The variationist view of ELF

The main aim of early ELF research was to describe ELF as a variety, trying to identify linguistic forms which are used consistently by its speakers and which make ELF distinguishable from ENL. The rationale behind finding consistent linguistic patterns was to distinguish between performance errors of second language users and the competence of ELF users so that features of ELF use would no longer be regarded as deficient manifestations or imperfect imitations of ENL but as features of a language variety in their own right. Similarly to World Englishes, linguistic description and the consequent academic recognition of ELF could mean that its linguistic features can be freed from the stigma of imperfect non-native English, which are seen as flawed attempts to emulate native speakers‟ English, meaning that they could instead be regarded as conventionalised forms of legitimate varieties.

This brought about the description of non-native varieties not as erroneous and flawed attempts to emulate native speakers‟ English but as fully functional varieties in their own right.

Empirical research was conducted in order to identify regular patterns in non-native speakers‟

34

English with regards to phonology (Jenkins, 2000), morphology (Breiteneder, 2009), syntax (Seidlhofer, 2003), vocabulary (Pitzl, Breiteneder, & Klimpfinger, 2008) and language use (House, 2003). The most extensive corpus of ELF English was compiled by the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) project, collecting instances of interactions among non-native speakers and between native and non-native speakers. Although the present research project focuses on speech varieties of English, it is important to illustrate variation in ELF pertaining to other areas of the language in order to emphasise that variability in pronunciation is not a unique aspect of English, but it is part of a generic and natural phenomenon of using English as a lingua franca; besides variation does not hinder communication in ELF use but it can actually enhance it.

Concerning the phonology of ELF, Jenkins (2000) has made suggestions for a lingua franca core, consisting of the essential phonemes necessary for avoiding misunderstandings in ELF communication, which are meant to be applicable to all users of English. This is a significant step as it abandons the idea that the main aim of L2 English pronunciation is to emulate a standard native variety. The theory of the Lingua franca core is discussed in detail in Section 2.4.1.

As for morphology and syntax, the VOICE project provides results of corpus-based empirical research which have implications for norms in ELF. Concerning morphology, Breiteneder (2005, 2009) points out that the present 3^rd person singular inflection is omitted by speakers in a considerable proportion of the cases. In language teaching, this is regarded as a frequent mistake by learners, as it deviates from the morphology of the standard varieties of English such as Standard British English or GA English. However, it is argued that this feature does not contribute to the meaning of the message, neither does it have any grammatical

35

significance and has thus no communicative function whatsoever. Consequently, its omission does not cause misunderstanding between speakers and it is therefore argued that zero marking for this case should be accepted in ELF grammar. This can be regarded as a parallel with English pronunciation where commonly occurring variation of redundant features has only symbolic significance (cf. Jenkins, 2000)

Seidlhofer (2003) provides a list of further morphological and syntactic features, often treated as errors in ELT, which do not result in miscommunication and should therefore be included as features of ELF. These include, for instance, interchanging „who‟ and „which‟, transferring the L1 use of definite articles into English, or using question tags which do not agree with the verb of the main clause, such as „yes?‟ or „no?‟. These features are common phenomena in ELF speech which do not lead to misunderstandings and therefore should not be persecuted as errors in language teaching solely because they differ from the language use of most native speakers. By contrast, she points out that it is idiomatic and metaphorical language use, commonly used by L1 speakers of English, which tends to lead to miscommunication. Although these observations are based on spoken language, the implications for norms may be applied to written language as well. Consequently, the main implication for ELF norms is that systematic differences from native speaker grammar, which are commonly treated as errors in traditional language teaching, should be regarded as naturally occurring variation in L2 use.

As far as vocabulary is concerned, Pitzl et al. (2008) identify lexical innovations in the spoken VOICE corpus, which are produced by ELF speakers while interacting with each other in order to fulfil ad hoc communicative goals. These words, tagged in the corpus as Pronunciation Variation and Coinages (PVC) include lexical items which do not feature in the reference dictionary and are hence presumed to be different from L1 English vocabulary. These words,

36

such as „pronunciate‟, „commodification‟, „turkishhood‟, or „geostrategical‟ are formed by the creative use of standard English vocabulary, productive word formation rules, and L1 language knowledge to fill gaps in the ELF vocabulary or to enhance the clarity of the message. They are not related specifically to a professional (ESP) terminology but can be considered to augment general English vocabulary. Most of these lexical innovations are ad hoc improvisations adapting to the communicative situation, though some of them tend to be taken up by the interlocutors.

Besides, a number of similar innovative words emerge independently from different communicative contexts, which may lead to the gradual spread and the eventual standardisation of these words.

The above research into the language forms of ELF illustrates ideas which can be applicable to researching speech varieties of English. Firstly, variation in ELF morphology and syntax illustrate the idea that variation in English is often redundant from the point of view of communication and the importance of these forms lies in the fact that they have a symbolic value of conforming to standards. Besides, as could be seen from the example of vocabulary, ELF users‟ creative way of varying language forms when using English can serve as a powerful tool in using English for their own purposes in an adaptive way.