a kind of
conversational punctuation, is also illustrated. Additionally, variations in
 5.2. Theoretical implications 175

canonical (written) word order can be shown to be common across a

wide range of genres of speech.

The opposite view suggests that it is the same grammar that forms the basis
of both speaking and writing and therefore no distinction needs to be made
(Biber et al. 1999; Leech 2000).
The present study finds itself closer to the first approach, the Notting-
ham school, as Leech calls it (Leech 2000: 688). Evaluating a speaker’s
spoken production based on writing norms would not be an issue of “em-
phasis and attitude” only as Leech claims (Leech 2000: 690); it would in
fact be denying the very nature of speaking.
The first preliminary in describing speech properly is naturally the com-
pilation of spoken corpora, e.g. BNC, LLC, MICASE (Simpson et al.,
2002), BASE, VOICE, ELFA and ACE. These corpora all serve the im-
portant purpose of providing spoken data from different settings.
The second step to take towards providing appropriate norms for speech
is to have a spoken corpus on its own presuppositions and not on presuppo-
sitions of writing. Although the earlier CANCODE project was compiled
with the primary aim of exploring authentic spontaneous speech and inves-
tigating spoken grammar, it does not document spoken English by non-
native speakers. The speech recorded for CANCODE comprises speech
from native speakers of English only, and the findings that arise from this
corpus can only explain variation in the spoken language of native speak-
ers, not in non-native speakers’ speech. Carter and McCarthy suggest the
usage of CANCODE data by learners of English so learners of English can
“see, hear and understand conversational English in a range of different
contexts of use” (Carter and McCarthy 1997: 7).
Of course, it would be ideal that those who are studying English and
consider themselves learners could be exposed to authentic usage of spoken
English from a variety of contexts, situations and settings, and undoubted-
ly, CANCODE data are of great interest; they reveal variation in native
speaker usage of spoken English, which is important in studying spoken
English. However, they exclude speech by speakers who speak it as a lin-
gua franca. In this respect, they are not appropriate for speakers of English
who will use it in lingua franca settings.
For the purposes of ELF settings, the third essential preliminary is the
availability of corpora that document usage of English in settings where it
is used as a lingua franca. Target use for speakers in ELF settings is not
native spoken usage that is culturally-loaded and that is full of idioms, but
176 5 Theoretical and practical implications

rather effective speech. Presenting learners of English with the heavy idio-
maticity present in native spoken English is not likely to provide them with
more choices; it is only likely to create opacity in their speech. Prodromou
discusses the concept of ‘authenticity’ and claims it is embedded in the
context (Prodromou 1996: 372). When it is taken out of its context, it simp-
ly stops being authentic. Native speaker usage is not necessarily helpful for
speakers in ELF settings, as also shown in the present study in the analyses
of questions. Although rising question intonation is not always present in
native speaker usage, it helps speakers in ELF settings register questions
(section 4.1).
The information and research findings that have been and will be gener-
ated by all the aforementioned corpora, provided that they present appro-
priate speech, will enable research to produce appropriate descriptions of
the use of English as a lingua franca. A thorough documentation of spoken
English from authentic settings will surely contribute to the understanding
of a ‘spoken grammar’ and whether it is possible to set rules that reflect the
nature of spoken English successfully. To date, there is no clear explana-
tion or documentation of spoken grammar with the exception of a new cor-
pus-based monograph, developing Brazil’s work (1995) (O’Grady, 2010).
It is, however, the application of the research findings based on these
corpora that is critical. The place to apply the research findings is the lan-
guage classroom, which brings the need for a discussion of the teaching of
English language.
Before moving on to such practical implications (section 5.3.2), let us
turn to what good English may mean and whether it is synonymous with
correct English.

5.2.3. Good English

The results of the present study and a discussion of the general notions of
ELF situations bring to the fore another important notion, albeit a much
more general one: Good English.
What is good English?
This question will naturally receive a variety of answers depending on a
number of factors, e.g. the one answering the question, the setting that is
relevant. Greenbaum discusses ‘good English’ by contrasting it to ‘correct
English’ as follows (Greenbaum 1996: 17):
 5 Theoretical and practical implications 177

Good English is sometimes equated with correct English, but the two
concepts should be differentiated. Correct English is conformity to the
norms of the standard language. Good English is good use of the re-
sources available in the language. In that sense we can use a non-
standard dialect well and can use the standard language badly. By good
English we may mean language used effectively or aesthetically; lan-
guage that conveys clearly and appropriately what is intended and lan-
guage that is pleasing to the listener or the reader.

First we may deal with whether English that does not conform to the norms
is “pleasing to the listener or reader” or not and discuss this in connection
with the survey in the present study (section 5.1). Some non-standard pro-
duction may trigger certain ideologies in some people’s minds. Their re-
sponses may clash with what they do in interaction, as was the case in the
present study. The respondents claim to find the omission of third person
singular -s irritating although it did not cause disturbance in communica-
tion. This kind of contradiction is important, for it reveals people’s atti-
tudes.
Considering good English as the effective use of the available linguistic
resources, and drawing a clear distinction between correct English and
good English as suggested above, suggests that “good English” is not a
notion that is determined necessarily by one’s level of proficiency. In other
words, speakers who have lower levels of proficiency are also capable of
speaking good English. This seems to corroborate the findings of the pre-
sent study in the dimensions of form (section 4.1) and discourse (section
4.2). A large body of data showed in the present study that speakers who
have lower levels of proficiency were able to use the language effectively.
On the notion of effectiveness, with respect to ELF settings where speakers
use English as the vehicular language, using the language effectively takes
precedence over language complexity. “Conformity to the norms” will
naturally be less critical for anyone who is trying to complete a task
through the medium of that language.
This is not to say that correctness is irrelevant. Naturally, grammatical
accuracy is important; a sentence needs to be made up of the right constitu-
ents to be sensical. What is suggested here is that, in operating in ELF set-
tings where speakers are from a range of levels of proficiency, both those
who are native speakers or those who are highly proficient, and those who
are non-native speakers with varying degrees of proficiency are challenged.
Relevant to the dichotomy of native and non-native speakers is Fergu-
son’s discussion of academic writing. Ferguson plausibly argues that both
178 5 Theoretical and practical implications

native and non-native speakers are “novices” in acquiring academic (writ-

ing) skills:

With regard to the acquisition of this specialized competence, the native

speaker and the non-native speaker both start out as novices, a position
of parity that the native/non-native dichotomy obscures, but that is noted
by some of the editors from Flowerdew’s (2001) study, who remark that
many of the problems of Hong Kong/Chinese authors are shared by their
native speaker counterparts (see also Swales 2004). This is not to say
that native-speakerhood confers no advantage at all. It may do so with
particular regard to intuitions of grammaticality [...]. The key dimen-
sions of difference, then, are not so much native or non-native speaker
status as expertise (novice or expert) and proficiency, the significance of
the latter being underscored if one bears in mind the frequency with
which so-called non-natives display greater facility in academic writing
than natives, whose performance levels are in fact very variable. (Fergu-
son 2007: 28)

A similar argument can be made for academic speaking in general. In han-

dling the everyday challenges of ELF settings, both native and non-native
speakers are novices. It is argued here that being proficient in the language
does not presuppose that one is also a pragmatically effective speaker. In
settings where English is used as a lingua franca, communicative effective-
ness takes precedence over language complexity. Any speaker may aim for
better accuracy, fluency and language complexity, but when it comes to
investing in a communicative situation, it is ways of achieving effective-
ness that help speakers produce the desired outcome, i.e. be communica-
tively effective. The proficient/less proficient or the native/non-native
speaker dichotomies, therefore, are not of primary relevance or utility to
international settings. In the light of the above, the notion of good English
in ELF settings appears most strongly associated with effectiveness, not
with correctness or adherence to native speaker norms.

5.3. Practical implications

The results of the present study also has some practical implications. Using
another language than one’s own for high-stakes communication requires
heavy investment in the communication process. Because of this, ELF set-
tings are inherently challenging for all parties involved. From the results of
the analyses, a number of implications emerge for, first, lecturers, with
regard to the adjustment of lectures to lingua franca settings, for decision
 5.3 Practical implications 179

makers as to providing lecturers and students with the help they might need
in operating through the medium of a foreign language, and for those in-
volved in the teaching of English. I will now discuss them in the same or-
der here.

5.3.1. Comprehension-facilitating lecturing behavior

How can we help students cope with English-medium lectures? The results
here showed certain types of comprehension-facilitating behavior, which is
what we will turn to now.
Listening to a lecture is in one sense a much more complex task than
working in groups, because speakers have little room for maneuver and
little opportunity to make use of discursive strategies. Although more work
has been done on lecturing in English than in student group-work sessions,
it seems as if we can safely assume that lectures are riskier in terms of
communicative effectiveness. At the same time, it seems as if it is only
through studying interactive speech in lingua franca that we can get infor-
mation on how meaning is negotiated and how communicative effective-
ness is achieved. So investigating both monologic and dialogic speech pro-
duces the information we need on what type of communicative skills are
helpful in getting the message across.
Conveying information is clearly only one of the aims when giving a
lecture. Researchers are becoming aware of the significance of lectures as
speech events used not merely to convey information but also achieve a
good rapport with the audience and convey attitudes and opinions. Non-
native speaker lecturers who teach non-native speaker students need infor-
mation regarding how to deal with the challenges of the situation. There is
to date little research-based advice for non-native lecturers teaching non-
native students, with the exception of Airey’s work on physics education
(Airey 2009).
The present project showed that the types of behavior outlined below
are useful in increasing communicative effectiveness. The following tenta-
tive recommendations I am making here are primarily for lecturers who
need to teach in what have now become ELF settings, but also for decision-
makers who can, through providing training, equip lecturers and students
with the type of training they need to cope with the challenges of lingua
franca settings.
180 5 Theoretical and practical implications

The first recommendation deals with asking students questions and let-
ting them raise questions. As simple as this may sound, as explained in
detail in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 here, questions are of specific im-
portance. They are the only verbal real-time signals as to what is going on
in communication and are invaluable in checking understanding. They are
also important organizational devices. We could even say that questions are
the only verbal features that can be used for checking the quality of com-
prehension in real time. In this sense, they serve the teaching-learning sit-
uation tremendously. It is, therefore, highly recommended for lecturers to
ask questions several times during a lecture and give students the time they
need to react, negotiate meaning and check understanding. Despite the
common belief about students’ reluctance to ask questions, there is empiri-
cal evidence that they actually do want to ask and answer questions in lec-
tures (Mulligan and Kirkpatrick 2000: 330, 331).
The results here showed that lecturers asked many rhetorical questions.
An average of 61 per cent of all the questions the lecturers asked were rhe-
torical. Undoubtedly, rhetorical questions are also helpful since they create
a pause in the monologue and signal importance; however, actual questions
will tell the lecturer more on whether his/her students have comprehended
the subject matter.
Generally speaking, asking and answering questions in lectures should
be possible unless the lecture is a very large one. In very large lectures
where there are at least one hundred students, interactivity becomes harder
to achieve. Such large lectures tend to be intimidating for students to re-
spond individually to questions. In situations of this sort, the lecturer can
direct his/her questions to students and make use of technology when get-
ting answers. Most lecture halls are now equipped with computers, and
most universities with wireless Internet connections. The lecturer can easily
get the answer to the question in the form of quick e-mails. Better yet, uni-
versities are increasingly getting equipped with electronic platforms, which
allow the lecturer and students to send and receive instant messages. These
instant messaging services could easily be used to facilitate the asking of
questions during lectures from computer to computer16.

16. This study has investigated real-time communication and has not dealt with
pre- and post- lecture activities and events prior to and subsequent to lectures.
Even without using instant messaging, students can use these electronic plat-
forms with ease to post their questions in advance, which can then be used by
the lecturer in planning the lecture.
 5.3 Practical implications 181

More costly and therefore perhaps less realistic for all universities to
adopt are Audience Response Systems (ARS), which are increasingly being
utilized at North American Universities for instant feedback purposes.
ARSs increase interactivity with the help of a remote control and create
real-time feedback opportunities. The remote controls connect to a main
computer through the sensors in the room. After students have responded
with the help of their remote controls, a bar chart is shown that both the
lecturer and the students can see, indicating how many in the lecture had
understood the issue in discussion. The advantages of this type of real-time
feedback are increased student activity and interactivity (Banks 2006; Kift
2006: 92), more engaging lessons (Menon et al. 2004: 220), enhanced
learning (Uhari et al. 2003: 3) and decreased crowd psychology (Menon et
al. 2004: 220). There are positive results about increased numbers of re-
sponses to lecturers’ questions (Draper and Brown 2004: 89). When stu-
dents need to produce an answer through a remote/handset, they are in-
volved in mental processing and problem solving instead of “playing the
role of the spectator” and waiting to see if the question will be answered by
others (Draper and Brown 2004: 89). One disadvantage, and an important
one, however, is the limitation in the nature of responses one can give
through ARSs. It takes little time and effort to indicate understanding by
clicking the remote; however, when it comes to giving detailed answers,
this technology is yet limited and cannot initiate real-time verbal communi-
cation and high interactivity.
The second recommendation is about the use of pragmatic strategies to
enhance communication and increase interactivity. The importance of using
pragmatic strategies (Björkman 2011; Mauranen 2005 and 2006b; Penz
2008) and the difficulties non-native speaker students have with lecture
comprehension (Mulligan and Kirkpatrick 2000) have been discussed in the
literature and covered in the earlier sections of this work. The interactivity
that pragmatic strategies bring into the speech event and the proactive work
that enhances understanding and prevents misunderstanding have been
reported as very useful communicative behavior, and this has been support-
ed by the results of the present study. In an experimental study (Morell
2004), significant changes were observed in student participation after the
lecturers made their lectures more interactive and changed their lectures by
using more macromarkers (i.e. starter, elicitation, accept, attitudinal, meta-
statement, conclusion as discussed in Murphy and Candlin 1979), questions
and negotiation of meaning (Morell 2004: 335). In a more recent study
from a very similar setting to the present setting, i.e. a technical university
182 5 Theoretical and practical implications

in Finland, the lectures that were perceived as most comprehensible by

students had a range of interactional features in them (Suvuniitty 2010).
In the present study, while the group-work sessions had many examples
of pragmatic strategies, lectures did not have so many instances and were
largely monologic. Monologic events where the listener has very few op-
portunities if any to check his/her own understanding are where misunder-
standings are most likely to occur. Therefore, it is highly recommended that
lecturers in lingua franca settings create as many opportunities as possible
for pragmatic strategies.
The pragmatic strategies that have been investigated in this study are
pragmatic comments to explain terms and concepts, to give details about
the content of the task, to give information on the discourse structure and
context, to make intent clear and to create common ground. Along with
these strategies, backchanneling, reported as a useful strategy in spoken
communication (Bjørge 2010) used to signal understanding, and repetition
have been included in the investigation. Especially strategies, as in (323)–
(326) below, and (225)-(236) in Chapter 4, looking ahead and signaling
what is to come, as in (327)–(332), and (218)-(224)(both briefly discussed
in Mulligan and Kirkpatrick 2000: 317), and helping the listener orient
himself/herself by making the discourse structure clear are very helpful to
the listener:

(323) If we go back to the starting picture, gasification was one way to

go from solid fuel …
(324) In biomass conversion we saw that…
(325) So multiplication is finished.
(326) We have actually been working on…
(327) I am now moving onto…
(328) …, which I will explain soon.
(329) I’ll show you what I mean.
(330) I will explain in a few second what green certificates are.
(331) I will try to tie this together by talking about infusion.
(332) and I will try to tie this together by talking about diffusion

Signaling significance is another good way of drawing the student’s atten-

tion to central issues around the subject area, and helping them distinguish
what is important, as in (333)–(343) below:
 5.3 Practical implications 183

(333) It’s very important…

(334) This is the main discussion.
(335) One thing which is very important…
(336) That’s the ultimate goal.
(337) …, which is a very important part of catalysis engineering.
(338) It is noteworthy that…
(339) The reason why…
(340) That’s the reason…
(341) … not because of economics because of…
(342) There is a very easy explanation why…
(343) But there is a very important point:…

Finally, it may be recommended here that lecturers use Heads (344) and
Tails (345), and Pre- (346) and Post- dislocation (347) for extra explicit-
ness and the establishment of common ground, which aids communicative
effectiveness:

(344) The best part we have already calculated.

(345) We need to calculate carefully the margin efficiency.
(346) Actually the catalysts they could die.
(347) Well it is not so emission-free hydro-power.

The strategies mentioned in the present study are clearly strategies that any
good lecturer should/would pay attention to. Advice given in other studies
that investigated successful classroom discourse for non-native teaching
assistant training given is in agreement with the advice provided in the
present study:

a. Naming processes
b. Overtly marking major points, both to evaluate and reinforce student
achievement
c. Developing cohesion and continuity within and between classes by
repetition and “linking talk”
d. Explicitly organizing topics and marking topic change
e. Stating the scope of the students’ responsibility
f. Using questions in a timely fashion
g. Using persuasive techniques (Rounds 1987:666).

Another source of a more general nature on the importance of informative

speaking (Samovar and Mills 1995: 284) lists repetition as an important
feature of informative speech, as Rounds does in (c) above. In order to
184 5 Theoretical and practical implications

contribute to clarity and deliver the intended information, those who pre-
pare informative speech, e.g. lectures, are advised to consider definitions,
reinforcement and emphasis, noting what is upcoming, referring to the fa-
miliar and summaries carefully among other things (Samovar and Mills
1995: 290–305).
Among the seven items in Rounds’s list on communicatively competent
teaching discourse, there are five strategies that have been found as proba-
bly increasing communicative effectiveness in the present study: a, b, c, d,
and f, respectively, naming processes, overtly marking major points, devel-
oping cohesion and continuity by using linkers and repetition, organizing
topics and marking topic change overtly and using questions (section
4.2.2). In addition, the four features the latter source mentions have all been
found as strategies used by the lecturers at varying degrees in the present
material (section 4.2.2).
In addition to the lecturing behavior discussed above, there are visual
aids that support the lecture. Most lecturers nowadays make use of slides
when they give lectures, with the main aim of increasing the delivery and
effectiveness of their lectures, and it is recommended in literature that all
lecturers support the subject matter by using proper visual aids (Airey
2009; Airey and Linder 2006; Hellekjær 2009; Klaassen 2001). They do so
also by providing their students with these slides, which they post on elec-
tronic platforms created for the course. Making these slides available helps
students with the note-taking problems students face during lectures (Airey
and Linder 2006; Hellekjær 2009). In fact, research comparing English-
medium instruction with L1-medium instruction has shown that effective
lecturing behavior and supporting lectures with proper visual aids were
found to be more significant than the language used (Airey 2009; Airey and
Linder 2006; Hellekjær 2009; Klaassen 2001).
To make the most of these visual aids and increase effectiveness, the
slides should be prepared in connection with the processes named clearly
on the relevant slides, using bullets to overtly mark major points, putting
sufficient linkers on the slides and making sure the topic change on the
slides is in connection with the topic change in the lecture itself. If the
questions the lecturer plans to ask are prepared in advance, they could be
put on the slides, which would help students considerably in identifying
important issues in connection with the subject matter.
 5.3 Practical implications 185

5.3.2. Support for lecturers and students who need to operate in ELF
settings

Relevant to the effectiveness of lectures is support for lecturers and stu-

dents who need to operate in ELF settings. It is important that awareness is
raised on what should be the target language usage in ELF settings, which
has been one of the implicit aims of the present study. Such awareness-
raising can be achieved at the macro level by clearly-written language poli-
cies that include training for teachers and students who both need to be
equipped with the skills needed to cope with the complexities of such set-
tings, and at the micro level, by in-house training and courses that could be
administered to both teachers and students.
The proposal here is that lecturers who need to teach in ELF settings,
regardless of their L1 backgrounds, attend courses and/or workshops on
effective lecturing behavior that would increase communicative effective-
ness in ELF settings and equip them with the skills required when teaching
students with a wide variety of L1 backgrounds and proficiencies. There
would be countless advantages in building this type of platform, among
them, providing a forum for a detailed discussion on what target-like lan-
guage usage should be for the specific setting/s. Such a course/workshop
would provide the lecturer first with theory and background to the research
in the field, then with practice, where they would put into practice the use-
ful lecturing behavior that has been shown as effective in relevant research,
and finally reporting to the group of lecturers, where they would discuss the
effects of these applications. This type of training need not be as exhaustive
and costly as one might initially expect. Even merely series of workshops
would be a way to raise awareness and help those teaching in English.
It is, however, a problem that some lecturers will be reluctant to attend
such courses or workshops even when they are offered the opportunity.
The reasons for their reluctance may be summarized as general lack of time
and not acknowledging the need to get help in operating in English-
medium education. An obvious solution to the time issue is to create room
in the lecturers’ timetables for such professional development. When it
comes to the lack of interest, some universities have made these courses or
workshops obligatory. However, pedagogically, this is a questionable prac-
tice.
It is important that lecturers understand the ramifications of lecturing in
a language that is not their own. A recent study from a Swedish setting has
shown that speakers have a 23 per cent slower speaking rate when they
186 5 Theoretical and practical implications

give oral presentations in English compared to their production in Swedish,

which affects information content in these presentations (Hincks 2010).
The data come from oral presentations, which are prepared speech events;
nevertheless, it could be certainly be argued that if speakers speak 23 per
cent slower and say less even in prepared speech, the situation might be
similar, or they might be even slower, in unprepared speech.
It is as important to note that level of proficiency would not be the issue
in training of this kind. Speakers who are more proficient need to convey
information to those whose level of proficiency might be lower and not
only vice versa. So whether or not a speaker is proficient is not decisive in
this type of training. There is empirical support for this. A study carried out
in Norwegian higher education showed that English-medium lecturers in
Norway assumed that it was predominantly exchange students who had
problems with English-medium education and not the Norwegians
(Hellekjær 2009). However, the same study showed that there was no sta-
tistically significant difference between the Norwegian students and ex-
change students in terms of comprehension difficulties. The situation is
similar in most Northern European countries, e.g. in the present setting
Sweden. It must be conveyed to both lecturers and students that operate in
ELF settings that it is also more proficient speakers who need to seek ways
to communicate effectively with those who may not be equally proficient,
and adaptation of one’s language to the situation and the speakers in that
particular situation is crucial.
The exchange students who are enrolled in studies abroad through the
medium of English are required to take central exams and prove their levels
of proficiency. Two such well-known and internationally-recognized tests
are TOEFL and IELTS. The type of TOEFL that is offered depends on the
country where the test will be taken. In the present setting, Sweden, both
the Internet and paper-based TOEFL tests are offered. The main difference
between these two formats is that the paper-based test does not test the
candidate’s spoken skills. For this purpose, TOEFL has another test, Test
of Spoken English (TSE), which has been designed to test the candidate’s
spoken skills. The IELTS exam is offered in two formats, namely general
or academic training. The test is made up of several sections, including a
speaking section, namely, listening, general/academic reading, gen-
eral/academic writing and speaking.
These tests aim to give one sufficient information about the proficiency
of a student; however, they do not necessarily provide us with sufficient
information on the student’s speaking skills. The TOEFL paper-based test
 5.3 Practical implications 187

comprises reading, listening and writing skills, and unless supported by the
additional TSE test, it gives no information about a speaker’s spoken abil-
ity. In many countries that exchange students come from to the present
setting, the paper-based test is offered and has a lower fee than the comput-
er-based TOEFL. On this note the IELTS test appears to be more compre-
hensive since it includes a speaking section and one of the two formats of
the test is geared towards academic studies. It is, however, evident from the
tasks that they are based primarily on monologic speech with possibly
some questions from the examiner. In this respect, they fail to fully reflect
the communicative challenges a student faces in lingua franca settings in
English-medium education. The tests would need to include dialogic
speech with several parties present where there are information-gap activi-
ties and problem-solving tasks. This is not always possible for practical
reasons with the resources available today. However, I highly recommend
any university that calls itself international and that accepts the paper-based
TOEFL test, that they require the Test of Spoken English (TSE) in addi-
tion, which will provide them with information on the candidate’s spoken
production. Such a practice would make life so much easier for course ad-
ministrators, and consequently students, who would be placed in the right
groups.
Local students in the present setting are required to have satisfactory
skills in English, equivalent to English A17 for general admission. For local
students who want to be enrolled in programs where English is the medium
of instruction, the requirement is English B18.
These admission requirements for local and exchange students are insuf-
ficient for testing the academic preparedness of a student candidate for
studies in English, for they do not include a thorough examination of an
individual’s language skills pertaining to speaking. The most pressing issue
for both local and exchange students who are enrolled in English-medium
programs is the training required to equip themselves with academic skills.
The type of training they need is not primarily proficiency, but the academ-
ic skills one needs for studies in English. These skills include the explicit-
ness strategies that aid comprehensibility, discussed in the form dimension
of the present study, pragmatic strategies that are invaluable in increasing

17. In Swedish: Engelska A. It corresponds to the first level of studies in English at

high school.
18. In Swedish: Engelska B. It corresponds to the second level of studies in Eng-
lish at high school.
188 5 Theoretical and practical implications

the effectiveness of communication, discussed in the communicative effec-

tiveness section of the present study, and general spoken skills with clear
articulation and intonation, discussed in connection with asking questions
here. Finally, there is awareness-raising for target usage. It is clear from the
results of the present study that the target usage that is expected of students
or what students expect from their lecturers does not need to be a native
variety but effective usage of the language that allows for optimal infor-
mation transfer.
Jenkins touches upon the issue of admission tests and cites a representa-
tive of the new Pearson Test of English (PTE) Academic from an interview
with the periodical, EL Gazette (September 2008: 10)

to create an international exam we started by hiring item writers from

the UK, the US and Australia […] [b]ecause we are not using a single
standard model of English, we can grade all non-native students on a
single scale. The first thing we look for is comprehensibility – are they
understandable to the native speaker? (Jenkins 2011)

It is naturally important to be able to be understood by a native speaker,

and similarly, to understand a native speaker, especially if the student is to
study in an English-speaking country. However, it runs short on judging
how effective a speaker will be in lingua franca settings. Being understood
by a native speaker is not enough for anyone who will need to use English
in lingua franca settings. A wrong assumption, and a common one, is that
being understood by non-native speakers is a subset of being understood by
native speakers. Equally wrong is to assume that understanding a non-
native speaker is a subset of understanding a native speaker. There are cer-
tainly some overlaps, but also many differences in how native and non-
native speakers speak.
Preparing students for their academic studies in English is surely a cost-
ly endeavor. The scheduling of such training is another complex issue since
students come from a wide range of departments. However, the issue is
pressing, and students in English-medium education will continue to have
these needs. Examination boards need to realize the needs of those who
will be speaking English to communicate with other non-native speakers,
and universities that aim to be international need to invest in integrating
effective language training into their education along with their studies,
which would help students largely in handling the everyday challenges of
English-medium education. International university English language re-
 5.3 Practical implications 189

quirements need to be adjusted accordingly, without being “determined in

accordance with entrance examinations grounded in native English” (Jen-
kins 2011: 927), for “it is a contradiction for any university anywhere that
considers itself international to insist on national English language norms”
(Jenkins 2011: 934).

5.3.3. Pedagogical applications: Issues for the language classroom

We will now turn to the language classroom. I have not dealt with language
instruction in this monograph. The data I used came from content courses,
and the subjects did not include any student who was also enrolled in lan-
guage courses. Nevertheless, the issues I have discussed so far have impli-
cations for language classes.
In this section, I aim to address some pedagogical applications of the
findings of the present study and ELF research findings. Some of the most
important issues for the language classroom concern the needs and expecta-
tions of the specific group, comprehensibility as the priority in teaching
English to those who will use English as a lingua franca, the use of realistic
course materials and testing criteria for spoken production.
In identifying the needs and expectations of a specific learner group,
one first needs to return to the issue of norms and standards. The discussion
on norms and standards in the previous section takes us to the pedagogical
discussion of what norms and standards students should be presented with.
In any debate on teaching English, we are reminded of the responsibility of
prescribing a certain set of conventions as ‘correct’ usage since the default
assumption is that teaching is prescriptive (Bex 2008: 229). This requires a
description of standard English and automatically brings forward the ques-
tion of what standard English is.
This question is a very difficult one to answer, and I will suggest here
that it is actually not possible to provide an answer that is appropriate for
all learners. What can be done, however, is to distinguish between different
types of learners and consider their needs and expectations. For example,
there are learners who need to use English to speak to native speakers in
countries where it is L1 and those who need to speak it in international
settings mostly to communicate with other non-native speakers. As long as
the teaching of English does not include its widest use in the world, it will
be insufficient in providing learners with the knowledge and skills required
to use it in its widest use. With regard to those who use English as a vehicu-
lar language on international grounds, the knowledge of how the language
190 5 Theoretical and practical implications

is used primarily among its non-native speakers for different purposes in

international settings will be more relevant than how it is used in English-
speaking countries by its native speakers. So what ELT can do is to take
steps towards meeting current demands instead of feeding on dated descrip-
tions of English, and differentiating between different types of learners and
their needs. After all, learners should be able to decide what type of English
they need and wish to learn (Seidlhofer 2006).
One should bear in mind that there is a wide spectrum of ELF settings in
the world today (see Graddol’s list in Chapter 1), ranging in terms of the
stakes they involve. Tourism perhaps is not always a high-stakes ELF situa-
tion whereas international safety or banking would involve high stakes, i.e.
if miscommunication were to occur, it would have serious consequences for
those involved. Some seem to suggest that ELF settings are generally less
important than other so-called serious settings where communicative com-
petence is important:

English for them (next generation worldwide) is not simply the language to
start conversations on a train or to place orders in a restaurant when travel-
ling in a foreign country. It is the language of which they have to demon-
strate a degree of mastery so as to win a place in education and employment
in their own contexts and abroad. (Kuo 2006: 219)

There are of course ELF conversations on a platform while they are

waiting for the train or while they are ordering in a restaurant; however,
there are also very high-stakes settings, such as the setting investigated in
the present study. It is precisely “winning a place in education” and work-
ing towards keeping the place they won that they want to do through the
medium of English. Kuo claims in her article that ELF is not able to pre-
pare learners for their future needs in international settings. She misses the
point completely: It is precisely preparing speakers for international usage
that ELF can do.19 It is by no means certain that being exposed to NS usage
only can do this. In fact, several ELF research projects have had as their
implicit aim as preparing individuals for international usage and equipping
them with the skills they need to communicate effectively, such as the pre-
sent study (Jenkins 2007: 112, 113).
More research and proper descriptions from a variety of settings will
undoubtedly provide ELT with invaluable information as to what English

19. See Jenkins 2007 for a critique of Kuo.

 5.3 Practical implications 191

usage is like in different settings. Until then, realizing the needs and expec-
tations of different types of learners and producing materials including
features they will need to use frequently in their target settings will be im-
portant steps in the right direction. The transition from description to pre-
scription should be made with caution, and this task should be undertaken
only after thorough descriptions from a variety of settings have been made
available.
The second issue of importance here is prioritizing comprehensibility in
language teaching. In settings where English is a vehicular language, com-
prehensibility must be the priority, followed by language complexity, pro-
vided that achieving complexity is one of the aims of the speakers in such
settings at all. As I discussed earlier in this chapter (section 5.1), prioritiz-
ing comprehensibility in language teaching was first put forward as early as
in the 1970s, with the functional hypothesis and the Functional Sentence
Perspective. So, the issue is by no means a new one. The challenge has
been to suggest ways of putting such theory into practice. What should then
the language teacher actually do in the classroom and how should the
teaching of English be modified to prioritize comprehensibility and provide
the learner with a realistic model?
One of the most recent fora where these issues have been brought into
discussion has been ELF research. The importance of exposing learners to a
wider range of English has been discussed in a number of studies (Seidlho-
fer 2001; Jenkins 2006a) alongside raising important but broader issues
such as raising teachers’ and teacher educators’ awareness (Jenkins 2006a:
169), general “efforts to reduce the nativespeakerist element in some teach-
ing materials” (Jenkins 2006a: 169), the merits of native and non-native
teachers of English (Jenkins 2006a: 172), challenges to learner language
theory (Jenkins 2006a: 166) and the importance of providing the learner
with modern and broad-based descriptions of language. Preparing learners
for the real world cannot be achieved through “inadequate and outdated
descriptions of language”; it requires “models that can be applied to a va-
riety of communicative goals” (Mauranen 2006c: 144).
All these issues are naturally central to improving language teaching.
However, ways of achieving what is seen as important, as discussed here,
and how to put them into practice have been discussed much less, with the
exception of the lingua franca core, which highlights the features one needs
to produce correctly for intelligibility (Jenkins 2000), the inappropriate-
ness of unilateral idiomaticity for ELF settings (Seidlhofer 2004: 220) and
the importance of accommodation strategies with respect to their inclusion
192 5 Theoretical and practical implications

in teaching (Jenkins 2000, 2006a: 174). The question, then, can be raised
again: What types of modifications are suggested for the language class-
room?
The first modification should be made to course materials, which is the
third issue here, in an attempt to produce realistic course materials, as di-
cussed in Jenkins (2006a: 169). This issue need not be as radical as some
have suggested it to be. There need not be a set of acceptable features in the
form dimension for learners to adhere to for TESOL practice to consider
ELF usage. In this respect, the integration of ELF usage into the forms
traditionally used in TESOL adds to the existing set of norms.
To be more specific, the items to prioritize in the teaching of English, as
they appear in the present study and in ELF literature, seem to be:

• The inclusion of non-native speaker accents in listening comprehension

materials: It is important that speakers who will operate in ELF settings
are exposed to a variety of accents since this is precisely what they will
need to do when they use English as a lingua franca. Of special im-
portance are materials for listening comprehension including a variety
of accents (Smith and Bisazza 1982; Smith 1982) and cases of disturb-
ance where meaning is negotiated and where communicative strategies
are employed (Watterson 2008: 402). In addition, authentic recordings
can be turned into course materials where students test their listening
comprehension and note-taking skills. Another positive outcome of this
practice will be increased student awareness of what authentic English
is in international settings.

• The inclusion of pragmatic strategies in speaking and listening materi-

als: It is clear in the findings of the present study (section 4.2.2) that
pragmatic strategies and negotiating meaning play a big role in achiev-
ing communicative effectiveness in ELF settings (section 5.1). After
learners are presented with materials of authentic usage from ELF set-
tings (listening), role-plays and other communicative activities can be
used to enable learners to practice these skills.

• The inclusion of syntactic structures that help increase explicitness: In

grammar teaching, it seems a useful practice to include Heads and
tails/Pre- and post-dislocation as elements that occur frequently in spo-
ken English and as elements that increase explicitness (Mauranen 2007).
Exposing learners to authentic speech that includes these elements will
help them see how they are used.
 5.3 Practical implications 193

• Giving word order issues enough airing space in the classroom: A

common issue emerging from both the form and communicativeness
dimensions of the present study, and the questionnaire on perceived
comprehensibility and irritation is the importance of word order. It ap-
pears that non-standardness in word order can impede communication
and create irritation, which in turn may cause turbulence in communica-
tion.

• The inclusion and prioritizing of materials practicing features whose

absence leads to overt disturbance: In the present study, non-standard
questions were different from all the other non-standard features since
they were the only features that led to overt disturbance. Questions
should be addressed thoroughly in language classrooms in communica-
tive activities such as information-gap activities, or group-work activi-
ties where students work on a task together. Such practice would mirror
real-life communicative situations.

The production of realistic materials is an issue primarily for textbook writ-

ers but also for individual teachers who prepare course materials for their
students. Especially in higher education settings where students will use
English as a lingua franca, teaching materials must include English by
speakers in lingua franca settings. This naturally will be enabled by proper
descriptions of lingua franca settings, as discussed above.
The view that prioritizes comprehensibility in teaching is not shared by
all. It has been claimed that ELF research suggests all teaching be done
only based on comprehensibility, because “what is needed for comprehen-
sion is all that is needed to be produced” (Kuo 2006: 216). This is by no
means the case. What is suggested in the present study is that features that
are critical in terms of communicative effectiveness must be prioritized,
followed by features that are not equally vital for communicative purposes.
The fourth issue here concerns testing. Interestingly, the natural order of
teaching and then testing needs to be modified in dealing with exposing
learners to authentic usage. Testing is not necessarily an issue that needs to
be dealt with after addressing issues concerning teaching. In fact, testing is
an equally important issue if not a more pressing one. ELT examination
boards base their practices on the ownership of English predominantly by
its native speakers. The same approach is taken by most teachers and
teacher trainers (Jenkins 2006a: 172). If World Englishes and ELF re-
194 5 Theoretical and practical implications

searchers together point to a need for pluralism and inclusivity (Bolton

2005: 78; Seidlhofer 2005: 170), practice needs to follow.
So how should testing change in the light of comprehensibility-based
teaching and the findings of the ELF literature so far (including the find-
ings of the present study)?

One of the most pressing problems will be to find a way of incorporat-

ing a WEs-ELF perspective into testing (Canagarajah 2005a). Solving
this problem will involve […] finding ways of identifying accommoda-
tion, so that candidates are able to adjust their English for the purposes
of showing solidarity with, or promoting intelligibility for, an interlocu-
tor, without the risk of being penalized because their resulting speech
does not defer to native speaker norms. (Jenkins 2006a: 174)

Based on the results of the present study, I will suggest here that any set of
criteria to evaluate the spoken production of a learner of English will need
to consider the following carefully:

• The acceptance of a variety of accents provided that intelligibility is

achieved: It is important that native-speaker accents are not presented as
the only acceptable accents to achieve the highest grades in the evalua-
tion of a learner’s spoken production. The learner should be free to ap-
proximate his/her speech to a native variety if this is the learner’s aspi-
ration, but this should not be a criterion.

• The acceptance of, or tolerance to, morphosyntactic features that reduce

redundancy: One of the types of non-standard morphosyntactic usage in
the present study concern successful reductions of redundancy. An ex-
ample of this type of usage is the non-marking of the plural on the noun.
This is not to suggest that such non-standard forms should be taught to
learners; however, not penalizing them on items that help communica-
tive effectiveness, e.g. the unmarked plural, could be a practice worth
considering for the future.

• The acceptance of morphosyntactic features that help create extra ex-

plicitness: Another type of morphosyntactic non-standard usage in the
present study is about features that create extra explicitness, e.g. pre-
and post-dislocation. Although pre- and post-dislocation are considered
incorrect in traditional grammar books (unlike Heads/Fronting and
Tails), considering the communicative role they play in making the
 5.3 Practical implications 195

message explicit to the listener, teachers do not necessarily need to cor-

rect such usage and penalize learners. Another example of such usage is
repetition. Although repetition is generally considered undesirable
(Lichtkoppler 2007: 39), it does contribute to the communicative effec-
tiveness of spoken English by fulfilling important functions in ELF set-
tings (Lichtkoppler 2007: 46) and is considered an accommodation
strategy used for efficiency and cooperation purposes (Cogo and Dewey
2006: 70; the present study, section 4.2.2). Repetition does not neces-
sarily signal disfluency. Instead of penalizing learners because of the
repetition in their spoken production, teachers can pay more attention to
the types of items that are repeated and for what purposes these items
are repeated. In the present study, we have seen three types of repetition,
only one of which is repetition due to disfluency (section 4.2.2). Repeti-
tion for emphasis both in dialogic and monologic speech, and other rep-
etition in dialogic speech help learners achieve communicative effec-
tiveness. In short, ELF speakers use the language creatively in ways that
are communicatively effective. It would be unjust to penalize speakers
for usage that is communicatively effective. As Jenkins put it, “It is un-
acceptable to label creativity as ‘L1 transfer’ (or more pejoratively, ‘L1
interference’) on the grounds that it results from contact between an in-
dividual’s L2 English and their L1, or from contact between L2 English
speakers who have different L1s” (Jenkins 2007: 17).

• The inclusion of different types of speech events in testing spoken pro-

duction: Dialogic speech gives us more information with reference to
disturbance, pragmatic strategies and how speakers negotiate meaning
in interaction. If teachers aim to test a learner’s ability to negotiate
meaning and achieve communicative effectiveness through appropriate
strategies, they should assign learners dialogic tasks. This would enable
teachers to test the pragmatic strategies that they have exposed their stu-
dents to (the present section, see priorities in teaching). In most lan-
guage teaching classrooms, however, learners are assigned monologic
tasks, presentations being a popular one. It is not fully possible to test
how meaning is negotiated in prepared speech, e.g. oral presentations. It
is recommended that both monologic and dialogic speech events are
used in the testing of a learner’s spoken production. This would be an
attempt to mirror authentic ELF situations in a language classroom set-
ting, and it would be useful in preparing the learner for dialogic speech
events.
!
196 5 Theoretical and practical implications

Overall, in language teaching and testing, we need to prioritize what seems

to be important for the specific group of learners at hand. Since it is never
possible to teach the entire language, it is crucial to prioritize. Accuracy in
production is another matter. It is certainly not irrelevant, but if it is effec-
tiveness one is after, then it is not what matters the most. What I am sug-
gesting then is, if we want to prepare speakers for ELF settings, we need to
give them the tools by which they can achieve communicative effective-
ness. Spending valuable classroom time on trying to achieve accuracy of
grammatical structures which do not even seem to be necessary for suc-
cessful communication might not be the best use of our, or students’ for
that matter, time and effort. In this monograph, I have presented the results
of a study of communicative effectiveness, and the ways in which the ELF
speakers achieve this effectiveness were not always in line with native
speaker usage. Native speaker model is surely a valuable model, especially
for those who need to learn the language mostly to communicate with na-
tive speakers, but it is neither a realistic aim nor an attainable target for
millions of learners of English in the world today. The best service we can
do for learners of English then is to first raise their awareness that English
is a living and therefore changing phenomenon, and then provide attainable
goals and useful models for them that are well adapted to the reality of
English today.
Chapter 6
Looking ahead

In this monograph, I aimed to provide an unprejudiced description and

analysis of English as a lingua franca in an academic engineering setting.
The study that forms the basis of this monograph has contributed to the
knowledge in the field by providing a detailed account of ELF as the medi-
um of instruction. The study elaborated on form, communicativeness and
attitudes in a lingua franca setting. I have argued here that the results are
likely to be representative of similar international universities and are there-
fore applicable to such academic settings. The choice of methods, i.e. a
combination of extensive and intensive analyses, has yielded data that al-
lowed generalizations of usage (extensive analyses) and provided specific
information on frequency of the investigated features and strategies (inten-
sive analyses). In addition, the inclusion of both monologic and dialogic
speech enabled comparisons where appropriate.
In this final chapter, I will discuss further implications of the results,
namely implications for native speakers as well as an additional discussion
on the internationalization of higher education and future language policy
work, hence the title of the chapter. However, before I do so, at this junc-
ture, it seems appropriate to summarize the work I presented in each chap-
ter so far.

6.1. Summary

In Chapter 1, I provided the reader with the background of English today,

starting with notes on the original lingua franca, then moving on to a histor-
ical perspective from early uses of English in the nineteenth century to how
it became the language of science and technology. Concerns were raised
when English gained such a powerful position; however, its growth contin-
ued as a consequence of globalization, which showed itself in many do-
mains, among them, higher education. The rest of the chapter dealt with
scholars’ reactions to globalism in Europe and Sweden, and what the ef-
fects of such a widespread use of English could be for local languages and
multilingualism. The chapter concluded by arguing that such widespread
usage of English does not presuppose linguistic imperialism as long as its
198 6 Looking ahead

use by its non-native speakers is validated and legitimized. This requires a

thorough description of the way English is used by its non-native speakers
from different L1 backgrounds in international settings, when they use it as
a vehicular language.
English as a lingua franca is this vehicular language. In Chapter 2, I
aimed to give a detailed account of the research carried out in ELF until the
time of writing, with the main sections organized in terms of normative
elements. The studies in pragmatics from ELF settings were carried out
without norms. The very nature of pragmatics as a field makes it very hard
if not impossible to apply norms to usage. There are, however, other fields
where there are clear normative elements, i.e. phonology, phraseology and
morphosyntax. Phonology is a fairly closed system, which easily lends
itself to description and the use of norms. Phraseology and morphosyntax
are not closed systems like phonology; nevertheless, there are normative
elements that have been applied to them. The chapter gave a review of
prominent studies in these fields with respect to ELF. I have chosen to re-
view the studies that are of highest relevance to the present monograph
rather than summarizing all ELF studies so far. Finally, attitude and irrita-
tion studies that form the basis of the survey in the present study are elabo-
rated on.
I started Chapter 3 by describing Swedish higher education as it is at the
time of writing with the most recent developments, such as the new tuition
fees for incoming students. Rather early in the chapter, I gave the research
questions and hypotheses, pointing to the need to carry out the present in-
vestigation. Following this, I discussed the methodological considerations
in detail and explained the methods used in the several stages of the study,
from its starting point to the final analyses. I used a combination of inten-
sive and extensive analyses to allow for both generalizability and detailed
analyses. The ten stages of the study were subject and speech event selec-
tion, recording and listening with a protocol, selecting and categorizing
speech events, identifying non-standard usage, categorizing non-standard
usage, selecting features for further study, checking for overt disturbance,
non-standard morphosyntactic usage vs. standard morphosyntactic usage,
analysis at the discourse level and finally, a survey on perceived communi-
cativeness and attitudes.
In Chapter 4, I presented the results from all the sections of the investi-
gation, starting with the results in the form. The results in the form dimen-
sion of the study confirmed that form alone does not cause much overt
disturbance. Among all the non-standard usage, only non-standard question
 6.1 Summary 199

formulation caused overt disturbance in communication. The results

showed that there were three cues to registering a question: The interroga-
tive adverb/pronoun (in Wh-questions), syntax and question intonation. In
the cases analyzed by means of Praat, when syntax was non-standard and
failed to act as a cue, question intonation aided the communication process.
When both syntax was non-standard and intonation was not rising, there
was disturbance. The findings also seemed to indicate that, regardless of
the way native speakers make use of question intonation, rising intonation
seemed to help speakers in lingua franca settings. The types of overt dis-
turbance that were likely to have been caused by extra-linguistic factors
were dealt with separately, and examples of such cases were provided in
the chapter.
The findings in the communicativeness dimension showed, first of all,
that form could not be considered on its own without any anchoring to oth-
er dimensions such as the discourse level. One of the very probable reasons
why there were so few cases of overt disturbance was the proactive work
carried out by the speakers through pragmatic strategies. It is highly likely
that this type of proactive work prevents a large part of the potential dis-
turbance here, and there is support for this in the literature (section 4.2.2).
This indicated that without a sufficiently frequent use of pragmatic strate-
gies, lectures are potential minefields where students do not get the oppor-
tunity to negotiate meaning and check their understanding.
The last section of Chapter 4 provided the reader with the results of the
survey on perceived communicativeness and attitudes. The overlap be-
tween the non-standard formulations students claimed were not compre-
hensible and the ones they were irritated by indicated that the survey had
been effective in measuring attitudes. Attitudes can play a significant role
in the communication process since negative attitudes can adversely affect
communication.
I revisited the research questions and the hypotheses in Chapter 5, fol-
lowed by two main sections on the discussion of the findings and the theo-
retical and practical implications. The theoretical implications revolve
around the status of ELF in general, elaborating on four of the most debat-
ed questions raised about research in ELF are answered, i.e. whether ELF
speakers can be regarded as learners, whether ELF usage is learner lan-
guage, whether ELF usage is sui generis and whether ELF is a variety (sec-
tion 5.2.1). The answers to these questions have been obvious to ELF re-
searchers for long, but the answers must be supported by more empirical
data, which I have done in the present investigation. A fifth and very im-
200 6 Looking ahead

portant question, namely where ELF speech should be sought, is intended

primarily for researchers who wish to undertake studies of ELF usage, with
the aim of conveying to them that ELF usage can be found in ELF settings
and not in English language classrooms where the aim is to learn the lan-
guage, which makes accuracy more important than it is in ordinary ELF
conversations. Finally, I touched upon what the notion of ‘good English’
may mean to those in lingua franca.
In the last section of the chapter, I discussed the practical implications
of the findings for those who operate in ELF settings. Among these are
lecturers and students as well as language teachers. The implications for
these groups are discussed in the given order. First, recommendations were
made with regard to effective-lecturing behavior and ways of helping stu-
dents in handling the challenges of English-medium education where they
need to use ELF. The next discussion focused on ways of supporting lec-
turers and students, followed by a final section on issues to be considered
in language classrooms.
With this book, I hope to have contributed to the understanding of ELF.
Possibly the most important contribution of the book is in the area of defin-
ing the effective speaker and the notion of communicativeness. My aim has
been to provide a detailed account on the notion of the effective speaker in
academic settings, showing clearly that it is pragmatic ability and not nec-
essarily high proficiency that makes a speaker effective. From the results,
the notion of effectiveness in academic ELF settings emerges as being de-
termined primarily by pragmatic ability (function) and less by proficiency
(form). This suggests that, in similar ELF settings, being pragmatically
fluent speakers is much more effective than simply being proficient at the
language.
This finding, along with the other results of the study, are of relevance,
primarily to content teachers and students who operate in ELF settings, but
also to decision and policy and other high-level decision makers with the
responsibility to prepare language policies and curricula, and also to lan-
guage teachers who provide ESP/EAP training in ELF settings. In this
monograph, I have recommended the following actions for these groups:

• Content teachers need to equip themselves with the strategies need-

ed to achieve effective communication and structure their lectures
accordingly. They need to be made aware that effective lecturing
skills are not in direct proportion to being highly proficient in the
language.
 6.1 Summary 201

• Students need to learn about ways of becoming effective communi-

cators. They need to be made aware that this can be achieved re-
gardless of their L1 backgrounds.

• Policy makers need to broaden their horizons on the needs of

content teachers and students in these settings. They need to be re-
alistic when it comes to their expectations from both teachers and
students.

• Decision makers need to seek ways to provide content teachers and

students with the training they need.

• Curricula planners need to realize that time needs to be spared for

the training of content teachers and students who need to cope with
the everyday realities of ELF settings.

• ESP/EAP teachers need to set realistic goals for those who operate
in lingua franca settings. First come functionality and the strategies
one needs for functionality, then language complexity. It is im-
portant to set spoken norms and standards to spoken English and
not continue with evaluating speech against written norms and
standards. We have long been demanding that language teaching
conforms to spoken language, but our image of spoken language
keeps changing. Language teaching must be kept up-to-date with
this changing image of spoken language.

The results of the study in the present monograph, and the results of ELF
research in general, have implications for native speakers of English and
for internationalization and language policy practices. I will discuss these
in the following two sections.

6.2. Notes for native speakers

There are additional implications of the results here, and results of ELF
research in general, for native speakers, which I have chosen to discuss
separately here. Issues regarding the assumed native speaker authority has
been discussed thoroughly before in ELF literature (e.g. Jenkins 2007: 36,
202 6 Looking ahead

37; Seidlhofer 2011: 33–38). Among relevant issues are the ownership of
English (e.g. Haberland 2011; Seidlhofer and Jenkins 2003; Wee 2002;
Widdowson 1994, 2003: 43), the status and role of non-native speaker
teachers (e.g. Llurda 200420, 2009) and making non-native speaker teachers
aware of their non-native assets, enabling them to use their assets in teach-
ing (Seidlhofer 2003). It is no news to ELF researchers that native speakers
may need to adjust themselves and their English to be able to communicate
with non-native speakers effectively, but this no longer seems to be limited
to a small group of researchers any more.
Today, issues around native speakerism have started finding space in
major media outlets as well, such as The New York Times. Subsequent to an
essay written by Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard Uni-
versity, the NY Times ’Room for Debate’ section published a series of
responses, in the form of short articles. Lawrence had said in his essay that,
because English had become a global language, there was little need for
American students to learn foreign languages to prepare themselves for
international experience. This caused some controversy, and brought about
discussions on multilingualism and the state of being the native speaker of
the global lingua franca English. In his response with the title ‘Advice for
native speakers’, Michael Erard, the author of Babel No More, included the
following about native speakers in international settings and English as a
lingua franca:

Whether or not you think learning a language other than English is valua-
ble, it's true that English has become the language of international commu-
nication. But that doesn't let native English speakers off the hook. In order
for them to really benefit from the status of English as a global lingua fran-
ca, they still have linguistic investments to make. (Erard 2012)

20. Llurda uses the term English as an International Language (EIL).

 6.2 Notes for native speakers 203

In his article, Erard also included some adjustments native speakers would
need to make while communicating in international settings:

So if you're a native speaker of English [and that's your only language] ac-
commodating your ear and your speech to those users of the global lingua
franca is a cultural and linguistic skill. It requires practice; you don't auto-
matically get it by virtue of being a native speaker. You have to learn how
to hear around accents, word choices and grammatical patterns. You have
to learn to suspend your judgments of what may seem like deviations and
errors, because in a particular variety of English, those things may be per-
fectly acceptable. You also have to understand how other people's mother
tongues, educational systems and community histories influence the Eng-
lish they speak. (Erard 2012)

What Erard says is in agreement with the findings of the study that forms
the basis of the present monograph. The speakers in the academic setting
described here use English as a lingua franca effectively. Among the sub-
jects, there are speakers who are very advanced, and others less so. They
come from nineteen different L1 backgrounds (Chapter 3). Yet, despite
their diverse background (e.g. L1s, level of proficiency, cultural back-
ground), they know how to adjust their own linguistic patterns appropriate-
ly to get the job done. In such international settings, they seem to learn very
quickly– if they did not know it already– which linguistic patterns to use
and which ones not to, how to express themselves and how not to, and how
to repair if disturbance occurs. None of the subjects here happened to be
native speakers with the exception of one North American student.21 They
have a wide range of non-standardnesses in their speech. Yet overt disturb-
ance occurs very seldom. The speakers can complete the tasks assigned to
them through the medium of ELF without serious difficulty.
The academic setting described here is representative of any interna-
tional academic setting. To be able to communicate effectively in such a
setting, a native speaker would need to behave accordingly and make the
necessary adjustments. These adjustments would not necessarily be simpli-
fying their speech patterns and speaking ‘easy English’ as one might think,
since there are some highly proficient ELF speakers. These adjustments

21. Native speakers were not excluded from the corpus in the present study. Only
one subject happened to be a native speaker in the courses and classes I visi-
ted.
204 6 Looking ahead

would entail however adjusting one’s ears to new phonological patterns

(rather than imitating native speaker patterns) (Jenkins 2000) and “hear
around accents” as Erard says (see Jenkins 2000: 227 on pronunciation
learning for native speakers of English). In addition to accents, native
speakers would need to adjust themselves to new “word choices” (see e.g.
Metsä-Ketelä 2006; Pitzl 2009) and “grammatical patterns” (see e.g.
Björkman 2008a, 2008b; Breiteneder 2005; Cogo and Dewey 2006, 2011;
Hülmbauer 2009; Hüttner 2009; Klimpfinger 2009). As Erard says, native
speakers would need to “hear around accents, word choices and grammati-
cal patterns”. Most importantly, they would need to “suspend their judg-
ments”, as Erard adds very rightly, because what one might dismiss as er-
rors quickly may be perfectly acceptable variants of the language in its
sociolinguistic setting. None of this is received “by virtue of being a native
speaker”. It is acquired with practice and effort, just the way a foreign lan-
guage is acquired. In fact, it seems like native speaker students in interna-
tional higher education settings “may be at more risk in the future”, unless
they manage to adjust to these international settings, as described here
(Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey 2012: 302).
Once one accepts the fact that native speakers also need to practice
communicating in ELF settings and put hard work into achieving commu-
nicative effectiveness, there is perhaps less authority for native speakers to
assume. Similarly, there perhaps is not much need to worry about native
speakers having the upper hand (but see Van Parijs 2011 and section 1.3.2
here). It has been suggested that linguistic injustice arises when those who
have English as their mother tongue get the lingua franca for free with no
effort while non-native speakers of English need to acquire it by spending
much time, energy and money (e.g. Van Parijs 2011). This is of course true
when it comes to accuracy and fluency. However, if one thinks native
speakers are always at an advantage because they are more accurate and
fluent than non-native speakers, then one does not take into consideration
the fact that native speakers need to adjust to ELF settings.
So, native speakers are not at an advantange in ELF settings only be-
cause of their native-speaker status. This is true for the type of ELF setting
as well. In academic settings, for example, one needs to use academic Eng-
lish with its conventions. Academic English is no one’s native language
(Bourdieu and Passeron 1994: 8). Academics who need to communicate
through the medium of English, native or non-native, need to strive for
academic literacy, which must be acquired with much serious practice, time
and effort.
 6.2 Notes for native speakers 205

The discussion here with reference to native-speaker does not only show
that native speakers also need to work at communicating effectively in ELF
settings, but it also indicates, once again, that the native/non-native dichot-
omy is not a satisfactory criterion when judging linguistic competence.

6.3. The internationalization of higher education and language policy

practices

The results here have implications for the internationalization of higher

education and consequently, language policy work. To start with interna-
tionalization of higher education, we first need to reach an understanding of
‘internationalization’. The dictionary definition of the word is simply “ex-
isting, occurring, or carried on between nations” (Oxford dictionaries). But
what does internationalization mean in the context of higher education and
what is required for a university to call itself international?
Scholarly interest in the notion of international university has been fo-
cused primarily on internationalization being synonymous to English-
medium universities (see also section 1.3). Naturally, such concerns have
been raised in countries with smaller languages, Denmark/Danish being an
example. To Preisler, ‘international university’ “does not equate with the
uniformity of across-the-board use of English language and cultural herit-
age, but rather with the practice and utilization of cultural and linguistic
diversity, even in the face of Anglophone dominance” (Preisler 2011: xiii).
In the introduction of a volume of collected works on language and learn-
ing in the international university, Preisler suggests that internationalization
“should not be dealt with in simplistic terms of traditional polarity between,
on the one hand, local practices and the use of national language; and, on
the other hand, the invasion (in EFL countries) of an international lingua
franca, English…” (2011: xiv).
Haberland and Mortensen make similar points in the introduction to
their journal special issue on the topic ‘Language and the international uni-
versity’:

[…] we believe that it is important not to overestimate the role of English

and to acknowledge that there is more to university internationalization
than mere Anglicization. Globalizing processes have indeed led to a situa-
tion where English has attained an unprecedented degree of globality. But
an unprecedented degree of globality does not mean total globality. Eng-
lish is not spoken in every corner of the world, just in more places than any
206 6 Looking ahead

other language ever before. Estimates about the total number of speakers
of English worldwide vary, but even the least conservative estimate of 1.5
billion English speakers falls short of the total figure for the world popula-
tion. (Haberland and Mortensen 2012: 1, 2, original emphasis)

The view represented by Preisler, Haberland and Mortensen is shared by a

number of scholars, as summarized in section 1.3 (e.g. Ljosland 2011; Phil-
lipson 2006) who are concerned about English threatening smaller lan-
guages and multilingualism. I will argue here that English, when it is used
as a lingua franca, does not necessarily constitute a threat to the local lan-
guage or an obstacle in the way of multilingualism. There is empirical sup-
port for this from a university setting in Sweden, showing that the local
language comes into play when needed. Söderlundh’s investigation (also
see section 1.3.3) of English-medium courses shows clearly that Swedish is
used when there is a need to opt for it (2010: 222):

Overall, the study shows that Swedish holds a strong position on the cours-
es observed. In quantitative terms, the language occurs rarely in whole-
group teaching, but it nevertheless permeates the course environment as a
whole. To generalise somewhat, English as a language of instruction
means, in practice, that lectures and common course activities take place in
English. In other study activities, the choice of language is guided by basic
socio-linguistic factors, and Swedish is used spontaneously by lecturers
and students in interaction with other Swedish speakers. (Söderlundh 2010:
222)

It is clear from Söderlundh’s study that no matter what the global decisions
are, local needs prevail and the local language is used along with English.
The setting Söderlundh investigated is a typical international university
setting. In this regard, there is little or no reason why her findings should
not be representative of other ELF higher education settings. If speakers
can make local choices and speak other languages than the common lingua
franca, then there is also little reason to worry about a so-called English as
a lingua franca “invasion”, as Preisler calls it (2011: xiv). English itself
should not pose a threat to the local languages or lingua francas, because it
simply is not used as a vernacular:

English has spread in continental Europe, and in post-colonial Africa and

Asia typically as a by-product of (other) primary globalized ventures,
which can be accomplished in any other major language. Moreover, it is
functioning in these territories primarily as a lingua franca, not as a ver-
nacular. Therefore, it does not endanger their local vernaculars, because it
 6.3 Language policy practices 207

does not compete with them, even while it is being used as the medium of
higher education for some subjects and their scholars are encouraged to
publish in English. […] The myth of English as a “killer language” par ex-
cellence, so much repeated in the linguistics literature on language endan-
germent, is certainly not supported by the facts of language practice
(Mufwene 2006: 124, emphasis added)

The possible endangerment of a language as a lingua franca should not

affect its use as a vernacular, as English is “spreading as an economically
powerful lingua franca, hardly ever as a vernacular or in any way that
would place it in competition with the indigenous vernaculars or lingua
francas, whose domains of usage do not overlap with its” (Mufwene 2006:
125). In this sense, there is no reason why English as a lingua franca alone
should impede linguistic or cultural diversity. It is perfectly possible for
English and other languages to “co-exist […] in a composite repertoire of
linguistic resources” (Seidlhofer 2011: 153). This is possible, however,
only if English is liberated from a mere ENL status. It is the lingua franca
status of English that allows for such a co-existence. And when one regis-
ters that ELF is English used “in its own right”, and that it has “inter-
dependent status as a complementary component in a plurilinguistic reper-
toire” (Seidlhofer 2011: 153), one sees that ELF is not a threat to multilin-
gualism. ELF is under the umbrella of multilingualism.
English, when used as a lingua franca, “is no longer viewed as connect-
ed to the culture of the traditional English-dominant countries” (Baker
2009: 570). If “English-native-speaker pronunciation, grammar, and vo-
cabulary choice are inappropriate in lingua franca settings”, which they are
(see literature review in Chapter 2), then “native-speaker cultural assump-
tions and frames of reference are equally out of place” (Baker 2009: 567,
568). In fact, ELF can be a tool to express culture and identity (Baker
2009), unlike the claims made in early ELF research that ELF is neutral in
terms of culture and identity (House 2003a; Meierkord 2002; as discussed
in Baker 2009: 586). Baker’s results support Jenkins (2007), that speakers
regard ELF as a platform to express and possibly create “cultures and iden-
tifications” (Baker: ibid).
Time, effort and resources are better invested in finding ways into effec-
tiveness when English is used as a lingua franca and in helping those who
will operate in ELF settings. Of great relevance to this matter are language
policy documents. Language policy documents should mirror ground-level
reality, and this reality is language practice.
208 6 Looking ahead

It is not possible to refer to specific language policy documents here

without compromising the anonymity of the present work and violating
ethical rules (see section 3.3), so the criticism and/or recommendations I
will make here will have to be of a general nature. What I will discuss be-
low apply to the language policy documents mainly in Scandinavia, as it is
Scandinavia that is of immediate relevance to the present monograph.
The first issue that has been problematic in some language policy doc-
uments is their protectionist nature regarding the local languages in ques-
tion. Unfortunately, since the first language policy documents started to
appear in Scandinavia, they have been treated, and subsequently referred to
mostly as documents written to provide guidelines for the protection of the
local language from English. The common view has been that the presence
of a language policy document at a university manifests the steps and
measures it has taken towards protecting the local language. The policy
documents in Scandinavia are generally detailed with regard to how, where
and to what extent the local language should be used, thereby making an
effort to ensure the use of the local language in as many domains as possi-
ble within the university.
Naturally, it is a good deed to use the local language where possible and
take the necessary measures towards keeping it as one of the academic
languages available. The issue that has been largely overlooked is how,
where and to what extent, and most importantly what type of English
should be used. In general, a very marginal section of these policy docu-
ments focus on where and how English should be used, and more problem-
atically, no policy documents with the exception of two mention the use of
English as a lingua franca at all, or specify what type of English is consid-
ered appropriate and therefore acceptable for use in the university setting in
question.
A third issue I regard problematic is the way multilingualism is dis-
cussed in language policy documents. A number of universities have set
themselves the goal to become multilingual universities. What is perhaps
too idealistic, however, is to expect several languages to be used in settings
where this might be unrealistic, e.g. a classroom setting when the aim is
mutual comprehension. If the aim is for everyone to be able to communi-
cate and share information, and by doing so completing the tasks assigned,
then there must be a lingua franca that is understood by everyone, even
though it might be at varying degrees. English is this lingua franca, and “no
other language, whether at European level or worldwide, gives any sign of
rivaling English as a universal lingua franca, and the snowball effect cur-
 6.3 Language policy practices 209

rently unfolding is such that no language will ever do” (Van Parijs 2011:
22). Speakers are still free to speak the language of their choice, depending
on with whom they want to communicate and for what purposes, and as
Söderlundh (2012) showed, they seem to be able to do so. However, ex-
pecting a lecturer to deliver subject matter in more than two languages or
using more than two languages in a testing situation is unrealistic. So,
while multilingualism is certainly a goal to work towards, I believe realistic
goals must be set as to what extent and in what contexts one can aim for the
use of more than one or two languages.
There are several ways in which universities can create opportunities for
several languages to be used. A first step is to make room for elective lan-
guage courses in the curriculum, both general and for specific purposes.
This is crucial even at technical universities that might not see languages as
central to their main goals. Certain domains might have a dominant lan-
guage if that domain has an area of expertise in a certain geographical area.
Vehicle engineering is an example of such a domain; France has had con-
siderable expertise in this domain, and for this reason among others, engi-
neering students have a reason to study French. Chinese has become an
important language of scientific and technological development, so again,
engineering students have reasons to study Chinese. It certainly takes time,
effort and resources to learn to use a language effectively (see Van Parijs on
estimating the cost of language learning, in Van Parijs 2011: 71), but even a
low degree of proficiency may open doors for future study or work purpos-
es. Universities can also strive to have strong ties with centers of excellence
in other countries, and work on student (in this case, especially outgoing
students rather than incoming students) and staff exchanges. To sum up
what I have discussed here on the topic of multilingualism in relation to
language policy, while it is certainly desirable to be competent in several
languages, one should set realistic goals as to in which settings and to what
degree other languages can be used. Language policies need to consider
ground-level reality when setting goals for language use in the international
university.
Finally, relevant to what I have discussed above is the relationship be-
tween ground-level reality and language policy rhetoric. It is also a com-
mon (mis)conception that language policy documents should aim predomi-
nantly to outline the ‘desired scenario’ and that it should be up to the de-
partments of that university to consider the ways in which this scenario can
be applied. There should be general guidelines as to the applicability of this
designed scenario. Language policy rhetoric must take into account what is
210 6 Looking ahead

practiced and practicable in university settings and design applicable solu-

tions rather than focusing on utopian aims. Spolsky makes a distinction
between language practices, i.e. what people actually do, language ideolo-
gy, i.e. the beliefs about language use, and finally, any effort to modify
language practice (Spolsky 2004: 5). Language policy documents in Scan-
dinavia have focused on the third component, i.e. efforts to modify lan-
guage practice rather than focusing more on language practices and consid-
ering how people use the language to cater for their needs. In fact, it is lan-
guage practices that are true language policies (Spolsky 2009: 5). As
Mufwene maintains, very rightly in my opinion, languages “are tools which
enable their speakers to adapt to ever-changing ecologies rather than from
the perspective now dominant in linguistics, that speakers should serve
their languages and preserve their integrity” (Mufwene 2006). If we con-
sider this, then instead of focusing on how we can dictate people to use one
language over another, we should focus on what language choices they
make for what purposes. English is a useful tool as a lingua franca, which
enables those who speak it to perform a variety of tasks, depending on their
needs. Language policy documents, through the help of relevant research,
should observe how speakers get their needs catered for, and what choices
they make, rather than making top-down decisions without a careful con-
sideration of language practices.

6.4. ELF: Final remarks

The widest and the most important use of English today is its usage as a
lingua franca. The number of speakers who need to learn English to use it
as a lingua franca is only going to increase, which brings the need to have
thorough descriptions and analyses of ELF usage from different settings.
The academic world is only one of these settings, albeit one of the most
influential ones since it is through academia that research and knowledge
are disseminated. If we wish to prepare speakers, both lecturers and stu-
dents, for the activities they need to carry out in English in their everyday
contexts, we need detailed descriptions of English that mirror its real use
(Mauranen 2006c: 148). It is true that work on academic ELF is now estab-
lished as a sub-field of ELF with very interesting research projects that
have already been carried out and are going on at the time of writing (e.g.
ELFA projects); however, we are far from done. As long as the internation-
alization of higher education continues, and every piece of evidence tells us
 6.4 Final remarks 211

it will, there will be need for more research to understand the dynamics of
such academic settings. It is my true hope that this study has taken us fur-
ther in realizing the importance of function in academic speech.
I am happy to be ending the present monograph on a positive note. The
field of ELF is thriving with numerous interesting projects and individual
studies, a large number of PhD studies from a range of countries is under-
way, there have been five international conferences on ELF so far, and ra-
dio programs in prestigious channels (BBC Radio 4), the Journal of English
as a Lingua Franca (JELF) has just had its first issue released (at the time of
writing), and the Developments in English as a Lingua Franca (DELF)
book series is now in place. There is every reason to think that relevant
descriptions of English as a lingua franca will continue to be made, which
will be invaluable to its non-native speakers who will use it in ELF set-
tings, to its native speakers on how to communicate in ELF settings, to
those who need to teach English for international purposes, to textbook
writers as to what they should present as the prescription and what weight
they should give to functional and redundant features of the language, and
last but not least, to the researchers in the field as to what other gaps to fill.
Appendices

Appendix 1: Sample lecture transcription

LECTURE: LF-040906
L1: SWEDISH
NO OF SPEAKERS: THREE
S1: SWEDISH, THE LECTURER
S2: STUDENT, SWEDISH
S3: EXCHANGE STUDENT, SPANISH
NO OF PARTICIPANTS: 20
NATURE OF STUDENT BODY: MIXED
RECORDING DURATION: 44:35 (ONE SESSION)
DEPARTMENT: INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGY

<S1> <COUGH> should we continue? <P:05> where were we we have

executed two , no that’s wrong we haven’t executed anything yet but we
have issued two complete i iterations of this this small loop , nothing has
been executed really because the memory unit hasn’t delivered load data .
and if you want to check this up in the book there’s a slightly different ac-
count of tomasola’s algorithm describing the same program with more like
tables rather than figures and the previous slide shows one such table just
like this part in the book that i am referencing , ok so we will start the third
iteration of the loop <COUGH> and a third load instruction and there is
again a free load buffer tagged number three and we will write that tag
number into the tag storage near floating point register at zero <P:12> so
nothing sensational yet now we fetched the third , instance of the multipli-
cation instruction and we can’t do this there are no free resources the mul-
tiplier has two reservation stations , there is no more pipeliner in the multi-
plier it cannot accept the third , source operant pair for later execution so
we must stop here this instruction will stick in the instruction queue and
since instructions er can only leave the instruction queue in program order
later instructions will stop behind this multiplication instruction , so things
stall for a while here until memory returns , with well i suspect it will be
the first load value that we requested from address xx corresponding to the
first iteration of the loop <P:12> so we now sit for a while wait for
memory, now we have waited for memory , the memory unit delivers data ,
which data where does it come from well it comes from address xx which
is stored in a load buffer tagged with tag number one so the memory units
(xx) and tag number one together do the data with the amount of tags we
have in this , processor in this floating unit four bits are quite enough, one,
 Sample lecture transcription 213

two, three and so on up to an including eleven four bits is enough to encode

that so we can think of this as four additional bits , on the data base <P:05>
ok so we have data plus four additional bits signifying this is tag number
one what happens , all units check those four bits against whatever tag val-
ue they have in their tag storage erm i think i should close the blinds
<P:05> /aa/ i couldn’t . yeah <P:27> so the reservation stations here com-
pare the tag number appearing on a bus with the tag numbers they have
stored in the reservation stations the store buffers also compare tag num-
bers stored compared to tag number appearing on a bus and the floating
point registers also compare tag numbers , stored with the tag number ap-
pearing on a bus and there’s only one match this reservation station has tag
number one stored and that’s the same number as that appearing on the bus
<P:05> so this reservation station enables its right signal and reads data of
the bus and stores it in the reservation station the other locations just sinent-
ly silenty ignore the value on the common data base it’s not for them
<P:12> so now we have two values in this reservation station so the multi-
plier can start calculation <P:25> and in order to decide the way my slides
should be presented i have to make some assumptions and my assumption
now is that memory is slowest and (xx) floating point multiplication is not
so slow so i assume that this multiplication will finish before the next read
operation from memory so the next next the next thing that will happen will
not be the memory unit delivering more data but rather the multiplier deliv-
ering a product <P:05> <COUGH> erm <P:05> yeah i have been a little
sloppy with my slides i can see that tatatam <P:06> that shouldn’t be there
<P:22> yeah <P:10> so multiplication is finished , and the multiplier sends
out the result onto the common data base tagged with tag number ten be-
cause that was the tag owned by the reservation station where these two
source values came from , <COUGH> , you’ve already guessed this proba-
bly everybody compares tag number ten from the common data base with
whatever number they have stored in their tag storage fields , ten does not
equal three ten does not equal eleven so on however the store buffer here
finds that the tag on the common data base matches tag number ten that it
has stored , so the first store buffer will save data from the base into its
data field <P:05> <COUGH> and then this store buffer contains a value
and then address so the memory unit can start executing this store operation
, saving the result of the first multiplication to memory , hasty <P:14 >
<COUGH> well . a few minutes ago i said that this multiplication had to
stall there was no free reservation station left by the multiplier this condi-
tion no longer holds there is one perfectly free reservation station so you
can issue this third multiplication instruction . into this reservation station ,
copying , the tag from floating point register zero and the value same as
always from floating point register two and then the result will be written
<P:11> into floating point register four , so the processor overrides the
previous tag value with the tag value for this reservation station <P:15> as
you can probably see, register f zero will receive no intermediate values
loaded from memory except the last one and register f four will receive no
intermediate values , from multiplication but the last one <P:09> so apart
214 Appendices

from executing instructions potentially out of order the algorithm has re-
named the very few floating point registers so that the processor can use a
much larger set of registers consisting of , storage at various reservation
stations for the functional units and at load and store buffers for the
memory unit <P:37> <COUGH> . it is noteworthy that instructions are
taken from the instruction queue in program order and then they are poten-
tially executed out of order in the execution part of the floating point unit
and they are also completed out of order there is no reorder buffer in this
floating point unit , <COUGH> <P:05> meaning of course that this float-
ing point unit had imprecise exceptions if a floating point instruction would
cause an exception, then it woul would be impossible in general to say ex-
actly which instance of the instruction if it is in a loop or exactly which
instruction in a more general case that caused the exception , and if it can
decide that this instruction caused the exception it might very well happen
that several ins instructions ahead of the accepting instruction has executed
and completed and updated its destination registers and it might also very
well happen possibly at the same time that some or several instructions
before the accepting exceptional instruction has not completed and will be
aborted <P:06> but you have now seen one way of er handling renaming an
out-of-order execution you will have to mentally add a reorder buffer if you
like to get precise exceptions precise exceptions means that it is possible to
single out one instruction such that that instruction and all previous instruc-
tions have completed and no following instruction have , been issued or
have been started , and that means that the program can be restarted from
the instruction following the one i pointed out , there is an equivalent defi-
nition that states that er the instruction itself should not have executed but
all previous instructions only and er <COUGH> , er , it is of practical im-
portance only which one selects the one where the exception instruction is
pointed out it has not been executed completely because it was it caused an
exception or if one is to point out the instruction before the exceptional one
then we have completed all instructions after the one we point out , yeah ,
mhm <P:14> so that’s dynamic instruction scheduling , i would like to
move on to branch prediction but presumably you have questions or
<P:06> some kind of matter you would like to discuss regarding instruction
scheduling <P:05> </S1>
<S2> i have a question you showed the picture of the pentium four </S2>
<S1> yes </S1>
<S2> erm , the err what is it called <FOREIGN> alltså efter instruktionen ,
jag kommer inte ihåg22 </FOREIGN> <P:05> </S2>
<S1> this picture </S1>
<S2> yeah , reorder buffer </S2>
<S1> reorder [buffer] </S1>
<S2> [where is that] , is that in this picture </S2>

22. I mean after the instruction I don’t remember (author’s translation).

 Sample lecture transcription 215

<S1> where is the reorder buffer mhm <P:23> it’s not there </S1>
<S2> er , where should it be </S2>
<S1> this this ah diagram looks like one of those where the reorder buffer
is combined with the instruction window i’ll show you what i mean <P:07>
<COUGH> so if the instruction window and reorder buffer is combined
into a single structure as in this illustration then instructions would , exe-
cute controlled by the combined structure and then the result would return
into the combined structure to be committed in order what about the penti-
um four <P:12> <COUGH> , this is the part of the diagram where re-
sources are allocated and where there are some kind of scheduling from
floating point instructions for integer instructions so <P:05> so i would
place the instruction reordering here but i can’t be sure <P:08> </S1>
<S2> so in that case the reordering is done before the integer, or what ,
cause there is no feedback on the x after that (xx) </S2>
<S1> mhm well there is no feedback of <FOREIGN> hej </FOREIGN>
there is no feedback of results er but , there may be control lines not shown
that makes sure that the register files are updated in the in program order
<P:05> mhm <P:09> i can’t say that it’s there but i would place it there
that’s that’s the best of my knowledge <P:14> any more questions on in-
struction scheduling <P:22> ok so moving onto branch prediction <P:21>
the idea is that most conditional branches are skewed so that they are usual-
ly either taken or not taken and er if we could find out which for a particu-
lar branch we could use that to speed up program execution by executing
instructions ahead of the branch <P:05> terminology , if there is a branch
instruction somewhere and then the next instruction in memory in sequen-
tial address order , is executed then we fall through the branch the branch is
not taken if if however the branch updates the program counter to some
non-sequential value then we take the branch <P:06> and the simplest way
to do dynamic branch prediction is this <P:05> we will need all of the pro-
gram counter perhaps save for two bits at the end if we always have aligned
32-bit addresses and the byte-address memory , but generally all of the
program counter will be used to reference the instruction cache ,
<COUGH> we can use the same address to reference a prediction table
which will perhaps have one bit taken or not taken and is perhaps because
it’s not the usual case but it’s the simplest case , so , all of the instruction
address goes to the instruction cache that’s around 32 bits and prediction
table should have the same address that’s 32 bits and one bit of information
for each address that will be two raised to the power of 32 bits that’s er
that’s nearly a gigabyte mhm we can’t have a gigabyte of prediction table
inside the processor no way so we ignore more than half of the bits of the
instruction address and use the least significant bits ten bits perhaps to in-
dex this prediction table and then the table becomes a thousand bits total,
which is completely manageable and manufactureable <P:05> <COUGH>
well , if the prediction table is not as large as main memory then there will
be aliasing so that , any questions no <P:15 > if two instructions are exact-
ly a thousand and twenty four entries apart in the prediction table they will
use the same prediction bit mhm so we could add a tag the instruction
216 Appendices

cache does that the instruction cache will deliver (xx) codes to the instruc-
tion decoder it is important that incorrect (xx) codes are never delivered to
the processor because then it will go away and execute instructions , mhm
that should never exist so er there’s a tag that checks that er we get precise-
ly the instruction from precisely the address we specify even if we get it
from the instruction cache and not from main memory for the prediction
table we need not have this , how come , well the worst thing that can hap-
pen is this case we are to be we are to execute this branch instruction but
we’re looking at the prediction bit corresponding to this instruction because
they use the same prediction bit in the table what can happen well the pre-
diction can be the same no problem thank you or the prediction could be
the other way so we get the wrong prediction what happens well we have to
take the mispredict penalty of some cycles , and that’s all there’s no chance
that we will get incorrect program execution because we reuse entries in the
prediction table if we did similar things in the instruction cache or in the
data cache we would get illegal program results like in this case we will
only get a few cycles extra of execution time . a few cycles extra of execu-
tion time mhm that sounds ominous but on the other hand , this is a one bit
per entry table if we were to add a tag we would add something like twenty
bits on every entry multiplying the chip area of the table twenty fold , so
we would have 20 kilo bits of table rather than one kilo bit and then we
would have to reduce the size of the instruction cache or the data cache or
both to find room for this prediction table and reducing cache size will
almost immediately translate into lower performance because of more
cache misses and more references to the slow main memory so this occa-
sional er incorrect prediction that gives us a few extra cycle might very
well be worth . having a slightly larger instruction cache and a slightly
larger data cache for whatever we use the extra chip area for <P:10> there
is a snag with one bit prediction its memory is so short and , this little pro-
gram is the easiest way to describe how one bit prediction can be wrong on
the other hand many programs that you execute daily such as text editors
they do rather rarely actually do loops (xx) like this but it’s an easy way to
explain what can happen we start the first loop and no interesting things is
in the are in the product prediction table we start the second loop there’s no
interesting things but after a few iterations we are spinning around in the
innermost loop and we are predictly correct predicting correctly every time
and then the innermost loop finishes and that will be a misprediction be-
cause we will predict another iteration of the innermost loop , but that will
not happen and then we will move to the outermost loop and we will cor-
rectly predict that there will be another iteration of the outer loop and then
we will go into the inner loop again when we come here to the end of the
inner loop we have changed the prediction because last time , the branch er
wasn’t taken not up to here at least so we predict that the inner loop will not
execute another iteration which will be a misprediction , so for each time
we finish the inner loop we will get two mispredictions one when we be-
lieve the loop will continue but it doesn’t and then the next one when we
believe that the loop will not continue but we’ll start it another round so it
 Sample lecture transcription 217

will continue that’s the second one . <COUGH> and we will not expect the
processor to find out exactly how many iterations will happen and will
never make a misprediction but it would be OK if it mispredicted just once
, when the inner loop finished and then kept the prediction that we will go
around in the inner loop so it would predict correctly the next time we enter
that loop , and that can be done using two bit prediction which requires
two misprediction before it changes its opinion of what it should predict
and this is a stake diagram , for every entry in the prediction table we
would have two bits maybe coded just like this , to specify where where in
this stake diagram er the branch corresponding to that location in the pre-
diction table er should be considered to be . so if we have the inner loop
again , that loop branch , if we take the branch to continue the loop we will
say it has been taken and then taken and then taken and taken and taken for
quite a while so we predict taken and then we come to the end of the inner
loop <P:06> where the loop branch is not taken but we don’t change our
mind about the prediction the processor still believes that the branch will be
taken this is just a temporary exception from the rule and then we go out
into the outer loop and back starting a new round of the inner loop and the
branch at the end of the inner loop will be taken this time and so we’re back
here . having just one misprediction as we wanted <P:11> in order to un-
derstand this diagram er you might want to have this loop preferably writ-
ten in fortran because fortran has (xx) statements not just the semi-colon
the semi-colon will be the same for both loops but the (xx) statements in
fortran are similar languages will be different so there will be a next state-
ment with the inner loop and then another next statement for the outer loop
or you could do the same thing with curly braces if you , you like c and
then you could see that er er at the end of the inner loop we will be here and
the branch will not be taken once and then we come to the end of the inner
loop it will be taken and taken again for the number of iterations so we’ll
have only one misprediction when we believe it will be taken but we are at
the end of one round of the inner loop so it will be not taken one time there
is another no should i move on? </S1>
<S2> yeah </S2>
<S1> there is another stake diagram that is possible for two bit prediction
which is called a saturate encounter algorithm <COUGH> . if we have the
same loop nest and we believe no and we have the inner loop taken . we
have the branch at the end of the inner loop taken when we continue to loop
we will be at state number three in this example and then once the branch at
the end of the inner loop is not taken so we go back here but we still predict
taken because all states to the right of the limit predict taken , and then the
next time the loop er the loop branch is taken so we come back here <P:06>
</S1>
<S3> er question <S3>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S3> this is the same but two different pictures or </S3>
<S1> this is not the same but it is two different pictures , there is a limiting
case that discerns the saturate encounter from the diagram in the previous
218 Appendices

picture , when two mispredictions actually happen for some other program
not related to the loop nest we’ve been discussing for some other program
we have a loop that is taken taken taken and taken again and then it’s not
taken we still predict that it is taken we we believe that this is a temporary
er change but then it is not taken again and then we believe that it will not
be taken any more of course . now if the branch should be taken now it will
requires it will require two mispredictions again before we change the pre-
diction with the counter however , we have a branch that is taken and taken
and taken and taken and then it’s not taken it’s not taken but in this case if
the branch is now taken after exactly two mispredictions we will change
our minds about the prediction immediately , so there is a change there is
different behavior for this graph and the previous one , and er . some pro-
cessor designers prefer the saturate encounter and some prefer er the other
diagram , yeah </S1>
<S3> so using only state one and two in that diagram would would corre-
spond to one big prediction </S3>
<S1> yeah er , it might happen that starting at some state or another the
predictor will arrive here and then the branch is not taken so it changes its
mind and then the branch is taken so the mind is changed back the predic-
tion is changed back so it oscillates between predict not taken and predict
taken and predict incorrectly every time it might happen on the other hand
there is a similar situation for this state diagram where a branch is predicted
incorrectly twice in a row , not taken not taken and then we predict it to be
not taken and then it’s mispredicted again twice in a row because now it’s
taken and taken so we change our mind and think ok it will be predict taken
and then it’s not taken not taken so anomalous cases can happen for this
diagram too , just like for the saturate encounter , but er the argument is
valid that the saturate encounter does not always require two mispredictions
to change the predicted er change the prediction <P:05> yes <P:05>
<COUGH> . what to do with a prediction er . sorry <P:05> well of course
continue fetching and executing instructions at the predicted branch target
or sequentially if the branch is predicted not taken , er before we take a
break i might say a few words about the possibility to fetch both the in-
struction at the branch target and the next sequential instruction , that’s
considered a bad idea <P:20> and why is it a bad idea well , branches occur
frequently so it will , very quickly happen that , the processor will have to
branch another time . here , and branches are in general heavily skewed so
if we can predict this branch with some reasonable accuracy we can be for
instance , eighty per cent sure that that it the branch will be taken then it’s
much better to use eighty per cent no to use a hundred per cent of the pro-
cessor’s resources to pursue the path that is eighty per cent correct than to
use fifty per cent of the processor’s resources on either path because if we
use if we try to execute both paths we are guaranteed to waste fifty per cent
of the resources we spend on that execution , and it will multiply so some-
where here we will be wasting seventy five per cent of the resources , yeah
, now it’s time for a break </S1>
Appendix 2: Sample group-work transcription

GROUP-WORK: BODA-050207
NO OF SPEAKERS: FIVE
S1: SWEDISH (L2) L1: ARABIC
S2: FRENCH (EXCHANGE STUDENT)
S3: SWEDISH
S4: GERMAN (EXCHANGE STUDENT)
S5: SWEDISH
RECORDING DURATION: 40:57 (ONE SESSION)
DEPARTMENT: AERONAUTICAL AND VEHICLE ENGINEERING

<S1> ok er welcome to the third session , and err we have to discuss our
problem and we will start with the first one , er . why the case of the
typical session , er <READING23> is it in general that it is not possi-
ble to have analytical flutter results </READING> </S1>
<S2> it’s my question and it was er raised page </S2>
<S3> 53 </S3>
<S2> yeah </S2>
<S3> 53 </S3>
<S1> 53 </S1>
<S3> in the e [xample] or </S3>
<S2> [example] the typical section . the second second sentence
</S2>
<S1> that’s what i asked myself </S1>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S1> maybe [it’s] </S1>
<S3> [(xx)] </S3>
<S1> [to do] that </S1>
<S4> [@@] </S4>
<S3> no , maybe mode is quite arbitrary (xx) unconvenient actually flutter
</S3>
<S4> I had the same question my in my mind when i read that because it’s
</S4>
<S3> there is no reason </S3>
<S2> it means that we can only have flutter results] with computers </S2>
<S4> [yeah] </S4>

23. These sections are sections from the textbooks and therefore not speakers’ own
production. No feature from these sections has been included in the analyses or
the results in the present study.
220 Appendices

<S2> because it’s right that in part in the in the formal shelters we had
some applications for the typical sections and we had we get some
analytical results but here we have no analytical results but , i don’t
know </S2>
<S3> it’s very strange it’s very strange </S3>
<S2> or we can continue in </S2>
<S3> @@ </S3>
<S1> @@ </S1>
<S1> actually this is the second one strange </S1>
<S3> @@ </S3>
<S1> while the flutter velocity is lower than the divergence velocity what
does that physical phenomena that occur </S1>
<S2> mhm first i am i am not convinced that the flutter velocity is always
lower than the divergence speed because i er (xx) the code for the
flutter and it is err and when when you put a mass er a concentrating
mass somewhere in the wing sometimes it appears that the flutter ve-
locity is greater greater than the divergence speed , so it is not al-
ways er </S2>
<S1> but it should be less , lower </S1>
<S2> it’s lower if you do nothing but </S2>
<S4> but where is written or you know why does the question come up
why the flutter’s velocity is lower than the divergence velocity you
see </S4>
<S3> you see </S3>
<S2> it’s not my question </S2>
<S3> it’s not your question </S3>
<S2> no </S2>
<S4> it’s x’s24 question i mean er erm how you asked why but how did you
(fx) or is it somewhere written in here that it’s </S4>
<S2> is it written that it’s </S2>
<SU> (xx) </SU>
<S1> er yeah er this is an er remember the course the (xx) course </S1>
<S2> in your </S2>
<S3> ok </S3>
<S4> the </S4>
<S2> but i think it’s right because when you when you are in a plane you
can see that the wing is is vibrating it’s not going so it’s right that
</S2>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S2> the flutter speed is less than divergence speed </S2>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S2> in some cases if you do something with the wing it can be greater
</S2>

24. The student’s name has been removed.

 Sample group-work transcription 221

<S3> it’s not i don’t know flutter is somehow initial and (stable) (more)
and the and the divergence is completely unstable </S3>
<S1> yeah </S1>
<S3> so i don’t know i i agree with you </S3>
<S4> it should be </S4>
<S3> that it should be lower </S3>
<S2> but why </S2>
<S3> why </S3>
<S1, S3, S4, S5> @@ </S1, S3, S4, S5>
<S1> this is the (xx) </S1>
<S3> yeah you see flutter is , on the real part everything is zero it’s flutter ,
that is not really unstable not really stable to be (xx) so , let me see
now label </S3>
<S4> @@ </S4>
<S3> @@ </S3>
<S4> i mean er this you said that flutter is some kind of phase shift </S4>
<S2> mhm </S2>
<S4> and er i think this kind of phase shift is something which is occurs
earlier than complete divergence because it’s er the divergence aero
aero the aerodynamic forces have to erm have to decrease the the
stiffness of the wing somewhere the stiffness of the whole system so
i think this is a very in this case the frequency somehow was zero
something like that so er increasing the air speed i would say de-
creases the , the frequency , decreases the frequency decreases de-
creases and then if it’s zero the frequency then it’s divergence or
something like that </S4>
<S3> mhm is it </S3>
<S4> or if no i would say maybe not zero but if the , if we can’t obtain any
, any frequency any more because if K is zero or the stiffness is zero
there is no no restoring force so you can’t have any </S4>
<S3> yeah yeah yeah </S3>
<S4> any frequency so this is somehow the lowest frequency you can im-
agine @@ so i i would say something like that you know because ok
the wing is there is no airflow so the wing is like stiff then you in-
crease the airflow and it becomes less stiff less stiff so the frequency
the (air) frequency of the wing somehow goes down i think that di-
vergence something like then it’s gone i mean the frequency is gone
@@ so it’s somehow the , the last last of these things you can reach
</S4>
<S2> but we saw in the wing X that when their speed was increasing the
vibrations were increasing also </S2>
<S4> the vibrations but not the not the frequency maybe the frequency but i
think the frequency did not <P:06> i mean if it becomes stronger the
wing has to be faster and vibrating but the frequency doesn’t have to
go up , no if if the way if the , if it becomes you know if it starts like
that </S4>
<S2> mhm </S2>
222 Appendices

<S4> and then it goes like wooooww wooowwww then it has to move fast-
er on on this part but the all over time doesn’t get shorter you know
the all over time from from here to here of all oscillation i would say
this </S4>
<S2> xx </S2>
<S4> i couldn’t see it by looking but i @@ yeah but i would guess so be-
cause he always argumented like if we increase the air speed the
stiffness of the wing decreases so if the stiffness decreases i would
say the frequency increa er decreases as well <P:05> it’s my inter-
pretation i am not sure </S4>
<S3> divergence is a it’s it’s a steady state , flutter is , it’s non-stable in-
stead of , is it really possible to </S3>
<S4> to compare that i don’t know it’s just </S4>
<S3> maybe suddenly the er the er unsteady motion , will trigger the er . ah
i give up </S3>
<S4> @@ </S4>
<S3> @@ i think it’s hard to compare these two things because we , we
look at them so differently </S3>
<S3> yeah it’s confusing (xx) </S3>
<S4> we try to separate them so that we can co compute them easily but
then it’s hard to to compare them </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> actually err i can i think if we can turn this question to the question is
the flutter velocity always lower than the divergence velocity , be-
cause we i think we can’t even state that </S4>
<S3> very tricky questions in this group [@@] </S3>
<S4> yes [@@] </S4>
<S1, S2, S5> [@@] </S1, S2, S5>
<S4> i think somehow we fucked ourselves </S4>
<S1, S2, S3, S5> [@@] </S1, S2, S3, S5>
<S3> actually just </S3>
<S4> i think we can just go on </S4>
<S1> ok </S1>
<S4> i think we can’t really bring it to the end [this question] </S4>
<S3> [mhm] </S3>
<S4> but it’s , anyway , i think we can just have some ideas but in the end
we won’t get a result </S4>
<S1> ok , question three </S1>
<S2> (xx) the links of my question <S2>
<S1, S3, S4, S5> @@ <S1, S3, S4, S5>
<S1> i already , @@ <READING> is there a way to increase the flutter
speed </ READING> , in the lecture notes for the third computer
session we are advised to introduce a concentrated mass on the wing
i (wrote) the flutter go through to introduce the mass and i noted that
putting a sufficient mass towards the leading edge made the flutter
speed is larger than the divergence speed , if all i did is right er what
are the physics behind the experiment , and if it’s wrong, this is the
 Sample group-work transcription 223

mass should be towards the trailing edge my question remains what

are the physics behind , the idea of introducing constant trailing mass
<P:05> so you mean that if you could immense on the trailing edge
you would get a larger </S1>
<S2> yeah yeah if i am if i am [right]
<S1> [on the trailing] or </S1>
<S2> if i am right the mass should be in the leading edge but if i am wrong
it should be er put on the trailing edge but in both case why er er
what is the physics behind this idea of putting a mass in front of the
(xx) </S2>
<S4> mhm <S4>
<S2> (xx) and why does it increase the </S2>
<S3> so if you put err if you put sufficient mass towards the leading edge
the flutter speed larger </S3>
<S4> would be larger </S4>
<S2> if if your your your if your origin original wing and the flutter speed i
formed was 15 m/sec </S2>
<S3> ok </S3>
<S2> and the divergence speed was about 20 and if i put er i don’t remem-
ber the exact mass but if i put a mass towards the trailing edge and
towards the leading edge </S2>
<S4> leading [edge] </S4>
<S2> [the] the flutter speed is something like 13 m/sec </S2>
<S1> 30 </S1>
<S2> and the divergence speed is 28 29 m so it becomes larger but the
mass i put is very large it’s it’s something like one kilo or less so it’s
big </S2>
<S3> ok </S3>
<S4> (xx) in this </S4>
<S1, S2, S3, S4, S5> @@ </S1, S2, S3, S4, S5>
<S3> wow </S3>
<S2> but it is the condition to have er a flutter speed er larger than diver-
gence speed but i think in in for aircraft it’s er it’s er , never have
guessed that you have divergence speed great er less than the flutter
speed so erm i i put very big mass er which is half the mass of the to-
tal wing but i think in a real real case you can’t do that because you
don’t want to have flutter speed er larger than the divergence speed
but we we </S2>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S2> are we are asking in the computer lab to to to find the the the mini-
mum mass, which make the flutter speed greater than the diverge di-
vergence speed and i did that and i found half the mass of the wing
from that we have to put it in the (xx) but i don’t know why </S2>
<S3> ok </S3>
<S4> mhm </S4>
<S2> that’s why i find it from this reason </S2>
224 Appendices

<S1> with with putting a mass do you mean that you made the wing more
stiff </S1>
<S4> no you just put a mass without any stiffness </S4>
<S1> without any stiffness </S1>
<S4> yeah you just you know just just like a something you you glue on it
or you you stick on it or something </S4>
<S1> ok ok ok </S1>
<S2> (it) verifies the position of gravity between the </S2>
<S1> yeah yeah [yeah] <S1>
<S2> [the g j] alpha </S2>
<S1> depends on if you shift it back (xx) </S1>
<S3> so you move the center of gravity (move) forward </S3>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S3> er </S3>
<S2> so i tried and i found this results but i i didn’t manage to understand
why . and maybe maybe the mass should be in the trailing edge but if
it is in the trailing edge i i still don’t understand what what are the
physics </S2>
<S3> i don’t know i haven’t really found what behind the physics (xx)
</S3>
<S2> we can take question four </S2>
<S1, 2, 3, 4, 5> @@ </S1, 2, 3, 4, 5>
<S4> yeah i think it must have something to do with the er properties of the
inertia forces which are with the phase shift of the inertia forces ,
they are always er are they 100 180 degrees behind the behind this
you know behind the er acceleration and the acceleration goes up,
the inertia forces points down , and er so i think it has it got some-
thing to do with that you know the wing is er . if it’s in the front of
the wing then it it contributes in another another situation to you
know it’s like er <P:05> for example if the wing is just going up just
accelerating accelerating up upwards and er then there is a bigger
mass in the front this one will slow down and , so this is something
which erm </S4>
<S2> in fact i think it will decrease the angle of attack or something </S2>
<S4> exactly that’s what i mean it decreases the angle of attack at the mo-
ment when it goes up so it’s somehow erm in this situation at x coun-
ter counterwise to this one so it tries to stabilize it at this moment
you know </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> it accelerates up because of the aerodynamic forces which are com-
ing from downwards somehow you know they they act upwards so if
this one decreases then in the same time you know contemporarily
then it’s really good for that you know and if it’s here </S4>
<S3> increase </S3>
<S4> exactly the (xx) i it’s just an idea </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
 Sample group-work transcription 225

<S4> yeah i think it has got something to do with it because it’s er , er the
inertia forces are always 180 degrees shifted to the to the accelera-
tion , but if you take a look at er erm the stiffness force and restoring
force due due to stiffness they always count at 180 degrees shifted to
the to they way to the deflection so it’s something else er erm these
forces are always somehow a little too late you know what i mean if ,
this one already this the inertia forces already stop the the motion of
due to to a to the acceleration so but there is another problem be-
cause if if , if the acceleration stops these will will err tend to to keep
the motion going so it’s something , else which is a problem it’s
more complicated than what i just wrote i think because you have to
look at the frequency (xx) you have to somehow to compare when
it acts and which direction and you have to have a look at the others
as well as the stiffness and the stuff so i think it’s complex with
</S4>
<S3> the question laboration was , do you you have to explain why (xx)
</S3>
<S2> yes you are </S2>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S2> it’s written <P:05> <READING> can you explain the physics behind
your condition </ READING> </S2>
<S3> (the answer is) [@@] . yeah that’s one possible explanation </S3>
<S1, S2, S4, S5> [@@] </S1, S2, S4, S5>
<S3> erm </S3>
<S4> yeah i think it would be quite interesting to see diagram of the like
the side curves , and then you put in the side curve for the for the dif-
ferent forces as well and you can somehow see which one has got
which effect i think </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> and then you should have to do er to think about the fact that we
change the position of these so i think it has got something to do with
this one somehow decreasing the angle of attack when it’s going up
and the other way around you know so i think you have to take this
one and a (xx) and an </S4>
<S3> if it’s let’s see on the (out) flutter then it should . ah @@ <P:05>
yeah i go for this. gravitation of . the decrease of </S3>
<S1> ok </S1>
<S3> [what] </S3>
<S1> it’s [complex] </S1>
<S4> so we just gonna pass this question or </S4>
<S1> yeah , question number four , how should the angle vectors (xx) (the
intrepid) if they are complex valued </S1>
<S2> phase shift <P:05> it was written </S2>
<S3> where </S3>
<S2> the physical significance of the complex valued angle vector , is that
the interaction with the , aerodynamic forces brings in phase shift ,
between the different degrees of freedom given (xx) , page 50 </S2>
226 Appendices

<S4> i’ve marked it but i didn’t really understand it </S4>

<S2> yeah </S2>
<S4> i thought i would have i thought i understood it but i didn’t i didn’t
really think that it’s about that one </S4>
<S3> (xx) </S3>
<S4> but you’re right yeah </S4>
<S3> yeah but yeah but yeah . mhm [and er]
<S2> [if you] if you run the run your code your
flutter code you will you will have a , a picture and the screen and
you will see them in the motion of the wing and you have two de-
grees of freedom fh and F alpha and when will you run it you will
see that if h is doing that alpha is will do the same but with a phase
shift if h is doing that it is difficult to to if h is doing that alpha will
do that </S2>
<S4> yeah </S4>
<S3> ok </S3>
<S2> so , (do) you understand what i mean , there is a there is a delay be-
tween the </S2>
<S1> ok ok </S1>
<S2> two degrees (xx) that’s my interpretation , i am not sure </S2>
<S4> yeah i think you’re right </S4>
<S3> it may be also , ah @@ </S3>
<S4> and i think you can you can see that the value has become complex if
you look at these </S4>
<S2> mhm </S2>
<S4> because erm if it’s not complex then it’s just er then you just get an
amplitude for certain time and it’s always the same like that . this is
this is no phase shift and you can erm and , this is non-complex , so
if you take the phase shift into account it becomes like that and it’s
complex (xx) </S4>
<S2> without without (xx) of that </S2>
<S4> ok </S4>
<S2> or this means that . with five it means that you’re (xx) </S2>
<S1> (xx) </S1>
<S3> (xx) something from the er , the real part </S3>
<S2> could you repeat this </S2>
<S3> @@ , what , (xx) something from the real part (xx) is it magnitude
</S3>
<S2> yeah , the real part is magnitude and the imaginary part is the , so
[the] </S2>
<S3> [the
the] </S3>
<S2> the real part it means that for instance the </S2>
<S3> [is it dis displacement]
</S3>
<S2> [do we have er] lots of
displacement in er h and no displacement in </S2>
 Sample group-work transcription 227

<S3> ok @@ </S3>
<S5> this was the same question </S5>
<S1> yeah </S1>
<S2> four and five </S2>
<S1> number six . <READING> the reduced frequency is obviously of
significance but how should the value of the reduced frequency be
interpreted and what conclusions can be drawn from it
</READING> </S1>
<S3> mhm <P:05> yeah that’s my question i was thinking about er , it was
said that it is the same as significance if er (use of) frequency as the
(radius) number how to say i wonder if it is there is any er numbers
where we can assume a steady state or (do) you know what i mean .
or if it’s </S3>
<S4> i don’t know i think i asked somehow something like that in the lec-
ture , like i asked what kind of frequencies that if it doesn’t have any
particle </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> but he er he he said it is a frequency , dimension is pretty easy he said
@@ but he didn’t really answer er erm what it physically means , so
</S4>
<S3> yeah but what i understand it is it is the time it takes for one (xx) to
travel (xx) </S3>
<S4> yeah that’s what he showed yes </S4>
<S3> and er compare it to the er freq yeah yeah the exactly . but . yeah , i
mean is it for some , some rate is it . like i don’t know if if the rate
is (xx) is it ok to assume , a steady state is it ok to does this er er un-
steady motion er , computations are the really (xx) </S3>
<S4> (xx) yeah </S4>
<S3> great @@ </S3>
<S4> yeah he said something like that yeah if something like if the particle
travels slower than that happens then it’s somehow steady then
</S4>
<S3> it doesn’t feel that </S3>
<S4> and you just erm won’t know if there’s a a certain number </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> like there you should take steady and you should <P:05> [i think
that’s something we have to pass on] </S4>
<S3> [@@ it’s just laugh (xx)] </S3>
<S4> ok </S4>
<S3> yeah let’s </S3>
<S1> i have difficulty to er to well understand the algorithm pk (and that’s
it) can we discuss about that , then we have question eight , almost
the same question <READING> what is the principle of pk method
</READING> </S1>
<S2> (this part) i don’t understand <p:07> the idea is to find . the the idea
of er of the code is you choose a k </S2>
<S1> k a k </S1>
228 Appendices

<S2> and then you find p </S2>

<S1> p , pk </S1>
<S2> but er . you you are not interested in all the ps you want er the ps
which are er which are subs(xx) that’s the imaginity imaginary part
of p is equal to k </S2>
<S1> ok </S1>
<S2> ok so , you take one k , you are , so first when you we’ll do that later
when you you could and you (serve) that for different case you are in
dimension two so we will find each time two (xx) frequency so and
you will see that when you will run the program you will have
graphs like that i don’t know why but [yeah like that] </S2>
<S1> [@@] </S1>
<S2> [@@] so this is the first one , this is p1 , this is p2 . and er what you
what you want is to find the p1 and p2 such that the imaginary part
of p1 and p2 are equal to k so that’s why you draw this this part
</S2>
<S1> k </S1>
<S2> so the the two solutions are this one and this one and the first part of
the algorithm is to find the the region when you when you (xx) be-
cause when you when you apply the bisection method you have to to
find difference to domain (xx) easier solution , so the first part of this
algorithm is to find the domain where you have you your solution so
, we will do that er er ima at at the beginning you have k which is er
as a number it should be </S2>
<S3> very small [zero] </S3>
<S1> [zero] </S1>
<S4> [zero] </S4>
<S2> zero point zero one , and you find (this one), and you find first er the
first first igon vector igon value is here </S2>
<S4> it’s got the imaginary part up there </S4>
<S2> and then you have to combine if er you have to see if the if the </S2>
<S4> imaginary part , of the (xx) </S4>
<S2> it’s like , erm , i’ll do like that <P:07> and you run the code first for k
is zero point zero one and then you run the code for instance for k is
zero point one and you will find two solutions this one and this one
and you have to see if if there is a crossing and if there is a crossing
it means that you have formed your domain because this is the this
solution and to see if there’s a crossing you have , yeah there isn’t
much is (explains) so for k is zero point zero , one you have that the
image the imaginary part of p1 , here is larger than k1 , because this
this this distance is more than this distance ok </S2>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S2> or you can see that like , you can see also that your point is er </S2>
<S1> higher </S1>
<S2> above than this er this (xx) </S2>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S2> so in this case you have your imaginary you er erm erm </S2>
 Sample group-work transcription 229

<S4> imaginary part </S4>

<S2> imaginary part , which is length and then you continue and at the
moment you will have a crossing which means that here in our case
at k is zero point one we have imaginary part p1 which is less here
which is which is less than k k1 , but it’s not the same k1 it here it is
</S2>
<S1> this is it </S1>
<S2> zero point zero one and here it is zero point one so it means that you
have crossed er this straight line and it means that you have formed
your domain and your domain is you can say that k1 is between zero
point zero one and zero point one so you have </S2>
<SU> COUGH </SU>
<S2> you have formed the domain and then you can apply the bisection
(xx) which consists in divided in dividing new domain er by two (xx)
so you can do that from the first step if you want i will do another ,
another sketch <P:07> we can imagine that zero point one you can
imagine that zero point zero one is here and zero point one , is here
and what you want to find is that so the idea is you have the , the
lower boundary is is this one zero point zero one and the upper
boundary is zero point one </S2>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S2> ok , so the first thing is that you divide your domain by two so k is
zero point zero one plus two point one divided by two which is zero
point fifty five </S2>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S2> so we can do something like that [so you are]
<S1> [zero point one] minus zero point zero
one (xx) </S1>
<S2> no </S2>
<S1> no </S1>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S2> you have to you have to er to take the the middle of your domain and
taking the middle is that </S2>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S3> mhm , is it </S3>
<S2> you will you will understand [when i] when i draw it </S2>
<S1> [ok ok ok] </S1>
<S2> so here you take the mid part the middle of this domain which is here
, ok </S2>
<S1> mhm </S1>
<S2> and you see then you have to adapt your er your er your domain you
have to er you see that now you have two domains , and in one do-
main you have no solution and in one domain you have one solution
and you have to find in which domain you have the solution so er
here er if so we are here now and you see that here in this part the
imagi the imaginary part of p1 is more important , is [greater] </S2>
<S4> [bigger] <S4>
230 Appendices

<S2> than k1 it means that here you have the imagi the imaginary part you
have imp er imaginary part of p1 which is also greater than p1 so
here and here you have in in both case imaginary part of p1 which is
greater than k k so it means that you have no (xx) so this domain is
not valid so you are in the other domain and you adapt , you update
your your domain so now your k lower is this one zero point zero fif-
teen and the the the upper limit of your domain remains </S2>
<S1> the same one </S1>
<S2> and then you divide [by two er] </S2>
<S1> [and so and so and so ok] </S1>
<S2> and find the solution </S2>
<S1> fine </S1>
<S3> these are </S3>
<S4> here something written that the newton thing is much faster have you
tried that </S4>
<S2> er you have if you want you can try it you have er a (xx) function
</S2>
<S4> have you tried it </S4>
<S2> i won’t try it because you have only two two (xx) newton of your
program and it will do so comp computationary it’s yes it’s more ef-
ficient but you’ll (learn) nothing because you use you use (xx) func-
tion , it’s not very interesting i think . the (xx) programming is al-
ready done so you (don’t need to) apply (xx) function , or you can
write your newton code if you want , we did we did it in [(xx)] </S2>
<S3> [(xx)] </S3>
<S2> so it’s not interesting for us to read it </S2>
<S4> yeah </S4>
<S2> but we didn’t do </S2>
<S4> but you could probably (xx) the program </S4>
<S2> yes you can but we didn’t deal with bisection so it’s it’s good to (xx)
so i think we we didn’t do the bisection and it’s not asked to do in the
in the [(xx)] </S2>
<S4> [no no no
no] </S4>
<S2> (xx) it is not asked to do newton . i think it’s more simple but once
we’ve already seen </S2>
<S3> yeah it’s faster </S3>
<S4> this one is more or less you know obvious what to do here , i mean
this is more or less what you tend to do and you (xx) so i mean if you
if you see it you will say like ok we just take the bound two bounda-
ries and then we take the half of it and look what’s happening here so
it’s somehow what you tend to do in the first so i think that’s why we
are supposed to do it like that </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> <COUGH> ok so i would say this is answered </S4>
<S1> mhm <P:07> ok [question] [number] </S1>
<SU> [<COUGH>] </SU>
 Sample group-work transcription 231

<S2> [question] eight , it’s it was about thirteen </S2>

<S1> figure thirteen </S1>
<S2> which page </S2>
<S4> and this is very much like er </S4>
<S1> fifteen </S1>
<S4> automatic control </S4>
<SU> (xx) </SU>
<S1> automatic control yeah , it’s a , regular problem </S1>
<S4> when you’re supposed to to draw the (xx) </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> i think it looks really much like that </S4>
<S3> yeah yeah (we say so) </S3>
<S4> @@ . i know who asked </S4>
<S1> but the difference er the different between the these two </S1>
<S3> ah ok </S3>
<S1> what is the different , that you have more stable , which one is </S1>
<S4> i would say it’s like we start at the point where the air speed is zero
and if the air speed is zero you just get erm the normal vibration (xx)
the (xx) frequency of the wing </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> as we did it as as you can show like that yeah </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> and that’s pure or almost pure erm vibration without any damping .
we we don’t (xx) </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> so er then you get only imaginary parts like you get two different
omegas two different frequencies one here one here only these two
not this one and you can make a cross here and here , and if you now
increase the air speed . then you can find out that one of these two
(angles) will just go in the other direction ok you treat it a little it will
be here you increase it a little just once and it will be here and here
for example </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> you increase it a little more and it will be here and here a little more
here and here so when it’ll be here and here , and if this one which is
that point , then you found one one angle which , tends to be unstable
because i don’t know if you remember from automatic control </S4>
<S3> mhm </S3>
<S4> everything which is in that (half plane) is stable </S4>
<S3> stable </S3>
<S4> everything which is here is unstable and everything everything which
is here on this line is </S4>
<S1> <FOREIGN> då är det klart </FOREIGN>
Appendix 3: Sentences used in the questionnaire

Sentence 1
There is discriminization against women engineers in our society.
Sentence 2
By spending 10% more on material, we can forsify the construction of the
building.
Sentence 3
It is important to try to levelize the volatility of the current market.
Sentence 4
It is more easy to create a matrix B which creates the conditions we want.
Sentence 5
It is much more clearer than you think.
Sentence 6
Actually in Tokyo it is a more big problem.
Sentence 7
How many energy is needed?
Sentence 8
Each people will write his/her section.
Sentence 9
Typically you want to have five kilogram of oxygen.
Sentence 10
So there are two way of stating the same theory.
Sentence 11
In many many case you can gasify it.
Sentence 12
The job will be a lot easier if you have a extremely efficient compressor.
Sentence 13
You can use it in the different ways.
Sentence 14
From these figures, you can have idea what reasonable speed runner size is.
Sentence 15
There is a further method which are sensitive to porosity in rocks.
Sentence 16
However, the runner blades was not that developed.
Sentence 17
I will talk about how a turbine operate in the system.
 Sentences used in the questionnaire 233

Sentence 18
My idea is to explain how this board is working.
Sentence 19
A Francis turbine is using the whole turbine equation.
Sentence 20
How much rain are you getting per year?
Sentence 21
And the plates get heat up very quickly.
Sentence 22
I think it’s a rather huge project that built underground.
Sentence 23
It can be happened that sometimes everything fails despite the formula.
Sentence 24
Why is not good to combust directly?
Sentence 25
Why the function looks like that?
Sentence 26
But the drawback here it is not very easy to extract hydrogen from water.
Sentence 27
The supercapacitors I don’t know much about them.
Sentence 28
Well it is not so emission-free hydropower.
Sentence 29
Here you see how does it look like.
Sentence 30
Still we have to find out what sources do we have on this bus.
Sentence 31
You get a feeling how is the cost developing for wind farms.
Sentence 32
It is a not very good generator.
Sentence 33
This point is supposed to not move.
Sentence 34
It looks not good.
Appendix 4: The observation protocol

Speech event: Department: Date:

Lecture Group-work

Time: Activity type Interaction Syntactic D ND Phonological D ND Lexical D ND

00:00 pattern
References

Adolphs, Svenja
2005 ‘I don’t think I should learn all this’— a longitudinal view of attitudes
towards ‘native speaker’ English. In The Globalisation of English
and the English Language Classroom, Claus Gnutzmann, and
Frauke Intemann (eds.), 119–131. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Aickin, Joseph
1967 The English Grammar. London: The Scolar Press Limited.
Airey, John
2009 Science, language, and literacy: Case studies of learning in Swedish
university physics. Unpublished PhD thesis. Uppsala University.
Airey, John, and Cedric Linder
2006 Language and the experience of learning university physics in Swe-
den. European Journal of Physics 27 (3): 553–560.
Albrechtsen, Dorte, Birgit Henriksen, and Claus Færch
1980 Native speaker reactions to learners’ spoken interlanguage. Langu-
age Learning 30 (2): 365–395.
Allen, Bryce, Jian Qin, and W. F. Lancaster
1994 Persuasive communities: A longitudinal analysis of references in the
philosophical transactions of the Royal Society, 1665–1990. Social
Studies of Science 24 (2): 279–310.
Alptekin, Cem
2007 Readers Respond. Teaching ELF as a language in its own right:
Communication or prescriptivism? ELT Journal 61 (3): 267–268.
Altbach, Philip
2004 Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an equal
world. Tertiary Education and Management 10 (3): 3–25.
Ammon, Ulrich
2001 English as a future language of teaching at German universities? A
question of difficult consequences, posed by the decline of German
as a language of science. In The Dominance of English as a Langu-
age of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Commu-
nities, Ulrich Ammon (ed.), 343–361. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Aston, Guy
1993 Notes on the interlanguage of comity. In Interlanguage Pragmatics,
Gabrielle Kasper, and Shoshana Blum-Kulka (eds.), 224–250. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Audacity http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/
Baker, Will
2009 The cultures of English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 43 (4):
567–592.
236 References

Bakhtin, Mikhail
1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Michael
Holquist (ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Banks, David A.
2006 Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and
Cases. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
BASE. British Academic Spoken English corpus.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/research/collect/base/
Berg, E. Catherine, Francis M. Hult, and Kendall A. King
2001 Shaping the climate for language shift? English in Sweden’s élite
domains. World Englishes 20 (3): 305–319.
Bex, Tony
2008 ‘Standard’ English, discourse grammars and English language te-
aching. In Standards and Norms in the English Language, Miriam A.
Locher, and Jürg Strässler (eds.), 221–239. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Biber, Douglas
2006 University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written
Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Fine
gan
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Long-
man.
Bizzell, Patricia
1982 Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about
writing. PRE/TEXT 3: 213–241.
Bjørge, Anne Kari
2010 Conflict or cooperation: The use of backchanneling in ELF negotiat-
ions. English for Specific Purposes, 29(3): 191–203.
Björkman, Beyza
2008 a ‘So where we are?’ Spoken lingua franca English at a technical uni-
versity in Sweden”. English Today 24 (2): 35–41.
2008b English as the lingua franca of engineering: The morphosyntax
ofacademic speech events. Nordic Journal of English Studies 7 (3):
103–122.
2009 From code to discourse in spoken ELF. In English as a Lingua
Franca: Studies and Findings, Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta
(eds.), 225–252. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
2011 Pragmatic strategies in English as an academic lingua franca: Ways
of achieving communicative effectiveness. Journal of Pragmatics 43
(4): 950–964.
2012a Questions in academic ELF interaction. Journal of English as a Lin-
gua Franca 1(1): 93–119.
2012b Review of Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World, Philippe
Van Parijs. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 26.
 References 237

Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Boersma, Paul, and David Weenink
2005 Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer. http://www.praat.org/
Bolinger, Dwight W.
1978 Intonation across languages. In Universals of Human Language,
Phonology 2, Joseph Harold Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson and
Edith A. Moravcik (eds.), 471–524. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
1989 Intonation and Its Uses. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
1998 Intonation in American English. In Intonation Systems: A Survey of
Twenty Languages, Daniel Hirst, and Albert Di Cristo (eds.), 45–55.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bolton, Kingsley
2005 Symposium on World Englishes (Part II). Where WE stands: Appro-
aches, issues, and debate in World Englishes. World Englishes 24
(1): 69–83.
Bolton, Kingsley, and Maria Kuteeva
2012 English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel
language use and the ‘threat’ of English. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 33 (5): 429–447.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1991 Linguistics and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Passeron, J.-C.
1994 Introduction: Language and the relationship to language in the teach-
ing situation. In Academic discourse, Pierre Bourdieu, J.-C. Pas-
seron, and Monique de Saint Martin, 1–34. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brazil, David
1995 A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breiteneder, Angelika
2005 The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: The case of
the ‘third person -s’. Vienna English Working Papers 14: 3–26.
Brenn-White, Megan, and Edwin van Rest
2012 English-Taught Master's Programs in Europe: New Findings on
Supply and Demand. Institute of International Education.
Brock-Utne, Birgit
2001 The growth of English for academic communication in the Nordic
Countries. International Review of Education 47 (3–4): 221–233.
Bruthiaux, Paul
2003 Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. Inter-
national Journal of Applied Linguistics 13 (2): 159–178.
Burt, Marina K.
1975 Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly
9 (1): 53–63.
238 References

Canagarajah, Suresh
2005 Changing communicative needs, shifting pedagogical priorities, revi-
sed assessment objectives. Paper presented at featured symposium on
The Assessment of World Englishes, 14th World Congress of Ap-
plied Linguistics, Madison, WI.
2006 Negotiating the local Language as a lingua franca. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics 26: 197–218.
Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy
1995 Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16 (2): 141–
158.
1997 Exploring Spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2006 Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Caudery, Tim, Margrethe Petersen and Philip Shaw
2008 The motivations of exchange students at Scandinavian universities.
In Students, Staff and Academic Mobility in Higher Education, Mike
Byram, and Fred Dervin (eds.), 114–130. Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Cenoz, Jasone
2006 Across the assessment gap: Challenges for practice and research. In
Bridging the Assessment Gap in English-Medium Higher Education
Robert Wilkinson, and Vera Zegers (eds.), 281–291. Nijmegen:
AKS-Verlag Bochum.
Charles, Maggie, Diane Pecorari and Susan Hunston
2009 Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. Lon-
don: Continuum.
Cogo, Alessia
2008 English as a Lingua Franca: Form Follows Function. English Today
24 (3): 58–61.
2009 Accommodating difference in ELF conversations. In English as a
Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, Anna Mauranen, and Elina
Ranta (eds.), 254–274. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
2010 Strategic use and perceptions of English as a lingua franca. Poznan
Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46 (3): 295–312.
Cogo, Alessia, and Martin Dewey
2006 Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lex-
ico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5
(2): 59–93.
2011 Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation.
London: Continuum.
Coleman, James A
2006 English-medium teaching in European higher education. Language
Teaching 39 (1): 1–14.
Corré, Alan
2005 A glossary of lingua franca. http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/
 References 239

Crystal, David
1995 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Gunther Kaltenboeck, and Ute Smit
1997 Learner Attitudes and L2 Pronunciation in Austria. World Englishes
16 (1): 115–128.
Darquennes, Jeroen, and Peter Nelde
2006 German as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26:
61–77.
Decke-Cornill, Helene
2003 ‘We would have to invent the language we are supposed to teach’:
The issue of English as a lingua franca in language education in
Germany. In Context and Culture in Language Teaching and Le-
arning, Mike Byram, and Peter Grundy (eds.), 59–71. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Delamare, Trish
1996 The importance of interlanguage errors with respect to stereotyping
by native speakers in their judgements of second language learners’
performance. System 24 (3): 279–297.
Demont-Heinrich, Christof
2005 Language and national identity in the era of globalization: The case
of English in Switzerland. Journal of Communication Inquiry 29 (1):
66–84.
Deterding, David, and Andy Kirkpatrick
2006 Intelligibility and an emerging ASEAN English lingua franca. World
Englishes 25 (3): 391–410.
Dewey, Martin
2007 English as a lingua franca and globalization: An interconnected per-
spective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (3): 332–
354.
Draper, Stephen W., and M. I. Brown
2004 Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20: 81–94.
Dörnyei, Zoltan
2001 Teaching and Research Motivation. London: Longman.
2007 Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Dürmüller, Urs
2001 The presence of English at Swiss universities. In The Dominance of
English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and
Language Communities, Ulrich Ammon (ed.), 363–389. Berlin: Wal-
ter de Gruyter.
ELFA A Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings.
http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus.htm.
240 References

Erard, Michael
2012 Advice for native speakers. The New York Times. Room for debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/29/
Erling, Elizabeth J.
2002 ‘I learn English since ten years’: The global English debate and the
German university classroom”. English Today 18 (2): 8–13.
2004 Globalization, English and the German university classroom: A so-
cio-linguistic profile of students of English at the Freie Universität
Berlin. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Edinburgh.
Erling, Elizabeth J., and Tom Bartlett
2006 Making English their own: The use of ELF among students of Eng-
lish at the FUB. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5 (2): 9–40.
European commission
2009 The Bologna Process: Towards the European Higher Education
Area.
http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1290_en.htm
Fahmy, Jane Jackson, and Linda Bilton
1990 Listening and Note-taking in Higher Education. Ericdb Document
No. ED366189. Washington DC: Education Resources Information
Center (ERIC)
Fayer, John M., and Emily Krasinski
Native and nonnative judgements of intelligibility and irritation.
Language Learning 37 (3): 313–326.
Ferguson, Gibson
2007 The global spread of English, scientific communication and ESP:
Questions of equity, access and domain Loss. Ibérica 13: 7–38.
Firbas, Jan
1976 A study in the functional perspective of the English and the Slavonic
interrogative sentence. Brno Studies in English 12: 9–56.
1992 Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communi-
cation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Firth, Alan
1990 ‘Lingua franca’ negotiations: Towards an interactional approach.
World Englishes 9 (3): 269–280.
1996 The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’
English and conversation analysis”. Journal of Pragmatics 26 (2):
237–259.
2009a Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua
franca in the workplace and (some) implications for SLA. Internat-
ional Review of Applied Linguistics 47: 127–156.
2009b The lingua franca factor. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 147–170.
Firth, Alan, and Johannes Wagner
1997 On discourse, communication and (some) fundamental concepts in
SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 81: 285– 300.
 References 241

Flowerdew, John
1994 Research of relevance to second language lecture comprehension:
An overview. In Academic Listening: Research Perspectives, John
Flowerdew (ed.), 9–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fowler, William C.
1859 English Grammar: The English Language in its Elements and Forms
with a History of its Origin and Development. New York: Harper
and Brothers.
Friedrich, Patricia
2000 English in Brazil: Function and attitudes. World Englishes 19 (2):
215–223.
Galloway, Vicki B.
1980 Perceptions of the communicative efforts of American students of
Spanish. Modern Language Journal 64 (4): 428–433.
Garfield, Eugene
1989 The English language: The lingua franca of international science.
The Scientist 3 (10): 344–345.
Gazzola, Michele
2012 The linguistic implications of academic performance indicators:
General trends and case study. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 216: 131–156.
Gerber, Ans, Johann Engelbrecht, Ansie Harding, and John Rogan
2005 The influence of second language teaching on undergraduate mat-
hematics performance. Mathematics Education Research Journal 17
(3): 3–21.
Giora, Rachel
1985 What’s a coherent text? In Text Connexity, Text Coherence: Aspects,
Methods, Results, Emel Sözer, E. (ed.), 16–35. Hamburg: Buske.
1988 On the informativeness requirement. Journal of Pragmatics 12 (5/6):
547–565. [Reprinted in Cognitive Aspects of Language Use, Asa
Kasher (ed.), 1989. 63–96. Amsterdam: North Holland. Reprinted in
Asa Kasher, A. (ed.) 1998. Pragmatics: Critical Concepts 5. 468–
486. London: Routledge].
Graddol, David
1997 The Future of English. London: British Council.
Gramkow Andresen, Karsten
1993 Lingua franca discourse: An investigation of the use of English in an
international business context. Unpublished M.A. thesis. Aalborg
University.
Grau, Maike
2005 English as a global language: What do future teachers have to say?
In The Globalization of English and the English Language
Classroom, Claus Gnutzmann, and Frauke Intemann (eds.), 261–274.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
242 References

Greenbaum, Sidney
1996 The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guilloteaux, Marie- Josè
2007 Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of
teachers’ motivational practices and students’ motivation. Un-
published PhD thesis. University of Nottingham.
Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise
2001 Swedish, English, French or German – the language situation at
Swedish universities. In The Dominance of English as a Language of
Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities,
Ulrich Ammon (ed.), 287–316. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise, and Katarina. Öhman
1997 Det internationaliserade universitetet. En studie av bruket av eng-
elska och andra främmande språk vid Uppsala Universitet [The In-
ternationalized University. A Study of the Use of English and Other
Foreign Languages at Uppsala University] Uppsala: Department of
Nordic Languages, Uppsala University.
Gustafsson, Bengt, Göran Hermerén, and Bo Petersson
2006 Good Research Practice — What Is It? Views, Guidelines and Ex-
amples. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet (Swedish Research Council).
Guy, Gregory Riordan
1981 Linguistic variation in Brazilian Portuguese: Aspects of the phono-
logy, syntax, and language history. Unpublished doctoral dissertat-
ion. University of Pennsylvania.
Haarman, Harald, and Eugene Holman
2001 The dominance of English as a language of science in Finland and its
role for the transition to network society. In The Dominance of Eng-
lish as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Lan-
guage Communities, Ulrich Ammon (ed.), 229–261. Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter.
Haberland, Hartmut
2011 Ownership and maintenance of a language in transnational use:
Should we leave our lingua franca alone? Journal of Pragmatics 43
(4): 937–949.
Haberland, Hartmut, and Janus Mortensen
2012 Language variety, language hierarchy and language choice in the
international university. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 216, 1–6.
Hakala, Henrik
2007 ‘Almost as annoying as the Yank; better accent, though’: Attitudes
and conceptions of Finnish students toward accents of English. Un-
published M.A. thesis. University of Helsinki.
Hellekjær, Glenn Ole
2009 Language matters: Assessing lecture comprehension in Norwegian
 References 243

English-medium higher education. In Language Use in Language-

and-Content Integrated Learning (CLIL), Ute Smit, Tarja Nikula,
and Christiane Dalton-Puffer (eds.), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hellekjær, Glenn Ole, and O. and Marit R. Westergaard
2003 An exploratory survey of content learning through English at Nordic
universities. In Multilingual Approaches in University Education,
Charles van Leeuwen and Robert Wilkinson (eds.), 65–80. Nijme-
gen: Valkhof Pers.
Hincks, Rebecca
2010 Speaking rate and information content in English lingua franca pre-
sentations. English for Specific Purposes 29 (1): 4–18.
Hirst, Daniel
1998 Intonation in British English. In Intonation Systems: A Survey of
Twenty Languages, Daniel Hirst, and Albert Di Cristo (eds.), 56–77.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hirst, Daniel, and Albert Di Cristo
1998 A Survey of Intonation Systems. In Intonation Systems: A Survey of
Twenty Languages, Daniel Hirst, and Albert Di Cristo (eds.), 1–44.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
House, Juliane
1996 Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Stu-
dies in Second Language Acquisition 18 (2): 225–252.
1999 Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in
English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In
Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language, Claus
Gnutzmann (ed.), 133–160. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
2002a Communicating in English as a lingua franca. In EUROSLA Year-
book 2, Susan, Foster-Cohen, Tanja Ruthenberg, and Marie L.
Poschen (eds.), 243–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2002b Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In
Lingua Franca Communication, Karlfried Knapp, and Christiane
Meierkord (eds.), 245–267. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
2003a English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7 (4): 556–578.
2003b Teaching and learning pragmatic fluency in a foreign language: The
case of English as a lingua franca. In Pragmatic Competence and
Foreign Language Teaching, Alicia Martínez Flor, Esther Usó Juan
and Ana Fernández Guerra (eds.), 133–159. Castellò de la Plana:
Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
2009 Introduction: The pragmatics of English as a lingua franca. Intercul-
tural Pragmatics 6 (2): 141–145.
Hülmbauer, Cornelia
2007 ‘You moved, aren’t? The relationship between lexico-grammatical
correctness and communicative effectiveness in English as a lingua
244 References

franca. Vienna English Working Papers 16 (2): 3–35.

2009 ‘We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you
will understand’– The shifting relationship of correctness and ef-
fectiveness in ELF communication. In English as a Lingua Franca:
Studies and Findings, Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta (eds.), 323–
347. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hüttner, Julia
2009 Fluent speakers –fluent interactions: On the creation of (co)-fluency
in English as a lingua franca. In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies
and Findings, Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta (eds.), 274–297.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hult, Francis
2003 English on the streets of Sweden: An ecolinguistic view of two cities
and a language policy. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics
19 (1): 43–63.
2007 Multilingual language policy and English language teaching in Swe-
den. University of Pennsylvania. Unpublished PhD thesis.
Hultfors, Per
1986 Reactions to Non-Native English: Native English-Speakers’ As-
sessments of Errors in the Use of English Made by Non-Native Users
of the Language. 2 vols. Stockholm Studies in English 67 & 71.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Hyltenstam, Kenneth
1999 Svenskan i minoritetsperspektiv [Swedish from a minorities point of
view]. In Sveriges sju inhemska språk — ett minoritetsperspektiv,
[Sweden’s seven local languages– a minorities point of view] Ken-
neth Hyltenstam (ed.), 205–240. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Hynninen, Niina
2011 The practice of ‘mediation’ in English as a lingua franca interaction.
Journal of Pragmatics 43 (4): 965–977
Inoue, Fumio
2001 English as a language of science in Japan: From corpus planning to
status planning. In The Dominance of English as a Language of Sci-
ence: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities, Ul-
rich Ammon (ed.), 446–471. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
James, Allan R.
2000 English as a European lingua franca: Current realities and existing
dichotomies. In English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Lan-
guage, Jasone Cenoz, and Ulrike Jessner (eds.), 22–38. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Jenkins, Jennifer
2000 The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Mo-
dels, New Norms, New Goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2002 A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation
 References 245

syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics

23 (1): 83–103.
2003 World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.
2006a Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a
lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly 40 (1): 157–181.
2006b Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics 16 (2): 137–162.
2007 English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
2009 English as a Lingua Franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World
Englishes 28 (2): 200–207.
2011 Accommodating (to) ELF in the International University. Journal of
Pragmatics. Special issue: The Pragmatics of English as a Lingua
Franca 43 (4): 926–936.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Alessia Cogo, and Martin Dewey
2011 Recent developments in research into English as a lingua franca.
Language Teaching 44 (3): 281–315.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Marco Modiano and Barbara Seidlhofer
2002 Euro-English”. English Today 17 (4): 13–19.
Johansson, Stig
1975 A Methodological Study of the Communicative Effect of Learners’
Errors. In Papers in Contrastive Linguistics and Language Testing,
Stig Johansson (ed.), Lund: Gleerup.
1978 Studies in Error Gravity: Native Reactions to Errors Produced by
Swedish Learners of English. Gothenburg Studies in English 44.
Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Johnson, Richard
1969 (1706) Grammatical Commentaries. Menston: Scolar Press.
Josephson, Olle
2004 Engelskan i 2000-talets Sverige [English in Sweden in the twenty-
first century]. In Engelskan i sverige. Språkval i utbildning, arbete
och kulturliv [English in Sweden: Language choice in education, at
workplace and culture]. Svenska språknämnden, 7–24.
Kachru, Braj
1982 Models for non-native Englishes. In The Other Tongue, Braj Kachru
(ed.), 31–57. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
1985 Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English lan-
guage in the outer circle. In English in the World: Teaching and Le-
arning the Language and Literatures, Randolph Quirk, and Henry G.
Widdowson (eds.), 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, Robert B.
2001 English — the accidental language of science? In The Dominance of
English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and
Language Communities, Ulrich Ammon (ed.), 3–27. Berlin: Walter De
Gruyter.
246 References

Karlgren, Jussi, and Preben Hansen

2003 Cross-language relevance assessment and task context. Paper presen-
ted at the Advances in Cross-Language Information Retrieval. Third
Workshop of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum, CLEF, Rome,
Italy.
Kaur, Jagdish
2009 Pre-empting problems of understanding in English as a lingua franca.
In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, Anna Mau-
ranen, and Elina Ranta (eds.), 107–124. Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
2011 'Doing being a language expert': The case of the ELF speaker. In
Latest Trends in ELF Research, Alasdair Archibald, Alessia Cogo,
and Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 5375.
Kawai, Yuko
2007 Japanese nationalism and the global spread of English: An analysis
of Japanese governmental and public discourses on English. Langu-
age and Intercultural Communication 7 (1): 37–55.
Kift, Sally
2006 Using an Audience Response System to Enhance Student Engage-
ment in Large Group Orientation: A Law Faculty Case Study. In
David A. Banks (ed.), Audience Response Systems in Higher Educat-
ion: Applications and Cases, 80–96. Hershey, PA: Information Sci-
ence Publishing.
Kiparsky, Paul
1972 Explanation in Phonology. In Goals of Linguistic Theory, Stanley
Peters (ed.), 189–227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kirkpatrick, Andy
2008 English as the official language of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN): Features and strategies. English Today 24
(2): 27–34.
2010 Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: The Asian Corpus of
English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes 31 (1): 4–18.
2012 English as an Asian Lingua Franca: The ‘Lingua Franca Approach’
and implications for language education policy. Journal of English
as a Lingua Franca 1 (1): 121–139.
Kivistö, Anne
2005 Accents of English as a lingua franca: A study of Finnish textbooks.
Unpublished MA thesis. University of Tampere.
Klaassen, Renate
2001 The international university curriculum: Challenges in English-
medium engineering education. Unpublished PhD thesis. Delft Uni-
versity of Technology.
Klimpfinger, Theresa
2009 ’She’s mixing the two languages together’– forms and functions of
 References 247

code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In English as a Lingua

Franca: Studies and Findings, Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta
(eds.), 348–371. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Knapp, Annelie
2011 Using English as a lingua franca for (mis-)managing conflict in an
international university context: An example from a course in engi-
neering. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (4): 978–990.
Kruseman, Nieuwenhuijzen Arie
2003 Conceiving a bilingual university: Challenges and issues. In Mul-
tilingual Approaches in University Education: Challenges and
Practices, Charles van Leeuwen, and Robert Wilkinson (eds.), 7–11.
Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers.
Kryuchkova, Tatjana B.
2001 Russian as intermediary language in Europe. In Sociolinguistica.
Verkehrssprachen in Europa – außer English. Lingua Francas in
Europe – except English. Langues véhiculaires en Europe – sans
l’anglais, Ulrich Ammon, U., Klaus J. Mattheier and Peter H. Nelde
(eds.), 96–119. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Kuo, I-Chun (Vicky)
2006 Addressing the issue of teaching English as a lingua franca. ELT
Journal 60 (3): 213–221.
Labov, William
1966 The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington
DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Labrie, Normand, and Carsten Quell
1997 Your language, my language or English? The potential language
choice in communication among nationals of the European Union.
World Englishes 16 (1): 3–26.
Lappalainen, Sari
2001 English as lingua franca. Towards fluent communication. Un-
published MA thesis. University of Turku.
Leech, Geoffrey
2000 Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented re-
search. Language Learning 50 (4): 75–724.
Lesznyák, Ágnes
2002 From chaos to the smallest common denominator. Topic manage-
ment in English lingua franca communication. In Lingua Franca
Communication, Karlfried Knapp, and Chistiane Meierkord (eds.),
163–193. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Levis, John M.
1999 The intonation and meaning of normal yes/no questions. World Eng-
lishes 18 (3): 373–380.
Lichtkoppler, Julia
2007 ‘Male. Male.‘ – ’Male?‘ – ’The Sex is Male.‘ The Role of Repetition
248 References

in English as a Lingua Franca Conversations”. Vienna English Wor-

king Papers 16 (1): 39–65.
Lindberg, Bo
1984 De lärdes modersmål. Latin, humanism och vetenskap i 1700- talets
Sverige [The language of the educated: Latin, humanism and science
in the eighteenth century Sweden]. Gothenburg Studies in the His-
tory of Science and Ideas 5. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Lindsey, Geoffrey A.
1985 Intonation and interrogation: Tonal structure and the expression of a
pragmatic function in English and other languages. Unpublished PhD
thesis. University of California.
Littlewood, William T.
1981 Language variation and second language acquisition theory. Applied
Linguistics 11 (2): 150–158.
Ljosland, Ragnhild
2007 English in Norwegian academia: A step towards diglossia? World
Englishes 26 (4): 395–410.
2008 Lingua franca, prestisjespråk og forestilt fellesskap: om Engelsk som
akademisk språk i Norge. Et kasusstudium i bred kontekst. [Lingua
Franca, Prestige and Imagined Communities: On English as an Aca-
demic Language in Norway. A Case Study in its Broader Context].
Unpublished PhD thesis. NTNU (Norwegian University of Science
and Technology).
2011 English as an academic lingua franca: Language policies and mul-
tilingual practices in a Norwegian university. Journal of Pragmatics
43 (4): 991–1004.
Llurda, Enric
2004 Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an international langu-
age. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14 (3): 314–323.
2009 Attitudes towards English as an international language: The pervasi-
veness of native models among L2 users and teachers. In English as
an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues,
Farzad Sharifian (ed.), 119–135. Multilingual matters. Bristol: UK.
Ludwig, Jeanette
1982 Native-speaker judgments of second-language learners’ efforts at
communication: A review. The Modern Language Journal 66 (3):
274–283.
Matsuda, Aya
2003 The ownership of English in Japanese secondary schools. World
Englishes 22 (4): 483–496.
Mauranen, Anna
2003 The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL
Quarterly 37 (3): 513–527.
 References 249

2005 English as a lingua franca: An unknown language? In Identity,

Community, Discourse: English in Intercultural Settings, Giuseppina
Cortese, and Anna Duszak (eds.), 269–292. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
2006a A rich domain of ELF – the ELFA corpus of academic discourse.
Nordic Journal of English Studies 5 (2): 145–159.
2006b Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua
franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 177: 123– 150.
2006c Spoken discourse, academics and global English: A corpus perspec-
tive. In Spoken English, TESOL and applied linguistics: Challenges
for theory and practice, Rebecca Hughes (ed.), 143–158. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
2007 Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In Langu-
age and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, Kjersti
Flottum (ed.), 243– 259. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
2009 Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction. Journal of
Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 217–233.
2012 Exploring ELF. Academic English shaped by non-native spekers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maybaum, Rebecca, and John M. Swales
2006 Pre-and post-dislocations in MICASE”. MICASE Kibbitzer 11.
http://lw.lsa.umich.edu/eli/micase/Kibbitzer/Dislocation.htm
McKay, Sandre Lee
2002 Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals
and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Medgyes, Péter, and Mónika László
2001 The foreign language competence of Hungarian scholars: Ten years
later. In The Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Ef-
fects on Other Languages and Language Communities, Ulrich Am-
mon (ed.), 261–286. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Meierkord, Christiane
1996 Englisch als Medium der interkulturellen Kommunikation. Unter-
suchungen zum non-native-/non-native speaker-Diskurs. Frankfurt:
Peter Lang.
2000 Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of non-
native-/non-native small talk conversations in English. In Neuere En-
twicklungen in Der Gesprächsforschung. Sonderausgabe Von Lingu-
istic Online 5 (1). Karin Pittner, and Annika Fetzer (eds.)
2002 ‘Language stripped bare’ or ‘Linguistic masala’? Culture in lingua
franca conversation”. In Lingua Franca Communication, Karfried
Knapp, and Christiane Meierkord (eds.), 109–133. Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.
2004 Syntactic variation in interactions across International Englishes.
English World-Wide 25 (1): 109–132.
250 References

2005 Black South African Englishes – towards a variationist account.

Erfurt Electronic Studies in English, (EESE).
http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/edoc/ia/eese/artic25/meierk/12005.html
2006 Lingua franca communication past and present. International Jour-
nal of the Sociology of Language 177: 9–30.
Melchers, Gunnel, and Philip Shaw
2003 World Englishes. London: Arnold.
Menon, Anil S., Shannon Moffett, Melissa Enriquez, Miriam M. Martinez, Dev
Parvati, and Todd Grappone
2004 Audience Response Made Easy: Using Personal Digital Assistants as
a Classroom Polling Tool. Journal of the American Medical Infor-
matics Association 11 (3): 217–220.
Mesthrie, Rajend, and M. Rakesh Bhatt
2008 World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mesthrie, Rajend, Joan Swann, Ana Deumert, and William L. Leap
2001 Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Metsä-Ketelä, Maria
2006 ’Words are more or less superfluous’: The case of more or less in
academic lingua franca English”. Nordic Journal of English Studies
5 (2): 117–143.
Mitchell, Linda C.
2006 Grammar wars: Seventeenth and eighteenth century England. In The
Handbook of World Englishes, Kachru, Braj B., Yamuna Kachru and
Cecil L. Nelson (eds.), 475–496. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mollin, Sandra
2006 Euro-English: Assessing Variety Status. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Morell, Tessa
2004 Interactive lecture discourse for university EFL Students. Eng-
lish for Specific Purposes 23 (3): 325–338.
Mufwene, Salikoko
2006 Language endangerment: An embarressment for linguistics. In Pro-
ceedings from the parasessions of the forty-second meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society 42 (2), Jacquilne Bunting, Sapna Desai,
Robert Peachey, Christopher Straughn, Zuzana Tomkovà 42 (2):
111–140.
Mulligan, Denise, and Andy Kirkpatrick
2000 How much do they understand? Lectures, students and comprehens-
ion. Higher Education Research and Development 19 (3): 311–335.
Munro, Murray J., and Tracey M. Derwing
1999 Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech
of second language learners. Language Learning 49 (1): 285–310.
 References 251

Murray, Heather, and Silvia Dingwall

2001 The Dominance of English at European Univer- sities: Switzerland
and Sweden Compared. In The Dominance of English as a Language
of Science: Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities,
Ulrich Ammon (ed.), 85–112. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Murphy, Dermot F., and Christopher Candlin
1979 Engineering listening discourse and listening comprehension.
Practical Papers in Language Education 2: 1–79.
Mühleisen, Susanne
2003 Towards global diglossia? In The Politics of English as a World
Language: New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies, Christian
Mair (ed.), 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Nastansky, Heinz-L.
2004 National strategy in the internationalisation of higher education: The
German perspective. In Integrating Content and Language: Meeting
the Challenge of a Multilingual Higher Education, Robert Wilkinson
(ed.), 49–54. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers.
Neville-Barton, Pip Neville, and Bill Barton
2005 The Relationship between English Language and Mathematics Le-
arning for Non-native Speakers. Wellington, New Zealand: Teaching
and Learning Research Initiative.
http://www.tlri.org.nz/pdfs/13909.pdf
Nixon, Graham
1972. Measuring corpus adequacy. Archivum Linguisticum nsIII.101– 104.
Noorman, Ilona
2008 ENL, ESL, EFL, EIL or ELF: On the Idea of Teaching the Lingua
Franca Core at Dutch Secondary Schools. Unpublished MA thesis.
Utrecht University.
O’Grady, Gerard
2010 A Grammar of Spoken English Discourse: The Intonation of Incre-
ments. Continuum Studies in Theoretical Linguistics.
Olsson, Margareta
1977 Intelligibility. An evaluation of some features of English produced
by Swedish 14-year-olds. Gothenburg Studies in English 40.
Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Osgood , Charles E., George J. Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum
1957 The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Osimk, Ruth
2009 Decoding sounds: An experimental approach to intelligibility in
ELF. Vienna English Working Papers 18, 64–89.
Park, Joseph Sung-Yul. and Lionel Wee
2009 The Three Circles Redux: A Market-theoretic Perspective on World
Englishes. Applied Linguistics 30 (3): 389–406.
252 References

Parkvall, Mikael
2005 Foreword. In A glossary of lingua franca, Alan Corré (ed.),
http://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/item/3920/edition3/foreword.ht
ml
Penz, Hermine
2008 “What do we mean by that?” – ELF in Intercultural Project Work.
Paper presented at the ESSE conference. University of Aarhus,
Denmark, August 22–26.
Petersen, Margrethe, and Philip Shaw
2002 Language and disciplinary differences in a biliterate context. World
Englishes 21 (3): 357–374.
Pérez Aguilar M., and Macia Arnó E.
2002 Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension: Does it really help foreign
language learners? Atlantis 24 (1): 3–21.
Phillipson, Robert
1998 Globalizing English: Are linguistic human rights an alternative to
linguistic imperialism? Language Sciences 20 (1): 111–112.
1999 Voice in global English: Unheard chords in Crystal, loud and clear.
Applied Linguistics 20 (2): 265–276.
2006a English, a cuckoo in the European higher education nest of langu-
ages? European Journal of English Studies 10 (1): 13–32.
2006b Figuring out the Englishisation of Europe. In Reconfiguring Europe:
The Contribution of Applied Linguistics, Constant Leung, and Jenni-
fer Jenkins (eds.): 65–86. London: Equinox.
2008 Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integra-
tion and globalization. World Englishes 27 (2): 250–284.
Pickering, Lucy
2006 Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. An-
nual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 219–233.
2009 Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction. Intercultural
Pragmatics 6 (2): 235–255.
Pickering, Lucy, and Jason Litzenberg
2011 Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction, revisited. In
Latest Trends in ELF research, Alasdair Archibald, Alessia Cogo,
and Jennifer Jenkins (eds.), Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Press.
Pitzl, Marie- Luise
2005 Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a
business context. Vienna English Working Papers 14 (2): 50–71.
2009 ’We should not wake up any dogs’: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In
English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, Anna Mauranen,
and Elina Ranta (eds.), 298–322. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
 References 253

Planken, Brigitte
2005 Managing rapport in lingua franca sales negotiations: A comparison
of professional and aspiring negotiators. English for Specific Purpo-
ses 24 (4): 381–400.
Preisler, Bent
2011 Introduction. In Language and Learning in the International Univer-
sity: From English Uniformity to Diversity and Hybridity, Bent
Preisler, Ida Klitgård, and Anne Fabricius (eds.), viii–3. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Prodromou, Luke
1996 Correspondence from Luke Prodromou. ELT Journal 50 (4): 371–
373.
2003 Idiomaticity and the Native Speaker. English Today 19: 42–48.
2007a Bumping into creative idiomaticity. English Today 23 (1): 14–25.
2007b Is ELF a variety of English? English Today 23 (2): 47–53.
2008 English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-based Approach. London:
Continuum.
Pullin-Stark, Patricia
2009 No joke–This is serious! Power, solidarity and humour in business
English as a lingua franca (BELF). In English as a Lingua Franca:
Studies and Findings, Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta (eds.), 152–
177. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Pölzl, Ulrike, and Barbara Seidlhofer
2006 In and on their own terms: The ‘habitat factor’ in English as a lingua
franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Langu-
age 177: 151–176.
Quirk, Radolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London:
Longman.
Rajadurai, Joanne
2003 Revisiting the concentric circles: Conceptual and sociolinguistic
considerations. Asian EFL Journal 7 (4): 111–130.
2007 Intelligibility studies: A consideration of empirical and ideological
issues. World Englishes 26 (1): 87–98.
Ranta, Elina
2006 The ‘attractive’ progressive — Why use the -ing form in English as a
lingua franca? Nordic Journal of English Studies 5 (2): 95–116.
2009 Syntactic features in spoken ELF — Learner language or spoken
grammar? In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings,
Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta (eds.), 84–107. Newcastle: Cam-
bridge Scholars Publishing.
Reichardt, Charles S., and Thomas D. Cook
1979 Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research Cook, Thomas D.
254 References

Cook, and Charles S. Reichardt (eds.), 7–32. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.
Risager, Karin
2012 Language hierarchies at the international university. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 216: 111–130.
Rodrik, Dani
1997 Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington D.C.: Institute for
International Economics.
1999 The New Global Economy and the Developing Countries: Making
Openness Work. Washington D.C.: Overseas Development Council.
Rounds, Patricia
1987 Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching
assistant training. TESOL Quarterly 21 (4): 643–671
Salminen, Louhiela Leena, Mirjaliisa Charles, and Anna Kankaanranta
2005 English as a lingua franca in Nordic corporate mergers: Two case
companies. English for Specific Purposes 24 (4): 401–421.
Salö, Linus
2010 Engelska eller svenska? En kartläggning av språksituationen inom
högre utbildning och forskning [English or Swedish? A survey of the
language situation in higher education and research]. Stockholm:
Språkrådet.
Samovar, Larry A., and Jack Mills
1995 Oral Communication: Speaking across Cultures. Boston, MA:
McGraw Hill.
Sayer, Andrew
1992 Method in Social Science. London: Routledge.
Seidlhofer, Barbara
1999 Double standards. Teacher education in the expanding circle. World
Englishes 18 (2): 233–245
2001 Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a
lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11 (2):
133–158.
2002 The shape of things to come? Some basic questions about English as
a lingua franca. In Lingua Franca Communication, Karlfried Knapp,
and Christiane Meierkord (eds.), 269–302. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
2003 A Concept of International English and Related Issues: From ‘Real
English’ to ‘Realistic English’. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
http://www.esev.ipv.pt/servicos/upload%5Cma%5C292%5CSeidlhof
erEN.pdf
2004 Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 24 (1): 209–239.
2005 English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59 (4): 339–341.
2006 English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn’t. In
English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles, Rani Rubdy, and
 References 255

Mario Saraceni (eds.), 40–50. London: Continuum.

2009a Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and Eng-
lish as a lingua franca. World Englishes 28 (2): 236–245.
2009b Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua
Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2): 195–215.
2011 Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara, Angelika Breiteneder, and Marie-Luise Pitzl
2006 English as a lingua franca in Europe: Challenges for applied lingu-
istics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 3–34.
Seidlhofer, Barbara, and Jennifer Jenkins
2003 English as a lingua franca and the politics of property. In Christian
Mair (ed.), The politics of English as a world language: New hori-
zons in postcolonial cultural studies. NY Rodopi. 139–157.
Selinker, Larry
1972 Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Langu-
age Teaching 10 (3): 209–231.
1992 Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman.
Shaw, Philip
2005 The languages of international publication in economics in 1900. In
Text I Arbete/Text at Work, Ulla Melander-Marttala, Hary Näslund,
Ingegerd Bäcklund, and Ulla Brestam (eds.), 340–348. Institutionen
för Nordiska Språk, Uppsala.
2008 Engelska som lingua franca och som internationellt vetenskapsspråk
[English as a lingua franca and English as the language of internat-
ional science]. In Jansson, E. (ed.), Vetenskapsengelska – med svensk
kvalitet? [Scientific English–with Swedish quality?], 21–34. Stock-
holm: Språkrådet.
Shaw, Philip, Tim Caudery, and Margrethe Petersen
2009 Students on exchange in Scandinavia: Motivation, interaction, ELF
development. In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings,
Anna Mauranen, and Elina Ranta (eds.), 178–200. Newcastle: Cam-
bridge Scholars Publishing.
Shim, Rosa Jinyoung
2002 Changing attitudes towards teaching English as a world language in
Korea. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 12 (1): 143–158.
Sifakis, Nicos
2007 The education of reachers of English as a lingua franca: A transfor-
mative perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17
(3): 355–375.
2009 Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: The Greek context.
ELT Journal 63 (3): 230–237.
Sifakis, Nicos C., and Areti-Maria Sugari
2005 Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of
256 References

Greek state school teachers’ beliefs”. TESOL Quarterly 39 (3): 467–

488.
Simonsen, Dag F.
2005 Over the Fence — and into English? Reflections on adolescents,
academics, linguistic development and language policy in Norway in
the early 2000s. In The Consequences of Mobility, Ben Preisler,
Anne Fabricius, Hartmut Haberland, Susanne Kjaerbeck, and Karin
Risager (eds.), 249–271. Roskilde: Roskilde University, Department.
of Language and Culture.
Simpson, Rita C., Sarah L. Briggs, Janine Ovens, and John M. Swales
2002 The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI:
The Regents of the University of Michigan.
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and Robert Phillipson
2000 The world came to Sweden — but did language rights? Current Is-
sues in Language and Society 7 (1): 70–86.
Smit, Ute
2009 Emic evaluations and interactive processes in a classroom commu-
nity. In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, Anna
Mauranen, and Elina Ranta (eds.), 200–225. Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
2010 English as a lingua franca in higher education. A longitudinal study
of classroom discourse. Mouton de Gruyter Series: Trends in Ap-
plied Linguistics.
Smith, Larry E.
1982 Readings in English as an International Language. Pergamon: Lon-
don.
Smith, Larry E., and John A. Bisazza
1982 The comprehensibility of three varieties of English for college stu-
dents in seven countries. Language Learning 32 (2): 259–269.
Smith, Larry. E., and Cecil L. Nelson
1985a International intelligibility of English: Directions and resources.
World Englishes 4 (3): 333–342.
1985b World Englishes and issues of intelligibility. In The Handbook of
World Englishes, Braj B. Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson (eds.), 428–
446. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smitterberg, Erik
2005 The Progressive in 19th-Century English. A Process of Integration.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
2007 Spot the Error: A Problem-based Workbook on English Grammar
and Usage. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Sobkowiak, Wlodzimierz
2005 Why not LFC?” In English Pronunciation Models: A Changing
Scene, Katarzyna Dziubalska-Ko!acyzyk, and Joanna Przedlacka
(eds.), 131-151. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
 References 257

Spada, Nina, and Maria Fröhlich

1995 COLT Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching Observat-
ion Scheme: Coding Conventions and Applications. Sydney:
Macquarie University, National Centre for English Language Te-
aching and Research (NCELTR).
Spolsky, Bernard
2004 Language Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2009 Language Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Stiglitz, Joseph E.
2002 Globalization and Its Discontent. New York, NY: Norton Publisher.
Suvuniitty, Jaana
2010 Lecturers’ questions and student perception of lecture comprehens-
ion“ Helsinki English Studies 6.
Swales, John M.
1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
1997 English as tyrannosaurus rex. World Englishes 16 (3): 373–382.
2002 Integrated and fragmented worlds: EAP materials and corpus linguis-
tics. In Academic Discourse, John Flowerdew (ed.), 150–164. Lon-
don: Longman.
Swan, Michael
1980 Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swedish Agency for Networks and Cooperation in Higher Education.
http://www.nshu.se/english.html
Swedish Deparment of Education. God sed i forskningen. 1999.
(SOU 1999:4) Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/108/a/23647
Swedish National Agency for Higher Education www.hsv.se
Szpyra-Kozlowska, Jolanta
2003 The lingua franca core and the Polish learner. Neofilologia V: 193–
210.
Söderlundh, Hedda
2004 Lika bra på engelska? En undersökning av hur studenter i Sverige
förstår kurslitteratur på svenska respektive engelska [As good in
English? An investigation of students’ comprehension of coursebook
literature in Swedish vs English]. Språk & Stil 14: 137–165.
2005 Svenska är lättare att fatta [Swedish is easier to understand]. Språk-
vård 2: 29–33.
2010 Internationella universitet – lokala språkval. Om bruket av talad
svenska i engelskspråkiga kursmiljöer. [International universities –
local language choices. On spoken Swedish in English-medium
course environments.] Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska
språk vid Uppsala universitet 83. Uppsala.
258 References

2012 Global policies and local norms: Sociolinguistic awareness and lan-
guage choice at an international university. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 216: 87–109.
Tella, Seppo, Anne Räsänen, and Anne Vähäpassi (eds.)
1999 Teaching Through Foreign Language: From Tool to Empowering
Mediator. Helsinki: Publications of Higher Education Evaluation
Council 5.
Timmis, Ivor
2002 Native speaker norms and international English. ELT Journal 56 (3):
240–249.
Tislevoll, Jan R.
2001 Norsk språkpolitikk og domenetap for norsk språk. Rapport til Nor-
disk ministerråd. Oslo.
Truchot, Claude
2001 The Languages of Science in France: Public Debate and Language
Policies. In The Dominance of English as a Language of Science: Ef-
fects on Other Languages and Language Communities, Ulrich Am-
mon (ed.), 319–328. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
2002 Key Aspects of the Use of English in Europe”. Language Policy
Divi- sion, Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Online at
http://www.Coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Cooperation/education/Languages/
Language_Policy/Policy_development_activities/Studies/List.Asp.).
Uhari, Matti, Marjo Renko, and Hannu Soini
2003 Experiences of using an interactive Audience Response System in
lectures. BMC Medical Education 3 (12): 1–6.
Ultan, Russell
1978 Some general characteristics of interrogative systems. In Universals
of Human Language, 4, Syntax, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 211–249.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
van Heuven, Vincent J., and Judith Haan
2000 Phonetic correlates of statement versus question intonation in Dutch.
In Intonation: Analysis, Modelling and Technology, Antonis Botinis
(ed.), 119–144. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
van Heuven, Vincent J., and Klaske van Leyden
2003 A contrastive acoustical investigation of Orkney and Shetland into-
nation. In Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Phonet-
ic Sciences, Sole, Maria-Josep Sole, Daniel Recasens, and Ronaldo
J. Romero (eds.), 805–808. Barcelona.
van Heuven, Vincent J., and Ellen van Zanten
2005 Speech rate as a secondary prosodic characteristic of polarity ques-
tions in three languages. Speech Communication 47: 87–99.
van Leeuwen, Charles, and Robert Wilkinson
2003 Introduction to ‘Multilingual approaches in university education:
Challenges and practices’. In Multilingual Approaches in University
 References 259

Education: Challenges and Practices, Charles van Leeuwen, and

Robert Wilkinson (eds.), 11–17. Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers.
van Leeuwen, Charles
2003 Feasibility of policy in university language teaching today. In Mul-
tilingual Approaches in University Education: Challenges and
Practices, Charles van Leeuwen, and Robert Wilkinson (eds.), 19–
45. Nijmegen: Valkhof Pers.
Van Parijs, Philippe
2011 Linguistic justice for Europé and for the World. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Vinke, A. A. Diana
1995 English as the medium of instruction in Dutch engineering educat-
ion. Unpublished PhD thesis. Delft University of Technology.
VOICE. Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English. www.univie.ac.at/voice.
Walker, Robin
2001a Pronunciation priorities, the lingua franca core, and monolingual
groups. Speak Out! Newsletter of the IATEFL Pronunciation Special
Interest Group 28: 4–9.
2001b Pronunciation for International Intelligibility”. English Teaching
Professional 21.10–13.
2005 Using student-produced recordings with monolingual groups to pro-
vide effective, individualized pronunciation practice. TESOL Quar-
terly 39: 550–557.
2010 Teaching the Pronunciation of English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Watterson, Matthew
2008 Repair of non-understanding in English in international communicat-
ion. World Englishes 27 (3/4): 378–406.
Wee, Lionel
2002 When English is Not a Mother Tongue: Linguistic Ownership and
the Eurasian Community in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development 23 (4): 282–295.
Widdowson, Henry G.
1994 The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28 (2): 377–389.
1997 EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes
16 (1): 135–146.
2003 Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Willemyns, Roland
2001 English in linguistic research in Belgium. In The Dominance of
English as a Language of Science: Effects on Other Languages and
Language Communities, Ulrich Ammon (ed.), 329–342. Berlin: Wal-
ter de Gruyter.
260 References

Williams, Jessica
1990 Another look at Yes/No questions: Native speakers and non-native
speakers. Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 159–182.
Wilson, David
2002 The Englishisation of academe: A Finnish perspective. Jyväskylä:
University of Jyväskylä Language Centre.
Wong, Jean, and David Olsher
2000 Reflections on conversation analysis and nonnative speaker talk: An
interview with Emanuel A. Schegloff. Issues in Applied Linguistics
11 (1): 111–128.
WrELFA Written Academic ELF corpus project.
http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/wrelfa.html
Wright, Sue
2006 French as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26:
35–60.
Wu, William Y., Dennis W. K. Chan and Björn H. Jernudd
2001 English in science communication in Hong Kong: Educational rese-
arch output. In The Dominance of English as a Language of Science:
Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities, Ulrich
Ammon (ed.), 193–205. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Wächter, Bern, and Friedhelm Maiworm
2008 English-taught Programmes in European Higher Education. Bonn:
Lemmens.
Young, Richard F.
1991 Variation in Interlanguage Morphology. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Zacharias, Nugrahenny T.
2005 Teachers’ beliefs about internationally-published materials: A survey
of tertiary English teachers in Indonesia. RELC Journal 36 (1): 23–
37.
Index
admission, 29, 147, 162, 187, 188
analytic comparative, 92, 94, 95,
140, 141, 148, 149, 159
article usage
articles, 82, 84, 94, 95, 149
Asian Corpus of English (ACE), 49,
246
assertion, 151
attitudes, 15, 37, 45, 46, 51, 56, 57,
64, 79, 138, 139, 147, 158, 159,
166, 177, 179, 197, 198, 199, 235,
241, 245, 255
Bologna Declaration, 14, 19
CANCODE, 1, 174, 175
CLIL, 1, 15, 243
Common European Framework, 162
commonalities, 32, 33, 49, 50, 51,
62, 92, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143,
145, 149, 164, 168, 169, 170
comparative and superlatives, 140,
141, 149, 159
contact languages, 28, 163
countability, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 140,
150
creoles, 28, 50, 147, 148, 149, 150,
168, 172
description, 4, 13, 30, 42, 43, 53, 55,
59, 63, 65, 79, 160, 174, 189, 191,
197, 198, 254
diglossia, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24,
248, 251
disfluency, 123, 131, 195
disturbance, 63, 73, 77, 78, 98, 101,
110, 111, 118, 119, 144, 153, 155,
156, 159, 177, 192, 193, 195, 199,
203
domain
domains, 2, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 59,
209, 228, 229, 230, 240, 249
domain loss, 24
effectiveness, viii, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34,
35, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 53, 65, 98,
123, 143, 155, 156, 158, 162, 163,
173, 177, 178, 179, 183, 184, 185,
188, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 200,
204, 207, 236, 243, 244
ELFA, 1, 38, 39, 43, 48, 49, 51, 72,
73, 132, 175, 210, 239, 249
engineering, ix, 6, 17, 26, 37, 51, 61,
70, 80, 82, 88, 169, 183, 197, 209,
236, 246, 247, 259
ERASMUS, 1, 50
ethics
ethical, 71
exchange, 14, 37, 61, 69, 78, 128,
136, 164, 172, 186, 187, 238, 255
explicitness, 39, 50, 53, 105, 123,
132, 143, 145, 149, 150, 159, 168,
173, 183, 187, 192, 194
extensive analyses, 66, 77, 93, 197,
198
extra-linguistic elements, 111, 114
fluency, 35, 36, 157, 178, 204, 243,
244
functional sentence perspective, 150,
152
General American (GA), 45
globalization, 4, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17,
23, 31, 59, 197, 239, 252
good English
correct English, 160, 176, 177,
178, 200
higher education, viii, 2, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29,
50, 59, 186, 193, 197, 198, 204,
205, 206, 207, 210, 238, 243, 251,
252, 254, 256
identity, 21, 22, 36, 57, 167, 207,
239
idiomaticity, 46, 47, 176, 191, 253
IELTS, 1, 186, 187
262 Index
indirectness, 91
intelligibility, 43, 45, 64, 170, 191,
194, 240, 243, 250, 251, 252, 256
intensive analyses, 66, 67, 73, 76,
93, 94, 197
interactivity, 72, 180, 181, 239
interlanguage, 54, 235, 239
interrogative adverb, 89, 90, 101,
110, 111, 152, 153
interrogative pronoun, 104
interrogativity, 100, 101, 111, 155
intonation, 40, 88, 101, 102, 103,
104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111,
115, 116, 117, 151, 153, 154, 155,
159, 188, 247, 258
irritation, 32, 54, 55, 59, 63, 64, 79,
80, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 158,
159, 193, 198, 240
language policy, 10, 12, 27, 29, 43,
62, 197, 201, 205, 207, 208, 209,
244, 256
Latin, 7, 8, 25, 31, 248
learner language, 54, 55, 56, 77, 88,
147, 148, 149, 150, 160, 163, 164,
165, 168, 191, 199
learners, 15, 41, 46, 57, 153, 154,
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 170,
172, 173, 175, 176, 189, 190, 191,
192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 235,
239, 242, 248, 250, 252
lecturing, 8, 179, 184, 185, 200
levels of proficiency, 32, 33, 162,
168, 177, 186
local languages, 11, 18, 21, 197,
206, 208, 244
metadiscourse, 39
MICASE, 1, 39, 48, 51, 63, 72, 132,
133, 174, 175, 249
misunderstanding, 34, 38, 77, 155,
156, 181, 249
morphology, 74, 92, 93
native speakers, 3, 4, 5, 21, 28, 31,
32, 33, 35, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48,
54, 56, 57, 74, 80, 111, 122, 132,
158, 161, 166, 167, 173, 175, 177,
178, 188, 189, 193, 196, 197, 198,
199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 211,
239, 240, 260
negation, 91, 92, 140, 142, 148, 149,
159
non-understanding, 38, 136, 259
normative elements, 32, 33, 43, 59,
198
not marking the plural on the noun
plural marking, 82, 149
noun phrase
NP, 82, 84, 85, 86, 93
objectivity, 78
observation scheme, 71
overt disturbance, 62, 63, 77, 78, 98,
110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 119, 122,
143, 144, 146, 151, 153, 159, 168,
193, 198, 199, 203
passive voice, 88, 140, 146, 150, 159
pedagogical, 44, 189, 238, 248
perceived communicativeness, 79,
80, 138, 140, 145, 147, 158, 166,
198, 199
pidgins, 28, 50
pitch, 40, 45, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 112,
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118
pragmatic strategies, 42, 53, 60, 62,
78, 79, 98, 123, 124, 125, 137,
144, 145, 155, 156, 157, 163, 168,
181, 182, 187, 192, 195, 199
pragmatics, 31, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41,
42, 43, 52, 59, 167, 168, 198, 243
prescription, 43, 191, 211
question intonation, 74, 98, 99, 101,
105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113,
114, 115, 122, 144, 153, 154, 155,
176, 199, 258
real-time signals, 119, 180
received pronunciation (RP), 45
recording
recordings, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76,
78, 79, 80, 113, 123, 173, 198

redundancy, 53, 143, 149, 150, 163,
168, 173, 194
science and technology, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31, 59, 197
seminars, 72, 78, 123
SLA
second language acquisition, 63,
167, 240, 245
spoken grammar, 174, 175, 176, 253
subject-verb agreement
subject-verb disagreement, 84, 86,
140, 145, 149, 158, 159
teachers
teaching, 15, 26, 29, 42, 57, 75,
139, 158, 163, 185, 191, 193,
Index 263
195, 200, 201, 202, 241, 242,
248, 256, 260
tense and aspect, 51, 87, 88, 150
TESOL, 1, 192, 235, 237, 245, 248,
249, 254, 256, 259
TOEFL, 1, 186
total duration, 110, 152
transcripts, 131
word order, 90, 91, 98, 101, 103,
139, 140, 145, 149, 150, 153, 155,
158, 159, 175, 193
Yes/No questions, 89, 90, 99, 101,
110, 122, 151, 153, 154, 155, 260