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

net/publication/284646659

Culture and identity through English as a lingua Franca: Rethinking concepts

Book · July 2015

CITATIONS READS

83 2,198

1 author:

Will Baker
University of Southampton
46 PUBLICATIONS   1,110 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Special Issue: Language Policy in Asian Contexts View project

From English language learners to Intercultural Citizens: Chinese student sojourners development of intercultural citizenship in ELT and EMI programmes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Will Baker on 10 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 1 Introduction

“Did the mind discover likeness in the unlike in order to clarify the world, or to obscure the
impossibility of such clarification? He didn’t know the answer. But it was one hell of a question.”
Salman Rushdie, Shalimar the Clown (2006: 180)

There are currently no shortage of books addressing intercultural communication, culture and
identity. This should not be a surprise, as the quotation from Salman Rushdie’s character Max
Ophuls underscores, questions about ‘likeness’, ‘the unlike’, or ‘the other’ to use a term from
sociology and sociolinguistics, provide seemingly endless scope for discussion. These are certainly
not new questions but the increasing contact with difference, the unlike and the other brought
about through the acceleration of globalisation and associated communicative technologies in
recent decades have raised awareness of these issues. Questions concerning our understanding of
others and the cultures they are part of have been of interest to anthropologists, ethnographers,
linguists and intercultural communication scholars, to name a few, for centuries. More recently, our
ideas and construction of difference and the other have come under increasing scrutiny. Through
investigating these topics are we trying to “clarify the world, or to obscure the impossibility of such
clarification”? Is the other really as different or as similar as we think or are our comparisons simply
an artefact of our preconceptions? Should we even be investigating the other, by undertaking such
investigation are we not constructing and reifying the distinctions and differences we are trying to
overcome? Should we be trying to ‘overcome’ the differences, is there a danger that in doing so we
homogenise and restrict diversity?
Given the already extensive literature on these issues why add further to it? Firstly, as
Rushdie’s Max Ophuls notes, it is “one hell of a question” and worthy of continued investigation. As
societies and cultures change and develop so the answer, or rather answers, to questions of
difference, likeness and the other are likely to change too. Secondly, and of central relevance to this
monograph, issues of language are often marginalised and simplified in such discussions. While
applied linguists are becoming increasingly interested in matters concerning intercultural
communication, culture and identity, this is a relatively new development. Of course questions
about the relationship between language and culture are not new. Indeed writings by Humboldt,
Boas, Sapir and Whorf on this subject have been foundational for many branches of linguistics.
However, these writings were typically concerned with intracultural communication, in other words
communication within social or cultural groups.
Much less attention has been given to communication across or between cultural groupings.
Since World War Two research into intercultural communication, or cross-cultural communication as
it was typically termed, has grown considerably particularly through the influential work of Edward T
Hall and Geert Hofstede. However, language does not form a central part of this research and when
it is investigated it is often approached unproblematically with simplistic language, nation and
culture correlations assumed. With the interest in intercultural communication in applied linguistics
this is changing and the linguistic aspects of intercultural communication are now receiving
considerably more attention. Yet, here too there are still major shortcomings in many of the
approaches taken. In particular, there seems to be little awareness of, or interest in, the actual
language through which much of this intercultural communication takes place, namely English.
English is frequently approached as if it were a neutral choice as the medium of intercultural
communication or in a reified and simplistic manner. Where the role of English is investigated, there
is still little awareness of how it functions as a lingua franca in the majority of interactions and the
implications this has for understanding intercultural communication.
It is these shortcomings or areas of neglect that form the rationale for this book. I will
investigate these issues though a consideration of points of convergence and divergence between
intercultural communication research and English as a lingua franca (ELF) research. In particular I
will argue that ELF research has some major implications for our conception of the relationships
between communication, language, identity and culture. This is not because there is something
unique about communication through ELF, although the scale of ELF use is unprecedented in the
history of lingua francas, but rather because the growing field of ELF research provides a substantial
body of knowledge documenting how cultures and identities are constructed and enacted in
intercultural communication. Thus, while intercultural communication is now a well-established
field, although relatively new compared to many, and ELF a newly emerged but already substantial
research domain (there is an annual conference, journal and book series devoted to the subject
alongside numerous articles and monographs), there has been little attempt to synergise findings
from the two fields. This has very recently begun to change. The first AILA Research Network on ELF
in 2012 addressed this theme in part, the sixth annual international ELF conference in 2013 was
entitled ‘Intercultural Communication: New perspectives from ELF’, an edited volume on this subject
is in production (Dervin and Holmes, forthcoming) and a special edition of the Journal of English as a
Lingua franca will also address this subject (2015, 4/1). This monograph, thus, aims to join this newly
emerging area of interest in exploring how ELF and intercultural communication research can inform
each other and further add to our understanding of culture and identity in intercultural
communication through ELF.
In this book I will argue that one of the main challenges that ELF gives rise to in our
understanding of language, communication, culture and identity is to test the traditional
assumptions concerning the purposed ‘inexorable’ link between a language and a culture and in turn
identity. Due to the multitude of users and contexts of ELF communication the supposed language,
culture and identity correlation, often conceived at the national level, appears simplistic and naïve.
However, it is equally naïve to assume that ELF is a culturally and identity neutral form of
communication. All communication involves participants, purposes, contexts and histories, none of
which are ‘neutral’. Thus, we need new approaches to understanding the relationship between
language, culture and identity which are able to account for the multifarious and dynamic nature of
ELF communication. Such alternative approaches will have important consequences not only for ELF
research but for how we characterise intercultural communication in general. Alongside this
reconsideration of the links between languages, cultures and identities in intercultural
communication there needs to be a proper exploration of the implications for practice, especially for
teaching and learning.
Connected to teaching and learning, a central concern within both intercultural
communication research and applied linguistics has been how we characterise the competences
needed for successful intercultural communication. In particular new ways of looking at intercultural
communicative competence are necessary that go beyond an understanding of ‘a language’ and its
links to ‘a specific culture’. To understand how users of ELF communicate successfully we need a
framework for conceptualising the knowledge, attitudes and skills they employ in relation to the
diverse contexts of intercultural communication. This reconceptualization of culture in intercultural
communication will in turn have wide-ranging ramifications for how we approach English language
teaching (ELT) and teaching intercultural communication. The role of culture and intercultural
communication in language teaching has gained in prominence, in theory at least, over previous
decades. However, ELF studies suggest on the one hand that knowledge, skills and attitudes related
to intercultural communication should be a more prominent part of ELT, while on the other, that the
often simplistic notions of other cultures and languages envisaged in ELT materials should be
questioned. An alternative, less essentialist, approach to ELT and intercultural communication
pedagogy is needed. These concerns can be summarised in four questions presented below.

1. What are points of convergence and divergence between ELF and intercultural
communication research?
2. What influence (if anything) do studies of intercultural communication through ELF have
on our understanding of the relationship between culture, identity and language?
3. What are the implications of ELF research for conceptualising intercultural
communicative competence?
4. What are the consequences (if any) of ELF and intercultural awareness (ICA) research for
teaching English (ELT)?

These questions are used to guide and focus the discussion in this book and are explicitly
addressed as the arguments develop. To accomplish this the book is roughly divided into two
sections. In the first section theories and research related to intercultural communication, culture,
identity and ELF are explored. In the second section implications for practice and particularly
notions of intercultural communicative competence, intercultural awareness and English language
teaching are considered. In writing this book I have been equally interested in both theory and
practice and felt that it was important to include a proper in-depth exploration of the implications of
current research and theory on intercultural communication and ELF for pedagogy. Too often
research based monographs leave discussions of implications (which in applied linguistics are
typically related to pedagogy) to the final chapter or a short section in the conclusion. While this
may be perfectly justifiable given the research led aims of many texts, this relegation of pedagogy to
a final afterthought often fails to adequately address the complexity of different pedagogic
approaches, classrooms, learners, and teachers. Brief attempts to discuss pedagogy also frequently
fail to offer enough detail in their pedagogic recommendations to be meaningful to those involved in
teaching or teacher training and education. This book of course makes no claims to be relevant to all
teachers or teaching settings but pedagogic concerns are given equal weighting to theoretical
concerns. In dividing the book in this way the first section addresses the initial two questions
outlined above, related to key theoretical concepts in intercultural communication, and the second
section addresses the final two questions, related to more practical issues in intercultural education
and ELT.
However, it is important that this is not interpreted as reifying distinctions between theory,
research and practice. Indeed, constructing theory and conducting research are clearly forms of
practice just as teaching is (Kramsch 2009). Likewise, in answering questions about intercultural
communicative competence and awareness and related teaching approaches, research and theory
will be drawn on. Furthermore, as the term ‘applied’ indicates in applied linguistics the relationship
between theory and practice is closely interconnected. Widdowson (1980) in the first issue of the
journal ‘Applied Linguistics’ makes a distinction between linguistics applied i.e. the application of
linguistic theory to language issues or problems and applied linguistics which involves mediation
between theory and practice with practice driving theory as much as vice-versa (see also
Widdowson 2000). This point is reinforced by the most commonly cited definition of applied
linguistics as “the theoretical and empirical investigation of real world problems in which language is
a central issue” (Brumfit 1995:27). Brumfit’s definition takes a similar perspective to Widdowson in
positioning ‘real world problems’ related to language as central and then investigating how theory
and empirical investigation can inform or be informed by these problems. Hence this monograph
can be viewed as very much in the tradition of applied linguistics in investigating real world
problems; how we understand culture and identity in complex and diverse intercultural
communication scenarios through ELF and how we teach to prepare learners to use English as a
lingua franca for intercultural communication. In attempting to address these problems the
relationships between current theory and practice are explored in a holistic manner that eschews
proposing or reinforcing distinctions between them.

1.1 English as a lingua franca (ELF)

Before proceeding further it is important to briefly outline what is meant by the term ELF in
research. Other key terms in the title and questions above, ‘intercultural communication’, ‘culture’
and ‘identity’, are all dealt with in separate chapters, and discussions of the nature of ELF
communication and research in relation to each of these are provided there. Thus, given the likely
audience for this book and the already extensive recent writing on the nature of ELF (e.g. Jenkins,
Cogo and Dewey 2011; Seidlhofer 2011; Mauranen 2012), an entire chapter devoted to a general
discussion of ELF as a phenomenon and field of research did not seem necessary. Nonetheless, for
those who are less familiar with ELF research a short overview of ELF and related terminology, as it is
understood in this monograph, is given. Furthermore, this should also help to clarify the later
discussions and avoid misinterpretation in understanding what is referred to when considering ELF
studies and communication.
Firstly, one of the major factors for the increasing interest in ELF is the now well-
documented growth in English language use in recent decades. The number of native speakers of
English is estimated to be around 328 million, making it the third largest language in terms of L1
speakers, slightly behind Spanish (329 million), but a long way behind Chinese (over 1 billion)
(www.ethnologue.com). However, where English becomes different to other languages is in terms
of L2 or non-native users1. Although exact figures are difficult to produce, Crystal’s (2008) estimate
of 2 billion is widely cited as a reliable ‘conservative’ estimate. The fact that L2 users of English now
greatly outnumber L1 users of English has major implications for the way we view English as a
language and as a medium for intercultural communication. In particular, scholars have been
suggesting for several decades now that given the extensive use by L2 users, ‘ownership’ of English
and the ‘norms’ of communication through English will no longer be the solely under the authority
or influence of those users from its Anglophone origins (Widdowson 1994; Brumfit 2001). The use of
English as an official L2, particularly in post-colonial settings, has been studied and documented

1
Of course English is not the only global language and Spanish, for example, has a large numbers of L2
speakers (Mar-Molinero 2004). Chinese is also increasing in use and is now only slightly behind English in
terms of internet use (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm).
extensively in World Englishes (WE) research, leading to the establishment and general acceptance
of many ‘new’ varieties of English such as Indian, Singaporean and Nigerian English (e.g. Kachru
1990; 2005; Schneider 2007; Kirkpatrick 2012). However, the most extensive use of English as an L2
(or rather as an additional language since it may be an L3, L4 etc…) is not as an officially recognised
and codified variety, but rather as a lingua franca by the majority of users who do not speak any
established ‘variety’ of the language. ELF research is thus very different from the varieties approach
taken in World Englishes, a point returned to later.
ELF has been defined by Seidlhofer as “any use of English among speakers of different first
languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often only option” (2011: 7,
italics in original). This is a commonly cited definition that clearly captures the function that English
performs as lingua franca for intercultural communication. It is functional in the sense that the focus
is on the use or function of English as a lingua franca. Importantly, it includes native speakers of
English (NES), unlike some earlier definitions (e.g. Firth 1996; House 1999), since NES also engage in
intercultural communication through English and it is important that we do not exclude a potentially
interesting area of intercultural communication from research. Furthermore, to exclude NES from
our definition of ELF would be to assume that intercultural communication involving NES is
fundamentally different to that involving non-native speakers of English. This is problematic in that
it makes assumptions about the communication before investigation and reifies the native/non-
native distinction. A further functional definition of ELF which is of relevance to this book is
provided by Jenkins who states that, “ELF refers to English when it is used as a contact language
across linguacultures” (2006: 159). This definition explicitly recognises the intercultural aspects of
ELF communication in referring to different linguacultures (a term that will be discussed in detail in
chapter three). Lastly, from a research perspective Baird, Baker and Kitazawa define ELF “as a field
that enquires into various aspects of the use of English among speakers who do not share a first
language” (2014: 191). This definition draws on and shares much with the previous two definitions
but shifts the focus from the functions of English to an open research agenda.
One of the most comprehensive characterisations of ELF as a field of research that adds
detail to the short definitions above is provided by Mauranen (2012). To summarise and somewhat
simplify Mauranen’s argument, she distinguishes between three perspectives on ELF: the
macrosocial, the cognitive and the microsocial, which provide a backdrop or framework for analysing
ELF interactions (2012: 15). The macrosocial perspective is concerned with the wider speech
community and language change. In relation to ELF this includes issues of globalisation, communities
of ELF speakers, and how we might conceive of them, and the influences ELF may have on language
changes in English. The cognitive perspective concerns the individual and in particular the
relationship between language and the mind. Mauranen draws extensively on usage based theories
of language (e.g. Tomasello 2003; Bybee 2006) and this will be explored in detail in chapter three
where it is suggested that English used in ELF communication is best approached as a complex
adaptive system (e.g. Larsen-Feeman 2011). The microsocial perspective is concerned with
interaction and the speech event. It is at the microsocial level that all of the three perspectives
come together. As Mauranen explain it “The different ‘levels’ at which language takes place, our
different perspectives, are thus angles on one phenomenon, language in use” (2012: 55). This
microsocial perspective is the level that research typically centres on since this is the only directly
observable phenomena and the one from which the other perspectives can be indirectly accessed.
ELF research has thus been mostly concentrated at the level of speech event. These distinctions
between three different scales or levels of language are important in that they help to clarify what is
being discussed or examined when conducting research. Following this, similar distinctions will be
made use of later in chapter three when examining the relationships between language and culture
and outlining how both concepts might be approached in ELF research.
A crucial feature that all these definitions and characterisations share is that ELF is not
treated as a variety of English in investigations; rather ELF research is concerned with the variable
use of English in intercultural communication. This is perhaps an obvious point to those familiar with
ELF research but it is one of the most common misinterpretations of how ELF is conceptualised in
research and one that continues to be repeated (e.g. Pennycook 2010: 49, see also the discussion in
chapter two). This misinterpretation may in part be due to earlier research where it was suggested
that there were ‘core’ features of ELF in terms of phonology, lexis and syntax (Jenkins 2000;
Seidlhofer 2004). However, these were proposed tentatively and while subsequent research (e.g.
Kirkpatrick 2010) has generally confirmed the frequency of earlier identified features, a great deal of
variation has also been documented. Thus, while aspects of phonology, lexis and syntax are still of
interest to ELF researchers, there is a consensus that there is too much variation in ELF
communication for any variety to emerge (Baker and Jenkins 2015). Furthermore, ELF researchers
have also increasingly questioned the notion of language variety itself (e.g. Seidlhofer 2011;
Mortenson 2013; Baird, Baker and Kitazawa 2014), a theme returned to in chapter three.
It should also be acknowledged that there is a degree of fuzziness to the above definitions of
ELF since it is important that enquiry into intercultural communication through ELF remains open to
the diversity of participants and settings in which communication is likely to occur. Thus, for
example, in later chapters instances of speakers of the same first language communicating in English
as a second language (L2) will sometimes be investigated. This is justified as other speakers in the
setting may not share a first language. In educational settings, for instance, the teacher may have a
different L1 but the class students share an L1 or the purpose of the class may be to prepare learners
for communication through ELF. Therefore, while it is important to define or characterise a field of
study in order to provide a shared understanding of goals and knowledge, examples such as those
given previously, underline the need to approach definitions with flexibility so as to not prematurely
cut off potentially productive lines of research.
Closely connected to ELF not being a variety of English is the point that ELF researchers are
not suggesting that ELF communication is unique compared to other kinds of intercultural
communication. A number of scholars have recently made clear in their research that their findings,
whether related to pragmatic and communication strategies, variability or conceptions of language,
do not position ELF as sui generis (see Ehrenreich 2011; Björkman 2013; Mortenson 2013; Baird,
Baker and Kitazawa 2014). Similar findings have been documented in intercultural communication
research through languages other than English (Kramsch 2009). Moreover, in the multilingual
scenarios in which English is used as a lingua franca other languages may be used in a similarly fluid
manner. Nonetheless, ELF research is important due to the scale at which ELF use is occurring.
Although there is nothing new about lingua francas, as outlined at the beginning of this section the
extent of ELF use is unprecedented in the history of lingua francas. To emphasise the point again;
this is not necessarily to suggest that English as a language is any different to other languages used
for intercultural communication. It may be that any language used on such a large scale for
intercultural communication would begin to display the characteristics we have seen of English used
as a lingua franca. However, the scope of English use as a lingua franca is unique in the history of
lingua francas. As such this makes it an important field of study and places ELF research in a position
that is especially likely to produce new insights concerning the global uses of languages for
intercultural communication.
Some of the subjects and domains that ELF researchers have been concerned with over the
last few decades have included corpus studies, pragmatics, language attitudes and ideology,
intercultural communication, identity and culture, English language policy and pedagogy, business
English and academic English. Corpora related to ELF include: VOICE (Vienna Oxford International
Corpus of English) consisting of 1 million word corpus of spoken ELF from European settings
(http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/index.php); the ELFA (English as a lingua franca in academic
setting) corpus which is a 1 million word corpus of spoken ELF in academic settings
(http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/elfacorpus); and the ACE (Asian Corpus of English) corpus
which is also a 1 million corpus of spoken ELF interactions from Asia (http://corpus.ied.edu.hk/ace/).
Issues explored within pragmatics have included accommodation, code-switching and other
multilingual communication strategies and will be discuss in chapter two and chapter five. Attitudes
and ideology have been an extensive part of ELF research since the beginning, particularly in relation
to conceptions of ‘standard’ English and the prestige or otherwise of Anglophone Englishes, other
varieties of English and ELF (e.g. Jenkins 2007; 2014). Intercultural communication research linked
to ELF obviously has many overlaps with pragmatics but also involves issues of identity, community
and culture, all of which have been concerns of ELF researchers, as will be documented in chapters
two, three and four. While there have been discussions of English language policy and pedagogy for
some time in ELF research (e.g. Jenkins 2000), this has become especially important as the
implications of the extensive use of ELF for intercultural communication becomes more apparent
within ELT. Overviews of research in these areas will be presented in chapters six and seven and
involves issues such as teaching models and content choices. Finally, two domains that have
received particular attention in research have been English as a lingua franca in business (BELF) (e.g.
Ehrenreich 2009; Louhiala-Salminen and Kankaanranta 2011; Bjørge 2012) and English as a lingua
franca in academia (ELFA) (e.g. Mauranen 2012; Björkman 2013; Jenkins 2014) due to the extensive
use of ELF in these areas. Fuller overviews of all these research subjects and domains can be found in
Jenkins, Cogo and Dewey (2011), Seidlhofer (2011), Mauranen (2012), Jenkins (2015) and Galloway
and Rose (2015).
That ELF research is not about documenting and studying varieties of English makes it
fundamentally different to World Englishes (WE) research. While WE research is similarly concerned
with diversity in uses of Englishes and securing linguistic rights and status for English speakers
outside of Anglophone ‘inner circle’ settings (e.g. Kachru 2005), it still adopts an essentially
modernist perspective on language in which discrete varieties of language, in this case Englishes, are
associated with nations and geographically situated communities. Additionally WE research has
focused on post-colonial or Kachru’s outer circle contexts. ELF research, in contrast, is concerned
with more fluid and dynamic uses of English in which there may be no fixed physical communities
with which language can be associated. While this was previously typically connected with Kachru’s
expanding circle settings, more recently research has cut across the three circles and indeed
questioned the relevance of the three circle model (e.g. Jenkins 2014; 2015). As such ELF research is
more closely aligned with postmodernist perspectives on language in which language is viewed as a
social practice rather than a definable discrete system with clear boundaries between languages and
varieties of language. Furthermore, rather than use the term inner circle, with its connotations of
superiority and centrality, the term Anglophone will be more often employed in this book. While it is
roughly analogous to the inner circle, it does not carry the same baggage and is more focused on the
ideological construct of the Anglophone English speaking countries in the discourses around English.
However, it must of course be recognised that Anglophone settings are far from homogeneous and
contain a great deal of diversity. Multilingualism is also a feature of many Anglophone countries as
well, even if it is not recognised in much of the discourse on English, especially in ELT.
ELF research also needs to be distinguished from EIL (English as an international language)
research. EIL has in the past been associated with claims that an international variety of English
might emerge which is not based on any one national variety (see Jenkins 2007 and Seidlhofer 2011
for critiques of this). However, more recent writing on EIL has moved on from this, explicitly
rejecting the possibility of such a supranational variety (Matsuda and Friedrich 2012: 19).
Nonetheless, EIL scholars still approach English from a varieties perspective as the following
quotation illustrates “once it is (tacitly) decided that English is used, more than one variety of English
is often represented in such situations because each speaker brings a variety that he or she is most
familiar with” (Matsuda and Friedrich 2012: 18, emphasis mine). This suggests a very different
approach to English, and language in general, than that currently taken in ELF research. In its
concern with varieties of language EIL can be viewed as more closely aligned with WE research than
ELF (see also McKay and Bokhorst-Heng 2008; Sharifian 2009; Alsagoff et al 2012; Matsuda 2012).
However, it should be noted that some scholars use the term EIL in a similar way to the
characterisations of ELF given here (e.g. Pahn 2009). Nonetheless, given that the majority of
research into English used for intercultural communication drawn on in this book uses the term ELF,
and the relevance of characterisations of ELF presented above, the term ELF will be used here.
Although there are clearly major differences in the focus of study in ELF, EIL and WE, as well
as fundamental differences in the perspectives on language taken, all three fields share a desire to
expand research and understanding of Englishes beyond the narrow confines of ‘native speaker’
Anglophone settings. As such, all three fields offer an alternative to the current orthodoxy in English
language teaching (ELT) and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research. Additionally, all three fields
are often concerned with similar subject matters such as language attitudes and ideology, language
policy and pedagogy, pragmatics, identity, culture and language. The term Global Englishes is made
use of in this monograph to capture this shared set of interests. Global Englishes is defined as “the
linguistic and sociocultural dimensions of global uses and users of English”
(http://www.southampton.ac.uk/cge/about/). Thus, Global Englishes provides a useful general
umbrella term that covers all three fields and their concerns with diverse characterisations of
Englishes worldwide.
Many of these characterisations of English use and users contain references to native and
non-native speakers. However, the concept of a native speakers and the distinction between native
and non-native speakers has long been problematized in applied linguistics (e.g. Rampton 1990;
Cook 1999; Davis 2003; Llurda 2006; Pennycook 2012) and ELF research has added to this critique.
Of course L1 or mother tongue speakers of a language may self-identify or be identified as native
speakers of that language and these are important ideological and social categories. However,
linguistic or functional distinctions between native and non-native speakers are notoriously difficult
to agree on and there is a growing consensus in applied linguistics, at least in more socially
orientated research, that the distinction is unhelpful and more likely to obscure rather than aid
enquiry. This is especially relevant to intercultural communication through ELF (or any kind of
intercultural communication) where communication may proceed in a manner that is different to
intracultural communication between speakers who share English as a first language (although it is
important not to oversimplify L1 communication where speakers may not always share
communicative expectations). In this sense it could be argued that English is no one’s native
language in ELF communication since all participants will need to adapt and adjust their language
and other communicative practices to ensure successful communication. Nonetheless, given the
prevalence of the terms native and non-native speaker in the literature it is impossible to avoid
reference to them. Therefore, these terms are used with the caveats explained here and although
for ease of reading ‘scare quotes’ have not been used, the terms should be read as if they are in
scare quotes.

1.2 Overview of the book

Chapter two begins by outlining what is meant by intercultural communication in this monograph
and how this influences the framing of the discussions of culture and identity. Due to the focus on
intercultural communication through ELF, an examination of points of convergence and divergence
between the two fields is offered. Communication through ELF is by its nature a process of
intercultural communication and hence of great relevance to intercultural communication research
and similarly intercultural communication studies deal with many issues of concern to ELF scholars.
However, I will argue that ELF research has frequently been marginalised or misunderstood in
intercultural communication literature to date. Nonetheless, there is the potential for much
productive cross-over between the two fields, particularly given the growing empirical and
theoretical base of ELF studies providing data and discussions on matters of direct relevance to
intercultural communication including notions of culture, identity and successful communication. It
is these issues which will then form the subjects of the following three chapters.
Chapter three forms one of the core theoretical discussions for this book. Here the
relationships between language, communication and culture are explored in intercultural
communication through ELF. Influential theories of culture will be presented including structuralist
and post structuralist approaches with a particular focus on culture as discourse, practice and
ideology. This will also include considerations of how culture is understood in contemporary
societies and the effects globalisation has had on our understanding of this. I will suggest that due to
the multiple scales at which culture can be characterised and its dynamic nature, complexity theory
can be used as an effective metaphor or meta-theory for thinking about culture. To support this
argument, key aspects of complexity theory and emergentism will be outlined. Following this
complexity theory will be used as a lens through which to consider the relationships between
languages and cultures combined with the concept of linguacultures. This theoretical discussion will
be supported and illustrated through the use of data from ELF studies that have investigated the
cultural dimension to communication. Finally, I will argue that such studies force us to reconsider
how we conceptualise the categories of culture and language in intercultural communication and
advocate the need for critical approaches to these categories.
Chapter four comprises the second core theoretical discussion for this book. In this chapter
the relationships between culture, identity and intercultural communication through ELF are
considered. As with chapter two critical approaches to these concepts will be adopted and the
notions of complexity, fluidity and emergence in relation to cultural identities will be explored. Key
theories of identity will be outlined with a characterisation of cultural identity given. The central
role of language and discourse in the construction and negotiation of identities will be emphasised.
Alongside this the role of difference and othering in identity construction and ascription in
intercultural communication will be considered as well as tension between local, national, and global
identifications. I will argue that the concept of interculturality provides a useful heuristic for
interpreting the complexity of cultural identities in intercultural communication. Again, similarly to
chapter two, the theoretical discussion will be supplemented with data from empirical ELF studies
illustrating the relevance of cultural identity and interculturality to the analysis of intercultural
communication through ELF.
Chapter five provides a transition between the more theoretical concerns of the first part of
this monograph and the more practice orientated and pedagogic concerns of the second half. This
chapter contains a critical review of previous concepts of communicative competence and
intercultural communication competence (ICC) and puts forward the notion of intercultural
awareness. Communicative competence has been foundational in our understanding of the
elements of successful communication in applied linguistics, intercultural communication and
language teaching. However, it has come under increasing criticism for being too narrowly
conceptualised for L2 use and intercultural communication, particularly in ELF research. Alternatives
to communicative competence will be discussed with a focus on the notion of ICC and contemporary
developments of it in relation to language pedagogy. However, I will argue that many of these
approaches still retain at their core a concept of language and culture in which language is
associated with a fixed geographically located cultural group, typically at the national level. Much
thinking has still not adequately accounted for the complexity and fluidity of intercultural
communication through ELF where no such stable relationships can be assumed. I will outline the
concept of intercultural awareness (ICA) as an alternative or development of ICC that accounts for
the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to manage the diversity of cultural practices, references
and identifications documented in intercultural communication and ELF research. Empirical data
from my own research which demonstrates aspects of ICA in practice and in development will be
presented.
Chapter six explores the implications of ELF research and ICA for language teaching and
particularly for approaches to culture and the intercultural in ELT. This involves an examination and
critique of current approaches in ELT which typically simplify and essentialise the intercultural and
cultural dimensions to second language use as well as marginalising or ignoring ELF findings.
Alternative approaches to ELT are considered including intercultural, Global Englishes and ELF
perspectives. These alternatives underscore the importance of locally relevant and adaptable, post-
methods approaches to teaching. In parallel a post-normative approach to language,
communication and culture will also be explicated. I will then offer my own recommendations for
integrating ICA into classroom practice which incorporates many of the insights from intercultural
education and ELF research. These recommendations consist of five broad themes for developing
ICA in the classroom. However, they are not offered as prescriptive principles which are applicable
in all settings but rather as issues of concern for pedagogic practice and examples of attempts to
address these concerns through principles which are broad enough to be adaptable to different
settings and needs.
Chapter seven continues the exploration of implications for pedagogy this time through an
empirical study. I present a case study of a course in intercultural communication, intercultural
awareness and Global Englishes offered to English language learners at a Thai university. The aims of
the study were:
 to explore the feasibility of developing ELT materials which took a Global Englishes
perspective as their baseline and that incorporated aspects of ICA into the approach;
 to investigate how such a course could be delivered;
  to consider the types of learning that took place and to document teachers’ and
students’ evaluations of such a course.

The main findings from this research showed the relevance of more globally and intercultural
orientated ELT materials and the positive attitudes of both students and teachers towards them. Of
course the approach presented here and the findings are not applicable to all settings but it does
provide an example of how these apparently complex themes and ideas can be translated into
meaningful and effective pedagogy. In so doing the hope is that there are elements that will
resonate in other contexts and lead to reflection on alternative means of presenting the diversity of
Englishes and the intercultural in ELT classrooms. This challenges the current orthodoxy in ELT in
which Global Englishes and interculturality are given a minor place and suggests they should occupy
a more central role.
Chapter eight is the final chapter and offers a summary and conclusion. This is done through
providing an overview of the answers to the four questions posed above. It also presents a number
of suggestions for future research in relation to culture, identity and ELF communication alongside
recommendations for pedagogy. In particular, I argue that given the growing body of empirical data
in ELF research more wide-ranging investigations are now possible. This will enable further studies
which explore in-depth the implications for both theory and practice in a number of different fields,
but especially in intercultural communication and ELT.
View publication stats