Due to its rise as a global means of communication, the English language has been increasingly used by and between non-native speakers (henceforth NNSs), leading to a growing interest in what has come to be known as English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in English language teaching (ELT). As noted by Jenkins (2006: 159), ‘many of those who start out thinking they are learning English as a foreign language end up using it as a lingua franca’. This suggests that ELT materials need to be developed in ways that correspond with the emerging needs of such language learners. However, ‘the prevailing orientation in […] ELT materials still remains undoubtedly towards ENL [English as a Native Language]’ (Jenkins, 2012: 487). It is not yet clear how well ELF perspectives have been integrated into teaching materials to date.

The influence of corpus-based grammars has been pervasive in the past two decades in language learning as an important reference for researchers, teachers, and language enthusiasts alike. Yet such advances in the compilation of large digitized samples of language have not yet resulted in many practical implementations in EFL contexts. This is certainly due to the reluctance of many teachers to introduce corpora into their practice, in the belief that such a shift is technically cumbersome and time-consuming (Boulton 2010). I shall take up this issue in the last section of this paper.

The choice of what materials to use in the language classroom is perhaps one of the most fundamentally important and difficult decisions teachers and those responsible for choosing textbooks are faced with. Authenticity is often seen as a desirable component in the content we select and adapt for our language learners, and it has been shown that authentic materials are more motivating, even for low-level learners (Peacock, 1997). The term authentic is often used to describe materials which were not originally designed for the purpose of language learning, but that were designed to have some purpose within the target language culture, such as a newspaper or novel. An unfortunate consequence of this is that authenticity is still often defined in reference to the target language's ‘native speakers’ or L1 community, particularly in EFL contexts, or what Kachru (1985) would label the Outer Circle communities. In other words, where English is taught as a foreign language, both teachers and students often regard ‘native-speakers’ as being the ideal model and therefore an example of authenticity. For example, Tan (2005) criticises corpora investigations of learner English for holding the view that authentic language use is equivalent to ‘native-speaker’ usages. She goes on to criticise not only corpus research but also textbook publishers for still not taking into account ‘the inextricable link between language and culture’ (2005: 127). In the academic world, culturally embedded notions of authenticity relating to ‘native-speakers’ have been challenged for decades (Smith, 1976). And yet I would argue that in mainstream textbooks and in most EFL language classrooms the native speaker still retains a ‘privileged position’ (Clark & Paran, 2007: 407). As Widdowson (1996: 68) puts it:

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.

Hamid & Baldauf's (2008) labelling of the term ‘bogged down’ within the Bangladeshi ELT context and their prediction about the outcome of the English Language Teaching Improvement Project (ELTIP) appear to be true. While Hamid & Baldauf (2008) endeavour to present the poor ELT reality of rural Bangladesh, the current paper aims to explore the problems that make ELT ‘bogged down’ in Bangladesh.

This paper is focused on basic English language knowledge and skills by looking at the circumstances in which English indefinite article, either ‘a’ or ‘an’, is selectively used with authentic examples cited from a few widely read Australian newspapers. Three fundamental elements of a language consist of its pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar in language teaching terms (phonetics, lexicology and syntax are respectively used in linguistic terms). These terms are used in this discussion which is oriented to general ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) users. The fact is that most of them tend to pay less attention to pronunciation than to vocabulary or grammar, and approach these fundamental language elements in isolation rather than reflect on their connections. To address this issue, the author shows that pronunciation and grammar are connected and that it is important to get back to basics in language learning through investigating distinctions between two indefinite articles. There are four reasons for this investigation. First, examination of their distinctions in context crosses over the knowledge boundary between pronunciation and grammar. Making connection and association between the two language elements helps ESL/EFL learners develop analytical skills and enables reflective learning experience (Brockbank & McGill, 2007).

It is June, 2002. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has just stepped on to the stage at the end of a concert in celebration of her Golden Jubilee. Her son and heir, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, approaches her. He inclines his slightly greying head to his monarch. He speaks: ‘Your Majesty…’. He pauses for a fraction of a second, and then continues: ‘Mummy …’. A sharp intake of breath is heard across the land. Why?

Very recently, the former spokesman of China's Ministry of Education launched a public attack on the national fervor for English learning in his personal blog (Xinhua News, 2013). He forcefully argued that too much time and energy has been spent on learning English as a foreign language, which has seriously jeopardized Chinese citizens’ first-language education, and called for the cancellation of English lessons in the primary school curriculum. Following this, the Beijing municipal commission of education announced its plan to reduce the English section of the National University Entrance Qualifying Exam (or gaokao) from 150 points to 100 points in major cities by 2016 so as to downplay the importance of English in the education system. A further report states that education authorities are also considering scrapping mandatory English lessons before the third grade. Shandong and Jiangsu provinces, as well as Shanghai, may remove English from the gaokao entirely (The Guardian, 2013).

The Norman Conquest of 1066 has left a considerable mark on the English landscape (in the form of cathedrals, churches, and castles) and had a massive impact on the English language. Both of these are visible (and audible) today. It is well known that a very sizeable percentage of the vocabulary of Modern English is of French origin. What is generally realised less is the extent to which these are not loanwords in the conventional sense (that is, words incorporated from a foreign language) but terms taken over into English at a time of sustained language contact between English and French, when the two languages coexisted on English soil. Recent advances in lexicography, in the Oxford English Dictionary in particular, now make it possible to track much more precisely the processes which have led to this massive incursion of French terminology into English. Generally speaking, it is normally assumed that Anglo-Norman was a predominantly urban vernacular (Short, 2009), a view which some recent work has challenged (Rothwell 2008, 2009, 2012; Trotter 2012a, 2012b, 2013).

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’.

The fact that differences in vowel articulation are important in distinguishing accents of English is well established (Wells, 1982; Cruttenden, 2008; Ng, Chen & Sadaka, 2008; Park, 2009a, 2009b). It is also the case that speakers' production of a particular vowel varies for an individual speaker and between speakers of the ‘same’ accent (Rose, 2002; Cruttenden, 2008). In terms of perception, it is evident that L1 speakers, i.e. speakers for whom the language is the first language or one of the first languages acquired, are often able to recognise vowel articulations which deviate from the norm in their accent, even when the difference in vowel production is not significant enough to be mapped onto another L1 phoneme category, i.e. where the use of the alternative vowel quality could potentially change the meaning of the word (Park, 2009a). It should be acknowledged that any such norms are likely to vary in accordance with generational changes to a particular variety. But studies seeking to establish the degree of interrelatedness of vowel production and speakers' perceived ideal realisation have had mixed results. For example, Hoopingarner (2004) found that L1 speakers' production and preferred realisation were relatively similar, while Ainsworth & Paliwal (1984) and Frieda, Walley, Flege & Sloane (2000) failed to demonstrate such a correlation.

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.

In the past two decades, there have been two important events in English as a Foreign Language (hereafter, EFL) teaching in Chinese universities throughout the country. The first event was a gradual growth in student enrolment in universities, and the second was the EFL teaching reform that aimed to introduce Communicative Language Teaching (hereafter, CLT) into the English classroom (Rao, 2010). There is an apparent conflict between the increase in student numbers in each class and the use of CLT in the language classroom, thus resulting in a series of problems for current EFL teaching in Chinese universities. On the one hand, frequent contact with foreigners speaking English nowadays makes it necessary for English teachers to develop students’ communicative competence. On the other hand, some problems such as large classes, high demands on English teachers and a lack of financial resources prevent teachers from getting their students involved in the communicative activities in their teaching process (Rao, 1996; Yu, 2001; Hu, 2002).

A few years ago, I spent one year as Director of Studies (DoS) of a language school on the south coast of England, a first job back in the UK after living abroad for 18 years. The job was fine, but one particular responsibility was occasionally stressful: arranging cover for absent teachers at short notice. Sometimes I was free to teach the class myself and happily did so, but there were times when I had other things to do. Sometimes, several teachers would phone in sick at the same time.

World Englishes (henceforth WEs) theory recognizes that English today is an international language that comprises ‘a unique cultural pluralism, and a linguistic heterogeneity and diversity’ (Kachru, 1985: 14). That is, WEs theory recognizes and appreciates an emerging group of English varieties worldwide (such as Australian English, Indian English, Singaporean English, etc.), seeing each as being of equal validity and legitimacy. This appreciation of the pluricentricity of English has aroused particular interest in the field of ESL/EFL teaching (e.g., Kachru, 1992; Jenkins, 2006; Kirkpatrick, 2008). It is well known that ESL/EFL teaching has long been dominated by the Inner Circle model (Kachru, 1985), also known as the native speaker (NS) model. The Inner Circle model of English teaching focuses on so-called ‘Standard English’ education and aims to develop ‘native-like proficiency’ among ESL/EFL learners. Such a monocentric approach posits the superiority of Anglo-American norms and cultures at the expense of other English varieties and cultures. However, criticisms of such an ‘exonormative native speaker model’ (Kirkpatrick, 2008: 184) have been frequently raised in the past decade, and a growing number of researchers (e.g., Kachru, 1986, 1992; Canagarajah, 1999; Jenkins, 2000, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2001; McKay, 2002; Kirkpatrick, 2006, 2008) have called for a paradigm shift to replace the monocentric Inner Circle model in ESL/EFL teaching. New models have also been proposed; for instance, Phillipson (1992a) argued for models in various specific English varieties that maintain international intelligibility; Kramsch (1998) proposed an intercultural speaker model, and Kirkpatrick (2008) advocated a lingua franca approach to replace the NS model; finally, Jenkins (2006) put forward the pluricentric approach to replace the monocentric approach in English teaching. Though different in some respects, these proposed new models all share the same aims for ESL/EFL teaching, that is, to promote pluralism in different cultures and English varieties, to raise ESL/EFL learners' awareness of the various English varieties, and to enhance ESL/EFL learners' confidence in their own English varieties. In this study, the term pluricentric approach is adopted because this term vividly catches the essence of the pluricentricity of English today.

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:

It is worth noting that an increasing number of international students, especially Chinese students, have been flooding into English-speaking countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States or Australia in pursuit of advanced knowledge and better academic environments. As ESL students are enrolling in writing courses in colleges and universities, teachers are confronted with problems that non-native speakers bring to the class when it comes to their academic writing. The problems are more serious than they appear to be. For one thing, according to Reid (1993: 774), there is a dramatic difference between native students and ESL students in ‘the needs, backgrounds, learning styles, and writing strategies’. For another, the situation becomes worse due to ‘considerable diversity even among ESL students in terms of language and cultural backgrounds, prior education, gender, age, and ESL language proficiency’ (Reid, 1993: 774). Although there is not a single solution which is effective in solving complex ESL issues, teachers would be in a better position to understand their ESL students' writing problems if they were to learn about the distinct nature of L2 writing shaped by linguistic and cultural differences. In this article, the author, who was once a Chinese ESL student in the USA and is now an EFL teacher in China, explores how English writing differs from Chinese writing and how these differences lead to Chinese ESL students' difficulty with English writing. This article is expected to increase ESL practitioners' awareness of the urgency for them to recognize and deal with these differences in order to teach L2 writers effectively, to treat them fairly and thus provide them with equal opportunities to achieve academic and professional success.

In sound recordings of British English from the first part of the last century we can hear some speakers whose pronunciation of the letter r, in words such as ring, bread and around, sounded just like a /w/. We know, too, from literary texts, that it goes back further. This article is about another, newer, pronunciation of /r/ in British English, close to /w/, but distinct from it, that has increased in frequency and prominence in the last decade. In it, the lips are less pursed than for a /w/ and you sense there is less muscular tension than for what we might call the ‘traditional’ /r/ of speakers of standard English. In ambiguous contexts it could still cause confusion, as between real and wheel, or crack and quack. It may occur less in Scottish, Welsh and Irish accents than in ones from England.

English plays an important role in the lives of Ugandans. For example, official government records are written in English, Parliament conducts its business in English, national newspapers are written in English. English is the medium of instruction from elementary to tertiary level. English is a lingua franca among people of different ethnic groups whose mother tongues are mutually unintelligible, especially if they cannot use Luganda or, to some extent, Swahili.