The ELF Method: how the ELT classroom can

imitate the real-world ELF context

Abstract

That English is being used as a lingua franca among non-native speakers in real-
world contexts is well documented. However, another valid area of study is the use
of ELF within a classroom context. This paper puts forward a possible teaching
method, the ELF Method, to be used in ELT classrooms where the principal
pedagogic aim is to prepare learners for international communication in English with
other non-native speakers. Modelled closely on Task-Based Learning, the ELF
Method will be structured around the performance of a communicative task, one
which directly mirrors those used in real ELF contexts. In contrast to existing
communicative teaching methods, however, it is proposed that the teaching of
linguistic items in the ELF Method be ignored. Rather, learners will be encouraged to
make use of any linguistic resources they have at their disposal as they interact to
complete the task. Emphasis will also be placed on the use of pragmatic strategies
to facilitate communication.

Keywords: ELF, ELF Method, pragmatic strategies, communicative task, task

achievement
Introduction

It is generally accepted that English is spoken more by non-native speakers than

native ones (Jenkins, 2002). As such, rather than belonging to any particular country,
English is part of a much more global environment (Rajagopalan, 2010). Indeed, the
language used by non-native speakers has flourished into a myriad of both Outer
Circle and Expanding Circle varieties, each with their distinctive features. This has
helped give rise to the phenomenon of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF), defined by
Firth (1996, p240) as “…a 'contact language' between persons who share neither a
common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the
chosen foreign language of communication” (emphasis in original).

With ELF, then, the emphasis is on non-native speaker communication rather than
adherence to native speaker norms (Ranta, 2009; Jenkins, 2007). Therefore, those
who are using ELF are not identifying themselves with the native speaker and native
speaker competence. ELF can be used successfully in contexts by those who have a
shared and common purpose for communication, individuals who actively create an
environment that is both positive and conducive to communicating effectively
(Meierkord, 2000; Melchers and Shaw, 2011). These individuals are in effect using
the language for themselves, to suit the requirements of that context in which they
are communicating, a context in which they can channel their own identities
(Ferguson, 2009; Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011; Seidlhofer, 2001; Seidlhofer
2009). What is important here is that speakers of ELF are using English in a way
which is intelligible to other non-native speakers of the language (Jenkins, 2006b).

In theory, there are a multitude of contexts in which ELF can be used, both inter- and
intra-nationally. Any environment in which groups of non-native English speakers of
different L1s are using English could be deemed one in which ELF is being used.
Some of these may include:
 1. Formal contexts
 A conference or summit, in which there are presentations, debates and
discussions. (Eg a gathering of international political delegates [the UN,
WHO, IMF, Eurozone, G8]
 In academia – lectures, presentations, seminars, tutorials,
discussions/debates, study groups
 Business and service interactions and transactions
 Work-related interactions – a job interview (conducted face to face or
online), meetings.

2. Less formal contexts

 Work-related interactions – colleagues meeting informally
 Social contexts – parties, informal discussions in bars, cafes, shops,
etc
 Internet forums – social networks, online gaming, etc.

So, ELF can be used in these situations within the real-world context. But the
question here is whether or not it can be used in the classroom. Theoretically, a
typical multilingual class of English language learners becomes an environment
where ELF is used by default, simply as those learners are all non-native speakers
of English who do not share a common first language. Nevertheless, this class will
still fit within the EFL paradigm, which is to say, the learners will all be instructed via
native speaker models, and will therefore be expected to conform to native speaker
norms. The culture explored in the lessons may well be solely that of an Inner Circle
country, such as the UK or US. The aims of the class will invariably be structured
around the learning of specific language items in some sort of logical sequence. It is
an acceptable context, one in which language learning has been proven to take
place. Learners can develop their language skills and knowledge in this environment.

So, the teaching of English, how it is tested and the materials used to do that are still
driven by native speaker norms in spite of the fact that both ELF use throughout the
world and the profile of nativised varieties of English have increased significantly
(Seidlhofer, 2001; Jenkins, 2012). Any language used which deviates from those
standards have generally been thought of as errors (Jenkins, 2006a).
Communicative-based methods, such as Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
or Task-Based Learning (TBL), enable learners in the language classroom to
communicate with one another in a task they find engaging and relevant to their
needs. They use meaningful language with one another to help their learning
(Richards and Rodgers, 2001; Breen, 2001). Nevertheless, there is still a need for
the learners in these contexts to adhere to native speaker norms, to varying degrees.
Yet what if there were a teaching method which placed little or no importance on the
forms of the language that the learners used? A context in which the language used
might differ from what would be accepted in a standard variety of English, although
this would not be seen as an issue, providing that what they said was intelligible to
their fellow interlocutors.

ELF in the classroom

What is being examined here is the need to create a context within the classroom in
which ELF can be used as authentically as possible. Of course, that these contexts
would have to be simulated would immediately make them artificial to some extent.
And yet there is no reason why a conference debate, a job interview or a party – all
scenarios for which ELF is used – could not be simulated via role-plays, with the
learners interacting with one another, pretending that the contexts were real. Role-
plays are already a feature of classrooms that adopt CLT or TBL. Within an ELF-
orientated class, there would still be meaningful interaction; indeed, this would
feature as a core component of the method. However, the classroom would
effectively mirror the real-world ELF context, with the actions and interactions
performed in the former being directly modelled on those performed in the latter. The
teaching method used in this type of lesson could be known as the English as a
Lingua Franca Method, or the ELF Method (ELFM).
It has been mentioned that the communicative task is a key feature of both CLT and
TBL, with the lesson effectively being based around it, particularly in the case of
TBL. The ELF Method would be no different. Indeed, successful achievement of the
task would constitute the primary lesson aim of this method. To take one such
example, the lesson may be structured around a business meeting. In this meeting,
there are a number of topics to be discussed. The classroom, therefore, becomes
that pseudo board or meeting room, where groups of learners are given roles to act
out and perhaps information they have to exchange with one another to achieve a
particular outcome. The role play thus becomes the task, which in turn becomes the
lesson. Furthermore, what was a bona fide context where ELF might be used in the
real world (the meeting participants would be of different nationalities, each with
different L1s) has now been transferred to the classroom. The key point here is that
the principal stages of a real ELF-speaking activity are now being undertaken in the
same way in the classroom.

It can be seen, therefore, that the ELF Method is an extension of the existing
communicative approaches which are used in ELT. However, there is one crucial
difference. In both CLT and arguably to a lesser extent, TBL, there are stages within
the lesson that contain an element of focussed language input. This may involve the
teacher presenting language items to be used by the learners during the task. (One
example might be the use of exponents to agree or disagree, which are given to the
learners before they undertake their role play of the business meeting). But with the
ELF Method, there can effectively be no direct language input for the very simple
reason that in the real world where ELF is used – one which the ELFM classroom is
designed to directly imitate – there is no direct language instruction from any source,
least of all a teacher.

It is true that this approach may seem radical and needlessly counterproductive.
However, one advantage of not having the teacher present any language to the
learners before they undertake the task is that it pre-empts the issue of what
language model or variety should be taught. The learners in an ELFM class will bring
both a range of L1s and a range of different varieties of English into the classroom.
They will either have been introduced to those varieties during their previous learning
(by a non-native speaking EFL teacher who inadvertently introduced their L1
features into their teaching as well as fossilised L1 interference from the learners
themselves) or exposed to them within their own domains. That the varieties of
English used by the learners in the ELFM class differ not only from Standard English
but also from one another could theoretically be demonstrated by the teacher, in that
he or she could highlight the key linguistic variations. Indeed, Kirkpatrick (2007)
suggests that an appropriate ELF approach would highlight the ways in which
Englishes differ from one variety to another. But pointing out the myriad and nuanced
linguistic differences between the varieties could become a very complicated and
time-consuming job for the teacher, something which would clearly detract from the
main lesson aim: to give the learners practice of using ELF. Ideally, it might also be
advantageous for the ELFM teacher to have an awareness of the learners’ L1 so that
they could monitor and perhaps predict which L1 features (eg phonological ones)
may be transferred to spoken output during the tasks and adversely affect
intelligibility (see Jenkins, 2000; Jenkins, 2002). But this, too, may be asking far too
much of the teacher, particularly if the class is made up of speakers of many different
L1s, most of which the teacher has no knowledge of.

In theory, the teacher of an ELFM class could choose for their language of
instruction an all-comprehensive international variety or the specific variety used
within the learners’ domain (for example, choosing Singapore English for a class
taught in Singapore). In practice, however, it might not be realistic to teach either.
For the international one, it is virtually impossible to have a codified version in as
much as there are essentially too many features to encompass all the distinct
varieties of English used around the world. As for teaching a specific variety, this in
itself may be too restrictive, as that variety may lack the language required for the
speaker to convey the meaning of a particular idea. Added to that is the complication
that no, or very little, pedagogic literature and materials exist for many of these
varieties; therefore, it would be difficult to present language models which are
themselves unavailable (Matsuda and Friedrich, 2011).

Ultimately, though, if the learners are to be using ELF outside the classroom, in their
jobs for example, then the need for them to focus on the features of their respective
variety of English and those of their interlocutors is arguably superfluous. The shared
dynamic that they themselves create as they interact, and the language produced as
a result of that dynamic, may make this awareness redundant.

So, within an ELFM class, there will be no prior teaching of any target linguistic
items. However, the teacher may respond to any other noteworthy language the
learners produce after they have completed the task. This language will be examined
within the ELF paradigm; in other words, language which highlights the variation
characteristic of the way English is used in an ELF context (see Jenkins, Cogo and
Dewey, 2011). For example, it may be worth highlighting the learners’ use of any
unnecessary prepositions or their omission of the third person –s, both these
features being common to ELF speech (see Seidlhofer, 2004; Cogo and Dewey,
2006; Dewey, 2006). Also, any interesting phonological features of the learners’
speech could be examined against Jenkins’ Lingua Franca Core, showing the
learners the features they used during the task which were necessary for mutual
intelligibility and those which were not (see Jenkins, 2000). Alternatively, the teacher
may want to look at non-standard language items that may have been coined and
shared by the group, language which has helped them both convey meaning and
develop their discourse. Generally, there is a significant amount of variance within
ELF communication due to its participants deriving from a wide range of language
backgrounds, all of whom use English to different levels of ability (Ferguson, 2009;
Jenkins, 2006a). So, any of this varied language could be highlighted by the teacher
during post-task feedback. Known as a focus on form stage in TBL; this may also be
included within the ELFM paradigm. However, it would ultimately be the teacher’s
decision as to whether or not this was necessary in his or her own teaching context.

Crucially, none of the non-standard language used by the learners will be considered
errors, even if it causes problems within the learners’ communication.

And yet it is debatable as to what extent the language the learners use will in fact be
problematic. Will it cause their communication to break down irrevocably? It is
unlikely, unless the proficiency levels separating the learners are so wide that one or
more of the interlocutors lacks the competence to continue with the conversation.
However, the class of ELFM learners would not contain such a wide gap. What
would be of the upmost importance, therefore, would be that the learners could deal
effectively with any breakdowns as and when they occurred. That they had the
appropriate tools to hand which they could deploy whenever they were required. (In
the context of communication, these tools duly become strategies.) Maley (2009)
suggests that teachers could highlight relevant strategies to ELF speakers to help
them deal with the language variation that they may encounter when communicating
to one another. The question, is – which strategies?

The use of strategies in ELFM

Recent studies show that there are less incidences of both non-understanding and
misunderstanding in ELF communication than in native speaker speech.
Nevertheless, consideration still needs to be given to the ways in which ELF
speakers use the appropriate strategies to facilitate their communication so that the
communication does not break down (Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011). As regards
problems of non-understanding, these can be avoided altogether by adopting a
number of strategies. One is by the speakers repairing or reformulating their own
utterances to makes them clearer to their fellow interlocutors (Mauranen, 2006;
Lichtkoppler, 2007; Kaur, 2011a). Alternatively, they may also either choose safe
topics to discuss (Meierkord, 2000) or avoid certain topics altogether (Watterson,
2006). Speakers may even converge on producing L2 target-like sounds rather than
transfer sounds from their respective L1s which they think will prevent what they
have said from being understood (Jenkins, 2002).

And if communication does break down, ELF speakers can employ the necessary
strategies to deal with it. They may negotiate for meaning: use confirmation checks
or indicate that they have not understood what they have heard (Mauranen, 2006);
repeat or paraphrase what they have already said (Lichkoppler, 2007; Watterson,
2008); use intonation to highlight and thereafter resolve the non-understanding
(Pickering, 2009); or explain the content of an utterance which was previously not
understood (Sumner, 2013). Kaur (2010) found that the ELF speakers she studied
successfully resolved the non-understandings that they encountered through
repetition, paraphrase and clarification. The speakers therefore very seldom had to
change topic during their interaction. Alternatively, assuming the non-understanding
is deemed by the hearer not to be critical to the overall flow and meaning of the
discourse, he or she may decide to ignore it, to “let it pass” (Firth, 1996). Crucially,
ELF speakers are able to share the necessary information to deal with problems of
non-understanding without disrupting the flow of their interaction (Pritzl, 2005).

Providing the conditions were such that ELF could be used in the ELF-simulated
classroom context, imitating how it would be used in the real-world ELF context
outside, then there is potentially no reason why these strategies could not also be
used by the ELFM learner.

Of course, should misunderstandings occur between the ELFM learners – utterances

which have been heard superficially but misinterpreted – then they, too, could be
dealt with by self-repair, repetition, paraphrase, confirmation checking and asking for
clarification – just as they are dealt with by real-world ELF speakers outside
(Seidlhofer, 2004; Polzl and Seidlhofer, 2006; Kaur, 2011b).

So, within this context there is perhaps an argument for putting more emphasis on
the teaching of the language skills and strategies needed for the ELFM learners to
participate in effective non-native speaker communication (see Sikakis, 2009; Cogo,
2012). McKay (2002) argues that teachers could encourage their learners both to be
intelligible and to use strategies to develop their discourse, rather than getting them
to produce standard forms of English. Similarly, ELFM learners could be instructed in
the ways non-native English speakers interact and the strategies used to do that
(see Suzuki, 2010; Murray, 2012). Indeed, Björkman (2010) suggests that success in
ELF communication is affected more by the individual’s pragmatic ability than their
proficiency level. And yet to what extent would it be necessary to teach the learners
these strategies? Or, to put it another way, could these strategies be deployed
naturally by the learners for the valid reason that they all wanted to complete the
task? Dispensing with the need for learners to acquire native-like competence in
English would make it easier for them to concentrate on developing the relevant
strategies which would facilitate their communication (see Seidlhofer, 2004). It may
be that the learners instinctively know what strategy they should use if and when
communication breaks down, and would therefore not benefit hugely from classroom
instruction in these areas (see Kasper, 1997).

The degree to which the learners knew each other might also affect their willingness
to negotiate for meaning when communication broke down, in that those learners
who were more familiar with each other might make them more willing to negotiate
(see Foster and Ohta, 2005). Therefore, as the learners in an ELFM class would be
studying together within the same class, they too might be expected to be more
inclined to negotiate. In addition, certain studies show that the complexity of a task
can influence how its participants interact in relation to how often they negotiate for
meaning and focus on the form of the language they use (Révész, 2011). The type
of task the learners are undertaking may also affect how often they negotiate for
meaning, with tasks in which the learners are required to share information to
achieve one communicative outcome making them more likely to negotiate (see
Foster, 1998; Ellis, 2003).

This last point is particularly important. It has already been mentioned that within the
ELF method, the learners undertake tasks which resemble as closely as possible
those undertaken in a real-life ELF context. One question that should be asked
therefore is whether or not these communicative tasks would be such that there is a
requirement of the learner to exchange information, and therefore negotiate if need
be, whilst they interact. Are there cases where ELF speakers in real-life
communicative contexts need to exchange information that only they know? One
situation which might meet this criterion is that of the job interview where the learner
acting the role of the candidate has information about their background (education
and employment), skills-set, interests, etc, and the learner pretending to be the
interviewer has information about the job being applied for, the company, etc. During
the course of this role-play, this information needs to be exchanged if the task is to
be achieved (the aim of the task being to determine whether or not the candidate
gets the job). Another example is where two (or more) businesspeople are engaged
in negotiating a deal which involves the trading of one commodity for another.
Businessperson A presents details about the commodity he is offering in exchange
for the commodity that Businessperson B has; the latter individual then gives
information about the commodity she has. In this case, each businessperson
contains information unique to them and them alone. There is one task outcome, and
that relates to the business negotiation, and whether it is successful or not.

In short, the teacher would have to think carefully about how best to manage the
classroom, materials and tasks that the ELFM learners undertook so that they could
negotiate as effectively as possible whenever the need arose. Providing the teacher
could do this, communication breakdowns could be resolved so that the learners
could continue with the task.

So, herein lies another reason why in the ELFM lesson the teaching of language
items prior to the learners completing the task is unnecessary. Assuming the
learners can successfully use the aforementioned strategies, either through
instruction or by deploying them naturally, then in theory there would no need to
teach any language which may cause communication issues. Neither would it be
necessary to present items of lexis or syntax which the learners were not familiar
with. The learners could negotiate their way around any of these difficulties, and
continue with their conversations accordingly. This approach might prove
problematic for the learners initially, essentially due to its unfamiliarity, but with time
and practice it would be hoped that they would become more comfortable with it.

Making use of existing linguistic resources

The suggestion that ELFM learners will be able to communicate without any
focussed language input from the teacher is a valid one. There are a plethora of
studies demonstrating that ELF speakers can communicate effectively in a real-life
context without any instruction, from research studies looking at ELF use within an
academic environment, including those taken from a substantial one million word
corpus of spoken academic English (the English as a Lingua Franca in Academic
Settings [ELFA]) (Mauranen, 2006; Mauranen 2009; Knapp, 2011; Bjorkman, 2008;
Bjorkman, 2010); to studies within the professional, educational and leisure domains
(in particular, the University of Vienna’s VOICE corpus, which also contains a million
words from many ELF conversations [VOICE 2013]); to those within more social
contexts (Meierkord, 2000; House, 2003; Cogo and Dewey, 2006; Watterson, 2006;
Kaur, 2011a; Kaur, 2011b). What is of fundamental importance here is that all of
these ELF users can bring whatever knowledge they already have of English into the
communication, knowledge which is essentially malleable, something they develop
as they interact to suit their own communicative needs. And, crucially, they can
communicate, and communicate well, discussing a myriad range of topics to an
appropriate level. Ultimately, the language they use is, or becomes, for all intents
and purposes, mutually intelligible and appropriate to the task they are undertaking.

If the ELFM learners are not presented with any explicit language input that they are
to use during the tasks, then the obvious question relates to what language, if any,
they will learn. And yet the onus here is not on the learners’ acquisition of new items
provided by the teacher – a key component of EFL lessons. Rather, the learners
themselves will be performing tasks using language they already know. More
importantly, they can try to create language to complete certain linguistic gaps when
such a need arises. For instance, ELF speakers have been found to coin new
idiomatic phrases which, although not necessarily conforming to native speaker
standards, are understood and accommodated by their fellow interlocutors. In doing
so, the speakers can share meaning and develop interpersonal rapport. One such
example is the exponent In my observation, used to give an opinion (Seidlhofer,
2009). Speakers can also use discourse markers to both manage how they interact
and ensure the content of their utterances is coherent (Mauranen, 2009). If need be,
the learners can work together during their interaction to negotiate both the meaning
and the form of the language they are attempting to use. Through mutual
cooperation, ELF speakers are therefore able to share the meaning of what they
want to say; in this way their discourse can be successfully developed. One way they
can do this is by accommodating to what their fellow interlocutor has said (Cogo and
Dewey, 2006; Sumner 2013). Another way that the learners can build their discourse
mutually is by signalling their interest and engagement through latching and
backchanelling (see Cogo, 2012). Crucially, even if they fail to arrive at the correct
form, the meaning of what they want to say can still be understood. Overall, in this
context it is considered more important that the learners communicate intelligibly
rather than their being accurate (see Alptekin, 2007). Also, the meaning of words can
be acquired through the learners’ mutual negotiation: learners who know the
meaning can “pass” that meaning onto their fellow interlocutors (see Newton, 2001).

As there is no specific language input as such, and the learners are performing
communicative tasks based on their existing language knowledge and skills, it would
seem logical to assume that the learners themselves cannot be beginners.
Therefore, it would need to be established what the minimum level of proficiency was
for learners to be successfully instructed in this method. That learners within the
same class might be of relatively different levels would not be an issue, at least for
the undertaking of the spoken tasks, as real-life ELF communication can involve
speakers of mixed proficiency, ranging from intermediate to advanced (Meierkord,
2000; Kaur, 2011a; Kaur, 2011b; Watterson, 2006).

Possible contexts to which the ELF method would apply

It is obviously very important to consider the educational contexts to which this

method might apply. It is certain that the relevance of this method would not be
universal, essentially as there are contexts where the learner make-up and needs
would not match the paradigm. For example, the learners in a monolingual class
would not be using ELF, simply as all of them would share the same L1s. It is
therefore important to think about the contexts where multilingual classes might
exist. Inner Circle countries, such as the UK or USA, may attract a significant
number of foreign language learners from a variety of different countries. As such,
the institutes in these countries may comprise of learners with different L1s. (This is
certainly the case in the UK.) Also, in Outer Circle areas like Singapore and Hong
Kong, both of which have a significant international presence and where English is
taught (as EFL), the learners in the classes may have different L1s. As a result, the
ELF method could potentially be used, assuming it was a method whose aims met
with the learners’ needs and approval.

Of course, it is also crucial to think about why the learners are learning English, and
what they will need it for outside of the classroom. It is entirely possible that the
learners will need it for use in the UK, perhaps for work or study, and consequently
they might wish to be taught a native speaker model. However, those learners who
will need English to communicate in international contexts with other non-native
speakers may benefit from ELFM (see Watterson, 2008). Further, it would be hoped
that the pseudo-ELF tasks they performed within this learning environment would
mirror the ones they needed to perform in the real-life context. Feedback could be
given to the teachers by the students throughout the course on what tasks they
needed to practice (see Gray, 1990). What is important here is that within this
learning context there is a definitive requirement for the learners to be taught via this
method. In other words, the learners will be using ELF outside the classroom and will
need to develop beforehand both their competence and confidence of using this
register within a simulated environment in the classroom.

One other possible scenario is that the ELF Method is applied to other types of
learning where English is used as the medium of instruction, but whose aim is not
the teaching of the language per se. One such example could be an English for
Academic Purposes class, where the learners are prepared for academic study
within an English speaking country (invariably an Inner Circle one). The focus,
therefore, is on teaching both the academic language and the skills and techniques
the learners may need during their studies. The ELF Method may not necessarily be
appropriate here, essentially as direct language input will be necessary in this
context, but if the class is multilingual then ELF will be being used by the learners as
they interact during the class. It may also be relevant to draw the students’ attention
to the pragmatic strategies they use during their interactions, just as it might be
during a normal ELFM class. These are strategies that they can use in their real-life
context at university, a context where they will be using ELF with other non-native
speaking students and possibly their tutors as well. In this case, the spoken tasks
undertaken in the classroom in which they might use these strategies would simulate
those that the learners will be undertaking when they become actual university
students: seminars in which they have to work in pairs or in groups; study group
interactions, presentations, contexts of a more practical nature. However, as
mentioned previously, it is entirely possible that the learners will use these strategies
automatically, and would therefore not require their attention to be drawn to them.

The fact that there are more non-native speakers of English than native ones may
suggest that there would be a significant demand for classes where this method is
taught. The emphasis would need to shift from the learners aiming to achieve native-
like standards to them being made aware of the need to learn English for use in their
particular ELF contexts. That Expanding Circle speakers use English which meets
their needs both linguistically and socially rather than those of Inner Circle speakers
should, in theory, affect how the language is taught and assessed (Jenkins, 2006a).
Moreover, younger learners are beginning to realise that the English they are taught
does not necessarily apply to the type of English they need to use outside the
classroom (Jenkins, 2012). This method might therefore appeal to this younger
demographic.

For a school to adopt ELFM would not, or indeed could not, mean that this method
would replace existing, recognised approaches to language teaching, ones that are
currently in use. Rather, it is proposed that this method work in tandem with these
other approaches, in turn adding to the learner’s overall skills and knowledge of
English, its linguistic makeup and how it is used to communicate in contexts which
are relevant to them (see Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey, 2011). Also, it will not be
enough for teachers to implement a one-size-fits-all model for the classes they
teach. Rather, they will have to adapt their teaching contexts to the individual needs
of their learners, taking into account the language variation that their learners may
use, their individual identities and how that may affect the way they communicate
with one another (see Seidlhofer, 2004). Nevertheless, in ELFM classes, where the
learners are of different nationalities, it is these learners who are communicating with
each other within the context of the task(s) they do; the teacher can, in theory, take a
back seat.
The English as Lingua Franca Method is essentially a simplified version of Task-
Based Learning, without the focussed language input. Or, to put it another way, it is
an evolved version of this method, where the language used is for all intents and
purposes immaterial: what matters is that the learners interact in order to
communicate and achieve a task aim. In doing so, they will need to be intelligible.
However, as has been discussed, any problems of understanding should either be
able to be resolved through the learners’ negotiating for meaning or dealt with pre-
emptively by employing the appropriate strategy. Assuming the learners already
have the competence to engage in meaningful communication – that they possess
the necessary linguistic and pragmatic skills and knowledge – they should be able to
achieve the aims of the lesson. It is a context in which essentially anything goes,
where any appropriate language and strategies can be employed to complete the
task they are given – just as would happen in the real world outside the classroom.
References

Alptekin, C., 2007. Teaching ELF as a language in its own right: communication or
prescriptivism? ELT Journal, 61(3), pp. 267-8

Bjorkman, B., 2008. English as the lingua franca of engineering: the morphosyntax of
academic speech events. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), pp. 103-22

Björkman, B., 2010. So you think you can ELF: English as a Lingua Franca as the
medium of instruction, Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies,
45, pp. 77-97

Breen, M. P., 2001. Navigating the discourse: on what is learned in the language
classroom. In C. N. Candlin and N. Mercer, ed. 2001. English Language Teaching in
its Social Context. Routledge: Abingdon. Ch. 19.

Cogo, A., 2012. English as a Lingua Franca: concepts, use, and implications. ELT
Journal, 66(1), pp. 97-105

Cogo, A. and Dewey, M., 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication: from pragmatic
motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), pp.
59-94

Dewey, M., 2006. English as lingua franca: an empirical study of innovation in lexis
and grammar. PhD thesis. Available at:
https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/2935816/495009.pdf. (Accessed 10 December
2014)

Ellis, R., 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Ferguson, G., 2009.iIssues in researching English as a lingua franca: a conceptual
enquiry. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), pp. 118-34

Firth, A., 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: on “lingua franca”

English and conversational analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, pp. 237-59

Foster, P., 1998. A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied

Linguistics, 19(1), pp. 1-23

Foster, P. and Ohta, A.S., 2005. Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in
second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), pp. 402-30

Gray, K., 1990. Syllabus design for the general class: what happens to the theory
when you apply it. ELT Journal, 44(4), pp. 261-71

House, J., 2003. English as Lingua Franca: a threat to multilingualism? Journal of

Sociolinguistics, 7(4), pp. 556-78

Jenkins, J., 2000. The phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford:

Oxford University Press

Jenkins, J., 2002. A sociologically based, empirically researched pronunciation

syllabus for English as an International Language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), pp. 83-
103

Jenkins, J. 2006a. Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), pp. 137-62

Jenkins, J, 2006b. Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English

as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 157-81
Jenkins, J., 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford
University Press

Jenkins, J., Cogo, A. and Dewey, M., 2011. Review of developments in research into
English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281-315

Jenkins, J., 2012. English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom.
ELT Journal, 66(4), pp. 486-94

Kasper, G., 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? [online] Available at:
http://www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06/ [Accessed 28 November 2014]

Kaur, J., 2010. Achieving mutual understanding in world Englishes. World Englishes,
29(2), pp. 192-208

Kaur, J., 2011a. Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca.
Journal of Pragmatics, 43, pp. 2704-2715

Kaur, J., 2011b. Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: some

sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1), pp. 93-116

Kirkpatrick, A., 2007. World Englishes: Implications for International Communication

and English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Knapp, A., 2011. Using English as a lingua franca for (mis-)managing conflict in an
international university context: An example from a course in engineering. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42, pp. 978-90

Lichtkoppler, J., 2007. “Male. Male.” – “Male?” – “The sex is male.” – the role of
repetition in English as a lingua franca conversations. Vienna English Working
Papers, 16(1), pp. 39-65
McKay, S., L., 2002. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press

Maley, A., 2009. ELF: a teacher’s perspective. Language and International

Communication, 9(3), pp. 187-200

Matsuda, A. and Friedrich, P., 2011. English as an International Language: a

curriculum blueprint. World Englishes, 30(3), pp. 332-44

Mauranen, A., 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua

franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, pp.
123-50

Mauranen, A., 2009. Chunking in ELF: expressions for managing interaction.

Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), pp. 217-33

Meierkord, C., 2000. Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: an analysis of

non-native-/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik online 5.
Available at http://www.linguistik-online.com/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM. (Accessed 29th
November 2014)

Melchers, G. and Shaw, P., 2011. World Englishes. 2nd Ed. Abingdon: Hodder
Education

Murray, N., 2012. English as a lingua franca and the development of pragmatic
competence. ELT Journal, 66(3), pp. 318-26

Newton, J, 2001. Options for vocabulary learning through communication tasks, ELT
Journal, 55(1), pp. 30-7

Pickering, L., 2009. Intonation as a pragmatic resource in ELF interaction.

Intercultural Pragmatics, 6-2, pp. 235-55
Pitzl, M.L., 2005. Non-understanding in English as lingua franca: examples from a
business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14(2), pp. 50-71

Polz, U. and Seidlhofer, B., 2006. In and on their own terms: the “habitat factor” in
English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language, 177, pp. 151-76

Rajagopalan, K., 2010. The soft ideological underbelly of the notion of intelligibility in
discussions about ‘World Englishes’. Applied Linguistics, 31(3), pp. 465-70

Ranta, E., 2009. Syntactic features in spoken ELF – learner language or spoken
grammar? In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta, ed. 2009. English as a Lingua Franca:
Studies and Findings. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Ch. 4

Révész, A., 2011. Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual

differences: a classroom-based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, pp. 162-
181

Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S., 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching. 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seidlhofer, B., 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English
as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), pp. 133-158

Seidlhofer, B., 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 209-39

Seidlhofer, B., 2009. Accommodation and the idiom principle in English as a Lingua
Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), pp. 195-215

Sifakis, N., 2009. Challenges in teaching ELF in the periphery: the Greek context.
ELT Journal, 63(3), pp. 230-7
Sumner, J., 2013. English as a Lingua Franca in the classroom: an investigation of
strategies used by high level learners of English to communicate with one another
during a spoken task. MEd Dissertation. University of Glasgow

Suzuki, A., 2010. Introducing diversity of English into ELT: student teachers’
responses. ELT Journal, 65(2), pp. 145-53

Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English. Corpus Information. Available at:

http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/corpus_information (Accessed 24th November
2014)

Watterson, M., 2006. A micro-study of English as an international lingua franca in a

Korean context. MA dissertation. Macquarie University. Available at: http://asian-efl-
journal.com/Thesis_Watterson.pdf

Watterson, M., 2008. Repair of non-understanding in English in international

communication. World Englishes, 27(3/4), pp. 378-406