World Englishes, Vol. 27, No. 3/4, pp. 327–334, 2008.

0883-2919

World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and intelligibility

MARGIE BERNS∗

ABSTRACT: This paper tests claims concerning the English as Lingua Franca (ELF) movement’s position
within the world Englishes paradigm. To do so, it considers the writings of Jennifer Jenkins, a leader in this
movement, on what she calls “phonological intelligibility”, and the writings of Larry Smith, an established
scholar on intelligibility in cross-cultural communication. The mutual intelligibility of Expanding Circle
users of English is a primary concern to ELF researchers, and Jenkins has identified Smith’s work as the
foundation for her investigation of core phonological features to use in pronunciation teaching. The paper
aims to determine the extent to which Jenkins’ theoretical views on intelligibility correspond to Smith’s
concept of understanding as a central issue in international communication.

INTRODUCTION
Over the last several years, the English as Lingua Franca movement (ELF) has been pro-
ducing extensive research on the nature of the English produced by non-native speakers in
the Expanding Circle. This attention has been generating considerable academic discussion
and debate on the use and teaching of English for international communication. One point
of interest to world Englishes scholars are claims regarding the relationship of the ELF
movement to the world Englishes paradigm. One such claim states that ELF “has already
gained recognition as a serious research area within World Englishes” (Jenkins 2005: 154),
while the other declares that ELF belongs to a “World Englishes paradigm” (Phillipson
2003). These assertions have motivated this paper’s examination of whether and to what
extent the ELF movement’s assumptions and principles are compatible with those of world
Englishes (WE) studies. The scope of my investigation will be limited to Larry Smith’s
conceptualization of intelligibility (in recognition of the occasion for this symposium) to
represent the world Englishes perspective, and to Jennifer Jenkins’ interests in lingua franca
English and intelligibility to represent ELF. This pairing is further motivated by Jenkins’
own acknowledgment (2004) that her own research (2000; 2002) builds upon prior studies
on the intelligibility of the pronunciation of speakers from different first languages that
have been carried out by Larry Smith (1992) and by him and colleagues, namely, Smith
and Rafiqzad (1979), Smith and Bisazza (1982), and Smith and Nelson (1985). Citations
from Smith’s and Jenkins’ publications will be used to illustrate similarities and differences
between WE and ELF on such topics as the role of accent in understanding, the role of the
native speaker, negotiation of meaning, and pronunciation pedagogy.

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


C 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA
02148, USA.
328 Margie Berns

INTELLIGIBILITY À LA SMITH AND À LA JENKINS

At least as early as 1976, Smith’s interests in cross-cultural/international communica-
tion has intersected the area of study now known as world Englishes. His insights into the
nature of understanding between and among users of mutually unintelligible languages
have become key elements of the world Englishes framework. One especially productive
insight is his model of the types of understanding that are essential to successful cross-
cultural communication. He proposes three categories in increasing degrees of difficulty.
The first of these is intelligibility, which refers to word/utterance recognition; the second is
comprehensibility, which relates to word/utterance meaning; and the third is interpretabil-
ity, which refers to the meaning behind a word/utterance. His research on each type has
demonstrated that major differences obtain between intelligibility, comprehensibility, and
interpretability. A 1992 study, for example, found that it was easier to achieve intelligibility
than comprehensibility or interpretability and that “being able to do well with one does
not ensure that one will do well with the others” (Smith 1992: 88).
One observable difference between Jenkins and Smith is the terminology they use to the-
orize understanding. Whereas Smith situates his views in cross-cultural communication,
Jenkins draws from general linguistics and speech act theory. An example of terms central
in her discourse on phonology and ELF is her statement that “speakers need to be confident
that their accents will not prevent them from understanding the propositional content of
one another’s utterances (even if they then go on to misinterpret each other in a pragmatic
sense)” (Jenkins 2006: 36). This particular sentence not only illustrates her facility with
terminology consistent with her approach; it also appears to parallel Smith’s model of
understanding, if accent, propositional content, and pragmatic sense are accepted as cor-
responding to intelligibility, comprehensibility, and interpretability, respectively. There is
of course danger in assuming correspondence across theoretical frameworks: choices of
terminology can, and often do, represent basic assumptions and principles that guide their
user. As I show in the following, commonalities between ELF and WE are seldom more
than superficial.

NEGOTIATION OF MEANING: THE NATIVE SPEAKER

ELF and world Englishes differ in their respective views on two significant issues: the
nature of mutual intelligibility and on the participants in international (or ELF) interac-
tions. Jenkins (2006) touches on each aspect when she says: “mutual intelligibility is the
most satisfactory criterion for pronunciation (and probably lexicogrammar too. . .) in ELF
contexts, but that is something to be negotiated and developed by ELF speakers them-
selves rather than imposed from “above” by NSs or NNSs admirers” (p. 36). Although it
is uncertain whether it is mutual intelligibility or pronunciation (perhaps along with word
choice and sentence structure) that is to be negotiated and developed, there is no mention
here of the negotiation of meaning, i.e. what occurs when communication breaks down due
to misunderstanding of what a speaker means by a word or utterance, when their intention
cannot be interpreted. As Smith has found, interpretability is keenly at issue in the very
kind of cross-cultural communication that is of concern to Jenkins – interaction in English
between speakers of different first languages. However, Jenkins’ primary concern is not
negotiation for interpretability (or comprehensibility); rather, it is the ELF speakers’ rights
to their own pronunciation, and their ultimate independence from top-down imposition

C 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and intelligibility 329

of notions of a correct accent by native speakers. To this extent, ELF and WE are in
agreement. Still, essential disagreement is found in their determination of what is correct
for the Expanding Circle user.
In building an argument for the legitimacy of ELF pronunciation, Jenkins (2002) rele-
gates the native speaker to the margins:

With respect to EFL, “legitimate” phonology entails speaking with an accent that is intelligible and
acceptable to the target NS English community. However, when we shift our attention to EIL, “legitimate”,
in Bourdieu’s terms, implies that phonology must be intelligible and acceptable to the target international,
and therefore predominantly NNS, English-speaking community. (p. 85)

The assumption that the target international English-speaking community is predominantly

NNS diverges from Smith and Bisaza (1982), who include all combinations of speakers
of English as potential participants in international communication: “EIL [English as
an International Language], then, can summarily be defined as that English in all its
linguistic and sociolinguistic aspects which is used as a vehicle for communication between
non-native speakers only, as well as between any combination of native and non-native
speakers” (p. 35, emphasis added).
In Jenkins’ ELF studies, the onus for intelligible speech is on the individual speakers.
It is they who need to achieve confidence in their accent and to not allow it to be a barrier
to communication. It is they who are to be taught how to speak English as a Lingua
Franca according to the norms of the non-native English-speaking international language
community that has established them. But communication is not between a sender-with-
correct-ELF accent and a receiver-with-correct-ELF accent. It is between two (or more)
individuals who bring their own experiences with English, their own attitudes toward
English and English speakers (whether Inner, Outer, or Expanding Circle), and their own
cultural norms – all of which impact the outcome of the interaction. It is true that “if a
person doesn’t speak clearly enough to be understood, his message is lost” (Smith 1981:
8). However, communication is a two-way street, which means that “the responsibility for
effective communication is shared by both the speaker and the listener” (p. 8). Each carries
the responsibility to be understood; each must make an effort to understand.
Making an effort to understand is linked with tolerance of varieties of English, and not
just on the part of the native speaker, as Smith (1981) outlines:

Although native English speakers will need to change their attitudes and assumptions in shifting toward
English as an international language, there are some needed changes for non-native speakers. They too
must become more tolerant to the many varieties of educated English and learn about the ways other
non-native speakers use English. (p. 9)

Thus, native speakers have an important role, not as norm-setters, as they historically
have been, but as partners with non-native speakers regardless of their linguistic, social, or
cultural backgrounds when negotiating meaning for either intelligibility, comprehensibil-
ity, or interpretability, or all three. Establishing norms and negotiating the sociolinguistics
of the situation involves every participant, and norms may need to be negotiated anew when
a participant from an as yet unrepresented language and cultural background joins the con-
versation. The target international of concern to Jenkins would be disadvantaged without

C 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
330 Margie Berns

the flexibility to accommodate and be accommodating in such encounters. Confidence in

one’s accent alone is not likely to be adequate to the challenge.
Marginalization of the native speaker in international communication is essential to the
aims of ELF. In championing the rights of Expanding Circle users of English to establish
their own norms of use, ELF can give no role to speakers of the Inner Circle in negotiating
understanding (as either speaker or listener) in situations in which English is used for
international communication (as English as an International Language). This is illustrated
in Jenkins’ (2002) argument for a pedagogical approach that does not involve the Inner
Circle user:

In order to prevent the disintegration of international phonological intelligibility there is, it follows, a
strong case for pedagogic intervention of a new kind: intervention that is no longer based on idealized
NS models or NS corpora, but that is both more relevant (in terms of EIL needs) and more realistic (in
terms of teachability). (p. 86)

Another aspect of ELF which contrasts sharply with WE is in Jenkins’ choice of the
word “disintegration” when referring to the phonologies of world Englishes. This “glass
half-empty” (or deficit) view of linguistic variation in pronunciation is not unlike that of
Randolph Quirk (1988; 1989), who fears the loss of international mutual intelligibility
and maintains that only a native speaker-based pronunciation model can prevent such loss
from occurring. Jenkins takes a similarly firm stand in the face of linguistic chaos, with the
exception that she identifies the user of EIL (or ELF) (interchangeable terms to Jenkins)
as the gatekeepers, as those who will safeguard mutual intelligibility.

SAFEGUARDING AND GUARANTEEING MUTUAL INTELLIGIBILITY

Jenkins undertakes the study of ESL interactions in order to identify the first-language-
influenced pronunciation features that interfere with intelligibility for speakers with dif-
ferent first languages, and those features which have no effect. Most of the data, which
was always taken from interaction between NNS and NNS from different L1s in classroom
and social settings, was collected over a period of three years in classroom and social
settings. She reports that every example of mis- and non-communication that occurred in
her presence was noted, and wherever feasible, the cause or causes were discussed with
the interlocutors. Findings indicated that “although pronunciation was by no means the
sole cause of ILT [interlanguage talk] communication breakdown, it was by far the most
frequent and the most difficult to resolve” (2002: 87). If the resolution of pronunciation
(by which I take to mean reaching mutual intelligibility) was the most difficult, then this
finding is the opposite of Smith’s (1992) finding, noted above, that the participants in his
study found it easier to achieve intelligibility than comprehensibility or interpretability.
Of particular consequence for the pedagogical aims of ELF research is the identification
of a set of features crucial in promoting the intelligible pronunciation of interlocutors with
different first languages. So far, the set includes most consonant sounds, vowel quantity,
initial and medial consonant clusters, and tonic stress (Jenkins 2004: 114–15). These
features, which Jenkins found to be frequent and resistant to resolution, are part of what
she labels the Lingua Franca Core.
Germane to the idea of a core (lingua franca or otherwise) and to its teaching is the WE
position vis-à-vis the term “lingua franca” and related notions of international language and

C 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and intelligibility 331

universal language, which Kachru (1966) has deliberately not adopted in characterizing
English; rather, his view is that they mask dimensions of the English language today.
Therefore, the notion “world Englishes” was proposed in part because it more succinctly
characterizes the current global functions of English than does “lingua franca” (Kachru
1997), and serves more adequately to take into account the multiplicity of identities,
canons, and voices that represent the relevance and the power of the sociolinguistic context
and the extent of bilinguals’ linguistic creativity (Kachru 1996). Such emphasis on the
multiplicity and creativity manifested in Inner, Outer, and Expanding Circle varieties runs
counter to the view that a common linguistic (formal) core of an international variety of
English can be codified, standardized, and then taught – if indeed such an international
English (or ELF, if that term is preferred) exists at all, which it does not if (as in the case
of WE scholars) EIL is recognized as a use of language, not as a code. That is, it functions
as a tool of communication in international settings.
Kachru’s functional perspective is not consistent with Jenkins’ goals for ELF, which
require identifying and categorizing the particular isolated features of pronunciation that
“seem to be crucial as safeguards of mutual intelligibility in ILT” (Jenkins 2002: 96). The
belief that mutual intelligibility can be safeguarded has been intriguing and attractive since
the collapse of the Tower of Babel. It has been the basis for a number of attempts (e.g.
Esperanto, BASIC, Volapu k) to establish an international language that would provide
everyone around the world a means to further not only international communication but
eventually world understanding, and the peace that is assumed would inevitably follow. The
inability of these proposals to establish themselves among more than a small community of
adherents testifies to the resistance of language to standardization (i.e. external control by
an elite group of speakers – native or non-native). Or, perhaps it can more accurately be at-
tributed to the insistence of speakers on going their own way, even if it means the evolution
of standards and norms that make one community potentially unintelligible, incomprehen-
sible, or uninterpretable to another. Thus, a question is begged concerning ELF’s efforts to
establish a Lingua Franca Core. How can mutual intelligibility be safeguarded when the
conditions, contexts, and communicators in any instance of cross-cultural communication –
even if limited to Expanding Circle users – are not identical or stable? Considerable coun-
terevidence has been gathered (prior to and since the introduction of the Kachruvian
paradigm of WE) that demonstrates the elusive nature of shared understanding in cross-
cultural communication – and not only on the phonological (accent) level, but the lexical,
discoursal, and pragmatic levels too.

PEDAGOGICAL INTERVENTION
The ultimate aim of ELF research is serving the needs of Expanding Circle users of
English. With the Lingua Franca core derived from Jenkins’ data from NNS–NNS in-
teractions, teaching items for the pronunciation syllabus can be identified (see the core
features listed above) and teaching materials can be created for teacher and student use
(Seidlhofer 2001). The approved classroom model for instruction will be ELF pronuncia-
tion (which presumably is not influenced by that of native speaker/Inner Circle users). The
desired instructional outcome will be learners intelligible to whomever they speak with
provided these latter are other EIL/Expanding Circle users. The result of this pedagogical
achievement will contribute substantially to arresting “the disintegration of international
phonological intelligibility”.

C 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
332 Margie Berns

The WE perspective, contrastively, stresses the importance of knowing about ways of

using language in communication, not simply being able to accurately produce particular
features of language. As noted by Campbell, Ekniyom, Haque, and Smith (1982: 46), be-
coming a successful communicator in international contexts entails appreciating that “each
culture has its own ways of speaking and patterns of discourse, and a knowledge of these
ways and patterns must be developed by speakers using English in international settings,
if they are going to be effective in cross-cultural communication”. Gaining this particular
knowledge implies exposure – at least in the classroom if not beyond the classroom as
well – to a variety of Expanding Circle speakers. Without such first-hand experience,
learners could not become familiar with, say, Chinese ways of speaking or Brazilian pat-
terns of discourse, and thus be disadvantaged when using English in international settings
involving a Chinese or a Brazilian.
Another teaching goal encouraged by intelligibility studies is tolerance of Englishes
other than one’s own. Learners who may have been taught that the English they speak is
correct because it follows a native speaker model (regardless of how far it diverges from
an Inner Circle standard) may not realize the extent to which attitude and tolerance play a
role in communicative success and failure. Consequently, teaching for linguistic tolerance,
given the sociolinguistic reality of English for Expanding Circle users and learners, may
be as relevant, if not more so, in terms of their needs. Ideally, the recipients of such
pedagogical intervention would be teachers and students alike – whether labeled ELF,
EIL, Outer Circle, Inner Circle, or Expanding Circle users and learners. All may need
to unlearn intolerance of the English of others that is not like theirs, and to develop a
more open attitude toward that English and its speakers (no one group has a monopoly
on feelings of linguistic superiority). Unfortunately, such socially determined features of
bias against an individual language user or a user group, irrespective of their accent, are
less amenable to instructional intervention (or less teachable). Nevertheless, experiences
in listening to and negotiating with and through other Englishes, and developing strategies
for gaining closer understanding, suggest themselves for the classroom that is devoted to
mutual understanding. Fortunately, as Smith and Rafiqzad (1979) found, “most speakers
are able to attain mutual intelligibility after only a brief exposure to a pronunciation
different from their own” (p. 8).
This extension of pedagogical intervention beyond so-called core pronunciation features
may be interpreted by some as the perpetuation of what Jenkins (2004: 114) regards as the
marginalization of pronunciation “by communicative approaches to language teaching in
vogue since the 1980s, in the belief that it was peripheral to successful communication”.
While some fringe approaches once identified as exponents of communicative language
teaching may have minimized or eliminated explicit classroom instruction in pronunciation,
no responsible English language teaching specialist with the aim of developing learners’
communicative competence for international communication has ever claimed that pro-
nunciation was “peripheral” to communicative success (see e.g. Brown 1995; Brown and
Peterson 1997; Savignon 1997; Savignon and Berns 1984; 1987). What communicative
language teaching (CLT) offered was a correction to the overemphasis on the so-called
mastery of linguistic features (such as pronunciation) that dominated classrooms prior to
the 1970s (and still does to some extent in some places). The emphasis on communication,
in all its aspects, that characterizes CLT is no less relevant now in the light of the extensive
use of English around the world for a variety of purposes. Therefore, helping learners de-
velop all aspects of their communicative competence (linguistic, strategic, sociocultural,

C 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and intelligibility 333

and discourse) is as important as it ever has been. However, insistence on a prescribed set
of features for Expanding Circle learners risks a return to overemphasis on pronunciation
in classrooms.
Teaching English to any learner group necessarily involves evaluation of performance.
Who is to pass judgement in the case of learners who are representatives of the Expanding
Circle when they are engaging in international interaction? Predictably, the ELF answer
is that the task would fall to other non-native/Expanding Circle users. As predictably, the
WE response to evaluation extends to all users in recognition that situational variables may
influence the assessment:

A true evaluation of one’s English language comprehensibility should be based on the judgement of
both native and non-native speakers. Native English speakers should be judged for comprehensibility by
non-native speakers, too. It is possible, even likely, that one’s English may be more comprehensible to
one category of listeners than to another. (Smith and Rafiqzad 1979: 59)

Allowing for variability in judgement across categories of listeners defies efforts to

control the features of any variety of English. First, such control ignores the dynamics of
human interaction, some aspects of which have been addressed above – attitude, openness,
sociocultural background – and others which have not, for example, proficiency level,
degree of bilingualism, prior exposure to world Englishes. Second, identification of core
features of non-native speech in an effort to control language performance and guarantee
the success of this performance – even if the result is the overthrow of the tyrannical native
speaker – is simply meeting the new boss who’s same as the old boss, or the hegemony of
the old with the hegemony of the new.

CONCLUSION
This exercise in juxtaposing the words of Larry Smith and the words of Jennifer Jenkins
has tested claims that ELF is part of the WE paradigm. Admittedly, this study is not exhaus-
tive in its coverage of all these two respected authors have written. Nevertheless, it appears
that the ELF movement’s identification with World Englishes – whether self-proclaimed
or conferred – is tenuous at best. There is adoption of world Englishes terminology –
“Expanding Circle”, for example – and repeated references to World Englishes scholars –
among them Kachru and Smith. But, as I have demonstrated, more ELF positions conflict
with the world Englishes paradigm than are in concert. The essential and basic differ-
ences between the two have profound consequences for the directions of future research
on Expanding Circle Englishes, for the design and adoption of pedagogical models, and
ultimately for the interests of cross-cultural understanding among all users of English that
Smith’s model of intelligibility is designed to support.

REFERENCES
Brown, Kimberley (1995) World Englishes: to teach or not to teach. World Englishes 14, 233–46.
Brown, Kimberley, and Peterson, Jay (1997) Exploring conceptual frameworks: framing a world Englishes paradigm.
In Larry E. Smith and Michael L. Forman (eds.), Literary Studies East and West: World Englishes 2000 (pp. 32–47).
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.


C 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
334 Margie Berns

Campbell, Donald, Ekniyom, Peansiri, Haque, Anjum, and Smith, Larry (1982) English in international settings: problems
and their causes. English World-Wide 3. Repr. 1983 in Larry E. Smith (ed.), Readings in English as an International
Language (pp. 35–48). Oxford: Pergamon.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Models, New Norms, New Goals.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2002) A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an
international language. Applied Linguistics 23, 83–103.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2003) World Englishes: A Resource Book for Teachers. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2004) Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation. In Mary McGroarty (ed.), Advances in
Language Pedagogy (Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24) (pp. 109–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2005) Teaching pronunciation for English as a lingua franca: a sociopolitical perspective. In Claus
Gnutzmann and Frauke Intemann (eds.), The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom (pp.
145–59). Tübingen: Narr.
Jenkins, Jennifer (2006) Current perspectives on teaching World English and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Journal
40, 157–81.
Jenkins, Jennifer, Seidlhofer, Barbara, and Modiano, Marko (2001) Euro-English. English Today 17, 13–21.
Kachru, Braj B. (1996) English as lingua franca. In Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary, and Wolfgang Wölck
(eds.), Contact Linguistics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp. 903–6). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kachru, Braj B. (1997) World Englishes 2000: resources for research and teaching. In Larry E. Smith and Michael L.
Forman (eds.), Literary Studies East and West: World Englishes 2000 (pp. 209–51). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i
Press.
Phillipson, Robert (2003) The future of English (language teaching). Talk given at International House, London, 50th
Anniversary Conference, October.
Quirk, Randolph (1988) The question of standards in the international use of English. In Peter H. Lowenberg (ed.),
Georgetown University Roundtable in Languages and Linguistics 1987 (pp. 278–341). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Quirk, Randolph (1989) Language varieties and standard language. JALT Journal 11, 14–25.
Savignon, Sandra J. (1997) Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice: Texts and Contexts in Second
Language Learning, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Savignon, Sandra J., and Berns, Margie S. (eds.) (1984) Initiatives in Communicative Language Teaching. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, Sandra J., and Berns, Margie S. (eds.) (1987) Initiatives in Communicative Language Teaching II: A Book of
Readings. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Seidlhofer, Barbara (2001) Towards making Euro-English a linguistic reality. English Today 17, 14–15.
Smith, Larry (1976) English as an international auxiliary language. RELC Journal 7. Repr. 1983 in Larry E. Smith (ed.),
Readings in English as an International Language (pp. 1–5). Oxford: Pergamon.
Smith, Larry E. (1978) Some distinctive features of EIIL vs. ESOL in English language education. Culture Learning
Institute Report 5. Repr. 1983 in Larry E. Smith (ed.), Readings in English as an International Language (pp. 13–20).
Oxford: Pergamon.
Smith, Larry E. (1981) English as an international language. Gaikokugo (Kyoikukiyo, Japan) 3. Repr. 1983 in Larry E.
Smith (ed.), Readings in English as an International Language (pp. 7–12). Oxford: Pergamon.
Smith, Larry E. (1983) Preface. In Larry E. Smith (ed.), Readings in English as an International Language (pp. v–vi).
Oxford: Pergamon.
Smith, Larry E. (1992) Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In Braj B. Kachru (ed.), The Other Tongue, 2nd
edn (pp. 75–90). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Smith, Larry E., and Bisazza, John W. (1982).The comprehensibility of three varieties of English for college students
in seven countries. Language Learning 32, 259–70 Repr. 1983 in Larry E. Smith (ed.), Readings in English as an
International Language (pp. 59–68). Oxford: Pergamon.
Smith, Larry E., and Forman, Michael (eds.) (1997) World Englishes 2000: Selected Essays. Honolulu: University of
Hawai‘i Press.
Smith, Larry E., and Nelson, Cecil L. (1985) International intelligibility of English: directions and resources. World
Englishes 4, 333–42.
Smith, Larry E., and Rafiqzad, Khalilulla (1979) English for cross-cultural communication: the question of intelligibility.
TESOL Quarterly 13, 371–80. Repr. 1983 in Larry E. Smith (ed.), Readings in English as an International Language
(pp. 13–20). Oxford: Pergamon.
(Received 14 May 2008.)


C 2008 The Author. Journal compilation 
C 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.