The Role of Stereotypes in

ELF Communication

Marija Milojković

October 10th, 2017

1
Table of contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
2. Approaches to the relationship between language and culture in contemporary ICC
research and ELF research ................................................................................................ 3
3. Previous research on cultural aspects of ELF communication ................................. 6
4. Methodology............................................................................................................. 7
4.1. Focus, aim and hypothesis ................................................................................. 7
4.2. Data .................................................................................................................... 8
4.3. Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 8
5. Discussion of the findings ...................................................................................... 20
6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 21
References ...................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix ........................................................................................................................ 29

0
 1. Introduction

British colonization, the economic and political power of the USA, globalization,
economic integration, international travel, networking and the Internet have led to an
unprecedented use of English as a global lingua franca. Nearly 80% of today’s
communication in English takes place between bilingual or multilingual speakers of
English in Kachru’s (1985) Outer Circle and Expanding Circle countries (Graddol 2006),
as their number, around 2 billion people (Crystal 2008), has significantly surpassed the
number of native speakers in the Inner Circle countries estimated at around 400 million
people. The massive spread of English as a language for international and intercultural
communication has attracted attention of numerous scholars and has motivated the
establishment of a new research field of research into the use of English as a lingua franca
(ELF). The field was pioneered by Jenkins’ (2000) work on common features of ELF
pronunciation and Seidlhofer’s (2001) paper which argues to move away from native
speakers’ norms and treat lingua franca users as legitimate.

English as a lingua franca is defined as “a contact language across linguacultures” by

Jenkins (2006: 159) or as “any use of English among speakers of different first languages
for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often only option” by
Seidlhofer (2011: 7 italics in the original). ELF communication does not exclude native
English speakers. Research has shown that native English speakers also need to adapt and
adjust their language and other communicative practices to ensure successful ELF
communication (e.g. Jenkins 2011).

It is important to emphasize that ELF is not viewed as a distinct variety of English which
makes ELF research fundamentally different from World Englishes (WE) research which
focuses on Outer Circle contexts and associates English with nations and geographically
situated communities (Baker 2015). Although early work in the field was concerned with
‘core’ features of ELF in terms of phonology, lexis and syntax (e.g. Jenkins 2000;
Seidlhofer 2004), there is a consensus that there is too much variation in ELF
communication for any variety to emerge (Baker & Jenkins 2015). As ELF speakers do
not share linguistic and cultural background, variability, uncertainty and heterogeneity
become the norms of ELF and ELF speakers need to make use of their linguistic and
cultural resources to collaboratively make sense of ongoing interactions. Therefore,
accommodation and negotiation become the most important communicative strategies in

1
ELF communication, which are not limited to the understanding of meaning, but include
cultural ways of speaking, cultural schemata, frames of reference and cultural identity
(Zhu 2015).

Although there are significant points of convergence between ELF research and
intercultural communication research as Baker (2015) explains, there has been little cross-
over between the two fields. Scholars have pointed out that ELF communication is not a
unique kind of intercultural communication (Ehrenreich 2011; Bjorkman 2013; Baird,
Baker & Kitazawa 2014), but research in ELF can provide significant insights into the
global use of languages for intercultural communication. ELF research is aligned with
poststructuralist perspectives on language and culture which have become the dominant
approaches in contemporary ICC research and it can contribute to a better understanding
of how cultural membership and cultural differences are negotiated and co-constructed in
interactions.

In line with the poststructuralist approach to language and culture in contemporary ICC
studies and ELF studies, the present paper attempts to shed more light onto how cultural
differences and cultural identity are signaled, constructed and negotiated between
speakers with different linguistic and cultural background. The starting point for the
negotiation of cultural meanings in the present study are national stereotypes as one of
the much-debated topics in the field of intercultural communication. Due to the
limitations of this paper, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive account of ICC
research dealing with stereotypes, but it is necessary to point out certain issues regarding
stereotypes which are deemed important for ELF communication and research.

Stereotypes are generally understood as “the tendency to categorize individuals or groups

according to an oversimplified standardized image and attribute certain characteristics to
all members of the group” (Moore, 2006, cited in Peng 2010: 244). The notion of
stereotypes is closely related to the idea of “national character” used to describe foreign
people in early ethnological depictions, but this traditional notion has been replaced by a
more precise term of “national stereotype” (Chew 2006). Research has shown that
stereotyping is a cognitive process outside of conscious awareness activated in situations
characterized by language barriers, low-information contexts, and uncertainty (Spencer-
Rodgers & McGovern 2002), which are all likely characteristics of ELF encounters. In
such situations, stereotypes are viewed as a form of cultural knowledge (Devine 1989)

2
which can help individuals make sense of complex interaction and establish common
ground (Collins et al. 2009). Furthermore, studies have shown that stereotypes are highly
emotional (Fein et al. 1999), which influences individuals‘ attitudes towards in-group and
out-group members. Stereotypes play an important role in increasing group cohesion and
maintaining positive identities for in-group members, but also in intensifying social
distance and the process of “othering” (Chew 2006). They can motivate inimical attitudes
toward cultural difference (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern 2002) and lead to
misunderstandings and communication failure in intercultural encounters (Peng 2010,
Scollon, Scollon & Jones 2012). Finally, stereotypes cannot be avoided in intercultural
communication (Peng 2010), but, being social constructs, they can be negotiated,
reconstructed, reinforced or rejected in interactions such as ELF encounters.

In the present paper, we are going to investigate what functions national stereotypes
perform in ELF communication and whether and how ELF speakers negotiate cultural
differences, norms and identities based on such stereotypes. These questions are going to
be addressed using techniques of conversational analysis in an investigation of ELF
communication in the VOICE corpus (https://www.univie.ac.at/voice/) taking a
qualitative research approach.

Following the introductory section, the present paper provides a theoretical framework
for the study focusing on the poststructuralist approaches to the relationship between
culture and language in ICC and ELF studies in Section 1. Section 2 contains a brief
overview of previous research concerning cultural aspects of ELF communication.
Section 3 describes the methodology used in the present study, including the data and the
data analysis. Section 4 deals with the discussion of the findings and the final section
presents concluding remarks.

2. Approaches to the relationship between language and culture in

contemporary ICC research and ELF research

Intercultural communication has been researched extensively within different disciplines

since it rose to prominence in the nineteenth and twentieth century in the context of
colonialism (Piller 2011). Initially, cultures were compared and contrasted at the national
level in the context of the Cold War and military training (Hall 1959) and business
(Hofstede 1980). In politics, multiculturalism and issues of assimilation have also been a
major theme in intercultural communication studies (Kumar 2003; Roberts and Campbell

3
2006). In the field of applied linguistics, intercultural communication has been studied
within language education, intercultural pragmatics and discourse analysis. The major
issues concerning intercultural communication and language pedagogy have been cultural
awareness and intercultural communicative competence models (e.g. Byram 1997;
Guilherme 2002; Risager 2007). Intercultural pragmatics research has investigated
differences in pragmatic strategies and speech acts between groups from different cultures
and how these differences are negotiated in intercultural communication (e.g. Blum-
Kulka and Olshtain 1984; Wierzbicka 1985; Spencer-Oatey 2008). Other areas within
intercultural pragmatics deal with politeness and the concept of face as underlying
politeness universally (Brown and Levinson 1987) and Leech’s politeness principles
(1983) and politeness constraints (2005). However, the universality of these notions has
been questioned by researchers in non-Western settings (Matsumoto 1988). Another key
area within pragmatics has been accommodation theory based on Communication
Accommodation Theory (CAT) developed by Giles and colleagues (Giles, Coupland &
Coupland 1991; Giles & Ogay 2007; Giles 2016). CAT has significant implications for
ELF communication and will be discussed further in the present paper. Regarding
discourse analysis research various techniques and approaches have been utilized in the
analysis of intercultural interactions, such as an interdiscourse approach (Scollon &
Scollon 2001; Scollon, Scollon & Jones 2012), conversation analysis (see Seedhouse
2004 for an overview), ethnography of communication (Gumperz & Hymes 1986;
Saville-Troike 2003), and critical discourse analysis (Kramsch 1993; Norton 2000;
Pennycook 2007).

When considering the role of ELF research within the field of intercultural
communication studies, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between cross-cultural
and intercultural communication and to discuss theories regarding the relationship
between language and culture with special focus on critical poststructuralist approaches.
As Scollon and Scollon (2001) explain, cross-cultural communication studies compare
communicative practices of distinct cultures viewed as relatively homogenous, separable
entities synonymous with national groups. Communicative practices are studied
independent from interaction relying on experimental and quantitative research. Cross-
cultural studies have recently been criticized for taking a structuralist approach to
language and culture which correlates cultures, nations, individuals and languages
(Kramsch 2009; Holliday 2011; Piller 2011; Scollon, Scollon & Jones 2012; Zhu 2014;

4
Baker 2015). Such approaches are viewed as simplified and essentialist as they reify
cultures, while considering language as an unproblematic, static entity (Pillar 2011). More
critical approaches to intercultural communication studies insist that cultures should be
viewed as fluid and dynamic with blurred boundaries and that communicative practices
of distinct cultural groups should be studied in interaction (Scollon & Scollon 2001).
Piller highlights that intercultural communication should be understood as “social
practice in motion” (2011: 173), not as a ‘thing’ which can be isolated and examined.
Alternative, poststructuralist, approaches to ICC include third spaces (Kramsch 1993;
Kecskes 2007; Canagarajah 2007), transcultural flows (Risager 2006, 2007; Pennycook
2007) and interculturality (Nishizaka 1995; Mori 2003; Higgins 2007; Young &
Sercombe 2010; Zhu 2011, 2014, 2015; Baker 2009, 2015).

Baker (2015) points out that the interculturality perspective on language and culture is
the most obvious point of convergence between contemporary intercultural
communication studies and ELF communication research. He explains that in
interculturality culture is viewed as emergent, dynamic, interactional and changeable.
Cultural differences, norms, associations and identities are understood as socially
constructed and negotiated in interaction (Zhu 2011). Consequently, interculturality
research centers on language and discourse in intercultural encounters as means of
negotiating and constructing cultural identities (Zhu 2014). Common to the
interculturality approach to ICC, ELF research centers on language use in interaction. It
views communication as fluid, hybrid, dynamic and emergent (Dewey 2007; Baker 2009;
Jenkins, Cogo & Dewey 2011; Baird, Baker & Kitazawa; Baker 2015) and focuses on
naturally occurring language use, employing discourse and conversation analysis (Firth
1996; Cogo & Dewey 2012; Jenks 2013). ELF research also considers culture and cultural
identifications as dynamic, multiple and emergent (Baker 2009; 2015).

Furthermore, ICC and ELF research converge on their interest in elements of successful
communication (Baker 2015). Though ELF communication competence models are still
being developed (Baker; 2015; 2017), ELF research has established that accommodation,
negotiation, mediation and other pragmatic strategies (see Jenkins, Cogo & Dewey 2011
for an overview) are important strategies for achieving successful communication.
Accommodation to diverse socio-cultural expectations and practices in ELF encounters
requires interactants to activate both their linguistic and cultural resources to achieve

5
mutual understanding and common goals, which motivates research into cultural aspects
of ELF communication, which is the focus of the following section.

3. Previous research on cultural aspects of ELF communication

Some critics of ELF research suggest that ELF is culturally neutral (House 1999; 2002;
2014; Meierkord 2002) as it serves as a language of communication and not as a language
of identification, a dichotomy proposed by Hüllen (1992). A language of identification is
learned to be integrated and to identify with the respective speech community; therefore,
English as a natural language is a primary language of identification for its native
speakers. ELF as a language of communication develops in communities of practice
(Wenger 1998) and serves practical communicative purposes. However, even if ELF is
considered a language of communication, though Virkkula and Nikula (2010) and
Pietikäinen (2016) suggest that ELF can also be a language of identification, ELF cannot
be viewed as culturally neutral since no communication is neutral as it “involves
participants, settings, purposes, linguistic and other communicative medium choices,
none of which are culturally neutral” (Baker 2015: 12). Pölzl (2003: 5) proposes that ELF
can be considered a “native-culture-free code” since ELF speakers do not activate the
culture associated with English as a natural language. ELF research has confirmed that
ELF speakers do not necessarily identify with English as a cultural symbol (Edmonson
& House 2003; Pölzl & Seidlhofer 2006) and ELF communication studies in various
contexts, such as multinational corporations (Ehrenreich 2010), classroom interaction
(Smit 2010), and academic discourse (Mauranen 2006), prove that ELF communication
is not shaped according to American and British models, but by diverse lingua-cultural
backgrounds of its interactants. Baker (2015) emphasizes that this does not imply that
ELF interactants can create whatever cultures they want; rather, ELF speakers are in a
constant tension between traditional cultural/national conceptions and dynamic, emergent
cultural practices, or between “fixity” and “fluidity” in Pennycook’s (2007) terms.

For ELF speakers taking up multiple identities is the norm (Kalocsai 2014). ELF research
in code-switching (also referred to as code-mixing, borrowing, languaging, or language
crossing by different authors) shows that ELF speakers use their mother tongue and native
languages of other participants to signal membership to an individual cultural group or a
group of multicultural speakers (Pölzl 2003, Klimpfinger 2007; 2010; Kalocsai 2014;
Pietikäinen 2016). Studies into metaphorical language, idioms and phraseology in ELF

6
demonstrate that ELF speakers bring their native culture into ELF discourse by
transferring idioms and metaphors from their native language (Seidlhofer 2009; Pitzl
2009; 2012; Fiedler 2011). Furthermore, Baker’s (2009; 2015) studies into the use of ELF
in Thailand suggest that ELF speakers combine global, national and individual cultural
frames of reference in a hybrid way, thus creating new cultural products, practices and
interpretations from ELF communication. Based on data from the VOICE corpus mainly,
Zhu (2014; 2015) shows that cultural frames of reference and cultural identities are
negotiated and constructed in ELF interactions. Negotiation involves processes of
alignment, which occurs when self-oriented identity matches the identity ascribed by
others, and misalignment, when these do not match. Through negotiation, ELF
participants apply and question their existing knowledge about other cultures while
making sense of the perceived cultural differences, which leads to new cultural schemas
and cultural identities being locally constructed.

Regarding the role of stereotypes in ELF communication, Janik (2017) finds that
stereotyping or cultural identity freezing affects the negotiation of cultural identities in
intercultural communication. However, as the study examines short student essays, the
author concludes that it does not provide sufficient insight into how these identities are
negotiated and suggests studying the phenomenon in interaction.

As the use of stereotypes has not been explored much within ELF communication
research, the present study aims to shed light on this issue by focusing on the use of
national stereotypes in interaction, thus contributing to a better understanding of the
cultural aspects of ELF communication.

4. Methodology

4.1.Focus, aim and hypothesis

The present study deals with the use of national stereotypes in ELF communication based
on transcriptions of naturally occurring language in the VOICE corpus. Adopting the
interculturality perspective to the relationship between culture and language, the present
study focuses on interactions in which national stereotypes are evoked as part of the
construction and negotiation of cultural differences and identities. The aim is to examine
what functions such stereotypes have in ELF communication, whether and how
stereotypes can be used to construct new cultural knowledge in interactions, and whether

7
and how interactants express alignment or misalignment with national stereotypes and
associated identities. Having in mind that stereotypes can be viewed as part of one’s
cultural knowledge which can help one make sense of complex situations, it is expected
that ELF speakers will use them to deal with cultural differences in an attempt to establish
common ground and manage non-understanding. We also assume that, depending on the
ongoing conversation and interactants’ needs and expectations, ELF speakers will react
differently to national stereotypes in terms of displaying, avowing, accepting, ignoring,
rejecting or disavowing them.

4.2.Data

The data for the present study are taken from the VOICE corpus (Vienna-Oxford
International Corpus of English, version 2.0, freely available at
http://www.univie.ac.at/voice), the compilation of which was directed by Barbara
Seidlhofer, one of the most influential authors in the field of ELF research. The corpus
contains audio-recordings and transcriptions of 151 naturally-occurring, non-scripted,
face-to-face interactions in which English is used as a lingua franca by 753 individuals
from 49 different first-language backgrounds. The data include information on the type
of the speech event (conversation, interview, meeting, panel, press conference, question-
answer session, seminar discussion, service encounter, working group discussion,
workshop discussion) belonging to different domains (educational, leisure, professional),
and information about speakers, such as age, sex, native language, nationality, and
occupation. Short portions of some speech acts are not transcribed, which is always
indicated in the transcripts. The transcription conventions are given in the appendix to the
present paper.

The analysis of the data is exploratory and it relies on Conversation Analysis (CA)
techniques. The examples for the analysis were gathered by manually searching through
the corpus, and one of the examples can also be found in Zhu’s (2015) study on the
negotiation of cultural frames of reference and cultural identities in ELF communication
in the VOICE corpus.

4.3.Data analysis

According to the interculturality perspective, cultural differences are constructed in

interaction and “become relevant when participants make them relevant” (Zhu 2015: 23).

8
The following example shows how participants make sense of the differences in customs
related to the celebration of Christmas in Austria and Argentina and illustrates the use of
national stereotypes to construct common ground and secure mutual understanding.

(1) Conversation about customs and legends among students at a party (VOICE,
LEcon351)

S3 – student, age 25-34, male, native language German (Austria); S4 – student, 17-24,
male, German (Austria); S5 – student, 25-34, male, German (Austria); S6 – student, 17-
24, female, German (Austria); S7 – student, 25-34, male, Spanish (Argentina)

59 S5: = you celebrate christmas in: in argentina. =

60 S7: = yeah. like anybody but e:r <4><un> x </un> different four </4> different
drinks it's it's too hot it's forty-five degrees it's (.)
61 S5: <4> it's twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth </4>
62 S7: much more (.) yes er <5> we celebrate christmas </5> like everybody. (.)
63 S5: <5><un> xxxxx </un></5>
64 S7: but er er (.) when we were <pvc> childrens </pvc> nobody understands WHY is
santa claus is in the snow? with er s- @@ there's no snow at christmas. but in in <spel>
t v </spel> in the movies it's a christmas is with snow <un> xx </un><fast> and so on
</fast> (.) when we were children you didn't understand <un> xx </un> this is (.) this is
not the christmas the christmas i KNOW (.) hh yeah. (.) last e:r last year i went up to
sierra nevada cos i (.) say for (.) at least once i i want to celebrate a new year in the
snow there it was f:antastic. (.) yeah but sierra there is pf problem. er new year's pf (.)
it's (.) every place is full of people (.) e:r you need to: er make reservations for dinner (.)
for the hotels within pf two months before hh and er (.) that night er <6> every bar
there?</6> (.)
65 S4: <6><to S6><L1ger> das ist normal oder? {that's normal isn't it} </L1ger></to
S6></6>
66 S7: er (.) <7> they er they </7> charge you? for <1> getting like a </1> discounts the
<2> ticket </2>
67 S4: <7><to S6><L1ger> bei uns ist es auch nicht anders oder? {it's not different in
our country either is it} </L1ger></to S6></7>
68 S6: <1><to S4> the flair (don't have to) </to S4></1>
69 S4: <2> the what?</2>{parallel conversation stops}
70 SX-m: the ticket?
71 S6: the FLAIR @
72 S7: the f:lair is no (.) n- er in new year it's twenty euros for to get in? (.) ten euros
every drinks? (.) it- you think you are you stupid or what. (.) is is is (.) <L1spa> es lo
que hay (.) que es andaluz {this is what you find there that is andalusian} </L1spa>
9
73 SX-m: @@@
74 S7: <L1spa><@> es lo que hay </@> {it is what you find there} </L1spa> (.)
75 S6: <L1spa> pero {but} </L1spa> (.) but @ but you celebrate (.) christmas <3><un>
xxxx </un></3>{parallel conversations start} on the sixth?
76 S7: <3> yes?</3>
77 S7: like everybody yeah
78 S6: of january. so (.) it's only in spain that the: they celebrate er {parallel
conversation goes on}
79 S3: we just (transform) <un> xx xx xx </un><4> this </4>
80 S6: <L1spa><4> los tres </4> santos {the three saints} </L1spa> okay?
81 S4: <L1ger> ja stimmt {yeah that's right} </L1ger> (1)
82 S6: yeah (.)
83 S7: in spain they celebrate EVERYthing. (.)
84 S6: yeah but they ce- er <6> the- (.) they celebrate </6> the:<7> HOLY kings or ho-
</7> HOW they are called in english (.)
85 S7: <6> and everything is a good excuse for </6>
86 S7: <7> er not going to work and er having parties </7>
87 S7: <soft><un> xx xx </un></soft>
88 S6: <loud> yeah </loud> (1)
89 S7: <loud> yeah </loud>

The example comes from a conversation between three Austrian people (S4, S5 and S6)
and a person from Argentina (S7). The Austrian participants introduce the custom of
drinking mulled wine during the winter, especially at Christmas markets, and S7 explains
that in Argentina there is not such a custom as Christmas is in the middle of summer and
warm wine is not suitable for warm weather. S5 shows interest in Argentinian customs
and asks whether Christmas is celebrated in Argentina on the same day as in Austria (lines
59 and 61). S7 confirms it by saying that they celebrate Christmas like everybody and
goes into explaining the differences between Argentina and Austria in terms of what
typical associations with Christmas for Austrians might be, such as snow and Santa
Clause. S7 emphasizes that these do not constitute the typical idea of Christmas for
Argentinian people and recounts a visit to Sierra Nevada, Spain, where he actually
experienced a white Christmas (line 64). S6 activates her cultural knowledge about a
Spanish custom of celebrating “Los Tres Santos” on January 6th, which S4 is also familiar

10
with (line 81), and asks whether this is a unique Spanish custom (lines 78 and 80),
implying that it is not observed in Argentina. To make it clear that this is not an
Argentinian custom, S7 states that Spanish people celebrate EVERYthing and evokes a
stereotype that Spanish people do not like working and prefer partying. The stereotype
serves to highlight cultural differences between Spain and Argentina, and,
simultaneously, establish similarities between Argentina and Austria, thus contributing to
building common ground and promoting mutual understanding regarding the initially
discussed cultural differences between Austria and Argentina in terms of Christmas
celebrations.

The next excerpt is another example of how ELF interactants use stereotypes to negotiate
cultural differences and cultural identities.

(2) Conversation among exchange students about various topics (VOICE,

LEcon562)
S1 – student, 17-24 years old, female Norwegian (Norway); S2 – student, 17-24, male,
English (Canada); S3 – student, 17-24, English (Canada); S4 – student, 17-24, female,
German (Austria); S5 – student, 17-24, male, Dutch (the Netherlands); S6 – student, 17-
24, male, English (Canadian); S7 – student, 17-24, female, Danish (Denmark); S8 –
student, 17-24, female, Serbian (Serbia)

1650 S3: <7> that's true </7> huh (.) if you want canadian food (.) travel to europe (.)
1651 S6: but there's like <8> no <LNger> schnitzel {escalope} </LNger></8> in canada
(1)
1652 S5: <8> @@@ </8>
1653 S5: no?
1654 S6: well <un> x </un> (.) there's this german restaurant in ottawa that i go to all the
time (1) and you can buy like <LNger> schnitzel {escalope} </LNger> and =
1655 S5: = a:h there never went austrians to america <soft> (probably) </soft> (.)
1656 S6: e:r <9> most er canadians were er </9>
1657 S8: <9> don't mix austrian </9> and german (.)
1658 S6: <1> yeah i know i know </1> (.)
1659 SS: <1> @@@@@ </1>
1660 S6: but like (.) it's it's (.) a GERman restaurant
1661 S8: okay <2> @ <soft> @@ </soft></2> (1)

11
1662 S6: <2> like most </2>
1663 S8: <slow> most canadians <@> and americans </@> don't really kno:w </slow>
(.) <3><@><fast> a lot of </fast> of austria </@></3>
1664 S5: <3> that there are different countries </3><4> in eu- @ </4>
1665 SS: <4> @@@@ </4> @@@
1666 S6: <5> like </5>
1667 S4: <5> (i've heard) </5> it before @@@ =
1668 S6: = they've heard OF it but (.) they don't really know anything about it =
1669 S8: = i'm defending [S4] <@><6> it's not on my </6> behalf </@>
1670 S6: <6><@> yeah </@> @@@ </6>
1671 SS: @@ <7> @@@ </7>
1672 S6: <7> yeah i know </7> (.) er like =
1673 S4: = we just talked about it so <8> @@ </8>
1674 S8: <8><@> yeah?</@></8><9> okay </9>
1675 S6: <8> well </8><9> i i said </9>
1676 S4: we just said it <1> @@ </1>
1677 S6: <1> i said </1> there is a GERman restaurant
1678 SS: @@@@ <2> @@ </2>
1679 S4: <2> yeah it's </2> no problem because there CAN be a german restaurant (.)
<soft> in ottawa </soft> =
1680 S6: = in ottawa
1681 S4: yeah @@
1682 S2: like <imitating> it's <3> AUSTRIAN </3></imitating>
1683 S4: <3><un> xx </un> erm </3>
1684 SS: @@@ (.) @@@@@@ <4> @@@ </4>
1685 S2: <4> that was good </4>
1686 S4: but <5> if you say </5> at mallorca there are so many <6> austrians THEN you
are wrong because there are a lot of germans </6> (.)
1687 SX-7: <5> @@@ </5>
1688 S8: <6> it's the same like with america (and) canada </6>
1689 SX-m: <7> @@ </7>
1690 SX-m: <7><un> xx </un></7>

12
1691 S4: <7> with </7> white socks and the sandals and (1) eating <8> german <@>
food </@> @@@ </8>
1692 S2: <8> white socks and sand</8>als (.) FAUX <9> PAS </9>
1693 S5: <9> [first name9] </9><10> this </10> could <1> @ this could be dutch er </1>
dutch guys as well @@
1694 S6: <10> yeah </10>
1695 S6: <1> @@@@ </1>
1696 SX-m: @@
1697 S4: <2> yeah </2> but it's (.)
1698 SX-6: <2> yeah </2>
1699 S4: all germans and (.) the other ones are just a small part (2)
1700 SX: hh
1701 S4: @ <@> the bad ones are always </@>
1702 S3: so you <3> don't like </3> germans <@> i guess </@>
1703 S4: <3> @ </3>
1704 SS: @@@ <4> @@ </4>
1705 S4: <4> no we do </4> but we're (we:)<5><un> xx </un> of course @@ </5>
1706 S3: <5> o:h yeah of course you do </5>
1707 S5: @@@@
1708 S8: it's getting dark
1709 S4: in <un> xx </un><6> i had </6> good <7> german friends </7>
1710 S1: <6><to S8> mhm </to S8></6>
1711 S5: <7> o:h yeah </7>
1712 S3: <7> it's okay </7> i understand (1)

The participants in the conversation start a topic about food in Canada. By saying if you
want canadian food (.) travel to europe (.) in line 1650, S3 implies that Canadian food
originates from Europe. S6 elaborates on the topic stating that there is no schnitzel in
Canada, implying that not all European food can be found there, but he quickly corrects
himself in line 1654 by mentioning a German restaurant in Ottawa which he frequents
and which serves schnitzel. S5 tentatively provides an explanation for the fact that
schnitzel is not common in Canada by saying that Austrians never went to America, most
likely referring to the colonization period. After this moment, the conversation is
characterized by a considerable overlap between the participants’ utterances, which

13
indicates a problem in the conversation. The most likely cause of the problem is the fact
that schnitzel is originally Austrian and not German. S8 seems to be aware of it as she
explicitly says <9> don't mix austrian </9> and german (.) in line 1657, thus making
this fact relevant when it comes to differences between Austria and Germany. S6
acknowledges her comment and tries to make a generalization about Canadians when S8
interrupts him, though tentatively, in line 1663, to make a generalization that most
Canadians and Americans do not have much knowledge about Austria. S5’s utterance in
line 1664 overlaps with a part of S8’s utterance in line 1663 and creates a joint utterance
that Canadians and Americans do not know <3> that there are different countries
</3><4> in eu- @ </4>, which evokes a stereotype that Canadians and Americans lack
knowledge about Europe. In line 1668, S6 agrees that Canadians lack knowledge about
Austria, apart from its existence, but he indicates that this generalization does not hold
true in his case by using the pronoun they which distances him from the rest of Canadian
people in this respect. This is an instance of misalignment with attributes ascribed to him
on the basis of a stereotypical view of Canadian identity. In line 1669, S8 justifies her
generalization as a defense of S4, which can be interpreted as S8’s intention to
acknowledge S4’s cultural identity undermined by not recognizing differences between
Austrians and Germans. The subsequent laughter among the participants indicates that
the previous utterances are understood as benevolent. The students finally reach
agreement in line 1679 when S4 accepts the possibility that there is a German restaurant
in Ottawa, though S2 keeps teasing S4 in line 1682, which leads to more laughter among
the participants.

The conversation about differences between Austrians and Germans continues when S4
mentions Mallorca, a famous tourist destination in Spain, in line 1686. To elaborate on
the difference, S4 evokes a stereotype about Germans wearing white socks and sandals
in line 1691. S2 comments on this style as faux pas, whereas S5 challenges this stereotype
about Germans by suggesting that it can apply to Dutch men as well in line 1693. This
causes laughter among the participants while S4 insists that it refers to Germans and
passes a rather negative comment about them in line 1701, although through laughter. S3
interprets her comment as clear animosity towards German people in line 1702, while
toning down his utterance through laughter and the use of the hedge I guess. The students
again respond with laughter, while S4 denies S3’s assumption by explaining that she had
good German friends in line 1709. S8’s utterance in line 1708 and S1 agreement in line

14
1710 can be interpreted as an attempt to change the topic. The discussion finishes with
S3 accepting S4’s explanation in line 1712 and the participants continue to talk about
other topics.

As excerpt (2) illustrates, while making sense of cultural differences, stereotypes in ELF
communication can serve as a basis for the negotiation of identity. Excerpts (3) and (4)
are further examples of how identities are negotiated with reference to national
stereotypes.

(3) Conversation among exchange students about their first experiences in Austria
and various other topics (VOICE, LEcon560)

S1 – student, 17-24, female, Polish (Poland); S2 – student, 17-24, female, Spanish

(Spain); S5 – student, 17-24, male, German (country unidentified)

2652 S2: = <fast> okay but </fast> have you tried (.) e:r <soft><un> xxxx
</un></soft><LNger> die kakerla<4>ken?</4> {the cockroaches} </LNger> (.)
…
2661 S1: i <2> had it </2> (.)
2662 S2: <2> (and) <un> xx </un></2>
2663 S1: o:h i had <3> it </3>
2664 S2: <3> o:h </3> you had <4> everything </4> (.)
2665 S1: <4> o:h yeah </4>
2666 S2: <slow> okay you <un> xxx </un> then </slow>
2667 S5: yah
2668 S1: i'm polish we like <5> alcohol </5>
2669 S5: <slow><5> yah </5> yah </slow> yah
2670 S2: <smacks lips><LNger> in spanien {in spain} </LNger><6> (so) </6>
2671 S5: <un><6> x</6>xxxx<7>xxx </7></un>
2672 S2: <7> i i bet you </7> two drink i i can stand more than you (1) in spanish <un>
xxx </un> (.)
2673 S1: are you? (.) i mean (1) i have a very e:rm light head? (.) i get drunk very easily?
(.) not like a regular polish person? (.) bu:t it's like the: (1) e:rm usually people (.) drink
like in bars usua- (.) they often vodka in sho:ts it's (.)normal
2674 S5: yah (2) <1><soft> yah </soft></1>
2675 S1: <1> but </1> mad dogs (.) yeah definitely <un> xxx </un>

15
2676 S5: yah yah <un> xxxx </un> =
2677 S1: = <@> but it's really good </@>

This excerpt comes from a conversation between a Polish, a Spanish, and a German
student. The students share their experiences of drinking various types of alcoholic
beverages, including a Polish cocktail called “Mad Dog” and a Mexican drink called
“Cockroach”. S2 inquires whether S1 has ever tried “Cockroach” and after mentioning
the main ingredients, S1 gives an affirmative answer. S2’s utterance in line 2664 can be
interpreted as a sign of disbelief, to which S1 reacts by displaying her national identity
and evoking a stereotype about Polish people as hard-drinkers. In line 2673, S2 challenges
S1’s claim, which leads S1 to engage in negotiation of her identity based on this
stereotype. By saying that she gets light-headed easily not like a regular polish person,
she avows the association between being Polish and tolerating alcohol well,
simultaneously indicating that she does not fit into this stereotypical image of Polish
identity completely. The logic behind her thinking can be explained as follows:

I am Polish. Polish people tolerate alcohol well. I get drunk easily; therefore, I am not a
regular Polish person.

Thus, she constructs a new identity for herself on the basis of this national stereotype.

Example (3) illustrates how national stereotypes are incorporated in the construction of
identity in interaction, whereas example (4) shows how national stereotypes are rejected
in this process.

(4) Conversation between a couple while having lunch (VOICE, LEcon566)

S1 – 35-49, male, German (Germany); S2 – university lecturer, 25-34, Italian (Italy)

407 S1: say your boyfriend FORCed you to go to another party

408 S2: @ @ <8> @ </8>
409 S1: <8> yeah?</8>
410 S2: <imitating> my boyfriend is a GERman </imitating> (2) e:rm
411 S1: <soft><un> xx </un> in german </soft>
412 S2: no? but i was thinking (.) like erm:<smacks lips> (2) erm <whispering> the word
doesn't come </whispering> (2) <loud> dictatOrial </loud> that's what i was
think<@>ing </@> @@ (2) {S1 and S2 kiss}
413 S1: but i'm not {S1 and S2 kiss}
16
414 S2: you are
415 S1: it is not very GERman to be dictatorial is it? (1)
416 S2: no?
417 S1: well hitler was. (.) but that's why now men can't be dictatorial any MORE . (.)
because otherwise. (they're) <un> xx </un> (like) to hitler
418 S2: @@@@@ {S1 and S2 kiss}

Example (4) is a part of a conversation between a couple, involving a German man (S1)
and an Italian woman (S2). The couple talk about a party to which S2 has been invited
but feels reluctant to go as she is familiar with a few people expected to attend the party.
S2 suggests she say that he forced her to go, putting emphasis on force. S1 most likely
interprets S2’s utterance as a joke as reflected in her laughter. In line 410, S2 makes a
direct reference to S1’s nationality, linking it to S1’s suggestion and thus creating an
allusion to the stereotype of German people being dictatorial, which is made explicit in
line 412 when S2 tentatively rejects it. The use of hedges, her laughter, and their kiss can
be interpreted as a sign that S2 is careful not to offend S1. S1 engages in the negotiation
of German identity based on this stereotype, first by rejecting the attributes ascribed to
him personally through this stereotype in line 413 and then by denying the association
between being German and being dictatorial in general. S1’s utterance in line 417
indicates that the roots of the stereotype are linked with Hitler and the Nazis, which is the
reason why he rejects it. While negotiating his identity in interaction with S2, S1 does not
disavow his identity as a German; in fact, S1 and S2 co-construct a new German identity
for S1 which excludes the stereotypical association and thus reach mutual understanding.

Besides reaching common ground, Zhu (2015) states that ELF speakers construct
identities to achieve humorous effects and build rapport in business contexts. To illustrate
her point, she uses an excerpt from the VOICE corpus, given here as example (5). Though
she does not focus on stereotypes in her study, her example is relevant to the discussion
in the present paper as it involves a national stereotype.

(5) Business meeting on the status of a project (VOICE, PBmtg280)

S2 – software engineer, 25-34, male, Polish (Poland); S3 – software engineer, 25-34,

male, English (country unidentified); S4 – software engineer, 25-34, male, English
(country unidentified)

17
324 S3: <7> i’ve </7> one quick question (it’s got) absolutely nothing to do with
anything erm (.) what with the company ski day (1) there should be one towards the end
of march for the french guys (.) are gonna come up? (1) during the last two weekends
(1) and
…
330 S2: i’ve heard some rumours that it would be on: (1) between tenth and twentieth of
march
331 S3: the last two weekends of march i think they put up the possibilities in france <1>
(and) </1> people would say whether they could attend or not
332 S2: <1> that’s (when’s) sain- </1>
333 S2: i’ve heard it’s saint patrick’s day is on friday? (.) and then the next Saturday is
skiing day and some <2> people (.) i will not mention the names </2> say that they will
be completely drunk on friday so <3> cannot <@> participate on saturday </@></3><4>
i mean it’s funny </4>
334 S4: <2><soft> @@@@@@@ </soft></2>
335 SS: <3> @@@@@@@@@@ </3>
336 S3: <4> that won’t be the irish people </4> huh?
337 S2: <5> @@ <@> no no i’m not saying anything </@></5>
338 SS: <5> @@@@@@@@@@@ </5> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@
339 S3: could be very funny (2)

In this excerpt, the participants talk about the rumors regarding the company ski day. In
line 333, S2 states that it is funny to have the ski day on the Saturday after Saint Patrick’s
Day as some people, who he does not name, will not be able to participate as they will be
drunk on Friday. By mirroring the tone of rumors and using pauses and laughter to
indicate that he is teasing, Zhu (2015: 82-83) explains that he plays on the cultural
stereotype of the Irish people, which S3 makes explicit in line 336. The participants’
laughter indicates that they acknowledge the joke based on this stereotype, thus
collaboratively constructing identities of other people while creating common ground and
building rapport.

Example (6) is another example of how national stereotypes serve the purpose of
establishing rapport in business settings in ELF communication.

(6) Business meeting at a food company (VOICE, PBmtg3)

S1 – logistics manager at distribution company, 50+, male, Korean (South Korea); S2 –

logistics manager at distribution company, 35-49, male, Korean (South Korea); S3 – sales

18
employee at food company, 25-34, male, German (Austria); S4 – sales manager at food
company (chair), 35-49, male, German (Austria)

120 S1: appreciate your time because (.) just kn- knew that (1) your office hours (.)
121 S4: o:h that
122 S1: <1> finish two </1> o'clock in the af- <2> erm afternoon </2>
123 S2: <1> @@ </1>
124 S4: <2> in this </2> in this job there is no office hours
125 S2: @ <3> @@@ </3> @
126 SX-m: <3> @@@ </3>
127 S4: we don't have office hours
128 S2: @@ <4> @ </4>
129 S1: <4> ba- </4> bad for you
130 S2: <soft> @@@ </soft>
131 S4: right
132 S2: <soft> @@ </soft>
133 S1: we are we usually er even FRIday we: work until (.) six
134 S4: <L1ger> ja? {yes} </L1ger> (.)
135 S1: we assume that er (.) here in austria (.) people work as (.) WE do.<5><un> xxx
</un></5>
136 S4: <5><L1ger> ja: {yes} </L1ger> not </5> REALLY we are a little lazy
137 S2: @ <6> @@@@ </6> @
138 S1: <6> @@@ </6>
139 S3: <6> @@@ </6>

In this excerpt, two businessmen from South Korea and two businessmen from Austria
discuss the differences in the working hours between their companies and countries. The
emphasis on the pronoun we in S1’s utterance in line 135 can be interpreted as implying
a contrast between South Koreans and Austrians, which S4 recognizes and complements
by characterizing Austrians as a little lazy compared to South Koreans. S4’s utterance can
be understood as the construction of an Austrian identity in relation to the stereotype of
South Koreans working long hours. The utterance produces a humorous effect on the
participants and contributes to establishing common ground and building rapport.

19
 5. Discussion of the findings

The analysis of the data shows that national stereotypes have various functions and roles
in the construction and negotiation of cultural differences and identities in ELF
communication depending on the particular context and the participants’ communicative
needs. As national stereotypes tend to be widespread, it can be assumed that it is more
likely for a participant to be familiar with such information compared to some more
specific knowledge relevant for the discussion of cultural differences. Therefore, while
accommodating to the interlocutor’s cultural knowledge, the speaker may use a stereotype
in order to maximize the possibility of reaching common ground. When it is established
that all the participants are familiar with the stereotype and acknowledge that it is true,
they may build on it and construct new cultural knowledge. This happens in example (1)
when the participants agree on a stereotype about Spanish people and based on it establish
similarities between Austria and Argentina and build new cultural knowledge in
interaction. Examples (5) and (6) illustrate that the mutual avowal of a stereotype,
regardless of whether it refers to the participants of the ongoing conversation as in
example (6) or other people as in example (5), can serve the purpose of achieving
humorous effects and building rapport.

Furthermore, national stereotypes can be a starting point for the construction and
negotiation of identities as in examples (2), (3) and (4). Example (2) illustrates how ELF
speakers display their identity based on a national stereotype, whereas examples (3) and
(4) demonstrate how ELF participants ascribe identities to others based on such
stereotypes. Two ways of negotiating identities in such situations can be identified. One
way is to avow the stereotypical view of the identity and then indicate one’s misalignment
with it. Namely, in example (2), the Polish speaker, S1, avows the stereotype that Polish
people like drinking and tolerate alcohol well, and then indicates that she does not self-
identify as a regular Polish person as she gets light-headed quickly. In example (3), S8
evokes a stereotype about Canadian people to ascribe an identity to S6 who accepts it as
true but only to the extent that it does not apply to him personally, thus self-identifying
as an untypical Canadian person. The other way of negotiating identities based on a
national stereotype is to accept the national identity but reject the stereotypical
characteristics associated with it. In example (4), the German speaker, S1, rejects the
stereotype that German people are dictatorial, first by referring to himself and then to all

20
German men. He does not question his identity as a German; he disavows the
stereotypical characteristics associated with it.

Another finding worth noting is it that national stereotypes in ELF communication do not
necessarily contribute to reaching common ground. In example (2), the Austrian speaker,
S4, uses a stereotype about German tourists as proof that Austrians and Germans are
different. As the participants do not recognize the stereotype as referring only to Germans,
but potentially to Dutch people as well, S4 fails to prove her point and does not achieve
mutual understanding.

To conclude, the functions of national stereotypes in ELF communication vary depending

on the context of the interaction. As the analysis in the present study is restricted to a
small number of examples, it is likely that national stereotypes may perform other
functions in other ELF interactions. More research into the matter is necessary before a
more comprehensive account of the roles of national stereotypes in ELF communication
can be given.

6. Conclusion

As Baker (2015) states, English is the most likely language to be used for intercultural
communication and when this is the case, it is most likely to be used as a lingua franca.
Therefore, research into the cultural aspects of ELF communication can advance the
frontiers of knowledge in the field of intercultural communication. The present study aims
to contribute to reaching this goal by investigating the role of national stereotypes as part
of cultural resources that ELF participants bring to communication.

The study shows that national stereotypes have various functions in ELF interactions.
When dealing with cultural differences, national stereotypes are used to establish
common ground, build rapport, and construct new cultural knowledge. When it comes to
cultural identities, national stereotypes are used as a starting point in the negotiation and
construction of self-identity. However, the study shows that national stereotypes do not
necessarily contribute to reaching mutual understanding as their functions depend on the
particular context and the participants’ perceptions of their relevance and validity in the
ongoing conversation. As the context of the interaction influences the role of national
stereotypes, further research is necessary to provide a more comprehensive account of the
possible functions of national stereotypes in ELF communication.

21
The present study corroborates previous findings regarding the nature of ELF
communication according to which ELF interactants are in a constant tension between
fixity and fluidity. National stereotypes rely on the understanding of culture as an entity
bounded by national borders, and the fact that interactants make the boundaries blurry
and changeable shows that intercultural communication should be approached from a
modern, critical perspective which characterizes culture as fluid, dynamic and emergent.

22
References

Baird, Robert, Baker, Will & Kitazawa, Mariko. 2014. The Complexity of ELF. Journal
of English as a Lingua Franca 3(1). 171-196.
Baker, Will. 2009. The Cultures of English as a lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly 43(4).
567-592.
Baker, Will. 2015. Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca. Rethinking
Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Baker, Will. 2017. English as a Lingua Franca and Intercultural Communication In:
Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker & Martin Dewey (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of
English as a Lingua Franca. Abingdon: Routledge.
Baker Will & Jennifer Jenkins. 2015. Criticising ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca 4(1). 191-198.
Björkman, Beyza. 2013. English as an Academic Lingua Franca. An Investigation of
Form and Communicative Effectiveness. Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana & Elite Olshtain. 1984. Requests and Apologies: A Cross-
Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP). Applied
Linguistics 5(3). 196-213.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in
Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byram, Michael. 1997. Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative
Competence. Clevedon; Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2007. Lingua Franca English, Multilingual Communities, and
Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 91(S1). 923-939.
Chew, William L., III. 2006. What's in a National Stereotype? An Introduction to
Imagology at the Threshold of the 21st Century. Language and Intercultural
Communication 6(3-4). 179-187.
Cogo, Alessia & Martin Dewey. 2012. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-
Driven Investigation. New York: Continuum.
Collins, Elizabeth, Monica Biernat & Scott Eidelman. 2006. Stereotypes in the
Communication and Translation of Person Impressions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 45(2). 368-374.
Crystal, David. 2008. Two Thousand Million? English Today 24(1). 3-6.
Devine, Patricia. 1989. Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled
Components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(1). 5-18.
Dewey, Martin. 2007. English as a Lingua franca and Globalization: An Interconnected
Perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3). 332-354.

23
Edmondson, Willis & Juliane House. 2003. English in the World and English in the
School. In: Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas. Berg, Rene Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther
(eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günther Raddan.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 321-345.
Ehrenreich, Susanne. 2010. English as a Business Lingua Franca in a German
Multinational Corporation. Journal of Business Communication 47(4). 408-431.
Ehrenreich, Susanne. 2011. The Dynamics of English as a Business Lingua Franca. A
Language Contact Perspective. In: Archibald, Alasdair, Cogo, Alessia & Jenkins,
Jennifer (eds.), Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing. 11-34.
Fein, Steven, William von Hipper & Steven Spencer. 1999. To Stereotype or Not to
Stereotype: Motivation and Stereotype Activation, Application, and Inhibition. An
International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory 10(1). 49-54.
Fiedler, Ssabine. 2011. English as a Lingua Franca – A Native-Culture-Free Code?
Language of Communication vs. Language of Identification. Apples – Journal of
Applied Language Studies 5(3). 79-97.
Firth, Alan. 1996. The Discursive Accomplishment of Normality: On Conversation
Analysis and ‘Lingua Franca’ English. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2). 237–259.
Giles, Howard (ed.). 2016. Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating
Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Contexts. Cambridge
University Press.
Giles, Howard, Justine Coupland & Nikolas Coupland (eds.). 1991. Contexts of
Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Giles, Howard & Tania Ogay. 2007. Communication Accommodation Theory. In: Bryan
B. Whaley & Wendy Samter (eds.), Explaining Communication: Contemporary
Theories and Exemplars. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 293-310.
Graddol, David. 2006. English Next. London: The British Council.
Guilherme, Manuela. 2002. Critical Citizens for an Intercultural World. Foreign
Language Education as Cultural Politics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gumperz, John & Dell Hymes (eds.). 1986. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The
Ethnography of Communication. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hall, Edward T. 1959. The Silent Language. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company,
Inc.
Higgins, Christina (ed.). 2007. A Closer Look at Cultural Difference: “Interculturality”
in Talk-in-Interaction. Special Issue, Pragmatics 17(1).
Hofstede, Geert H. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values. Newbury Park, Calif. Sage Publications.
Holliday, Adrian. 2011. Intercultural Communication and Ideology. London: Sage.

24
House, Juliane. 1999. Misunderstanding in Intercultural Communication: Interactions in
English as a Lingua Franca and the Myth of Mutual Intelligibility. In: Claus
Gnutzmann (ed.), Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language.
Tübingen: Stauffenburg. 73-89.
House, Juliane. 2002. Developing Pragmatic Competence in English as a Lingua Franca.
In: Karlfied Knapp & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua Franca
Communication. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 245-267.
House, Juliane. 2014. English as a Global Lingua Franca: A Threat to Multilingual
Communication and Translation? Language Teaching 47(3). 363–376.
Hüllen, Werner. 1992. Identifikationssprache und Kommunikationssprache. Über
Probleme der Mehrsprachigkeit. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 20(3),
298–317.
Janík, Zdeněk. 2017. Negotiation of Identities in Intercultural Communication. Journal
of Language and Cultural Education 5(1). 160-181.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006. Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English
as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 157-181.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2011. Accommodating (to) ELF in the International University. Journal
of Pragmatics 43(1). 926-936.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Alessia Cogo & Martin Dewey. 2011. Review of Developments in
Research into English as a Lingua Franca. Language Teaching 44(3). 281 - 315.
Jenkins Jennifer & Will Baker (eds). 2015. Developments in English as a Lingua Franca
[DELF]. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Jenks, Christopher. 2013. Are You an ELF? The Relevance of ELF as an Equitable Social
Category in Online Intercultural Communication. Language and Intercultural
Communication 13(1). 95-108.
Kachru, Braj. 1985. Standards, Codification and Sociolinguistic Realism: The English
Language in the Outer Circle. In: Randolf Quirk & H.G. Widdowson (eds.),
English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for The British Council. 11-30.
Kalocsai, Karolina. 2014. Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca: A
Study of Erasmus Students in a Central European Context. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Kecskes, Istvan. 2007. Formulaic Language in English Lingua Franca. In: Istvan Kecskes
& Laurence Horn (eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and
Intercultural Aspects. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. 191-218.
Klimpfinger, Theresa. 2007. ‘Mind You, Sometimes You Have to Mix’ – The Role of
Code-Switching in English as a Lingua Franca. Vienna English Working Papers
16(2). 36–61.

25
Klimpfinger, Theresa. 2010. ‘She’s Mixing the Two Languages Together’ – Forms and
Functions of Code-Switching in English as a Lingua Franca. In: Anna Mauranen
& Elina Ranta (eds), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. 348–371.
Kramsch, Claire. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University press.
Kramsch, Claire. 2009. Third Culture and Language Education. In: Vivian Cook & Li
Wei (eds.), Contemporary Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum. 233-254.
Kumar, Krishan. The Making of English Identity. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge; 2003.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey. 2005. Politeness: Is There an East-West Divide? Journal of Foreign
Languages 6. 3-31.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1988. Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness
Phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12(4). 403-426.
Mauranen, Anna. 2006. A Rich Domain of ELF – The ELFA Corpus of Academic
Discourse. In: Anna Mauranen & Maria Metsä-Ketelä (eds.), English as a Lingua
Franca. Special Issue of the Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2). 145–159.
Meierkord, Christiane. 2002. ‘Language Stripped Bare’ or ‘Linguistic Masala’? Culture
in Lingua Franca Conversation. In: Karlfried Knapp & Christiane Meierkord
(eds.), Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 109-133.
Moore, J. R. 2006. Shattering Stereotypes: A Lesson Plan for Improving Student
Attitudes and Behavior Towards Minority Groups. The Social Studies (ERIC
Accession #EJ744210). 35-39.
Mori, Junko. 2003. The Construction of Interculturality: A Study of Initial Encounters
between Japanese and American Students. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 36(2). 143-184.
Nishizaka Aug. 1995. The Interactive Constitution of Interculturality: How to Be a
Japanese with Words. Human Studies 18(2-3). 301-326.
Norton, Bonny. 2000. Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and
Educational Change. Harlow, England: Longman.
Peng, Shi-Yong. 2010. Impact of Stereotypes on Intercultural Communication: A Chinese
Perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review 11(2). 243-252.
Pennycook, Alastair. 2007. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London:
Routledge.
Pietikäinen, Kaisa. 2016. Misunderstanding and Ensuring Understanding in Private ELF
Talk. Applied Linguistics 2016. 1-26.

26
Piller, Ingrid. 2011. Intercultural Communication: A Critical Introduction. Edinburg
University Press.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2009. ‘We Should Not Wake Up Any Dogs’: Idiom and Metaphor in
ELF”. In Anna Mauranen & Elina Ranta (eds.), English as a Lingua Franca:
Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. 298-322.
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2012. Creativity Meets Convention: Idiom Variation and Re-
metaphorization in ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1). 27-55.
Pölzl, Ulrike. 2003. Signalling Cultural Identity: The Use of L1/Ln in ELF. Vienna
English Working Papers 12(2). 3–23.
Pölzl, Ulrike & Barbara Seidlhofer. 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. 151-176.
Risager, Karen. 2006. Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity.
Multilingual Matters.
Risager, Karen. 2007. Language and Culture Pedagogy: From a National to a
Transnational Paradigm. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Roberts, Celia, Sarah Campbell & Yvonne Robinson. 2008. Talking Like a Manager:
Promotion Interviews, Language and Ethnicity, DWP Research Report 344.
Leeds: Corporate Document Services.
Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A
Discourse Approach (2nd edition). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Scollon, Ron, Suzanne Wong Scollon & Rodney H. Jones. 2012. Intercultural
Communication: A Discourse Approach (3rd edition). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. Conversation Analysis Methodology. Language Learning 54(S1).
1-54.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. Closing a Conceptual Gap: The Case for a Description of
English as a Lingua Franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2).
133-158.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. 10. Research Perspectives on Teaching English as A Lingua
Franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24. 209-239.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. Accommodation and the Idiom Principle in English as a
Lingua Franca. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(2). 195–216.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Seville-Troike, Muriel. 2003. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction.
Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Smit, Ute. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education. A Longitudinal Study
of Classroom Discourse. Berlin: De Gruyter

27
Spencer-Rodgers, Julie & Timothy McGovern. 2002. Attitudes toward the Culturally
Different: The Role of Intercultural Communication Barriers, Affective
responses, Consensual Stereotypes, and perceived Threat. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations 26(6). 609-631.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 2008. Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and
Politeness Theory (2nd edition). London & New York: Continuum.
Virkkula, Tiina & Tarja Nikula. 2010. Identity Construction in ELF Contexts: A Case
Study of Finnish Engineering Students Working in Germany. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 20(2). 251-273.
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online).
Director: Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Angelika Breiteneder, Theresa
Klimpfinger, Stefan Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael
Radeka. http://voice.univie.ac.at (10/09/2017).
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts:
Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics 9(2-3). 145-178.
Young, Tony & Peter Sercombe. 2010. Communication, discourses and interculturality.
Language & Intercultural Communication 10(3). 181-188.
Zhu, Hua. 2011. The Language and Intercultural Communication Reader. London:
Routledge.
Zhu, Hua. 2014. Exploring Intercultural Communication: Language in Action. London:
Routledge.
Zhu, Hua. 2015. Negotiation as the Way of Engagement in Intercultural and Lingua
Franca Communication: Frames of Reference and Interculturality. Journal of
English as Lingua Franca 4(1). 63-90.

28
Appendix

VOICE mark-up conventions

VOICE spelling conventions

29