Global English and Linguistic Justice Past Paper 2024/25 PDF

FOR THE EXAM: have basic ideas of the paradigm in order to compare (3 forms of linguistic injustice, 2-3 issues with it, main goal, data used), identify the main concepts that can be asked in the definition question (linguistic justice as equal oportunity/parity of esteem/fair cooperation, linguisti...

FOR THE EXAM: have basic ideas of the paradigm in order to compare (3 forms of linguistic injustice, 2-3 issues with it, main goal, data used), identify the main concepts that can be asked in the definition question (linguistic justice as equal oportunity/parity of esteem/fair cooperation, linguistic justice in relation to global english) BLOCK 2: CONCEPTS AND PARADIGMS II: A MODEL FOR ENGLISH 2.4 GLOBAL ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTIC ENGLISH IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT – E. CODÓ JUSTICE – 2024/25   Global English has been conceived of (almost in parallel) in very different terms:  (a) as an agent of injustice and Anglo-American political and economic dominance (Phillipson SITUATING 1992); IDEAS  (b) as a tool of individual empowerment and socio- economic progress (Brutt-Griffler 2002);  (c) as a necessary instrument for the enhancement of equity and democratic progress worldwide (Van Parijs 2011).   Very famous model – it has arisen a lot of interest and engendered a lot of criticism.  Situated within political theory/political philosophy.  AIMS: what is the best (most ethical, fairest, most democratic, most equal, most participatory, etc.) CONCERNS way in which we can organise our societies? AND POINTS OF  Points of departure: DEPARTURE  Permanent linguistic diversity is a fact of life.  Increasing salience and universality of linguistic issues.  Language issues are fundamental to social justice.  Linguistic justice should deserve special attention.   Perspective:  Political philosophy is theoretical (not empirical, that is, based on data of many types regarding e.g. income, behaviour, opinions, etc.).  It is and normative, that is, it prescribes courses of action and defines how things should be. CONCERNS  It is based on certain philosophical principles (e.g. AND POINTS OF democracy, justice, equity, public participation, etc.) DEPARTURE  The idea is to implement policies based on the normative framework developed.  Linguistic justice: it aims to develop a framework for minimising (and redressing) injustice in political action by focusing on language. CONCERNS AND POINTS OF DEPARTURE FROM Codó and Riera-Gil (2022)   Languages have two values:  Identity value vs communicative value.  An L1 has identity values, whereas a lingua franca has non- identity values (communicative value).  The communicative value of languages depends on the number of people with whom information can be exchanged.  Global languages may have identity value for their L1 speakers and communicative value for the rest. THEORETICAL  Q: is it desirable to have a global lingua franca? FRAMING  Van Parijs argues it is, because of its high communicative value.  English as a lingua franca is widely assumed that it has paramount value in terms of efficiency, equal opportunity and even global democracy (Van Parijs 2011).  The spread of English is seen as empowering by Van Parijs. […] it seems that the powerful dynamics that currently drives the spreading of competence in English should not be resisted or reversed, but on the contrary welcomed and accelerated. (p. 50)   Reasons for supporting and even “accelerating” the spread of English.  For a view of social justice as global justice and, more specifically, egalitarian global justice (beyond nation-states as “units” of social justice) – it would create the conditions to perceive other THEORETICAL individuals as equals, rather than “sheer curiosities or trade partners”. FRAMING  For the democratization of the global public debate (a “transnational demos”) – a collective in which “not only the rich and powerful, but also the poor and powerless [would be able] to communicate, debate, network, cooperate, lobby, demonstrate effectively across borders” - spaces of global deliberation open to everyone, e.g. climate activism).   Van Parijs acknowledges that the spread of English as a global lingua franca implies many challenges and causes injustices.  How should we go about redressing those injustices?  He identifies three forms of injustice and their FORMS OF corresponding interpretations of linguistic justice. LINGUISTIC  Unfair cooperation (or cooperative injustice) INJUSTICE  Unequal opportunities (communicative injustice)  Imparity of esteem (dignity injustice)  He proposes some measures for removing or minimizing the injustices caused by the spread of English.   In this interpretation of linguistic justice, language is viewed as a public good (=water).  Linguistic justice would be about sharing the cost of language learning.  In English as a lingua franca, there are ‘free riders’ LINGUISTIC → some people/countries (NSs/Anglophone) enjoy the benefits of a lingua franca without sharing in the JUSTICE AS FAIR cost of producing it. COOPERATION  Denounced as a form of linguistic injustice by those who had to spend money, time and effort into learning it.  Should free riders be asked to share the cost of producing the benefit? What could count as a fair arrangement?  Average time required to master adequately a non-native natural language: 1,000 hrs in the classroom? But what is mastery? Distance/closeness between languages?   Difference between annual cost of foreign language teaching in NNS vs NS countries (e.g. in France vs UK, +100€ per capita) – language economists (F. Grin – 36€ UK vs 138€ in France – 2002/03). Caveats: private lang learning, etc. “Had a language other than English been picked as the European and global lingua franca, how much would the UK have had to spend per capita to achieve the average level of proficiency in the lingua franca currently achieved by the French in English?” (p. 71)  Different possibilities: LINGUISTIC  A global linguistic tax. JUSTICE AS FAIR  Some financial compensation through supranational organizations (e.g. at EU level). COOPERATION  ‘Compensatory poaching’: abolish intellectual property rights for English language materials on the web. “Even if we were to give central importance to linguistic justice as cooperative justice, therefore, we would have good reason to be very relaxed about it: all that can and must be achieved in this dimension is rough justice, for which no more is needed than a benign attitude towards the asymmetric flows of information that are the correlate of the spreading of the lingua franca.” (p. 82)   In this interpretation of linguistic justice, English is viewed as an individual asset.  Spread of English creates new language-based inequalities.  Linguistic justice – having equal opportunities (individual material consequences). LINGUISTIC  Four dimensions of injustice identified for non-native speakers of English: JUSTICE AS  Language-related jobs, which are on the increase (e.g. language teachers, EQUAL teaching material creators, translators and interpreters, copywriters, proofreaders, etc.). OPPORTUNITY  Not language-related jobs but jobs where NSs fare better because of the importance of communication in English, e.g. transnational corporations.  Face-to-face interaction privileges: NSs communicate with greater ease and effectiveness (“better understood, more persuasive, more impressive,” etc.) “Job interviews for multinational organizations form one type of interaction of this sort. But landing better jobs as a result of greater success in this context is only one of the many material or non-material advantages that thereby tend to accrue, by virtue of their greater ease, to native speakers of the lingua franca.“ (p. 94)   Media-amplified larger audiences: those who write, speak or sing in English have access to a wider audience, and therefore, more economic benefits. LINGUISTIC  Measures: JUSTICE AS  Transfers from the “linguistically privileged” to “the linguistically handicapped” (akin to a welfare system). EQUAL  Accelerating knowledge beyond elite to a near-native level OPPORTUNITY – generalizing immersion schooling in English, which Van Parijs argues, “has been the strategy routinely used in nation states”. (=similar to the process of standardization in the national language).  “Initially, most of their citizens spoke local dialects that differed notably from the one picked as the national language.[…] Whether for the sake of political cohesion, labour mobility, or equality of opportunity, their governments undertook to spread competence in the national language through compulsory schooling in that LINGUISTIC language. In those areas in which socio-linguistic conditions were unfavourable, the cost of effective JUSTICE AS immersion schooling was considerable, but was routinely coveredby nationwide funding.” (p. 105) EQUAL OPPORTUNITY  Encouraging presence of English in visual media.  A ban on ‘dubbing’?  Medium-term consequence “English-based inequalities will melt”.   In a just society, people must not be stigmatized, despised, disparaged, humiliated by virtue of their collective identity, for example their gender or their race, their religious or linguistic community.  Considering that initial languages (L1) are a LINGUISTIC prominent source of self-identification, the use of English for communication between multilinguals JUSTICE AS has two effects: PARITY OF  it harms the dignity of its non-native speakers (in the sense of the right to use their own L1). ESTEEM  it sends them a “message of inferiority” (De Schutter, 2018: 176). Other authors have called this “epistemic injustice” - when individuals are wrongly judged in their capacity as knowers because of certain prejudices associated with their identity. Epistemic injustice can affect speakers in terms of credibility and intelligibility.   How to counteract that?  Van Parijs argues for a strong application of the principle of territoriality as a way of counterbalancing the all-English push that might result from the first of LINGUISTIC his assumptions. JUSTICE AS  Establishment of a coercive regime - imposing one (or two or three) PARITY OF official language(s) to be used as the ESTEEM medium of public communication.  That way the extension of a lingua franca will not be to the detriment of other languages.  (Based on Codó & Riera-Gil, 2022)  Linguistic justice theories tend to work with an abstract, monolithic and de-socialised conception of language that erases variability and variation, and with ideas that consider value stable across contexts. CRITICISMS OF  Empirical value is contingent on a number of contextual dimensions, and therefore, fluctuating (Duchêne and Daveluy VAN PARIJS 2015).  Having equal access to the tool of English does not translate into being seen as a legitimate user of it in all societal contexts.  Dovchin’s (2020) work shows how international students in Australia may suffer from “ethnic accent bullying” and “linguistic stereotyping”, based on prejudiced interpretations on how they are perceived to speak, and despite evidence of their high-level proficiency in English.   They tend to view speakers as fundamentally rational beings making conscious choices based on cost-benefit analyses  They tend to present dichotomous and dualistic views of language that hide or undervalue the ambivalence and messiness of the social world and of linguistic practices.  Based on Soler and Morales-Gálvez (2022) - more English CRITICISMS OF worldwide, in and of itself, will not lead to more social justice VAN PARIJS both for theoretical reasons (it is not egalitarian enough) and empirical reasons (it is not happening in real life)  Example: extending learning of English – immersion schooling.  transition costs – intergenerational problem.  Significant cost differences between countries  In fact, the higher the percentage of people having equal opportunities (because they would have enjoyed early immersion programmes), the higher the transition costs for those oldest generations excluded from those programme. This transition problem might situate the worst-off (those without access to English) in an even worse situation than before.  BLOCK 2: CONCEPTS AND PARADIGMS II: A MODEL FOR ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL 2.2 ENGLISHES AND LANGUAGE ENGLISH IN A GLOBAL INEQUALITY CONTEXT – E. CODÓ – 2024/25 UNEQUAL ENGLISHES  First listen to Ruanni Tupas being interviewed by Mario Saraceni (min 21:15-33:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpg7wryvmRA  What is, in Tupas’ view, the connection between World Englishes and Unequal Englishes? UNEQUAL ENGLISHES Kachru’s became apolitical and simply celebrated it. ▪ Tenet of the faith of ‘linguistic equality’ has: He wanted to make the discussoin political again  been the driving force behind the impulse of WEs paradigm. Linguistically equal but not socially.  served to create political and ideological blinkers to the way different varieties of English are used and appraised all over the world – turned WEs into a celebratory and acritical paradigm. “trivialization of inequality” “Unequal Englishes refuses to join the party” (Tupas & Rubdy, p. 3) The celebration “it does not romanticize equality of Englishes” (Tupas & Rubdy. p. 3) Because it’s actually very serious  facilitated the adoption of a de-historicising and ‘fixing’ approach – as if all varieties of English were equally valued. The historical dimention is lost All varieties as rule-governed and valid These societies are heavily stratified and knowledge of english is very linked to this. Not all social classes have the same accents and the language is spoken differently. UNEQUAL ENGLISHES They attempt to bridge the gap between Phillipson’s linguistic imperialism and WEs – bring socio-political critique in. No linguistic critique without political and social critique. It is unrealistic to speak of individual agency or resistance without speaking of structures of domination or exploitation. UNEQUAL ENGLISHES  Critical of development of WE paradigm:  Depolicitization of earlier work by Kachru (and associates) – prejudice, discrimination, empowerment, transformation, liberation, social justice…  “Bring research back to the origins” (bring criticality back to WEs).  Descriptive approach – focused on characterization of varieties, centered on the language.  “Bring power and politics back into the picture”  Unequal Englishes aims to complement rather than contradict WEs research; the idea is to push WEs forward. UNEQUAL ENGLISHES  The scholarly defence of “linguistic equality” for World/New Englishes has not translates into social equality for their speakers.  All varieties of English are equally valid, systematic and rule-governed but society continues to judge them differently.  (De)valuing of certain Englishes has nothing to do with the nature of those varieties themselves but with their speakers (who they are, what they represent, how they are seen). “Why would you want to mock an accent?” “Discussions about language are about something else” 7 UNEQUAL ENGLISHES  Hierarchization of Englishes continues, as does the problematization and devaluing of certain Englishes. “The struggle continues”  Final objective – transforming society, having an impact on individual lives and people. UNEQUAL ENGLISHES - OBJECTIVES  Beyond asserting legitimacy of various Englishes. Primary goal → “mapping out configurations of power, politics and ideology which are responsible for the making, reproduction and transformation of unequal Englishes” (Tupas and Weninger, 2020)  Value of different Englishes is established in the linguistic market where certain speakers have different volumes of capital (economic, cultural and social) – “the economy of linguistic exchanges” (Bourdieu, 1991).  The goal is not simply to alert to the existence of a hierarchy of Englishes and their speakers – UEs is primarily a critical account if the uneven spread of English across the world – documenting how UEs come about and impact people’s lives.  Decentering the language and centering speakers – different research angle (understanding speakers’ lives and the role of language in them rather than beginning by focusing on language). Changing the angle —> not focusing on the language but on the speakers UNEQUAL ENGLISHES Intersectionality —> overlaping of areas and how one part makes the other one work. They can’t be disentangled because they feed into each other. So language inequality can’t be separated from other types of inequalities.  Decentering the language and “centering the world” (what’s going on in the world and what is the role of language/English/certain types of English in it?)  How English tied up with other forms of inequality – race, class, gender, sexuality, etc.  Not a top-down or uniform narrative of domination (=Phillipson) – not just focus on macro processes, policies and discourses but also on the micro level of communication (tensions, negotiations within specific institutional and social contexts).  Beyond the NS-NNS dichotomy – multilingual speakers of English.  Focusing on the multiplicity of repertories.  Questioning the lack/deficit embedded into the idea of the NNS. 10  BLOCK 2: CONCEPTS AND PARADIGMS II: A MODEL FOR ENGLISH 2.3 BEYOND AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE STANDARDS: ENGLISH AS ENGLISH IN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT – A LINGUA FRANCA (ELF) E. CODÓ – 2024/25   English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) began at the turn of the 21st century, and rapidly developed into a very dynamic and full-fledged research area.  First ELF Conference – Helsinki 2008.  Journal of English as a Lingua Franca (De Gruyter) first THE ORIGINS OF published in 2012. ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA  https://elf13taiwan.whgroup.life/keynote-speakers/   JENNIFER JENKINS (U. SOUTHAMPTON) “From the late 1980s, I was the first to empirically research the phenomenon of English as a Lingua Franca, initially for my PhD (1995), subsequently for INITIATORS AND numerous publications, and I continue to do so.” MAIN FIGURES Seminal publications Train speakers to perform effectively in international Jenkins, J. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language: New communication, both with people Models, New Norms, New Goals. Oxford University Press. 5091 citations. with L1 and L2 features. Core and non-core features of English Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 83-103. 1312 citations. Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford University Press. 3261 citations.  Big centre of ELF research, compiled the first ELF corpus  BARBARA SEIDLHOFER (U.VIENNA) The research activity initiated by Barbara Seidlhofer at the English Department of the University of Vienna has been operative in pioneering the study of English as a lingua franca (ELF) and developing it into a major area of research, particularly through its VOICE(Vienna-Oxford International INITIATORS AND Corpus of English) project. MAIN FIGURES VOICE was released in 2009 as the first computer corpus of ELF interactions, and analytic and interpretative work based on these data has led the way to what has now become an active international field of enquiry,. https://voice.acdh.oeaw.ac.at.   HENRY WIDDOWSON (U. LONDON, EXETER and VIENNA) He has authored a number of highly influential papers. His INITIATORS AND 1994 paper in TESOL MAIN FIGURES Quarterly, for instance, has become a key paper in the rationale behind English as a lingua franca and what has (READ PARTS OF become known as the "ownership" of English. WIDDOWSON 1994) Seminal publications  Widdowson, H. (1994) ‘The ownership of English.’ TESOL Quarterly 28/2. Ownership is also one of the concerns in world englishes PARADIGM Theoretical developments: DEVELOPERS Alessia Cogo (Goldsmith’s College) Martin Dewey (King’s College London) Applications to teaching: Enric Lluda (U. Lleida)  “Official” start – Seidlhofer (2001): call for the closing of the conceptual gap between the traditional descriptions of varieties of English available within the traditional WE framework, and the need to document the uses of English as an international LF (a new methodological orientation was needed). Similar concerns and ideological principles as WEs: what language model for learners? Decentering NS standards EARLY GOALS Deproblematise non-native varieties OF ELF Offer learners of English around the world culturally relevant models. WE models too centred on national standards, and equally inappropriate for transnational communication. Singaporean English for an Italian learner of English? Initial research programme: accurate description of the features of ELF. Goal: codification of some form of ‘international English’ as an alternative to ENL. Probably impossible because ELF would have to encompass a lot of varieties, and codifiction would have to choose one in order to codify it OR to include every single variety. It would not be representative of every variety. You are creating a new standard, which is problematic.  Work inspired by Jenkins (2000) pioneer work on the phonology of English as an international language. Certain phonological features of English are ”core” and affect intelligibility if pronounced differently, and others are “non-core” and their mispronunciation is not problematic since meaning is easily recoverable from the context. Implications – it wasn’t necessary to adhere to models such as RP or GAm. EARLY GOALS Idea was to expand Jenkin’s work into lexico-grammar and discourse. What might emerge as common/core features of ELF no OF ELF matter speakers’ L1 or proficiency levels? New method: corpus linguistics - create large data sets based on actual language use. VOICE:Vienna and Oxford International Corpus of English. ELFA: ELF in Academic Settings – University of Helsinki.  ELF follows same characterisation of divergences from ENL as differences, not a sign of deficiency. They call them ‘ELF variants’ (vs WEs ‘features’ – which are distinct from ‘errors’). ELF VS ENL “we regard variability away from English as a native language (ENL) in the expanding circle as a legitimate manifestation of the language, resulting in the emergence of innovative linguistic and pragmatic norms” (Cogo & Dewey, 2012, p. 19).  Dropping 3rd p. present tense –s Confusing relative pronouns who and which. Omitting definite and indefinite articles when they are obligatory in ENL and inserting them when they do not occur in ENL. Failing to use correct forms in tag questions (isn’t it? or no? instead of shouldn’t they?). Inserting redundant prepositions as in “we have to discuss TYPICAL ELF about…” FEATURES Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality, such as do, make, take, have or put. Replacing infinitive constructions with that-clauses as in “I want that…”. Overdoing explicitness as in “black colour” instead of “black”. FROM: Seidlhofer (2004)  Is there a boundary? So that it can be called a variant and not a mistake of learning? Learners vs proficient users? What constitutes full competence in ELF? Constant reference to ENL = same situation as with WEs. THORNY ISSUES Emphasis on features has diminished IN ELF over the last few years. “ELF is not a variety of English with clearly demarcated formal linguistic properties to be set against some institutionalized norm of the so-called standard language, but as the variable exploitation of linguistic resources” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 110). Focus on the specific strategies that people use when they communicate in lingua franca situations. Analysis through recordings of real life conversations  From characterising ELF (identifying ELF features) to understanding ELF as a form of communication. Canagarajah (2007) – something as potentially RECENT vast and changeable as ELF cannot be codified. DEVELOPMENTS “Because of the diversity at the heart of this communication medium, LFE is intersubjectively constructed in each specific IN ELF context of interaction. The form of English is negotiated by each set of speakers for their purposes. The speakers are able to monitor each other’s language proficiency to determine mutually the appropriate grammar, phonology, lexical range, and pragmatic conventions that would ensure intelligibility. Therefore, it is difficult to describe this language a priori.” (2007, p. 925)  “ELF as a concept [rather than] a language (or variety) per se.” (Berns, 2009, p. 196). Variable, negotiable and context-dependent. ELF defined by fluidity (of forms and of norms), and by hybridity (speakers drawing on non-English forms). RECENT “ELF as a functional term rather than a linguistic one.” (Kirkpatrick, 2008, p. 28). DEVELOPMENTS Rather than a focus on surface-level structures, IN ELF “it’s an understanding of the more general communicative processes that is the main objective of documenting how ELF speakers interact.” (Cogo & Dewey, 2012, p. 167).   “What we are looking at in ELF, then, is an entirely new, communication-focused way of approaching the notion of ‘language’ that is RECENT far more relevant to twenty-first century uses of English (and probably other global languages) than DEVELOPMENTS traditional bounded-variety approaches, and one IN ELF that has far more in common with post-modern approaches to language.” (Jenkins, 2013, p. 37)   This type of research tries to characterize EFL interactions not on the level of grammar but on the level of pragmatics and conversation management.  What general interactional features characterize ELF conversation?  What strategies do ELF speakers use to create meaningful ELF communication and handle any communication difficulties? THE  The objective is two-fold: PRAGMATICS OF a) decenter correctness or fluency (and thus NS ’factors’) as crucial elements for success. Being fluent doesn’t guarantee effective ELF communication of message b) identify and value the skills multilingual speakers bring to the interaction. c) problematize NS’s lack of accommodation skills. d) develop a pedagogical agenda.   Findings:  Communication issues are not very frequent in ELF discourse.  Initial investigations (professional contexts): ‘let-it-pass’ strategies.  Current investigations (more informal situations): accommodation THE  ELF speakers use a number of strategies to achieve PRAGMATICS OF mutual understanding. They are display of pragmatic competence rather than a way of ‘compensating’ for ELF communication deficiencies (Baker, 2017) (BASED ON  ELF speakers show flexibility and accommodate to each other (also identified by Jenkins), construct and negotiate COGO AND meaning and solve miscommunication problems. HOUSE, 2017)  They use a number of pre-empting strategies aimed at identifying and fixing possible communication issues. Prevent problem or  They monitor each other’s talk closely. dificulty before it happens (okay, I’m going to say  ELF is characterized by greater explicitness and a great deal something that…) of support and collaboration (‘we are all on the same boat” ideology, Cogo & House, 2017. AN EXAMPLE OF A lot of reassuring or back channeling (mhm, yeah) to support and inform that the ACCOMMODATION speaker is being understood (important in ELF as english is not the L1). A lot of patience and respect Accommodation: sila repeats “of revolution” without THE because chacko said it like that (even if she uses THE correctly in all other contexts). She doesn’t change that because by doing it she’s pointing out that chacko made a mistake. We often don’t realise that we do this. Tense shifting, strange sentence structures… characteristic to ELF  Not only for ELF but they are very frequent in ELF interaction  4 main communication strategies:  Repetition (increasing explicitness; showing accommodation for efficiency) The more you repeat, the more explicit What you’ve said  Self-repetition: (explicitness is essential for ELF) (1) It’s really fascinating how we love communicating with each THE other. We’re so interested in how we’re able to communicate with each other. PRAGMATICS OF  Other repetition (‘represents’) – very frequent in ELF ELF interaction – typical of forms of discourse where information is routinely restated to confirm understanding. Repeat what someone else has said, not to show that you agree but to confirm understanding (from both parts) (2) A: and if erm things like Nigerian English, Indian English which is a sort of variety in itself it should be respected B: it should be respected.   Self-paraphrase / self-correction (self- repair) – pre-empting difficulties. THE (3) So, when did you start? I mean, like, were you a little kid PRAGMATICS OF or this passion just grew when you were a teenager? ELF (4) some Americans have never saw, have never seen… 3. Say the same with other words, to ensure that the person knows what answer you expect 4. Repeat what you said but without grammar mistakes, with the correct word, or paraphrasing for better understanding   Comprehension checks (direct or indirect questions that the speaker asks to see if the interlocutor can follow) – pre- empting difficulties. (5) In Italy we have this thing where we say your dirty clothes you’re washing in your house. I don’t know if it makes sense. THE  Co-construction of utterances – collaborating to PRAGMATICS OF construct the conversation. ELF (6) A: the most of the most of Chinese in foreign countries they speak not Mandarin they don’t speak Mandarin but can only these erm… B: dialects? Finishing a sentence especially if the speaker A: yes dialects is struggling to find the correct word   Abundance of backchannelling (mhm, yeah, right, uhu) – to show alignment and ensure efficiency You’re on the same page of communication.  In informal contexts:  Abundance of cooperative overlaps – a display of THE engagement. Speak at the same time with the aim of collaborating, not interrupting PRAGMATICS OF  Abundance of latching – a display of synchrony. ELF No small pause between one speaker and the other in conversation. Shows close monitoring  High tolerance to multilingual resources: Because they both have them  Resource for meaning-making  Symbolic functions: display of multilingual identities and intercultural membership; solidarity-building strategies; sensitivity to speakers’ cultural backgrounds, etc.  BLOCK 3: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING 3.1 FROM LEARNERS ENGLISH IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT – E. CODÓ TO USERS – 2024/25   Holliday (2005) coined the concept of native-speakerism the way L1 are taught in different countries affect how L2 are taught (L1 here syntactic focus so same which he describes as: for L2, L1 in usa literature focus) + china for example teacher is main character, so to  A pervasive ideology within ELT or a ‘nice field like TESOL’ ask students to take an active role goes against main pedagogical methods (Kubota, 2001) that needs to be undone.  ‘Native-’ vs ‘non-native speaker’ dichotomy as profoundly UNDOING THE ideological: “That there is often a lack of awareness of their deeper political significance is indicative of the way in which NATIVE SPEAKER ideologies typically operate” (Holliday, 2006, p. 385). FROM A  Both concepts should be placed in inverted commas on account of their ideological nature. SOCIOLINGUISTIC  Clustering with nationality + race, but also with certain PERSPECTIVE pedagogical principles: autonomy, learner-centredness, collaborative learning, active learning, etc. that imply a form of (HOLLIDAY, 2005) ‘othering’ of other forms of teaching and the ‘correcting’ of ‘non- native speaker’ culture. “native-speakerist ‘moral mission’ [is] to bring a ‘superior’ culture of teaching and learning to students and colleagues who are perceived not to be able to succeed on their own terms.” (2006, p. 386). the idea of our way of doing things is the best and only way   Cook (2005) coins the concept of L2 user as an alternative to the concept of non-native speaker (vs native-speaker).  Better than the concept ‘bilingual speaker’ – bilingualism/bilinguals often viewed as the sum of two monolingualisms/monolinguals. UNDOING THE  L2 user based on difference rather than deficit. NATIVE SPEAKER  L2 users have different minds – every time a language is added, the mind becomes something different (a single complex FROM AN SLA system) - ‘complexity of a mind with two languages compared to the simplicity of a mind with one’ (Cook, 2007, p. 14). PERSPECTIVE  Concept of multicompetence – languages are linked in (COOK, 2005) speakers’ minds. does it make sense to speak of L1, L2, L3, etc.? Against concept of interlanguage and the methods used to interlanguage: the transition language while you are still learning the L2, it’s not really L2 it’s something study it (e.g., error analysis). in between. it implies that L1 and L2 are separate and there is a point where one ends and the other There is little point in studying the second language as an isolated one begins. —> he criticises this interlanguage system since its raison d’être is that it is added to a first language (Cook, 2007, p. 14).   Not just L2 but L1 is also affected. The L2 user’s knowledge of their L1 is not the same as that of a monolingual.  Syntax  Lexicon  Stylistic complexity: stylistic more complex THE NATURE OF Hungarian sentences by learners of English (Kecskes & Papp, 2000) THE L2 USER  Pragmatics: Russian learners of English express emotions as states rather than process (Pavlenko, 2003). Changes in certain aspects politeness (Cook, 1985).  Phonology: French users of English pronounce /t/ in French with a longer Voice Onset Time (VOT) (Flege, 1987).   L2 users have different minds from monolinguals. metalinguistic awareness  L2 users have higher language awareness levels (semantic, syntactic and pragmatic).  Bilingual advantage: more creativity, flexibility, etc.  The L2 user employs language in a way different THE NATURE OF from monolinguals. THE L2 USER  Code-switching – highly skillful, plastic and creative behaviour - monolinguals: change of register or style.  An L2 user should be compared with a successful L2 user not with a native speaker – they are different ‘beasts’.  What makes a ‘successful’ or ‘proficient’ L2 user?  An attempt: CEFR descriptors. idea of the eternal learner with L2, but with  L2 speakers systematically viewed as ‘learners’. Why? L1 this is not the idea (even if we are really eternal learners of all languages, even our  Does this happen with L1 speakers? L1). native speaker ideal again, you will never be at their level, you’ll always be  Are we not learning language throughout our lives? Can you think of inferior to them. + ownership idea, you’re never legitimate enough situations?  L2 learners vs L2 users: native superior to L2 user  L2 learners: people engaged in contexts of language learning (making up sentences, doing role plays, carrying out classroom tasks, etc.). Learner THE L2 USER VS  activates an asymmetrical frame and perpetuates a deficit perspective. in whatever capacity you have L2 users: people who exploit whatever linguistic resources they have for THE L2 LEARNER a real-life purpose (playing video games with people from other countries; buying tickets for a concert in Berlin; visiting a doctor in Manchester, talking to exchange students, etc.). Wide variety of L2 users in terms of contexts and resources. Many L2 users are no longer L2 learners in the canonical way, though they are in a way that mirrors L1 long-life learning.  ‘L2 user’ is a broader, more equitable and more positive concept than L2 learner. This concept should be used exclusively when discussing pedagogical matters.  Language assessment?   If achieving (monolingual) native speaker proficiency is not the objective (a mulilingual L2 user is different from a monolingual L1 user), then NS teachers are no longer the model to imitate or reproduce, nor should they be the ‘real’ sources of input.  Nativeness → expertise (Rampton, 1990). Native teachers → expert teachers. Advantages of using ‘expertise’ as a criterion. TEACHING  From the biological (innate and fixed) → the social and learned (dynamic). From ‘who you are’ to 'what you know’. IMPLICATIONS  Expertise is relative – your degree of expertise is always relative to who you’re comparing yourself with.  Expertise is partial – no one is an expert in everything.  To achieve expertise, process of certification (judged by other people). Their standards of assessment can be reviewed and challenged.  Body of knowledge/sets of skills that learners must aim at should be specified.  BLOCK 3: IMPLICATIONS FOR 3.2 NATIVE VS NON- TEACHING ENGLISH IN A GLOBAL NATIVE LANGUAGE CONTEXT – E. CODÓ – 2024/25 TEACHERS   Native speakerism defined as: “an ideology that presents native speakers as the ultimate models of language use and the ideal teachers of a language, thus invalidating, discriminating, and/or underestimating non- native speakers” (Llurda and Calvet-Terré 2022: 3). THE  Job discrimination: unequal job opportunities, Phillipson’s linguicism as a language-based form of racism. PERSISTENCE OF  Explicitly showing a preference or looking exclusively for NESTs NATIVE (Native English-Speaking Teachers).  Implicitly regarding nativeness as the benchmark for hiring (to the SPEAKERISM expense of other criteria), which grants NSs a higher market value.  Using native speaker criterion for employment banned by BAAL and TESOL.  1991 – TESOL “Statement on non-native speakers of English and hiring practices”  https://nnest.moussu.net/docs/TESOL_PositionStatement(1991).pdf   Research conducted into the challenges experienced by NESTs vs NNEST (Non-Native English-Speaking Teachers). Ultimate goal: promoting equity by emphasizing the ’hidden’ NEST VS NNEST virtues of non-native teachers.  Material: fewer job opportunities and or lower salaries. (LLURDA, 2014 &  Affective: PAVLENKO, 2003)  Undermining of one’s professional confidence and self-image.  Impostor syndrome, feelings of inferiority and illegitimacy.  Having to constantly prove one’s worth and validity.  “NNS perceived as second-class citizens” (Pavlenko, 2003, p. 251).   Research has emphasised that each group contributes its own strengths to English language teaching.  NEST: they more comfortable using the language RESEARCH spontaneously and making references to their home cultures. FINDINGS  NNEST: higher levels of language awareness, which (FROM LLURDA, they can use to their advantage in the language classroom. 2004)  One main issue with this type of comparative research: assumed heterogeneity of each teacher group; lack of complexity in research design.   Students’ views (important in their role as ‘clients’) – their opinions used to justify preference for NESTs.  In the abstract, students prefer NESTs. STUDENTS’  When taught by NESTs and NNESTs (and VIEWS (FROM asked to rate their teachers), responses LLURDA, 2014) not affected by the native/non-native condition of the teacher. Instead, degree of satisfaction shaped by individual characteristics and performance in class.   Importance of context – how NNEST vs NEST distinction plays out in different RELEVANT contexts. Relationship to local context (who is a local vs how is a non-local?) FACTORS  Knowledge of student needs and demands. (ACCORDING  Knowledge of curriculum. TO LLURDA,  Knowledge of history and practices of language 2014) education (not just of English).  Knowledge of education system and culture of education.   Level of education – different challenges and concerns in primary, secondary and tertiary education; public vs private programmes, to RELEVANT which different individuals respond differently depending on their background, education, FACTORS teaching experience, professional trajectories, etc. (ACCORDING  Amount of international and intercultural exposure –NEST may not been outside their TO LLURDA, countries of origin ever, NNEST may have studied 2014) full degrees in English-speaking countries.  Level of ‘comfort’ using English – beyond correctness – flexible and spontaneous language use.   Discrimination also affects NESTs – often programmes specifically designed to incorporate NESTs in contexts where non-nationals are legally prevented from filling in teaching positions.  One such case: Japan Exchange and Teaching Programme DISCRIMINATION (JEP) AND NEST  NESTs as Assistant Language Teachers.  High expectations – ’magical’ solution.  Denied professional rights and advantages granted to local language teachers.  Need for cooperation between NESTs and NNESTs – strengths of all teachers be put to work.   ELF approach – reality of English worldwide has changed the game. “the teaching and learning of an international language must be based on an entirely different set of assumptions than the teaching and learning of any other second and foreign language” (McKay 2002: 1).  Focus of teaching to use English as an international language of communication should not be grammatical accuracy or native-like ELF: CHANGING pronunciation but other aspects related to THE GAME ensuring successful ELF communication.  Awareness of intelligibility issues  Adaptability and flexibility  Transcultural awareness   A great deal of work oriented towards ‘empowering’ NNESTs so that they challenge the dominant ideology.  But change will only be possible if NSs are also brought into the struggle.  Bringing the notion of English as an international language to HOW TO English learners and teachers - no particular native ADDRESS variety of the language can claim legitimacy over non-native forms, and therefore the advantage of NESTs disappears. DISCRIMINATION  Pavlenko (2003) emphasized the role of teacher education in helping NNESTs reimagine their own identity as members of a legitimate community of language teaching professionals.   Pavlenko (2003) is critical of work aimed to ‘empower’ NNESTs.  Studies contrasting NESTs and NNESTs validate and reinforce the categories rather than question them  Following feminist studies, inequalities are systemic and not just a “women’s issues” – inequitable hierarchies should be addressed TEACHER within the system as a whole.  Teacher education programmes are considered one of EDUCATION the most important stages for teacher identity development. AND TEACHER Pre-service and in-service teacher education is crucial to generate a new sense of professional agency and legitimacy IDENTITY → critical praxis in teacher education in TESOL/TEFL.  Concept of ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson, 1991) & ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998) – we think of ourselves as members specific of communities – a way of locating ourselves in the world that guides our actions, but it can also be a way of exploring “other meanings, other possibilities, other perspectives” (Pavlenko, 2003).   Norton (2000) associated L2 learning with ‘imagined communities’ as a driver or deterrent for language learning.  Negative self-perception with regard to an imagined community may lead to non-participation.  Pavlenko (2003) → teacher education should offer identity TEACHER options that would allow teachers to imagine themselves and others as legitimate members of professional communities. EDUCATION  Analysis of autobiographies of US TESOL programme students. AND TEACHER Imagined communities / professional identity options available to them prior to entering the programme. IDENTITY  ‘imagined NS community’ – feelings of inferiority, failure and frustration– impact on career options and trajectories.  ‘imagined non-native speaker/L2 learner community’ – embarrassment, temporary-turned-permanent location, feelings of stagnation.   Programme mission – help students reimagine their professional identities in TESOL.  Making alternative options available to students: Cook’s multicompetence, ideas of bi/multilingualism as heterogeneous repertoires, etc.  Multicompetence as a way of reframing their own and others’ competence. TEACHER From ‘incompetence’ to multicompetence.  Liberating and a means of reshaping and repositioning themselves. EDUCATION  Power of the imagination as a form of belonging. AND TEACHER  Importance of classrooms discourses in shaping students’ memberships in IDENTITY imagined communities and legitimizing new identity options.  BLOCK 3: IMPLICATIONS FOR 3.3 MATERIAL DESIGN TEACHING ENGLISH IN A GLOBAL AND NEW CONTEXT – E. CODÓ – 2024/25 PEDAGOGIES  + most publishers and writers are british, so it’s difficult to question the centre from the centre let’s remember that ELF is not a  Mismatch between what we know about how English works as a distinct variety, more a way of lingua franca from ELF research and the world of ELT. Why? communicating and looking at what happens in LF interactions.  Native-speakerism as a mediating ideology. Difficult to ‘undo’. so if it doesn’t exist, how is it taught?  ELF often seen as a poor version of an idealized NS model. Goal is to make ELF eventually appear as a desirable goal (Llurda and Mocanu 2019). something to aspire to  As we know that ELF as a distinct variety does not exist, the goal FRAMING THE would be to develop an ELF-aware pedagogy. ‘ELF’ ISSUE IN 1. More like a different way of looking at (=awareness about) English and how it’s used. ELT act on two dimensions: continue decentralising and also make students 2. ‘Post-normative’ approach (Dewey, 2012). aware of the globality of english  Acknowledging variability, fluidity and contextual adaptability of English as a lingua franca. accuracy and fluency are important but we should focus on other points as well  Practicing language skills necessary to use English successfully in LF situations.  Three areas of action: teacher training, the classroom and material design.   Significance of teacher education - “teacher education is where people begin to develop their perspectives on teaching and learning as well as their identities as teachers” (Lowe & Kiczkowiak, 2021).  Goal: think about how ELF can be incorporated into teacher education programmes (ELF-aware teacher education). Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018) suggest three phases: a) Awareness: Being engaged with the literature and exposed to ELF-AWARENESS examples of ELF interactions. Raising awareness of diversity of contexts and situations of use, and of the importance of IN TEACHER accommodation skills to enhance communication. b) Reflection: thinking about the implications of ELF for teaching TRAINING contexts. Challenging central concepts in ELT, challenging ideology of native speakerism (nativeness, ownership, inner circle, etc.) Evaluating suitability of available materials (speaker models, activities, etc.) Exploring how culture is presented (essentialist? only Anglophone countries?) Discussing what role is accorded to the students’ L1 (hindrance or resource?).  c) preparing in-service teachers to implement an ELF-aware pedagogy based on: 1. Fostering an ELF mindset in the students: challenging NS ideology, making students aware of global reach of English. ideological, change of perspective ELF-AWARENESS ▪ Inclusion of ELF-related readings and concepts IN TEACHER – making students aware of variation in TRAINING English, status of English as a global language of communication, etc. ▪ Include materials that feature ELF speakers. ▪ Encourage critical discussions on e.g. non- native accents.  2. Fostering an ELF skillset in the students: develop ability to use English in international, multilingual, multicultural and lingua franca contexts. practical ▪ Pronunciation: focus on Lingua Franca Core (LFC) based on Jenkins (2000) rather than mimic NS pronunciation https://englishglobalcom.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/the ELF-AWARENESS -lingua-franca-core.pdf. (LFC) IN TEACHER Key ideas: TRAINING ▪ Importance of vowel length (vs quality). ▪ Importance of nuclear stress (vs word stress or sentence stress). ▪ I’ve rented a FLAT vs I’ve RENTED a flat ▪ Importance of adequate pausing. (not weak forms or connected speech, which may hinder mutual understanding) identify the cultural component in our actions and language, culture  Fostering intercultural communication skills (vs as an element of communicatoin essentialist/reductionist/western inclusion of four Fs - that is negociated and variable foods, festivals, flags and famous people) – giving even within the same community students the skills to observe and identify different cultural practices, politeness systems, rituals. ▪ Undo essentialist views of culture – seeing culture as something fluid, changeable and also something that can ELF-AWARENESS vary from individual to individual. IN TEACHER ▪ Emphasis on communication skills. Communicative Language Teaching still focused on fluency TRAINING ▪ and grammatical/lexical correction. ▪ Introducing a broader set of communication skills - paraphrasing, reformulation, checking understanding, pre- empting difficulties etc. in real-life situations and practicing it. SUMMARY UNTIL NOW: what do we do with language, with culture, and with communication skills?   Some textbooks acknowledge the heterogeneity of English today. An example would be GLOBAL:  Presented as ‘ground-breaking’ because it enables learners ‘to learn English as it is used in our globalized world … and THE SITUATION to learn English as an international language’. NOW –  One of six quotes that inspired COMMERCIAL GLOBAL: ‘The English language is nobody’s ELT TEXTBOOKS special property. It is the property of the imagination’. Dereck Walcott, Caribbean poet.   Superficial approach to English as a ‘global’ david crystal important in global language. english approach, acritical and  But mostly WEs rather than ELF perspective. celebrating the spread of english  Examples of literature in English: all focused on Anglophone world. THE SITUATION NOW – COMMERCIAL ELT TEXTBOOKS  Association between ELF + communication issues: “When business people use English as a lingua franca, problems of communication often arise” in many textobooks, the cultural  7 principles to create ELF-aware materials: aspects tend to seen culture as a very 1) Intelligibility rather than NS proximity (LF core) fixed way and about anglophone cultures. problematise this, giving ▪ Distinguish production from reception. students the tools to act in intercultural 2) Successful ELF users rather than NSs situations PRINCIPLES FOR ▪ But careful with numbers, roles and total absence of lingua franca interactions. ELF-AWARE ELT 3) Authentic ELF use rather than NS corpora Incorporate data from existing corpora such as VOICE, ELFA, ACE MATERIALS ▪ (Asian Corpus of English) (BASED ON 4) Intercultural communicative skills rather than fixed cultural models KICZKOWIAK 5) Communicative skills rather than NS correctness 2019) ▪ Introduce, practice and emphasise importance of communicative skills. 6) Multilingual ELF use rather than monolingual NS use the ultimate goal is to get students as the ideal speaker to affectively communicate in ELF ▪ EMF – English as a Multilingua Franca contexts 7) Raising students’ awareness: towards an ELF mindset   ELF should help us open the focus, enrich ELT materials and decenter NS ‘stuff’ rather than totally replace it. CONCLUSIONS  Lack of specific proposals.  Huge task ahead!  BLOCK 3: IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING ENGLISH IN A GLOBAL 3.4 ELF AND TESTING CONTEXT – E. CODÓ – 2024/25   Tests are high-stakes moments, that is, THE IMPORTANCE highly consequential – they give or ban access OF TESTING to key social spaces and material resources (BASED ON (citizenship, higher education, scholarships, SHOHAMY, 2018) exchange programmes, employment, etc.).   ‘[…] recent changes in both users and uses of English have become so far-reaching that a major rethink of English language teaching goals is called for. […] however, […] this will first require a substantial THE overhaul of English language testing, given that IMPORTANCE teachers and learners alike will be reluctant to OF TESTING embrace any curriculum change that is not reflected in the targets set by the major (BASED ON examination boards’ (Jenkins 2006a: 43). SHOHAMY, 2018)  Language tests as de facto curriculum. This is one of the reasons why ELF has not made headway (Shohamy, 2018).   Tests have strong effects on learning, teaching, self-concept and identities, “enormous power of tests” (Shohamy, 2018).  Critical language testing → movement to make tests THE more inclusive and democratic. IMPORTANCE  Language tests are often based on language OF TESTING ideologies rather than on realities of language (BASED ON use. SHOHAMY, 2018)  Testing theories based on ideas of a stable and standard language, thus sitting at odds with the nature of ELF (fluid, unstable, non-standard, variable, etc.)   CHALLENGE 1: The English of educated UK or North American ‘native’ speakers traditionally used as a benchmark – these speakers usually acting as ‘gatekeepers’ (Jenkins 2020).  Similar argument deployed by WEs: routine penalization of CHALLENGES TO features of new or emerging varieties. CURRENT  Several dimensions affected: rater training, rubric development, but also selection of input texts of reading and LANGUAGE listening assessment, etc. ASSESSMENT  These tests lack validity defined as the extent to which the tests assess what needs to be assessed (mismatch between the reality of ELF and the NS-like competence that is being assessed). Consequence → the scores of those being assessed do not reflect their real communicative capabilities in lingua franca contexts.   CHALLENGE 2: What do we understand by ‘being proficient’? Language assessment focused on judging language competence against a stable variety → adaptability as a skill.  “[ELF speakers] are not necessarily oriented towards a particular variety of English (native or otherwise)... [t]herefore the language assessment issues raised by ELF transcend questions of proficiency conceptualized in terms of CHALLENGES TO a stable variety; they are concerned with what counts as effective and successful communication outcomes through the use of English that CURRENT can include emergent and innovative forms of language and pragmatic meaning” (Jenkins and Leung 2013, p. 4). LANGUAGE  “In a context where we have to constantly shuttle between different varieties and communities, proficiency becomes complex... One needs the ASSESSMENT capacity to negotiate diverse varieties to facilitate communication. The passive competence to understand new varieties” (Canagarajah, 2006, p. 233).  Adaptability abilities cut across the NS/NNS distinction.  Should NSs not be tested?   Test-takers prefer to have a body of knowledge that needs to be mastered DIFFICULTIES rather than a novel situation that needs to be coped with. FOR INTRODUCING  Concerns for fairness, the avoidance of bias and threats to reliability. AN ELF  Acceptability of changes. From the industry APPROACH rather than the learners?   Use of non-native raters in judging speaking and writing assessment.  Use of L2 accents in listening assessment.  Greater focus on: ADVANCES IN  intelligibility (rather than level of foreign accent) in pronunciation assessment. THE FIELD OF  communicative effectiveness or appropriateness ELT AND rather than formal accuracy or correction. TESTING  Yet, native speaker ‘lurks’ explicitly or implicitly.  Implicitly: “naturalness”, ”fast speech”, “familiarity with colloqualisms and idiomatic expressions”, etc.  Explicitly: see CEFR rubrics. ADVANCES IN THE FIELD OF ELT AND TESTING   Paired speaking as test format so that ELF competences might be assessed:  Negotiate meaning, deal with unfamiliar variation, accommodate interlocutor, repair communication breakdown, self-repair, reformulation, paraphrasing, etc.  What if there is no communication breakdown? ADVANCES IN  Rating scales still focus on language proficiency and on fluid communication. THE FIELD OF ELT AND TESTING   Domain-specific tests – ESP tests.  ELF approach is highly valuable (ability to adapt, negotiate meaning, identify understanding difficulties, etc).  Importance of formal register - CEFR, C2., overall spoken interaction, “has a good command of overall idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms” ??  Some key social fields : SOME TESTING  Aviation PROPOSALS  Kim (2009) – study of “near miss” situations at Seoul’s airport (participants: air traffic controllers & pilots)  Communicative issues linked to situation awareness, experience and cooperativeness.  NS and NNSs contributed equally.  International relations.  Business communication.  English for Academic Purposes.   Very few concrete proposals. Suggestions focused on principles rather than specific activity formats and rubrics.  Elder and Davies (2003) - Challenge 1 (decenter NS models)  avoiding NS-centric vocabulary (e.g. idiomatic expressions).  recruiting highly proficient ELF users as interlocutors in speaking exams (implemented to some extent). SOME TESTING  training raters to ignore non-standard features that did not impact on understanding (implemented to some extent). PROPOSALS  involving ELF users in the standard-setting.  Harding (2015) – Challenge 2 (assessing adaptability as a skill).  Need for a purpose-built ELF assessment task (vs re-tooling of existing assessment tasks).   Requirements: SOME TESTING PROPOSALS  Proposal: information-gap activity where one speaker is the information provider and must explain a route on the map to an interlocutor, the information receiver. Differences in landmarks as complicating factor. It can also provide challenges on a linguistic level such as words differently spelled or unfamiliar vocabulary.  Map tasks from Human Communication Research Corpus. Check here: https://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/maptask/ SOME PROPOSALS   Results:  ELF-like competences were being elicited.  Frequent requests for clarification and repetition.  Close self-monitoring and self-repair.  Challenge: how to capture ELF features for scoring/rating purposes. Holistic rubric developed following these principles: SOME PROPOSALS  Drawbacks:  Assessment: overall ELF performance relatively easy to assess but difficult to produce different grading scales.  Materials: lack of real-life authenticity – need for development of domain specific tasks.   ELF-focused activities not going to replace CONCLUSIONS existing static proficiency constructs for the time being, but they will rather function as BASED ON add-ons. EXISTING  Some advances – Occupational English Test RESEARCH (OET) for healthcare professionals who want (FROM to practice in an English-speaking context. HARDING AND  General info on test: https://oet.com/test/test- overview MCNAMARA,  Rubrics: https://cdn-aus.aglty.io/oet/pdf- 2018) files/speaking-assessment-criteria-updated-2018.pdf