World Englishes, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 192–199, 2009.

0883-2919

English as lingua franca and English in Europe

MARGIE BERNS∗

ABSTRACT: One of the objectives of English as Lingua Franca (ELF) researchers is an account of the
unique features of English that they have found in the speech of European users of English. These features,
it is argued, describe a variety of English which they label “English as Lingua Franca”. The choice of this
particular term is problematic because, as a construct, “lingua franca” generally refers to an overarching
function of language, not to any specific set of idiosyncratic forms themselves. However, ELF researchers
do not make this distinction. This has resulted in considerable attention being given to a confusing use of
linguistic terminology and to the assumptions and theoretical underpinnings guiding ELF research. This
paper extends this discussion to an examination of the relationship of ELF studies to English in Europe and
the adequacy of “lingua franca” to represent the sociolinguistic realities of world Englishes. It first looks
at work written by prominent ELF researchers to determine what they mean by “lingua franca”, outlines
the distinction between form and function with illustrations of the role and status of English in Europe, and
discusses how the architect’s principle that “form follows function” is relevant to an understanding of the
notion “lingua franca”.

INTRODUCTION
The focus of English as Lingua Franca studies associated with what has also been called
the “lingua franca movement” (Elder and Davies 2006; Holliday 2008) is the identification
of the formal features of English characteristic in the speech of non-native speakers when
using this language for communication in international contexts (i.e. as a lingua franca).
The research undertaken to identify these features of pronunciation, sentence structure,
and lexis is based upon the assumption that “lingua franca” is the appropriate label not
only for a sociolinguistic function of a language – i.e. its use as a tool for interpersonal
communication among speakers with no single language in common – but also for the
system of the forms that are peculiar to a specific variety of a language. Thus, for some
(e.g. House 1999; Jenkins 2000 and after; Seidlhofer 2000; 2001; 2002a; 2002b; 2005;
2006; 2007), the variety of English used in international communication is called English as
Lingua Franca (ELF) or Lingua Franca English (LFE) (Canagarajah 2007; Mauranen 2003;
Meierkord 2004; Seidlhofer 2001). For a time “EIL” (English as an International Language)
was used interchangeably with “ELF” (Jenkins 2000), but ultimately, according to Jenkins,
it was rejected because, in addition to being a source of confusion and misleading, “EIL”
includes native speakers. In fact, “in its purest form, ELF is defined as a contact language
used only among non-mother tongue speakers” (2006a: 160). As a label ELF is intended
to bestow recognition upon the English at the international level as used by non-native
speakers as a legitimate variety alongside other more established world Englishes. As such,
ELF/LFE is regarded as comparable in status to such institutionalized varieties as Nigerian

∗ Department of English, Purdue University, 500 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. E-mail: berns@
purdue.edu


C 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation 
C 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA.
 English as lingua franca and English in Europe 193

English or Indian English, and its users are to be accorded the same rights as established
varieties in determining norms and standards for its use.
Efforts to gain recognition for the rights of all users of English to adapt the language to
meet their communicative needs are both valid and valuable, and certainly are consonant
with the principles of world Englishes as represented by the Kachruvian paradigm (Brown
and Peterson 1997) that ELF researchers claim to ally with; however, the success of such an
undertaking is, in my view, compromised by the Lingua Franca Movement’s denotation of
both linguistic form and communicative function as constituting English as Lingua Franca.
In the following, this problematic interpretation of “lingua franca” is considered vis-à-vis
ELF research inspired by Jenkins’ and Seidlhofer’s challenge to the established authority
of English and how it has been traditionally perceived.

LINGUA FRANCA
Among most sociolinguists, “lingua franca” does not refer to “a formal, linguistic
phenomenon”, but to “contexts of use definable by extra linguistic factors” (Ulrich Ammon,
personal communication). Historically, such contexts have been colonial trading centers
in which the use of the dominant language facilitated communication among speakers of
diverse language backgrounds. Ultimately, simplified forms of languages – both intelligible
and functional – developed. These “mixed languages” (or pidgins) comprised elements
from several languages and were attitudinally viewed as non-standard forms. As the users of
pidgins moved beyond the setting of harbors and ports, the pidgins’ formal and functional
linguistic systems became more complex in response to the communicative needs of
diverse users and expanding uses. The resulting systems were called creoles. The first
systematic study of pidginization was done by Hugo Schuchardt (1894), a 19th- and 20th-
century German linguist who proposed that the source of the phenomenon was unique
linguistic restructuring processes; these would differ from those responsible for what
today are referred to as indigenized languages, such as those generally associated with
the Outer Circle of world Englishes. More recently, another theory has been advanced by
Mufwene (2006), who proposes that pidgin Englishes and indigenized Englishes are not
the result of separate processes. Instead, and especially relevant for ELF researchers, it is
the lack of prestige accorded to these Englishes which has more to do with the attitudes of
Standard English users than with the inherent linguistic qualities of “non-standard” pidgin
Englishes.
Mufwene’s proposal is consonant with the changing nature of international communi-
cation in the age of globalization and the reach of 21st-century technologies and access to
them. Modern-day uses of a language through various media and social and professional
networks at the local, national, regional, and international levels require new approaches
toward understanding them and, as importantly, adequate terminology in describing them.
As Kachru (1996: 906–7) has noted:

The global uses of English . . . do not accord with the original connotations of lingua franca [a contact
language or language of commerce or as stabilized without much individual variation or compared with
Swahili in East Africa]: The current profile of English demands a redefinition of the term, its uses, and
its implications. This is essential, since English continues to be referred to as a lingua franca of a country
(e.g., India, Nigeria), or as an international lingua franca.


C 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation 
C 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
194 Margie Berns

FORM AND FUNCTION

As part of an examination of the adequacy of “lingua franca” as used by ELF researchers
to describe English in international encounters among non-native speakers, it is helpful
to go directly to ELF sources for examples of what they mean by “lingua franca”. The
following excerpts are taken from the website of VOICE (the Vienna–Oxford Interna-
tional Corpus of English), a computer corpus project compiling instances of English as
a lingua franca which is directed by Barbara Seidlhofer, a leading figure in ELF studies
(www.univie.ac.at/voice/index.php, most recently accessed August 3, 2008). Excerpts A
and B, below, refer to English as a lingua franca in functional terms.

A. The most wide-spread contemporary use of English throughout the world is that of English as a
lingua franca (ELF), i.e. English used as a common means of communication between speakers from
different first-language backgrounds. A Hungarian educationalist coming to Copenhagen to discuss
qualification equivalences in European higher education with her Danish, Finnish and Portuguese
colleagues; a Korean sales representative negotiating a contract with his German client in Luxem-
bourg; a Spanish Erasmus student chatting with local colleagues in a student hall in Vienna: they all
communicate in English as a lingua franca.
B. ELF is currently the most common use of English world-wide. Millions of speakers from diverse
cultural and linguistic backgrounds use ELF on a daily basis, routinely and successfully, in their
professional, academic and personal lives.

Here English as a Lingua Franca is clearly identified in terms of “use” and “means of
communication”. This clarity is clouded, however, by the statement of what ELF constitutes
(as in excerpt C below) and the understanding of function (in excerpt D below).

C. English as a lingua franca (ELF) constitutes an additionally acquired language system which serves
as a common means of communication for speakers of different first languages.
D. It is the ultimate aim of the VOICE project to open the way for a large-scale and in-depth linguistic
description of this most common contemporary use of English by providing a corpus of spoken ELF
interactions which will be accessible to linguistic researchers all over the world. (emphasis original)

In excerpt C, “English as a lingua franca” refers to the system that is a lingua franca (“a
common means of communication for speakers of different first languages”). In excerpt D,
a way is being opened up for a description of a role, or function (“most common contempo-
rary use of English”). Such formulations distinguish the ELF movement’s understanding
of function from that of the world Englishes paradigm. In the latter approach, both function
and form are considered and are recognized as interdependent, but not as interchangeable
constructs; nor are they one and the same construct, which does appears to be the case in
ELF studies.

ENGLISH IN EUROPE
Europe is an example par excellence of the Expanding Circle. Its history of contact
with English, its uses of English, its goals for learners of English, and the range of users
across social groups is unique and thus distinguishes it from exponents of either the Inner
or Outer Circle. The recognition of such difference is a central tenet of the world Englishes

C 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation 
C 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 English as lingua franca and English in Europe 195

paradigm. Thus, Expanding Circle Englishes are world Englishes – and are so in the same
way that American English or Singapore English are world Englishes. Curiously, Jenkins,
who repeatedly identifies Europe with the Expanding Circle (2000; 2004; 2006a; 2006b)
has operationally defined the term “world Englishes” as referring “to the indigenized
varieties of English in their local contexts of use” (2006a: 157). She apparently bases
this claim on a position taken by Seidlhofer (2002a), whom Jenkins (2006a) cites when
she writes: “Kachru ignores the fact that the three circle model ‘is not designed to deal
with the characteristic functioning of the language in the Expanding Circle, as a lingua
franca (p. 202)’ (pp. 161–162)”. Again, lingua franca is referred to as a function of
language, while at the same time it is identified as the “characteristic functioning” of
English in the Expanding Circle. From a world Englishes perspective, such a narrow
interpretation of function ignores the range of uses served by English in Expanding Circle
contexts.
As a growing body of research demonstrates, the use of English continues to increase
in Expanding Circle contexts. Numerous sociolinguistic profiles of English, drawn up fol-
lowing a framework introduced by Kachru (1983) and adapted by Berns (1990), document
the extent to which English serves four broad functions for its users: the innovative, inter-
personal, instrumental, and institutional (or administrative) (see e.g. Berns and Friedrich
2003; Berns, Claes, de Bot, Evers, Hasebrink, Huibregtse, Truchot, and van der Wijst 2007;
Hasanova 2007; Michieka 2005; Proshina 2005). The sociolinguistic profiles of English
in Europe, with their descriptions of the functional range of English in Europe, provide a
view of the sociolinguistic reality of English in this context. Such a view is more nuanced
than one that regards the lingua franca function as the primary one for Europeans.
For 21st-century Europeans, English serves a wider range of purposes well beyond face-
to-face contact – through mass communication and media, including print, audio-visual,
and electronic media – than ever before in its history. Its functional range and societal
depth are the result of expanding opportunities for contact with and use of English among
Europeans within Europe as well as with English speakers outside Europe. These uses
(functions) contribute to the identity of an English that is distinctly European in its formal
manifestations and in its functional allocation (for more discussion see e.g. Berns, de Bot,
and Hasebrink 2007; Hilgendorf 2007; Modiano 1996; 2003; Mollin, 2006).
Existing sociolinguistic profiles of English in Europe as a region, and of English in indi-
vidual countries referred to above, demonstrate that European uses of English encompass
the four functions characteristic of a profile. As a medium of instruction, English is used
across all levels of education and as such fulfills the instrumental function. This role has
been expanding in part due to the internationalization of the student population in many
universities, encouraged by European Union (EU) policies and by ever larger numbers
of students from outside the EU attending universities in the Netherlands, Germany, or
Sweden, to name just three popular study destinations. The interpersonal use of English is
represented in social contacts between and among Europeans of all ages in various settings –
while travelling, socializing after work, participating in school or student exchanges – as
well as between and among Europeans and non-Europeans in these very settings. The
status and the prestige that knowledge of English can bestow upon an individual or a group
(as an indicator, for example, of the level and/or quality of their education) also illustrate its
symbolic value in interpersonal encounters. Although the use of English for institutional
purposes is less common within individual EU member states than it is, say, in India, where
English is the language of the courts and public administration, English has nevertheless

C 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation 
C 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
196 Margie Berns

been designated one of the official EU languages and is frequently a default language in
meetings – both official and unofficial – for any number of reasons (e.g. the unavailability
of interpreters for languages represented at every meeting, late night ad hoc sessions, or
spontaneous encounters outside official sessions). It is English in its innovative function
that often garners the most attention because of the clever exploitation of the language
in advertising. Numerous and varied creative uses of English appear through other media
formats, for example, popular music, blogs, chat rooms, or instant messaging.
At present, the focus of ELF studies is English as used by Europeans, or what has
also for the last 25 years or so often been referred to as European English or Euro-
English. Among the first users of these terms were Broder Carstensen (1980) and Norman
Denison (1971; 1981); more current adopters are Berns (1987; 1990; 1994; 1995; 2001);
Modiano (2003; 2006), and Yano (see his paper in this symposium), to name just three
for whom English in Europe has distinctive properties, as English in Great Britain or the
United States does. For reasons that are unclear, ELF-involved researchers have adopted
neither “European English” nor “Euro-English” as the term for the English they are
investigating (see, however, Jenkins, Seidlhofer, and Modiano 2001). A benefit of adopting
either “European English” or its variant “Euro-English” would be recognition of the
sociolinguistic realities of English in Europe – realities that militate against characterizing
its use among Europeans exclusively as for the purposes of international communication.
These realities are evident at present in no small part due to the establishment of
the European Union and the roles, outlined above, that Europeans subsequently have
allocated to English. English is used locally, as an additional language, for intra-regional
communication in the multilingual community that constitutes the European Union. In
this respect, European English is not unlike South Asian English, or the other world
Englishes used in multilingual linguistic areas. Thus, it follows that English in Europe is
an Expanding Circle English; it is European English.
The construct “function” as just illustrated is central to a world Englishes perspective.
Directly related to the socially realistic linguistics of Firth, function is fundamental to
understanding the concept not only of “lingua franca” but also of “international language”
and “language of wider communication”, all of which represent contemporary uses and
roles of English. Critical to this conceptualization of function is its reference to what
English does in the service of a particular community, or speech fellowship, of users, not
the form (or forms) it takes in fulfilling its purposes. Or, to put it another way, a basic
assumption of world Englishes is that “lingua franca” is an abstraction, a concept; it is not
a language (or variety) per se; to use Ammon’s words cited above, lingua franca refers “to
contexts of use definable by extra linguistic factors”.

FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION

“Form follows function” is a modernist principle in architecture and design. The phrase,
coined by the American architect Louis Sullivan, is à propos to this discussion because
of the distinction it makes between the two: form and function, while interdependent, are
not one and the same. An English-using situation that illustrates this principle is when
representatives of member states of the European Union (EU) meet in Brussels for official
purposes. Examples of the use of English during such meetings were provided in an
interview I conducted with a German lawyer, who gave a first-hand account of English
functioning as the common language among the 30 or so lawyers who come together to

C 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation 
C 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 English as lingua franca and English in Europe 197

conduct EU business (Berns 2001). At these sessions, he pointed out that simultaneous
interpreters for three different languages, as a rule, are on hand as long as the meeting does
not extend beyond their scheduled workday. If it extends after hours, the representatives –
all of different language backgrounds and also proficient to varying degrees in one, perhaps
two or three of the others’ languages – are left to manage linguistically on their own. One
particular meeting without interpreters he recalled as having an atmosphere like that of a
bazaar: “It was just shouting and shouting. English and French, and then there’s an ‘Ay,
caramba!’ in Spanish, although – more or less for mutual understanding – everybody tried
to shout in English or French as far as possible.”
While some may consider the dynamics of this interaction – at least as characterized –
to be somewhat dysfunctional, mutual understanding was negotiated and was reached on
the participants’ own terms. The purpose of reaching some understanding through the
use of English (along with French in this case) took precedence over not only linguistic
correctness but apparently over discourse conventions as well. A second instance of form
following function provided by my informant was an occasion with quite different dynamics
but with the same goal of mutual understanding, but through a written text. This time just
three lawyers were involved – one from Austria, one from Portugal, and the third my
German interviewee. They had come together to write a statement for a press release.
Although none was a native speaker of English, all considered themselves and each other
accomplished users of European English. The German described the situation thus:

We three sat together, and within minutes we were clear it was an English conversation, just an English
conversation, and we would have to find the text. In any case, the primary concern is the content – what
should we do, what can we do? The questions are: “Is the content correct? Is it OK for the press? Will
the public accept it? Are the vocabulary, syntax, and punctuation correct?”

He added that given time and opportunity they would have consulted an Irish or British
colleague on language issues, but that generally such consultations “are informal and often
enough there is no one, and then it is our text” (Berns 2001).
These two anecdotes illustrate that it is when a language is used in interactions among
users with diverse linguistic backgrounds that it can be called a lingua franca. And although
it might be interesting to see a transcript of the meeting with the clamorous end or the press
release that was written, neither would tell us about English as a lingua franca. Rather, what
they would show is how each particular group came to terms with negotiating meaning
in a particular situation for a particular audience and with a particular goal in mind. The
formal features these negotiations take would reflect each of these elements, and might
or might not reoccur with other configurations of participants, of situation, of audience,
of goal. Of even further significance with respect to these two occasions, I would argue,
is how they address the question of ownership of the text – spoken or written – and of
the way the interactions, however outwardly dysfunctional, unfolded. By focusing on their
responsibility, the scope of their task, the accuracy of the content, conforming to the norms
of the genre, acceptance by the intended audience, and eventually the correctness of formal
features as well as (all issues relevant to the negotiation of meaning), they demonstrated
their primary concern: composing a text – their text – in English that would suit their
purposes, their audience, and relevant official constraints and, at the same time, be in their
voice.

C 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation 
C 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
198 Margie Berns

CONCLUSION
The foregoing has considered the Lingua Franca Movement’s understanding of the no-
tion “lingua franca” and found that this understanding falls short as a means of shedding
light on how English is used around the world. By taking the construct “lingua franca” and
adopting it as the name for a variety of language with unique formal properties, rather than
a use, its theoretical validity is called into question. This weakness is highlighted in the lan-
guage contextualizing the Lingua Franca English corpus project, language that identifies
LFE as form and as function. The discussion of pidgins and creoles illustrated the essential
difference between the two. The development of a new linguistic system derives from the
need for a common means of communication that will enable intelligibility, comprehen-
sibility, and interpretability among speakers of mutually unintelligible languages. That is,
form follows function. The overview of functional allocation demonstrates how English in
the linguistic area of Europe (Berns 1995) functions as more than an international lingua
franca, serving interpersonal, instrumental, creative, and administrative functions as well.
The range and complexity of its uses among Europeans, who are not exceptional in the
variation they represent, point to the inadequacy of the term “Lingua Franca English” to
capture such complexity not only within individual world Englishes (i.e. Inner, Outer, and
Expanding Circles) but across them as well. Adding another dimension to the complexity
are the accounts of official interactions among representatives of European Union member
states, which illustrate that, in the negotiation of meaning, formal accuracy may neither
be the primary concern nor be all that relevant given the realities of the communicative
process and the context of situation.

REFERENCES
Berns, Margie (1987) The cultural and linguistic context of English in West Germany. World Englishes 7, 37–49.
Berns, Margie (1990) Contexts of Competence: Social and Cultural Considerations in Communicative Language Teaching.
New York: Plenum Press.
Berns, Margie (1994) English in Europe: whose language, which culture? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5,
21–32.
Berns, Margie (1995) English in the European Union. English Today 43, 3–11.
Berns, Margie (2001) “Either we have the Tower of Babel, or we leave”: an insider’s view of language practices within
the European Union. Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics Conference, St Louis, MO.
Berns, Margie, Claes, Marie-Therese, de Bot, Kees, Evers, Riet, Hasebrink, Uwe, Huibregtse, Ineke, Truchot, Claude,
and van der Wijst, P. J. (2007) English in Europe. In Berns, de Bot, and Hasebrink (2007: 15–42).
Berns, Margie, de Bot, Kees, and Hasebrink, Uwe (eds.) (2007) In the Presence of English: The Media and European
Youth. New York: Springer.
Berns, Margie, and Friedrich, Patricia (eds.) (2003) English in South America: A Different Kind of Difference. World
Englishes 22.2 (special issue).
Brown, Kimberley, and Peterson, Jay (1997) Exploring conceptual frameworks: framing a world Englishes paradigm.
In Larry E. Smith and Michael L. Forman (eds.), World Englishes 2000 (pp. 32–47). Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Canagarajah, Suresh (2007) Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. Modern Lan-
guage Journal 91, 923–39.
Carstensen, Broder (1980) Euro-English. In Dieter Kastovky and A. Szedek (eds.), Linguistics across Historical and
Geographical Boundaries: In Honor of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday (pp. 827–34). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Denison, Norman (1971) Use of English as a medium of communication in Europe. Incorporated Linguist 45, 38–53.
Denison, Norman (1981) English in Europe, with particular reference to the German-speaking area. In Wolfgang Pöckl
(ed.), Europäische Mehrsprachigkeit: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Mario Wandruszka (pp. 5–18). Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Elder, Catherine, and Davies, Alan (2006) Assessing English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
26 (pp. 282–301). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


C 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation 
C 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 English as lingua franca and English in Europe 199

Hasanova, Dilbaron (2007) Broadening the boundaries of the Expanding Circle. World Englishes 26, 276–90.
Hilgendorf, Suzanne K. (ed.) (2007) The Englishes of Europe in the New Millennium. World Englishes 26 (special issue).
Holliday, Adrian (2008) Standards of English and politics of inclusion. Language Teaching 41, 119–30.
House, Julianne (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
(pp. 73–89). Tubingen: Stauffenburg.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2004) Research in teaching pronuciation and intonation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24 (pp.
109–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2006a) Current perspectives on teaching world Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL
Quarterly 40, 157–81.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2006b) Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16,
137–62.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2006) Global intelligibility and local diversity: possibility or paradox? In Rubdy and Saraceni (2006:
32–9).
Jenkins, Jennifer (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Models, New Norms, New Goals.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Seidlhofer, Barbara, and Modiano, Marko (2001) Euro-English. English Today 17, 13–21.
Kachru, Braj B. (1983) The Indianization of English: The English Language in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kachru, Braj B. (1996) English as lingua franca. In Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdeněk Starý, and Wolfgang Wölck
(eds.), Contact Linguistics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 903–6). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Mauranen, Anna (2003) The corpus of English as lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly 37, 513–27.
Meierkord, Christiane (2004) Syntactic variation in interaction across international Englishes. English World-Wide 25,
109–32.
Michieka, Martha (2005) A sociolinguistic profile of English in Kenya. World Englishes 24, 176–81.
Modiano, Marko (1996) The Americanization of Euro-English. World Englishes 15, 207–15.
Modiano, Marko (2003) Euro-English: a Swedish perspective. English Today 19, 35–41.
Modiano, Marko (2006) Euro-Englishes. In Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil Nelson (eds.), The Handbook of
World Englishes (pp. 223–39). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Mollin, Sandra (2006) Euro-English: Assessing Variety Status. Tübingen: Narr.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. (2006) Pidgins and creoles. In Braj B. Kachru, Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson (eds.),
Handbook of World Englishes (pp. 313–27). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Potzl, Ulrike, and Seidlhofer, Barbara (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, 151–76.
Proshina, Zoya G. (2005) Russian Englishes. World Englishes 24 (special issue).
Rubdy, Rani, and Saraceni, Mario (eds.) (2006) English in the World: Global Roles, Global Rules. London: Continuum.
Schuchardt, Hugo (1894) Weltsprache und Weltsprachen: an Gustav Meyer. Strasbourg: Trübner.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2000) Mind the gap: English as a mother tongue vs. English as a lingua franca. Vienna English
Working Papers 9, 51–68.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2001) Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 11, 133–58.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2002a) Habeas corpus and divide et empera: “global” English and applied linguistics. In Kristyan
Spellman Miller and Paul Thompson (eds.), Unity and Diversity in Language Use (pp. 198–220). London: BAAL and
Continuum.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2002b) The shape of things to come? Some basic questions about English as a lingua franca. In
Karlfried Knapp and Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Lingua Franca Communication (pp. 269–302). Frankfurt am Main:
Lang.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2005) English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59, 339–41.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2006) English as a lingua franca in the Expanding Circle: what it isn’t. In Rubdy and Saraceni (2006:
40–50).
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2007) English as a lingua franca and communities of practice. In Sabine Volk-Birke and Julia Lippert
(eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle Proceedings (pp. 307–18). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.


C 2009 The Author(s). Journal compilation 
C 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.