The ELF Method: how the ELT classroom canimitate the real-world ELF context

Abstract

That English is being used as a lingua franca among non-native

speakers in real-world contexts is well documented. However,

another valid area of study is the use of ELF within a

classroom context. This paper puts forward a possible teaching

method, the ELF Method, to be used in ELT classrooms where the

principal pedagogic aim is to prepare learners for

international communication in English with other non-native

speakers. Modelled closely on Task-Based Learning, the ELF

Method will be structured around the performance of a

communicative task, one which directly mirrors those used in

real ELF contexts. In contrast to existing communicative

teaching methods, however, it is proposed that the teaching of

linguistic items in the ELF Method be ignored. Rather,

learners will be encouraged to make use of any linguistic

resources they have at their disposal as they interact to

complete the task. Emphasis will also be placed on the use of

pragmatic strategies to facilitate communication.

Keywords: ELF, ELF Method, pragmatic strategies, communicative

task, task achievement

Introduction

It is generally accepted that English is spoken more by non-

native speakers than native ones (Jenkins, 2002). As such,

rather than belonging to any particular country, English is

part of a much more global environment (Rajagopalan, 2010).

Indeed, the language used by non-native speakers has

flourished into a myriad of both Outer Circle and Expanding

Circle varieties, each with their distinctive features. This

has helped give rise to the phenomenon of English as a Lingua

Franca (ELF), defined by Firth (1996, p240) as “…a 'contact

language' between persons who share neither a common native

tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English

is the chosen foreign language of communication” (emphasis in

original).

With ELF, then, the emphasis is on non-native speaker

communication rather than adherence to native speaker norms

(Ranta, 2009; Jenkins, 2007). Therefore, those who are using

ELF are not identifying themselves with the native speaker and

native speaker competence. ELF can be used successfully in

contexts by those who have a shared and common purpose for

communication, individuals who actively create an environment

that is both positive and conducive to communicating

effectively (Meierkord, 2000; Melchers and Shaw, 2011). These

individuals are in effect using the language for themselves,

to suit the requirements of that context in which they are

communicating, a context in which they can channel their own

identities (Ferguson, 2009; Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011;

Seidlhofer, 2001; Seidlhofer 2009). What is important here is

that speakers of ELF are using English in a way which is

intelligible to other non-native speakers of the language

(Jenkins, 2006b).

In theory, there are a multitude of contexts in which ELF can

be used, both inter- and intra-nationally. Any environment in

which groups of non-native English speakers of different L1s

are using English could be deemed one in which ELF is being

used. Some of these may include:

1. Formal contexts

A conference or summit, in which there are

presentations, debates and discussions. (Eg a

gathering of international political delegates [the

UN, WHO, IMF, Eurozone, G8]

In academia – lectures, presentations, seminars,

tutorials, discussions/debates, study groups

Business and service interactions and transactions

Work-related interactions – a job interview

(conducted face to face or online), meetings.

2. Less formal contexts

Work-related interactions – colleagues meeting

informally

Social contexts – parties, informal discussions in

bars, cafes, shops, etc

Internet forums – social networks, online gaming,

etc.

So, ELF can be used in these situations within the real-world

context. But the question here is whether or not it can be

used in the classroom. Theoretically, a typical multilingual

class of English language learners becomes an environment

where ELF is used by default, simply as those learners are all

non-native speakers of English who do not share a common first

language. Nevertheless, this class will still fit within the

EFL paradigm, which is to say, the learners will all be

instructed via native speaker models, and will therefore be

expected to conform to native speaker norms. The culture

explored in the lessons may well be solely that of an Inner

Circle country, such as the UK or US. The aims of the class

will invariably be structured around the learning of specific

language items in some sort of logical sequence. It is an

acceptable context, one in which language learning has been

proven to take place. Learners can develop their language

skills and knowledge in this environment.

So, the teaching of English, how it is tested and the

materials used to do that are still driven by native speaker

norms in spite of the fact that both ELF use throughout the

world and the profile of nativised varieties of English have

increased significantly (Seidlhofer, 2001; Jenkins, 2012). Any

language used which deviates from those standards have

generally been thought of as errors (Jenkins, 2006a).

Communicative-based methods, such as Communicative Language

Teaching (CLT) or Task-Based Learning (TBL), enable learners

in the language classroom to communicate with one another in a

task they find engaging and relevant to their needs. They use

meaningful language with one another to help their learning

(Richards and Rodgers, 2001; Breen, 2001). Nevertheless, there

is still a need for the learners in these contexts to adhere

to native speaker norms, to varying degrees. Yet what if there

were a teaching method which placed little or no importance on

the forms of the language that the learners used? A context in

which the language used might differ from what would be

accepted in a standard variety of English, although this would

not be seen as an issue, providing that what they said was

intelligible to their fellow interlocutors.

ELF in the classroom

What is being examined here is the need to create a context

within the classroom in which ELF can be used as authentically

as possible. Of course, that these contexts would have to be

simulated would immediately make them artificial to some

extent. And yet there is no reason why a conference debate, a

job interview or a party – all scenarios for which ELF is used

– could not be simulated via role-plays, with the learners

interacting with one another, pretending that the contexts

were real. Role-plays are already a feature of classrooms that

adopt CLT or TBL. Within an ELF-orientated class, there would

still be meaningful interaction; indeed, this would feature as

a core component of the method. However, the classroom would

effectively mirror the real-world ELF context, with the actions

and interactions performed in the former being directly

modelled on those performed in the latter. The teaching method

used in this type of lesson could be known as the English as a

Lingua Franca Method, or the ELF Method (ELFM).

It has been mentioned that the communicative task is a key

feature of both CLT and TBL, with the lesson effectively being

based around it, particularly in the case of TBL. The ELF

Method would be no different. Indeed, successful achievement

of the task would constitute the primary lesson aim of this

method. To take one such example, the lesson may be structured

around a business meeting. In this meeting, there are a number

of topics to be discussed. The classroom, therefore, becomes

that pseudo board or meeting room, where groups of learners

are given roles to act out and perhaps information they have

to exchange with one another to achieve a particular outcome.

The role play thus becomes the task, which in turn becomes the

lesson. Furthermore, what was a bona fide context where ELF

might be used in the real world (the meeting participants

would be of different nationalities, each with different L1s)

has now been transferred to the classroom. The key point here

is that the principal stages of a real ELF-speaking activity

are now being undertaken in the same way in the classroom.

It can be seen, therefore, that the ELF Method is an extension

of the existing communicative approaches which are used in

ELT. However, there is one crucial difference. In both CLT and

arguably to a lesser extent, TBL, there are stages within the

lesson that contain an element of focussed language input.

This may involve the teacher presenting language items to be

used by the learners during the task. (One example might be

the use of exponents to agree or disagree, which are given to

the learners before they undertake their role play of the

business meeting). But with the ELF Method, there can

effectively be no direct language input for the very simple

reason that in the real world where ELF is used – one which

the ELFM classroom is designed to directly imitate – there is

no direct language instruction from any source, least of all a

teacher.

It is true that this approach may seem radical and needlessly

counterproductive. However, one advantage of not having the

teacher present any language to the learners before they

undertake the task is that it pre-empts the issue of what

language model or variety should be taught. The learners in an

ELFM class will bring both a range of L1s and a range of

different varieties of English into the classroom. They will

either have been introduced to those varieties during their

previous learning (by a non-native speaking EFL teacher who

inadvertently introduced their L1 features into their teaching

as well as fossilised L1 interference from the learners

themselves) or exposed to them within their own domains. That

the varieties of English used by the learners in the ELFM

class differ not only from Standard English but also from one

another could theoretically be demonstrated by the teacher, in

that he or she could highlight the key linguistic variations.

Indeed, Kirkpatrick (2007) suggests that an appropriate ELF

approach would highlight the ways in which Englishes differ

from one variety to another. But pointing out the myriad and

nuanced linguistic differences between the varieties could

become a very complicated and time-consuming job for the

teacher, something which would clearly detract from the main

lesson aim: to give the learners practice of using ELF.

Ideally, it might also be advantageous for the ELFM teacher to

have an awareness of the learners’ L1 so that they could

monitor and perhaps predict which L1 features (eg phonological

ones) may be transferred to spoken output during the tasks and

adversely affect intelligibility (see Jenkins, 2000; Jenkins,

2002). But this, too, may be asking far too much of the

teacher, particularly if the class is made up of speakers of

many different L1s, most of which the teacher has no knowledge

of.

In theory, the teacher of an ELFM class could choose for their

language of instruction an all-comprehensive international

variety or the specific variety used within the learners’

domain (for example, choosing Singapore English for a class

taught in Singapore). In practice, however, it might not be

realistic to teach either. For the international one, it is

virtually impossible to have a codified version in as much as

there are essentially too many features to encompass all the

distinct varieties of English used around the world. As for

teaching a specific variety, this in itself may be too

restrictive, as that variety may lack the language required

for the speaker to convey the meaning of a particular idea.

Added to that is the complication that no, or very little,

pedagogic literature and materials exist for many of these

varieties; therefore, it would be difficult to present

language models which are themselves unavailable (Matsuda and

Friedrich, 2011).

Ultimately, though, if the learners are to be using ELF

outside the classroom, in their jobs for example, then the

need for them to focus on the features of their respective

variety of English and those of their interlocutors is

arguably superfluous. The shared dynamic that they themselves

create as they interact, and the language produced as a result

of that dynamic, may make this awareness redundant.

So, within an ELFM class, there will be no prior teaching of

any target linguistic items. However, the teacher may respond

to any other noteworthy language the learners produce after they

have completed the task. This language will be examined within

the ELF paradigm; in other words, language which highlights

the variation characteristic of the way English is used in an

ELF context (see Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011). For example,

it may be worth highlighting the learners’ use of any

unnecessary prepositions or their omission of the third person

–s, both these features being common to ELF speech (see

Seidlhofer, 2004; Cogo and Dewey, 2006; Dewey, 2006). Also,

any interesting phonological features of the learners’ speech

could be examined against Jenkins’ Lingua Franca Core, showing

the learners the features they used during the task which were

necessary for mutual intelligibility and those which were not

(see Jenkins, 2000). Alternatively, the teacher may want to

look at non-standard language items that may have been coined

and shared by the group, language which has helped them both

convey meaning and develop their discourse. Generally, there

is a significant amount of variance within ELF communication

due to its participants deriving from a wide range of language

backgrounds, all of whom use English to different levels of

ability (Ferguson, 2009; Jenkins, 2006a). So, any of this

varied language could be highlighted by the teacher during

post-task feedback. Known as a focus on form stage in TBL;

this may also be included within the ELFM paradigm. However,

it would ultimately be the teacher’s decision as to whether or

not this was necessary in his or her own teaching context.

Crucially, none of the non-standard language used by the

learners will be considered errors, even if it causes problems

within the learners’ communication.

And yet it is debatable as to what extent the language the

learners use will in fact be problematic. Will it cause their

communication to break down irrevocably? It is unlikely,

unless the proficiency levels separating the learners are so

wide that one or more of the interlocutors lacks the

competence to continue with the conversation. However, the

class of ELFM learners would not contain such a wide gap. What

would be of the upmost importance, therefore, would be that

the learners could deal effectively with any breakdowns as and

when they occurred. That they had the appropriate tools to

hand which they could deploy whenever they were required. (In

the context of communication, these tools duly become

strategies.) Maley (2009) suggests that teachers could

highlight relevant strategies to ELF speakers to help them

deal with the language variation that they may encounter when

communicating to one another. The question, is – which

strategies?

The use of strategies in ELFM

Recent studies show that there are less incidences of both

non-understanding and misunderstanding in ELF communication

than in native speaker speech. Nevertheless, consideration

still needs to be given to the ways in which ELF speakers use

the appropriate strategies to facilitate their communication

so that the communication does not break down (Jenkins, Cogo

and Dewey, 2011). As regards problems of non-understanding,

these can be avoided altogether by adopting a number of

strategies. One is by the speakers repairing or reformulating

their own utterances to makes them clearer to their fellow

interlocutors (Mauranen, 2006; Lichtkoppler, 2007; Kaur,

2011a). Alternatively, they may also either choose safe topics

to discuss (Meierkord, 2000) or avoid certain topics

altogether (Watterson, 2006). Speakers may even converge on

producing L2 target-like sounds rather than transfer sounds

from their respective L1s which they think will prevent what

they have said from being understood (Jenkins, 2002).

And if communication does break down, ELF speakers can employ

the necessary strategies to deal with it. They may negotiate for

meaning: use confirmation checks or indicate that they have not

understood what they have heard (Mauranen, 2006); repeat or

paraphrase what they have already said (Lichkoppler, 2007;

Watterson, 2008); use intonation to highlight and thereafter

resolve the non-understanding (Pickering, 2009); or explain

the content of an utterance which was previously not

understood (Sumner, 2013). Kaur (2010) found that the ELF

speakers she studied successfully resolved the non-

understandings that they encountered through repetition,

paraphrase and clarification. The speakers therefore very

seldom had to change topic during their interaction.

Alternatively, assuming the non-understanding is deemed by the

hearer not to be critical to the overall flow and meaning of

the discourse, he or she may decide to ignore it, to “let it

pass” (Firth, 1996). Crucially, ELF speakers are able to share

the necessary information to deal with problems of non-

understanding without disrupting the flow of their interaction

(Pritzl, 2005).

Providing the conditions were such that ELF could be used in

the ELF-simulated classroom context, imitating how it would be

used in the real-world ELF context outside, then there is

potentially no reason why these strategies could not also be

used by the ELFM learner.

Of course, should misunderstandings occur between the ELFM

learners – utterances which have been heard superficially but

misinterpreted – then they, too, could be dealt with by self-

repair, repetition, paraphrase, confirmation checking and

asking for clarification – just as they are dealt with by

real-world ELF speakers outside (Seidlhofer, 2004; Polzl and

Seidlhofer, 2006; Kaur, 2011b).

So, within this context there is perhaps an argument for

putting more emphasis on the teaching of the language skills

and strategies needed for the ELFM learners to participate in

effective non-native speaker communication (see Sikakis, 2009;

Cogo, 2012). McKay (2002) argues that teachers could encourage

their learners both to be intelligible and to use strategies

to develop their discourse, rather than getting them to

produce standard forms of English. Similarly, ELFM learners

could be instructed in the ways non-native English speakers

interact and the strategies used to do that (see Suzuki, 2010;

Murray, 2012). Indeed, Björkman (2010) suggests that success

in ELF communication is affected more by the individual’s

pragmatic ability than their proficiency level. And yet to

what extent would it be necessary to teach the learners these

strategies? Or, to put it another way, could these strategies

be deployed naturally by the learners for the valid reason

that they all wanted to complete the task? Dispensing with the

need for learners to acquire native-like competence in English

would make it easier for them to concentrate on developing the

relevant strategies which would facilitate their communication

(see Seidlhofer, 2004). It may be that the learners

instinctively know what strategy they should use if and when

communication breaks down, and would therefore not benefit

hugely from classroom instruction in these areas (see Kasper,

1997).

The degree to which the learners knew each other might also

affect their willingness to negotiate for meaning when

communication broke down, in that those learners who were more

familiar with each other might make them more willing to

negotiate (see Foster and Ohta, 2005). Therefore, as the

learners in an ELFM class would be studying together within

the same class, they too might be expected to be more inclined

to negotiate. In addition, certain studies show that the

complexity of a task can influence how its participants

interact in relation to how often they negotiate for meaning

and focus on the form of the language they use (Révész, 2011).

The type of task the learners are undertaking may also affect

how often they negotiate for meaning, with tasks in which the

learners are required to share information to achieve one

communicative outcome making them more likely to negotiate

(see Foster, 1998; Ellis, 2003).

This last point is particularly important. It has already been

mentioned that within the ELF method, the learners undertake

tasks which resemble as closely as possible those undertaken

in a real-life ELF context. One question that should be asked

therefore is whether or not these communicative tasks would be

such that there is a requirement of the learner to exchange

information, and therefore negotiate if need be, whilst they

interact. Are there cases where ELF speakers in real-life

communicative contexts need to exchange information that only

they know? One situation which might meet this criterion is

that of the job interview where the learner acting the role of

the candidate has information about their background

(education and employment), skills-set, interests, etc, and

the learner pretending to be the interviewer has information

about the job being applied for, the company, etc. During the

course of this role-play, this information needs to be

exchanged if the task is to be achieved (the aim of the task

being to determine whether or not the candidate gets the job).

Another example is where two (or more) businesspeople are

engaged in negotiating a deal which involves the trading of

one commodity for another. Businessperson A presents details

about the commodity he is offering in exchange for the

commodity that Businessperson B has; the latter individual

then gives information about the commodity she has. In this

case, each businessperson contains information unique to them

and them alone. There is one task outcome, and that relates to

the business negotiation, and whether it is successful or not.

In short, the teacher would have to think carefully about how

best to manage the classroom, materials and tasks that the

ELFM learners undertook so that they could negotiate as

effectively as possible whenever the need arose. Providing the

teacher could do this, communication breakdowns could be

resolved so that the learners could continue with the task.

So, herein lies another reason why in the ELFM lesson the

teaching of language items prior to the learners completing

the task is unnecessary. Assuming the learners can

successfully use the aforementioned strategies, either through

instruction or by deploying them naturally, then in theory

there would no need to teach any language which may cause

communication issues. Neither would it be necessary to present

items of lexis or syntax which the learners were not familiar

with. The learners could negotiate their way around any of

these difficulties, and continue with their conversations

accordingly. This approach might prove problematic for the

learners initially, essentially due to its unfamiliarity, but

with time and practice it would be hoped that they would

become more comfortable with it.

Making use of existing linguistic resources

The suggestion that ELFM learners will be able to communicate

without any focussed language input from the teacher is a

valid one. There are a plethora of studies demonstrating that

ELF speakers can communicate effectively in a real-life

context without any instruction, from research studies looking

at ELF use within an academic environment, including those

taken from a substantial one million word corpus of spoken

academic English (the English as a Lingua Franca in Academic

Settings [ELFA]) (Mauranen, 2006; Mauranen 2009; Knapp, 2011;

Bjorkman, 2008; Bjorkman, 2010); to studies within the

professional, educational and leisure domains (in particular,

the University of Vienna’s VOICE corpus, which also contains a

million words from many ELF conversations [VOICE 2013]); to

those within more social contexts (Meierkord, 2000; House,

2003; Cogo and Dewey, 2006; Watterson, 2006; Kaur, 2011a;

Kaur, 2011b). What is of fundamental importance here is that

all of these ELF users can bring whatever knowledge they

already have of English into the communication, knowledge

which is essentially malleable, something they develop as they

interact to suit their own communicative needs. And,

crucially, they can communicate, and communicate well,

discussing a myriad range of topics to an appropriate level.

Ultimately, the language they use is, or becomes, for all

intents and purposes, mutually intelligible and appropriate to

the task they are undertaking.

If the ELFM learners are not presented with any explicit

language input that they are to use during the tasks, then the

obvious question relates to what language, if any, they will

learn. And yet the onus here is not on the learners’

acquisition of new items provided by the teacher – a key

component of EFL lessons. Rather, the learners themselves will

be performing tasks using language they already know. More

importantly, they can try to create language to complete

certain linguistic gaps when such a need arises. For instance,

ELF speakers have been found to coin new idiomatic phrases

which, although not necessarily conforming to native speaker

standards, are understood and accommodated by their fellow

interlocutors. In doing so, the speakers can share meaning and

develop interpersonal rapport. One such example is the

exponent In my observation, used to give an opinion (Seidlhofer,

2009). Speakers can also use discourse markers to both manage

how they interact and ensure the content of their utterances

is coherent (Mauranen, 2009). If need be, the learners can

work together during their interaction to negotiate both the

meaning and the form of the language they are attempting to

use. Through mutual cooperation, ELF speakers are therefore

able to share the meaning of what they want to say; in this

way their discourse can be successfully developed. One way

they can do this is by accommodating to what their fellow

interlocutor has said (Cogo and Dewey, 2006; Sumner 2013).

Another way that the learners can build their discourse

mutually is by signalling their interest and engagement

through latching and backchanelling (see Cogo, 2012).

Crucially, even if they fail to arrive at the correct form,

the meaning of what they want to say can still be understood.

Overall, in this context it is considered more important that

the learners communicate intelligibly rather than their being

accurate (see Alptekin, 2007). Also, the meaning of words can

be acquired through the learners’ mutual negotiation: learners

who know the meaning can “pass” that meaning onto their fellow

interlocutors (see Newton, 2001).

As there is no specific language input as such, and the

learners are performing communicative tasks based on their

existing language knowledge and skills, it would seem logical

to assume that the learners themselves cannot be beginners.

Therefore, it would need to be established what the minimum

level of proficiency was for learners to be successfully

instructed in this method. That learners within the same class

might be of relatively different levels would not be an issue,

at least for the undertaking of the spoken tasks, as real-life

ELF communication can involve speakers of mixed proficiency,

ranging from intermediate to advanced (Meierkord, 2000; Kaur,

2011a; Kaur, 2011b; Watterson, 2006).

Possible contexts to which the ELF method would apply

It is obviously very important to consider the educational

contexts to which this method might apply. It is certain that

the relevance of this method would not be universal,

essentially as there are contexts where the learner make-up

and needs would not match the paradigm. For example, the

learners in a monolingual class would not be using ELF, simply

as all of them would share the same L1s. It is therefore

important to think about the contexts where multilingual

classes might exist. Inner Circle countries, such as the UK or

USA, may attract a significant number of foreign language

learners from a variety of different countries. As such, the

institutes in these countries may comprise of learners with

different L1s. (This is certainly the case in the UK.) Also,

in Outer Circle areas like Singapore and Hong Kong, both of

which have a significant international presence and where

English is taught (as EFL), the learners in the classes may

have different L1s. As a result, the ELF method could

potentially be used, assuming it was a method whose aims met

with the learners’ needs and approval.

Of course, it is also crucial to think about why the learners

are learning English, and what they will need it for outside

of the classroom. It is entirely possible that the learners

will need it for use in the UK, perhaps for work or study, and

consequently they might wish to be taught a native speaker

model. However, those learners who will need English to

communicate in international contexts with other non-native

speakers may benefit from ELFM (see Watterson, 2008). Further,

it would be hoped that the pseudo-ELF tasks they performed

within this learning environment would mirror the ones they

needed to perform in the real-life context. Feedback could be

given to the teachers by the students throughout the course on

what tasks they needed to practice (see Gray, 1990). What is

important here is that within this learning context there is a

definitive requirement for the learners to be taught via this

method. In other words, the learners will be using ELF outside

the classroom and will need to develop beforehand both their

competence and confidence of using this register within a

simulated environment in the classroom.

One other possible scenario is that the ELF Method is applied

to other types of learning where English is used as the medium

of instruction, but whose aim is not the teaching of the

language per se. One such example could be an English for

Academic Purposes class, where the learners are prepared for

academic study within an English speaking country (invariably

an Inner Circle one). The focus, therefore, is on teaching

both the academic language and the skills and techniques the

learners may need during their studies. The ELF Method may not

necessarily be appropriate here, essentially as direct

language input will be necessary in this context, but if the

class is multilingual then ELF will be being used by the

learners as they interact during the class. It may also be

relevant to draw the students’ attention to the pragmatic

strategies they use during their interactions, just as it

might be during a normal ELFM class. These are strategies that

they can use in their real-life context at university, a

context where they will be using ELF with other non-native

speaking students and possibly their tutors as well. In this

case, the spoken tasks undertaken in the classroom in which

they might use these strategies would simulate those that the

learners will be undertaking when they become actual

university students: seminars in which they have to work in

pairs or in groups; study group interactions, presentations,

contexts of a more practical nature. However, as mentioned

previously, it is entirely possible that the learners will use

these strategies automatically, and would therefore not

require their attention to be drawn to them.

The fact that there are more non-native speakers of English

than native ones may suggest that there would be a significant

demand for classes where this method is taught. The emphasis

would need to shift from the learners aiming to achieve

native-like standards to them being made aware of the need to

learn English for use in their particular ELF contexts. That

Expanding Circle speakers use English which meets their needs

both linguistically and socially rather than those of Inner

Circle speakers should, in theory, affect how the language is

taught and assessed (Jenkins, 2006a). Moreover, younger

learners are beginning to realise that the English they are

taught does not necessarily apply to the type of English they

need to use outside the classroom (Jenkins, 2012). This method

might therefore appeal to this younger demographic.

For a school to adopt ELFM would not, or indeed could not,

mean that this method would replace existing, recognised

approaches to language teaching, ones that are currently in

use. Rather, it is proposed that this method work in tandem

with these other approaches, in turn adding to the learner’s

overall skills and knowledge of English, its linguistic makeup

and how it is used to communicate in contexts which are

relevant to them (see Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011). Also, it

will not be enough for teachers to implement a one-size-fits-

all model for the classes they teach. Rather, they will have

to adapt their teaching contexts to the individual needs of

their learners, taking into account the language variation

that their learners may use, their individual identities and

how that may affect the way they communicate with one another

(see Seidlhofer, 2004). Nevertheless, in ELFM classes, where

the learners are of different nationalities, it is these

learners who are communicating with each other within the

context of the task(s) they do; the teacher can, in theory,

take a back seat.

The English as Lingua Franca Method is essentially a

simplified version of Task-Based Learning, without the

focussed language input. Or, to put it another way, it is an

evolved version of this method, where the language used is for

all intents and purposes immaterial: what matters is that the

learners interact in order to communicate and achieve a task

aim. In doing so, they will need to be intelligible. However,

as has been discussed, any problems of understanding should

either be able to be resolved through the learners’

negotiating for meaning or dealt with pre-emptively by

employing the appropriate strategy. Assuming the learners

already have the competence to engage in meaningful

communication – that they possess the necessary linguistic and

pragmatic skills and knowledge – they should be able to

achieve the aims of the lesson. It is a context in which

essentially anything goes, where any appropriate language and

strategies can be employed to complete the task they are given

– just as would happen in the real world outside the

classroom.

References

Alptekin, C., 2007. Teaching ELF as a language in its own

right: communication or prescriptivism? ELT Journal, 61(3), pp.

267-8

Bjorkman, B., 2008. English as the lingua franca of

engineering: the morphosyntax of academic speech events. Nordic

Journal of English Studies, 7(3), pp. 103-22

Björkman, B., 2010. So you think you can ELF: English as a

Lingua Franca as the medium of instruction, Hermes – Journal of

Language and Communication Studies, 45, pp. 77-97

Breen, M. P., 2001. Navigating the discourse: on what is

learned in the language classroom. In C. N. Candlin and N.

Mercer, ed. 2001. English Language Teaching in its Social Context.

Routledge: Abingdon. Ch. 19.

Cogo, A., 2012. English as a Lingua Franca: concepts, use, and

implications. ELT Journal, 66(1), pp. 97-105

Cogo, A. and Dewey, M., 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication:

from pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic

Journal of English Studies, 5(2), pp. 59-94

Dewey, M., 2006. English as lingua franca: an empirical study

of innovation in lexis and grammar. PhD thesis. Available at:

https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/2935816/495009.pdf.

(Accessed 10 December 2014)

Ellis, R., 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press

Ferguson, G., 2009.iIssues in researching English as a lingua

franca: a conceptual enquiry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,

19(2), pp. 118-34

Firth, A., 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality:

on “lingua franca” English and conversational analysis. Journal of

Pragmatics, 26, pp. 237-59

Foster, P., 1998. A classroom perspective on the negotiation

of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), pp. 1-23

Foster, P. and Ohta, A.S., 2005. Negotiation for meaning and

peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics,

26(3), pp. 402-30

Gray, K., 1990. Syllabus design for the general class: what

happens to the theory when you apply it. ELT Journal, 44(4), pp.

261-71

House, J., 2003. English as Lingua Franca: a threat to

multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), pp. 556-78

Jenkins, J., 2000. The phonology of English as an International Language.

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Jenkins, J., 2002. A sociologically based, empirically

researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an

International Language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), pp. 83-103

Jenkins, J. 2006a. Points of view and blind spots: ELF and

SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), pp. 137-62

Jenkins, J, 2006b. Current Perspectives on Teaching World

Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1),

pp. 157-81

Jenkins, J., 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity.

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M., 2011. Review of

developments in research into English as a lingua franca.

Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281-315

Jenkins, J., 2012. English as a Lingua Franca from the

classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), pp. 486-94

Kasper, G., 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? [online]

Available at: http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/

[Accessed 28 November 2014]

Kaur, J., 2010. Achieving mutual understanding in world

Englishes. World Englishes, 29(2), pp. 192-208

Kaur, J., 2011a. Raising explicitness through self-repair in

English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, pp. 2704-

2715

Kaur, J., 2011b. Intercultural communication in English as a

lingua franca: some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural

Pragmatics, 8(1), pp. 93-116

Kirkpatrick, A., 2007. World Englishes: Implications for International

Communication and English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Knapp, A., 2011. Using English as a lingua franca for

(mis-)managing conflict in an international university

context: An example from a course in engineering. Journal of

Pragmatics, 42, pp. 978-90

Lichtkoppler, J., 2007. “Male. Male.” – “Male?” – “The sex is

male.” – the role of repetition in English as a lingua franca

conversations. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(1), pp. 39-65

McKay, S., L., 2002. Teaching English as an International Language.

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Maley, A., 2009. ELF: a teacher’s perspective. Language and

International Communication, 9(3), pp. 187-200

Matsuda, A. and Friedrich, P., 2011. English as an

International Language: a curriculum blueprint. World Englishes,

30(3), pp. 332-44

Mauranen, A., 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding

in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of

the Sociology of Language, 177, pp. 123-50

Mauranen, A., 2009. Chunking in ELF: expressions for managing

interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), pp. 217-33

Meierkord, C., 2000. Interpreting successful lingua franca

interaction: an analysis of non-native-/non-native small talk

conversations in English. Linguistik online 5. Available at

http://www.linguistik-online.com/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM. (Accessed

29th November 2014)

Melchers, G. and Shaw, P., 2011. World Englishes. 2nd Ed.

Abingdon: Hodder Education

Murray, N., 2012. English as a lingua franca and the

development of pragmatic competence. ELT Journal, 66(3), pp. 318-

26

Newton, J, 2001. Options for vocabulary learning through

communication tasks, ELT Journal, 55(1), pp. 30-7

Pickering, L., 2009. Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF

interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6-2, pp. 235-55

Pitzl, M.L., 2005. Non-understanding in English as lingua

franca: examples from a business context. Vienna English Working

Papers, 14(2), pp. 50-71

Polz, U. and Seidlhofer, B., 2006. In and on their own terms:

the “habitat factor” in English as a lingua franca

interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, pp.

151-76

Rajagopalan, K., 2010. The soft ideological underbelly of the

notion of intelligibility in discussions about ‘World

Englishes’. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), pp. 465-70

Ranta, E., 2009. Syntactic features in spoken ELF – learner

language or spoken grammar? In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta, ed.

2009. English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle:

Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ch. 4

Révész, A., 2011. Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions,

and individual differences: a classroom-based study. The Modern

Language Journal, 95, pp. 162-181

Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S., 2001. Approaches and Methods

in Language Teaching. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Seidlhofer, B., 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a

description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of

Applied Linguistics, 11(2), pp. 133-158

Seidlhofer, B., 2004. Research perspectives on teaching

English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24,

pp. 209-39

Seidlhofer, B., 2009. Accommodation and the idiom principle in

English as a Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), pp. 195-

215

Sifakis, N., 2009. Challenges in teaching ELF in the

periphery: the Greek context. ELT Journal, 63(3), pp. 230-7

Sumner, J., 2013. English as a Lingua Franca in the classroom: an

investigation of strategies used by high level learners of English to communicate

with one another during a spoken task. MEd Dissertation. University of

Glasgow

Suzuki, A., 2010. Introducing diversity of English into ELT:

student teachers’ responses. ELT Journal, 65(2), pp. 145-53

Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English. Corpus

Information. Available at:

http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/corpus_information

(Accessed 24th November 2014)

Watterson, M., 2006. A micro-study of English as an international lingua

franca in a Korean context. MA dissertation. Macquarie University.

Available at:

http://asian-efl-journal.com/Thesis_Watterson.pdf

Watterson, M., 2008. Repair of non-understanding in English in

international communication. World Englishes, 27(3/4), pp. 378-

406