The improper use of the possessive apostrophe has for a long time been a subject of concern among the authors of usage guides in English. Apostrophes do not represent any sounds, and since nouns in the genitive, and plural nominative and accusative nouns with few exceptions sound the same, their spelling distinctions are purely grammatical (Bryant et al., 1997: 93). Because the sign exists only in the written language, its usage has been rather unstable ever since it was first introduced to the English language in the sixteenth century to mark dropped letters (Little, 1986: 15−16), and it was not until the eighteenth century when the possessive apostrophe was first introduced (Crystal, 2003: 68). The usage guide database HUGE (Hyper Usage Guide of English), which is built by Robin Straaijer as part of the ‘Bridging the Unbridgeable’ project that Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade wrote about in an earlier issue of English Today, proves that apostrophe ‘misuse’ is the most popular topic in the field of language advice when it comes to punctuation. The apostrophe holds its own among numerous disputed items, such as ending sentences with prepositions, using me for I, who for whom or splitting infinitives. The first historical reference to the apostrophe in the HUGE database appears in Reflections on Language Use by Robert Baker in 1770 and it continues to be discussed to the present day. The discussion of the mark's ‘misuse’ has been widely popularized by the publication of Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation in 2003.

One of the most striking linguistic changes to affect the English language in recent decades is the ongoing spread of be like, shown in (1), as a new member of the quotative system (Ferrara & Bell, 1995; Macaulay, 2001; Buchstaller & Van Alphen, 2012). The opportunity to study language change ‘in action’ (Tagliamonte & D'Arcy, 2004: 493) brought by this innovation has spurred a vast body of research on quotation in American English, where the new form is presumed to have originated (Ferrara & Bell, 1995).

Mesthrie & Bhatt (2008: 125) note that ‘all New Englishes varieties treat [θ] or [ð] as something other than an interdental fricative’. Malaysian English, as a variety of New English, constitutes an interesting case study. In Malaysian English, what Mesthrie & Bhatt (2008: 125) call ‘something other than an interdental fricative’ is realized as the dental stop [t] (e.g. thought), which in this paper is dubbed ‘a new [t]’ or presented orthographically as [th > t], whose acoustic quality is strikingly different from the ordinary alveolar stop [t] (e.g. taught).

The border between mainland China and Hong Kong has become one of the world's most fascinating linguistic divides. On one side lies the mainland Chinese city of Shenzhen, stretching the entire length of the border – an extraordinary urban development which in many ways epitomises the recent urbanisation of modern China. On the other side lies the Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Hong Kong (see Figure 1). It is not possible to cross from Hong Kong to mainland China by land without passing through one of the Shenzhen checkpoints.

To become lifelong learners is the ultimate goal of many if not most learners irrespective of their target of learning, and being able to self-learn is one major prerequisite of this goal. As far as the learning of a second language is concerned, dictionaries are among the most readily available and easily accessible self-learning tools available on the market, and are regarded as the most systematic and comprehensive lexical descriptions that users have access to (Jackson & Amvela, 2000). An increasing number of dictionaries are now available for learners at different levels and for different learning purposes, including general dictionaries, learners' dictionaries, translation dictionaries, pictorial dictionaries, collocation dictionaries, specialized dictionaries and encyclopaedic dictionaries (Jackson & Amvela, 2000). Of these, learners' dictionaries are among the most popular for second or foreign language learners, providing a range of information including word meanings, pronunciations, collocations, correct usage and syntactic behaviour.

Grammars, dictionaries, usage manuals and other linguistic references are traditionally categorized along a spectrum running from prescriptivist to descriptivist, yet for years problems with this system of categorization have been noted. Forty years ago Geoffrey Pullum cautioned against confusing methodology and motives when applying the ‘descriptive’ or ‘prescriptive’ labels (1974: 77–78). A few years later Emma Vorlat suggested a middle ground, that grammars codify the language along a continuum of prescriptive–normative–descriptive, that is codification based on arbitrary rules – usage by social elites – description without value judgment (1979: 129). Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade noted that Vorlat's categories are not discrete, with eighteenth-century grammars increasingly basing prescriptions on descriptions of actual usage as the century progressed (2000: 877). María Rodríguez-Gil further noted that prescriptive grammars often base their advice on description of the language of social elites (2003: 190). Joan Beal characterized Robert Lowth's eighteenth-century grammars as both ‘normative’ and ‘descriptive’ (2004: 106). And Robin Straaijer has noted that ‘it seems useful to view prescriptivism and descriptivism as being independent from one another rather than diametrical opposites’ (2009: 67–68). Yet, perhaps because of the baggage carried by the two terms, to date no one has made the leap to conclude that the two terms address entirely different domains altogether – Straaijer approached the brink but did not leap. Prescriptivism and descriptivism do not exist along the same continuum.

Attitudes are usually defined as positive or negative reactions to an object (e.g. Bohner, 2001; Ajzen, 2005). In the context of language attitudes, this object is a language, its speakers, features, varieties and/or linguistic usage (Baker, 1992: 17). Attitudes towards different language varieties also reflect attitudes towards wider social, cultural, political and geographical contexts of these varieties, and to some extent rely on ‘speakers’ own cultural background and stereotypes of particular cultures or societies that their own culture has mediated' (Bredella, 1991: 59). As Holmes (2001: 343) suggests, people generally do not hold opinions towards languages in a vacuum, but ‘develop attitudes towards languages which reflect their views about those who speak the languages, and the contexts and functions with which they are associated’.

While code-switching is quite a common phenomenon, this paper seeks to investigate a common but underreported use of code-switching. In this paper, I focus on the use of code-switching from Korean to English in South Korean TV dramas. The paper first briefly discusses the literature on the connotations of English language in the Korean media and then proceeds to focus on code-switching using data sampled from three Korean TV dramas. The previous literature (e.g. Lee, 2006; Park, 2006, 2009) which discusses the use of the English language in the Korean media, argues that English carries connotations of modernity and power and this subsequently helps to construct a modern identity for Koreans. However, while Korean music, advertisements and comedies have been discussed with regard to their switches to English, there is little, if any research that focuses on switching to English in Korean TV dramas. The argument put forth in this paper is that switching to English in this context is often a means to reflect an identity of power for the characters and this subsequently might be a reflection of the power and dominance that the English language has in Korean society. In turn, this contributes to conclusions that a modern Korean identity of power derives from being proficient in English.

This is a weighty volume, and one which provides a very useful addition to the Cambridge Handbook series, which previously has covered such topics as phonology, code-switching, child language, endangered languages, sociolinguistics and pragmatics. The volume comprises a total of 30 chapters, which in turn are grouped into five constituent parts. Part I sets out ‘Definition and principles’, Part II deals with ‘Language policy at the macrolevel’, Part III discusses language policies in ‘Non-governmental domains’, Part IV tackles ‘Globalization and modernization’, and, finally, Part V focuses on ‘Regional and thematic issues’. Bernard Spolsky's opening chapter on ‘What is language policy?’ clears the discursive and theoretical space for much that follows, with Spolsky cogently resolving the often confusing issue of where language ‘policy’ ends and ‘planning’ begins thus: