English has become the dominant agencies of international communicating. Its non-native talkers now far outnumber the conventional native talkers in the UK, the USA, Canada etc. Against this background, a figure of writers have late stressed the maps for which foreign linguistic communications are learned. They make a differentiation between a ‘language of communicating ‘ and a ‘language of designation ‘ . The footings, which were coined by the German applied linguist Werner Hullen ( 1992 ) , have late been popularised in the context of English as a tongue franca. English, it is said, can be used as a linguistic communication of communicating without needfully being a linguistic communication of designation. As it is used for practical communicative intents, rightness and peculiar stylistic characteristics associated with the address community from which it originates are of lesser importance. Recent developments in European linguistic communication policy seem to be focused in the same way with the proposal that the EU should recommend the thought of a “ personal adoptive linguistic communication ” . This linguistic communication should be freely chosen by every European and it should be “ different from his or her linguistic communication of individuality, and besides different from his or her linguistic communication of international communicating ” ( Maalouf 2008 ) . The paper examines the usage of the footings ‘language of communicating ‘ and ‘language of designation ‘ in the literature and challenges the being of the duality with respect to the English linguistic communication as it is used today. Concentrating on wording ( i.e. idiomatic phrases and pre-fabricated address ) , the paper shows a figure of linguistic communication patterns that are used by non-native talkers of English to expose individuality.

1 Introduction

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Language pick is determined by power. This applies to the opinion linguistic communications of the past ( Latin under the Pax Romana, Spanish, Dutch, German, and Gallic during the epoch of European enlargement ) and it is even more so for English. English has spread so widely that its native talkers are now outnumbered by its non-native talkers. It is non the belongingss of a linguistic communication ( be it its euphonic traits, its supposed repute for being easy to larn or its inclination to include foreign vocabulary ) that make it a agency of planetary communicating but its talkers ‘ laterality in military, economic, political and cultural domains.

The being of a planetary tongue franca, on the one manus, provides a immense advantage to a big figure of people. This includes both Anglophones and non-Anglophones. The latter are willing to larn and utilize English because they know how indispensable a vehicular linguistic communication is for international cooperation. This is true of commercialism, political relations, and many other human activities, but it is particularly true for the scientific disciplines. As Muhleisen ( 2003: 117 ) points out “ all scientific discipline is useless if it is non accessible to other members of the subject. This is easier with merely one linguistic communication as a scientific tongue franca. ”

On the other manus, this state of affairs has led to severe disadvantages for non-Anglophones in general and in academe in peculiar, as recent research has shown ( californium. Carli/Ammon 2007 ) . They have to put a great trade of clip, money and energy into linguistic communication acquisition and may still pass on with trouble. There is a turning consciousness of the dangers caused by the laterality of one linguistic communication over all other linguistic communications. It consequences in a decrease of discourse forms and a inclination towards a one-sided attack to research. The prevalent usage of English favors Anglo-American thoughts and writers and leads to a devaluation of other foreign linguistic communications. Furthermore, it provides English-speaking states tremendous extra income ( Grin 2005 ) .

Against this background, a figure of writers have late stressed the maps for which foreign linguistic communications are learned. English, it is said, can be used as a linguistic communication of communicating without needfully being a linguistic communication of designation. In lingua franca interactions it functions as a ‘native-culture-free codification ‘ . This paper challenges the being of the duality with respect to the English linguistic communication as it is used today. It argues that the penetration that “ linguistic communication is far more than an instrument of communicating ” ( Edwards 2010: 68 ) besides holds true for lingua franca contexts. Concentrating on wording, the paper examines linguistic communication patterns that are used by non-native talkers of English to expose individuality.

2 New labels

English in its function as a agency of international communicating has late been given a assortment of names ( californium. Erling 2005a ; McArthur 2004 ) . Labels include English as an International Language ( EIL ) , World English, English as a planetary linguistic communication, World Standard ( Spoken ) English, Euro-English, Globish, Lingua Franca English and English as a Lingua Franca ( ELF ) . Some research workers use footings interchangeably ( e.g. Seidlhofer 2003 ) , whereas others emphasize differences between them ( e.g. Prodromou 2008: fourteen, who explains that he uses EIL to mention to English in an international context including English native talkers and ELF when excepting them ) . The reciprocally agreed footing for the usage of these footings is Kachru ‘s ( 1985 ) three-circle scheme of the spread of English around the universe. The ‘inner circle ‘ comprises the traditional bases of English as a native linguistic communication ( L1 ) , i.e. the USA, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. These have historically been the norm-providing Centres. The ‘outer circle ‘ involves states where English is non spoken as a female parent lingua but plays an of import function as L2 in disposal, the media and instruction ( e.g. India, Singapore, Nigeria ) . The ‘expanding circle ‘ refers to the usage of English as a foreign linguistic communication. It does non hold an official position here ( i.e. in states such as China, Germany, Japan, and Poland ) and is learnt because of its significance as an international agencies of communicating.

The usage of English in the spread outing circle refers to its map as a tongue franca. As is good known, the term as a nomen proprium ( intending literally ‘Frankish linguistic communication ‘ ) originally referred to a common adopted as an subsidiary linguistic communication among bargainers ( who spoke different linguistic communications ) along the Mediterranean seashore between the 13th and 18th centuries. It was based on a Romance lingua and was assorted with, above all, Arabic and Grecian elements ( californium. Barotchi 1994: 2211 ; Beneke 1995: 61 ) . Today lingua franca, as a nomen appellativum, describes a linguistic communication used by people who do non talk the same native linguistic communication. UNESCO defined lingua franca in 1953 as “ a linguistic communication which is used habitually by people whose female parent linguas are different in order to ease communicating between them ” ( Barotchi 1994: 2211 ) . The historical tongue franca was non a female parent lingua. English today is, no uncertainty, a lingua franca in the sense of UNESCO ‘s wide definition, but it is at the same clip a native linguistic communication of a significant subset of participants in the communicating that is expressed in it. This leads to communicative inequality ( Phillipson 2003: 40 ) .

So English as a Lingua Franca is a name given to the linguistic communication in its worldwide map. This sort of communicating, i.e. Lingua Franca English that is preponderantly used by non-native talkers, is sociolinguistic world and must be the topic of lingual research. At the same clip English as a Lingua Franca ( ELF ) is a research field ( some writers use the term ‘movement ‘ – californium. Berns 2009 ; Elder and Davies 2006 ; Holliday 2008 ) that is based on the thought that the English spoken by non-native talkers is a assortment in its ain right whose norms are established by its users alternatively of native talkers. ELF has late become a vivacious country of research. Its focal point is the empirical description of English in international brushs among non-native talkers by agencies of principal undertakings. These have revealed a set of belongingss of ELF on different lingual degrees. Jenkins ‘ ( 2000 ) ground-breaking book The phonemics of English as an International Language has shown, for illustration, that in unwritten communicating the interdental spirants /i?„/ and /i?”/ are frequently substituted with alveolar and labiodental spirants ( /i??/ /i??/ ; /i?¶/ /i?¦/ ) or alveolar stop consonants ( /i?¤/ /i??/ ) ; uncountable nouns such as information and advice are frequently used with the plural stoping -s ; the relation pronouns which and who are treated as interchangeable for animate and inanimate nouns, and verbs in the 3rd individual are frequently used without the inflectional stoping -s ( californium. the studies by Seidlhofer et Al. 2006 ; Gnutzmann 2007: 324 ; Prodromou 2006: 55 ) . The of import thing about these utilizations is that they are normally elementary because they do non do misconstruing. Being oriented towards intelligibility and communicative efficiency alternatively of native talker prestigiousness, ELF advocates do non see these characteristics to be mistakes but discrepancies or differences ( Jenkins 2006: 140 ) . They are features of Lingua franca English, a assortment in its ain right which is used by non-native talkers in their ain infinite.

There is, nevertheless, “ a turning malaise ” ( Dewey 2009: 61 ) with the claim that ELF is a assortment in its ain right. The usage of English in the spread outing circle is inordinately heterogenous. “ Diversity is built-in in ELF, ” as Prodromou ( 2008: 246 ) points out. James ( 2005: 140 ) depict different “ ELFs ” as impermanent and potentially variable phenomena. They show “ great heterogeneousness in local map and signifier ” .

Another term, in fact, a brace of footings has been progressively used late in treatments on the place of English in our globalizing universe: That is the dichotomy ‘language of communicating ‘ and ‘language of designation ‘ . The footings were coined by the German applied linguist Werner Hullen in his 1992 article Identifikationssprachen und Kommunikationssprachen. Uber Probleme der Mehrsprachigkeit / Languages of Identification and linguistic communications of communicating. On jobs of multilingualism. Hullen points out here ( p. 313 ) that English in its function as an international linguistic communication is used as a linguistic communication of communicating and non as a linguistic communication of designation.

He argues

The spread of a individual linguistic communication of communicating does non necessitate to impact the being of linguistic communications of designation ( aˆ¦ ) The former ( = linguistic communications of communicating – S.F. ) ( aˆ¦ ) merely require extremely unstable, drifting address communities that develop among the autochthonous communities and to which the English term of intersociety ( correspondent to interlanguage ) could be applied ( … ) A national-language address society and an intersociety of talkers of English as a foreign linguistic communication of communicating hence do non hold the relationship of minorities and bulk as respects one another. ( my interlingual rendition )

[ Die Verbreitung einer einheitlichen Kommunikationssprache braucht dice Existenz von Identifikationssprachen nicht zu beruhren ( aˆ¦ ) Erstere ( = Kommunikationssprachen – S.F. ) ( … ) setzen lediglich hochst instabile, flottierende Sprechergemeinschaften voraus, dice sich zwischen lair autochthonen Gemeinschaften bilden und auf dice adult male den englischen Begriff intersociety ( linear zu lingua franca ) anwenden konnte. ( … ) Eine nationalsprachliche address society und eine intersociety der Sprecher des Englischen ALSs fremder Kommunikationssprache stehen deshalb nicht im Verhaltnis von Minderheiten und Mehrheit zueinander. ]

Knapp ( 2008: 133 ) describes Hullen ‘s duality as follows:

A “ linguistic communication of communicating ” is used for practical communicative intents, and due to its primary functional nature, rightness or peculiar stylistic and cultural characteristics associated with the address community from which this linguistic communication originates are less of import. On the other manus, “ linguistic communication of designation ” means a linguistic communication which is learnt in order to be integrated into and place with the several address community.

Hullen ‘s footings have late been popularised in the context of English as a tongue franca communicating ( e.g. Erling 2005b ; Klimpfinger 2009: 352 ; House 2005 ) . Polzl ( 2003: 5 ) proposes that English is used as a ‘native-culture-free codification ‘ in lingua franca contact state of affairss. Mentioning to Hullen ‘s footings she argues:

Such a classification is based upon the double map of lingual marks, viz. the referential map and the expressive 1. Consequently a linguistic communication selected for communicating merely expresses a communicative and chiefly referential map, i.e. the civilization associated with this natural linguistic communication is non activated by its users.

House ( 2005 ) argues that the usage of English as a tongue franca in certain public spheres does non jeopardize multilingualism. She takes the differentiation between linguistic communication of communicating and linguistic communication of designation as a starting point for her supplication for following English as a tongue franca for Europe. Edmondson/House ( 2003 ) province:

Using Hullen ‘s ( 1992 ) differentiations between linguistic communication as agencies of designation and linguistic communication as a agency of communicating, we might propose that ELF interactants are utilizing ELF as a agency of pass oning, without needfully placing with English as a cultural symbol.

On the footing of their analysis of ELF interactions and pupils ‘ linguistic communication acquisition autobiographies, they voice their sentiment for alterations as respects ends and contents of learning plans in the German secondary school system:

( W ) e suggest that the instruction of ‘Culture ‘ , as embodied in the grasp of literary texts, and deriving penetration into other cultural facets of a state or states where English is L1 can hold no cardinal function to play.

The differentiation between linguistic communication of communicating and designation, as we see here, can hold impact on linguistic communication instruction policy.

Recent developments in European linguistic communication policy seem to be focused in the same way with the proposal that the EU should recommend the thought of a “ personal adoptive linguistic communication ” . This linguistic communication should be freely chosen by every European and it should be “ different from his or her linguistic communication of individuality, and besides different from his or her linguistic communication of international communicating ” ( Maalouf 2008 ) .

While Hullen ‘s duality has been immensely adopted, the position does non happen consentaneous support. Jenkins ( 2007 ) puts a particular focal point on ELF users and the complex nature of their individuality. Based on informations from Erasmus exchange pupils, Kalocsay ( 2009: 41 ) found that “ taking up multiple individualities is the norm, instead than the exclusion ” in ELF communities. Virkkula and Nikula ( 2010: 270 ) investigate individuality building among Finnish users of English working in Germany. Their interview-based survey reveals that “ lingua franca usage, every bit good as being a affair of communicating, is to a great extent besides a affair of designation ” . In what follows in subdivision 3, I will take these different sentiments as a point of going and addresses the inquiries whether an isolation of linguistic communication from civilization is possible, whether the English that is used dominantly today ( as a medium of third-level instruction, in public spheres, in EU establishments, as the corporate linguistic communication of companies ) is truly used without any relation to L1 English and whether talkers truly curtail the usage of linguistic communication to its communicative map without showing individuality.

3 ELF communicating and individuality

On the one manus, the thought of English as a ‘native-culture-free codification ‘ invites us to raise expostulations, as the attractive force of and designation with Anglo-American merchandises and values seems to be a motive to larn and utilize the English linguistic communication for many people. Our lives are so mostly influenced by Anglo-American civilization. To advert a few illustrations from Germany: American movies and series make up a immense portion of our Television programmes ; intelligence ground tackles address newsmans and co-presenters in CNN manner utilizing first names, the Eurovision Song Contest, after 15 old ages, was won by a German vocalist, but of class with a vocal in English ; you can non go forth a German store without being wished a nice twenty-four hours ; German kids asked about the classical faery narrative of “ Aschenputtel ” will advert the Cucurbita pepo that turned into a manager as they know this from Disney ‘s movie version “ Cinderella ” ; immature people have many Freunde in societal webs ; they close their telephone conversation stating Ich liebe dich like in American movies ; people find it attractive and fashionable to infix English words and gimmick phrases ( the best aˆ¦ of all time ; No hazard no merriment ; The sky is the bound ) into their address ( californium. Fiedler 2011 ) , and they do so chiefly because of the symbolic ( i.e. identity-bearing ) map of the linguistic communication. Against this background it sounds eccentric to talk of an absence of civilization and individuality. In add-on, English is taught as a linguistic communication of designation ( as Hullen provinces in his article ) . Students are by and large prepared for communicating with native talkers. They learn how to inquire for the manner in London or Stratford. At university we use learning stuff from British and US publishing houses to develop the production of academic genres, which includes the acceptance of idea form and discourse manners that are characteristic for the Anglo-American civilization. With respect to talk communicating, address conventions might be mentioned. Under the influence of English chosen as the conference linguistic communication, first names ( Barbara ) are frequently used during international meetings, whereas they are addressed with their rubrics otherwise ( Frau Dr Bergmann ) .

Massive exposure to US-media leads to the acceptance of Anglo-American ways of thought, communication and even life ( Alexander 2006 ) . Wright ( 2004: 154 ) points out that

[ aˆ¦ ] both written and audio-visual media provide the English linguistic communication scholar with the cultural intensions associated with certain lexical footings, with the manner peculiar constructs are elaborated in the United States, with the societal norms of communicating of US society, peculiarly the method for showing an statement.

On the other manus, analyses of communicating in English in transnational corporations ( Ehrenreich 2009 ; 2010 ) every bit good as of schoolroom interaction ( Smit 2010 ) and academic discourse ( Mauranen 2006 ) suggest that the linguistic communication usage here is non shaped harmonizing to American or British theoretical accounts. Ehrenreich points out that English for international concern is “ a contact linguistic communication used and shaped by talkers from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds ” ( Ehrenreich 2010: 15 ) . Although these surveies are chiefly restricted to talk communicating – when written texts are produced to stand for a corporation L1 theoretical accounts are going more prevailing – the consequences can non be ignored. They describe sociolinguistic world.

The usage of English as a contact linguistic communication, as a codification, nevertheless, does non intend that talkers eschew the look of individuality. A big and turning organic structure of literature has investigated the construct of individuality ( californium. the overviews by Block 2007, Duff aˆ¦ , Edwards 2010 ) . The dianoetic attack that this survey takes as its get downing point sees individuality as produced within societal interaction ( californium. Le Page/Tabouret-Keller 1985 ; Pavlenko/Blackledge 2004. It is unstable and invariably altering instead than a preexistent class. Identity ( or designation, as this term is frequently preferred to emphasize the procedure instead than the fixed status ) is non a natural fact, it is non possessed but performed, and each of us performs a repertory of assorted individualities, whether group or single 1s. Identity is expressed in and through linguistic communication and I do non believe that one can be detached from the other. There are, of class, different strengths of this relationship, as Fishman points out: “ [ L ] anguage is related to individuality to some people most of the clip, to some people some of the clip, and to some people even all of the clip ” ( Hornberger & A ; Putz 2006: 15 ) . My research suggests that individuality as it is signalled by non-native talkers is based on three components: foremost, on English native civilization ( s ) ; secondly, on the talkers ‘ ain sociocultural background ( L1 civilization ) , and thirdly, on an inchoate consciousness of rank in a specific address community. Let me take illustrations from wording to exemplify the three components.

4 The function of wording in ELF scenes

4.1 Definition

Phraseological units ( besides called fixed looks, multi-word lexemes, phrasemes, set phrases, phraseologisms, formulaic sequences, prefabricated balls ) are polylexemic points ( i.e. word-groups and sentences ) that are characterized, in rule, by semantic and syntactic stableness, idiomaticity and lexicalisation ( i.e. , as ready-made units of the vocabulary they are non created fruitfully by the speaker/writer but reproduced ) ( californium. Burger et Al. 2007 ; Fiedler 2007 ) . Because of these features and their optional connotative characteristics PUs may carry through assorted matter-of-fact maps in discourse.

The phrasicon of the English linguistic communication comprises, on the one manus, partially and to the full idiomatic multi-word points, i.e. expressions ( e.g. come place to perch ) , binomials ( e.g. by hook or by criminal ) , similes ( e.g. every bit right as rain ) and formulae ( e.g. You ‘re welcome ) . On the other manus, it is made up of ready-made structural expression that are at a talker ‘s disposal as conventionalised vocalizations ( e.g. to the best of my cognition ; by the manner ; from my point of position ) that can function to ease linguistic communication usage because it decreases treating attempts in address production ( californium. Wray 2002 ) . Idiomatic looks are frequently debatable for non-native talkers. Due to their expressive potencies and cultural burden, nevertheless, they are regarded as the key to reliable English, as the litmus trial of linguistic communication proficiency ( californium. Prodromou 2003 ) .

With this facet in head in peculiar, I would wish to pull attending to the book by Carli & A ; Ammon ( 2007 ) which was mentioned in the Introduction, “ Linguistic inequality in scientific communicating today ” . A paper by Florian Coulmas written in the manner of a Platonic duologue introduces the work and presents the book ‘s issues in an amusive manner. Florian and Coulmas are presented as two characters in a argument about the advantages of English as an international linguistic communication in scientific discipline and the effects this state of affairs has for non-Anglophone scientists. This article is loaded with wording. It abounds with to the full idiomatic looks, such as to be in a hole, head you, 2nd to none, jump the gun and the cogent evidence of the pudding. As I understand it, their usage ( or even consider overexploitation ) non merely has the map of giving the text the character of a spoken duologue, an interior colloquium, but it besides works as cogent evidence of a high degree of proficiency. The usage of parlances is frequently associated with “ existent ” English. If people who have such an first-class bid of the linguistic communication have jobs printing in English and utilizing this linguistic communication at conferences – this is the message for me – it must be a burning issue.

4.2 Phraseological units in ELF communicating

4.2.1 English native linguistic communication wording

As mentioned above, it has been argued that in ELF communicating talkers are non required to place with English as a cultural symbol ( Edmondson/House 2003 ; Polzl/Seidlhofer 2006: 153 ) . They use the linguistic communication as a codification to pass on efficaciously without following the civilization or civilizations associated with English as a native linguistic communication. What does that mean for wording, that portion of the linguistic communication that is by and large considered to be culture-bound ( Sabban 2007 ) ? What about the group of archetypal English parlances, the phraseological units that are embedded in the civilization ( s ) of English native talkers? Do they play a function in ELF communicating?

The information for this survey was taken from a principal of of course happening interactions between non-native talkers of English who come from different states and from different lingual backgrounds. The stuff includes tape and picture recordings of speech events such as conference presentations and treatments ( which are referred to as “ conference principal, CP ” ; about 15 hours ) , seminars ( SC ; about 10 hours ) , music interviews ( IC ; about 4 hours ) , and informal conversations ( ICC ; about 6 hours ) . I would wish to thank my pupils for supplying a portion of the recordings and transcripts.

In illustration ( 1 ) , the talker uses a extremely culture-specific expression as a starting point for her presentation at an international conference:

( 1 ) in my paper you you will happen something old ( . ) something new something borrowed ( . ) something bluish ( . ) allow me get down by aˆ¦

@ @ [ = laughter ]

( CC 2, Norse talker )

The usage of the catch phrase, which is normally associated with nuptialss, was really successful in this state of affairs. The audience was surprised at meeting it in an academic context and reacted with smilings and laughter. Not merely did the talker manage to catch their attending on a long conference twenty-four hours, she besides riveted it by using the phraseological unit as a structural component coming back to the “ new ” , “ borrowed ” etc. in the class of her presentation.

Phraseological units can assist writers make their texts more expressive, which means, for illustration, to pull attending, to show an dry undertone, to exemplify a fact, to be inoffensive, or to set other people at easiness. Communicative purposes like these are relevant both in L1 and L2 address. As a figure of surveies show ( Partington 2003: Howarth 2002 ; 2006 ) , non-native talkers follow culture-specific mentions and phraseological units they notice in native-speaker talk into their ain address.

There are two media events that caused something of a splash in Germany in the recent yesteryear. When the new German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, refused to accept a BBC newsman ‘s inquiry in English in his introduction imperativeness conference in September 2009, this was automatically interpreted as an admittance that he was non able to make so. Within hours, YouTube cartridge holders could be watched turn outing the hapless quality of his English. The Hamburger Morgenpost ( 30 September 2009 ) showed a exposure of him decorated with a address balloon “ Hello, I ‘m Guido Westerwave, the new Outminister of Germany ” , and his party ‘s electional motto Deutschland kann es besser ( ‘Gemany can make better ‘ ) became Deutsch kann er besser ( ‘German he can [ speak ] better ‘ ) . Another politician, Gunther Oettinger, who was elected EU-Commissioner at the beginning of 2010, was ridiculed in a similar manner when he was shown talking English with a strong German-Swabian speech pattern ( Die Zeit Magazin 11 Feb 2010 ) .

The two events do non give evidences for believing that the outgrowth of a more democratic theoretical account of utilizing English is executable in the close hereafter. They can be seen as an index that the wider populace is non ready to accept non-native-speaker-like signifiers of English. They are besides interesting here as they are related to our subject, wording. A-ttinger ‘s address included the sentence “ In my fatherland Baden-Wurttemberg we are all sitting in one boat ” . He was harshly criticized for utilizing such an allegedly typically German stating, although the metaphor in the same boat is transculturally well-known, as Dawes ( 2007 ) has shown. The sentence that Foreign Minister Westerwelle was non prepared to accept in English and that was so translated into German ran: What will Germany look like with you at the helm? It is a comparatively short sentence, a simple inquiry, but the newsman, although he must hold been cognizant of the international character of the communicative state of affairs, could non shun the usage of an parlance. Phraseology, particularly its idiomatic portion, can go debatable when it is used by native talkers who lack intercultural ( including phraseological ) competency. At international conferences, concern meetings, pupils ‘ conventions etc. by and large both native and non-native talkers come together. Not to see these configurations “ would merely intend disregarding the world ” , as Knapp ( 2002: 221 ) says.

4.2.2 Wording from talkers ‘ native linguistic communications

The 2nd pillar of non-native talkers ‘ individuality is their L1 civilization. Analysiss of lingua franca principals have revealed that talkers frequently export nonliteral look from their ain lingua-cultural backgrounds ( californium. Pitzl 2009 ) . Phraseological units in ELF are frequently accompanied by metacommunicative signals ( sometimes called ‘hedges ‘ ) such as alleged, as we say in aˆ¦ or a sort of. Speakers use them to command and back up the receiving system ‘s comprehension. They have the feeling that their usage of a phrase is non appropriate in a certain state of affairs or that these stand out from the remainder of the discourse, particularly due to their idiomatic significances. In this manner, they dissociate themselves from them, to a certain grade and privation to forestall these looks from being misunderstood ( for illustration, by being taken literally ) . In illustration ( 2 ) a talker from Israel employs the authorization of a adage for an account and reasoning remark in a treatment:

( 2 ) I think ( . ) that after 100 old ages your inquiry would likely be answered otherwise ehm but ( .. ) there is a adage in Hebrew that after the temple was destroyed prognostication is given to the kids and to the stupid ( . ) so I wo n’t vaticinate.

@ @

( CC 1, Hebrew talker )

As the reactions in ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) show, wording is besides a device for arousing temper and in this manner a relaxed atmosphere. In illustration ( 3 ) Speaker B distorts one of A ‘s preparations intentionally to bring forth an equivocal phrase ( ‘sth. is history to sb. ‘ can be understood in several linguistic communications as to be old hat/water under the span ) in order to bring forth amusement and laughter.

( 3 ) Angstrom: Yeah but I think for me Italy is besides art and music and yeah old churches and all this you ( . ) for illustration you have a garden and you find something of the Romans so in in in the in the dirt so it ‘s full of history for me

Bacillus: Italy is history for you?

A: Yeah, NO

XYZ: @ @ @ @

( Nickel 2010: 12, Italian talker )

4.2.3 The thought of a 3rd infinite

An particularly interesting facet is the inquiry of whether or to what extent talkers utilizing English as an L2 concept a common individuality for themselves as members of a group of non-native talkers. In this context, metacommunicative vocalizations that refer to the usage of English are deserving adverting. Compare the undermentioned illustrations in my principal of conference treatments:

( 4 ) First I want ( . ) thank you really much for your first-class paper that that was in a sort of English that I could understand. ( CC 1, Estonian talker )

( 5 ) A: What does the hege hege oh he [ what a awful word ] ( wants to articulate hegemony )

Bacillus: [ laterality ]

XYZ: @ @ @ @ @ @

( SC, German talker )

As respects wording, a figure of ELF-specific utilizations can be found. For illustration, nonliteral looks are used to bridge talkers ‘ jobs in showing themselves. In ( 6 ) a cliche ( californium. male childs will be male childs, Mum is Mum ) serves as a replacement for a more specific preparation on ‘culture as a decisive factor for people ‘s behavior ‘ .

( 6 ) Angstrom: [ aˆ¦ ] and what happened? They said work forces and adult females together said her to acquire out why why because she explained a secret

Ten: hectometer

Bacillus: after this adult females had no power at all all the community said you must travel out

Degree centigrades: adult females as good

A: so it ‘s it ‘s everything is civilization and this is this is really interesting ( . ) adult females are non bad work forces are non bad ( . ) civilization is civilization

( CC 1, Portuguese talker )

In add-on, we can detect the usage of recurrent phrases that are evoked by the specific state of affairs to pass on in a non-native linguistic communication. Constructions of vagueness, alleged “ general extenders ” ( Overstreet 1999 ) , such as and things/stuff like that, and so on and you know what I mean can show the deficiency of words and more precise nomenclature ( cf. Metsa-Ketela 2006: 121 ) . They can be regarded as an ELF-specific characteristic that is caused by the hard state of affairs of talkers pass oning in a non-native linguistic communication and the lexical spreads this involves.

( 7 ) Angstrom: [ and other Fieldss? ]

Bacillus: which Fieldss?

A: in political and eh eh @ and so on

Ten: economical

( CC 3, German talker )

( 8 ) Angstrom: [ aˆ¦ ] musicology [ aˆ¦ ]

Bacillus: is it about the history of the music

A: eh, that ‘s one portion

Degree centigrades: ah so you analyse the construction of the music and and things like that

( ICC, international pupils 1, German talker )

Comparative corpus-based surveies show that non-native talkers use some of those obscure looks strikingly frequently ( cf. de Cock et Al. ( 1998 ) and that their frequences every bit good as their maps are influenced by talkers L1 ( californium. Terraschke 2010 ) . In the principal used here, and so on ( californium. 7 ) and and things like that ( californium. 8 ) are the most often used extenders. We can besides include semi-prefabricated balls such as how to state in English/how do you name that in English/what ‘s the word in English into this group, as they occur really frequently in metacommunicative map without turn toing a talker for lexical aid.

My last illustration, a small-talk state of affairs in which international pupils have tea together, shows that the different components of individuality can unify.

( 9 ) A: does ( . ) is there an English look for guten appetit?

Bacillus: eh the American told me they say it ‘s eh the French bon appetit

Degree centigrades: bon appetit aha

Calciferol: have a [ nice repast ] @

Degree centigrade: have a nice repast yeah ( 2 sec ) God bless the Godhead

XYZ: @ @ @ @ @

Degree centigrades: no no it ‘s merely ( . ) merely popped up in my head

( Nickel 2010: 12, German talker )

In this scene, English civilization offers the point of going. Speakers are seeking for a communicative expression that is situationally equal in an English native civilization, which reveals that they do see the linguistic communication that they use as a tongue franca here in connexion with its societal context. The scene, nevertheless, develops in a different way. It ends up in amusement caused by the self-generated creative activity of a nonsensical phrase. With its proverbial character and allusion to English expression, such as God bless you, Thank the Lord, God save the Queen, etc. , it can be seen as an case of stereotype-based jeer. A purportedly typical characteristic of another group is highlighted to arouse laughter. The fact that in this instance the group – English native talkers – are non present, but that their linguistic communication is used as a agency of communicating seems to add a particular spirit to the state of affairs, which supports their group rank. The scene demonstrates how people signal their shared individuality in lingua franca interactions. [ Humour of this sort, as probes have shown ( Pullin Stark 2009, Holmes/Stubbe/Marra 2003, BrkinjaA? 2009 ) , helps to set up and keep solidarity between talkers. ]

Pulling wide-ranging decisions on the footing of a few illustrations is, of class, hard. Some recent surveies in the field of ELF ( e.g. Kalocsay 2009, Planken 2005 ) have produced similar findings, nevertheless. They refer to the creative activity of a intercrossed infinite, a ‘third civilization ‘ ( an “ intersociety ” in Hullen ‘s footings ) where talkers construct their ain individualities. The thought of “ thirdness ” , which can besides be traced back to the Hagiographas of Bhabha ( 1994 ) , particularly in mention to post-colonial contexts in which members of minority groups co-construct their individualities, has been conceptualized in different models ( e.g. Gutierrez et Al. 2000, Duff 2004, Kramsch 1993 ) . The construct can besides be applied to lingua franca interactions. Kecskes ( 2007: 212 ) argues that “ lingua franca communicating can be best explained as a 3rd infinite phenomenon ” . It is an intermediate infinite between established norms, between communicating and designation where users of ELF activate a figure of lingual and matter-of-fact schemes to build and negociate an individuality of their ain ( Canagarajah 2007 ) . The specific features of this intercrossed infinite, nevertheless, need farther probe.

4.2.4 Phraseology in ELF communicating: Drumhead and decisions

The survey has shown that ELF interactions contain a considerable sum of wording. It demonstrates that a lingua franca can besides function expressive intents. It is non a culture-free codification stripped of individuality. Peoples want to be expressive and originative when they communicate, even in a foreign linguistic communication, and wording because of its imagination and its connotative potency is a agency of accomplishing this. In add-on, pre-fabricated address has a processing advantage over fruitfully generated linguistic communication, which holds true for native and non-native talkers ( californium. Conclin & A ; Schmitt 2007 ) . We have seen that ELF talkers use culture-specific L2 looks and reassign phraseological units associated with their ain female parent linguas and civilizations into English to show individuality. Furthermore, there are utilizations of wording that might be called ELF-specific, as they result from the peculiar character of communicating, in an L2, particularly from the lexical spread interactors experience. In amount, wording in ELF is used harmonizing to talkers ‘ communicative demands.

On the one manus, this consequence is unexpected, as general descriptions or sentiment about ELF include the impression that this signifier of English deficiencies parlances and metaphors. For illustration, Wright ( 2007: 164 ) , in her survey of English spoken within the European establishments, points out:

This is non the topographic point to depict the properties of this underdeveloped linguistic communication assortment in item here but in brief, it can be categorised as holding distinguishable lexis ( aˆ¦ ) , as being grammatically simple ( SVO ) and as lacking in metaphor and commendation. ( my accent )

Kecskes ( 2007: 213 ) , in his survey of formulaic linguistic communication in ELF, finds that “ lingua franca communicators avoid formulaic linguistic communication ” . He explains this with the fact that colloquial modus operandis and expressions require shared background cognition, of which ELF users do non hold much.

On the other manus, this consequence does non come as a surprise, and this is for two grounds. First, a figure of ELF research workers have late shown that wording is relevant ( e.g. Prodromou 2007 ; Seidlhofer/Widdowson 2007 ; Pitzl 2009 ) . Prodromou ( 2007: 24? ) compares idiomaticity to a “ minefield ” ; non-native talker “ are penalized ” for non utilizing parlances right, as he says. In contrast to this, Pitzl ( 2009 ) , in her article on metaphor and parlances argues that formal divergences are non to be seen as mistakes, but as lingual inventions that fulfil a assortment of communicative maps. Working on the footing of the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English ( VOICE ) , she gives illustrations of ELF talkers who transfer parlances from their L1s into English in order to convey their native civilization into the discourse and discusses the usage of bing English parlances differing in signifier every bit good as the coining of new looks. It would hold been interesting to compare these utilizations with state of affairss in which ELF users adopt English culture-specific parlances ( , which can besides be found in VOICE, e.g. small willy or Dutch dainty ) .

Second, research that has been done into lingua franca communicating in planned linguistic communications throws some visible radiation on the phenomenon. Esperanto talkers make extended usage of wording, as I showed elsewhere ( Fiedler 1999 ; 2007b ) . There are analogues with some of the characteristics of ELF that were described supra, such as the techniques applied to procure intelligibility. Creative-innovative linguistic communication usage in Esperanto, which constitutes the civilization of the address community, is surely favoured by the flexible sentence structure and the productive word formation system of the planned linguistic communication and certain built-in lingual possibilities for the building of language-dependent temper. Above all, nevertheless, it consequences from the fact that there is no native talker of Esperanto in the sense of a norm-providing restorative. This gives the talkers of the planned linguistic communication the chance to be productive and originative in a self-assured manner. The more ELF is seen as a signifier of English “ in its ain right ” ( Jenkins 2007 ) , detached from native talkers and their norms, the richer and more independent the usage of wording will be in ELF interactions.

5 Final comments

At the terminal of this paper I would wish to come back to Hullen ‘s ( 1992 ) article. The late linguist is handling the subject linguistic communication of designation and linguistic communication of communicating in a differentiated manner. He himself, for illustration, references Anglo-American conventions in academic discourse, stating:

The cosmopolitan character of academic manner that has been established [ note mentioning to Widdowson 1979 ] might be in fact more an English manner that has become cosmopolitan than a truly cosmopolitan manner. ( my interlingual rendition )

[ Eine in solchen Texten festgestellte Universalitat diethylstilbestrols wissenschaftlichen Stils ( Anm. : Widdowson 1979: 51-61 ) mag in der Tat ein mehr cosmopolitan gewordener englischer ALSs ein wirklich universaler Stil sein. ]

In add-on, he speaks of “ different grades of designation between talker and linguistic communication ” and mentions the fact that even foreign linguistic communications can be learnt intensively, which might ensue in an identificatory consequence ( p. 303 ) . In his article “ Global English – Desired and Dreaded ” , Hullen ( 2003: 121 ) sees his ain thought of a duality between linguistic communication of communicating and linguistic communication of designation in a really critical visible radiation:

It adds to these troubles that nowadays English is non merely equated with Britain and the old Empire but besides with the United States as a sort of new imperium. This makes it hard to still believe in the hypothesis that English as a national linguistic communication and English as an international linguistic communication are two separate systems the latter being equidistant to all other linguistic communications and civilizations. As an international linguistic communication, English would so be instrumental merely for communicating in a impersonal manner and would hold nil to make with the cultural individuality of talkers. ( note 25: At least partially, I was a protagonist of this thought myself [ aˆ¦ ] – mention to the 1992 article )

As the quotation marks show, to establish the separation between linguistic communication of communicating and designation on Hullen does non quite to make full justness to the writer. He depicts a more complex image. ELF is a really particular and rich signifier of linguistic communication usage. This survey suggests, utilizing illustrations from the field of wording, that it is non simply a linguistic communication of communicating, a impersonal codification stripped bare of civilization and individuality. Speakers of English as a tongue franca display an array of assorted individualities, with the English native linguistic communication and civilization ( s ) , their ain primary linguistic communications and civilizations and a specific ELF individuality being of import pillars. The grades to which these three components are activated every bit good as their interaction depend on a assortment of factors that are of influence in a specific communicative state of affairs.