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

net/publication/273370449

English as a Lingua Franca: Concepts, use, and implications

Article in ELT Journal · December 2012

DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccr069

CITATIONS READS

160 12,386

1 author:

Alessia Cogo
Goldsmiths, University of London
40 PUBLICATIONS 2,452 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alessia Cogo on 29 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 point and counterpoint

English as a Lingua Franca: concepts,

use, and implications
Alessia Cogo

Sowden’s article raises a number of questions concerning English as a Lingua

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015

Franca (ELF) and criticizes it as a simplified and culturally neutral means of
communication. In this response, I address the issues concerning the
conceptualization and use of ELF as well as the implications for E LT. I provide
up-to-date evidence of ELF research and show the variability, richness, and
creativity of ELF communication.

Introduction: For business, studying, trading, socializing, or tourism, English is

defining what we are nowadays a truly international language. And this is a fact Sowden and
talking about I agree on. However, this internationalization of English has inevitable
consequences not only for the way it is used but also the way it is
conceptualized, and implications for the way it is taught. And these are the
three areas where we disagree. In addressing some of Sowden’s points, I am
therefore going to focus on these in the rest of this paper.
Before I do that, though, a certain amount of definition of the area we are
referring to is needed. In fact, in Sowden’s paper, there is a certain confusion
of terms, especially English as a Lingua Franca (E L F) and World Englishes
(WE). When we talk of EL F, we are not referring to the English of the former
British colonies. In those precise geographical areas, English has developed
into local nativized varieties, which the WE literature has described as
Indian English, Nigerian English, etc. While EL F and WE have some
common ground, such as the emphasis on the pluricentricity of English and
the idea that language changes and adapts to new environments, WE is
a field of research concerned with the identification and localization of
nativized varieties of English in specific geographical locations (see, for
example, the entries on the post-colonial countries in Kirkpatrick 2010).
Thus, research in this area has the purpose of identifying core linguistic and
pragmatic features that are then deemed to be characteristic of a particular
variety.
EL F, on the other hand, is used in contexts which, though traditionally
linked with the expanding circle countries (for example in Europe or South
America), are not necessarily geographically located but can be virtual and
transient in nature, and can also involve speakers from both the mother
tongue and post-colonial contexts. EL F encounters, for example, can take
place over the internet, on Facebook, as well as in an office in Beijing,

E LT Journal Volume 66/1 January 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccr069 97

ª The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
 a university lecture in Amsterdam, a market stall in Marrakesh, a bar in
Milan, and a hostel in São Paulo. E L F, then, is spoken as a contact language
by speakers from varying linguacultural backgrounds, where both the
community of speakers and the location can be changing and are often not
associated with a specific nation. Therefore, research in this area is not about
identifying the core features that make E L F a variety (which it is not), but, as
I explain in detail later, it is about describing the practices involved in lingua
franca communication.
Having clarified the terms and their main differences, I now intend to
address exclusively the parts in Sowden’s paper that refer to EL F. In my
response, I first explore a number of concepts related to this new
phenomenon and try to explain some issues raised by the author, then
I provide some examples of EL F communication and finish by exploring
the implications of this research for teaching.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015

Conceptualizing E LF Sowden’s underlying assumption in his paper is that E L F research is
about codifying a variety of English. This is not the case. Firstly, it is
important to note that E L F communication normally occurs in highly
variable socio/linguacultural groups or networks, where the people taking
part come from numerous linguacultural backgrounds, as opposed to more
clearly definable communities. In a globalized world, these groups can be
especially transient in nature. However, the fact that communication in
EL F transcends conventional regions and borders does not mean that
EL F cannot be located geographically or that EL F corresponds to
a monolithic international variety. The reality is that E L F communication
can both show characteristics that localize it and make it typical of a certain
region, but it can also be fluid and realized in transnational, or international,
networks, and movements. Therefore, what is certain is that E L F is not
monolithic or a single variety because cultural and linguistic resources
are inevitably transformed as they are locally appropriated.
Secondly, the fact that spoken communication in E L F typically takes place in
more or less changing communities, or, in other words, that stability is not
a criterion for defining these kinds of communities, makes us rethink the
notion of community and the very closely linked notion of variety. Put
differently, what we need is a rethinking of these two concepts, that is
‘community’ and ‘variety’, and also the relationship between them.
Traditionally, a variety is the type of language spoken by a precise speech
community and both concepts imply a certain level of stability, where the
speech community is identified in a precise geographical area including
a homogeneous group of people frequently interacting with each other. The
variety spoken by this group is traditionally seen as a fixed entity, one which
is also used to identify the group itself. The problem here lies in the
conceptualization of these as fixed and interdependent; that is, a language
variety is identified in relation to the precise speech community to which it
belongs. The E L F community of speakers, however, is not clearly
identifiable within the traditional parameters. It is not homogeneous, as it
includes people with different linguacultural backgrounds, and is highly
variable, as the speakers may change more or less frequently over time
and space. EL F researchers have so far used the ‘community of practice’
(cf. Seidlhofer 2007) as a more viable concept for describing the E L F groups,

98 Alessia Cogo
 as the traditional terms ‘community’ and ‘variety’ do not capture the fluidity,
variability, and creativity that are inherent in E L F.
Another of Sowden’s claims is that EL F research is about identifying a core
of features used in this kind of talk. However, this is not true. Even earlier
work (Jenkins 2000, as referred by Sowden, and others), while exploring
language forms, has always emphasized the importance of
accommodation, that is, speakers’ ability to change their speech patterns to
make themselves more understandable to their interlocutors. More
recently, this emphasis has been still further underlined. And even where
description of emerging language forms seemed dominant in earlier
research, it was done not in an attempt to establish E L F as a distinct variety,
but rather to show the language practices, motivations, and processes
underlining these forms. The main purpose of E L F research today is, of
course, to reveal some of the forms that emerge in E L F interaction in

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015

specific communities, but more importantly to highlight the pragmatic
strategies speakers draw on as they collaboratively engage in
communication. Therefore, the aim of research in this field is to describe
and make sense of the processes in operation in lingua franca talk and the
strategies used by its speakers, not to uncover ‘core’ features (and note that
the term ‘core’ has never been used in E L F research outside phonology).
More precisely, it is the functional properties of the processes that are of
most significance, not the surface-level features themselves.
Finally, Sowden’s paper suggests that researchers in EL F ‘encourage the use
of E L F’ (page 91) and ‘allow’ the use of certain features and not others. First
of all, E L F is not ‘encouraged’. E L F researchers have never seen themselves
as having a role in deciding what is/is not allowed in EL F. Then, describing
what features and processes are typical of E L F is not an arbitrary decision
but the result of empirical research findings which show what speakers of
EL F do. And what speakers do is where I now turn.

Using E LF A lot of research has gone into exploring naturally occurring real EL F data,
with the creation of small- and larger-scale corpus studies, which have
shown that E L F communication is by nature especially fluid and speakers’
use of linguistic forms is especially variable (for a selection of studies see
Mauranen and Ranta 2009; Archibald, Cogo, and Jenkins 2011). Therefore,
the primary concern, as pointed out above, has for some time been not with
identifying a set of core linguistic features but with exploring the strategies
and processes that make EL F communication possible. Research has found
that speakers adapt and blend English innovatively and creatively in order to
co-construct meaning and ensure understanding (cf. for example Cogo and
Dewey 2012).
I now look at three examples of E L F talk taken from a corpus of data, which
consist of naturally occurring conversations at the workplace (for more
information, see Cogo and Dewey ibid.). The first example is used here to
illustrate the strategies employed to support communication, the second
exemplifies a moment of negotiation, and the third shows EL F multilingual
resources. The first extract is an example of small talk over a coffee break and
the speakers are chatting about the DVD player that S1’s husband (Franz)
has bought.

English as a Lingua Franca 99

 Extract 1: the D V D player (S1: German; S2: French)
S1: [ah Franz bought . . . Franz bought a dvd player for us yesterday
@@@(everybody laughing)
S2: / cause it’s winter
S1: yeah it’s cold
S2: no it’s great . . . and dvd the quality is good as well yeah I must
say
S1: I always told him no I don’t want a dvd player . . . because I don’t
like to watch¼
S2: / ¼movies at home?¼
S1: ¼but then on Friday . . . we didn’t want to go out and we really

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015

wanted to see a film . . . and there was [NOTHING on tv so:
S2: [ah ah
This extract is interesting as it shows various strategies used in E L F talk to
support the smooth development of the conversation, among which are
utterance completions (indicated by the arrows), latching (indicated by the
equal sign), and backchannelling (indicated by the square brackets). The
first one, utterance completion or continuation, recurs twice in the extract.
After S1’s introduction of her new purchase, the DVD player, S2 continues
her utterance with a turn which is added on to the preceding one, as
a continuation of it and providing the reason for buying the DVD, i.e.
because it is winter. In fact, S2’s utterance has another, more important,
function: apart from providing the reason, it has the function of reselecting
the previous speaker as the next speaker. In other words, S2 is supporting
S1’s communication and with the utterance continuation S2 gets the
original speaker to carry on with the story and elaborate further on the
purchase.
This kind of facilitation and support by S2 is in fact continued later when
performing another utterance completion. In the second completion, S1
starts by saying that she does not ‘like to watch’ and S2 continues her
utterance with ‘movies at home?’, which is clearly accepted by S1 who
smoothly moves on with her story. As with the first example of completion,
in this one, the continuation provided an added value, that of expressing
surprise at the idea that S1 does not like watching movies at home. The
surprised intonation is here indicated by the question mark, suggesting
raised tone.
It is important to notice that these utterance completions are not meant as
word searches. When indicating a word search (that is when a second
speaker provides the missing word that the current speaker is looking for),
utterance completions are usually introduced by hesitations or repetitions
signalling that the current speaker is at a loss for words. In Extract 1, though,
there is no hesitation or repetition and both utterance completions are
performed as a way of facilitating and supporting the communication, and
with a high degree of attentiveness and collaboration on the part of the
speakers.

100 Alessia Cogo

The other two strategies exemplified in this extract are latchings and
backchannels, the former involving the timed taking of the turn by the
interlocutor signalling involvement and attention to the talk. The latter,
backchannels, provide prompt minimal responses (such as ‘ah ah’, ‘mhm’,
‘ok’, etc.) to the interlocutor, which are aimed at supporting the ongoing
conversation without taking over the turn. Latchings and backchannels,
together with utterance completions, are obviously collaborative strategies
as they involve the concerted and timed work of two speakers, and they have
proved to be particularly important in supporting E L F communication.
With Extract 1, I have shown some of the strategies that E L F speakers
employ to facilitate and support communication with interlocutors of
different linguacultural backgrounds. The second example illustrates
a moment of negotiation of forms and meaning. Here, three colleagues are
talking about good work relations in the office (cf. Cogo 2010):

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015

Extract 2: the boat (Isabel: Portuguese; Nana: Japanese; Anna: Italian)
Isabel: I mean we don’t have problems . . . we all get on yeah
Nana: yeah I think we are all on the same . . . on in . . . ah: what is it . . .
on the same boat?
Isabel: yeah?
Nana: yeah? . . . how do you say? On the same boat?
Isabel: I don’t know yeah . . . on the same boat I think . . . on the bus on
the train
Anna: anyway we understand you
Isabel: yeah . . . we are all foreigners
Nana: all foreigners (laughing)
This is an example of the kind of rich (rather than simplified) E L F
communication most empirical E L F research has demonstrated. If we look
at it more closely, we see that the three colleagues are commenting on the
good work relations in their office and Nana wants to say that all the
workmates are ‘in the same boat’. In the conversation, Nana shows her
uncertainty about the preposition that collocates with the idiomatic
expression ‘in the same boat’, whether ‘on’ or ‘in’, and requests the help of
Isabel (‘what is it?’). Isabel, on the other hand, does not want to assume
authority over the preposition that collocates with the idiomatic expression
(‘I don’t know’). Instead, she starts playing with the meaning by suggesting
other means of transport that could substitute ‘the boat’ concept, such as
‘the bus’ and ‘the train’. After Anna has added that the colleagues
understand what Nana is saying, Isabel justifies that understanding by
saying ‘we are all foreigners’. That foreignness is what brings together the
colleagues and it is this drawing on being non-native speakers that facilitates
their communication and enhances understanding (cf Hülmbauer 2009).
Their being non-native speakers is played up from the very beginning, when
Nana searches for the ‘correct’ preposition and explicitly asks for help with it.
Her colleague, Isabel, however, downplays the need for a ‘correct’

English as a Lingua Franca 101

 preposition and enhances the need for creativity while building on the
idiomatic meaning and its metaphoricity (Pitzl 2009).
Sowden’s claim that EL F is ‘a reduced version of the language’ (page 9 0)
finds little credibility when submitted to the force of empirical data.
Playfulness and creativity in spoken interaction show the richness of the
language as well as the positive attitudes to being non-native. Even in this
short extract, the participants’ ‘foreignness’ is played up and explicitly
enhanced, first by Nana, who questions the preposition and requests the
help of the Portuguese colleague, and then by Isabel, who refuses to know
and to take responsibility for knowing the ‘correct’ preposition. Then both
Anna and Isabel align with the others: Anna by clearly indicating group
understanding and Isabel by identifying the group as ‘foreigners’ and
including all of them in it, a choral identity, which is accepted and repeated
by Nana in the end. Nana does not seem to be disappointed with Isabel’s

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015

playing with the expression and underestimating the importance of finding
the ‘correct’ preposition, and Isabel seems to enjoy creatively playing with
the idiom, which also serves to establish a sense of in-group belonging.
This creative use of the language and co-construction of meaning are key
elements of E L F communication and evident in the following extract. Here,
the speakers are talking about pictures posted on a website and referring to
them as ‘cheesy’.
Extract 3: fleur bleue (Jean: French; Karen: German; Anna: Italian)
Jean: ¼cheesy
Karen: [YE::AH
Anna: [YE::AH
Karen: yeah a bit too much I think (laughing)
Jean: so . . . blue flower we say, . . . fleur bleue
Anna: why . . . [to say that it’s cheesy?
Jean: [fleur–yeah . . . fleur bleue means . . . you know when you
have these pictures with little angels of
Karen: a:::h [yeah
Anna: [yeah fleur bleue
Jean: fleur bleue
Karen: kitsch- [kitschig
Jean: [kitschig yeah
Jean is introducing the French expression fleur bleue to provide an alternative
for the English idiomatic expression ‘cheesy’. Even though all the speakers
involved do understand the meaning of the English term, Jean still
introduces the French expression as its meaning covers a different, more
extended, aspect of ‘cheesy’: something sweet, like the pictures with little
angels. Jean’s code-switching to French fleur bleue is then followed by
Karen’s code-switching to German, with the result of producing an
expression that is culturally closer, and very probably more appropriate, to

102 Alessia Cogo

 her and the other participants. The German word kitschig is immediately
understood by Jean, who overlaps and accommodates to Karen by repeating
the term and converging to her. The multilingual resources used in this
extract are not meant to fill gaps in the speakers’ knowledge but to expand on
meaning and enhance speakers’ multicultural backgrounds and identities.
To return to my response, the point here is that throughout Sowden’s paper,
there seems to be an implication that E L F has been designed with a precise
and planned aim in mind, that is ‘to neutralize English, to sheer it of its
cultural baggage, to remove it from the hands of its Anglo-Saxon native
speakers’ (page 9 0). It is almost too obvious to point out that E L F is a natural
language, not an attempt at linguistic engineering of the kind that so-called
‘Globish’ is (see Seidlhofer 2011: 156–7 on the failings of ‘Globish’ including
its lack of any empirical support) and is certainly not the result of a sort of
plot. More importantly, as these last two extracts show (and many others that

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015

could not be reported here for lack of space), E L F is not about simplification,
as speakers do not avoid idiomatic language, instead they use expressions
they are more familiar with or create idiomatic expressions that are more
appropriate and understandable in their contexts (for more on this see Cogo
and Dewey op.cit.).
Therefore, to claim that E L F is a ‘value-free means of international
communication belonging equally to all who speak it as a first or second
language’ (page 9 0) is almost a contradiction in terms. As shown in my
data, and in other work by Jenkins (2007), Cogo (2010), and Baker (2011),
EL F is not in any way neutral and this is precisely because it belongs to all
who use it, with all the sociocultural values, backgrounds, and
understanding that speakers are bringing with them and co-constructing.
In this sense, the speakers’ foreignness, or non-nativeness, cannot be seen
as a disadvantage. On the contrary, their different (and often multilingual)
backgrounds provide them with invaluable resources and strategies, which
they can draw upon to achieve their communicative purposes. Therefore,
their different backgrounds should not be seen as obstructing their
communication, instead, ‘E L F speakers are more effective precisely because
they speak other languages and are multicompetent’ (Cogo and Jenkins
2010: 273).
The second extract also shows that speakers are aware of their
multicompetence, or foreignness, as they put it. Their being foreigners is
directly linked with a better understanding of E L F communication, and they
show positive attitudes towards it. Opinions towards E L F or other different
ways of speaking English are already changing, and though still heavily
influenced by identity and ideology (cf. Jenkins 2007; Cogo in press), they
seem to be moving towards appreciation of diversity and feelings of
ownership of English.

Implications for ELT It is true that, as Sowden states, ‘an obstacle to the E L F approach is the
opinion of learners and teachers’ (page 92), but some positive changes have
already materialized, especially among young people (see Cogo and Jenkins
op.cit.). E L F researchers have started encouraging learners, teachers, and
ELT practitioners in general, to engage in the debate of what a language is
and issues of English ownership (Dewey 2011; Cogo in press), and it is

English as a Lingua Franca 103

 hoped that this engagement will continue to flourish. However, to take
the step from this to claim that E L F academics ‘have been urging the
teaching of English as a Lingua Franca’ (Sowden’s abstract) is a long and
completely inaccurate one. EL F is about awareness and choice—making
students aware of different ways of speaking English, of language
variability and change—and about offering choice to them, i.e. they can
choose to speak like native speakers when and if they want to, but they may
want to speak E L F and in certain situations, this may even be more
appropriate.
As for teaching itself, the argument presented by Sowden seems to be that
teachers have previously expressed a preference for native-speaker English,
so this must automatically be right. There is no attempt to explain or explore
why this may be so (the standard NS ideology dominating in E LT circles and
materials, for one) and a lot of research on attitudes to English is generally

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015

ignored. There is also an assumption that E LT is all about grammar,
vocabulary, and pronunciation and that this is the sum of communication.
Many researchers (not only E L F ones!) would prefer to approach language
teaching from a different perspective, one which would see language
teaching as a much wider process involving a whole range of
communication skills, knowledge, and attitudes such as communication
strategies, pragmatic competence, and language and cultural awareness.
It is certainly a pity that the E L F readings Sowden is referring to are rather
dated, as, in a relatively new and highly dynamic field like EL F, things
develop fast and a lot of new research findings have been published since
the early 2000s, which show that the field has moved on, and earlier
questions/issues have already been answered or taken on a different shape
(cf. Cogo 2008). In order to engage in a fruitful and constructive debate, and
avoid repeating the same tired issues that have already been resolved, it is
advisable for commentators on EL F to read and refer to more recent
publications, some of which I have listed below.
Final revised version received October 2011

References Linguistic Diversity in Europe. Current Trends and

Archibald, A., A. Cogo, and J. Jenkins (eds.). 2011.
Latest Trends in E L F Research. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Baker, W. 2011. ‘Culture and identity through E L F
in Asia: fact or fiction?’ in A. Archibald, A. Cogo, and
J. Jenkins (eds.).
Cogo, A. 2008. ‘English as a lingua franca: form
follows function’. English Today 24/3: 58–61.
Cogo, A. 2010. ‘Strategic use and perceptions of
English as a Lingua Franca’. Poznań Studies in
Contemporary Linguistics 46/3: 295–312. Available at
http://versita.metapress.com/content/
t4274578759531p2/fulltext.pdf (accessed on 1
November 2011).
Cogo, A. (in press). ‘‘‘French is French, English is
English’’’: standard language ideology in E L F
debates’ in P. Studer and I. Werlen (eds.).
Discourses. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cogo, A. and M. Dewey. 2012. Analysing English as
a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven Investigation.
London: Continuum.
Cogo, A. and J. Jenkins. 2010. ‘English as a Lingua
Franca in Europe: a mismatch between policy and
practice’. European Journal of Language Policy 2/2:
271–94.
Dewey, M. 2011. ‘Accommodative E L F talk
and teacher knowledge’ in A. Archibald, A. Cogo,
and J. Jenkins (eds.).
Hülmbauer, C. 2009. ‘‘‘We don’t take the right way.
We just take the way that we think you will
understand’—the shifting relationship between
correctness and effectiveness in E L F’ in
A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (eds.).

104 Alessia Cogo

Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as an
International Language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude
and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (ed.). 2010. The Routledge Handbook of
World Englishes. London: Routledge.
Mauranen, A. and E. Ranta (eds.). 2009.
English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Pitzl, M.-L. 2009. ‘‘‘We should not wake up any
dogs’’: idiom and metaphor in E L F’ in A. Mauranen
and E. Ranta (eds.).
Seidlhofer, B. 2007. ‘English as a Lingua
Franca and communities of practice’ in S. Volk-Birke
and J. Lippert (eds.). Anglistentag 2006 Halle
English as a Lingua Franca
View publication stats
Proceedings 307–18. Trier, Germany:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua
Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The author
Alessia Cogo is a Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at
the University of Southampton (UK), where she
teaches in the MA Applied Linguistics programmes
and supervises PhD students. Before that, she taught
English, Italian, and Applied Linguistics at King’s
College London and the University of Surrey (UK).
She has written on E L F pragmatics and the interface
between E L F and multilingualism. She is co-author
with Martin Dewey of Analysing English as a Lingua
Franca: A Corpus-driven Investigation (Continuum
Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ by Alessia Cogo on December 29, 2015
2012).
Email: a.cogo@soton.ac.uk
105