Attitudes toward the global spread of English have been one of the major issues in research on the development of world Englishes. Because language attitudes construct an invisible language policy that influences the use of English in a local speech community (Curdt–Christiansen, 2009), many studies addressing the spread of English into non-English contexts have focused on the attitudes of diverse English users toward their local variety and other varieties of English (Ahn, 2014; He & Li, 2009; Wang & Gao, 2015). However, among the core components of language attitudes, that is, the cognitive component (i.e., belief system), affective component (i.e., attitudinal system), and behavioural component (i.e., behavioural intention), little research attention has been paid to the behavioural component other than by Ahn (2014), even though non-native speakers’ actual use of their local English is the process by which English spreads into non-English-speaking communities. Thus it is necessary to explore the factors influencing the speakers’ behaviours while using the local variety of English. In addition, previous research has not identified the mechanism by which the speakers’ beliefs and attitudes have influence their actual behavioural intentions in relation to their attitudes toward their own English. For example, Ahn (2014) reported that whereas Korean English teachers expressed positive attitudes toward Korean English, they were hesitant in their behavioural intentions to use it as a teaching model. However, this study did not deeply address associations among beliefs, attitudes, and actual behaviours in relation to the use of Korean English. In response to this gap, the present study provides an integrated framework for investigating the spread of English into local speech communities by modelling diverse factors of individual speakers’ decision-making processes in adopting the local variety of English.

English today is a conglomerate of a vast array of different varieties of English. This linguistic diversity, captured most prominently in the World Englishes paradigm (Kachru, 1985), poses a challenge to English language teaching (ELT) in countries where English does not have an official status (i.e. there is no codified local norm) and is learned as a foreign language, such as Armenia or Germany. Learners of English in these countries are norm-dependent on ‘standard’ Englishes spoken as a native language (Kachru, 1985) as the models of teaching (Galloway & Rose, 2015: 196–198; Matsuda and Friedrich, 2012: 21–22). These ‘Standard Englishes’ are abstract and idealized concepts as they are never fully realized by speakers in their ‘clearly delimited, perfectly uniform, and perfectly stable’ (Milroy, 2001: 543) form. However, they are powerful ideas in the minds of speakers – and learners in particular – as the models of language teaching. Standard British (StBE) and Standard American English (StAmE) and their associated prestige accents Received Pronunciation and General American traditionally serve as the models of language teaching for learners (Kirkpatrick, 2007: 184–189; Phillipson, 1992: 136–172). StBE has long been considered the global prestige accent variety but Bayard et al. (2001: 41–43) hypothesize that it is gradually replaced by StAmE due to the global availability of the US media.

The UK is facing important changes in the near future, with Brexit, i.e. the UK leaving the European Union (EU), looming ever more closely on the horizon. These important political and economic changes will certainly have an influence on Europe as a whole, and have had linguistic consequences for the English language, such as Brexit-related neologisms (Lalić-Krstin & Silaški, 2018). As Modiano (2017a) suggests, Brexit might also have an influence on the status of the English language in the EU, in particular with regard to the dominance of native speaker varieties. In this article, we discuss the possibility of the use of a neutral European English variety in the EFL classrooms of two EU member states, i.e. Sweden and Germany. Based on a survey among 80 practitioners in secondary schools (first results were presented in Forsberg, Mohr & Jansen, 2019), the study investigates attitudes towards target varieties of English in general, and European English or ‘Euro-English’ (cf. Jenkins, Modiano & Seidlhofer, 2001; Modiano 2003) in particular, after the referendum in June 2016.

How do people choose a language when they are proficient in more than one language? This research sheds light on language choice, English use in particular, in diplomacy where an individual speaks primarily for negotiation on behalf of an organization or a community. Nick (2001: 39) argued that ‘language is not a simple tool … but very often the very essence of the diplomatic vocation’. Despite its importance, little has been investigated about language choice in diplomatic meetings (Finsen, 2016). Wodak, Krzyzanowski and Forchtner (2012), one of the few studies, illustrated that 45% of the overall percentage of languages in the European Parliament (EP) meetings was English. To accumulate more data of English use in diplomacy, this research investigated addresses made by the heads of state at the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (GA). The EP is the law-making institution of the European Union (EN) (European Union, 2019), and the UN and the EU have contrasting language policies. Under the EU's non-restrictive language policy, national languages of all 23 members are included in the official languages (Finsen, 2016). On the other hand, the UN restricts the number of official languages to six, namely Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. This makes a difference in the payment for interpretation services. If representatives would like to speak in Portuguese, the EU provides interpretation. However, the UN does not. The speakers need to provide interpretation into one of the six official languages on their own. These contrasting language policies between the EU and the UN can influence language choice at the UN meetings. Moreover, the UN has a larger number of member states than the EU, and many of them belong to other language or regional organizations. Therefore, this study focuses on the prevalence of English use by the heads of state at the UN GA meetings according to five language and two regional groups.

In Vietnam, English has been held in high regard since the country embarked on its economic reform known as Doi Moi (Renewal) in 1986 (Ngo, 2018a; Nguyen, 2016). Yet, over the past decades, the country's English teaching sector has consistently been underperforming (Le, in press; Ngo, 2018a, 2018b; Nguyen, 2016; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019).

When delivering a speech at a meeting of the Writers’ Congress, Ernest Hemingway said as a fiction writer: