See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319925040

English in a post‐Brexit European Union

Article  in  World Englishes · September 2017

DOI: 10.1111/weng.12264

CITATIONS READS

38 4,134

1 author:

Marko Modiano
University of Gävle
25 PUBLICATIONS   855 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The development of the English language in the European Union View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marko Modiano on 18 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

World Englishes, 2017 0883-2919
doi: 10.1111/weng.12264

English in a post-Brexit European Union

MARKO MODIANO∗

ABSTRACT: This article speculates about the possible effects of the Brexit process on the status and
functions of English in the European Union (EU). One issue here is whether Brexit will result in the
weakening of the status of English within the Union, or whether this process will, ironically, strengthen the
power of English as the principal working language of the EU, as well as the primary L2 among Europeans.
One possibility here is that the exit of Britain from the Union will clear the sociolinguistic space for the
emergence of an authentic European English, used by members of the EU as a ‘second language’ or (even)
a quasi-Outer Circle English, serving the needs of the European Union as the common link language for
administration and cooperation between member states.

INTRODUCTION
Instead of investing in the continuing hegemonic positioning of ‘prestigious’ Inner Circle
varieties, with the understanding that they are the given norms which those teaching and
learning English as an L2 are by default expected to adhere to, Kachru proposed that local
varieties of English should also be used as a platform for school education (Kachru 1976,
1985, 1990, 1991, 1992). In so doing he encouraged the spirit of ‘liberation linguistics’
in many postcolonial societies, including India, Nigeria, and Singapore, where nativized
varieties had clearly emerged by the 1980s and 1990s. At this time, Kachru was particularly
concerned with language policies in developing societies, and in his article on ‘Models
of English for the Third World: White man’s linguistic burden or language pragmatics?’,
Kachru argued that we should ‘appreciate and encourage the Third World varieties of
English’, noting that:

The individuality of the Third World varieties, such as the Indianness of its Indian variety, is contributing
to the linguistic mosaic which the speakers of the English language have created in the English speaking
world. The attitude toward these varieties ought to be one of appreciation and understanding. (Kachru
1976: 236)

What was explicit in this paradigm shift was not only the call for the recognition of Third
World varieties, and the subsequent impact this could potentially have on the teaching of
English, but more importantly that these ‘new Englishes’ would not be viewed as inferior,
as flawed speech or ‘interlanguage’, but would instead have the same status as other
Englishes. Kachru clarified how such Outer Circle varieties of English might be seen,
alongside Inner Circle Varieties, as having endonormative properties, in The alchemy of
English (1986) when he explained that:

∗ University of Gävle, Kungsbäcksvägen 47, Gävle, 802 67, Sweden. E-mail: mmo@hig.se


C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
314 Marko Modiano

So far TESL operations in the Third World have been seen only from the point of view of the native
speakers of English, mainly in a pedagogical framework. [ . . . ] One might, therefore, question the validity
of a didactic approach, and suggest a dynamic approach for the teaching of English around the world. A
dynamic approach entails – to some extent – rejection of a native monomodel concept and acceptance of
a polymodel concept. (Kachru 1986: 115, emphasis in the original)

This dynamic polymodel also has relevance for how we conceptualize English as it is
used as a second language in continental Europe, for this is exactly what English has
now become, a second language used freely among the citizens of the EU, within the EU,
in settings where interlocutors do not share a common L1. In many senses, English is a
continental European language, one spoken as an L2 by 38 per cent of the population,
and utilized on a daily basis for a plethora of reasons (Eurobarometer 2012: 19). Given
the dramatic spread of English throughout the European Union in recent decades, it is
probably no longer appropriate to describe English in the EU in terms of an Expanding
Circle variety/or varieties, but rather something different – as a ‘second language’ or in
terms of continental Europe as a developing Outer Circle context. After all, English within
the EU now has extensive governmental, educational, informational, and work-related
functionality, as well as increasing utility in the creation of intellectual properties. When
Britain leaves the EU, the sociolinguistic space for a European variety (or varieties) of
English will become even more unambiguous, given the absence of Britain as an arbiter
of correctness and standardization.
New Englishes in postcolonial settings where English is an official medium of commu-
nication within the state apparatus operate as important languages in education, and are
widely used by the general public for work-related activities as well as for social interaction.
They have, moreover, been recognized by linguists as distinct varieties for quite some time.
Kachru speaks of how Indian English came into being because ‘the pragmatic parameters
of India have molded it to Indian needs and aspirations’, noting that Indianization was ‘a
process which is normal for a human language which is used for day to day interaction’
(Kachru 1976: 227). Braj Kachru set out to challenge the orthodoxies of the 1960s and
1970s that valorized the standardized Englishes of the UK and the US, and stigmatized
those of many postcolonial societies worldwide. It is no exaggeration to state that Kachru’s
foundational work in world Englishes changed the direction of English studies throughout
the world, and greatly assisted the recognition of many localized varieties of English in
the Caribbean, West and East Africa, and throughout such post-colonial nations of Asia as
India, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and Hong Kong. As a result of this paradigm shift
in academic English Studies, what has taken place is greater acceptance of Outer Circle
varieties throughout the world. Thus, from the perspective presented here, Kachruvian
sociolinguistics is defined as the theoretical and methodical framework for the recogni-
tion of second-language (Outer Circle) varieties of English which have the potential to be
relevant in a number of important official and sociocultural domains, as well as in applied
linguistics.
While Kachru’s paradigm was most obviously applicable to Africa and Asia, the emer-
gence of English as Europe’s undisputed lingua franca has also raised the issue of the
extent to which the Kachruvian paradigm is now applicable to continental Europe as well.
Thus, in this paper I will argue that – in a post-Brexit world – the conditions will be set
for the emergence of a recognizable variety of Euro-English within the European Union.
This line of argumentation is based on consideration of the following factors: (i) the

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 English in a post-Brexit European Union 315

politics of language within the EU; (ii) the genesis of ‘second-language varieties’ of En-
glish within the European context; (iii) the status of English in European education; and
(iv) the development of Euro-English.

BREXIT AND THE POLITICS OF ENGLISH IN THE EU

Of concern here are the consequences of the British withdrawal from the EU for language
policy in general, and for applied linguistics issues in particular, and how this new order
of affairs will impact not only on the role English will play in the EU apparatus and
in formal education, but also on the forms and functions of the language among the
population at large. When the British leave the Union, will English continue to be an
institutionally pragmatic medium which, together with German and French, constitute the
working languages of the Union? If English maintains its position as both an official
language and a working language after the withdrawal of the British, what forms and
functions will English take in the absence of all those L1 users of British English who have
left the field? Presuming that nearly all of the British subjects working in the interpretation
and translation services lose their jobs, which is the only rational deduction one can make,
how will English be conceptualized by the people who replace them? Finally, we have
the development of the language as the major European lingua franca. How will English
evolve in continental Europe now that the British are no longer involved in determining
or supporting educational standards which regulate foreign-language learning? How is
English to develop now that it can do so without direct political and institutional influence
from a member state which previously, with circa 60 million L1 users of English, had
a major stake in supporting their own idealized rendition of the language in the face of
considerable competition (Eurobarometer 2012: 11).
As a starting point for this discussion, it is interesting to note that we must now take
seriously the question of whether or not English will continue to be a working language of
the EU once the UK has finalized the Article 50 processes. According to the Lisbon Treaty,
any member state which petitions to secede from the Union must initiate the process by
activating Article 50. This substantiates when the negotiation period begins, which must
then be completed within 24 months. Although Britain has only just started the process,
reports from across Europe indicate that some member states are already positioning
themselves to take advantage of the withdrawal of the UK. In France and elsewhere, for
example, some want to believe that, with the British gone, English will no longer be an
official EU language.

The French aversion to English

Within days of the referendum on 23 June 2016, voices emanating from French quarters
made it clear that their understanding was that one could argue that without Britain,
English would cease to be a language of the EU, seeing as there would no longer be a
member state with English as an official language. Ireland has Irish and Malta has chosen
Maltese. As such, no one could use English in the Union by claiming that they have the
right to do so because English is the official EU language of one of the member states.
A reasonable conclusion to draw here, furthermore, is that there would no longer be a
foundation for demanding that translations into English, and from English into the other
23 official languages, be provided for those working in the Union (and consequently made

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
316 Marko Modiano

accessible to EU citizens). Moreover, claims are being made that because English will not
be an official language of any member state, the language must lose its status as one of the
three working languages of the Union.
Robert Menard, a member of the extreme-right National Front in France proclaimed,
just hours after the referendum, that ‘[t]he English language no longer has any legitimacy
in Brussels’ (Mailonline 2016). Shortly after, from the left, the socialist politician Jean-
Luc Melenchon proclaimed that ‘English can no longer be the third working language
in the European Parliament’ (The Daily Telegraph 2016). Even at the highest levels of
EU government, proclamations that only French and German would be used at some
meetings were heard. Danuta Hübner, who represents Poland and is the Chairperson of the
Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and presumably a key mediator for the upcoming
Brexit negotiations, seemed adamant in her insistence that unless English is an official
language of a member state, it will not have a place in the EU (The Daily Telegraph
2016). On the other hand, what could be heard from German quarters was more in line
with sentiments across Europe where English has become the most important L2. Günther
Oettinger, the German commissioner, was quoted as saying that ‘[w]e have a series of
member states that speak English, and English is the world language which we all accept’
(Daily Express 2016). It is interesting to note, moreover, that the Republic of Ireland, on
27 June, just days after the election, issued an official statement on the EU homepage
challenging any attempt to call into question the status of English in the EU:

We note the media reports stating that in the event of a UK withdrawal from the EU, English would
cease to be an official language of the EU. [ . . . ] This is incorrect. The Council of Ministers, acting
unanimously, decide on the rules governing the use of languages by the European institutions. In other
words, any change to the EU Institutions’ language regime is subject to a unanimous vote of the Council,
including Ireland. (European Commission 2016)

That the Irish felt compelled to so forcefully denounce the claims made by those eager to
promote French is indicative of how serious language politics are in the EU, and perhaps
indicate, as well, that the last word has not as yet been said in the matter.
The anti-English sentiments are counterproductive for a number of reasons. First of
all, they are antagonistic, not only because they are indicative of the desire to secure a
more important role for one language at the expense of other European languages, but
also because they illustrate the kind of attitude which provokes support for the British
departure from the Union in the first place. Some people in France and elsewhere ap-
parently think that it is a natural outcome of the Brexit that French will now become the
most important EU language. Unfortunately for those who harbor such sentiments, many
representatives of member states across Europe feel that removing English from the EU
agenda will undermine their ability to communicate. They have made considerable invest-
ments in English, and are not prepared to participate in EU affairs in other languages.
For these and other reasons, they will not welcome a closed-door policy on Europe’s
most utilitarian lingua franca. They want to speak English, as has been their custom for
decades.
There are several measures which could be taken which would nullify this attempt to
bolster the importance of French within the EU. One is that some member states may insist
that they have the right to have more than one official language. This would be a sensible
request of the Irish as well as the Maltese. It is also possible that they may request that they

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 English in a post-Brexit European Union 317

have English as their official language when presented with the prospects that it would be
unacceptable for them to speak their majority L1 in the EU (seeing as their communication
would not be translated into the other languages of the Union). Regardless of how the
Irish and the Maltese react to this sabre rattling on the part of the French, there are others
in Europe who would insist on retaining English in its present role as both an official
language as well as the primary working language, such as the Scandinavians, and many
Eastern Europeans, who prefer to use English over French. It is likely, as well, that support
for English, over French, is considerable in both the Netherlands and among speakers
of German in Austria and Germany. In fact, it is doubtful that French and German (and
perhaps now Italian), as the working languages, would be an acceptable order of affairs
for the majority of member states.
When the dust settles, there is every reason to believe that English, because of its utility,
will have the same role within the EU as it maintains today, with the exception that there
will be a noticeable lack of L1 users of English present to influence the direction English is
to take in the days and years ahead. What is most likely to take place is not that English will
become moribund within the inner workings of the EU, but instead that its position will be
strengthened, seeing as, with the British gone, continental Europe suddenly has a common
language where practically all involved are users of an L2. English is presenting itself
as a unique bedfellow. When using English, EU citizens will all be on the same footing,
that is to say, they will be communicating in an L2, and as such, only a relatively small
number of people will have an unfair advantage. Obviously, there are, and will continue to
be, differences between speech communities when it comes to the status and functions of
English locally, but no other language can currently compete with English when it comes
to its usefulness as a tool in communication within the larger framework of intra-European
affairs, and this also holds true for the rest of the world. Despite Robert Phillipson’s critique
of the spread of English, which he likens to a lingua frankensteinia, many sources indicate
that the growth of English as a common continental European language will continue
unabated (Phillipson 2008).

The British influence

Previously, the UK was the only member state in the Union that was able to effectively
claim the right to have a say in the fate of English for the EU. When taking on the role
of language guardian, and to some respect being given that role by continental European
language specialists, the British met little resistance because of their considerable numbers,
their heritage as the founders of the language, as well as the very fact that they are L1 users
of English. In this capacity, they have been successful in establishing the understanding
that their version of the language, standardized British English with RP pronunciation,
is the more esteemed form of the English language across the globe, and have in the
past succeeded in promoting this ideology to ELT practitioners as well as to educational
authorities. While this influence has been on the wane for quite some time, the British have
nevertheless been able to maintain considerable influence within the EU to perceive British
English as the standard-bearer for the inner workings of the Union. They have, moreover,
had an impact on how English should be taught and learned in school. With the British
gone, no one will be there to carry on the work of defending the structural integrity of
British English in the face of competition from not only American English, but also from
L2 users who increasingly utilize features indicative of discoursal nativization which are

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
318 Marko Modiano

in the processes of becoming systematic across continental Europe (a development which

constitutes an important stage in the variety building processes).
Some may want to argue that the citizens of the Republic of Ireland will take up this
role of overseer. Others may point to pockets of L1 users of English across Europe, to
Cyprus and Malta, and suggest that individuals can be found in these places who will want
to carry on with the work of the British in their crusade to defend the integrity of British
English. For a number of reasons, however, this is an unlikely scenario. The Irish have
established their own indigenous language, Irish (Gaelic), as their official language. Many
in the Republic of Ireland perceive the UK as an imperial power that once denied the Irish
their self-determination, and that still holds on to Northern Ireland. It is unlikely that the
Irish would emerge in the EU, after the British have gone, as lobbyists for British English.
Even if this was on their agenda, the confusion caused by their support of both the Irish
and English languages, and their numbers (comprising less than one percent of the total
current EU population), make any such move on their part both marginal and likely to fail.
If the Irish were to argue for a continuation of the status quo for English in the EU after
British withdrawal, any implied support for the British English variety would no doubt be
toned down. It is unlikely, as well, that the Maltese or others would take up the mantle and
emerge in the EU as the bulwark of British English in the aftermath of the British retreat.
There is also the possibility that Scotland will secede from the UK, and, as an in-
dependent nation, negotiate for member-state status. Their choice of official language
would in all likelihood be English if any alternative to such a decision would mean that
English could not maintain its position as an official language of the EU. Here, like the
Irish, there is no reason why the Scottish would, within the EU, want to promote British
English. They too have an indigenous Celtic language which they want to support by
implementing language-maintenance and revival schemes. As such, it is unreasonable at
this conjecture to expect the Irish or the Scottish to devote resources to further the interests
of those L1 users of British English who speak English-English. Indeed, it is indisputably
the case that, with the withdrawal of the British, the English language will no longer have
any significant fraternity of L1 users to impact on the role which English maintains in
the EU. At best, including Scotland, there may be approximately ten million L1 users of
English in the EU in the aftermath of a British retreat. The EU will have, at that conjec-
ture, at least seven languages which have considerably more L1 users (German, French,
Italian, Spanish, Polish, Romanian, and Dutch). Moreover, there are an additional five lan-
guages with approximately ten million users, putting English (including Scotland) rather
far back in the field (Eurobarometer 2012). Without Scotland, English, with roughly five
million native speakers, would represent approximately one percent of the post-Brexit EU
population.1

English in continental Europe

Within the internal workings of the EU there has been a movement for greater use of
English over the past 20 years or so, and one question which begs to be answered is
whether this will continue after the British have gone. There are four major languages
in Europe: German, which has the largest number of L1 speakers (circa 90 million),
and English, French, and Italian (all with 60 million or more L1 speakers). The Italians,
seemingly uninterested in such matters, have never rallied behind their language as an
important working language of the Union (something which may now change). In the past,

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 English in a post-Brexit European Union 319

English, German, and French have all been working languages for the EU, but even here,
because of a decline in French in general and a reluctance on the part of the Germans to
press such issues, as well as a noted increase in the desire of continental Europeans to
speak English, those employed by the EU have to an increasing extent found English to be
their natural choice of working language, and it is now the case that the vast majority of
meetings which include people from throughout Europe are conducted in English. Most
of the agencies of the EU, scattered as they are across the member states, have English
as their daily medium of communication, and the majority of written documentation is
produced in English.
It is probable that UK membership in the Union does not have any bearing on the decision
among continental Europeans to use English. Instead, this alacrity to speak, read, and write
English is an integral component of globalization. People in Europe have found, through
English, an opportunity to communicate with others from throughout the world, and it is
this sense of belonging to a global community which is the major reason why Europeans
have, like the Chinese and others in Asia, chosen English as their preferred L2. Moreover,
we are witnessing an increasing desire to acquire English among the youth of continental
Europe, where participation in on-line activities, access to various forms of media, as well
as the requirements of education, especially higher education, have made knowledge of
English a must. Because young people seem, as they grow older, to be more and more keen
to know English for a multitude of reasons, the youth of Europe are acquiring proficiency
in English at an unprecedented rate, something which in itself indicates that, in the near
future, the percentage of adults that are capable of communicating in English as an L2
will increase from the present 38 per cent. For German the figures are 11 per cent and
French 12 per cent, and at present there is no noticeable increase in the acquisition of these
languages as L2s through school education (Eurobarometer 2012: 19–22). Thus, there is
no reason to assume that the growing popularity of English within the EU will decline in
the post-Brexit era.

A second-language variety of English in the EU

Let us assume that Europeans working within the EU apparatus will continue to use spoken
English, not only at meetings but also in their daily communication, and written English
in correspondence and in the creation of documentation. In so doing, they will not have
colleagues whose L1 intuitions can easily be accessed when assistance is needed. Instead,
they will be forced to become more reliant on their own proficiency, or, when possible,
on support from colleagues whose L2 use of English is considered to be a reliable source
of correctness. They will, moreover, in all likelihood become more dependent on the
translation services. But perhaps more importantly, they will no longer find their use of
English under scrutiny from ‘native-speaker’ colleagues who seem eager to uphold their
own standard. Under such conditions, it is highly probable that English will evolve in
much the same manner as other second-language varieties, with greater influence from
the community of mother tongues of the peoples of the EU, and over time, with the
enlargement and reinforcement of the lexical register that is unique for their English.
Idiomatic expressions will follow in tow. Other characteristics of linguistic nativization,
which will affect pronunciation and grammar, will also become more evident. These
processes are already underway, but what is likely to come in the near future, when the
British leave the EU, is that these developments will accelerate.

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
320 Marko Modiano

What is suggested here is simply that the very processes that make possible the emer-
gence of a second-language variety will be more pronounced and move forward at a quicker
pace without the presence of L1 users who feel compelled to defend what they believe is a
more ‘correct’ rendition of the language. Moreover, when dealing with specific structural
issues, for example, such as which spelling convention to use, Europeans may well debate
the pros and cons of the two major systems without being influenced by ‘native speakers’
of either variety, and here, it is conceivable that the American English spelling system may
be deemed more utilitarian. That some 70 per cent of ‘native speakers’ use this spelling
convention, which dominates the Internet, further strengthens the argument to implement
it for Europe as well. Moreover, the very act of envisaging a European spelling convention
in-itself would no doubt inspire continental Europeans to debate the prospects of establish-
ing their own conventions, not only for spelling but also for punctuation. It is possible, as
well, that the Europeans, like the Americans in the early 1800s, and later, the Australians
in the 1980s and 1990s, will decide to make their own dictionary. Such notions would in
all likelihood be inconceivable with British participation in European unification.

English in European education

When discussing the role which British English maintains as an educational standard in
schools, here the withdrawal by the UK from the Union is a less dramatic development. If
we look at secondary education, it is apparent that schools across Europe will continue to
conceptualize English in much the same manner as they do at present, struggling as they
are with the fact that nearly all of the pupils are mixing elements of American and British
English, and speaking the language with lesser or greater transference from their L1. We
see clearly a decline in the use of the British standard, and an upswing in an acceptance
of the use of features associated with American English. The idea of keeping the two
varieties separate has almost completely died out, and instead we see greater approval of a
more general competence where the emphasis is now on the use of the language as a tool
in communication. It is interesting to note, moreover, how deeply committed continental
Europeans are to the English language. In this official EU news release from 2013, we see
the extent to which member states are supporting English:

Ninety four percent of upper secondary students learn English as a foreign language, [ . . . ] French,
German and Spanish come next in the ranking but are way behind. French is studied by 19% of pupils in
primary and lower secondary education, and by 23% in upper secondary. It is followed by German (9%
and 21%) and Spanish (6% and 18%). The dominance of English begins at an early age, with 83% of
pupils adopting Shakespeare’s language in primary or lower secondary education, up from 73% a year
ago, according to Eurostat. English teaching in secondary education is now almost universal, reaching
close to 100% in almost every country. Portugal (47%), Malta (66.5%), Hungary (78.5%) and Bulgaria
(88%) are the only notable exceptions. (Euractiv 2013)

Unless something unexpected occurs, it is likely that English will continue to make head-
way, at the expense of other languages, in the EU. Apparently, the EU educational estab-
lishment is preparing continental Europeans to operate in an English dominated global
village.
There is no reason to assume that any of this will change in the short run. Nevertheless,
it is possible that there will be decisions taken by the EU Parliament or on behalf of the

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 English in a post-Brexit European Union 321

Commission which will have a bearing on the manner in which English is conceptual-
ized for school education. That is to say, if decrees were issued which supported the call
for a European variety of English to be given legitimacy for the EU institutionally, we
would no doubt see this as having an impact on ELT. In so doing, the notion of a vari-
ety of English for continental Europe, a European English, or Euro-English, would gain
institutional support, something which is now possible seeing as such a decision unduly
benefits no particular culture or speech community within the EU, with the exception of
the Irish and the Maltese. Such a position would also have the potential to settle once and
for all the tensions that exist, within the Union, between those who support the American
variety, and those who want to continue to adhere to the British standard. This debate,
so to speak, becomes immediately extraneous if Europe chooses to uphold a European
standard for lexical use, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Codifying the pronuncia-
tion of Euro-English, and at the same time recognizing regional variation, could then
follow.
Within tertiary education, English maintains a predominant position, especially in ed-
ucational programs designed to promote the free movement of students within Europe.
The Erasmus and Erasmus Plus initiatives have had a major role to play in the promo-
tion of English across Europe, and it will be interesting to see how Britain will come
to terms with these programs in their negotiations with the Union. Without participa-
tion in EU-sanctioned student and teacher exchange, it is likely that British influence on
language policies for continental European higher education will decline in the years to
come. This will be further exacerbated by the fact that there may be a movement of British
subjects from continental Europe and back to the UK because of difficulties with visas
and work/residence permits, which may be required of the British living and working in
continental Europe. If such difficulties arise, the British will be less inclined to work in
the EU, which would have an impact on the vitality of British English as an educational
norm in language-learning.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EURO-ENGLISH

A great deal of research has been conducted on the vicissitudes of the forms and functions
of English as a language which L2 users learn in formal educational settings across
continental Europe. One major shift has been the decline in a focus on the structure of
the language, manifest in grammar and translation exercises, and an increase in attention
given to communicative competence. This development, away from attempting to acquire
knowledge of a prescriptive grammar of an idealized Inner Circle variety so as to achieve
‘near-native proficiency’, and toward the mastery of skill in communicating, has been
taking place for some twenty to thirty years. It is also the case that an increasing number
of ELT practitioners now acknowledge that there are many Englishes, which came about
predominantly because of the world Englishes movement led by Braj Kachru, as well
as the contributions of leading British scholars such as David Crystal, Jennifer Jenkins,
Tom McArthur, and Peter Trudgill. It is now widely acknowledged that British English
need not necessarily be the standard by which all other varieties are compared (and
perhaps found wanting). This is in fact significant because, by distancing the learner
from traditional ELT protocols, the groundwork is laid for an acceptance of new features
which operate as potential identity markers for the speech communities which adopt
them.

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
322 Marko Modiano

What is ‘Euro-English’? While some in the past have wanted to pass this off as being akin
to a kind of contact language, one simplified and limited in function, others have wanted
to define it as Eurospeak, which is English characterized by a pronounced proclivity to
use EU jargon. Neither one of these renditions is accurate. The former is misleading and
condescending, and the latter is perhaps what could be more accurately referred to as a
sociolect of European English. I oppose defining Euro-English as a simplified language
because this unjustifiably marginalizes the growing number of proficient users of English
in the EU. The term Euro-English best suits those continental Europeans whose speech is
not decidedly based on any one Inner Circle variety but is nevertheless characterized by
influences from standardized English as well as their native tongues, and where there is a
propensity to use culture-specific features common to the manner in which English is used
as an L2 in continental Europe, when and where such usage is situationally appropriate.
Along with the regional accents of European English, the most salient feature is lexical
usage.
The lexical culture-specificity of the L2 use of English in continental Europe can be
divided into two main categories: (i), the specific terminology used within the EU apparatus
which has limited spread among the population as a whole (Eurospeak) and (ii) those lexical
items, idioms, and proverbs and expressions which are more or less culture specific for
continental European culture and are in the process of becoming adopted and accepted
by larger numbers of people. Examples of the former are terms such as subsidiarity,
which is the principle that legal decrees should be enacted as close to people as possible,
Berlaymont, meaning bureaucracy, conditionality meaning conditions, eventual used as a
synonym for possible or possibly, and semester used to mean six months. I would not want
to include such lexical usage as potentially characteristic of Euro-English unless such usage
became commonly recognized and used among continental Europeans in general. The four
freedoms, Schengen land, and unity through diversity, are examples of such widespread
acceptance (the four freedoms of the European Single Market or Internal Market are the
effort to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people within the
EU, a ‘Schengen land’ are those member states that do not require passports from EU
citizens and ‘unity through diversity’ is the motto of the Union). It can be noted, moreover,
that the use of eventual as a synonym for possible or possibly is actually showing signs of
being accepted and may, in the near future, be considered a feature of Euro-English.
Beyond lexical use, a number of scholars have reported on a wide range of features
which characterize the manner in which English is used in continental Europe (Jenkins
et al. 2001; Modiano 2003; McClusky 2002; Murray 2003; Mollin 2006). One example
here, in grammar, is the generalization or expansion of the -ing form in utterances such as
I am coming from Spain, which, in other standardized varieties of English would be the
simple present I come from Spain. Phrases such as we were five people at the party, or we
were five people, instead of there were five people at the party or five people were there are
also becoming more commonplace. In my observations, continental Europeans speaking
English as an L2 readily use this construction, we were, instead of there were, and seem
comfortable with its use and meaning. In pronunciation, aside from the regional variation of
accents stemming from the L1, we can now observe individual words becoming accepted
with pronunciation which is not characteristic for ‘standardized English.’ For example,
the word cooperation is now commonly pronounced by many in continental Europe as
/kɔːpəˈreɪʃən/, and the word unique as /ˈjuːnɪk/, and among L2 users of English, this does
not seem to impede communication. With multi-word units, a number of phrases are being

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 English in a post-Brexit European Union 323

utilized across continental Europe which have their origins in other European languages.
For example, phrases such as to hop over ‘to refrain from doing something’, to be blued
eyed ‘to be naı̈ve’, and to salt ‘to overcharge’, are readily found among the usage of
people in the Nordic countries. Throughout continental Europe we see such examples of
positive transference, where phrases, literally translated, occur which have the potential
to be adopted and regarded as characteristic for the speech community. Nevertheless,
in general, continental Europeans seem apparently less keen to use idiomatic phrases,
something which otherwise exemplifies the speech of Inner Circle users of English. It
is possible that continental Europeans are aware of the fact that because such language
use is often to some extent esoteric, idiomatic phrases, when utilized in international
contexts, may not be comprehended by everyone present and for that reason are not good
communication. Here, we see an important distinction between the behavior of users of
Inner Circle Englishes, and the manner in which English is used as an L2. The vast majority
of Inner Circle users of English interact with others with similar linguistic profiles, while
continental Europeans spend the lion’s share of their time utilizing English as a medium
of cross-cultural communication. Thus, the strategies that continental Europeans deploy
when using English will inevitably evolve differently in comparison to the strategies of
Inner Circle users of English. Efforts made to ascertain how non-native users of English
use the language in the communicative act is conceptualized in the literature as the English
as a lingua franca (ELF) initiative.
In the effort to endorse an ELF conceptualization for the L2 English of continental
Europeans, promoted primarily by Jennifer Jenkins (2000, 2006a, 2006b, 2015) and Bar-
bara Seidlhofer (2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011), there has been a great deal
of deliberation which disregards reference to the prescriptive grammars of standardized
English, and instead approaches the characteristics of L2 usage from a performance and
discourse analysis perspective. ELF, which has been presented as an alternative to the
notion of Euro-English, has been criticized in the literature for a number of reasons (Berns
2009; Modiano 2009). As Berns notes, ‘[b]y taking the construct ‘lingua franca’ and adopt-
ing it as the name for a variety of language with unique formal properties, rather than a
use, its theoretical validity is called into question’ (Berns 2009: 198). I am skeptical of the
ELF initiative because, in my understanding, it does not facilitate the development of a the-
oretical framework for the global dissemination of English which takes into consideration
two important contentions: (i) that there must be a comprehensive theoretical foundation
for how English can be used locally, regionally, and internationally by native as well as
non-native users which is unified and inclusive; and (ii) that the work we carry out must
be relevant to applied linguistics (Modiano 2009). That is to say, I feel that it is imperative
that we encourage teacher trainees to promote in their school teaching a spoken language
which is compatible with the written language. The effort to master compositional skills is
rendered a disservice if we see unnecessary divergence between the educational practices
deployed in the teaching of spoken language and the educational framework for teaching
learners how to write. In higher education, scientific publishing, and in the working world,
a prescriptive grammar of written English is widely acknowledged. What we are witness-
ing in the English of mainland Europeans is a spoken usage which does not conflict more
or less dramatically with the challenges of mastering written English when compared to
other speech communities with similar demographic profiles. It is this English, an English
which is compatible with the challenges of mastering both the oral and written language,
and, moreover, which is mutually comprehensible for a great many English-language users

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
324 Marko Modiano

across the Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circles, which is the basis for the recognition of a
European variety of English.
When continental Europeans use culture-specific terms they indicate their reluctance
to fastidiously mimic the lexical choices thought to be those of an idealized L1 user
of a prestigious Inner Circle variety, and instead, in so doing, celebrate the linguistic
characteristics of their own social group. This has been taking place in continental Europe
for some time now. Teachers and learners are becoming less and less adamant in their
efforts to promote the mimicking of native speakers (for a discussion of this phenomena
in Norway, see Rindal & Piercy 2013), but because of the presence of Britain in the EU,
it has not been politically feasible for continental Europeans to advocate that their distinct
use of English can be an acceptable alternative to the standardized Englishes of the Inner
Circle. Thus, how one comes to terms with the emergence of a possible second-language
variety within a speech community will evolve differently if, within that community, there
are a significant number of L1 users of the language in question, and this is especially the
case when these L1 users are apparently keen to defend it in the event that it is challenged.
The reason why this has not been a factor in the emergence of second-language varieties
in developing regions is that, in the majority of such cases, there have been relatively few
native speakers present. Such conditions will soon be the order of the day in the EU.
Many scholars have addressed the idea of a European variety of English in the past,
among them Berns (1994, 1995), Crystal (2001), Graddol (2001), Jenkins et al., (2001),
Modiano (in Jenkins et al. 2001, 2003), Seidlhofer (in Jenkins et al. 2001), Hilgendorf
(2007), Gnutzman (2008), Gnutzman et al., (2014) and Linn et al., (2015), and we have
also witnessed a concerted effort to discredit the call for legitimizing a European variety
by Sandra Mollin (2006). The material on the subject covers a wide range of contentions
which are relevant to the discussion of variety building for Europe. The major problem
that is brought forward has been the challenge of defining Euro-English. This, however,
need not be perceived as a problem. That is to say, it could very well be the case that
those who oppose the notion of Euro-English do so, not because they feel that it will be
difficult to define, but more because they are essentially purists who support standard
language ideologies. In their cosmology, deviation from a prestigious Inner Circle norm
is indicative of interlanguage. On the other hand, for those who have a positive attitude
toward variety building for Europe, the prospects of proclaiming that the continental
European use of English constitutes an emerging variety, where characteristic features are
in the processes of becoming systematic, provide its users with a sense of identity, and
are used as a medium of communication within the community at large, is something
both logical and welcome. In the act of recognizing the validity of Euro-English, one
liberates continental European L2 users of English from the tyranny of standard language
ideology.
Thus, what would be required for the establishment of Euro-English need not be any
different than what has transpired elsewhere. This does not mean that individuals within
the EU will be discouraged from using other varieties of the language. What it does mean
is that in continental Europe, those using English would receive greater acceptance if
and when their use of the language contains features characteristic of the Euro-English
variety. Such positioning can provide proficient continental European users of English
with a platform which frees them from being defined as ‘learners’ whose deviations from
‘standardized English’ are indicative of incorrect usage, something criticized in Kachru’s
work for a number of reasons.

C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 English in a post-Brexit European Union 325

CONCLUSION
The growth in the status of the English language across continental Europe has been taking
place despite the fact that there is no colonial history to explain this phenomenon, nor
is there any history of large-scale immigration of Inner Circle speakers to account for
its success. Instead, the acquisition of English has taken place because of a concerted
effort on the part of continental Europeans, in the post-war period, to pursue proficiency
in the language which has the greatest value as a medium of communication. In this
era of globalization, English has evolved into second-language varieties wherever it has
established itself as an essential lingua franca within a multilingual community, and this
is exactly what continental Europe has become, one unified multilingual community
dependent on English as the medium with the most utility when and where people do not
share greater proficiency in other languages.
Thus, if we now move forward and continue to witness a consolidation of English as
the foremost L2 across the EU, it is rational to argue that, with the British absent, the
requirements necessary for the emergence of a continental European L2 variety of English
may be fulfilled. Under these new conditions, all that will remain at that conjecture is for
the leaders of the EU to proclaim that because English has become established as Europe’s
premier universal language, the time has now come to define the language as a continental
European enterprise, with its own unique characteristics. Recognition, legitimization and
codification can then take place in much the same manner as with any second-language or
Outer Circle variety. This would offer ELT practitioners relief from the current uncertainty
many experience when attempting to determine which forms of the language are most
appropriate for educational purposes. Moreover, by claiming ownership of the language
continental Europeans would have greater freedom to use features which are characteristic
of their own experience without having to defend their ingenuity against criticism from
over-zealous language guardians or purist educators. It would allow continental Europeans
an opportunity to claim English and in so doing form it to best suit their own needs.
This vision of Euro-English, in my understanding, captures the very essence of liberation
linguistics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Dr Thomas Lavelle, of the Stockholm School of Economics for his critical comments on an
early draft of this paper, as well as the reviewers for this journal.

NOTE
1. After Brexit, the number of native speakers of English within the EU will be more than the population of the Republic
of Ireland, which at present is circa 4.6 million. There are, additionally, some millions of native speakers of English
living in continental Europe, but their numbers do not have any significant impact on the discussion.

REFERENCES
Berns, Margie. 1994. English in Europe: whose language, which culture? International Journal of Applied Linguistics
5(1). 21–32.
Berns, Margie. 1995. English in the European Union. English Today 11(3). 3–11.
Berns, Margie. 2009. English as lingua franca and English in Europe. World Englishes 28(2). 192–199.
Crystal, David. 2001. The future of Englishes. In Anne Burns & Caroline Coffin (eds.), Analyzing English in a global
context, 53–64. London: Routledge.


C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
326 Marko Modiano

Euractiv. 2013. https://www.euractiv.com/section/languages-culture/news/eurostat-english-reinforces-its-status-as-

europe-s-lingua-franca/. 27 September, 2013.
European Commission. 2016. https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/statement-on-behalf-of-the-European-Commission-
Representation_en (27 June 2016.)
Eurobarometer 2012. Europeans and their languages. Report: Special Eurobarometer 386. Brussels: The European
Commission.
Daily Express. 2016. English should be BANNED in Brussels after Britain leaves, top French politician insists.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/683980/english-banned-brussels-britain-leaves-jean-luc-melenchon-brexit. (28
June, 2016.)
Gnutzmann, Claus. 2008. Can Euro English or English as a European lingua franca contribute to establishing a European
identity? In Guido Rings & Anne Ife (eds.), Neo-colonial mentalities in contemporary Europe? Language and discourse
in the construction of identities, 19–34. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Gnutzmann, Claus, Jenny Jakisch, Joana Koenders & Frank Rabe. 2014. English as a European lingua franca. Students’
identity conceptions, experiences and attitudes. In Dagmar Abendroth-Timmer & Eva-Maria (eds.), Pluralingualism
and multiliteracies: International research on identity construction in language education, 107–126. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Graddol, David. 2001. The future of English as a European language. The European English Messenger X(2). 47–55.
Hilgendorf, Suzanne. 2007. Symposium on the Englishes of Europe in the new millennium: Introduction. World Englishes
26(2). 107–110.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Marko Modiano and Barbara Seidlhofer. 2001. EuroEnglish. English Today 17(4). 13–19.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006a. Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL
Quarterly 40(1). 157–181.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2006b. Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics
16(2). 137–162.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice
2(3). 49–85.
Kachru, Braj. 1976. Models of English for the third world: White man’s linguistic burden or language pragmatics. TESOL
Quarterly 1(2). 221–239.
Kachru, Braj. 1991. World Englishes and applied linguistics. In Makhan L. Tickoo, (ed.), Languages & standards: Issues,
attitudes, case studies, 178–205. Singapore: Anthology Series 26, Seameo Regional Language Centre.
Kachru, Braj. 1991. Liberation linguistics and the Quick concern. English Today 7(1). 3–13.
Kachru, Braj. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In
R. Quirk & H.G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the languages and literatures, 11–30.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kachru, Braj. 1992. Teaching world Englishes. In B. Kachru (ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures, 355–365,
2nd edn. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kachru, Braj. 1990. The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Linn, Andrew, Neil Bermel & Gibson Ferguson (eds.). 2015. Attitudes towards English in Europe. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Mailonline 2016. Au revoir, English? Now French say the language has ‘no legitimacy’ and should be kicked out
of Europe too after Brexit. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3661838/Au-revoir-English-French-say-language-
no-legitimacy-kicked-Europe-Brexit.html (27 June, 2016.)
McClusky, Brian. 2002. ‘Do not use the lift in case of fire’. English as a lingua franca for Europe. The European English
Messenger 11(2). 40–45.
Modiano, Marko. 2003. Euro-English: A Swedish perspective. English Today 74(19). 35–41.
Modiano, Marko. 2009. Inclusive/Exclusive? English as a Lingua Franca in the European Union. World Englishes, 28(2).
208–223.
Mollin, Sandra. 2006. Euro-English. Assessing variety status. Tübingen: Narr.
Murray, Heather. 2003. Swiss English teachers and Euro-English: Attitudes to a non-native variety. Bulletin Suisse de
Linguistique Applicée 77. 147–165.
Phillipson, Robert. 2008. Lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? English in European integration and globalization.
World Englishes 27(2). 250–267.
Rindal, Ulrikke & Caroline Piercy. 2013. Being ‘neutral’? English pronunciation among Norwegian learners. World
Englishes 32(2). 211–229.
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. 2002. The shape of things to come? Some basic questions about English as a lingua franca. In
Karlfried Knapp & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua franca communication, 269–302. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang.


C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 English in a post-Brexit European Union 327

Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59(4). 339–341.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2006. English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn’t. In Rani Rubdy & Mario
Saraceni (eds.), English in the world: Global roles, global rules, 40–50. London: Continuum.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2007. English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Sabine Volk-Birke & Julia Lippert
(eds.), Anglistentag 2006 halle proceedings, 307–318. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2009. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World
Englishes 28(2). 236–245.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Daily Telegraph. 2016. English language could be dropped from European Union after Brexit. http://www.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/english-language-could-be-dropped-from-european-union-after-brex/ (28 June,
2016.)
(Received 1 June 2017)


C 2017 The Authors. World Englishes Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

View publication stats