Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
Who’s afraid of ELF: “failed” natives or non-native
speakers struggling to express themselves?
In the study of English as a lingua franca (ELF), a major body of research concentrates on the
stigmatising effects of native speaker norms and ELT1 traditions (for an overview see Jenkins
2007). My chapter looks at the impact, if any, this stigmatisation has on non-native speakers, with
special emphasis on non-teachers of English. I conducted a corpus-based study on 34 non-native
and 13 native speaker subjects using a combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses. I
found that the subjects under review are less worried about their (perceived) inability to conform
to NS norms or about being regarded as “failed natives” (Cook 1999: 196) than might have been
thought. If they feel any distress at all, it is the distinctly articulated need to give expression to
what precisely they want to say.
This is my first publication that, for obvious reasons, has not been supervised in any
way by Kurt Kohn.2 As a matter of fact, however, his broad-minded thinking and
teaching is behind this contribution, too.
1 Introduction
ELF is big. ELF, English as a lingua franca, is so widespread that its non-native users
far outnumber the native users. Some native speakers (NSs) and, in fact, non-native
speakers (NNSs) also say ELF is bad, claiming that it is deficient and falls short of
native speaker standards. Does this mean that non-native speakers are afraid of actually using English as a lingua franca? Or do they feel at a disadvantage when doing
so? What exactly are their concerns? In other words: just how are they afraid of big,
bad ELF?
While the bigness of ELF is undisputed (see Seidlhofer 2004: 209; Crystal 2003;
Graddol 1997), its alleged badness gives rise to much controversy. According to Jenkins, the practice of gatekeeping3 (2007: 239-246) leads to a situation where non-native
1
2
3
ELT stands for English Language Teaching.
My heartfelt thanks to Juliane House for stepping into the breach at a moment when I set out to
venture into this new field of research (after previous research in interpreting studies).
The term “gatekeeping” is used to “describe access to decision-making processes about legitimate English” and is understood to be “informed by language ideology in that the gatekeepers
of English (government institutions, examination boards, universities, publishers, the British
Council, English Only and the like) in the main grant access to decision-making only to those
whose orientation to English they approve of” (Jenkins 2007: 239).
110
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
speakers are plagued by conflicting attitudes and ambivalent feelings, torn between
idealistic native speaker models and their own L1 identities.4
Jenkins’ research centres on non-native teachers of English (see Jenkins 2007: 65,
93, 103, 129). Her assumptions are based on the “proficient speaker” of ELF
(2007: 108), the “expert speaker of English” (2007: 129) or the “successful bilingual”
(2007: 116) (see also 2007: 92, 238, 252). Although ways to judge such levels of proficiency are far from straightforward, it is safe to say that teachers of English must, by
definition, be proficient, expert, or successful in English.
My own research suggests the case is somewhat different with “ordinary” nonnative speakers of English, those NNSs who do not use their English for teaching
purposes, but to communicate in situations where no other language is shared by all
involved. Even if this is for doing business, people will not be expected to have the
same proficiency level as teachers of English. In fact, language skills among nonteachers vary greatly, and more often than not they are far from what one would call
proficient. For these speakers of English in lingua-franca situations, there is no conflict between a teacher role (and external pressure to conform to a native speaker
model) and their own L1 identities. And yet, my study finds that ambivalences and
contradictions can be identified here, too, if of a somewhat different nature. In this
chapter I will use a combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses to sketch out
those contradictions and explain the reasons for the ambivalence my study found.
2 The “Midwestern” study
The research reported here is based on and part of TELF, the Tuebingen ELF corpus
and research group. TELF is currently one of the two major research areas of Kurt
Kohn’s Applied English Linguistics Chair, the other one being (computer-assisted,
corpus-based or intercultural) eLearning (see the contributions by Johannes Widmann and Claudia Warth in this volume).
2.1 Data and Methodology
My study is based on data taken from the Tuebingen ELF corpus comprising (at the
time of my analysis) some 70,000 words and about 100 participants speaking 27 different languages. It was set up under the guidance of Kurt Kohn in the course of five
graduate seminars.
The methodology is based on Kohn’s performance model (“Modell lernersprachlicher Performanz”, 1990a: 80). According to this model, learners are not
guided by (objective) target language norms, but by their own (subjective) inner
4
It has actually been a very interesting experience to try—under the influence of Jenkins’ awareness-raising 2007 book on attitude and identity—to help my secondary school kids prepare their
English tests. I suddenly failed to see any sense in insisting on the ‘he, she, it—s muss mit’/(he,
she, it takes an ‘s’)-rule, the avoidance of ‘would’ in if-clauses, the adding or leaving out of articles or the inserting of ‘got’ when you simply ‘have’ something—especially since those kids
couldn’t care less. This has certainly moved me into a more endonormic position vis-à-vis questions relating to ELF.
Who’s afraid of ELF
111
knowledge and needs (which may include a certain target ideal). In order to understand the processes and strategies determining their performances, one has to take
into account the various requirements that have a bearing on their productive (and
receptive) performances (1990a: 76-77). For ELF research this means that performance
in ELF situations depends on ELF speakers’
1. requirement-oriented linguistic knowledge of English,
2. willingness to adjust their requirements to the special conditions of the linguafranca situation,
3. ability to implement, or perform in accordance with, these lingua francaspecific requirements (Kohn 2007: 215).
Examination of this broader picture requires a wide range of data. Kohn, therefore,
made a point of supplementing the interactions amongst ELF speakers (yielding basic
performance data) with (semi-structured) interviews, so as to obtain additional information about the learning histories and requirement profiles of those speakers. In
addition, he also introduced the use of retrospective interviews producing turnrelated introspective feedback data on specific points arising from the interactions.
This methodology makes it possible to move from the (exonormic) question of
whether ELF speakers get their English right to an (endonormic) examination of how
they use their English to achieve their communicative goals.
Against this background, seminar students were given the following task: they
had to find participants and have them discuss “the Midwestern problem”, which
was taken from a learning package on multicultural competence (Wurzel / Fischman / Mayo 2002). The participants were given background information on the hypothetical distribution of a faulty (and potentially lethal) product and had to simulate
a business meeting to discuss the situation, taking both the producer’s and the consumers’ interests into consideration. Twenty group discussions (comprising between
4 and 6 participants with, on average, 1 (in some cases two or no) native speaker)
were videotaped and transcribed. Each discussion lasted for about 20 minutes. Immediately after the discussion, each participant was asked about their linguistic backgrounds, their learning histories, their personal requirements and their attitudes towards English as a lingua franca. A subgroup of the participants was later individually shown a video of the discussion and again interviewed and asked to comment on their performances with respect to individual turns or points of interest.5
For my own ELF study, I decided to look at those 12 (out of the 20) discussions
that involved native speakers, as this would give me a completer picture of what was
going on. With one exception, all 12 discussions involved an average of 4 participants, one of whom was a native speaker. This means that my study involved a total
of 13 native speakers (8 US Americans, 3 British, 1 Canadian and 1 Australian— none
of them teachers) and 34 non-native speakers (16 Germans, 4 Spaniards, 2 Chinese, 2
5
The experiments were conducted under the organisational and technical supervision of Andreas
Glombitza. He subsequently set up a well thought-out and easy-to-use database, which has since
become a valuable analysis tool for students and researchers. Another TELF member and PhD
student is Elena Salakhian, who made a major contribution by transcribing a great number of the
videotapes.
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
112
Romanians, 2 Mexicans, 1 Columbian, 1 Israeli, 1 Iranian, 1 Russian, 1 Latvian, 1
Czech, 1 Belgian and 1 Greek). None of these 34 non-native speakers were teachers of
English. Twelve were studying to become language teachers (mostly of English but
also of Latin and French); 18 were students in such varied subjects as mathematics,
economics, geosciences, cognitive sciences, politics, journalism, etc.); two were professionals (in the fields of engineering and pharmacy, respectively) and one was a
trainee. My focus was on analysing both the ad-hoc and the follow-up interviews
conducted with those 47 participants.
2.2 Observations and Discussion
I shall analyse the answers to the interview questions under the following headings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Pros and cons of ELF communication
Contradictions and ambivalences
Lurking NS norms or a sense of belonging
Self-expression and expressiveness
2.2.1 Pros and cons of ELF communication
I started off by looking at subjects’ responses when they were asked to describe the
advantages and disadvantages of ELF. One hundred percent of NNSs agreed that
ELF is to their advantage. The most common arguments were that it is “handy” and
“useful” (one can communicate with people of all languages and cultures across the
world, travel, work and have fun together) and “easy to learn and understand”.6 Less
common arguments were that it is “widespread” (“a universal rather than a foreign
language”), the language of science, a means to share experience since most books are
in English and, finally, “good for me”, i.e. the only foreign language one knows or the
language structurally close to one’s own L1.
Although all NNS subjects agreed that ELF is a useful means of communication,
53% (18) also associated disadvantages or somewhat negative aspects with it. Of all
the negative aspects they could think of, 85% (disadvantages 1-10 in Table 1 below)
were seen to be to the detriment of NNSs, and only 15% (disadvantages 11-12) to the
detriment of NSs. Table 1 shows the results in absolute figures:7
6
7
Most people believed English to be easy in structural terms, especially when compared with
other languages such as German, Czech or Chinese. Only one person pointed out that it may be
easy to learn for basic communication, but “not easy to learn properly”. Another argument was
that English can be learned effortlessly, “by doing”, since one is confronted with it everywhere in
conversation, the papers, movies or on the Internet.
In the semi-structured interviews, the subjects were asked a number of open-ended questions (as
specified for each table) and provided responses in their own words. As as result, a range of responses was provided regarding possible disadvantages of ELF. Similar responses were grouped
together (under one header) as D1 to D12.
Who’s afraid of ELF
Disadvantages to the detriment of NNSs
D1
ELF undermines other languages (they are penetrated by Anglicisms, are not learned any more, or even run the risk of extinction)
D2 ELF leads to the cultural hegemony of English (the culture of small
countries will disappear)
D3 ELF places the focus on language aspects, casting aside cultural
aspects
D4 ELF forces people to learn English rather than any other preferred
language
D5 ELF results in the neglect of other major European languages (e.g.
French, Spanish or German)
D6 ELF leaves no room for regional linguae francae (German would be
a better lingua europeica)
D7 ELF is politically not neutral (e.g. for Israelis and Arabs or Mexicans
and Cubans)
D8 ELF renders translators superfluous
D9 ELF makes language matters generally too easy
D10 ELF makes one feel like a different person (different from one’s L1
identity)
Disadvantages to the detriment of NSs
D11 NSs are prevented from learning other languages
D12 NSs have no other language available and cannot escape being understood all the time and everywhere
113
No. of
answers
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
Table 1: Disadvantages of ELF as seen by NNSs
Moving on to the native speakers, I found that the NSs in my study were less enthusiastic about ELF than their NNS counterparts. A total of 62% could think of an advantage, while 8% did not see any advantage at all (as opposed to 100% NNSs who
see ELF as an advantage). More NSs could think of disadvantages (77%) than of advantages (62%). Half of those disadvantages benefit NNSs, the other half, the NSs
themselves. In terms of possible ELF disadvantages, quantitative analysis produces
the following results (in absolute figures):
Disadvantages to the detriment of NNSs
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
NSs are generally in a privileged position (although they try not to
appear arrogant)
NSs show arrogant behaviour by taking English for granted wherever they go
Third countries are left with no room for their own cultures
Disadvantages to the detriment of NSs
NSs are negatively stereotyped
NSs are mostly addressed in English and never get a chance to
learn or practice other languages
No. of
answers
2
2
1
1
2
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
114
Disadvantages to the detriment of NSs
D6
D7
D8
NSs cannot help getting lazy about learning other languages
NSs suffer from a lack of privacy as their conversations can always
be overheard
Disadvantage for both parties
It is an illusion that ELF communication works
No. of
answers
1
1
1
Table 2: Disadvantages in ELF as seen by NSs
Generally speaking, the native speakers in my study tended to take a more critical
attitude towards ELF. While every single non-native speaker (100%) felt that ELF
offered clear advantages (with only 53% finding fault with it), only 62% of native
speakers pointed out possible advantages, against 77% who came up with disadvantages or more negative aspects. But are there any signs of grave apprehensions given
the disadvantages associated with ELF? The first thing that needs to be said is that all
advantages and disadvantages were voiced as prompted replies to the concrete question as to whether the subjects could see any advantages or disadvantages regarding
ELF. It is possible that no drawbacks would have been identified had the question
been of a more general nature (such as “What do you think of ELF?”). This alone
takes away some of the potential acuteness and speaks against serious apprehensions
being attached to the specification of possible disadvantages.
There are more indicative signs in the answers that point to an interpretation according to which subjects may consider possible disadvantages of ELF, without perceiving ELF as bad. The possible disadvantages identified by the NSs were evenly
distributed between NSs and NNSs. Although the NSs clearly felt they were in a
privileged position (62% yes, 23% no, 15% without response), possible disadvantages
were not solely associated with the “underprivileged” NNSs. Instead, they were seen
as weighing as much against themselves (50%) as against the NNSs (50%) (see Table 2
above). As far as the NNS subjects were concerned, there was indeed a feeling that
the odds are against them: 85% of disadvantages were seen as going against themselves, while only 15% of them were attributed to NSs. However, the 18 subjects who
did have ELF-related disadvantages in mind, cannot be said to focus on one big,
looming threat. Instead, they came up with a great variety of possible disadvantages.
There are, in fact, 12 different argued disadvantages, none of which, alone, seemed to
worry them a great deal. On the contrary, some of the disadvantages did not worry
them at all. One argument (concerning cultural hegemony) was immediately counteracted by the statement that this was something the subject (a student of politics)
had heard about, but did not share himself.
2.2.2 Contradictions and ambivalences
In continuing my analysis I discovered a number of contradictory attitudes in the
answers of many interviewees. I therefore decided to juxtapose the quantitative
analysis of 7 of the interview questions. The first two questions relate to whether
Who’s afraid of ELF
115
NNSs feel their English is sufficient for their needs and purposes and whether they
want to improve it. The results are as follows:8
(34 NNSs = 100%)
Is your English sufficient?
Do you want to improve your
English?
Yes
85% (29)
70% (24)
No
12% (4)
15% (5)
NR
3% (1)
15% (5)
Table 3: NNS perception of L2 sufficiency versus desire for improvement
It is quite striking to see that the vast majority of subjects (85%) felt that their English
was sufficient for their current needs and purposes while at the same time wanting to
improve it (70%). Interestingly, they had a clear idea of what they wanted to improve:
only 6 of those who wanted to improve their English gave a general answer, while
the other 18 mentioned precise areas for improvement, ranging from vocabulary,
fluency, accent, writing skills, technical terminology, and even slang to the ability to
crack jokes.
The next contradiction can be found in the answers to the questions concerning
the role model NNSs had in mind and the importance they attached to requirements
such as correctness and fluency.
(34 NNSs = 100%)
NS role/target model
Fluency is more important than correctness
Correctness is more
important than fluency
or as important
Yes
56% (19)
47% (16)
No
32% (11)
30% (10)
NR
12% (4)
23% (8)
9% (3) more important
21% (7) as important
47% (16)
23% (8)
Table 4: NS target model versus preference for fluency over correctness
Not unexpectedly, the majority of NNS subjects (56%) opted for a native speaker
model (see also Jenkins 2007: 212, 215). With this in mind, one could have hypothesised that correctness loomed large in their minds. This, however, was not found to
be the case. Only 9% rated correctness as more important than fluency and 47%
ranked fluency higher than correctness.
Finally, there was a contradiction in the NNSs’ statements that they prefer talking
to NSs although they feel more comfortable speaking with NNSs (see in this respect
Jenkins 2007: 199). The following are the results with respect to the question as to
whether NNSs prefer to talk to NSs or NNSs:
8
In all of the following tables ‘NR’ stands for ‘No Response’.
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
116
(34 NNSs = 100%)
Prefer to talk to NSs
Feel more comfortable
with NNSs
Yes
65% (22)
- NS understand better
9% (3)
- benefit from NS
56% (19)
56% (19)
No
26% (9)
NR
9% (3)
23% (8)
21% (7)
Table 5: NNS preference to talk to NSs or NNSs
The main reason why the NNSs preferred to talk to NSs is that this helps them improve their English (“NSs are much better for my English”). This applies to 56%,
while 9% preferred NSs because they feel they are better understood by them.
To fill in the picture, I should like to add that the NS subjects were not free from
certain ambivalences either. This follows from the next two tables listing the quantitative answers to questions as to whether they preferred to communicate with native or
non-native speakers of English, whether speaking to either NSs or NNSs made any
difference to them, whether they paid special attention when they spoke to NNSs and
what their worst fear was in communicating with NNSs.
(13 NSs = 100%)
Difference talking to NSs or
NNSs?
Change their English to adapt to
NNSs
Worst fear: not to be understood
by NNSs
Yes
38% (5)
No
62% (8)
NR
0% (0)
100% (13)
0% (0)
0% (0)
62% (8)
23% (3)
15% (2)
No
23% (3)
0% (0)
NR
23% (3)
23% (3)
Table 6: NSs consideration of NNSs
Yes
(13 NSs = 100%)
Feel comfortable talking to NNSs 54% (7)
Prefer to talk to NSs
77% (10)
Table 7: NS preference to talk to NSs or NNSs
The majority of NSs (62%) claimed it did not make any difference to them whether
they speak with NSs or NNS. At the same time, all of them (100%) admitted to accommodating and adapting their speech to the specific situation of NNSs—by avoiding slang and highly idiomatic terms, using simpler vocabulary, speaking more
slowly, providing explanations, simplifying complicated things, enunciating more
clearly, changing things around a little, being more precise and careful, etc. (as one
NS puts it: “I don’t want to say I dumbed down my language, but I was just mostly,
more than anything, just conscious about being understood and speaking clearly”).
This runs contrary to suggestions that ELF communication is a “one-way traffic [...] in
Who’s afraid of ELF
117
which NNSs [...] make all the efforts to accommodate and be understood by NSs” (cf.
Jenkins 2007: 136).9
In fact, the majority of the NS subjects in my study (62%) tried very hard to be understood by the NNSs (see their worst fear in Table 6 above). Moreover, 54% stated
explicitly that they did not want to appear arrogant, but tried to be fair, while they
clearly felt they were in a privileged position (62% yes as against 23% no). Finally,
over half of the NS subjects (54%) stressed that they felt comfortable talking to NNSs,
although they clearly (77%) preferred talking to other NSs (see Table 7). On the
whole, therefore, it seems that NSs demonstrate a considerable amount of empathy
and considerateness towards NNSs, which becomes particularly clear from some of
their qualitative statements:10
-
-
-
“you really feel for people when they’re trying and it’s just not quite getting
there”
“I feel like I have a responsibility, as the native speaker, to not just speak
clearly but also to make them understand what I’m saying; it’s only fair if people spent years learning English”
“you feel like you don’t want to correct people too much, because then they
lose their train of thought and then they can’t get out what they want to say”
“I felt I intimidated them. I purposefully let everybody else speak before I
spoke”
“even if the grammar is completely wrong—but it’s understandable—even if
it’s quite far off track, providing they get their point across, that’s probably the
most important thing”
“I should give the non-native speakers the chance to speak more, should not
interrupt them, which I would with native speakers”.
2.2.3 Lurking NS norms or a sense of belonging
In reading through some 50 ad-hoc and follow-up NNS interviews, I never had the
impression that the subjects concerned suffered from any serious anxieties. As has
become clear from the analyses above, indications are that, generally speaking, they
feel rather at ease with ELF:
• ELF is generally seen in a positive light (100% see it as an advantage and only
53% came up with prompted negative aspects).
• There is a general feeling of satisfaction and the impression that they can cope
in ELF situations (85% feel that their English is sufficient for their needs, and
although 70% still want to improve their English they do not see this as a general imperative but have clear ideas as to the specific areas where they want to
brush up on their English).
9
10
One reason why the NSs were willing to adapt to the NNSs’ needs to such a large degree (100%) may be
that the NSs were staying in a foreign country at the time of the interviews and were aware (from their own
experience of speaking a foreign language, i.e. German) of the problems that go along with speaking an L2.
Throughout my chapter I have rendered the qualitative statements in a quasi-written form, erasing all spoken discourse elements (such as verbal pauses or dialectal pronunciations or spellings), as the focus is clearly
on the content matter.
118
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
• There seems to be no pressing need to conform to NS standards. If anything,
there is just a feeling that it would be nice to be native-like (only 56% have an
NS target model in mind and fluency is high on their agenda—only 9% insist
on correctness).
The desire to be native-like seems to be much less entrenched than one might have
thought. Although 56% insist on an NS target model (actually it is only 47%, since 9%
of those who declare having an NS target model stress the impossibility of such an
endeavour), the models they have in mind are a colourful kaleidoscope of characters.
The ideals range from “the queen”, “the BBC”, “the Americans we get to hear in Mexico”, “North American writers”, “Harry Potter’s Professor McGonagall” or “my British school teacher” to “Mr Lethbridge, whom I meet in the bus every morning”. That
is, the images are of a rather heterogeneous and not well defined nature. This is fully
in line with Kurt Kohn’s illustration (presented at the April 2009 Southampton ELF
Conference in the framework of his “My-English”-approach (see Kohn 2007)) of the
psycholinguistic assumption that there is no such thing as a definable native speaker
model (Kohn 2009). From a cognitive point of view, we can only follow the rather
vague mental model we have in mind, which by definition means that we will never
develop the English of the person of whom we have built up our model. As Kohn
puts it: “There is no copying or cloning in language learning and construction” (see
also Kohn 1990a: 61-72, “Die Innenwelt der Außenwelt”).
What is more, 32% of NNS subjects did not have an NS target model in mind at
all. Their goals were “grade A in the exam”, “as fluent as possible”, “to be fluent in
scientific English and have a proper conversation with the man in the street”, “speak
correctly and without false breaks”, “make my point without having to ask: ‘say it
again please’”, “give a speech in English with academic vocabulary and everything
like my professor”, etc. One subject even felt that “taking on an accent is like acting,
it’s ridiculous”.
It seems to me that, much more than a feeling of anxiety or a pressure to be nativelike, there is a sense of belonging, or being part of an NNS community. NNSs seem to
identify with other NNSs. This becomes clear from phrases such as “they are more
similar to me”, “they have the same lousy accent and don’t notice my mistakes” or
“we know we’re both not perfect”. Although there is an awareness of the imperfection that goes along with being a non-native speaker, there does not seem to be an
inferiority complex. While possible disadvantages may be seen rather more on the
NNS side, by the NNS subjects, they are far from feeling underprivileged. As mentioned before, more than anything, the NNSs unanimously (100% of all subjects) acknowledged the general advantage of being able to communicate across the world
and, in addition, they were very conscious that knowing at least one second language
is a great asset (in the words of one subject: “we’re richer in any case”). There seems,
therefore, to be not so much an apprehensive mood but a view of separate identities:
“us and them”, we NNSs (who have to bear the brunt of potential disadvantages) and
them NSs (who, however, have to be pitied for missing out on second and third languages) (on the issue of a common ELF identity see Pölzl / Seidlhofer 2006; see also
Who’s afraid of ELF
119
Kohn 2007: 210 on NNSs’ communal emancipatory desire to distance themselves
from NSs).11
As for the NSs, there is not only a clear feeling of being privileged (see sections
2.2.1 and 2.2 above), but also a strong preference for communicating with their own
kind, i.e. amongst NSs themselves (see Table 7). A sense of NS identity (“us NSs”) is
expressed by phrases such as:
-
“I’m a native speaker, I can talk what I want”
“it’s my language and everyone speaks it”
“we know slang terms; we know everything”
“amongst us we would have spoken a little bit freer”
“with my own people I don’t need to concentrate for a second”.
Similarly, there are phrases which indicate dissociation from “them NNSs”:
-
-
“[with NNSs] I have to be very precise, very careful what words I’m using, I
can’t speak freely. I need to concentrate. The only advantage is you’ll always be
much better than them because they will never ever master the language like
you do”
“they speak in a roundabout way”
“they learned [their English] in the classroom, which is a more sanitised, standardised version of English”.
But is it anxiety on the part of NNSs that leads to such relatively clear-cut NNS versus
NS feelings? The ultimate test for potential anxieties is the question relating to the
worst fears NNSs have with regard to ELF. Quantitative analysis produces the following results:
(34 NNSs = 100%)
No Reply
Fear/intimidation
No Fear
Concerns
18% (6)
6% (2)
26% (9)
50% (17) of which
- unable to understand (3) 9%
- desire to express o.s. (14) 41%
Table 8: ELF-related fears felt by NNSs
11
Although I like the idea of a “‘community of ELF speakers’,which is always constituted anew in
the ongoing talk” (House 1999:84), I would not want to go so far as to say that culture and identification do not play a role (see House’s “Culture Irrelevance Hypothesis”). In the interviews I
looked at, there are a number of indicators pointing to the relevance of certain cultural aspects in
ELF interactions. I have not, however, analysed these in detail yet. Just to hint at an interesting
case in point, I should like to mention the Israeli subject who explicitly did not want to be nativelike because of the political connotations of English. He called the desire to have an NS accent,
which he frequently encountered in Germans, “ridiculous”. He even said that, because English
lacked neutrality, he (the Israeli) preferred to speak German (!) rather than English with his Palestinian student friends.
120
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
When asked about their worst fear relating to ELF communication, 9 out of 34 NNS
subjects (26%) explicitly said that they had no fears whatsoever. Six did not reply to
the question, or the question was not put to them (18%). Of the remaining 19 NNS,
only 2 (6%) said that there was something “intimidating” about ELF communication
or that they dreaded something (namely the speed of delivery or talking rate of many
NSs and potential failure of communication). All the others did not seem to be worried in any way, but since they were asked, they raised various points as to what
could be irritating. Interestingly, only 3 (9%) mentioned the concern to understand
their NS interlocutors, while 14 subjects (41%) cared about expressing themselves
more fully, either in order to be understood (8 = 24%) or in order to avoid embarrassment (6 = 18%). The concern to be understood was focussed clearly on the
desire to get the intended message across more precisely. This becomes clear from
statements (in response to the question as to their worst fears) such as: “the hardest
thing is to express exactly, saying it fully and what exactly I want to say”; “I cannot
convey my intention”; “I can’t express as in German”; “I’m not able to make clear
what I want to say”; “I can’t express myself to be understandable”.
If we ignored the 6 no-reply subjects, the figure would be 14 out of 28, or 50% for
those whose major concern is to express themselves more fully. This is a highly significant number (as was already the case with the 41% above) and calls for a further
exploration of the desire or requirement for better expression in ELF.
2.2.4 Self-expression and expressivity
It is not surprising that the worst fear of NSs is not being understood by NNSs (see
Table 6), while the primary concern of NNSs is to express what they want to say (Table 8). It is like looking at ELF from two different sides—the NS perspective on the
one hand and the NNS on the other. That is, the ELF research focus on mutual intelligibility has veiled to some extent what follows naturally from nativeness versus nonnativeness, i.e. that NSs set greater store by comprehension, while NNS are also very
much concerned with the production side of things.
The stauncher ELF advocates might argue that the desire to be native-like, to improve one’s English and to talk to NSs to become more proficient (Tables 3-5) can
only be a latent sign of early classroom pressure to conform to NS norms and standards (see Jenkins 2007: 221-224). However, for the (non-teaching) subjects of my
study the need to express themselves and the desire for expression seem to be more
plausible reasons for those findings.12 There seems to be clear evidence in my study
that subjects are not driven by the desire to be native-like. They may have a nativelike target model in mind, but they are not obstinately fixed on any particular NS
model (AE or BE). Rather, they nurture a great variety of obviously subjective ideas
about what it means to be native-like (see Kohn’s “My-English” approach in section
2.2.3). Moreover, if their focus was on being native-like, pronunciation (i.e. a native12
Personally, I am not surprised by this finding as early classroom pressure to conform to a nativespeaking model runs against my own experience. In Germany (and this may be different from
what happens in many Asian countries, see Jenkins 2007: 221), it is taken for granted that one is
taught by NNS teachers who sometimes have a rather strong German accent and whose English
is not perfect.
Who’s afraid of ELF
121
like accent) and correctness (rule-conforming structures and grammar) would be
their first priorities. As has been said before (see section 2.2.2), however, 47% find
fluency more important, and only 9% insist on correctness. Their insistence on fluency is a clear sign that what they really want is to be up to the challenge of the situation, to partake in the (speech) event, to reach out to interlocutors and give a voice to
their intended messages. This can be illustrated by taking a closer look at how the
subjects (from the most varied linguistic and cultural backgrounds) describe their
feelings, opinions and beliefs:
-
-
-
-
-
-
NNS/Latvian: “the (hardest) thing is to express exactly what I’m trying to say,
saying it fully, what exactly I want to say”
NNS/Czech: “I’m looking for time for actually think how the best way to express myself [...]. [In Czech] I can operate a lot [...] more with the words I can
just precisise the meaning so the others have some feelings I want them to have
in English [...]”
NNS/Spanish: “[my English is] sufficient because in my [...] work they can
speak English, they can understand me and I can understand the others [...] but
the finish is not enough”
NNS/Belgian: “I want to be accurate; I want to express myself as a native apart
from the accent, what I say must be understood in a proper way [...] cause I
must be able to reach any type of person”
NNS/German: “[my worst fear is] that I don’t manage to say what I want to say
[...] that they get the wrong [...] impression. That they don’t know what I want
to say. If the conversation is more fluently, it’s just a very good atmosphere
than [if] somebody gets [...] lot of ‘ahms’ and ‘erms’—searching for words. In
German you have you have your arguments strategy also right in the situation
and you know what you want to say but you can’t and that’s quite annoying”
NNS/Columbian: “everybody goes through phases with the language [...] the
phase where I can just, like, express myself and let everybody know what I’m
trying to say”
NNS/Greek: “it just does not come [...] spontaneously, I have to think—
somehow I have to think”
NNS/German: “I wanted to make a point but the [...] keyword [...] I just couldn’t
make it up”.
I could go on and on with a long list of similar quotations. But what is it that NSs can
do that NNSs cannot? The reasons given by the NSs for why they prefer to talk to
other NS are illustrative in this respect. They range from “use more slang, colloquial
terms”, “communicate faster, clearer”, “get into things a little bit deeper”, “you can
make jokes” to “they [NSs] know whether you’re sarcastic and want a double or ambiguous meaning”, “amongst us we would have spoken a little bit freer, a little bit
quicker perhaps a little bit more aggressive” and “I don’t need to finish my sentence,
they know what I’m gonna say; I can speak freely; with my own people I don’t need
to concentrate for a second”.
The difference between native and non-native speakerness clearly lies in the linguistic repertoire (for this sociolinguistic concept see Gumperz / Hymes 1972 and
Pütz 2004), which in the case of non-native speakers is more limited in terms of range,
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
122
depth and variation potential.13 Non-native speakers are very conscious of their limitations in this respect. The wide range of compensation strategies (such as codeswitching, self-repair, comprehension checks, laughter (see, for instance, Meierkord
2000), or the strategic re-interpretation of discourse markers (House 2009) which they
use to make up for their deficiencies will have to be subject to future investigation
into the interactions and retrospective interviews of the Tuebingen ELF corpus. For
the purpose of this chapter, my focus is on the interviews, which yield information on
the non-native speakers’ reasons for the desire to express themselves as well as the
impediments in their way.
Reasons for the desire to express oneself
NNS subjects have specific reasons why it is so important for them to find the right
expressions:
1. Making one’s point
-
Latvian NNS (student of politics): “to express exactly what I’m trying to say, saying it fully, what exactly I want to say”
Czech NNS (economics student): “I don’t speak so well English so I have not so
much operating tools; my English sucks. I’m looking for some words but they
don’t come to me and I have really problem to express myself”.
These quotations suggest that ELF users are not satisfied with just getting their message across, when they try to negotiate meaning. A similar point is, in fact, also made
by Swain in her output hypothesis in connection with second-language learners. According to Swain (1985: 248), learners benefit from “being ‘pushed’ in output”, i.e.
“toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but that is conveyed
precisely, coherently, and appropriately”. ELF users feel this desire to deliver a precise message as a need or a want. They are aware that they are handicapped by lack of
linguistic means, but this awareness is not necessarily caused by their desire to be
native-like. What does cause it, according to their own explicit statements, is the urge
to state in “unambiguous” terms what they want to say. In ELF research, the focus is
often on accent and pronunciation (see Jenkins 2007: 78). It is said, for instance, that
“the efficacy of an utterance, the power of conviction [..] depends upon the pronunciation [...]” (Bourdieu 1991, quoted in Jenkins 2007: 78). For the subjects in my study
it seemed to depend much more on the various means of expression (un)available to
them (see, in this respect, House’s emphasis on “pragmatic fluency” (2002: 263)).
2. Face wants
-
13
German NNS (economics student): “you don’t want to look like somebody who is
not talking good”
This fitting concept was introduced into my discussion by Juliane House.
Who’s afraid of ELF
-
-
123
German NNS (student of English and German): “[my worst fear is] that I don’t
manage to say what I want to say, that that it sounds weird or that I, that they
get the wrong [...] impression, that they don’t know what I want to say or that
they think how stupid my English is”
German NNS (army officer and student of biology): “I felt not too uncomfortable
discussing anything, so that that went well. I don’t feel too shy in a discussion,
but [...] I was missing some of the words that I know in German and I just, the
right vocab, the right word did not just pop up in my mind and that was kind
of bothering; I always felt a little bit embarrassed”.
In Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory, “face” is the public self-image a
person wants to have recognised in his or her social interactions. In ELF settings, this
is necessarily undermined by limited language skills (see Meierkord 2000). What is
more, ineffectiveness in expression may provoke similarly negative attitudes towards
the speaker, such as were found with regard to accents (see Jenkins 2007: 72, 78); so it
may lead to considerable social consequences.
3. Communicative collaboration
-
German NNS (economics student): “I start slower: I first have to try out if we are
compatible”.
In a wider sense, everybody wants to establish rapport and participate. In a narrower
sense, most people feel a need or responsibility to keep communication going. Communicative collaboration is under investigation in ELF research (e.g. co-construction
(Firth 1990; Mauranen 2009), accommodation (Jenkins 2000: chap. 7), following one’s
own agenda (House, 2002), etc.). Looking at it from the point of view of a non-native
speaker’s requirements, his or her wish to participate and collaborate may often conflict with the available (expressive) performance potential.
4. The beauty of language
-
-
-
German NNS (engineer): “British English, it’s a nice language [...] it has a certain
implemented understatement [...]. Have you read Harry Potter? [...] the sentences of Professor McGonagall [...] it’s a certain subtleness to state things. English
is a beauty of a language and I like to master it”
Belgian NNS (mathematics student): “the language English [...] has a special richness in it [...]. English, like many other language, can be very beautiful when
you have more vocabulary and more depth into the language”
Spanish NNS (student of English and German but not to become a teacher): “I grew
up with English and I really like it”.
It is, of course, true that the concept of beauty in language is a subjective one and that
values of style can change (see Jenkins 2007: 188). And since the grass is always
greener on the other side of the fence, it sometimes takes time (and a certain level of
penetration) to realise that one’s own language can be extremely expressive and “a
beauty of a language”, too. Quite obviously, verbal beauty can also be expressed by
means of “lingua franca English” (in a way similar to Seidlhofer’s “transdialectal
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
124
enrichment” (2006: 47) or Widdowson’s “appealing inventiveness” of learners’ “creative [...] nonconformities” (2003: 48)). In other words, conforming to NS standards is
not a precondition (as is also amply demonstrated in poetry, see Widdowson
(2003: 48-49) on “nonconformist usage”). And yet, irrespective of any “standard English ideology” considerations (see Jenkins 2007: chap. 2), the expression of beauty
through language (which, interestingly, is of concern not just to language students/professionals, see the examples above) depends—quantitatively and qualitatively speaking—on the availability of a wide range of appropriate means of expression.
The four points addressed by the subjects of my study (‘making one’s point’, ‘face
wants’, ‘communicative collaboration’, and ‘the beauty of language’) are, of course,
familiar from general communication. As Kurt Kohn put it in one of his seminars:
“ELF may just be a manifestation of basic types of communicative behaviour”. In fact,
the want and struggle to express oneself is of a much more general and even basic
nature and applies to all L2 and even to native speakers. As can be seen from the
study reported in this chapter, however, it has a particular manifestation in ELF
communication. In his presentation of his view of ELF communication at the 2009
Southampton ELF Conference, Kohn’s focus was on the communication and community-oriented performance requirements14 interactants have regarding (1) comprehensibility and self-expression, (2) compliance with a target model, (3) participation,
and (4) expression of self (Kohn 2009). Self-expression as an integral part of
his model may serve as a backdrop against which to consider the aspects
addressed here. By shifting the focus onto the more active share (and needs)
of the ELF speaker an important dimension of the current identity debate is
taken into account. ELF speakers can only express themselves (and their
self) if the communicative means available match the requirements or desires
they aim for. The struggle to give expression to what one wants to say,
combined with the repercussions that follow from it, may therefore turn out
to be a central aspect in describing ELF.
Impediments to the desire to express oneself
What is it, then, that prevents the non-native speaker from expressing him or herself?
On the basis of the qualitative statements of the subjects in my study, I should like to
propose the following points:
1. The presence of L1 structures
-
14
Spanish NNS (pharmacologist): “it’s different think in Spanish and in English [...]
you can’t translate all the words and maybe in Spanish we [...] have some
phrase and jokes and in English you can’t use the same”
As for the performance requirements themselves, see section 2.1 and Kohn 1990a, 2007.
Who’s afraid of ELF
-
-
125
Czech NNS (economics student): “I missed the specific vocabulary or just the way
how to express some things because every language has, I cannot translate
some things I use in Czech or in German so I have to find something that is
nearly by and that is sometimes problem because [...] if I would translate the
other wouldn’t understand, I think”
German NNS (trainee): “[when I speak English] I’m much more slower because
I, everything I want to say it, I think it in German and translate it”.
In his research on translation, Kohn defines two of the three major areas of conflict as
(i) “the continuing presence of the source text” with its language-specific terms and
structures and (ii) “the lack of semantic autonomy” felt by the translator as she or he
tries to convey somebody else’s propositional message (1990b: 111, 2004: 221-22).
Something similar seems to be happening in ELF. On the one hand, NNSs find it difficult to leave the given structural L1 track and move on to the idiomaticity of their L2
English (see also Seidlhofer and Widdowson’s passage on “mother tongue influence”
in this volume). On the other hand, not only output itself, but the very developing of
one’s intended message during the process of expressing it (Kleist’s “allmähliche
Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden”) is hindered by the lack of appropriate
means, which undermines control of the linguistic situation and, thus, free and fluent
performance (Kohn in seminar discussion).
2. Cognitive and strategic limitations
-
-
-
German NNS (student of linguistics and politics): “not to be understood totally
that would suck. [...] sometimes I was hesitating, looking for the right word,
but finally I was able to convey my message”
Czech NNS (economics student): “I use the strategy I’m normally using [...] because I don’t speak so well English, so I have not so much operating tools; my
English sucks. I’m looking for some words but they don’t come to me and I
have really problem to express myself”
German NNS (student): “I get angry at myself [...] when I start to stumble over
words and when I [...] have to search for words”
Russian NNS (student of history, English and Latin): “when you speak you’re actually forced to do it quite quickly, because you don’t really have a time to
think. You just need a word and it shall happen, otherwise somebody just turns
his back and bye bye”.
A major issue in speaking a non-native language is gaining access to and retrieving
one’s knowledge of that language. In face-to-face conversation (in contrast to writing
or chatroom interaction), the rate of exchange may increase working memory load
and not leave enough room for planning one’s performance. This, in turn, undermines fluency, complexity and focus on form in output (see Payne / Witney 2002; see
also Baddeley 2003). More research on working memory and capacity-related questions in ELF communication might, therefore, be beneficial.
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
126
3. Psychological barriers
-
-
Spanish NNS (student of English and German, not studying to become a teacher):
“I’m a very nervous person so if I have to speak in front of the public [...] I really really do it very very bad because I’m trembling all the time and I don’t focus on what I’m saying [...] but if I’m just speaking with friends [...] why can’t I
do like this in front of the class? So that’s, that sucks”
Catalan/Spanish bilingual NNS (lecturer and student): “in the discussion I was acting, I was [...] speaking in English and that’s for me that’s an act, that’s playing,
yeah, and German is not playing anymore for me; it’s [...] the language I’m using every day”.
Another interesting area for investigation and future research is the various psychological barriers that may severely hamper production. As in the above case of cognitive and strategic limitations, psychological factors, namely language anxiety, selfperceptions of proficiency and attitudinal/motivational components have been studied in greater detail with respect to language learning (see, for instance, Gardner /
MacIntyre 1993).15 Since they might differ under the particular conditions of ELF
communication (see the conclusion below), they seem to be worth exploring further.
More than anything, the qualitative statements in this subsection should help to
demonstrate that non-native speakers feel an urgent need for self-expression and
expressivity, which, in fact, may be one of their primary concerns.
3 Concluding Remarks
To come back to my initial question: who’s afraid of ELF? There may be evidence of
apprehensions on the part of English teachers (see the studies conducted or cited by
Jenkins 2007), and this may also be true for non-Anglophone scientists who are found
to be at a disadvantage in comparison with their Anglophone colleagues (see Carli /
Ammon 2007), and thus for all those who have a job-related stake in the English language. The (non-teaching) subjects in my study, however, did not display any clear
signs of deeper anxiety. They were generally found to be not afraid of, but rather
relaxed in the face of ELF. In fact, they presented themselves as pretty undisturbed by
the ever-looming demand or expectation to be native-like. There did not seem to be a
non-native speaker trauma lurking anywhere. And I do not think that they were in
any way made to believe that they are “failed natives” (Cook 1999: 196). On the contrary, they often feel advantaged, rich and confident. At the same time, they seem to
be afflicted with a major concern: the struggle for self-expression.
This seeming ambivalence as well as the contradictions worked out in the empirical study above point to an awareness on the part of non-native speakers which is of
significance to the study of ELF: the distinction between the two processess of learning and using English as a second language, which—in opposition to traditional ELT
15
And also in other fields of L2 application, e.g. in the context of interpreting (see, for instance,
Kurz 1997).
Who’s afraid of ELF
127
opinion—is highlighted in current ELF research (see, for instance, Kohn 2007: 219 and
Seidlhofer / Widdowson in this volume), is readily made by non-native speakers of
English. In their position as ELF speakers they adapt to the specific conditions of the
communicative situation and are willing to accept their contribution as sufficient and
successful. From the perspective of their being EFL learners, on the other hand, they
are much less satisfied and wish to improve16. However, even in their ELF (user)
shoes they strongly feel the need to express themselves more fully.
Future research should therefore place stronger emphasis on the field of production in ELF discourse—which is what is actually happening already in the wake
of the recent interactive pragmatics approach to ELF (see the special issue of Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2) (2009), especially Seidlhofer 2009).17 In terms of the expression
side of ELF, interesting points include various production phenomena, such as monitoring, complexity or co-construction, as they are being investigated under Kohn’s
guidance in a number of small projects by the TELF research group and a considerable number of his students. At the same time, I would personally like to see more
research with regard to the psychological and psycholinguistic aspects, the conditions
and processes of expression, the why and when of expressiveness. Why is it, for instance, that L2 production sometimes goes like clockwork, while at other times it feels
as if it required some serious grinding effort? When, and under what circumstances,
does or doesn’t L2 production work? What about factors such as feeling at ease (or
unease) in an ELF situation, motivation, form on the day, or the engaging in unfamiliar small talk rather than the expert talk one is acquainted with job-wise? And what
about the presence of native speakers (some people find this stimulating and take it
as a source of inspiration which helps them call up associations, while others are
much more comfortable with NNSs and have their retrieval hampered by an acute
feeling of insecurity when confronted with NSs)?
Having raised these questions, I should like to conclude by saying that one should
beware of using ELF as an argument for lulling NNSs into a lackadaisical attitude, a
sense of “never-mind-my-insufficiencies’ security”. Instead, ELF researchers should
help to alleviate NNSs’ struggle by tracing more clearly the need for self-expression,
and by pointing out what Rüstzeug (one of Kurt Kohn’s favourite terms and one of
those beautiful (!) untranslatable German words like Zeitgeist, referring to something
like a mental tool-box including the necessary building blocks) is required for selfexpression. This may help reduce possible anxieties in NNSs’ L2 use. A genuine and
more general cause for anxiety may be what House addresses in her contribution to
this volume: the Anglo-American ways flooding the whole world—not least via the
global use of the English language—leaving no room for ancient traditions, knowledge systems and cultures.
16
17
This clearly indicates that the individual requirements, which—according to Kohn (see section
2.1 above)—govern the strategic behaviour of language users and learners, should not be seen as
fixed values but as variable expectations depending on goals and situational conditions.
Following Swain (2005) there are also a number of intriguing cognitive reasons why production
is such an essential dimension to L2 communication.
128
Michaela Albl-Mikasa (Universität Tübingen)
References
Baddeley, Alan D. (2003). Working memory and language: an overview. Journal of communication disorders 36, 189-208.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brown, Penelope / Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness. Some universals of language usage.
Cambridge: CUP.
Carli, Augusto / Ammon, Ulrich (eds.) (2007). Linguistic inequality in scientific communication today. AILA Review 20.
Cook, Vivian (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33 (2),185-209.
Crystal, David (2003). English as a global language. Second edition. Cambridge: CUP.
Firth, Alan (1990). ‘Lingua Franca’ negotiations: towards an interactional approach. World
Englishes 9 (3), 268-280.
Gardner, Robert C. / MacIntyre, Peter D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching 26, 1-11.
Graddol, David (1997). The Future of English? London: The British Council.
Gumperz, John J. / Hymes, Dell (eds.) (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography
of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
House, Juliane (1999). Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: interactions in
English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In Claus Gnutzmann
(ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 73-89.
House, Juliane (2002). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In
Karlfried Knapp / Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua franca communication. Frankfurt
am Main: Lang, 245-267.
House, Juliane (2009). Subjectivity in English as lingua franca discourse: The case of you
know. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2), 171-193.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: OUP.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2007). English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity. Oxford: OUP.
Kohn, Kurt (1990a). Dimensionen lernersprachlicher Performanz. Tübingen: Narr.
Kohn, Kurt (1990b). Translation as conflict. In Peter H. Nelde (ed.), Confli(c)t. Proceedings of
the International Symposium ‘Contact + Confli(c)t’, Brussels, 2-4 June 1988. Association
Belge de Linguistique Appliquée: ABLA Papers 14, 105-113.
Kohn, Kurt (2004). Zur Rolle des Übersetzens beim Sprachenlernen. In Juliane House /
Werner Koller / Klaus Schubert (eds.), Neue Perspektiven in der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschwissenschaft. Festschrift für Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast zum 60. Geburtstag. Bochum: AKS, 217-233.
Kohn, Kurt (2007). Englisch als globale Lingua Franca: Eine Herausforderung für die
Schule. In Tanja Anstatt (ed.), Mehrsprachigkeit bei Kindern und Erwachsenen. Tübingen:
Narr, 207-222.
Kohn, Kurt (2009). My English: communicative competence of non-native speakers. Paper delivered at the Second International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, 6-8 April
2009, University of Southampton.
Kurz, Ingrid (1997). Interpreters: stress and situation-dependent control of anxiety. In
Kinga Klaudy / Janos Kohn (eds.), Transferre necesse est. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Studies of Translation and Interpreting. Budapest:
Scholastica, 201-206.
Who’s afraid of ELF
129
Mauranen, Anna (2009). Chunking in ELF: expressions for managing interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2), 217-233.
Meierkord, Christiane (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction. An analysis of non-native-/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik online 5 (1),
1-16. URL: http://www.linguistik-online.de/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM. Retrieved:
30/04/2009.
Payne, Scott J. / Whitney, Paul J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: output, working memory and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal
20 (1), 7-32.
Pölzl, Ulrike / Seidlhofer, Barbara (2006). In and on their own terms: the ‘habitat factor’ in
English as a lingua franca interaction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
177, 151-176.
Pütz, Martin (2004). Linguistic Repertoire. In Ulrich Ammon / Norbert Dittmar / Klaus J.
Mattheier / Peter Trudgill (eds.), An international handbook of the science of language and
society. Berlin: de Gruyter, 226-232.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209-239.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2006). English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: what it isn’t.
In Rani Rubdy / Mario Saraceni (eds.), English in the world: global rules, global roles.
London: Continuum, 40-50.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2009). Accomodation and the idiom principle in English as a lingua
franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (2), 195-215.
Swain, Merril (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input
and comprehensible output in its development. In Susan M. Gass / Carolyn G. Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235-253.
Swain, Merril (2005). “The output hypothesis: theory and research”. In Eli Hinkel (ed.),
Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum,
471-484.
Widdowson, Henry G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: OUP.
Wurzel, Jaime / Fischman, Nancy K. / Mayo, Sandra (2002). The cross-cultural conference
room. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation.
Michaela Albl-Mikasa is lecturer and research fellow in Applied English Linguistics
at the University of Tübingen. After an MA in conference interpreting from the University of Heidelberg and an MPhil in International Relations from the University of
Cambridge, she received her PhD (Dr Phil) from the University of Tübingen. Her
dissertation on a cognitive-linguistic model for consecutive interpreting received the
German Society of Applied Linguistics (GAL) award in 2006. Her main research interests include the cognitive foundations of interpreting, (multilingual) text comprehension and production processes and, more recently, English as a lingua franca.
E-Mail: [email protected]