We read with interest Hongyuan Wang's article ‘Loans to the Middle Kingdom revisited’ (ET77 Jan 04). This is a response to, and continuation of, Elizabeth Malischewski's 1987 article ‘Loan words to the Middle Kingdom’ in ET12, the author expresses the hope that this description ‘might serve as a useful addition to’ it (Wang 2004:47). We are as delighted to see the topic revisited after sixteen years as the editor, who states that Wang's article is ‘a valued addition to our series on English, China, China English, and Chinglish, and to Malischewski's original piece’ (McArthur 2004:2). However, we found that quite a number of words listed in the article are not loanwords, because of misunderstandings regarding loan word and loan translation in English and wailaici and wailaiyu, equivalents of loanword in a broader sense in Chinese, as a result of which his classification of the borrowings is confusing. The article has also tended to over-simplify the complex situation of such borrowings in Chinese and as such is misleading. We would like in this paper to clarify some of the misunderstandings and offer a brief introduction to the study of English borrowings in Chinese, a field which began c.1913 with the publication of Evan Morgan's Chinese New Terms & Expressions in Shanghai.

In several (colloquial) varieties of English around the world, the tag question is reduced to a single generalized invariant tag ‘isn't it?’. This is used irrespective of the general structure and semantic content of the matrix or main, superordinate clause that embeds it. Linguists started debating seriously on the actual use of tag questions in English since the early 1960s and 70s. The debates then were particularly focused on the use of tags on (elliptical) imperatives, with many concluding that the auxiliary in the imperative main clause is an elliptical will that serves as the source of input for the tag that is appended (Katz & Postal, 1964; Postal, 1966). Arbini (1969) discussed the putative parallel between tag imperatives and tag questions, and other early discussions on tags include Bolinger (1967), Huddleston (1970), and Klima (1964). The present discussion looks to a different direction. As already implied, it focuses on the emergence of isn't it? as a generalized invariant tag.

A consideration of how important the differences between the two varieties may be for the purposes of world communication

Are all linguistic varieties of English simply convenient fictions?

What is English like in Malaysia and is it in decline?

A survey of styles in e-mailing and an e-invitation to interested readers

Despite the recent publication of a Canadian style guide and The Oxford Canadian Dictionary, a claim that there is no such thing as a distinctively Canadian variety of English

In the introduction to the book he co-edited, Social Justice through Multilingual Education, Mohanty (2009: 3) mentions how, while conducting research in a remote underdeveloped area of the Indian state of Orissa, he came across a schoolboy who asked him about the purpose of his research. The schoolboy told him that indigenous tribal people in ‘this part of the world’ were the subject of too much research, but ‘nothing has changed, nothing will’ (ibid.). Mohanty (ibid.) notes that the encounter had a lasting impact on his thinking and academic work. This is reflected in the ideas underpinning the above-named book that focuses on the question of designing education in a manner that brings social justice to learners. One of its central points concerns the role of English in the Indian education system. It focuses especially on the debate of whether an English-medium education for speakers of minority languages further endangers their language. There are two seemingly intransigent approaches to the role of English in the Indian education system that shape the instrumentality vs. identity debate in language policy research. The instrumentality approach promotes English as a means of socioeconomic mobility for disadvantaged communities (Vaish, 2005; Weber, 2014). The identity approach argues that English-medium instruction leads to cultural alienation of schoolchildren and proposes mother-tongue-based multilingual education as the alternative (Skutnabb–Kangas et al., 2009; Mohanty, 2010). In this paper, I take a closer look at this debate by examining its four key aspects, namely the ‘decolonising’ role of English, language hierarchies, the linguistic double divide, and the problem of defining the term mother tongue. On the basis of this investigation, I describe the challenges this debate poses for policymakers, and explain why the instrumentality approach is a better way of addressing these challenges.

Italians' zeal for lacing their language with English words is well-known and on-going. Both everyday conversation and the mass media make widespread use of English terms and expressions, but their unphonetic spelling and pronunciation – full of insidious traps round every syllable – can create misunderstanding, confusion, and much humour, because Italians often tend to pronounce these international imports as they are written, much as they do in their mother tongue: either that, or they over-generalize the rules they they've learnt. A TV programme may be interrupted to announce a news flash that however comes out meatier, as ‘news flesh’. When giving business news, the phrase fiscal drag (whatever that may mean) becomes a truly obfuscating ‘fiscal drug’. And fashion news informs us of an exclusive ‘pullover’ by Missoni, whose stress shift unfortunately turns it into an order (from policeman to motorist): ‘pull over’.

THE ALLIANCE between US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the recent Second Gulf War has appeared anomalous to many, because they belong to ideologically very different political parties. Blair, in particular, has been accused of having betrayed some of the left-wing ideas that, historically, have characterised the Labour Party. This article seeks to understand the extent to which, at least in linguistic terms, the ideas of Blair and Bush may not be as alike as one might be tempted to believe. Two small corpora of interviews and speeches were collected over a period of some six weeks, all relating to the war in Iraq. Analysis of the corpora reveals some notable differences between Blair and Bush and also shows that certain important – and more hidden – elements of discourse escape this type of investigation and need closer scrutiny.

A response in detail to comments on the article ‘International English in the global village’ (ET58: Apr 99), further developing the idea of EIL (English as an International Languge) in ET60 (Oct 99)

IN 2003, a health crisis took place that severely tested Hong Kong, among a number of other parts of the world, with at 15 June a death toll in the city of 295 (out of 1,755 cases). Schools were closed, an apartment block was quarantined, and businesses suffered as people stayed home. Because no one at that time knew much about what came to be called ‘severe acute respiratory syndrome’ (shortened to both SARS and Sars), the disease offered a ‘blank screen’ onto which various fears could be projected. It seemed to spread directly to close contacts – but airborne contagion could not be ruled out. The death rate was under five percent, but there was a possibility that it could become more virulent. It might turn out like any other flu-like illness, or like the 1918 flu pandemic that killed millions. In addition, it was the perfect mechanism for Hong Kong to project its current uncertainties over its image and place in the world. Thus, the ‘pragmatic handling’ of this event in the major English language newspaper of the city, the South China Morning Post, holds much linguistic interest. The SCMP is a major English-language newspaper in East Asia.

A brief stroll about the cityscape of South Korea (henceforth ‘Korea’) testifies to Curtin's (2014) presumptive cosmopolitanism, whereby locals are expected to possess a high degree of competence in linguistically accommodating newcomers or world travellers by using English or other international languages in the linguistic landscape. One can easily spot English monolingual, Korean–English bilingual, and multilingual signs for ‘advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop[s] and . . . government buildings’ (Landry & Bourhis, 1997: 25), helping visitors and new arrivals negotiate the environment without being literate in the local language, Korean. The current English-flooded linguistic landscape of urban areas is well described in J. S. Lee's (2016) study, in which an elderly interviewee confirms, ‘[E]verywhere you go, you see English – banks, markets, and things. When we go shopping these days, brand names and street signs are all in English’ (331).

A reply to Braj Kachru in terms of models for the use of foreign learners of the language

In July 2016, the British media covered the events in Whitehall from the viewpoint of cats. Larry, the Number 10 Downing Street cat, along with his feline colleagues Palmerston, Gladstone and Evie, made the news when the coverage of British politics was transferred to the street fights of competing tomcats Larry, Palmerston, and Gladstone. Headlines included: ‘The feline fight for Downing Street: Larry and Palmerston face-off to be the top cat of No 10’ (Burrows, 2016) in The Daily Mail; ‘Gladstone the cat lands Treasury job’ (‘Gladstone the Cat Lands Treasury Job’, 2016) on the BBC; ‘Gladstone the cat gives Treasury some paws for thought’ (Walker, 2016) in The Guardian; and ‘Cat & Mouser. Foreign Office moggie in stand off with Larry at No10 as bid for power continues’ (Foxton & Pettitt, 2016) in The Sun.

Will World English go the way of Latin? The phrase ‘Latin analogy’ was, it seems, coined by McArthur (1987), who distinguished a pessimistic or what he called ‘Babelesque’, perspective from an optimistic and a neutral (or pragmatic) perspectives to the comparison. The comparison continues to be made even today and generally it comes with a dire warning: the days of English as an international language, or a lingua franca for peoples from different parts of the world, are numbered. It will, sooner or later, break up into a number of different, mutually incomprehensible languages just the way good old Latin did. What is worse, in some cases this apprehension seems only to grow with the passage of time.

Previous research on the grammar of English has led to the development of a number of useful reference books (e.g. Quirk et al., 1985; Biber et al., 1999; Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Berry, 2012), which have substantially contributed to the teaching and learning of English language in EFL contexts. However, I found that from an (advanced) EFL learner's perspective, EFL learners are often left to our own choices when we want to express a specific meaning in spoken and/or written communication, such as acknowledgement-making for example (Hyland & Tse, 2004). One major reason for this is that these reference books have mainly focused on discussing issues such as word classes, types of clauses, tense and aspects, etc. They have not attempted to document systematically the lexicogrammatical means by which specific meanings can be expressed, though they do have selectively described some. This stimulated me to think whether it is possible to develop, what I tentatively call, a meaning-based grammar of English, i.e. a grammar which is primarily concerned with meanings and their typical lexicogrammatical realisations.

Nigerian English (NigE) is a second language (L2) variety of English which has been domesticated, acculturated, and indigenised (Taiwo, 2009: 7; Jowitt, 2019: 26), due to its co-existence with about five hundred indigenous Nigerian languages (see Eberhard, Simons & Fennig, 2019). It is the language of education, governance, law, the media, and formal financial transactions in Nigeria. Based on Schneider's (2003: 271) Dynamic Model of the evolution of the New Englishes, NigE can be located at the late stage of nativisation, while recent studies show that it is on the verge of entering endonormative stabilisation (Gut, 2012: 3; Unuabonah & Gut, 2018: 210). Although NigE is an L2, there is a growing number of young people who speak it as a first language (L1; see Jowitt, 2019: 16; Onabamiro & Oladipupo, 2019). NigE includes sub-varieties which are classified based on different factors such as region/ethnicity, and educational attainment (Banjo, 1971; Jibril, 1986; Udofot, 2003). Although Udofot (2003: 204) suggests that the sub-variety used by Nigerians who have been educated in tertiary institutions should be taken as the standard variety, Jowitt (1991: 47) opines ‘that the usage of every Nigerian user is a mixture of Standard forms’ and non-standard forms. The data used in this paper are a mix of both standard and non-standard forms.