The widespread use of English in advertising around the world has received considerable attention in recent decades. A number of researchers have looked at this practice in European countries such as France, Germany, Greece, and Italy (e.g. Martin, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008; Hilgendorf & Martin, 2001; Oikonomidis, 2003; Vettorel, 2013). Other scholars have examined this phenomenon in various contexts in Asia, for instance in India, Iran, and Russia (e.g. Bhatia, 1987, 1992, 2006, 2007, 2012; Ustinova & Bhatia, 2005; Bhatia & Baumgardner, 2008; Baumgardner & Brown, 2012). One part of the world, however, drawing relatively little scholarly attention to date has been the Maghreb region of northern Africa.

With the change of linguistic, cultural and ethnic landscapes, multilingual, multicultural and multi-ethnic realities are increasing globally. In the case of the UK, the 2011 Census showed that the Asian or Asian British ethnic group category had one of the largest increases since 2001, with a third of the foreign-born population of the UK (2.4 million) now identifying as Asian British (Office for National Statistics, 2013). It is not surprising then, given the aforementioned demographic situation, to see many Asian-origin words in the English language. East Asian words are now entering into the English lexicon with unprecedented speed as a consequence of increased contact between East Asia and the English-speaking world.

The representation of gender in foreign language teaching has attracted the attention of many scholars and has been investigated in different parts of the world. Due to its potential for deep impact on pupils, it is a matter of great concern. Discrimination against a gender group in coursebooks can lead to harmful impacts on pupils' development as well as on their future academic and career (Lee, 2018). The lack of representation of females in language coursebooks may seriously harm their ability to understand the target language as well as its culture (Rifkin, 1998).

Final consonant cluster simplification, or what variationists have traditionally labelled (t, d)-deletion, remains one of the most well studied variables in the analysis of English (e.g. Labov, 2001: 13). In this body of work, (t, d)-deletion refers to the process whereby /t/ or /d/ can be omitted in word final Ct or Cd coda clusters (e.g. last, mind). However, despite the attention paid to this feature of connected speech, very little (if any) focus has been dedicated to the complementary distribution of the coronal stops /t/ and /d/ in monomorphemic final clusters, as well as other phonological influences, such as the effect of intonational boundaries (IBs) on deletion patterns. This has led to a consistent practice of analysing (t, d) as a single linguistic variable, instead of considering the value of their separation, based on both sound linguistic reasoning and empirical evidence. After a brief review of current literature on multivariate analyses of (t, d)-deletion, this paper presents a socio-phonologically oriented research design that has been used to gather data from a peripheral southeastern variety of English. We martial these data to illustrate how (t) and (d) can be modelled as distinct dependent variables that are sensitive to particular factor groups: we focus in particular on the role of IBs in the deletion process.

When I was growing up, there was no internet. Luckily, I had Dad. My father Tom McArthur was my search engine long before Google existed, answering questions that kept me awake at night, often with long, intricate stories. If he didn't know an answer, he would consult one of the many dictionaries and reference books that lined the shelves of our home. There was no such thing as a casual question with Dad; he took my curiosity very seriously.

According to Kachru's (1992) concentric circles framework, the use of English across countries can be grouped into three circles: an inner circle in which English is the native language, e.g., the UK; an outer circle in which English serves certain functions due to colonization, e.g., India; and an expanding circle in which English is taught as a foreign language, e.g., Turkey. Although many studies have examined the role of English in higher education in Turkey (e.g., Arik & Arik, 2014; Karakaş, 2016), the use of English in the media has not been explored to the same extent. The present study addresses the use of English in movies in theaters in Turkey. The study shows that English is the language of 50% of the movies shown in theaters in Turkey. Therefore, our findings provide further evidence showing the prevalence of English in Turkish movie theaters.

East Anglian English was the first British variety of English to be subject to dialectological scrutiny using sociolinguistic techniques (Trudgill, 1974, and his subsequent work) and since then has been subject to only sporadic investigation (e.g. Britain, 1991, 2014a, 2014b, 2015; Kingston, 2000; Straw, 2006; Amos, 2011; Potter, 2012, 2018; Butcher, 2015). Recent research has suggested that, in those few locations that have been investigated, East Anglian English is gradually losing some of its traditional dialect features, in favour of forms from the South East more generally. Kingston (2000), Britain (2014a) and Potter (2018) all found, for example, a rather steep decline in the use of East Anglia's traditional third-person present-tense zero. Furthermore, we are aware of the arrival into East Anglia of linguistic innovations from the South East of England, such as TH fronting (Trudgill, 1988; Britain, 2005; Potter, 2012) and /l/ vocalisation (Johnson & Britain, 2007; Potter, 2014), but we only know about their success in a few parts of the region – Norwich, East Suffolk and the Fens. Since Trudgill's investigations across East Anglia in the 1970s, however (e.g. Trudgill & Foxcroft, 1978), and despite a few multilocality studies (Britain, 1991, 2014a; Potter, 2018) no research has been able to provide a picture of the state of the traditional dialect across the whole region. We have therefore only a patchy understanding of the extent to which traditional dialect obsolescence, dialect levelling and innovation diffusion have impacted the dialect landscape of this region as a whole.

English vocabulary has expanded over centuries by ‘borrowing’ lexical items from other languages (Katamba, 2005; Durkin, 2014). Compared with European languages, non-European languages are never major sources of word borrowing in English, with Chinese staying even more peripheral. Scholars have recorded no more than a few hundred English words of Chinese origin. This, however, does not make it easier to study the etymology and semantics of Chinese loanwords. The complication arises from the various source dialects from which Chinese words were borrowed (Mandarin, Cantonese, Amoy, Hokkien, etc.) and also from transcription processes, in which Chinese logograms are ‘romanised’ into phonetic representations so as to be readable for English speakers. It is a procedure easily affected by the transcribers' own cognition and the transcription systems employed, and the arbitrariness of the above variables contributes much to the fact that the orthography of Chinese loanwords, especially those entering the English language early, are prone to changes. This article aims to shed some light on how the ways of transcription may affect the spelling of Chinese loanwords.

Dialects in the South East of England are very often perceived as one homogenous mass, without much regional variation. Rosewarne introduced the notion of Estuary English and defined it as ‘variety of modified regional speech [ . . . ] a mixture of non-regional and local south-eastern English pronunciation and intonation’ (Rosewarne, 1984). However, studies such as Przedlacka (2001) and Torgersen & Kerswill (2004) have shown that, at least on the phonetic level, distinct varieties exist. Nevertheless, very few studies have investigated language use in the South East and even fewer in the county of Sussex. It is often claimed that there is no distinct Sussex dialect (Coates, 2010: 29). Even in the earliest works describing the dialect of the area (Wright, 1903) there are suggestions that it cannot be distinguished from Hampshire in the west and Kent in the east.

One of the most important components of a country's language policy is its planning on foreign languages and its decisions regarding which foreign language(s) to choose and teach to its people in the nation's school system (Cenoz & Gorter, 2012). The government generally makes a selection among the candidate languages on the basis of the languages' perceived economic and socio-political value inside and outside the country. However, the socio-economic power and prestige of languages are variable and bound to change over time (Wright, 2004). For this reason, changes are almost always observed in any country's foreign language policy.

The process of aligning Serbian legislation with the legislation of the EU has stimulated the creation of a large body of specialized lexis and the modernization of the existing lexicon. In this paper, I discuss the linguistic mechanisms of contact-induced secondary term creation processes in the Serbian language within the scope of EU legislation and activities under the influence of English. Regarding the standardization of EU legislation terminology, Peruzzo (2012: 177) explores the need for the uniformity of terminology within every language in the EU. Namely, every language should be allowed ‘normative flexibility’ in adopting EU legislative provisions, but should also guarantee the maximum degree of uniform interpretation and the terms used should be clear, simple and precise. This means that in every EU language, consistent use of uniform terminology is of vital importance not only within a single text, but also across different texts related to the same issue. Fischer (2010: 28) observes two steps in the creation of terms in the EU: (1) terms are created in the dominating languages, predominantly in the procedural languages of English, French and German, and (2) they are translated into all other languages. She concludes that in most languages terms are created on the basis of a source term by translation, and that the creation of EU terminology can be described as a process in which (1) multilingual primary term-creation for the dominant languages is followed by (2) a secondary activity, intra-conceptual term-transfer for most other languages.