English is used as an important means of international and intercultural communication around the world more than ever. Because of its widespread use in the global context, non-native speakers of English around the world outnumber native speakers by far (Crystal, 1997). According to Kachru and Nelson (1996: 79), ‘accepting even cautious estimates, there must be at least three nonnative users of English for every old-country native user’. A similar phenomenon is also observable in the English Language Teaching (ELT) profession, with the vast majority of teachers of English as a second and foreign language in the world being non-native speakers.

We are into the second decade of the twenty-first century, but grammarians still fail to distinguish properly between some and any (and their compounds – something/anything, etc.). This may in itself seem a small matter. But it is symptomatic of flaws in the academic study of language.

Irish English (IrE) was initially learned as a second language as a result of the successive colonizations of Ireland by speakers of English and Scots dialects that began in the Middle Ages and reached a peak during what is termed ‘The Plantation Period’ of Irish history. The scheme persuaded English and Scottish settlers to colonize the island of Ireland, hailing from urban centres like London as well as more rural areas like Norfolk and Galloway. This intensive colonization process created the possibility that a novel type of English could emerge. This new variety is characterized by: (i) innovative forms; (ii) the incorporation of features drawn from Irish, the indigenous language prior to colonization, and (iii) other characteristics caused by the mixing of Irish with the regional Scots and English vernaculars of the new settlers. Interestingly (and not uncommonly when migratory movements of these kinds arise), modern varieties of IrE still retain this mixed heritage. Moreover, the colonization is preserved culturally – particularly in the north of Ireland – by ethnic divisions between the descendants of the migrant and indigenous populations. Thus, Catholics, who reflect the latter group, celebrate events like ‘St Patrick's Day’ while their Protestant neighbours commemorate ‘The Glorious Twelfth’ each July, celebrating the day in 1690 when King William III's victory at the Battle of the Boyne ensured the ultimate success of the Plantation scheme in which their forefathers participated. The linguistic consequences of this contact permeate all aspects of the speech used within these communities (accent, grammar and vocabulary). Moreover, some of the grammatical features that are the focus of this article have travelled to regions that have been intensively settled by Irish migrants. Hence, these features also have important implications for the study of transported dialects, which has recently become very topical and is the focus of a new strand of research in English variation studies typified by the publication of Hickey (ed. 2004).

In the case of the status of English in Hong Kong, most ‘new Englishes’ classification schemes have been either controversial or inconclusive. Dynamic models seem to be more promising, and these predict two things. First, a trend of ‘linguistic schizophrenia’, where people are exonormative in ideal – holding to the ideals of native speaker English – but endonormative in practice – in actual fact, speaking their own local variety. Second, the future ongoing development and eventual acceptance of the new variety. This article aims to shed more light on some of the complexities surrounding the issue of the status of English in Hong Kong. It undertakes an analysis of the attitudes of local English speakers towards the existence and nature of their own variety, perceptions of their own linguistic behaviour, and attitudes towards norms. The significance of the findings is evaluated in the light of dynamic models postulated by Kachru (1983) and Schneider (2003, 2007). The Hong Kong data present a classic case of Kachru's ‘linguistic schizophrenia’, and confirm the placement of Hong Kong English at the beginning of Schneider's Phase 3 of nativization. The future possibilities for the variety are also discussed.

In November 2009, Principal Thomas Murray banned the word meep from Danvers High School, located outside of Boston (Netter, 2009). Parents and students received automated e-mails and calls with a warning that saying or displaying the word meep would entail suspension. Students had ignored requests from teachers and administrators to stop, leading to the school-wide ban. This story contains entertaining elements: an overzealous principal who forwarded emails containing meep to the police; references to the meeping Muppet, Beaker; students sporting ‘FREE MEEP’ t-shirts; and Facebook-coordinated meepings. Referring to meep, Danvers High School student Mike Spiewak commented: ‘I think it's unfair that they banned a word that's not even a real word’ (Raz, 2009). According to Melanie Crane, another Danvers student, meep ‘doesn't mean anything in particular’ (Netter, 2009). As a result, its ambiguity allows for countless definitions. The authoritative source in defining the term throughout news coverage of the Danvers incident has been Urbandictionary.com, an online and open-source dictionary for slang and subculture terminology. For those of you who have never meeped, the primary Urban Dictionary (UD) entry deems it ‘the most versatile word in the English language [which] can mean whatever you want it to mean.’ UD lists 93 other definitions for the word, the most popular being.

Cameroon Pidgin English (abbreviated to CamP) is one of the languages of wider communication in Cameroon, a country second only to Papua New Guinea in terms of its multiplicity of languages for a relatively small population. CamP is used alongside other languages like English and French (official languages), Fulfulde, Arab Choa, Ewondo and Duala (lingua francas), and over 250 indigenous languages. What is, however, peculiar about CamP is that it is not restricted to a particular class of people or to people from a particular region. A language which arose as a result of the desperate need for a link language between people who spoke mutually unintelligible languages has now established itself as a major force to reckon with in the linguistic landscape of the country. One of the main preoccupations among researchers on CamP has been its relationship with Cameroon English (CamE), which has higher status. While CamE is an official language in the country's constitution, CamP enjoys covert prestige bestowed on it by Cameroonians as a language of wider communication, social interaction, intimacy, etc. However, Cameroonians have been given to understand that the coexistence of CamP and CamE is responsible for the falling standard of English in the country, as a result of which CamP should be eradicated at all costs. This attitude has led to the stigmatisation and intimidation of CamP speakers as educational authorities all over the country attempt to ban the language, and refer to it in such pejorative terms as bad English, poor English, bush English, join join English etc. Such hostility has tended to drive the language underground so that speakers rarely express their liking for the language overtly. They are suspicious of language authorities and thus have developed an ambivalent attitude towards anything that has to do with CamP. Thus if those speakers who use CamP daily as the main medium of communication were to be asked what they think about its status, functions and prospects, the results would be largely negative (Schröder, 2003), not because they do not like the language but simply because they have been intimidated and stigmatised. This ambivalence has caused serious methodological difficulties for researchers, which have marred most results of studies on the functions, status and prospects of CamP. The inability to adopt an appropriate methodology to research the topic has given rise to conflicting findings and statements on the relationship between CamP and CamE, some of which are sometimes truly baffling (see Ngefac & Sala, 2006; Ayafor, 2005; Kouega, 2001; Chia, 2009). Researchers insensitive to the situation carry out research on CamP and obtain results that paint a completely distorted picture of the situation on the ground. In this light, certain basic questions about this relationship remain to be settled: What is actually the relationship between CamP and CamE? Is CamP really facing death? Is CamP losing ground to CamE? Is CamP soon going to lose its identity and idiosyncrasies to CamE or is CamP going to supplant CamE? This paper will consider how various researchers have grappled with these questions. By analysing their statements, it will attempt to explain the controversies that have characterised research on the relationship between CamP and CamE thus far.

Gil (2010) argues that Australia needs to develop proficiency in Asian languages and cultures in order to ‘pursue its interests’ (p. 54) in the region. One of the reasons is that although English is widely studied in Asia few speakers achieve proficiency. However this view is contrary to the way the status of English is perceived in at least one Asian society that will be discussed here, Japan.

The utterance It's raining (of great relevance to the Irish!) can have a variety of different meanings according to who says it, to whom one is talking, and where it is said, amongst other things. The fact that language in use (whether in spoken or written mode) is obviously much more than the sum of its constituent parts – the individual sounds that make up words, the combinations of words that create sentences or utterances, the meaning that can be derived from different words and combinations thereof – has been what has driven pragmatics as a discipline, from its origins in the philosophy of language. Initially, what drove the research agenda was the potential of words to perform acts, or speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969), and later, the complexities of the relationship between what is said and what is meant, the study of conversational implicatures (Grice, 1975) or ‘how people can understand one another beyond the literal words that are spoken’ (Eelen, 2001: 2). Pragmatics is now an inherently inter-disciplinary approach which has as its central orientation this study of, essentially, how speaker meaning is interpreted in context. Critical to interpretation is the concept of context itself, a complex and multi-layered notion involving cultural setting, speech situation and shared background assumptions (Goodwin and Duranti, 1992). Linguistic choices made by conversational participants can simultaneously encode situational indices of position and time, and interpersonal and cultural indices such as power, status, gender and age. Pragmatic research comprises a diverse range of research strands including how linguistic choices encode politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987; Watts, 2003), reference and deixis (Levinson, 2004) and the relationship between domain specific discourse, such as workplace or media discourse, and specialised pragmatic characteristics (O'Keeffe, Clancy and Adolphs, 2011). Thus, pragmatics provides, as Christie (2000: 29) maintains, ‘a theoretical framework that can account for the relationship between the cultural setting, the language user, the linguistic choices the user makes, and the factors that underlie those choices’.

If you met me and listened to me speaking English, you might ask yourself why I talk so funny; why I can't find the right words; and why I make so many grammatical errors. I am, after all, the Professor of English Linguistics at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, and I have degrees in English language and linguistics from Cambridge University and the University of Pennsylvania.

Since its coinage by Hiltz and Turoff (1978) the term computer-mediated communication (CMC) has been adapted and broadly conceptualised as interactive communication by and among human beings via networked computers and mobile devices. Several definitions of CMC have been offered in the literature but Herring's (2007) definition of CMC as ‘predominantly text-based human–human interaction mediated by networked computers or mobile telephony’ is adopted in this article because it stresses the textual aspect of the communicative interaction and accommodates all forms of textual language use mediated by the Internet, the World Wide Web and mobile technologies. This approach to CMC focuses on the production, transmission and exchange of naturally-occurring text-based human language and highlights the fact that human beings (as opposed to automated or artificial systems) are both the agents or initiators and recipients of the communication under investigation. Although communication is not unique to humans, the ability to use human language for meaningful social interactions is the exclusive preserve of the human species. Thus the perspective human beings bring to virtual interactions is accounted for in CMC. Internet interlocutors (also known as online interactants, netizens or textizens in the case of regular SMS texts composers/senders) employ textual data to convey and exchange their thoughts, opinions, observations, feelings as well as messages from other people or sources (Ifukor, 2011). These interactive possibilities make CMC a technology, medium, and engine of social relations (Jones, 1995:11) and language use is at the core.

Translation has long featured as a convenient metaphor for the Irish condition. However, its use as metaphor should not disguise the insights translation provides into the status and formation of Irish English. When Richard II arrived in Ireland in 1394 his problems were not only political and military. They were also linguistic. On the occasion of the visit of the Irish kings to Richard in Dublin that same year, James Butler, the second Earl of Ormond, had to interpret the king's speech into Irish. Loyalty to Richard's kingship did not extend to loyalty to his chosen tongue. The translation skills of another Earl of Ormond would be further called upon in 1541 when the Irish parliament made Henry VIII King of Ireland. The Earl on this occasion interpreted the Speaker's address into Irish for the benefit of the Lords and Commons, although they were predominantly of Anglo-Norman or Old English origin. The act of translation, in this instance, was not without its ironies. James Butler was interpreting into a language that had been outlawed four years previously under the Act for the English Order, Habit and Language.

The position of ‘E’, for English, has always been at the forefront of all the acronyms of language learning and descriptions of world trends in English language teaching and acquisition, EFL, ESL, ELT, ESP, EIL, ELF, or second only to ‘T’ for teaching, TEFL and TESOL. We have become so used to seeing the letter ‘E’ out there in front, the Theme rather than the Rheme, that we do not even seem to question that position anymore. Despite developments in the study of World Englishes (Kachru, 1985, 1990, 1991, 2005; Jenkins, 2003; Bolton, 2005, 2006; Canagarajah, 2006, 2007, 2009) and a supposedly secondary role for so-called Native English and the Native English speaker, we continue to place the ‘E’ at the front, as though we have no option but to accept its primacy in every concept. If we always place ‘E’ at the beginning though, as the defining Theme, surely we are giving both it and its origin England a leading role in all conceptual beginnings. The Theme after all is always the principal actor, the familiar, whilst the Rheme is the unfamiliar and undefined object (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004), but what English is now, in its global context, is exactly that, the unfamiliar and undefined object. In the following article I will argue for a rethinking of our terminology, particularly regarding the use of the acronym ELF (English as a Lingua Franca), and how perhaps we should be thinking more carefully about our choice of acronyms in order to be more precise about our approach to the study of English in the changing world.

Of all the levels of linguistic analysis, it is at the phonological level that differences in the dialects of a language are more easily noticed (Ogu, 1992: 82). The phonology of a language can be investigated at two sub-levels: segmental and suprasegmental. Investigating the segmental micro-level entails looking at phonemes – the vowels and the consonants. Suprasegmentals are linguistically significant elements that go beyond individual segments, and include syllable, tone, stress, rhythm and intonation.

If you look through a modern guide to English usage, you will probably find that it has something to say about phrasal verbs. It might be a warning not to use certain phrasal verbs in certain contexts. For example, Allen (2005: 181–90) offers a table of ‘more formal alternatives to those phrasal verbs that can sometimes be too informal for writing’, with suggestions for replacing sum up with conclude and step down with resign, among others. In many cases, it will be a warning about phrasal verbs where the adverbial particle adds little semantic content to the verb: The Chicago Manual of Style advises writers to ‘avoid the phrasal verb if the verb alone conveys essentially the same meaning – e.g. rest up is equivalent to rest’ (2003: 174). It might attribute such usages to American English, as in Evans' (2000: 54–5) comment that phrasal verbs such as win out, stop off and check up on, which ‘grow like toadstools’, are ‘American parasites’. It might be a positive comment, such as Bryson's note that phrasal verbs are ‘one of the most versatile features of English’, but if so, it will probably be qualified: Bryson adds that in many cases the added particles ‘are merely a sign of careless writing’ (Bryson, 2002: 156–7). What is it about phrasal verbs that provokes such comments? By examining grammars, usage books, dictionaries and other materials since the eighteenth century, I will discuss changing attitudes towards phrasal verbs and how they fit into the context of broader opinions about language.

The first decade of the twenty-first century has been characterised in Irish English studies by a diversification of research agendas. Whereas studies before 2000 were largely concerned with internal issues in the development of Irish English, more recent research has been marked by the desire to view Irish English in the context of international varieties of English, as demanded by Barker and O'Keeffe (1999). Much has changed in the study of Irish English in the last decade or so. This is in part due to a broader perspective adopted by researchers and also to the emergence of new ways of looking at Irish English: see Barron and Schneider (eds) 2005; Hickey, 2005, 2007a; Corrigan, 2010; Amador-Moreno, 2006, 2010. There seems to be a less exclusive concern with Irish English within the strict orbit of British English and the effects of contact with the Irish language. This is perhaps aided by looking at Irish English in the context of English as a global language (Kirkpatrick ed. 2010). A function of this globalisation is variation and that in itself brings richness and diversity. In the context of English language teaching, Irish English is one of many types of English.

As regular readers of English Today would probably be aware, in the early years of the 21st Century, when applied linguists discuss the world-wide significance of the most widely learned and used language, it is not always enough to simply refer to it as ‘English’ or ‘the English language’. On the contrary, it has become almost de rigueur to collocate the word ‘English’ with ‘world’, ‘international’ or ‘global’. Thus, we have the six commonly used expressions set out in Table 1. At the risk of adding further to the crowded landscape of abbreviations in applied linguistics, I will refer to these as ‘CEWIGs’ (Collocations of ‘English’ with ‘world’, ‘international’ and ‘global’).

China's rapid development and growing engagement with the rest of the world have prompted much discussion and debate about the Chinese language, especially its prospects for becoming a global language. A report in China Daily (2004), for example, suggests that:

One of the ways a language is learned, especially a foreign language, is by personal extensive reading. When people read widely, they are exposed to the linguistic structure of what they read and so learn it consciously or unconsciously. What they come across in their reading remains in their minds and adds to their general knowledge. This includes knowledge of the language they read. General wide reading reinforces the language students have been formally taught in their language classes. Exposure to grammatically correct language would improve their language skills. On the other hand, exposure to incorrect language would negatively affect the language skills of foreign learners and cause them to use wrong language comfortably, not knowing that they are erroneous in their usage.

The post-World War II emergence of the linguistic phenomenon called ‘World English’ has given rise to seemingly endless discussion and much speculation among scholars and the lay public alike. The topics of discussion range from horrified exclamations at the mysterious apparition (like Horatio's ‘Look my Lord it comes! It beckons you to go with it, as if it some impartment did desire’, in Shakespeare's Hamlet), to what exactly we should call it or how at all should we otherwise identify it or make it identify itself (as in ‘Stay, speak, speak, I charge thee speak!’) and, finally to an attitude of familiarity breeding – for a change – conviviality and comfort (as in the somewhat resigned ‘Custom hath made it in him a property of easiness’).