1. Introduction: Defining Global Englishes and English as a lingua franca
Global Englishes (GE) is an umbrella term incorporating World Englishes (WE), English as an international language (EIL), and English as a lingua franca (ELF). All three perspectives share a global, pluri-centric outlook on English that aims to move the focus away from Anglophone settings in response to the majority of the world’s English users now being outside traditional “native speaker” contexts. However, there are important conceptual differences between the fields, which have significant consequences for theorisation and research. Both WE and EIL are underpinned by a variety of approaches to understanding English, although to different degrees. In WE, this involves documenting different varieties of English and their social function in postcolonial settings, such as Indian or Nigerian English (e.g. Kachru, Reference Kachru1992). In EIL, there has been a focus on emerging varieties of English in the “expanding circle” (i.e. outside postcolonial contexts), such as Japanese English or German English (e.g. Matsuda, Reference Matsuda2012); however, recent approaches have taken a more fluid approach to English similar to ELF (e.g. Selvi & Galloway, Reference Selvi and Galloway2025). ELF is concerned with the use of English in intercultural and transcultural communication, where interlocutors typically have different first languages (Jenkins et al., Reference Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018). Significantly, ELF research rejects a variety perspective on global uses of English. Empirical evidence from decades of research and large-scale corpus studies, such as VOICE (Seidlhofer, Reference Seidlhofer2011), underscored the inherent variability in ELF usage, whereby no single shared set of features could be established. Instead, ELF is envisaged as a multilingual and transcultural use of English, which Jenkins defines as “multilingual communication in which English is available as a contact language of choice, but is not necessarily chosen” (Jenkins, Reference Jenkins2015, p. 73). This means that English is approached from a functional perspective in ELF research (Seidlhofer, Reference Seidlhofer2011). In other words, ELF research typically focuses on how English and other linguistic and communicative resources are used and perceived (Jenkins et al., Reference Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018). How the “English” of ELF is understood in terms of linguistic definitions is still a matter for debate, particularly given the complexity of conceptualising a named language beyond a varieties framework (e.g. Baird et al., Reference Baird, Baker and Kitazawa2014; Mauranen, Reference Mauranen, Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018). Nonetheless, despite these differences, the more general GE term has proven popular due to its core concern with decentring English from its Anglophone “origins” and the recognition of all global uses and users of English. This is particularly relevant to teaching, where the distinctions between the three fields are frequently blurred in practice. In this article, we will focus on ELF as our area of expertise but also refer to GE more generally. We provide an overview of what, we believe, are significant current areas of research in GE and propose nine potential research tasks at a range of levels from M.A. and Ph.D. projects, action research for teachers and other practitioners, as well as tasks for established researchers of GE.
2. Current research trends in GE: theories, approaches, and domains
2.1 Trans theories
Given that GE now covers over 50 years of research, and the huge number of studies carried out in the fields of WE, EIL, and ELF, we cannot provide an overview of all current trends in these fields. Instead, we offer an outline of the areas that we believe are most relevant presently and likely to continue to be so over the coming years. A major influence on contemporary research in GE are “trans” theories including translanguaging, transmodality, and transcultural communication. ELF research has increasingly focused on the multilingual nature of communication through English, as illustrated by Jenkins’ (Reference Jenkins2015) definition. Indeed, multilingualism is a fundamental feature because there is always at least one other language present (and often many more) in ELF communication. Translanguaging theories (e.g. Li, Reference Li2018) have proved especially relevant, as the concept of linguistic resources beyond national categories of language (e.g. English, Japanese, French) in which communicators make use of their full linguistic repertoire, regardless of ideological boundaries, resonates with the fluid usages of English and other languages reported in ELF research (Cogo, Reference Cogo, Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018). Translanguaging also offers a theoretical perspective for understanding “English” in ELF communication outside of the varieties framework for conceptualising language and communication. Building on multimodality theories, transmodality (Newfield, Reference Newfield and Jewitt2017) is similarly highly relevant to GE research, especially in digital communication, where a variety of modes such as text, images, sounds, and videos are frequently used in ways which transcend any single mode. ELF research, such as Baker and Sangiamchit (Reference Baker and Sangiamchit2019), has investigated communication in which a range of modes are simultaneously used, and meaning is created holistically through the connections between all the modes. Finally, transcultural communication draws on both translanguaging and transmodality to explore how linguistic and other communicative resources are used to create meaning and affect in a manner that transcends national linguistic and cultural boundaries. For instance, Baker and Sangiamchit (Reference Baker and Sangiamchit2019) and Baker and Ishikawa (Reference Baker and Ishikawa2021) report ELF communication in which multiple cultural scales or levels are simultaneously referenced in interactions moving between the local, national, regional, and global in a manner that transcends borders and is not tied to any single cultural reference. Such trans approaches provide exciting new directions in research in which diversity and complexity become the starting point of investigations, rather than the end point.
2.2 Decolonial perspectives
There are strong connections between translanguaging and decolonial perspectives through approaches that transcend colonially rooted national ideas of language (García, Reference García and Macedo2019; Li & García, Reference Li and García2022). Given that GE and ELF aim to decentre English language research and pedagogy from Anglophone contexts and the critique of native speakerism in English, decolonial theory has resonated with GE researchers. Indeed, recent GE and ELF research (Baker et al., Reference Baker, Morán Panero, Álvarez Valencia, Alhasnawi, Boonsuk, Ngo, Martínez-Sánchez, Miranda and Ronzón-Montiel2025; Gimenez, Reference Gimenez, Martínez-Sánchez, Morán-Panero and Ronzón Montiel2024; Jordão, Reference Jordão2023) has argued that the native speaker model of English and its links linguistically and culturally to elite Anglophone speakers is an example of a colonial “global design,” whereby local practices (the linguistic practices of a small number of English native speakers) are made universal and hegemonic (Mignolo & Walsh, Reference Mignolo and Walsh2018). Thus, through its ongoing problematisation of native speakerism, its adoption of translingual, transmodal, and transcultural perspectives on communication beyond national frames of references, and its effort to position multilingual users of English in a more central and empowering position, GE can be viewed as an attempt to decolonise English language models and teaching. However, many challenges remain in adopting decolonial perspectives and practices. These included the ongoing power of standard language and native speaker ideologies which position idealised Anglophone Englishes as most prestigious. Furthermore, English is intricately tied with processes of globalisation and neoliberalism, where it is seen as a language for individual socio-economic gain rather than a challenge to current hegemonies (Sah & Fang, Reference Sah and Fang2025). The extent to which English can also be used to contest these hegemonies and serve to empower users is uncertain, with current research suggesting that for minority and marginalised communities, English both challenges and reinforces old forms of dis/empowerment, as well as introduces new opportunities and barriers (e.g. Baker et al., Reference Baker, Morán Panero, Álvarez Valencia, Alhasnawi, Boonsuk, Ngo, Martínez-Sánchez, Miranda and Ronzón-Montiel2025; Duboc & Siqueira, Reference Duboc and Siqueira2020; Gimenez, Reference Gimenez, Martínez-Sánchez, Morán-Panero and Ronzón Montiel2024; Jordão, Reference Jordão2023; Tupas, Reference Tupas2019). Crucially, the influence of diverse intersecting identities such as socio-economic status, class, ethnicity, race, gender, religion, rurality, and sexuality have all been shown to have significant influences on students’ experiences with English (e.g. Banegas et al., Reference Banegas, Beacon and Berbain2021) but are currently under-researched in GE and ELF perspectives (Baker et al., Reference Baker, Morán Panero, Álvarez Valencia, Alhasnawi, Boonsuk, Ngo, Martínez-Sánchez, Miranda and Ronzón-Montiel2025; Darvin, Reference Darvin2017). While critical approaches to ELT from GE perspectives (e.g. Cogo et al., Reference Cogo, Crookes and Siqueira2023; Sifakis, Reference Sifakis2019) have the potential to make major changes in pedagogy, their influence on mainstream ELT has been mixed at best (Bayyurt & Dewey, Reference Bayyurt and Dewey2020).
2.3 Education research and practice
Indeed, exploration of how GE research might inform ELT pedagogy has emerged as a key domain of current research. This can be viewed as a return to its “roots,” as early ELF research was, in part, motivated by pedagogic concerns, with researchers such as Jenkins (Reference Jenkins2000) and Seidlhofer (Reference Seidlhofer2001) highlighting the gap between ELT content and how “learners” actually used English. While GE scholars were initially reluctant to engage in changes to pedagogic practices due to the lack of empirical data, with over two decades worth of studies, researchers are now much more confident in their ability to help inform pedagogic practices in ways that aid learners in successful English use outside the classroom. This includes critical and decolonial perspectives on pedagogy, discussed earlier, which question standard English and native speaker perspectives (Cogo et al., Reference Cogo, Crookes and Siqueira2023; Jordão, Reference Jordão2023): incorporating multilingualism and translanguaging approaches in the classroom (Cenoz, Reference Cenoz2019); emphasising the importance of pragmatic strategies (Walkinshaw, Reference Walkinshaw2022) and intercultural awareness (Baker, Reference Baker2022); and developing GE-informed ELT materials (Galloway, Reference Galloway, Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018). Other significant areas of research include teacher education (Dewey, Reference Dewey2012; Sifakis, Reference Sifakis2019), language education policies (Kirkpatrick, Reference Kirkpatrick2017), and language assessment (Jenkins & Leung, Reference Jenkins and Leung2019). However, as previously noted, the influence of these GE-informed approaches has been mixed and more studies are needed, especially collaborative research with practitioners (e.g. da Costa & Rose, Reference da Costa and Rose2024).
A related field of GE research is in English medium education (EME), and this has become increasingly important because of the huge growth of EME programmes in higher education (HE) over the last decade (Dafouz & Smit, Reference Dafouz and Smit2023). Examples include Jenkins (Reference Jenkins2014) critical study of language policy in international universities around the world and the comparative, large-scale empirical studies of EME programmes globally collected in Jenkins and Mauranen (Reference Jenkins and Mauranen2019) and Dafouz and Smit (Reference Dafouz and Smit2023). A prominent strand of recent research in this area has focused on conceptualising and researching the complex use of English and other languages in EME from a multilingual and translanguaging perspective (Tsou & Baker, Reference Tsou and Baker2021). Nonetheless, given the noted diversity of EME programmes and the varied place of English and other languages within them (Dafouz & Smit, Reference Dafouz and Smit2023), more empirical studies are needed, particularly outside of the elite settings (i.e. prestigious international universities) that have typically been the focus so far.
2.4 Emerging research domains
Other important strands of research that are in need of more data include professional domains of ELF use such as business, medical English, and tourism (e.g. Kankaanranta & Louhiala-Salminen, Reference Kankaanranta, Louhiala-Salminen, Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018; Parise, Reference Parise2021; Tweedie & Johnson, Reference Tweedie and Johnson2022). Another emerging area of research is ELF use in technology and digital communication (Baker & Sangiamchit, Reference Baker and Sangiamchit2019), including the role of artificial intelligence (AI) (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Jeon and Choe2024). Except for a small number of studies in academia (e.g. Wu et al., Reference Wu, Mauranen and Lei2020), the focus of ELF research has been oral language; however, the growing research on digital communication is now blurring this boundary and offers potentially productive new avenues of exploration.
In summary, current research in GE is exploring the potential of trans theories (translanguaging, transmodality, and transcultural communication) to open up new perspectives on the diversity and complexity of ELF communication beyond national methodological frameworks. Closely linked to this are decolonial theories, which also aim to go beyond the nation but further focus on power imbalances and issues of marginalisation. The degree to which English and ELT reinforces or challenges coloniality for diverse groups of users and learners is very much an open question. While ELF research has covered many different domains, ELT and EME have emerged as particularly important and areas where ELF studies can potentially generate significant impact. Furthermore, the area of digital communication is likely to be increasingly central to GE research, blurring the distinction between written and oral communication.
3. Ongoing and future areas of research with tasks
3.1 Research task 1: Exploring cultural identity in transcultural digital communication
Much of the world’s digital communication takes place through English, but most users of digital communication are not L1 English speakers, meaning that this use of English is typically ELF (Baker & Ishikawa, Reference Baker and Ishikawa2021). Digital spaces have opened up new dimensions for cultural identity expression and formation, while also resulting in new forms of discriminations and limitations (Varis & Wang, Reference Varis and Wang2011). Research on identity in digital spaces typically follows a post-structuralist perspective in viewing identities as multiple, fluid, constructed, and negotiated in interactions (Baker & Ishikawa, Reference Baker and Ishikawa2021). While identity in digital spaces shares features with “offline” identities, the resources used to construct them are different including multimodal resources (e.g. images, emojis, videos, music, and hyperlinks) and “offline” aspects may be absent (e.g. physical appearance, accent, facial expressions, and gestures). Importantly, in digital spaces, users typically have more control in how they present themselves to others (Tagg, Reference Tagg2015). Furthermore, the lack of geographical restrictions makes the establishment of multilingual and multicultural communities in digital space possible with relative ease.
Research into cultural identity through ELF in digital spaces has shown users constructing identities using multilingual and multimodal resources (alongside English) in translanguaging and transmodal processes. These identities are often connected to multiple different cultural groups simultaneously, from the local to the global, in ways that transcend cultural borders and a single national cultural identity. For example, Baker and Sangiamchit (Reference Baker and Sangiamchit2019) illustrated how an Iranian international student in the UK was able to construct an identity on a social networking site (SNS) as an expert in martial arts and martial arts film stars including links to national “Chinese” cultural references, as well as global and local references, through English and other multilingual and multimodal resources. At the same time, it is important to recognise that digital spaces do not allow complete freedom of identity construction. As Dovchin et al. (Reference Dovchin, Sultana and Pennycook2016) show in their studies of multilingual youths in Asia, users have uneven access to material resources (data, connections, mobile devices), as well as social resources (e.g. linguistic proficiency in English, opportunities for international travel).
While research in this area has increased over the last decade, there are still important unresolved issues. We need a better understanding of cultural identities that transcend methodological nationalism and colonial Anglophone cultural orientations, which are still deeply ingrained in applied linguistics and intercultural communication research. Moreover, the relationship between digital and offline identities is still poorly understood, including the relevance of this distinction given the integration of the digital into our everyday lives. Thus, identity research – which takes translingual, transmodal, and transcultural frameworks as the starting point to critical investigations of cultural and linguistic boundaries – is crucial.
3.1.1 Task – investigate how cultural identity is constructed and negotiated through ELF and other communicative resources in digital communication
To undertake this research, it is necessary to collect authentic data from users’ digital interactions. A frequently employed approach is digital or post-digital ethnography (Lyons & Tagg, Reference Lyons and Tagg2024), where qualitative data are collected longitudinally (from a few months upwards) from a small group or an individual. The data typically consist of recorded observations of interactions such as screenshots of SNS and/or text exchanges. There are also interviews with the participants at various points throughout the study to gain their perspectives on the interactions. This can be supplemented by a researcher journal that documents the data collection process, interpretations, and informal interactions with the participants. The researcher may be part of the group studied to gain an insider perspective. Areas of investigation can include how English and other communicative resources (e.g. other languages and multimodal resources) are used to construct cultural identities. What cultural groupings are referenced or constructed in the interactions and how do they relate to different levels/scales from the local, to the national, and the global? How do these identities intersect with other identities such as gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or class? How do people resist Anglophone orientations or national-scale cultural categories of identity and community derived from colonial “global designs” (Mignolo & Walsh, Reference Mignolo and Walsh2018)? What is the relationship between the identities constructed in digital and offline settings? Findings can aid in understanding how cultural identities are constructed and negotiated in the transcultural and translingual contexts that are a feature of digital spaces.
3.2 Research task 2: Intercultural awareness in ELF communication
From the early stages of GE research, it became clear that “successful” communication through ELF was more complex and fluid than traditional notions of communicative competence in applied linguistics. For instance, Jenkins (Reference Jenkins2000) emphasised the key role of accommodation and Cogo (Reference Cogo, Mauranen and Ranta2009) underscored the central place of pragmatic strategies. Such studies illustrated that rather than conformity to standard or native like English, it was the ability to adapt communicative practices to interlocutors that led to successful communication. Furthermore, research into identity, community and culture highlighted that ELF reflected users’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds and that they resisted hegemonic Anglophone orientations (Baker, Reference Baker2015). More recently, the translanguaging, transcultural, and transmodal nature of ELF communication has been explored (Baker & Ishikawa, Reference Baker and Ishikawa2021). This complexity and fluidity of ELF communication has resulted in alternative notions of “communicative competence” that attempt to better account for the wide range of adaptable communicative features and processes observed in research (e.g. Hall & Wicaksono, Reference Hall and Wicaksono2020; Seidlhofer, Reference Seidlhofer2011).
One such model is Baker’s intercultural and transcultural awareness (ICA) (see Baker, Reference Baker2022 for an overview). ICA involves an understanding of ELF as intercultural and transcultural communication and the need for adaptable use of linguistic and cultural resources. ICA is divided into three levels: basic, advanced, and inter/transcultural. Level 1 is basic, often stereotypical, understandings of culture and language in communication fixed to the nation. Level 2 is advanced cultural awareness with specific knowledge and experience of intercultural communication, as well as knowledge of variety within and across cultures, but typically still contained within the national scale. Level 3 is intercultural and transcultural awareness, in which cultural references and practices move through local, national, and global scales or levels simultaneously, transcending a single (national) scale. At level 3, cultural and linguistic resources are seen as emergent and adaptable in interactions and not necessarily linked to specific cultures and languages. ICA has been explored in a wide range of contexts including data from intercultural interactions, classroom teaching, and learner experiences in settings as diverse as the UK, Iran, Thailand, and Taiwan (Baker, Reference Baker2022). For example, Humphreys and Baker (Reference Humphreys and Baker2021) used ICA to document how Japanese university students developed the levels of intercultural awareness before, during, and after short-term study abroad trips. However, there was less evidence of advanced levels of ICA in their data and the effectiveness of teaching vs experience in development was unclear. To increase our understanding of culture and language in ELF communication and its relationship to ELT, we need more data on the higher levels of ICA where learners transcend stereotypes and generalisations and go beyond the national scale. We also need a better understanding of the role of teaching in developing this.
3.2.1 Task – explore the relevance of ICA in accounting for the intercultural communicative practices of L2 English users in your context
To contribute to this area, collect data from L2 English language users in your setting taking part in ELF intercultural and transcultural interactions with other multilingual users of English. This may include data captured from SNSs (such as screenshots or copies of text exchanges) or transcriptions of recordings (video or audio) of face-to-face interactions. You should also include interviews with some of the participants concerning their interpretations of the interactions you have collected and the extent to which they think their abilities as intercultural communicators in ELF have been developed through ELT classrooms and/or through personal experiences. Using an approach such as content or thematic analysis (Silverman, Reference Silverman2024), compare your data to the different elements of ICA (Baker, Reference Baker2022). Questions you may like to investigate include the following: Do you find evidence of higher-level ICA? In other words, Do you find evidence of cultural references and practices that go beyond the national level? Do the three levels of ICA account for the different knowledge, and attitudes displayed by your participants in ELF communication and the interviews? What do the participants think is the role of teaching or experience in developing ICA? What do you think are the limitations of this model for your participants and setting? and Would you suggest adapting the model in any way or even alternative models of intercultural awareness or competence?
3.3 Research task 3: Global citizenship education and GE
Global citizenship, or intercultural citizenship (the two are used interchangeably here), is an extension of citizenship beyond the nation, recognising the connections and interdependency between individuals and communities from the local, to the national, and the global (Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017; Gaudelli, Reference Gaudelli2016; UNESCO, 2015). Global citizenship education (GCE) aims to build the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes needed for students to take part in an inclusive, peaceful, and equitable world, acting with responsibility to communities at local and global levels (UNESCO, 2015). GCE underpins all areas of education, as all subjects involve global connections and responsibilities. However, it has been especially prominent in HE due to the increased internationalisation of HE, involving international research and teaching connections, as well as internationally orientated curricula. Additionally, many HE institutions’ policies aim to “produce” graduates who as global citizens can work and study across cultures and nations (Killick, Reference Killick2013). Language teaching has been proposed as a particularly relevant subject to develop GCE as it is already interculturally orientated (Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017). Furthermore, there are strong links between GCE and English given the connections between globalisation and English, the increasing use of English in HE, and the position of English as the most taught additional language. Moreover, English is often perceived as the de facto language for international connections and communication and hence the language of global citizenship. Research has shown that for many students, the development of English proficiency and intercultural citizenship go together (Baker & Fang, Reference Baker and Fang2022).
However, there are significant ongoing issues with GCE and its links to English. While conceptions of GCE, such as UNESCO’s, orientate towards social justice and equality, in practice much GCE is based on neoliberal orientations which favour individual gains and networks for those that are already part of the global elite, further exacerbating existing inequalities, particularly in HE (Aktas et al., Reference Aktas, Pitts, Richards and Silova2017). Closely tied to this, have been critiques of GCE as adopting colonial and global North notions of citizenship, that perpetuate false universals and stereotypes, ignoring and marginalising knowledge, institutions, and scholars from the global South (Abdi, Reference Abdi, Abdi, Shultz and Pillay2015; Bosio, Reference Bosio2024). Research on GCE in language classrooms has underscored the importance of context in diverse interpretations of global citizenship (Byram et al., Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017). This highlights the need to encourage students to adopt critical approaches to citizenship, globalisation, and English (Bosio, Reference Bosio2024; De Costa, Reference De Costa2022). Within ELT, there are continuing issues with the orientation to Anglophone (e.g. US and UK) linguistic and cultural norms and native speakerism, which combined with global North approaches in GCE, potentially disempowers many learners and users of English (Baker et al., Reference Baker, Morán Panero, Álvarez Valencia, Alhasnawi, Boonsuk, Ngo, Martínez-Sánchez, Miranda and Ronzón-Montiel2025; De Costa, Reference De Costa2022). Furthermore, studies of GCE in ELT have shown that although it is a popular idea with students and teachers, in practice, it is typically incorporated into teaching in an ad hoc and superficial manner (Baker & Fang, Reference Baker and Fang2022; Fang & Baker, Reference Fang and Baker2018). Thus, the extent to which GE- and ELF-based approaches can challenge these issues in GCE and ELT, in favour of more diverse and equitable perspectives, is still an open question.
3.3.1 Task – investigate how, if at all, GCE is integrated into English language teaching in a context you are familiar with
Explore students’ and teachers’ understanding of global citizenship and GCE, its relationship to English, and the degree to which it is part of their English classes or other areas of the curriculum. You can do this through surveys, interviews, or focus groups. You may want to adapt existing surveys, interview questions, and focus group prompts such as those presented in Byram et al. (Reference Byram, Golubeva, Han and Wagner2017) or Porto et al. (Reference Porto, Houghton and Byram2018). At the macro level, you could undertake documentary or discourse analysis of how global citizenship and GCE is incorporated into national and/or university policy documents. For example, searching for all uses of terms such as global/intercultural citizen/citizenship, investigating what their associations are such as education, employment, marketing, and which academic disciplines refer to aspects of GCE. At the micro level, you may want to explore how GCE is incorporated into everyday classroom practices and the tasks and materials used by teachers. Questions to consider include the following: How is global citizenship and GCE conceptualised? Are diverse interpretations considered? Are students encouraged to challenge existing stereotypes and hegemonic descriptions of citizenship and globalisation and explore more decolonial perspectives? Are English and ELT seen as linked to global citizenship and if so, how? What is the role of Anglophone cultural and linguistic norms? and To what extent is global citizenship developed through ELT, other areas of the curriculum, personal experiences?
3.4 Research task 4: Native speakerism in GE and ELT
The notion of native speakerism is not a new area of exploration; rather, it has long been embedded in the field of ELT due to the pervasive influence of native standard ideology. This ideology continues to shape perceptions of linguistic legitimacy, reinforcing the belief that native speakers set the benchmark for both language proficiency and teaching methodologies. Holliday (Reference Holliday2005) defines native speakerism as the belief that teachers who are considered “native speakers” are often seen as embodying “Western culture,” which is viewed as the source of both the standards for the English language and the teaching methods used in English language education. This perception sustains an unequal power dynamic within the field, privileging certain linguistic backgrounds while marginalising others and can be viewed as a form of colonialism (Kubota, Reference Kubota2022; Kumaravadivelu, Reference Kumaravadivelu2016; Yazan & Rudolph, Reference Yazan and Rudolph2018).
From the perspective of ELF, English is no longer the exclusive property of so-called native speakers – in fact, there are no native speakers in the ELF paradigm. This perspective fundamentally challenges native standard ideology by acknowledging the dynamic and diverse ways in which English is used worldwide. Despite this growing recognition, the dichotomy between native and non-native speakers remains deeply entrenched in ELT (Llurda & Calvet-Terré, Reference Llurda and Calvet-Terré2024; Yazan & Rudolph, Reference Yazan and Rudolph2018). This divide persists despite extensive scholarly arguments that such distinctions are largely mythical and fail to reflect the realities of how English is used in global communication (Lippi-Green, Reference Lippi-Green2012). Selvi (Reference Selvi2014) identified seven myths surrounding the (mis)concepts associated with moving beyond native speakerism in ELT (drawing on Kachru’s (Reference Kachru1992) “6 fallacies”). He also emphasised that the push to recognise non-native speakers of English as legitimate users and educators must acknowledge that the ideology of native speakerism “is still deeply rooted in various strata of the TESOL enterprise” (p. 598). This highlights the ongoing challenges in dismantling deeply ingrained biases and the need for continued critical reflection on how ELT can be decolonised and become more inclusive and representative of its global users (Baker et al., Reference Baker, Morán Panero, Álvarez Valencia, Alhasnawi, Boonsuk, Ngo, Martínez-Sánchez, Miranda and Ronzón-Montiel2025; Sah & Fang, Reference Sah and Fang2025). Not only that but recognising that having a seat at the table is not enough and that questions about who “owns the table, who does the inviting to the table, and who is considered eligible to be invited” (Menezes de Souza & Nascimento, Reference Lynn, Menezes de, Nascimento, Antia and Makoni2022, p. 42) are also important.
The discussion of native speakerism ideology in ELT, particularly within the broader framework of GE, serves as a crucial means of critically reassessing the ELT industry (Melo-Pfeifer & Tavares, Reference Melo-Pfeifer and Tavares2024). In response to these challenges, ELF researchers advocate for pedagogical shifts that embrace the diversity of English users and their linguistic resources. This includes promoting teaching practices that prioritise communicative effectiveness over conformity to native speaker norms, developing materials that reflect the realities of global English use, and encouraging teachers to view themselves as facilitators of diverse communicative strategies rather than enforcers of prescriptive language standards (Rose & Galloway, Reference Rose and Galloway2019). Such approaches aim to equip learners with the skills necessary to engage confidently in global communication rather than narrowly adhering to outdated native-speaker benchmarks. One way to approach this is by exploring English language education from a “Global South” perspective, which helps address the ongoing debates related to standard English ideology and native speakerism through ELT, ultimately working to dismantle neocolonial language ideologies and practices (Fang & Dovchin, Reference Fang and Dovchin2024; Sah & Fang, Reference Sah and Fang2025; Tavares, Reference Tavares2023). In this context, it is important to establish an equitable relationship with participants and adopt a multilingual perspective in ELT research (Sah & Fang, Reference Sah and Fang2025). By recognising participants’ first languages and cultural backgrounds, researchers can foster a more collaborative and respectful dynamic with participants and position themselves from a more equal, decolonial stance within their own teaching contexts.
3.4.1 Task – discuss and debate the issue of native speakerism in English language education
In response to ongoing debates surrounding native speakerism in ELT, this task aims to challenge entrenched language ideologies by drawing on Selvi’s (Reference Selvi2014) discussion of the seven common myths and misconceptions about non-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs). It also attempts to straddle the research–practice divide in GE (da Costa & Rose, Reference da Costa and Rose2024) through combining research insights with teaching practices and student interpretations. Using one of your classes (if you are a teacher) or in collaboration with a teacher, develop some discussion tasks for students that connect Selvi’s (Reference Selvi2014) myths and misconceptions about NNESTs with an ELF perspective. For example, students can debate common myths, such as the belief that native speakers are inherently better teachers, or that learners prefer native speakers, or that Anglophone Englishes are easier to understand. Interview students after the intervention to see if their ideas about native speakerism have changed at all, and if so, in what ways. You may also want to combine this with interviews with policymakers and senior administrators in the institution to explore how institutional policies may perpetuate native speakerism and uphold outdated linguistic hierarchies and colonial ideologies (Llurda & Calvet-Terré, Reference Llurda and Calvet-Terré2024). This could include questions about hiring policies (i.e. do they specifically recruit native English speakers), models of English for exams and assessment (e.g. British or American English, or something else), and the goals of ELT (e.g. preparation for international native speaker-orientated exams like International English Language Testing System [IELTS] and Test of English as Foreign Language [TOEFL], communication with native English speakers, study or employment in Anglophone settings, or something different). Additionally, you could explore how native speakers and multilingual English users are represented in learning materials and linguistic landscapes for critical discourse analysis, especially from a decolonising perspective. The outcomes are expected to inform strategies for developing more inclusive language policies, materials, and teaching practices that align with ELF principles and reflect the diverse realities of English use in global contexts.
3.5 Research task 5: Pedagogical implications for translanguaging and ELF in ELT and EAP classes
Incorporating translanguaging into English language teaching (ELT) and English for academic purposes (EAP) classrooms from an ELF perspective requires a systematic approach that fosters linguistic flexibility, multimodal communication, and critical awareness of language use in globalised educational settings (Fang & Dovchin, Reference Fang and Dovchin2024). For those ELT and EAP practitioners who have certain knowledge of translanguaging and ELF and are willing and given opportunities to incorporate such perspectives into their teaching, the task could be a starting point. Exposure to diverse linguistic practices through social media platforms would provide a valuable opportunity for students to engage with different varieties of English spoken by speakers from various linguistic and cultural backgrounds. By analysing the features of these talks – such as phonological and morphosyntactic features, discourse strategies, multimodal analysis – students can develop a deeper understanding of intelligibility and acceptability in ELF interactions. Furthermore, classroom discussions centred on these analyses can reveal students’ translanguaging practices as they negotiate meaning, express understanding, and navigate linguistic diversity (Lim & Pun, Reference Lim and Pun2025). A key aspect of integrating ELF and translanguaging into ELT and EAP classrooms is encouraging students to critically engage with linguistic diversity rather than viewing English as a fixed, monolithic entity. Furthermore, explicit translanguaging practices in classrooms can open-up alternative decolonial perspectives on language and communication, potentially empowering learners (Li & García, Reference Li and García2022). By analysing how speakers on social media navigate communicative challenges – such as adjusting pronunciation for clarity, employing discourse markers for coherence, or using gestures and visuals for multimodal support – students can better appreciate the dynamic and co-constructed nature of meaning-making in ELF contexts (Zheng & Qiu, Reference Zheng and Qiu2024). Additionally, incorporating peer discussions and collaborative activities allows students to reflect on their own language use and compare it with the strategies employed by speakers in the videos. This reflective process not only fosters linguistic awareness but also helps students recognise the legitimacy of their own linguistic resources.
Moreover, teachers play a crucial role in guiding students through these analyses in order to ensure that discussions move beyond prescriptive norms and instead encourage a critical understanding of how English is adapted to serve communicative needs in diverse global contexts. These insights can help educators design pedagogical strategies that not only support ELT and EAP classrooms but also empower students to critically reflect on their own language use. However, such integration must be purposeful and pedagogically structured to ensure that ELF and translanguaging serves as a tool for learning rather than an unstructured linguistic mix. Recognising the need for a systematic approach to integrating ELF and translanguaging in classroom practices, the task below investigates how social media-based exposure to diverse Englishes, analytical tasks, and classroom discussions can be leveraged to develop effective translanguaging pedagogical strategies (Fang & Sah, Reference Fang and Sah2024). By doing so, educators can create more inclusive and dynamic learning environments that reflect the multilingual and multimodal realities of global communication.
3.5.1 Task – explore how translanguaging can be incorporated into classroom practices from an ELF perspective
This research task involves studying an ELT and EAP classroom that actively incorporates teachers’ and students’ discourse practices to examine linguistic flexibility, multimodal communication, and learner support while comparing teacher and learner experiences. The initial phase will define key concepts such as ELF, translanguaging, and multimodal communication to provide a foundation for analysing classroom discourse. Data collection will begin with students watching TED Talks or academic lectures from speakers of diverse linguistic backgrounds on social media platforms such as YouTube, followed by transcription and analysis of the linguistic features of these talks. A follow-up phase will include classroom observations focusing on how students discuss and analyse the features of the talks, with particular attention to their translanguaging practices, followed by in-depth interviews with teachers and students to assess the effectiveness and reception of the videos. The next step will involve designing questionnaires to investigate students’ perceptions of the intelligibility and acceptability of the talks, along with interviews with teachers to understand how these videos are selected and how they align with teaching objectives. The findings will define key constructs and connect them to observed pedagogical practices, highlighting teacher and learner perspectives on ELF in developing translanguaging pedagogical strategies that acknowledge the dynamic and context-dependent nature of language use in globalised education and resist colonial monolingual Anglophone orientations.
3.6 Research task 6: Pedagogic applications for oral communication
In terms of oral communication, several pedagogic applications derive from adopting an ELF perspective into the curriculum: (a) privileging intelligibility over accuracy, as the goal is to facilitate mutual understanding, not to achieve native-like fluency (Baker, Reference Baker2022); (b) moving away from pronunciation practices that position learners as deficient language users (Walker, Reference Walker2010); (c) exposing students to ELF interactions in order to put them in contact with authentic situations, such as listening to and interacting with diverse speakers in real-world contexts, which can help them understand how English functions as a global means of communication (Siqueira & Matos, Reference Siqueira, Matos, Sifakis and Tsantila2018); (d) acknowledging translanguaging as a legitimate practice in the classroom (Mendoza, Reference Mendoza2023); (e) focussing on accommodation strategies and communication skills (Cogo, Reference Cogo, Mauranen and Ranta2009); and (f) empowering learners as legitimate language users (Cogo et al., Reference Cogo, Crookes and Siqueira2023).
Many of these potential applications are recognised by teachers who agree that there are many different varieties of English, that English language users are not only native speakers, and that learners will need to communicate in a variety of settings. However, there are mixed findings as regards how easily teachers may abandon the native speaker’s perspective and incorporate alternative perspectives such as translanguaging in their pedagogy practices (Llurda & Calvet-Terré, Reference Llurda and Calvet-Terré2024; Norman et al., Reference Norman, Dardashti, Zohoor, Graham and Eslami2024). There can be a conflation of standard English with native speaker English (although most native speakers do not use standard English as their day-to-day language), reflected in teachers’ adherence to standard English, the need to sound like a native speaker, especially when teaching pronunciation, and “English only” policies that proscribe the use of learners’ L1. This mismatch deserves further exploration as it may reveal not only deep-seated beliefs about language, but also policy decisions that go beyond the classroom.
Textbooks and institutional assessment procedures, for instance, can play a very important role in classroom decision-making. An analysis of the possibility of incorporating ELF principles into the classroom for the teaching of listening and speaking skills requires an understanding of the factors that contribute to innovation in each context.
3.6.1 Task – explore what factors help or hinder the adoption of pedagogical practices for oral communication aligned with an ELF perspective in your context
Any exploration of factors influencing teachers’ decisions needs to get their full engagement, and it is desirable to develop a collaborative research project. The best way to investigate whether ELF pedagogic applications make sense in a particular context requires intensive field research work with ethical concerns in mind. You can be a teacher in a school and decide to explore this yourself. For example, if you are a teacher educator, or have previous teaching experience, in a familiar school approach a teacher or a group of teachers who are already adopting an ELF perspective in their teaching or planning to do so. Invite them to join you in understanding how feasible this perspective is and what factors are favouring or hindering it. Data collection may involve document analysis of the school curriculum guidelines for the teaching of oral communication, lesson plans, and assessment tools. For a period that coincides with the academic calendar, observe oral communication classes and take notes of those moments that issues of intelligibility over accuracy, for instance, were/could have been observed. Engage the teacher(s) in reflective sessions. Some potential questions include the following: How do teachers justify their oral communication classroom practices? Are the teachers’ pedagogical practices for oral communication aligned to an ELF perspective? If so, in what ways? How do beliefs about the English language inform the teacher’s pedagogical decisions about oral communication? What role do language policy and previous teacher education play in those decisions? and What aspects of an ELF perspective are more easily implemented and why? Take this opportunity to introduce/reinforce the value of an ELF perspective in ELT to help learners deconstruct common sense views of language and its speakers.
3.7 Research task 7: Pedagogic applications of ELF for writing
While multimodal ways of communicating are shaping ELF contexts and blurring the distinction between oral and written communication, writing alone has also been the focus of ELF research, especially academic writing (Bayyurt & Altinmakas, Reference Bayyurt and Altinmakas2024). This context is aptly identified as an ELF one, because it involves multilingual users writing in English, but largely following conventions dictated by native speakers, to the point of some journals requiring non-native speakers to submit their texts to revision by native speakers (Flowerdew, Reference Flowerdew2000). While there is a long way to go to change these conventions, there have been calls to bring research on writing closer to the ELF perspective. One consequence of such a move would be the recognition that multilingual language users bring their own multicultural practices to their writing and that it is not a matter of simplifying language but creating spaces for negotiation of those practices in a less hierarchical way. Mauranen (Reference Mauranen, Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018), for instance argues that differences in argumentation styles (e.g. direct or indirect) should be seen as a strength rather than a deviation, as they enrich global academic discourse.
All this suggests that ELF pedagogic applications require a mindset change for all of the stakeholders, especially considering writing in general. The need to consider authentic uses of English by different multilingual users requires the teaching of writing to follow guidelines similar to those proposed for oral communication, i.e. to favour communicative effectiveness over strictly adhering to prescriptive grammatical rules and to provide examples of authentic genres from ELF contexts, such as emails, blog posts, and social media content, to highlight the diverse ways in which English is used in real-world settings for local or international communication. Furthermore, exploration of disciplinary literacies, in which the focus is on the norms and needs of the field of study, rather than idealised native speaker models, provides another potentially ELF compatible perspective (e.g. Wingate Reference Wingate, Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018). Overall, consideration of genres and disciplinary literacies can guide the decisions about classroom and assessment strategies, as well as the notion that multilingual users may bring diverse repertoires to their written work.
Considering the transcultural and multilingual uses of English, the teaching of writing within an ELF perspective demands a conceptualisation of the written product as part of cultural repertoires that may not conform to standard language. Teachers can translate those implications into practical activities such as developing greater awareness about different disciplines and genres and how much they deviate from the “conventional” native speakers’ norms. Additionally, the consequences of moving away from “standard” English and writing conventions can be explored together with the students who need to master diverse discursive genres to be able to participate in international communication. Issues of intelligibility affecting written texts can replace the adherence to grammatical norms and creative uses of English in local performances can raise awareness about writing as a social and cultural practice.
Similarly to the case of pedagogic applications for oral communication, changes in assessment criteria have to go in tandem with an ELF perspective on teaching. For teachers, notions of what counts as “good writing” need to be revised as they accept that “the traditional forms of teaching and assessment do not reflect the actual use of English as a global language” (Fang, Reference Fang2017:65) and that other epistemes are equally legitimate (Canagarajah, Reference Canagarajah2024). This also links to decolonial perspectives, as writing is viewed as a cultural practice in which there are multiple approaches that need to be adapted to local needs and purposes rather than a single “global design” that is relevant in all settings or for all subjects (Canagarajah, Reference Canagarajah2024). Other developments in the field of AI are changing the ways in which texts are being written and evaluated. Alharbi (Reference Alharbi2023) discusses how automated writing assistance and automated corrective feedback may impact teaching and learning and, while recognising their usefulness, he also believes that teachers will have to find novel ways of rewarding creativity and valuing the freedom of the learners.
3.7.1 Task – investigate what criteria teachers adopt in selecting tasks and assessing learner’s written work and whether those criteria are aligned with an ELF teaching perspective
This research can be developed qualitatively or quantitatively. A survey can be conducted with the use of questionnaires inquiring about the criteria adopted by teachers to evaluate their learners’ writing. This could be done with a specific group of teachers working, for instance, at secondary level. The responses would be analysed against a set of principles consisting of a checklist and different degrees of “ELFness” can be identified. Another possibility is to carry out document analysis of lesson plans and students’ work, followed by interviews with teachers and learners. The results could reveal the level of readiness to adopt ELF pedagogically. Some potential questions are as follows: To what extent are teachers and learners aware of ELF principles and how are they enacted in their teaching or learning practices? Is there a mismatch between beliefs and practices regarding the assessment of written work? If there is peer revision, do the learners envision challenging the status quo? Are a variety of approaches to academic writing explored, including locally and disciplinary situated practices and genres? and How are AI tools being used and to what extent do they tend to restrict creativity in language use or mis/align with ELF perspectives?
3.8 Research task 8: Rethinking language assessment from an ELF perspective
Assessing language proficiency from an ELF perspective is challenging because ELF is fluid and ever-changing, making it difficult to fit into rigid categories. Traditional assessments, which focus primarily on language forms and follow standardised norms, often treat English as a fixed system. However, real-life communication is far more dynamic. To better reflect how English is used in practice, assessments should incorporate elements of multilingualism and multimodality, recognising the variety of ways people use their resources in translingual and transmodal processes to construct meaning and achieve mutual understanding (Jenkins, Reference Jenkins2015). Instead of focusing solely on linguistic accuracy, assessment tasks should also evaluate communicative and pragmatic strategies, multimodal competence, and formative assessment approaches that measure how well individuals navigate diverse language interactions. From an ELF perspective, native-speaker norms should no longer be the only standard for evaluating English proficiency (Jenkins & Leung, Reference Jenkins and Leung2019). As Jenkins and Leung (Reference Jenkins and Leung2019) argue, language assessment is based on a construct that “is imbued with pre-determined and pre-specified individual test-takers’ ability/abilities and circumstances of language use” (p. 90). This approach reduces complex linguistic abilities into quantifiable scores while overlooking the variability and adaptability of real-world language use.
While widely used international tests like IELTS and TOEFL serve as important gateways for academic and professional opportunities, their one-off, standardised nature does not reflect the diverse skills needed for real-world communication. Such tests tend to overlook how English evolves and is shaped by global influences, instead prioritising standardised Anglophone norms. To bridge this gap, additional context-specific, task-based assessments need to be introduced to evaluate a wider range of skills, including pragmatic and intercultural communication abilities (Harding & McNamara, Reference Harding, McNamara, Jenkins, Baker and Dewey2018).
The goal of ELF-informed assessment is not to replace standardised tests but to complement them by incorporating more flexible, inclusive evaluation methods (Jenkins & Leung, Reference Jenkins and Leung2019). These could include critical language testing (Shohamy, Reference Shohamy, Shohamy, Or and May2017), which examines not only test-takers’ abilities but also the broader impact and fairness of assessments. Ultimately, we need to rethink what we are testing: Are we assessing language forms in isolation, or are we measuring how effectively people use English to co-construct meaning in different situations? If we prioritise the latter, English language assessment should embrace multilingualism and translanguaging, moving beyond outdated native-speaker models. Formative assessment strategies, adapted to local contexts, could provide a more realistic and meaningful measure of language proficiency, ensuring that learners are evaluated based on how they use English in real-world interactions.
3.8.1 Task – develop an ELF-informed assessment approach and explore students’ perceptions of it
This task explores students’ perceptions of an ELF-informed assessment approach that integrates interactive discussion, problem-solving, and self-reflection. Specifically, it examines how students adapt their language use for intelligibility, employ pragmatic and multimodal strategies, and reflect on their communication experiences. The goal of this task is to design ELF-informed assessment within a task-based language teaching framework, enabling students to demonstrate intelligible, strategic, and context-sensitive communication in an authentic, interaction-driven setting and for education and assessment researchers to reflect on the outcomes.
For Research task 1, students participate in an intercultural meeting simulation, collaborating in diverse teams to develop and negotiate a proposal for an international conference with a specific theme. Each team assumes a distinctive role for the conference, such as academic review, publicity, finance, or logistics, and presents its organisational plan. This structure promotes clarity and mutual understanding through strategic communication and effective use of multimodal resources. The discussion of each team for conference preparation, recorded in audio or video form, serves not only to assess their ability to adapt language for intelligibility in an ELF setting but also to demonstrate their pragmatic and multimodal strategies.
For Research task 2, as a self-assessment measure informed by an ELF perspective, each student is required to record an individual evaluation and reflective summary in which they analyse their own experiences, with particular attention to communication performance, challenges encountered, and areas for improvement during the preparation process. As a form of ELF-oriented formative, self-assessment (Jenkins & Leung, Reference Jenkins and Leung2019), this reflective component promotes self-awareness, metacognitive development, and critical evaluation of linguistic flexibility and communicative effectiveness in ELF interactions.
These two tasks, from communication to self-assessment, provide a holistic understanding of students’ linguistic, pragmatic, and intercultural competences from an ELF perspective by evaluating their ability to adapt language strategically, negotiate meaning, and draw on diverse semiotic resources. Through Research task 2, it also incorporates ELF-informed formative, self-assessment, as students critically reflect on their communicative choices, perceived strengths, and areas for improvement, thereby fostering self-regulation and metacognitive awareness grounded in their local and multilingual realities.
Overall, the task as a whole, mediated by ELF-informed assessment from an intercultural meeting simulation, supports the development of more inclusive, authentic, and context-sensitive assessment practices that mirror global communicative norms. The task-based activity (Research task 1), combined with self-assessment (Research task 2), are designed to develop students’ linguistic, pragmatic, and intercultural competences necessary for achieving intelligible communication within the intercultural meeting simulation. It provides valuable pedagogical insights for researchers, educators, and test developers seeking to integrate ELF principles into language assessment, particularly through providing data on learners’ perspectives on assessment practices that recognise linguistic diversity, prioritising intelligibility over native-like accuracy, and promoting learner agency through locally contextualised formative, self-assessment (Jenkins & Leung, Reference Jenkins and Leung2019).
3.9 Research task 9: ELF and teacher education
As with any innovation in language teaching, the incorporation of an ELF perspective into teaching cannot preclude teacher education initiatives. A growing number of teacher educators and researchers have been engaged in promoting opportunities for teachers to become aware of these developments in ELT (e.g. Bayyurt & Sifakis, Reference Bayyurt, Sifakis, Bowles and Cogo2015; Dewey, Reference Dewey2012). A most comprehensive initiative is the ENRICH Project (http://enrichproject.eu/), which drew on the concept of ELF awareness. Areas such as curriculum and syllabus design, teaching materials, and language assessment were included in the course that was offered to teachers by the participating European universities and aimed at encouraging teachers to engage with ELF research and reflect critically on how their understandings could inform their practices, so developing individual interpretations of ELF (Cavalheiro et al., Reference Cavalheiro, Pereira and Guerra2021). This framework that enables the construction of a localised praxis has been adopted in other contexts both at initial and in-service teacher education programmes (e.g. Gimenez et al., Reference Gimenez, Salles El Kadri and Cabrini Simões Calvo2018 Reference Gimenez, Queiroz and Rolim2025).
Critical ELF teacher education proposals have been inspired by decolonial theories and are reinforcing the importance of keeping local contexts and subjectivities in mind in order to transcend the matrix of power that delegitimises teachers’ knowledge and experiences to favour academic knowledge produced elsewhere (Borelli et al., Reference Borelli, Silvetre and Pessoa2020). This means that teachers go beyond becoming aware of research and work collaboratively with researchers. For ELF-oriented teacher educators, the implications are clear: education for ELF-inspired pedagogies is based on collaboration and joint exploration of how ELT can be transformed to allow more flexibility in standards and greater recognition of how English is used in the world today by multilingual users. Additionally, critical ELF teacher education implies inquiring and interrupting normative ways that put those who do not conform to them at a disadvantage. Teacher education, viewed through this lens, becomes a source for social justice.
No matter what kind of approach is adopted by teacher educators, more research is needed to understand the impact of ELF-inspired teacher education initiatives on actual classroom practices, considering that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes play a very important role in their decisions.
3.9.1 Task – explore how ELT initial teacher education in your context deals with ELF principles
First, it is necessary to identify an initial English language teacher programme where you could present your project proposal and gain access to English language teacher educators. Identify potential teacher educators who could participate in your research by collecting the syllabi of the many courses given in the program. Select those who have more direct input about teaching approaches. Analyse the syllabi provided by the course teachers to check if they are already exploring an ELF approach with prospective English teachers. Organise a meeting with the teacher educators responsible for those courses and explain that it will be a collaborative project in which you will bring some insights about teaching English as a global language for them to explore the feasibility of a proposal that introduces or reinforces ELF principles (e.g. Sifakis, Reference Sifakis2019). Offer a practical workshop and invite the participants to share their views on how those principles could be implemented or strengthened in their initial teacher education programme. Collect their feedback through a qualitative questionnaire. Analyse their responses by identifying the possibilities and limitations of introducing this innovation, using, for instance, thematic analysis. Share the results with the research participants and invite them to develop action plans addressing potential constraints in adopting an ELF approach to teaching. Make yourself available for help. Some questions that could be included in this phase are as follows: What are the opportunities available for introducing an ELF approach in school contexts? What could go wrong? How can the difficulties be overcome? What are the main concerns school administrators, parents, and students themselves have about ELF? and How can these concerns be addressed in initial teacher education?
4. Conclusion
As it was made clear at the start of this article, GE, and within that the field of ELF, is a huge and expanding area of research and pedagogy. This is true both in terms of the number of users of English globally, including learners and teachers, and the breadth of research. With that in mind, this paper is necessarily limited and represents our personal beliefs about productive areas of research in the upcoming years. The tasks presented suggest the importance of research in the areas of intercultural and digital communication, especially through the adoption of trans theories such as translanguaging, transmodality, and transcultural communication. This has consequences for how we might understand notions of identity, community, and culture in communication. Furthermore, concepts such as communicative competence will need rethinking to match the multilingual, multimodal, and multicultural resources that appear in such communication. The implications for pedagogy are extensive, including a re-evaluation of models and aims such as the (ir)relevance of the native speaker, GCE, translanguaging and decolonial perspectives, and approaches to both oral and written communication. Accompanying any changes in pedagogic practices also necessitates changes in how we think about teacher education as well as assessment. There is an emphasis on pedagogy in these tasks as we previously noted the growing importance of this in research, alongside the need to address the persistent gap between “real-world” translingual, transmodal, and transcultural uses of English and monolingual, Anglophone-orientated ELT models and approaches, as well as monolingual and colonial linguistic and cultural ideologies in society more widely. We believe pedagogy has the potential to address inequalities in the way English is positioned globally, but there is still much work to be done here. There will, of course, be other ways to approach the topics we discuss and important topics that we have not covered or even conceived of yet. We look forward to reading about those in future research. One theme that underpins all the tasks is the importance of interdisciplinary approaches that draw on applied linguistics primarily but also sociolinguistic, educational, intercultural, business, global citizenship, and decolonial theory and research. Given the diverse range of cultural and linguistic settings, users, and uses of English globally, we see this interdisciplinarity as a strength and hope the field will continue to expand in this direction.
Will Baker is an associate professor of Applied Linguistics and Director of the Centre for Global Englishes, University of Southampton, UK. His research projects and publications include Intercultural and Transcultural Communication, Global Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca, English Medium Education, Intercultural Education and Citizenship, and Decolonial ELT.
Fan Fang is currently Professor (Practice) at The Education University of Hong Kong. He holds a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from The University of Southampton. His research interests include Global Englishes, translanguaging, intercultural communication, language policy, and language education.
Telma Gimenez is Senior Professor at Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), Postgraduate Programme in Language Studies. She holds a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Lancaster University, UK. Her current research interests include the areas of English as a global language, internationalisation of higher education, and language policies.
Open access
