Faculty of foreign languages department of english language and literature course paper

Conclusion
Summing up, the globalization has produced many effects, amongst them are English as a global lingua franca. The original English has lost because of overuse, even it has became in a business language and also in a international language which all people around the world use it overly, being unstoppable. Thus, this huge advance has provoked loose our original roots.
In conclusion current emphases in Work this section presents the current emphases and findings in ELF research. Research on ELF ranges from defining ELF, describing features of ELF (for example, lexicogrammar, syntax, discourse, and pragmatics) and patterns for ELF communication, to communication strategies, interactional pragmatics, and English language teaching. There has also been research on regional ELF studies such as ELF in European (EU) countries and Southeast Asian nations (ASEAN). For example, researchers on the ACE have traced the development of English in the ASEAN area and explored the implications of ELF and teaching the national languages of ASEAN states for multilingualism in the region. The current literature on ELF studies shows the following research areas: (1) levels of ELF analysis, for example, lexicogrammar, phonology, and pragmatics in academic English, grammatical variability, syntax in ELF communication, and cultural conceptualizations; (2) the relationship between the functions and forms of ELF; (3) sources and nature of ELF (mis)communication; (4) ELF and language policy; (5) context-dependent cultural forms, practices, and frames of reference through ELF; (6) ELF for specific purposes; (7) the role of the native speaker in English as a Lingua Franca 7 ELF; (8) the relationship between ELF and Standard English or English language standards; (9) broad areas of corpus-based ELF research: theoretical, descriptive, pedagogical, ideological, and application; and (10) modified terms of ELF such as English as an acrolectal lingua franca, English as an academic lingua franca, lingua franca English (LFE), and translingua franca English. A review of relevant selected current ELF research reveals its major findings and emphases. One of the interesting findings about ELF research is how researchers describe what ELF is. Apart from discussions on whether ELF is a variety of English and who constitute legitimate speakers of ELF, there is also a view that ELF should be regarded as the “zone” of the three Kachruvian circles overlapping, or “a fluid, everchanging fourth space”. As a fourth space of interacting circles, ELF is being developed by both native and non-native speakers, locally and internationally. ELF has been rigorously researched at different linguistic levels, for example, lexicogrammar, phonology, discourse, and pragmatics. It has proved especially prevalent in domains such as business English, academic English, and English for specific purposes. In terms of ELF syntax, some researchers argue that it is unlikely that ELF possesses a homogeneous form of syntax. “At the informal level, ELF is a syntactically heterogeneous form of English which is characterized by: (1) overwhelming correspondence to the rules of L1 Englishes; (2) transfer phenomena, developmental patterns and nativized forms; and (3) simplification, regularization and leveling processes”. In academic context, non-native-like usage of morphosyntctic structures may not result in overt disturbance in dialogic speech. Despite the fact that ELF may not have a homogeneous form of syntax, some researchers are still in search of a grammatical common core for contexts in which English is used as an international lingual franca, particularly in mainland Europe. In terms of the form and function of ELF, there has been a contestation regarding which has received more emphasis in research. Some researchers argue that there has been more emphasis on the form of ELF than its function. Others respond by stating that ELF is “an umbrella term that encompasses all types of communication among bilingual users of English in the expanding circle, but allows for local realizations as well as extensive use of accommodation strategies and code switching”. To deal with the contestation between the form and function of ELF, some scholars, for example Suresh Canagarajah and Alastair Pennycook, have explored and proposed different concepts, which are lingua franca English (LFE) and translingua franca English. The distinction between ELF and LFE is in their way of conceptualizing language. LFE views language as a living dynamic, moving, and unpredictable organism as opposed to a static and tightly knit system. Hence, ELF tends to be perceived as a preexisting variety of English while LFE does not exist as an established language system, but it emerges when individual speakers of English interact with one another. There is not much meaning attached to a form unless the form serves a particular function in an actual language practice. Research has also been conducted regarding the sources and nature of misunderstanding in intercultural communication in ELF. Misunderstandings in ELF communication are rarely attributed to differences in the ELF interlocutors’ cultural backgrounds. Instead, the major sources of many of the misunderstandings in ELF communication can be traced to ambiguity in the interlocutors’ utterances, mishearing, and lack of world knowledge, which are also sources of misunderstandings in intracultural communicative exchanges. To deal with misunderstandings in ELF communication, ELF users of English employ a range of pragmatic strategies. Based on an analysis of phone conversations between Danish export managers and their clients, Alan Firth has observed how ELF users of English work together to ensure mutual understanding despite the presence of nonstandard usage of English as well as unintelligible utterances. In particular, they employ a “let-it-pass” strategy where nonstandard usage and unintelligible utterances are unquestioned; and a “make-it-normal” strategy, when nonstandard usage is considered to be normal and is reformulated if it severely impedes comprehension of messages. The majority of ELF research is empirical and corpus-based. There are primarily three types of research involving an ELF corpus: descriptive, application, and theoretical. To make sense of how ELF works and operates in different contexts usually requires a good database of naturally occurring data, or ELF corpora. Apart from the corpora mentioned at the beginning of this entry, that is VOICE, ELFA, and ACE, there are also other corpora compiled by researchers for specific research purposes such as the million-word corpus of examples of formal, written acrolectal English used by foreign workers in the UAE . The results from this corpus study suggest that the patterns of use of nonfinite complement clauses and of transitive and intransitive verbs, in particular, are beginning to change and that the changes are systematic. In addition, there is also another empirical corpus-based investigation of how ELF speakers use the marker you know in interaction. This study puts forward the strong hypothesis that ELF use of you know is critically different from the way in which NS use it in that ELF speakers use you know predominantly as a selfserving strategy for purposes of creating coherence and “fumbling for words” in order to gain time for getting their message across. In terms of ELF and language policy, there has been rigorous research in recent years in Europe and a wider global academic community. English has been used in the European Union over the past decades as the de facto lingua franca. A competent multilingual user of English, rather than the so-called native-English speaker, has been suggested as the role model for English language learners. It is the social responsibility of English language educators to use the aforementioned suggestions to inform their English language learning materials or classroom teaching. In the next section of the entry, we explore the future directions for ELF research. Future Directions in Research, Theory, and Methodology Although ELF has made significant epistemological contributions to applied linguistics and ELT, there are a number of gaps that still need further exploration and clarification. First, the data from the ELF projects and their implications are mostly based on spoken interactions. Data from written interactions are still relatively insufficient to the extent that convincing implications can be drawn. Despite several ELF works on writing in an ELF context and its pedagogical implications, as well as the corpus of written English as a lingua franca in academic settings (WrELFA) that is currently being assembled at the University of Helsinki, there is still a major gap in ELF research that needs further investigation. It is likely to be an important investigation with significant practical implications because the pluralistic conceptualization of English and of writing in English still has not yet been welcomed by tertiary educators, language practitioners, and academic “literacy brokers” such as proof-readers or publishing editors who, driven by the native-speakerist ideologies, still insist on conformity to conventional expectations of academic writing as well as NES varieties of English. , Even if there are already publications that incorporate research findings from the ELF research studies, further research on those published materials still needs to be carried out especially on how English language variation, multilingualism, and users of English from outercircle and expanding-circle countries are portrayed and constructed. Currently, differences in using English can be treated as “deficiencies” as opposed to a natural outcome of languages and cultures in contact. Multilingualism may not always be welcomed, and users of English from outer-circle and expanding-circle countries are portrayed as learners rather than legitimate users of English. Another major gap in “practice” that has not yet been sufficiently researched is the adoption of an ELF perspective in language testing. Although there has already been a proposal for ways to use ELF research findings to inform language assessment, still little is known about whether the global examination boards, such as TOEIC, TOEFL, Cambridge ESOL, and IELTS, are taking account of ELF, are willing to engage in conversations with ELF researchers about incorporating ELF research studies into their testing materials, or are even willing to revise their materials, grading systems, and assessment criteria. The notions of correctness, appropriateness, proficiency, and competence promoted by international English language tests such as IELTS and TOEFL are still predominantly informed by the ideology of native-speakerism. The test-takers’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds as well as their communicative and expressive needs in the current, prospective, or potential communicative settings are largely ignored. Thus, further research in language assessment needs to take into account the global sociolinguistic reality of English and devise approaches to test receptive and productive skills that are rel evant to that reality and to the test takers’ sociolinguistic and sociocultural realities

REFERENCES