1.1 The Aim and Scope of This Element

This Cambridge Elements aims to offer a comprehensive account of the remarkable and unprecedented spread of English as a global language by taking historical, sociolinguistic, and pedagogical perspectives. It opens with a diachronic approach illustrating the historical evolution of English in the past 500 years or so and portraying its transformation from a national language to one characterised by varieties all around the world, whether by choice or by force. The discussion is complemented by a synchronic approach presenting a qualitative and quantitative overview of the present-day role, function, and status of English as a global and multilingual franca. Built upon this synchronic-diachronic symbiosis, the discussion moves onto a paradigmatic level offering an accessible discussion of major paradigms and trends that help us scrutinise the English language within the global linguistic ecology. The next two sections (on implications and practical applications) showcase the ‘how’ of teaching EIL firstly by offering an overview of implications for language educators and then concretising these implications into classroom applications. It ends with a conclusion section bringing these historical, sociolinguistic, and pedagogical threads together, underscoring the vitality of aligning EIL practices, within the broader linguistic ecology and offering recommendations, questions, and future directions for language educators and researchers interested in revamping their practices in the light of the winds of change in ELT.

At a time characterised by ever-growing and ubiquitous demand for English proficiency through various forms and approaches, ELT professionals are facing a real need to revisit and revamp their professional principles and practices which are historically fixated on outdated, static representations of English use, users, functions, and contexts. In response to this pressing need, this Element aims to add to the growing volume of work calling for change to ensure that ELT practices meet the diverse and dynamic needs of learners today who are acquiring English to use as a global mutlingual franca. In closing, we hope that our work will catalyse to synthesise and contribute to the growing body of scholarship that initiates innovation, change, and transformation of the conventional modes of thinking, principles, and practices into a pedagogy that promotes teaching EIL.

1.2 Why Do We Use the Term ‘Teaching English as an International Language’ in This Element?

In our previous work on this topic, we have adopted the term GE or GELT to capture calls for change in ELT practices (see Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway & Rose, 2015; Reference Rose and GallowayRose and Galloway, 2019; Reference Selvi and YazanSelvi & Yazan, 2021). We use these terms to underscore the plurality of Englishes and to make important connections to the related fields of WE and ELF (discussed further in Section 3). While GE is our preferred theoretical paradigm, in this Element, we have elected to adopt the title of TEIL for two main reasons. First, we feel the term is more semantically transparent to ELT professionals, who might be introduced to the notions laid out in this Element for the first term. In recent decades, a growing divide has been noted between language researchers and language teachers (see Reference McKinleyMcKinley, 2019). It has been noted that many language teaching professionals may find research and concepts in applied linguistics overly intellectual and written for a researcher-only readership (Reference KramschKramsch, 2015). The transparency of the term TEIL may be more readily grasped by a wider audience, inclusive of ELT researchers and ELT practitioners who are less familiar with GE as a research paradigm. Second, the term TEIL grew out of language teaching scholarship and thus fits more neatly into an Elements series on Language Teaching. Other overlapping terms such as WE, ELF, and GE incorporate a lot of research outside of the realm of language teaching, including considerable work in linguistic and sociolinguistic domains. As the focus of this Element is on pedagogical implications, we have titled the Element with a term that was largely informed by ELT research(ers) (e.g., Reference McKayMcKay, 2002). In one of its first usages, Reference HassallHassall (1996) argued that TEIL as a term sets it apart from more narrowly defined acronyms such as TEFL and TESOL by foregrounding the situation of ‘interlocutors of different nationalities conversing together without reference to whether either of the participants are ‘native speakers’ of English or not’ (p. 419). This original intended use of the term EIL resonates with our previous scholarship on the pedagogical implications of GE.

Nonetheless, the term TEIL is not without its caveats. We acknowledge that the word ‘international’ is not as inclusive as the word ‘global’, as it invokes imagery of communication between nation-bound states, which is incongruent with how English is used in today’s local, global, and glocal physical and virtual communities. We also recognise that the emphasis on linguistic plurality achieved with ‘GE’ is somewhat conceptually narrowed in our adoption of ‘TEIL’. Nonetheless, this is a compromise we have made to potentially reach new readers and expose them to the diverse and rich ideas that have emanated from WE, EIL, ELF, and GE research over the past decades.

2.1 From Old to Early Modern English

Old English is the term used to describe the English language around the turn of the eleventh century. The origins of Old English were in the Germanic languages of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, who migrated en masse to Great Britain as part of the Anglo-Saxon invasion from 449 CE to fill a power void created by the departure of the Roman Empire (Reference FennellFennell, 2001). Old English was far from a unified language and was greatly influenced by the diverse backgrounds of a mixed linguistic community. In areas less settled by the Anglo-Saxons, many Celtic language speakers remained and influenced the language spoken. In areas that were heavily invaded or settled by Nordic travellers and Vikings, Old Norse had a more dominant influence. Indeed, up to 400 words in English, especially those concerning fauna, remain in modern English, but the influences in Northern Yorkshire and Scottish dialects of English are still evidently greater (Reference Townend and MugglestoneTownend, 2006). As a product of centuries of invasion, settlement, and conflict within and between the kingdoms of Great Britain, a language discernible as ‘Old English’ had emerged, even though some speakers across the island would have been mutually unintelligible across politically and geographically distant regions.

In 1066, England was invaded by Normans from France – a historical event referred to as the Norman Conquest. This established a French-speaking government in English for 300 years. Norman French was established as the prestige language of England for some time. It was the language spoken by kings and nobles and in the royal court. Prestige and power play an important role in whether languages are adopted over others, and as a result French greatly influenced and changed English during this era, with major grammatical changes that took some language features away from its Germanic roots. During this time more than 10,000 French words were introduced. Restrictions on English in politics, law, and government administration also had an impact and were largely indicative of an endangered language (Reference Melchers and ShawMelchers & Shaw, 2011). With a loss of territory in Normandy and increased detachment from France, English was reinstated as the language of the courts in 1362, by which time the English language had dramatically changed to one referred to as Middle English.

In the late Middle Ages and early modern periods, English continued to evolve due to numerous linguistic factors. The language was subjected to the influence of external factors such as contact with Latin through religion and science in addition to the continued influence of French (which still held social prestige) through literature and culture. Trade brought new flora, fauna, objects, and ideas to Great Britain, accompanied by the words used to describe them in foreign languages. English was also influenced by social changes, including increased population mobility, literacy, and education, bringing communities in contact with speakers and sources of different dialects of English. Driven by prestige attached to the dialects spoken by powerful classes, some linguistic properties of English changed – the most famous example of this being the Great Vowel Shift, which was driven in part by an upper class trying to distinguish their speech from the encroaching middle and lower classes (Reference GramleyGramley, 2012). Through these processes, by the late 1600s, a form of modern English not dissimilar to that found in parts of England today had emerged.

Several lessons can be learned about English from this historical overview of the language. First, it is clear that languages always change; there are constant forces that shape language and move it closer and further away from other dialects, languages, and speech communities. Second, the amount of contact with other languages matters in terms of its influence on a language and within a linguistic community; light contact, such as the contact generated from trade with foreign lands, might result in vocabulary borrowing, but intense contact such as the contact between the Celts and different dialects spoken by the Anglo-Saxons created deep shifts in the morphology and syntax of a language. Finally, it is clear that power and prestige matter in terms of the influence they exert on speakers. English now occupies a prestige position in the global hierarchy of languages (Reference ChanChan, 2016), and is in contact with more languages than any other language in history. These facts have clear implications for how it is used as an international language. Before we delve into that topic, however, we must first explore how English emerged as a global lingua franca.

2.2 English Goes Global

English first spread globally as part of British colonialism, and then more recently as part of globalisation. Both eras of language spread are tied to economic drivers at the time, pointing to the interconnectedness of language to other parts of society. Colonialism emerged as a means to fulfil the ideals of mercantilism, which positioned economic growth as achieved via the rapid expansion of new land and resources. Globalisation emerged from neoliberal capitalist ideals linked to free trade, privatisation, and deregulation. Four main facets of globalisation tend to include trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people, and the dissemination of knowledge. English now plays a primary role in all of these domains, which has further spurred its use around the world. Various historical and political factors associated with the global spread of English means that it has not spread in the same manner, at the same time, or evenly in terms of its sociolinguistic impact. Models of spread in this section have been used to capture these key differences.

One model that aims to capture the spread of English is to align it with two diasporas of the British Empire (see Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2014). The first diaspora refers to the spread of English through the creation of new colonies which were settled by large populations of English speakers from Britain. For example, English speakers settled in large numbers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, quickly overpowering and eventually outnumbering indigenous populations. The second diaspora refers to the spread of English through the creation of new trade and exploitation colonies in contexts where British people settled in much smaller numbers, remaining in a linguistic minority. Countries often included in the second diaspora of the British Empire include Ghana, Hong Kong, India, and Singapore.

In other WE literature, a four-diaspora model is referred to (see Reference Nelson, Proshina, Davis, Nelson, Proshina and DavisNelson et al., 2020a). The first diaspora describes the spread of early forms of English across the British Isles to places such as Scotland. The second refers largely to Reference JenkinsJenkins’s (2015) first and is characterised by nations where ‘Englishes took firm root and became the major, if not the single most important language’ (Reference Nelson, Proshina, Davis, Nelson, Proshina and DavisNelson et al., 2020a, p. xxvii). This includes settlement colonies in the United States, penal colonies in Australia, and the plantation colonies of the Caribbean, where English was quickly established as the major language of a majority slave population. The third diaspora label refers to contexts where ‘colonial administrations, politics, and economics planted English where it was in competition with numerically superior languages’ (p. xxvii), thus mirroring the second diaspora in the two-diaspora model. The fourth diaspora refers to the spread of English via non-colonial activities, such as its more recent adoption as a learned language in China, Sweden, and Russia. This diaspora largely encompasses the Expanding Circle in Kachru’s model of WE (Reference Kachru1992), discussed in Section 4.

While diaspora models of the spread of English examine the use of English as derived from nation-state histories, they are neither chronologically nor linguistically representative of the varieties of English that emerged as part of this global spread. The spread of English to India (as part of the second or third diaspora, depending on the model) preceded the spread of English to Australia and New Zealand (as part of the first or second diaspora). Furthermore, the linguistic forces that shaped the English used in Ghana and Singapore, for example, are drastically different even though they are placed in the same diaspora. Finally, the English used within single nation-states is far from uniform and may differ according to a heterogeneous linguistic community. For example, francophone Canadians may speak a variety of English that is more formally learned than has been derived from British colonisation; and South Africans include large populations who speak English as a first, second, or learned language.

To overcome these issues, Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway and Rose (2015) proposed four channels of English spread to account for the linguistic processes that shaped varieties of English and to differentiate the contexts within which people acquire English. The channels shift the focus to speakers of English, rather than geographical regions, acknowledging that speakers of different Englishes can be found in a single nation (e.g., in Australia, it is possible to find speakers of Australian English, Australian Kriol, Indian English, and formally learned English, all of whom have acquired their English via different historical and sociolinguistic processes). These are summarised in Table 1.

The four-channel model aims to capture differences in the historical and linguistic forces associated with the spread of English and includes concepts such as koineisation (or dialect mixing), which shaped new varieties of ‘native’ English, for example Australian English. Creolisation refers to the linguistic development of ‘native’ varieties of English, such as Patios (Jamaican Creole), through the enforcement of English on displaced slave communities, who spoke a mixture of different first languages that disappeared within a single generation of speakers. Pidginisation refers to the lengthier process of English used alongside other first languages in trade and exploitation colonies – some of which eventually underwent creolisation to produce new ‘nativised’ forms of English, which were standardised through societal use. Finally, ‘second’ language learning refers to the formal learning of the English language, often carried out in educational systems such as English language learning in China as a response to its connections to globalisation.

Of course, all these depictions of the global spread of English are necessarily reductive of the diversity with which English is now used globally, within and across regions. The messiness has only been exacerbated by increased population mobility in the late twentieth century. Nonetheless, there are several issues associated with the global spread of English, which have an impact on its use as an international language today. First, the various linguistic forces that have shaped English as it has spread globally have given rise to a rich tapestry of linguistic variation in the English language. As different dialects have mixed, and different languages have come into contact, different varieties of English have emerged around the globe. This variation is so distinct that many linguists prefer to use the term Englishes instead of English when emphasising the multiple forms that the language takes across the world. Second, the sociohistorical processes that have underpinned the spread of English have given rise to sociolinguistic differences and inequalities in these Englishes and the speakers who use them. Due to the social, economic and political power and prestige afforded to British English speakers throughout colonial history, ‘Channel One’ Englishes are often granted more legitimacy in global society than those which have emerged as part of Channel Two and Three, even though all varieties of English are spoken as ‘native’ languages.

Finally, many people globally now learn English as a second, foreign, additional, or international language. Thus, the decision of which English to teach in the curriculum is often a complex political decision that is intertwined with globalisation. Decisions are often made based on power and prestige and perceived access to global markets and the upward social and economic mobility of English speakers. While this may appear to be a decision detached from English’s colonial past, decisions over which English to learn are complexly embedded in centuries-long historic and sociolinguistic biases about what is considered ‘correct’ or ‘standard’. This history has dictated that Englishes are still attached to power and prestige in the global community of the twenty-first century.

3.1 What Makes a Language Global?

What causes one language to be adopted over another is a complex social phenomenon driven by ‘supply and demand, push and pull factors’ (Reference PhillipsonPhillipson, 2009, pp. 18–19). These push and pull factors are underlined by explicit language and educational policies as well as the structures and ideologies of societies and people. First and foremost, understanding the growth of English as a global language is more complex than the factors associated with colonialism and globalisation, but also the various factors that have drawn people to English as it has achieved critical mass in its global growth.

Push factors refer to top-down explicit and implicit language policies that force or encourage the adoption of one language over another. The colonialist era brought with it numerous push factors that promoted colonial languages over local indigenous languages. The effects of this were severe and resulted in the loss of numerous languages. Policies of the past can have a long-lasting legacy on the use of languages in a community in the future. For example, in Alaska, there are currently only 20 indigenous languages remaining, of which only 2 have more than 1,000 speakers, and only 1 is being passed down to younger generations (Reference KraussKrauss, 2007). Much of this language death is attributed to the brutality of previous language policies that discouraged local languages in education and the community, as well as creating a social stigma of lower socio-economic status attached to local languages.

When the negative inequalities of these policies are known, but they are pursued regardless of consequences by governments, organisations or communities, it has been referred to as linguistic imperialism. Reference Phillipson and ChapellePhillipson (2012) states that the ‘study of linguistic imperialism focuses on how and why certain languages dominate internationally and attempts to account for such dominance in a theoretically informed way’ (p. 1). Linguistic imperialism interconnects with a structure of imperialism and is pervasive in culture, education, the media, communication, the economy, and politics, bringing about exploitation, injustice, and inequality for speakers of the dominant language (Reference PhillipsonPhillipson, 1992, Reference Phillipson2009). Under linguistic imperialism, linguistic injustices and discrimination manifest as normal beliefs and practices in everyday social structures and ideologies. Under British rule, linguistic discrimination was reinforced in education systems, legal structures, society, and political systems, which afforded privileges to speakers of English at the expense of speakers of other languages; and these practices were ingrained into societies. But linguistic imperialism is not only a practice of the colonial past. As Reference Phillipson and ChapellePhillipson (2012) observes: ‘Linguistic imperialism is a reality in many contexts worldwide. An extreme case is the oppression that linguistic minorities are exposed to in China … dovetailing with measures to crush traditional economic, cultural and religious practices of the Uyghurs.’ (p. 6).

However, top-down policies do not fully explain the growth of global languages. As Reference SpolskySpolsky (2006) and Reference FergusonFerguson (2006) note, if the growth of English as a global language was purely the result of language policy, it would be the most successful demonstration of language planning in history. Thus, in addition to the push factors that have forced dominant languages through colonialism and globalisation, numerous pull factors have drawn speakers to languages associated with power or prestige.

Pull factors in language policy and migration refer to a range of economic, political, and social factors that draw speakers to languages, such as perceived employment opportunities, economic prosperity, and access to desirable social networks (Reference Schoorl, Heering and EsveldtSchoorl et al., 2000). In some language policy circles, this is referred to as linguistic pragmatism. Reference BhattBhatt (2001, p. 533) argues that the ‘success of the spread of English, tied to the economic conditions that created the commercial supremacy of the United Kingdom and the United States, is guaranteed under the econocultural model by linguistic pragmatism, not linguistic imperialism’. Linguistic pragmatism highlights the important role of globalisation and the need to communicate in a global lingua franca as the primary driving force behind the expansion of English (Reference Mustafa and Hamdan AlghamdiMustafa & Hamdan Alghamdi, 2020).

To express the situation bluntly, Reference Mufwene and Fernández-VestMufwene (2007) explains, ‘languages do not kill languages; their would-be speakers kill them, by shifting away from them to others that they find more advantageous’ (p. 381). When language is tied to upward social or economic mobility, more and more speakers are drawn to them to access these advantages. It is a combination of these factors, built on top of a centuries-long foundation of language policies that have favoured English, that saw the meteoric rise of English as a global lingua franca starting in the period after the end of the Second World War.

3.2 Why Did English Become the Global Lingua Franca?

The dichotomisation of push and pull forces is a simplification of the complexities associated with language and society, but they are useful to explain how English has managed to grow from a language of a small island nation to a global lingua franca. The reason English became the dominant global language is a complex mixture of push and pull factors associated with colonialism and spurred on by globalisation.

First, there is little doubt that British colonialism sowed the seeds for the growth of English as a global language. It took the language to all continents, encompassing large swathes of Africa stretching from Egypt to South Africa; Pakistan to Malaysia in Asia; Australia to Tonga in Australasia; and from Canada to British Guyana in the Americas. Britain still retains sovereignty over fourteen territories outside the British Isles, and the British monarch is still the head of state in sixteen nations. The Commonwealth of Nations, which is an association of former British colonies and protectorates, includes more than two billion of the world’s population.

British colonial history may explain why English is pervasive in nations such as New Zealand, but it does not explain its strong presence in nations such as the Netherlands or Sweden. It also does not explain why, after gaining independence from the United Kingdom, nations such as India and Kenya maintained connections to English despite a strong regional lingua franca of their own. Colonialism also does not explain why English, and no other colonial languages such as French and Spanish, became the dominant lingua franca.

The reason English became the world’s dominant lingua franca is attributed to ‘historical coincidence’ (Reference Melchers, Shaw and SundkvistMelchers et al., 2019, p. 10), or as Reference CrystalCrystal (2012) explains, the ‘English language has repeatedly found itself in the right place at the right time’ (p. 77–78). Globalisation gathered momentum after the Second World War when governments sought to lower trade barriers to achieve greater international monetary policies and a more globally integrated commerce and finance sector. Advances in travel and communication further paved the way for a more mobile economy, and in the 1980s a modern era of globalisation emerged, which spread via the expansion of capitalist economies (Reference Benería, Berik and FloroBenería et al., 2016). During this era, the United States was (and still is at the time of publication) the world’s largest national economy and was a strong proponent of capitalist-led globalisation.

Reference KachruKachru (1986) used the term ‘the alchemy of English’ (p. 1) during this era of modern globalisation and wrote: ‘knowing English is like possessing the fabled Aladdin’s lamp, which permits one to open, as it were, the linguistic gates to international business, technology, science and travel. In short, English provides linguistic power’ (p. 1). For this reason, many countries, business and political organisations, educational systems, and individuals have increased their investment in the English language, which has further cemented English as the dominant lingua franca of the twenty-first century.

3.3 Statistics

It is a difficult task to accurately measure who uses English today and to what extent it is used in various domains. This is because of the difficulties in defining precisely what is English, who is an English speaker, and what constitutes English use. For example, is Patios (Jamaican Creole) English, or its own language? Is every learner of English an English speaker? If not, at what point does an English learner become counted as a competent English user? In a multilingual community, how do we define the use of English when used alongside other languages? Despite the inherent difficulties in mapping English, some sources have aimed to capture the current use of English around the globe.

Ethnologue’s Languages of the World survey lists 1,121 million people who speak English as a first and/or second language (Reference Eberhard, Simons and FennigEberhard et al., 2023), with another source citing nearly 1,500 million (Statista, 2023). It is unclear from this estimate, however, how English language learners are counted. More than 20 years ago Reference GraddolGraddol (1997) claimed there to be 750 million users of English as a foreign language, and 375 million speakers of English, each as a first and second language. Since this time, it is common to still cite 1.5 billion competent users of English in total, despite the increased predominance of learners of English worldwide since Graddol’s estimate (Reference Melchers, Shaw and SundkvistMelchers et al., 2019). More than ten years ago, Reference CrystalCrystal (2008) estimated that there were two billion speakers of English, equivalent to one-third of the world’s population. Despite discrepancies in total figures, there is one fact that all estimates agree on – second or foreign speakers of English are the majority of English users worldwide, far outnumbering ‘native speakers’ of the language.

Due to its global growth, English is now the most common language of information. By December 2022, English constituted 52 per cent of the content of the top ten million websites on the internet (W3Techs, 2023), making it by far the most dominant language (Spanish is second at only 5.4 per cent). English is the dominant language of scientific academic publishing, and it is clear that if authors want their research read by a global audience, they need to publish in English.

English is also an important language of international communication. It is the official working language of economic communities such as ASEAN. It is the predominant de facto working language of the European Union, despite a choice of three main working languages as well as options to translate into twenty-four official languages. It is also one of six working languages of the United Nations. It is the language of aviation and shipping communication and is growing as the foremost lingua franca of business.

English is also the most studied foreign language in school education. In the European Union (excluding the Republic of Ireland), 96 per cent of students learn English (Reference EurostatEurostat, 2018). In many places, such as Japan, English is the only foreign language option offered in many schools and is compulsory on admissions tests to enter university regardless of the course discipline (Reference GallowayGalloway, 2017).

3.4 What the Current Status of English Means for Language Education

This section has raised several issues of relevance to English language teaching (ELT). First, the rise of English as a global lingua franca is far from fair: it is built on the foundation of a dark colonial history that has seen English spread at the expense of other languages. In many contexts where English is taught, there may be sources of resistance or other sociolinguistic complexities that have placed English in competition with other languages. This has implications for ELT, as English may be more than ‘just a language’ in many contexts, and may be attached to substantial social, historical, and political ‘baggage’ that may need to be critically addressed in an EIL curriculum. With the spread of English into global and local domains, it is also certainly questionable whether traditional English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts can be classified as English as a ‘foreign’ language, as it is intertwined within the fabric of most societies today.

Second, because English has been tied to globalisation for more than half a century, it is unlikely to be dethroned as the world’s lingua franca, as it is already pervasive in so many domains, and driven by its use by a global community of speakers. As Reference Melchers, Shaw and SundkvistMelchers et al. (2019) observe: ‘Mandarin Chinese and probably Spanish have more “native speakers” but at present, they have neither the global sway nor the multi-functional use that characterizes English today’ (p. 10). For this reason, even if we see a changed global economic hierarchy in the future, the power attached to English due to globalisation is unlikely to falter.

Third, the perpetuation of English as a global language is now driven by people who use it as a lingua franca, and who are in the global majority. This means that many learners of English today will more frequently use English with other English speakers, who also have learned the language. As English has spread into diverse domains, it is clear that it operates as more than a foreign or second language for its speakers. This has implications for ELT in terms of ensuring students have the tools to use EIL. This diversity in English use globally has led to the emergence of several linguistic and educational fields of research to capture the diversity in English used globally, and to inform a need for change in ELT in response to the use of English as a global language.

4.1 World Englishes

Even though the plurality of the English language within and beyond the Anglo-American world is not a new phenomenon, it was not studied systematically until the late-1970s. The pioneering works of Braj B. Kachru and Larry E. Smith on the ‘English language complex’ (Reference McArthurMcArthur, 2003, p. 56) or ‘multiplex of Englishes’ (Reference Seargeant and HallSeargeant, 2016, p. 15) from the 1980s onwards paved the way to the emergence of WE as bona fide area of scholarly inquiry. In its early days, scholars predominantly adopted a descriptive perspective and offered structural, typological, and sociological modelling of variation within and across different varieties of English around the world and linguistic codification with an ultimate motivation to promote the legitimacy of language uses, users, and contexts. Over the years, researchers have developed several models to capture, visualise, and theorise the spread of English around the world: Reference StrevensStrevens’s (1980) Model of English in the World, Reference Kachru, Quirk and WiddowsonKachru’s (1985) Three Circles of English, Reference McArthurMcArthur’s (1987) Circle of World English, Reference Görlach and GörlachGörlach’s (1988) Circle of International English, Reference ModianoModiano’s (1999) Centripetal Circles Model of International English, and Reference SchneiderSchneider’s (2007) Dynamic Model of the Evolution of Postcolonial Englishes, just to name a few (see Reference Buschfeld, Schreier, Hundt and SchneiderBuschfeld & Kautzsch (2020) and Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway & Rose (2015) for extensive discussions). The most influential descriptive model is that of Kachru’s, which captures the varieties of English within three concentric circles, each of which showcases ‘the type of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages’ (Reference Kachru, Quirk and WiddowsonKachru, 1985, p. 12), as summarised in Table 2.

Despite the fact Kachru’s seminal work and vision forged a new line of thinking and inspired scholars(hip) on the global spread of English, it also received its share of criticism (see Table 3 for a summary) mainly for the oversimplification of the spread of English and the lack of clarity in its definition of various circles (see Reference BruthiauxBruthiaux, 2003; Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway & Rose 2015; Reference ModianoModiano, 1999; Reference PennycookPennycook, 2007). With increased globalisation and the use of English both within and across the circles, it became increasingly clear that this three-circle model failed to capture the complex sociolinguistic landscape. This understanding ultimately led to the development of ELF research, but ELF scholars praised WE researchers for showcasing the diversity of English around the world.

Today, WE is recognised as a rich, diverse, complex paradigm whose scope extends beyond well-established aerial studies adopting descriptive/historical approaches and cross-pollinates with a wide spectrum of interdisciplinary inquiries, including transnationalism (Reference Bolander, Schreier, Hundt and SchneiderBolander, 2020), second language acquisition (Reference Bolton and De CostaBolton & De Costa, 2018; Reference Buschfeld, Schreier, Hundt and SchneiderBuschfeld, 2020), pedagogy (Reference Matsuda, Nelson, Proshina and DavisMatsuda, 2020), corpus-based applications (Reference Hundt, Schreier, Hundt and SchneiderHundt, 2020), traditional (Reference Martin, Nelson, Proshina and DavisMartin, 2020; Reference Moody, Schreier, Hundt and SchneiderMoody, 2020) and new media (Reference Mair, Schreier, Hundt and SchneiderMair, 2019), and literature (Reference Thumboo, Nelson, Proshina and DavisThumboo, 2020). Even though its ontological orientation to diversity through pluralisation is regarded as somewhat limiting (see Reference Pennycook, Hall and WicaksonoPennycook, 2020a), the WE paradigm has made substantial contributions to our current understanding by underscoring (a) the incredible diversity of English as a global language, (b) the presentation of various local forms (formal/codified, informal/uncodified, national, regional, and emerging varieties, pidgins, and creoles, among others), (c) the decentralisation of a single variety as a universal ‘norm’ and ‘standard’ with prestige, and (d) the critical importance of contextually relevant and contextuallysensitive pedagogical decisions informed by linguistic, functional, and cultural diversity associated with the English language. The active ideological motive in pluralisation in uses, users, contexts, forms, and varieties of English has encapsulated the strategic choice in its nomenclature since, as Kachru argued, ‘formally and functionally, English now has multicultural identities. The term “English” does not capture this sociolinguistic reality; the term “Englishes” does’ (Reference KachruKachru, 1992, p. 357).

Today, WE is an established paradigm and a prolific area of inquiry through various outlets, including a professional association (International Association of World English or IAWE), an annual gathering for WE scholars (IAWE Conference), a top-tier scholarly journal (WE), handbooks published by major publishers such as Cambridge University Press, Routledge, Wiley, and Oxford University Press (Reference Filppula, Klemola and SharmaFilppula et al., 2017; Reference KirkpatrickKirkpatrick, 2010a, Reference Kirkpatrick2021; Reference Nelson, Proshina and DavisNelson et al., 2020b; Reference Schreier, Schneider and HundtSchreier et al., 2019). With synchronic and diachronic investigations documenting the reality, diversity, and plurality of the English language around the world, developmental cycles, channels, and trajectories and the sociolinguistic profiles, WE serves as a powerful catalyst for linguistic/educational policymakers and ELT professionals to reexamine their beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions about English and ELT. More specifically, implications for ELT include destabilising the ‘standard’ instructional variety associated with the Inner Circle contexts, increasing students’ awareness of variation exhibited at various levels (e.g., phonetics/phonology, morphosyntax, lexis, and cultural conventions) within national/regional varieties, creating communication opportunities to promote interaction with English users from diverse linguacultural backgrounds, and revamping instructional materials and assessment practices to reflect the incredible linguistic, functional, and cultural diversity in the English language.

4.2 English as an International Language

Conceptualised as a comprehensive ‘paradigm for thinking, research, and practice’ (Reference SharifianSharifian, 2009, p. 2), EIL ‘recognizes the international functions of English and its use in a variety of cultural and economic arenas by speakers of English from diverse lingua-cultural backgrounds who do not speak each other’s mother tongues’ (Reference Marlina, Marlina and GiriMarlina, 2014, p. 4). Rather than being situated as a linguistic field of study of the English language per se (as in WE), the EIL paradigm is more concerned with the sociolinguistic, political, economic, and educational implications of the use of English internationally (Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019). Similar to ELF, it focuses on the use of English by individuals from diverse ethnolinguistic/cultural backgrounds in the projection of cultural identities and the negotiation of communicative goals to achieve mutual intelligibility in various settings and domains. The pedagogical implications of this paradigm direct our attention to a need to establish a break from the traditions of EFL/ESL. In early discussions of this break in the 1990s, the pedagogical manifestation of EIL (TEIL) was argued to help ELT move away from traditional ‘native speaker’ benchmarks and terminologies in TEFL and TESOL (Reference HassallHassall, 1996). Almost four decades since, EIL has become a centre of attention in mainstream research in ELT and ELT teacher education (Reference Rose, Syrbe, Montakantiwong and FunadaRose et al., 2020), and it shares similar endeavours to ELF and WE.

Despite the terminological debates over conceptual demarcations between these paradigms (WE, ELF, and EIL), especially in the early days of their inception (see Reference Friedrich and MatsudaFriedrich & Matsuda, 2010), the recent advances in scholarship (e.g., repositioning of ELF as a sociolinguistic construct and growing interest at the nexus of these paradigms and language teaching/teacher education) have contributed to the convergence of the ontological assumptions and ideological commitments of these paradigms in shaping principles and practices of ELT. Today, there is considerable ideological overlap between EIL, WE, and ELF, and all of these paradigms underscore the pressing need for a paradigm shift in ELT (and teacher education) in the light of present-day sociolinguistic realities of English.

Despite the absence of institutionalised academic structures (e.g., top-tier journal, dedicated handbook, or research network within or beyond professional associations), the EIL paradigm stood out as a fertile domain of inquiry offering insights into our understanding of the English language and its diverse implications for ELT profession(als) (e.g., Reference Alsagoff, McKay, Hu and RenandyaAlsagoff et al., 2012; Reference MarlinaMarlina, 2018; Reference MatsudaMatsuda, 2012, Reference Matsuda2017; Reference McKayMcKay, 2002; Reference McKay and BrownMcKay & Brown, 2016; Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019; Reference Selvi and YazanSelvi & Yazan, 2013; Reference SharifianSharifian, 2009, just to name a few). Even though there have been recent predictions that ‘the [EIL] acronym may be of decreasing currency in coming years’ (Reference D’Angelo, Jenkins, Baker and DeweyD’Angelo, 2018, p. 167), we believe its related term of TEIL persists as a popular and accessible term for ELT practitioners. This understanding also serves as our rationalisation behind the adoption of this term for our work in this Cambridge Series (see Section 1 for rationale), even though we position our own broader research within the paradigm of GE.

4.3 English as a Lingua Franca

The forces of transnational mobility, (in)voluntary migration, border-crossing activities, global economic growth, recent technological innovations, and demographic shifts among English speakers validated the linguistic and functional role that English plays as a lingua franca in an increasingly superdiverse world and blurred the traditional nation-state demarcations emphasised in WE research (Reference Selvi and de OliveiraSelvi, 2019a). Consequently, the ELF paradigm emerged to shift the focus from the linguistic diversity of English around the world to functional diversity as an international language of communication. The paradigm was more focused on how ethnolinguistically diverse individuals use ELF to communicate around the world.

Even though the functional use of English (alongside other languages) lies at the crux of the ELF paradigm, early research in this area of inquiry in the late 1990s exhibited similarities with WE. This initial orientation conceptualised ELF as ‘a contact language between persons who share neither a common “native” tongue nor a common culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication’ (Reference FirthFirth, 1996, p. 240). Thus, early ELF research studies documented linguistic features, patterns, strategies, and characteristics in ELF (or L2-L2) communication in various domains of the language (e.g., ‘lingua franca core’ in pronunciation research by Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2000) or a variety as a whole (e.g., ‘Euro-English’ by Reference ModianoModiano, 2003 or ‘ASEAN English’ by Reference KirkpatrickKirkpatrick, 2010b). In the 2000s, the ELF paradigm experienced a reorientation in its primary focus, and conceptualised ELF as ‘any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option’ (Reference SeidlhoferSeidlhofer, 2011, p. 7). This shift emphasised the dynamism and fluidity of use, users, norms, contexts, and strategies shaped by contextual parameters, discoursal variables, and communicative needs of the interlocutors. Furthermore, research on ELF pragmatics demonstrated the active use of bilingual/plurilingual repertoires in the negotiation and projection of cultural identity, solidarity, and linguistic efficiency beyond the widely held idealised ‘native speaker’ norms (Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2012).

As a corollary, the ELF paradigm has gone through important waves of transformation, which has informed the scope of its scholarship. Today, ELF research acknowledges that although ELF interactions predominantly take place without the presence of ‘native English speakers’, ‘native English speakers’ may also participate in ELF interactions (however small their numbers might be). Recent scholarship is also informed by the multilingual turn and translingualism/translanguaging trends in applied linguistics. ELF is now re-situated as ‘a multilingual franca’ (Reference JenkinsJenkins, 2015) and ‘translingual franca’ (Reference PennycookPennycook, 2010) within a broader framework of multilingualism working alongside other languages and semiotic resources. These shifts and changes occurring within the ELF paradigm and research have spearheaded new directions for scholars therein and new implications for the ELT profession(als).

As a paradigm and a bona fide area of scholarly inquiry, ELF has exhibited remarkable growth in the past two decades. It has helped inform important sub-fields of inquiry, such as Academic English as a Lingua Franca (ELFA) (Reference Horner, Jenkins, Baker and DeweyHorner, 2017) and Business ELF (Reference Kankaanranta, Louhiala-Salminen, Jenkins, Baker and DeweyKankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, 2018), similar to English as an Academic Language (EAP)/English for Specific Purposes (ESP) with an ELF perspective. Today, ELF scholars maintain their activities through a top-tier journal (Journal of English as a Lingua Franca), a dedicated handbook published by Routledge (Reference Jenkins, Baker and DeweyJenkins et al., 2018), an international conference (ELF Conference), research network groups within professional associations (cf. ELF ReN at AILA, and ELF SIG at JACET), and beyond (cf. The University of Vienna (Austria), The University of Helsinki (Norway), and Waseda ELF Research Group (Japan)). As with WE, ELF research brings about a set of pedagogical implications for ELT principles and practices, such as moving beyond idealised ‘native speaker’ models to equipping language users with communication/accommodation skills and strategies to successfully negotiate the fluidity and diversity of language use, users, and interactions where English is used alongside other languages as part of individuals’ multilingual repertoires in intercultural encounters.

4.4 The Multilingual Turn and Translanguaging

Historically, the study of language learning and teaching has been siloed within disciplinary and professional contexts (e.g., linguistics, second language acquisition (SLA), ELT, and bilingual education) with limited interaction. Even though these fields all had the common goal of legitimising individuals’ linguistic repertoires, their approach to language (as well as learning and teaching) was conceptualised in distinct and, in some cases, conflicting ways. More importantly, these fields were largely operating within monolingual and monoglossic ideologies (and policies and practices connected to them). More recently, we have been witnessing the burgeoning of trends within applied linguistics and SLA that offer a fresh ontological perspective and reorientation to the way (named) languages (and thereby learners, language learning, teaching and related concepts such as policy) are constructed, viewed, used, learned, and taught, including but not limited to translanguaging and the multilingual turn. Intricately connected to the aforementioned paradigms (e.g., WE, EFL, EIL, and GE) at ideological levels, these trends serve as a powerful driving force in shifting perspectives related to principles and practices in ELT.

As the most recent ‘turn’ (following the cognitive turn which legitimised SLA as a field of research in the 1980s, and the social turn that centralised the contextual and situational dimensions of language use in SLA), the multilingual turn (Reference MayMay, 2014) challenged the monolingual orthodoxy and ideology dominating the fields of SLA, applied linguistics, and language education. Moreover, it stood out as an umbrella term in the recent terminological ‘panoply of lingualism’ (Reference Marshall and MooreMarshall & Moore, 2018, p. 21) (e.g., translanguaging, polylingualism, metrolingualism, plurilingualism, among others), attempting to better capture the multilingual realities, complexities, and practices in today’s world. From an ideological stance, the multilingual turn aims to counter a monolingual bias which is underpinned by deficit perspectives and hegemonic power structures that normalise oppression, marginalisation, minoritisation, discrimination, and dehumanisation of English language use(r)s. The forceful theoretical arguments and pedagogical calls made by the various lines of research that fall within the multilingual turn intersect with the WE, ELF, EIL, and GE paradigms. At this juncture lies the critical and pluricentric conceptualisation of ‘E’nglish (as in W‘E’, ‘E’LF, and ‘E’IL) as an integral part of a wider linguistic repertoire offering important implications for ELT principles and practice. This understanding highlights ‘issues of diversification, codification, identity, creativity, cross-cultural intelligibility and of power and ideology’ (Reference KachruKachru, 1996, p. 135) in moving beyond traditional essentialised ‘standard’ language ideology within and manifested through English.

Building upon the aforementioned changes that have recently gained momentum, translanguaging advocates for a shift from a discrete-point approach to languages (involving languages as separate entities) to an integrative approach (involving linguistic features, multimodalities, and other semiotic resources). Unlike code-switching, which refers to the performative act of switching from one code (language) to another within bilingual communicative encounters, translanguaging views all languages as part of an individual’s linguistic repertoire (Reference García and WeiGarcía & Wei, 2014), and thereby resonates with a multilingual approach to ELF. Along the same lines, Reference CanagarajahCanagarajah (2013) adopted the term translingual practice underscoring the need for a multilingual repertoire consisting of communicative acts required in translingual/transcultural contact zones such as migration, transnational economic, cultural relations, and digital communication. In essence, both translanguaging and translingual practices aim to dismantle the current hierarchical and decontextualised structures of languages that underlie ELT principles and practices, and to shift our attention to the translingual repertoires used in communicative encounters by English as a global lingua franca users. Recognising the vitality of these discussions revolving around the pluricentricity of English within a multilingual orientation to linguistic ecology, Reference Rose and GallowayRose and Galloway’s (2019) framework has been a consolidating attempt to situate the implications at the nexus of critical applied linguistics and ELT.

4.5 Global Englishes

The term GE was initially coined and used by prominent critical applied linguists such as Alastair Pennycook and Suresh Canagarajah in the early 2000s, who underscored the glocal (symbiotically global and local) use of English due to the process of globalisation. However, in 2011, Reference GallowayGalloway (2011) used it for the first time to underscore the fluidity of global language use serving as a common denominator across these paradigms. The most recent and comprehensive definition of GE by Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway (2019) defines it as

As a supraparadigm, it encourages us to challenge and rethink the plurality, diversity, and fluidity surrounding English by building upon and extending our current understandings gleaned from existing paradigms (i.e., EIL, WE, and ELF) and critical perspectives (i.e., the multilingual turn and translingualism/translanguaging). In that regard, it would be safe to assume that GE establishes a symbiotic bridge linking sociolinguistics (understanding the English language within the broader contemporary global linguistic ecology) and ELT (challenging and transforming established principles and practices). The theoretical findings emerging out of the paradigms that constitute GE are presented in GELT as a framework that emerged from consolidating calls for change in all aforementioned paradigms (Reference GallowayGalloway, 2011; Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway & Rose, 2015; Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019). In tandem with major paradigms discussed so far (WE, EIL, and ELF) – and in resonance with other concepts such as the translanguaging and the multilingual turn – GE challenge monolingual bias and ideology that have plagued applied linguistics, SLA theory, and ELT practices for many decades.

4.6 Paradigmatic Shifts to Innovate English Language Teaching

The transdisciplinary paradigmatic developments and trends in the past couple of decades have characterised ‘English as multilingual, as a language always in translation, as a language always under negotiation’ (Reference PennycookPennycook, 2010, p. 685). These developments have served as an impetus for a paradigm shift at epistemological, ideological, and pedagogical levels, redefining the fundamental pillars forming ELT, as an activity, a profession, and a field of scholarly inquiry:

• ‘E’ – pluricentricity of English (uses, users, functions, and contexts) characterised by cultural diversity, linguistic multiplicity, and functional complexity in a superdiverse world

• ‘L’ – an ontological shift from seeing language as a discrete, monolingual, and separate set of structures disconnected from the people who use them to an understanding that views language as a multilingual and situated social practice within a broader multilingual context

• ‘T’ – innovative pedagogical practices that equip English users with critical awareness and multilingual/multimodal repertoires necessary to participate in glocal lingua franca encounters.

Departing from these realisations, scholars situated within and across these paradigms and trends have forged new frameworks to bridge the gap between theory and practice and to transform theoretical perspectives into concrete pedagogical principles and practices – ELF‐aware pedagogy (Reference Bayyurt, Sifakis and VettorelBayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Reference SifakisSifakis, 2014), WE‐informed ELT (Reference Matsuda, Nelson, Proshina and DavisMatsuda, 2020), EIL pedagogy (Reference McKayMcKay, 2018), EIL curriculum blueprint (Reference Matsuda and FriedrichMatsuda & Friedrich, 2011), and GELT (Reference GallowayGalloway, 2011; Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway & Rose, 2015), just to name a few. As will be discussed and operationalised in the next two sections in greater depth, they serve as innovative attempts to challenge and transform our established norms and practices in ELT.

5.1 Proposals for Change

In an attempt to unite the shared agenda of the diverse but overlapping fields, the theoretical calls for change to TESOL being made in the literature were summarised as the GELT proposals (Reference GallowayGalloway, 2011; Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway & Rose, 2015; Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019). This was also an attempt to help move the field forward; a first step towards providing more concrete proposals and examining how to achieve this paradigm shift. Six main proposals in the literature were identified which called for ELT curricula to:

1. 1. Increase WE and ELF exposure in language curricula

2. 2. Emphasise respect for multilingualism in ELT

3. 3. Raise awareness of GE in ELT

4. 4. Raise awareness of ELF strategies in language curricula

5. 5. Emphasise respect for diverse cultures and identities in ELT

6. 6. Change English teacher-hiring practices in the ELT industry.

Grouping these into six main proposals was an attempt to consolidate interconnected themes in the literature to get a sense of what change was being called for and ultimately address the theory–practice divide and help instigate the much-needed paradigm shift.

Informed by WE, ELF, and EIL research, the first proposal relates to the need to expose students to the diversity of English used around the world and in different contexts to ensure that they are better prepared to use English in international contexts. This proposal is also based on research that highlights that a lack of exposure to varieties of English can lead to negative attitudes and, therefore, confidence in successfully communicating with speakers from different varieties.

The second proposal reflects the need to acknowledge the dominance of multilingualism and that students use English alongside other languages, as showcased in research on translanguaging research and the multilingual turn in SLA. Related to the need to raise awareness that multilingualism is the norm and knowledge of English-only is not enough to fully function in global contexts, it aims to challenge monolingual orientations in ELT curricula. While traditional ELT curricula often see students’ additional languages as a hindrance to language learning, this perspective embraces the valuable use of students’ multilingual repertoires for successful communication using English as a global lingua franca.

The third proposal focuses on the need for a critical approach to ELT, raising students’ awareness of the spread of English, as well as how it functions as a global language. This proposal also stems from research on the direct teaching of GE, which was found to help students move beyond preconceived notions of standard language and challenge deeply ingrained ‘native-speaker’ norms (Reference GallowayGalloway, 2011, Reference Galloway2013, Reference Galloway2017).

The fourth proposal stems from ELF research and translanguaging, focusing on the need for students to develop communicative strategies to help them adapt to different communities of language users in a more fluid context. The ‘native speaker’ may well be the target interlocutor for some students, but for those likely to use the language as a lingua franca, there is a need to equip them with strategies to navigate such encounters. This proposal relates to the need to facilitate language awareness among learners and enables them to develop communicative strategies to help them ‘negotiate resources from diverse languages and construct meaning situationally’ (Reference CanagarajahCanagarajah, 2016, p. 19).

The fifth proposal centres on the need to respect cultural differences in ELT classrooms, and to widen the lens of what an English-using culture is. Traditional ELT curricula often posit English-using cultures as Inner Circle and there is a clear need to move away from such static regional cultures as the contexts for language use and emphasise the dynamic and fluid cultures that English is used in today (Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019).

The final proposal calls for a shift in focus on the problematic causal relationship between speakerhood (traditionally captured by terms ‘native’ and ‘non-native’) and teacherhood (traditionally captured by terms ‘native English-speaking teachers’ and ‘non-native English-speaking teachers’) in teacher recruitment, training, and workplace settings. Instead, multicompetent ELT professionals whose qualities, qualifications, competencies, effectiveness, and legitimacy are defined beyond the essentialised and juxtaposed categories of identity are seen to be far more suitable models (Selvi et al., forthcoming).

The identification of these proposals was seen as an important first step in consolidating calls for change. However, it is important to note that discussions on the need for change go beyond merely adding a lesson or new materials to existing ELT curricula based on ‘native’ norms and a monolithic view of English. Instead, they advocate a complete shift in the way we think about language teaching, requiring a thorough interrogation of the curriculum from its assumed educational outcomes, goals, and student needs. In the same year that these proposals were identified, two frameworks for change were also proposed and several scholars have since proposed their frameworks for change in ELT. While these have been developed within different paradigms with different intellectual histories, they all embrace the plurality of English and all aim to make ELT curricula more reflective of the current sociolinguistic reality of English and raise awareness of the complex reality of the English language today.

5.2 Frameworks for Change

5.3 Theory to Practice

While we base our discussion next on the thirteen dimensions from the GELT framework (see Figure 1), it is important to note that we aim to be inclusive of work in all of the related paradigms. It is also important to note that none of these, or this Element for that matter, promotes a one-size-fits-all curriculum or a single variety of English. All of these frameworks, or orientations to teaching English, were designed to increase student choice and ensure that the curriculum is reflective of the needs of our learners, which may, of course, vary according to context. All of these frameworks are intended to help instigate change. While these frameworks ‘indicate different intellectual history and affiliation … they are more similar to each other than different in their assumptions, visions and suggested practice’ (Reference MatsudaMatsuda, 2019, p. 146). In our discussion of the different dimensions in Sections 5.3.1–5.3.12, we hope to provide ‘a roadmap for change in current practices so that this break [from “native speaker” norms] can be better facilitated’ (Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019, p. 26).

Figure 1 Major practical dimensions for language educators.

(based on Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019)

5.4 Informing Change

In conclusion, it is clear then that the rise of English as a global language calls for a change in how the language is taught and learned. It is clear from the dimensions outlined in Sections 5.3.1–5.3.12 that this paradigm shift, similar to the movement towards communicative language teaching fifty or so years ago, is very much needed. This, however, is certainly no easy feat. Nevertheless, it is hoped that by providing an overview of these frameworks and the various dimensions that need to be addressed, we can help further highlight how the ELT curriculum should and can be innovated. What is needed next in the field is rigorously planned and implemented classroom-based research, where pedagogical innovations are put into practice in English language curricula (Reference Rose, McKinley and GallowayRose et al., 2021). In the following section, we outline some practical activities and lesson plans for each of these dimensions to further help practitioners achieve successful and sustainable curricular innovation for teaching EIL. While offering a detailed examination of what this approach may look like, our aim is not to prescribe a model for ELT. Teaching practices will vary according to context. Our intention is to offer insights into how to critically evaluate current curricula and materials and adapt them to local needs. Finally, while the practical activities in the following section may specifically cater to ELT professionals, we believe and argue that a systemic change in language education requires a more comprehensive dialogue that involves key stakeholders beyond teachers, such as material developers, curriculum designers, test writers, administrators, and teacher educators, among others. Only then we can begin talking about the transformation of the ELT landscape and creating a more inclusive and effective teaching–learning environments.

6.1 Dimension 1: Target Interlocutors

The notion of diversity related to the English language manifests itself in different ways, and the diversity in terms of users is certainly a prominent part of this picture. Therefore, practical applications in and beyond the classroom need to expand the traditional definition of ‘target interlocutor’ (often equated to ‘native speakers’ predominantly from both sides of the Atlantic) by drawing upon users (present and future, lived and imagined, local and global) from diverse ethnolinguistic backgrounds with different levels of competence across contexts, cultures, time, and space. This understanding necessitates a closer and more critical look (by both teachers and learners) at instructional materials (e.g., coursebooks, handouts, flashcards, audiovisuals, websites, etc.) as primary sources of input, elicitation, exposure, and exploration in ELT through the lens of target interlocutors operating at two significant levels: representation and interaction.

At the level of representation, instructional materials should portray successful users on global (belonging to and moving across various circles of Englishes) as well as local scales (e.g., neighbouring countries and sociohistorically connected communities) exhibiting linguistic diversity (e.g., different accents and varieties, ELF use, and translanguaging practices). Such a glocal approach to ELT will be a testament to contextualised manifestations of the discourses of ELF. Quantitative representation of the diversity of users, however, must go beyond showcasing various speakers; otherwise, it would fall into the trap of tokenism. In other words, instructional materials should not only portray successful multilingual users of English as the speakers and rightful owners of the language but also represent individuals occupying varying roles in daily/professional life that exhibit equal power relationships – that is, not in a subordinate role to an idealised ‘native speaker’ (see Appendix A for a checklist to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative representation of target interlocutors in instructional materials).

At the level of interaction, language learners may be provided with real opportunities and environments that promote linguacultural exchanges with diverse English users (and thereby exposure and use in authentic communicative encounters). For instance, intercultural telecollaboration projects (e.g., Reference Grazzi, Tsantila, Mandalios and IlkosGrazzi, 2016; Reference Kohn and HoffstaedterKohn & Hoffstaedter, 2017) may serve as great ways to recognise the diversity of English users and to promote communication strategies and accommodation skills through participation in web-mediated multimodal interactions through a range of a/synchronous tools (e.g., see Reference FlowersFlowers (2015) for a pen pal exchange programme, Reference JenksJenks (2012) for a use of Skypecast chat room, and Reference LiangLiang (2012) for the use of Second Life virtual world). In areas experiencing (in)voluntary human mobility (e.g., metropolitan areas, popular tourist destinations, border cities, and refugee settlements), learners may be encouraged to engage in ethnographic and intercultural encounters with individuals from various linguacultural backgrounds using English as a multilingual franca (e.g., reflections based on observations, visits, and encounters; interviews with community members; forging connections with ethnolinguistically diverse individuals; collecting audiovisual artefacts; and implementing questionnaires). Otherwise, learners may be directed to existing materials (such as online media or corpora) to perform such analyses (e.g., see Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway & Rose (2014) for listening journals) or can create their own materials using Artificial Intelligence-based (AI) large language models such as ChatGPT or GPT-4. Furthermore, integrating critical values of multilingualism and linguistic diversity into high-impact practices (e.g., study abroad programmes, student exchange/mobility schemes, service learning, and school partnerships) will provide meaningful opportunities to appreciate incredible diversity in authentic lingua franca encounters.

6.2 Dimension 2: The Ownership of English

The ownership of English is inherently connected to one’s sociohistorical negotiation, construction, and reassertion of linguistic identity and legitimacy in relation to an immediate or imagined global linguistic community due to nativisation (e.g., Outer Circle contexts), transnational communication (e.g., Expanding Circle contexts), and quantitative asymmetry between ‘native’ and ‘non-native speakers’ around the world. Therefore, practical applications focusing on the ownership of English manifest themselves on at least four different levels: recognition, awareness-raising, identity, and participation.

An essential prerequisite for individuals to claim an ownership with English as legitimate users is when they recognise manifestations of global ownership reflected, valued, and built upon in ELT practices. For this reason, different aspects of ELT, such as instructional materials (coming from various sources, representing diverse speakers in various roles), norms (a diverse range of Englishes), assessment practices (prioritising communicative competence), target interlocutors, and cultures (positive attitudes towards the diversity of user and cultural bases), should be aligned with changing dynamics and realities the new global linguistic order.

Furthermore, English teachers may take deliberate and explicit steps towards sensitising their learners about the current status of English as a global lingua franca through readings, facts and statistics, in-class discussions, debates, case scenarios, and vignettes (see the lesson plans in the appendix of Reference GallowayGalloway (2017) and activities on the companion website to Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway and Rose (2015)). Learning both about (through instructional materials and activities) and for (through recognising, valuing, and building uses of English for communicative needs) EIL will recognise students as ‘speakers in their own right’ (Reference SeidlhoferSeidlhofer, 2011, p. 185) and strategically position English ownership beyond the confines of idealised ‘native speaker’ realm.

All stakeholders in ELT must afford complex, dynamic, and sophisticated spaces promoting legitimacy, intentionality, and critical self-reflexivity. To externalise learners’ positionality on the ownership of English continuum (see Figure 2), teachers, for example, may utilise in-depth personal interviews, narratives, poems, diaries, and critical autoethnographic narratives.

Figure 2 The ownership of English continuum.

These artefacts may offer glimpses of reflection for individuals to construct different positions, a range of identity options, and thereby degrees of ownership of the English language. This will enable teachers and users to adopt an intersectional approach to understanding different dimensions (e.g., history, race, ethnicity, and politics) influencing the ownership construct. Ultimately, these spaces of discussion and reflection showcasing one’s negotiation of expertise and legitimacy in the language will offer unique insights for teachers to learn more about the individuals they work with and their struggles, complexities, and worldviews as language users. Alternatively, teachers may use the continuum figure as a springboard for more discussion and critical reflection, and promotion of multilingual identities (see Appendix B for sample discussion questions).

Departing from the symbiotic relationship among identity formation (within both local and global English-speaking communities), claiming ownership and agentive participation, teachers may take strategic steps in promoting students’ understanding, negotiating, and countering hegemonic discourses as legitimate users in different contexts, known as symbolic competence (Reference Kramsch, Hu and ByramKramsch, 2009). Online learning opportunities and the utilisation of technological tools (e.g., chat rooms, social networking sites, telecollaboration, online pen pal exchanges, digital storytelling projects, or AI platforms) around macro themes would give language users meaningful contexts to engage in multimodal, communicative, creative, and translingual encounters (see Reference Rose, McKinley and GallowayRose et al., 2021 for a review). These activities will foster their symbolic identities of/in participation and positively contribute to their ownership of the English language.

6.3 Dimension 3: Target Culture

Embracing the idea of linguistic plurality brings about the need to reorientate culture due to the intricate relationship between these two constructs. Therefore, practical applications in ELT must encompass linguistic and cultural pluralism, fluidity, and hybridity in intercultural encounters. Let us take a reading passage about coffee and Starbucks, the world’s largest coffeehouse chain based in Seattle, Washington (United States). A typical text like this would treat coffee as an essential aspect of American culture and offer insights into coffee as a product (e.g., types of coffee and different coffee products), practice (e.g., the language used in ordering coffee, coffee breaks, and coffeehouses as spaces for work/leisure), and perspective (e.g., convenience, symbolic value, and status).

Often influenced by the prevalent cross-cultural communication orientation accentuating ‘differences’ between cultures through comparisons, teachers’ first attempt would often be establishing connections between the American culture and students’ cultures. However, this intuitive first step may lead to essentialised understandings of cultures and nationalistic characteristics of individuals (e.g., ‘They (Americans) always start the day by drinking a large cup of dark-roasted coffee, whereas we (Japanese) always prefer tea for breakfast’.).

In efforts to move beyond the traditional focus on Inner Circle (often portrayed as “target culture”), teachers can adopt Reference Cortazzi, Jin and HinkelCortazzi and Jin’s (1999) typology to expand their instructional content by including references from source culture (students’ own culture) and international target cultures (the cultures other than the Anglo-American target culture and students’ own culture). For example, a teacher in Brazil can diversify this reading text with references to prominent coffees found in (1) other contexts in the broader Anglosphere (e.g., Irish alcoholic coffee (Ireland) and flat white (Australia)); (2) international contexts (e.g., the affogato or espresso Romano (Italy), kaffeost (Sweden), Turkish coffee (Turkey), Einspänner (Austria), Ca Phe Trung (Vietnam), Qahwa (Saudi Arabia), CoffeeTouba (Senegal), Cafe Lagrima (Argentina), and Café au lait (France)); and (3) in the local context (e.g., Cafezinho (Brazil). This is definitely a more inclusive approach in terms of representing cultures associated with different circles around the world. However, it is still largely based on a relatively fixated conceptualisation of culture(s) connected to nation-states operating in a binary fashion (i.e., us versus them or West versus non-West).

Informed by the recent and ongoing waves of postmodern/poststructuralist understanding of culture, teachers may strategically utilise instructional materials to promote the heterogeneity and hybridity of cultural identity. More specifically, they can adopt Reference KubotaKubota’s (2003) Four Ds approach as follows:

1. (1) Descriptive understanding of culture – A teacher may adapt the text in such a way as to include Starbucks’s definition of their coffeehouse as a public space: ‘a place for conversation and a sense of community. A third place between work and home’ (Starbucks, n.d.). The teacher can then invite students to comment on this definition and confirm this assertion based on their (a) experiences and (b) observations.

2. (2) Diversity within a culture – A teacher in the United States may adapt the text by highlighting not just the company’s essential contributions to the coffee culture and local economy, mainly through creating jobs, especially for the young workforce, but also its reputation for serving mostly middle/upper-class living in predominantly white neighbourhoods, a catalyst for gentrification, and racial profiling (e.g., the failed #RaceTogether campaign in 2015 and the racial profiling incident in Philadelphia, United States, in 2018). This will afford critical pluralism and diversity within the culture.

3. (3) Dynamic nature of culture – A teacher in Turkey may adapt the text to offer deeper insights into the coffee culture and coffeehouses in the local context. The adapted text may begin by portraying the evolution of coffeehouses in the local context as social, artistic, and intellectual hubs during the Ottoman era and spaces of social interaction exclusive to men until the new millennium. Next, it may discuss the role that Starbucks played in the revitalisation of coffee as a new domain of commodification as part of globalisation in the local context from the 2000s onwards. Students can break into small groups and discuss the reasons why Turkey has the most Starbucks branches of any European country, except the United Kingdom, and design their competitor brand against it.

4. (4) Discursive constructions of culture – Demanding first names be written on coffee cups creates personalised and two-way communication with customers at Starbucks. However, this practice often results in misspelt and mispronounced names in a more subtle way. For example, in Japan, Baristas follow local cultural norms of harmony, privacy, and respect by writing on the side of the cup or using a removable sticker instead of writing prominently and permanently. They also hand the order to the customer rather than calling out their names in public. In some cases, this practice may be found awkward due to excessive informality. For instance, in France, where it was introduced, abolished, and then re-introduced, it may be considered impractical. Alternatively, individuals may circumvent this issue by adopting a common ‘Anglicised Starbucks name.’ For example, ‘Ayumi’ becomes ‘Amy,’ or ‘Xiao’ becomes ‘Jane’ in the United States. Thus, a teacher may use these instances as a springboard for discussions around microaggressions and imposed/ascribed erasure of identity at the nexus of language, race, and culture, such as claiming the personal identity, acculturation, assimilation, and using names/pronouns. It also has the potential to spur deeper conversations around the Anglicisation of names as a coercive form of ‘raciolinguistic ideologies’ (Reference Flores and RosaFlores & Rosa, 2015), underscoring the critical role and importance of language in the embodiment of normative assumptions about individuals based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and (dis)ability, among other categories of identity. Ultimately, this activity will promote an understanding of linguistic multiplicity, hybridity, and fluidity in practice.

Another typical lesson on India may start with what students know about the country but also has the potential to open a window to the country’s both past and present, its sociocultural fabric, demographic patterns, and political issues (e.g., rural–urban divide, the caste system, gender issues, linguistic diversity, call centres, and Bollywood). Such a lesson could be supported by a range of multimodal resources (e.g., texts, photos, films, maps, statistics, and graphs) as well as segments from popular examples from the entertainment industry (e.g., Bombay Calling, Mississippi Masala, and Monsoon Wedding) to provide insights about how the English language is linked to glocal identity. Learners could then break into several groups of their choice and work on their posters about the role of languages in different aspects of linguacultural identity. Learners are also expected to make connections to broader issues such as globalisation, Englishisation, and their glocal ramifications. These artefacts may also be used as stepping stones to portray varieties of English use, debunk cultural stereotypes, and clarify any mis-/under-/over-representations of cultural and linguistic identities. Furthermore, examinations of critical incidents in hypothetical scenarios or movies could give language users a chance to discuss what caused communication breakdown, analyse various cultural beliefs and attitudes embedded in the conversation, discuss different ways to avoid cultural conflict, and simulate different scenarios to promote mutual intercultural understanding. Furthermore, interactive online activities (e.g., blogging, videoconferencing, and interacting on social media), study abroad programmes, and school partnership projects at national and international levels may offer creative co-construction of learning communities that lead to opportunities for language development while fostering transcultural exchanges.

6.4 Dimension 4: Linguistic Norms

The global spread of English has served as a prime motivation to destabilise language standards and norms traditionally associated with idealised ‘native speakers’. Therefore, practical applications focusing on the pluralisation of linguistic norms can take different forms and influence norms that teachers (a) provide, (b) use, (c) prepare for, and (d) expect from the students in ELT classrooms (see Table 4).

6.5 Dimension 5: Teachers

Innovative practices in ELT necessitate language educators with heightened levels of ‘commitment, involvement, and engagement to move beyond essentialised and idealised binaries of being, becoming, and doing’ (Reference Selvi, Mann and WalshSelvi, 2019b, p. 191). Therefore, practical applications focusing on the dichotomously juxtaposed constructs of teacher identity may include the following strategies:

• Utilisation of pre- and in-service teacher education activities (e.g., coursework, class discussions, activities, and assignments) as a gateway to introduce models beyond categorical binaries (e.g., Reference Pasternak, Bailey and Kamhi-SteinPasternak & Bailey’s (2004) Continua of Target Language Proficiency and Professional Preparation), problematise uniform NEST/NNEST experiences (e.g., Reference Rudolph, Selvi and YazanRudolph et al., 2015), and scrutinise the fluidity of privilege and marginalisation beyond categorical binaries (Reference Rudolph, Yazan and RudolphRudolph, 2018) (see Appendix C for a sample activity to externalize and problematize the juxtaposed orientation to ELT professionals through a raciolinguistic lens),

• A broader conversation involving various stakeholders in ELT and concerted efforts for innovation and change

• A reconceptualisation of teachers’ language proficiency not as ‘general English proficiency’ but as ‘a specialised subset of language skills’ necessary for language teaching, known as English-for-Teaching by Reference Freeman, Katz, Gomez and BurnsFreeman et al. (2015)

• Reflection on sociohistorical negotiations of subjectivities, linguistic and professional legitimacy through narrative inquiry

• Participation in professional associations (e.g., TESOL International Association, and IATEFL) and online professional networks (e.g., NNEST Interest Section and ELINET (Education, Language and Internationalisation Network, https://elinet.org.uk)) to promote equity and professionalism for all in the ELT profession (Reference Selvi, Mann and WalshSelvi, 2019b)

• Focusing on sample job advertisements from different contexts to construct intersectional constructions of privilege, marginalisation, and discrimination (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 Sources of discrimination in ELT: An intersectional approach.

6.6 Dimension 6: Role Models

Practical applications focusing on role models as users of English need to reflect this diversity. For instance, externalising students’ stances through retrospective linguistic biographies and prospective narratives will give teachers a sense of their L2 self in their immediate or imagined global community of English speakers. Teachers may also make use of successful multilingual figures (e.g., themselves, other expert language users, successful famous examples from their context, or famous figures such as South African comedian Trevor Noah), their language uses, and lived experiences affording deeper understandings of the intersectionality of race, class, gender, and language as they inform their linguistic identities. Material designers can utilise these public figures, personal insights, or guest appearances to inform students’ aspirations about more attainable role models (i.e., the ideal L2 self) and communicate a much more realistic language use in the world and more meaningful learning goals in the classroom. Learning more about the students (their immediate and future realities, aspirations, needs, and motivation) will give teachers leverage in designing tasks simulating their future lives and possible encounters. Teachers, then, can use these as input to design communicative tasks (e.g., role plays), identify appropriate communicative skills, and focus on ways to promote users’ strategic competence skills for different types of communicative settings.

6.7 Dimension 7: The Sources of Instructional Materials

As powerful artefacts forming and informing the teaching–learning process, instructional materials embody, normalise, and perpetuate discourses, ideologies, and worldviews about English uses, users, functions and contexts, and power relations therein. Since the current instructional materials predominantly perpetuate the Anglocentric ideology of ‘native speakerism’ originating from the West, practical applications focusing on instructional materials should equip teachers with a critical mindset, innovative approach, and transformative skills to:

1. (1) Be critical consumers of existing materials – Teacher educators may work with teachers, both at pre- and in-service levels, and collectively develop their checklist for materials evaluation through the EIL lens. Seeking answers to such questions (e.g., What norms are prioritised? Whose norms? Who is (mis-/under/over-)represented in the materials? Who is ignored, silenced or eased in the materials? What counts as communicative success? What determines authenticity? Which communicative skills are promoted? Which cultures are represented and how? Who is portrayed as a legitimate English speaker?) will sensitise teachers’/teacher candidates’ critical perspectives. Once developed, the checklist may be utilised in a side-by-side comparison of instructional materials from different levels (e.g., beginner versus advanced), contexts (e.g., English for specific purposes class for health professionals in Germany versus academic English class for pre-undergraduate students in Japan), settings (e.g., Inner versus Outer versus Expanding Circles), and times (e.g., published in 2000 versus in 2020).

2. (2) Diversify the source of instructional materials – Materials designers are charged with the task of creating materials that recognise and promote the notion of diversity in various forms. When this goal fails, teachers should either replace these materials or adapt materials that showcase successful multilingual users of English as speakers of the language in various intercultural settings. Using materials that represent the diversity of Englishes, speakers, accents, cultures, contexts, norms, and functions in which English is used alongside other languages from local and global origins will eventually enable learners to recognise EIL in action.

3. (3) Develop their contextually relevant and contextually sensitive materials for diversity – The process of developing locally produced materials involves taking deliberate steps and decisions and enacting epistemological and ideological views and commitments related to being a local speaker of a global language in a multilingual world. Teachers may be encouraged to develop their contextually relevant and contextually sensitive materials, and when they do that, they may teach about diversity (i.e., raising awareness and developing positive attitudes towards uses, users, functions, and contexts of English through YouTube videos, TED/TEDx Talks, AI-generated texts) or teach for diversity (i.e., developing skills for EIL encounters, such as strategies for meaning-making). Therefore, resources such as TED/TEDx Talks, Speech Accent Archive, ChatGPT, and role-plays based on communication breakdowns in EMI classes through the lens of various individuals; successful and failed attempts of localisation of multinational brands at the nexus of language and culture; and telecollaboration projects to develop a translingual children’s book are all among plausible alternatives.

4. (4) Teacher talk around the text – At times when teachers are not in a position to choose or influence the choice of materials (based on the idealised ‘native speaker’ ideology), they still can resist, disrupt, and deconstruct power relations conveyed through these materials using ‘teacher talk around the text’ (Reference Sunderland, Rahim, Leontzakou and ShattuckSunderland et al., 2000). This mediation of the text refers to the strategic utilisation and ‘consumption’ of the text as a discursive practice to uncover ideological connections within a wider sociocultural/sociopolitical practice. Enacted by questions that problematise the manifestations of ideology represented in the materials, this strategy affords dialogic spaces to create new meanings and understandings about the uses, users, contexts, and functions of English in a multilingual/multicultural world. To develop this critical reflexive skill, teachers and teacher candidates may observe other colleagues’ treatment of the text or video record (and transcribe) their attempts in actual teaching. This approach focusing on materials use is a useful complement to the extant research on materials per se.

6.8 Dimension 8: Positioning of Other Languages and Cultures

A multilingual orientation to ELT necessitates an ideological repositioning of deficit-oriented ideologies related to ‘other’ languages and practices related to ‘them’ (e.g., translanguaging and translingual practices). Practical applications focusing on the notion of multilingualism need to focus on students’ linguistic repertoires to support learning in the classroom and lingua franca interactions in multilingual encounters. To that end, the strategic recognition and utilisation of other languages and cultures can be applied to at least three major domains: interactions, instruction, and assessment.

Since understanding is a prerequisite for transformation, teachers have the responsibility to connect with their students at deeper linguacultural levels. To facilitate this, teachers can conduct a survey on languages represented in the classroom, establish mutual and collaborative relationships with families to promote multilingual practices beyond the classroom, carry out instructional conversations with students about their goals, and invest in learning some useful expressions (e.g., greetings/farewell, praising, encouraging, classroom management, and instructions) from various languages represented in the classroom. However, limiting multilingual practices to interactions would inadvertently lead to a series of problems, including a superficial orientation to multilingualism, unequal power relations through minoritisation/majorisation of languages, and the unnecessary demarcation between them and what they offer for learning and interaction. Therefore, teachers are encouraged to tap into the multilingual repertoire of the classroom community to promote cross-linguistic awareness, known as ‘pedagogical translanguaging’ (Reference Cenoz and GorterCenoz & Gorter, 2022), which is ideally to be supported by material designers, curriculum developers, and test writers.

Recognising and drawing upon students’ linguacultural repertoires during instruction have multiple benefits, such as promoting the effectiveness and authenticity of language use, recognising academic identity, and fostering educational success. Translanguaging and translingual practices take different forms, including but not limited to the utilisation of multimodal communication (e.g., gesturing and drawing) by using relevant artefacts in the immediate environment (e.g., puppets, notepads, and software/applications) to support comprehension and engagement through various pedagogical functions (e.g., translating between languages, strategic use of other languages in various aspects of an activity, note-taking in multiple languages, and reviewing learning in other languages).

In addition to interactions and instructions, translanguaging and translingual practices also have powerful implications and applications for language assessment contexts. The translanguaging ideology could be leveraged for both formative and summative forms of assessment through a fresh perspective on instructions (e.g., multilingual instructions), input (e.g., culturally relevant connections and elicitation through multilingual content), responses (e.g., access to multilingual resources in constructing and providing a response), feedback (e.g., individualised forms of appraisals), and benchmarks (e.g., assessment of translanguaging multicompetence).

6.9 Dimension 9: Needs

The sociolinguistic needs of English learners in today’s classrooms and other lingua franca contexts exhibit remarkable diversity and complexity in terms of scope, time, and space. To better accommodate this diversity, practical applications focus on learners’ needs to follow three significant steps:understanding, assessment, and reconciliation.

The first stage (understanding) involves the externalisation of students’ needs, necessities, and goals through needs analysis conducted formally (by the educational institution) and informally (by the classroom teacher or individual learners). Needs analyses focusing on language and language use can be conducted using a wide variety of tools, including surveys, inventories (can-do lists for self-assessment), learner interviews, language logs, personal reflections, language learning timelines/projections, and blogs/vlogs.

In the next stage (assessment), the understanding gleaned from needs analysis could be used as a lens to assess curricular goals and objectives and ultimately identify points of convergences and divergences between curricular approaches (e.g., objectives, materials, instructional practices, and language variety) and learners’ context-dependent needs related to current and/or future English language use. For example, if a monolingual English user from the United States in a business programme expresses a need to use English as a business lingua franca, their proficiency limited to ‘standard’ American English variety may not be sufficient to maintain communicative and situational needs embedded in such encounters.

The last stage (reconciliation) involves taking deliberate steps to address the dissonances identified in needs analysis by creating spaces and opportunities for users to negotiate their needs in the local teaching context. In the example mentioned in the previous paragraph, the person needs to go through a specialised training programme that fosters (1) sociolinguistic awareness and sensitivity towards intercultural communication through reading passages about the diversity of English as a business lingua franca uses, and users; (2) redefined expectations based on intelligibility, credibility, and adaptability; (3) domain-specific communicative skills (e.g., familiarity with different accents, the ability to negotiate English alongside other languages and non-linguistic elements (e.g., body language), and multimodal resources (e.g., drawings, contracts, and visuals)) and sociocultural parameters (e.g., negotiation of intercultural norms and issues of power) through textual and audiovisual samples, case studies, simulations, and real-life practices.

6.10 Dimension 10: The Goals of Learning

Different from traditional ELT in which the goal of learning is to emulate an idealised ‘native speaker’ competence, teaching EIL has a more practical, appropriate, and fair ideal (Reference SmolderSmolder, 2009) – multicompetent users (Reference Cook, Cummins and DavisonCook, 2007) who can successfully negotiate a range of intercultural communicative encounters with individuals from diverse linguacultural backgrounds with different needs. Practical applications focusing on the notion of goals of learning need to instigate a shift from the dichotomous ‘native’ versus ‘non-native’ orientation to a multilingual paradigm. For example, the needs analysis process mentioned in the previous section may certainly involve questions germane to individuals’ perceived goals of learning. Identifying learners’ goals of learning will be intricately connected to their needs and inform decisions undergirding different aspects of ELT, anything from instructional variety to representations of cultures (See Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2019 about the creation of gaols of learning based on needs). Since the goals of learning are also an integral part of learners’ identity (or their actual or ideal senses of Self across time and space), discussions or narrative inquiries may offer insights into their negotiations of proficiency and legitimacy in local and global communities of practices. Teachers will soon realise that their learners may position their Ideal Self at a different point on the communities of practices continuum. While some feel connected to the global EIL community, others may envision becoming a part of the community of speakers of privileged ‘standard’ Anglo-American varieties of English (i.e., British or American English). It should be noted that this is a matter of personal choice, and educators need to respect learners’ decisions. In either case, instructional practices should always be grounded in the realities of the glocal context of English while respecting learners’ individual choices (while hoping that it will positively influence learners’ goals of learning). Specific practical applications may include participating in intercultural communicative encounters through projects, brainstorming on the qualities of an effective language user, developing personal descriptions of current and future L2 self through narrative inquiry or multimodal, and having critical conversations around what it means to be and become a ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’ in the English language.

6.11 Dimension 11: Assessment Criterion

Translating ideas into viable assessment practices is a challenging task, especially in international and standardised testing environments due to a lack of autonomy (Reference Hu, Alsagoff, McKay, Hu and RenandyaHu, 2012). Whether a strong (complete reconceptualisation of testing practices) or weak (accommodative adaptations through modifications) approach is adopted, the common goal is to move beyond the construct of proficiency traditionally defined in a linguistic term using idealised ‘native’ speaker as the norm (Reference Rose, McKinley and GallowayRose et al., 2021). Change and innovation in testing practices – albeit small and gradual – are evident. For example, still operating around the theoretical principles of idealised ‘native’ speaker norms, commercial proficiency tests such as IELTS exhibit tokenistic recognition and representation of the plurality of Englishes by including greater variation among L1 speakers, recruiting test developers from diverse backgrounds, and replacing the term ‘native speaker’ with ‘expert user’ as a descriptor (Reference RamptonRampton, 1990). Considering that a great majority of assessment takes place in classrooms, teachers and local test designers have an important role and responsibility in developing tests that are meaningful and relevant for their students, and their immediate and future realities (e.g., varieties, accents, interlocutors, and situational and communicative parameters). This usage-based approach will bring about more relevant and glocal approximations in determining the test specification (e.g., topics, task types, language skills, and language samples). Thus, a glocal proficiency test of English for Asian learners should be designed in such a way to include relevant language samples, varieties, skills, and users that test-takers may potentially encounter in their current and future interactions through the target and present situation analyses. Teachers, material writers, and test designers should also move away from decontextualised, selected, and discrete-point items focusing on language usage towards contextualised, constructed, and performance-based tasks focusing on language use and simulating real-life encounters. Furthermore, some other strategies may include but are not limited to using different accents and expert speakers in listening comprehension tasks, eliminating culturally loaded references and biased texts, involving multilingual raters in the process, and testing strategic competence, especially in group settings (e.g., asking for clarification and repetition, rephrasing, confirming/checking for comprehension, expressing (dis)agreement, managing conversational turns, and negotiation of pragmatic norms (Reference McKay and HinkelMcKay, 2011)).

6.12 Dimensions 12 and 13: Ideology and Theoretical Orientation

EIL stands out as a powerful sociolinguistic and political ideology aiming to destabilise and reconceptualise widely entrenched normative principles and practices in ELT shaped by the adherence to ‘standard’ language ideology through an idealised ‘native speaker’ notion and embodied through a racialised subject. Therefore, practical applications focusing on language ideologies and orientation need to instil a critical global perspective of English among multilingual users. Critical self-reflection through auto/duo/trio-ethnographic narratives, interviews, and surveys, including items focusing on the current role, status, functions, and importance of the English language at sociolinguistic, instructional, and educational levels (see Appendix D), may serve as a springboard for small- and large-group discussions about being and becoming a critical multilingual user of English. Furthermore, focusing on various social, political, educational, and raciolinguistic issues (through readings, discussions, debates, blog/vlog entries, social media posts, essays, and projects) will sensitise their criticality, subjectivity, and positionality as multilingual English users and sharpen their stance on issues around them as well as the role of English (and other languages) therein. The themes may include but are not limited to language and raciolinguistic policies (e.g., English-only and Black Lives Matter Movement in the United States, Speak Good English Movement in Singapore, and EMI policies around the world) and practices (e.g., English-medium instruction, mother tongue-based schooling), critically oriented and ‘anti-racist pedagogies’ (Reference KubotaKubota, 2021; Reference Matsuda and FriedrichMatsuda, 2023; Reference MothaMotha, 2014), linguistic landscape, language death and maintenance, grassroots activism and language policing, raciolinguistic ideologies, language and the internet, the nexus of linguistic diversity and social justice, and sociolinguistic perspectives in contemporary social and political issues (e.g., linguistic challenges during the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit and its political ramifications). As teacher educators and ELT practitioners wrestle with the ‘entanglements and assemblages’ (Reference PennycookPennycook, 2020b, p. 231) of theoretical orientation and ideology undergirding EIL with a critical lens (Reference Kubota and MillerKubota & Miller, 2017), they will cultivate ideological stances, intellectual spaces, and antiracist pedagogies (Reference KubotaKubota, 2021; Reference Matsuda and FriedrichMatsuda, 2023; Reference MothaMotha, 2014) that challenge deeply entrenched invisibilities and normativities (e.g., White normativity, Anglonormativity, coloniality, LGBT invisibility, heteronormativity, and Islamophobia), raciolinguistic ideologies (Reference Flores and RosaFlores & Rosa, 2015), and epistemic racism (Reference KubotaKubota, 2020; Reference Von Esch, Motha and KubotaVon Esch et al., 2020) propagated by the Global North (Reference Piller and ChoPiller & Cho, 2013) in ELT.

6.13 Achieving a Meaningful Shift in ELT

Our contemporary understanding of the global spread of English and the present-day global sociolinguistic landscape in which English functions alongside other languages laid out a compelling case and strong rationale for innovation in ELT principles and practices. Distilled from a growing body of both theoretical and empirical literature and encapsulated by such phrases as ‘paradigm shift’, ‘innovation/innovative practices’ (Reference Rose, McKinley and GallowayRose et al., 2021), and ‘moving beyond traditional ELT’, critical praxisation within ELT, as a discursive field, activity, and area of scholarly inquiry, has contributed new hopes and directions for the future. At this critical juncture, supporting various communities of practice as agents of change in ELT (e.g., students, teachers, teacher educators/researchers, test agencies, and governments, among others) through practical applications is more pivotal and relevant than ever. Thus, practical applications presented in this section and elsewhere in the literature should encourage various stakeholders to take that first small step towards pedagogical practices conducive to both the global sociolinguistic dynamics and local needs and realities within their teaching contexts. More importantly, it should serve as a stepping stone towards establishing innovation as a core value and competency among ELT professionals who dynamically (re)assess their principles and practices with a motivation to better cater to the current and future pedagogical needs of the individuals they serve.

7.1 Areas of Innovation

In light of the changed needs of English learners, we have provided an overview of calls for curriculum innovation. The dominance of ‘native speakerism’ (Reference HollidayHolliday, 2006) has, of course, been critiqued for decades, but growing work in this area brings new perspectives and strengthens the case for meaningful change. Our overview of the various dimensions of GE highlights a need to conceptualise how we view English, and languages in general. Language is constantly in a state of flux and there are no hard boundaries between languages and varieties used in multilingual settings, especially those in which English is used alongside others as a (multi)lingua franca. Successful users of ELF use languaging and navigate multilingual encounters, focusing on communication strategies, as opposed to striving to sound like a ‘native speaker’, even though this ‘native’ model continues to be taught and used as an assessment criterion in the majority of curricula. In essence, learners will be using the language in very different ways to how it is presented and assessed in the ‘traditional’ ELT curricula. Our aim in this Element has been to highlight the need for a new orientation to English in the ELT curriculum.

Our overview of the thirteen GELT dimensions aims to further exemplify how the ELT curriculum should and can be innovated. Our outline of practical activities for each of these dimensions also aims to help practitioners achieve successful and sustainable curricular innovation. As noted, our aim is not to prescribe a model for ELT, and we recognise the need for a detailed needs analysis and context-specific curriculum. Nevertheless, it is clear that to adequately prepare learners for the use of English in a globalised twenty-first century, we need to promote a more flexible view of language, which emancipates ‘non-native speakers’.

Specifically, we need to change the views of target interlocutors (Dimension 1), promote global ownership of the English language (Dimension 2), change depictions of the target culture (Dimension 3), promote a more flexible approach to linguistic norms that recognises that multilingualism is the norm and reduce the focus on the ‘native speaker’ model (Dimension 4), value teachers’ professional and multilingual identities in hiring practices (Dimension 5), expose students to the diversity of English and successful role models (Dimension 6), utilise instructional materials that highlight the diversity of English (Dimension 7), positively position other languages and cultures (Dimension 8), ensure curricula meet the new and changing communicative needs of our students (Dimension 9), revise the goals of the curriculum (Dimension 10), revise assessment criterion (Dimension 11), and ensure our practices are informed by relevant ideologies and theoretical orientations (Dimensions 12 and 13).

As noted, the pedagogical implications of research on EIL are certainly gathering momentum and various frameworks have been put forward to help instigate curriculum innovation. WE-informed ELT, TEIL; ELF-aware pedagogy (including the post-normative approach), and GELT share a central endeavour to challenge the status quo in language education. While such frameworks are promising and helpful, and while scholarship on the need for pedagogical change is certainly on the rise, much more groundwork is needed to bring such ideas into the realities of the classroom. The previous section aimed to address this need by exploring each dimension in terms of how theoretical discussions for change can be accompanied by practical suggestions to guide practitioners in achieving such change. Indeed, the lack of concrete pedagogical guides at the classroom level may explain why GE research has made little headway into mainstream ELT. While recognition of TEIL in teacher training texts is increasing, this remains largely at a superficial level and a lack of TEIL materials persists as a major barrier to innovation.

When the GELT proposals were first identified, various ‘barriers’ to change were also identified (Reference GallowayGalloway, 2011; Reference Galloway and RoseGalloway and Rose, 2015). These barriers included a lack of materials, attachments to standard language ideology, assessment washback, traditional perspectives in teacher education, and hiring practices that favour ‘native English-speaking teachers’. Because of such barriers to innovation, we acknowledge that curriculum innovation is a complex process, and the introduction of any innovation should be based on a detailed needs analysis of the context.

7.2 Innovation Models

In a similar vein to earlier work by Reference BrownBrown (1993), Reference Rose and GallowayRose and Galloway (2019) drew on Rogers’ (1983) diffusion of innovation model to conceptualise the processes to innovate ELT curricula based on GE research. Drawing on Rogers’ examination of variables that influence the perceived attributes of innovation (that is, aspects that make it more appealing), we highlighted the importance of compatibility, relative advantage, complexity, trialability, and observability in ensuring success in innovation. We outlined a diffusion model to explore how GELT innovation may succeed or fail in any given context. This model borrows from Reference RogersRogers’ (2003) later work where adopters are categorised as innovators, early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and laggards. To implement TEIL (or GELT, ELF-aware pedagogy, WE-informed ELT, or whatever paradigm we chose to operate within), we still require innovators and early adopters as agents of change. In most educational settings, with exceptions, we are still a long way from TEIL becoming the mainstream practice of even an early majority of teachers at any given institution.

This innovation model helps to highlight TEIL as a grassroots effort, which is carried out by curriculum designers and teachers who lobby for change within their institutions. Teacher education has been identified as one of the main barriers to innovation, and it is here that we can transform prior expectations. We hope that books such as this one will be of help not only in teacher education programmes but also to speak directly to the teachers considering TEIL innovations in their classroom practices. We aim to inform and empower innovators and early adopters of TEIL so that they can try what works best in their classrooms for their students. Teachers and curriculum developers can then use these trials to inform the next group of adopters working in the institution or those working in compatible institutional settings. To convince others to take on TEIL innovation, the relative advantage of curricular changes (i.e., its benefits over existing traditional curricula) needs to be observable. To increase the observability of TEIL innovation, we thus need greater reporting and discussion at a professional level. Many have noted teachers are important agents of change, yet their voices remain largely unheard in the TEIL scholarly literature (Reference Rose and MontakantiwongRose & Montakantiwong, 2018). We note, with interest, however, that scholars in regions such as Thailand are increasing the visibility of such reporting in recent years through an active agenda at the crossroads of research and practice (see, for example, Reference BoonsukAmbele & Boonsuk, 2021; Reference Boonsuk and AmbeleBoonsuk & Ambele, 2020; Reference Boonsuk, Ambele and McKinleyBoonsuk et al., 2021), which has amplified the voices of local lecturers (Reference BoonsukBoonsuk, 2021), and has done much to inform the compatibility of TEIL in the Thai higher education context. We hope this work inspires researcher-practitioners elsewhere to do the same in their contexts.

7.3 Researching and Reporting Innovation

To increase the perceived attributes of TEIL, Reference Rose and GallowayRose and Galloway’s (2019) innovation model aims to inform research on, and encourage reporting of, curricular innovation. A growing body of research has emerged since the 2010s, which explores classroom-based innovations and innovations in teacher education. A systematic review of research on EIL, WE, ELF, and GE innovations in classrooms and teacher education revealed several studies that have explored the impact of TEIL through retrospective, introspective, and reflective methods (e.g., Reference Fang and RenFang & Ren, 2018; Reference MarlinaMarlina, 2013; Reference Tardy, Reed, Slinkard and LaManceTardy et al., 2020). The review also highlighted studies that have explored reflections in teacher education (e.g., Biricik Deniz et al., 2020; Reference Sifakis and BayyurtSifakis & Bayyurt, 2015) as well as teachers’ attitudes towards the proposals (and barriers) to innovation (e.g., Reference Cameron and GallowayCameron & Galloway, 2019; Reference Galloway and NumajiriGalloway & Numajiri, 2020; Reference Vettorel and CorrizzatoVettorel & Corrizzato, 2016).

While this reporting of innovation is highly useful, the review concluded that such practice-oriented publications need to be accompanied by an increased volume of research into the direct effects of curriculum interventions. Such research, which can inform the relative advantage of TEIL, remains scarce. Previous research has been criticised for an overabundance of one-shot, cross-sectional data collection methods in classroom research, usually at the end of a course or task (Reference Rose, McKinley and GallowayRose et al., 2021). In short, more research is needed to showcase how an EIL approach is beneficial to learners in terms of their educational, linguistic, or identity development, by adopting more action research or quasi-experimental designs, where changes in outcomes of interest are measured before, during, and after an intervention. The thirteen dimensions outlined in the previous section could constitute a framework to inform the creation of such interventions.

Similarly, the review also calls for more research in the field of teacher education that explores the long-term effects of GE or TEIL awareness on future classroom practices. As stated throughout the Element, teachers are important agents of change in the curriculum innovation process, so we need to explore how new ideas received in teacher education are implemented after graduation when they enter their classrooms. This will not only help researchers and teacher educators to check the trialability of proposed curricular changes in real classroom settings but will also create a better understanding of the compatibility of proposed innovations in diverse educational contexts.

Despite our calls for more research rigour, reporting on TEIL innovations should not be restricted to research publications. It has been observed that English language teachers often lack the time and access to read research papers (Reference Sato and LoewenSato & Loewen, 2019), with ELT research being written for primarily a researcher audience (Reference McKinleyMcKinley, 2019). Much ELT research is hidden behind expensive publisher paywalls and thus excludes teachers who do not have access to journal subscriptions. Thus, it is pertinent that reporting on innovations, and the sharing of TEIL practices, occurs via additional avenues. These could include practitioner newsletters, websites, professional conferences, or professional networks (see, for example, https://elinet.org.uk/). It is hoped that if such reporting on innovations is made more accessible to practitioners and policymakers, it will increase the observability of TEIL to a range of ELT stakeholders.