WS 2010/11

Univ.-Prof. i.R. Dr. Herbert Schendl

English as a Lingua Franca

and

the third person –s

Elisabeth Wacker, BA

a0700047

Table of contents

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….………1

2. English as a Lingua Franca………………………………………………………….………2

2.1. What is ELF?....................................................................................................................2

2.1.1. Terminology………………………………………………………………………....3

2.1.2. World Englishes and ELF………………………………………………………..….4

2.1.3. Misconceptions of ELF………………………………………………………….…..5

2.2. Misunderstanding in ELF communication………………………………………………6

2.3. Language attitudes and ELF………………………………………………………….…8

2.3.1. Research findings……………………………………………………………………8

2.3.1.1. Early work……………………………………………………………………….8

2.3.1.2. Later work……………………………………………………………….………9

2.3.2. Accent-related research…………………………………………………….………..9

2.3.2.1. Attitudes towards regional native speaker accents……………………….……10

2.3.2.2. Attitudes towards non-native speaker English accents………………………...11

2.3.3. ELF attitudes………………………………………………………………...……..12

2.3.3.1. Practising teachers’ attitudes towards ELF………………………………….…12

2.3.3.2. Prospective teachers’ attitudes towards ELF……………………….………….13

2.3.3.3. Learners’ attitudes towards ELF……………………………………...………..14

2.4. ELF research to date……………………………………………………………...……15

3. The use of the third person –s………………………………………………………….…..17

3.1. English verb classes……………………………………………………………………17

3.2. The third person –s……………………………………………………………………..17

3.3. Approaching my data…………………………………………………………..………19

3.3.1. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English………………………….…..19

3.3.1.1. Spoken language in written form………………………………………...…….20

3.3.1.2. Using VOICE…………………………………………………………………..21

3.3.2. My data……………………………………………………….……………………21

4. A case study of the third person –s………………………………………………………...22

4.1. Investigating lexical and primary verbs……………………………………………..…22

4.1.1. Zero marking of the third person –s…………………………………………..……22

4.1.2. Superfluous third person –s…………………………………........……….………..24

4.1.2.1. A striking example of superfluous third person –s…………………………….25

4.2. Discussion of findings………………………………………………………………….26

4.2.1. Discussion of zero marking of the third person –s…………………………...…….26

4.2.1.1. Phonological factors……………………………………………………………27

4.2.1.2. The case of everybody/everyone……………………………………………….28

4.2.2. Discussion of superfluous –s……………………………………………………….28

4.2.2.1. The principle of proximity………………………………………….………….28

4.2.2.2. Coordinated subjects and the principle of proximity……………………….….29

4.3. Summary and conclusion………………………………………………………………30

5. References………………………………………………………………………………….31

1

1. Introduction

Why English? The omnipresence of English cannot be ignored nowadays. English is used as

means of communication for trade, international business, education, international research,

etc. Often referred to as „world‟ or „global‟ language, English has established its present role

and “will remain so for some time to come” (Smit 2008: 41). As a matter of fact, English

leads international news broadcasting and the internet – about 56% of the web content was in

English in 2002 (Smit 2008: 42). When it comes to education, English is more and more used

for publication as well as for teaching. And also the number of English learners and users

rises: in the last 20 years, the number of second language users of English has increased by

40% (Smit 2008: 42).

The fact that non-native speakers of English outnumber its native speakers (Breiteneder

2005a: 2) was enough reason for me to choose the topic of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF)

for my BA thesis.

Moreover, there are several reasons to investigate the present tense marking of third person

singular verbs. First of all, great social importance is connected to this single morpheme: the

third person –s is often regarded as tool to divide the „educated‟ from the „uneducated‟

speakers – on the basis of its „correct‟ use according to Standard English. At the same time,

the fact that only the third person singular present tense verbs receive morphological marking,

proves to be highly irregular (Breiteneder 2005a: 70).

Additionally, the third person –s is “one of the perceptually most salient features of Standard

English” (Breiteneder 2005b: 5). In this regard, it is similar to the „th-sounds‟ (i.e. the dental

fricatives /ð/ and /θ/). The th-sounds and the third person –s are often regarded as the most

outstanding features of English (Breiteneder 2005a: 71).

In chapter 2 of my paper, I will provide a brief overview of English as a Lingua Franca.

Chapter 3 will deal with the third person –s, English verb classes in general, and I will also

explain how I approached the data for my case study via the Vienna-Oxford International

Corpus of English. Chapter 4 then consists of my case study about the occurrences (or not

occurrences) of the third person –s in ELF interactions.

2

2. English as a Lingua Franca

This chapter aims to provide an introductory overview of English as a lingua franca. I am

going to give a brief introduction of what ELF is, define some of its terminology, and also

introduce some misconceptions of ELF. I go on by introducing the term misunderstanding in

ELF communication and provide a short glimpse on an approach for analysing

misunderstanding. Moreover, the aim of section 2.3. is to give a short insight into language

attitudes towards ELF and have a look at some ELF attitudes studies. The final section

summarises some contemporary ELF research and points to the focus of research of this

paper; namely lexicogrammatical features of ELF communication.

2.1. What is ELF?

The abbreviation ELF stands for English as a Lingua Franca. What is meant by the term

„lingua franca‟? In short, a lingua franca “is a contact language used among people who do

not share a first language, and is commonly understood to mean a second (or subsequent)

language of its speakers” (Jenkins 2007: 1). House (2003: 557) explains that the term „lingua

franca‟ comes from Arabic „lisan-al-farang‟ and that it was an “intermediary language used by

speakers of Arabic with travellers from Western Europe”. Later, its meaning extended to

identify a language of trade and traffic; this was a stable variety which rarely included

individual variation.

Considering English as a lingua franca, a specific point needs to be considered. Jenkins (2007:

1) points out that the historical lingua franca did not have native speakers and this fact could

lead to the view that speakers of ENL (English as a Native Language) should not be included

in the definition of ELF. English has spread all over the world as no other language did

before. It is very often chosen as language used in different settings; e.g. conferences,

business meetings, workshops, etc. Jenkins (2007: 2) points out that the problem here is that

such situations can include native speakers of English as well as its non-native speakers.

Some scientists stick with an absolute definition of what a lingua franca is. For example, Firth

(1996: 240) describes it as:

a „contact language‟ between persons who share neither a common native tongue

nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign

language of communication.

3

However, Jenkins (2007: 2) states that:

Firth was not at that time referring to ELF as it is now conceived, i.e. as an

emerging English that exists in its own right and which is being described in its

own terms rather than by comparison with ENL.

According to Jenkins (2007: 2), Firth was rather talking about a „foreign‟ language which is

English here, and how communication works regardless the speaker‟s errors. Other scholars

make a difference between ELF (excluding native speakers) and English as an International

Language (including native speakers). However, this distinction has become less frequent

lately.

In contrast, Seidlhofer (2004: 211f.) claims that “ELF interactions often also include

interlocutors from the Inner and Outer Circles”. 1

In other words, ELF is still ELF if people

from inner or outer circle countries are part of the interaction. Seidlhofer‟s condition is that

work on ELF should not include too many native speakers because this could confuse non-

ELF norms and ELF norms. My own position is similar to hers, namely that native speakers

of English should not be excluded from ELF but should hardly be included in data.

2.1.1. Terminology

Should the term „ELF‟ be preferred over any of the other terms currently used? In 2000,

Jenkins was slightly insecure about the future of the term ELF. She explains her decision to

stay with EIL (English as an International Language) and ponders that “it remains to be seen

whether ELF ultimately catches on.” (Jenkins 2000: 11).

Since that time, change has occurred. The term ELF itself is being used predominantly in

many publications by ELF researchers and even by scholars who are not engaged in ELF

research.

The term ELF has a number of advantages which are not shared by other terms such as global

English, international English, EIL, etc. For example, Seidlhofer (2004: 212) claims that ELF

is preferred “because it best signals that […] nonnative users […] provide the strongest

1 Kachru (1992: 356) divides the English-using countries into three circles: the Inner Circle (English is either

used as a first or official language), the Outer Circle (English is used as an additional language for intra-national

purposes), and the Expanding Circle (English is used as a foreign language for international use).

4

momentum for the development of the languages in its global uses.” In other words, ELF

implies more than other definitions that non-native speakers rather than native speakers cause

innovation and change in lingua franca English.

Moreover, the frequently used term EIL is less likely than ELF to discourage some of the

misinterpretations of ELF. One of them, according to Seidlhofer (2004) seems to be the

conception of „International English‟ as a smaller form of ELF. This “suggests that there is

only one clearly distinguishable, codified and unitary variety called International English,

which is certainly not the case” (Seidlhofer 2004: 210). In addition, Jenkins (2007: 4) explains

that the use of EIL is ambiguous because is describes different communicative contexts,

namely the English of inner circle and/or outer circle countries. It is used to describe a

completely different linguistic and cultural context from what ELF deals with.

To sum up, I follow Jenkins (2007: 4) who states that ELF is the preferred term for a rather

new form of appearance of English. It is different from both English as a Second language

(ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). She (Jenkins 2007:4) claims that it is, unlike

ESL varieties, “not primarily a local or contact language within national groups but between

them.” And it is, unlike EFL, rather a language of communication among its non-native

speakers than between native speakers and non-native speakers.

2.1.2. World Englishes and ELF

It is important to point out that the term ELF is not just a natural development but it fits better

into the framework of World Englishes than other alternative terms. Bolton (2003: 4) claims

that the terms „global English‟ and „World English‟ refer to

the idealised norm of an increasingly internationally propagated and

internationally intelligible variety of the language, increasingly associated with

the American print and electronic media.

Jenkins (2007: 18) explains the contrasts between the „World Englishes paradigm‟ and the

„Global English paradigm‟. The former expects non-native speaker norms for non-native

Englishes and approves additive learning (includes accent-additive approach) and bilingual

English teachers. The latter, on the other hand, assumes native speaker norms for non-native

English, approves subtractive language learning (an accent-reducing approach to

pronunciation), and prefers English native speakers as teachers. These paradigms

5

serve as a timely reminder that an international lingua franca cannot divorce itself

from the world‟s linguistic situation, and that ELF researchers (and speakers)

should never lose sight of the importance of all languages as well as all varieties

of English. (Jenkins 2007: 18)

In other words, we should always keep in mind that ELF is part of the worldwide language

setting and that we have to keep all languages and the varieties of English in balance.

2.1.3. Misconceptions of ELF

In 2006, Barbara Seidlhofer published an article called „English as a lingua franca in the

expanding circle: What it isn‟t‟. In this paper she identifies five major misconceptions of ELF

which are summarised here:

Misconception 1: ELF research ignores the polymorphous nature of the English language

worldwide: Here, Seidlhofer points out that ELF researchers do not ignore the diversity

of English varieties; they rather contribute to it by e.g. collecting ELF corpora. But

unfortunately the diversity which is described by ELF scholars tends to be unnoticed

because the varieties of the expanding circle are not seen as being valid.

Misconception 2: ELF work denies tolerance for diversity and appropriacy of use in

specific sociolinguistic contexts: In this section, Seidlhofer explains the difference

between core and non-core. The core features have indeed to be adapted; the non-core

areas are free for regional and also non-native variation and therefore allow the speaker to

keep their identity while mutual intelligibility is ensured.

Misconception 3: ELF description aims at the accurate application of a set of prescribed

rules: Here, Seidlhofer points out that ELF research puts prescription into question. ELF

offers learners alternatives to the prescriptive and very often native speaker based rules.

She also explains that ELF is descriptive by its nature.

Misconception 4: ELF researchers are suggesting that there should be one monolithic

variety: Here, Seidlhofer explains that there is not a single variety called ELF and that

there is plenty evidence of local variation.

Misconception 5: ELF researchers suggest that ELF should be taught to all non-native

speakers: In this section, Seidlhofer points out that it would be ridiculous to suggest

teaching ELF to all and that only learners themselves can decide whether they need ELF,

6

EFL, etc. She argues that there should be more awareness of the global rules of English

and that everyone needs to make an effort to achieve successful global communication.

Another misconception is that learners are being patronized by ELF. Jenkins (2007: 21) points

out that there “is no intention among ELF researchers to patronize learners by telling them

that they do not need to learn native-like English”. In other words, it is entirely up to learners

to decide what kind of English they want to learn.

2.2. Misunderstanding in ELF communication

Misunderstandings occur every day and in any communication. Interlocutors often imply that

it is ordinary in talk to understand each other, and that an interaction somehow collapses if

mutual understanding fails. But misunderstandings are “part and parcel of the linguacultural

practice of conversation” (House 1999: 76), and arise in everyday communication between

members of the same culture and language community. House claims that language use itself

is full of flaws and that “in a sense, then, communication is itself miscommunicative” (1999:

76). Misunderstandings are thus no exception in our own linguistic and cultural environment.

Misunderstandings are very complex phenomena; they can be the result of various sources:

They may result from inept comprehension at different levels of language (syntactic,

pragmatic, etc.), bad perception, or gaps in the interlocutors‟ general knowledge. They may

also occur because one or both participants of the communication behave uncooperatively.

However, Mauranen (2006: 124) points out that misunderstanding has been studied largely in

native – non-native communication. Studies of L2 acquisition have often focused on the

deficiency of linguistic form and the lack of linguistic competence in L2 users has been

presumed to cause communicative misunderstandings between native and non-native

speakers. But Mauranen rightly states that it is crucial to note that a native versus non-native

situation is completely different to a situation in which non-native speakers use a language as

“vehicular language” (Mauranen 2006: 124); i.e. a lingua franca.

If considering the complex layers of misunderstanding, it seems not appropriate to give an

ultimate, generally applicable definition of this phenomenon. In her article “Toward a model

for the analysis of inappropriate learner responses” (1993), House illustrates an approach

7

based on five research points which have to be included into an appropriate model for

analysing misunderstanding:

Social views of language: Here, the context of the situation and how utterances are

integrated into the larger context of culture is considered systematically.

Studies of intercultural miscommunication: Interlocutor‟s different use of

„contextualization cues‟ and „framing‟ may cause occurrences of intercultural

misunderstanding.

Pragmatic, theory-based approaches: Here, misunderstanding is analysed and investigated

on different pragmatic levels.

Psychopathological studies: Freud‟s theory about the psychopathology of everyday life is

connected to the „non-thinking‟ hypothesis derived from cognitive studies.

Information processing approaches: Cognitive models (explaining processes which

operate in discourse understanding and production) are assumed and discussed.

House (1999: 78) points out that this approach has been used to analyse data from different

sources. She argues that one of the outcomes has been the classification of misunderstandings

into the following types:

Operational (processual) misunderstandings: They occur when expectation patterns are

stronger than the real verbal input, and interlocutors stop to listen because schemes and

scripts are automatically activated.

Language-based misunderstandings: They happen on different levels of decoding and

encoding.

Conceptually-based misunderstandings: They are caused by differences in culture-

specific knowledge and communicative preference patterns.

Strategic misunderstandings: Speakers use them consciously in order to gain advantages

over their interlocutor.

To sum up, misunderstanding occurs every day, in any communication and independently

from cultural or linguistic background. Although there is no universal definition of

misunderstanding, it is important to integrate the various research strands into a

comprehensive model of this phenomenon.

8

2.3. Language attitudes and ELF

A lot of literature that spreads knowledge about Standard English varieties has been

published; less has been written about the attitudes towards ELF. I agree with Jenkins, who

states that this circumstance “creates the false impression that standard varieties are self-

evidently superior, and ELF varieties self-evidently inferior” (2007: 65).

2.3.1. Research findings

2.3.1.1. Early work

Already in 1930, a language attitude research study was carried out. BBC radio listeners had

to make personality profiles of voices from various British dialects. More research could not

provide strong agreement between listeners‟ ratings of vocal features and actual personality.

On the other hand, different studies found convincing matches among listener rates in terms

of stereotypical characteristics associated with voices (Jenkins 2007: 66).

Since the 1960s, a lot of research was done and it very often showed that “people can express

definite and consistent attitudes towards speakers who use particular styles of speaking”

(Giles and Billings 2004: 188). From that time on, the matched guise technique (MGT)

became the standard social-psychological method to investigate how people evaluate social

groups because of their linguistic varieties. In the model of MGT

respondents listen to a series of recorded speech samples of the same text read

aloud, and rate on scales the speaker of each sample for qualities such as

intelligence, ambition, friendliness, honesty, and generosity (Jenkins 2007: 66).

In MGT, the respondents are misled to believe that each speech sample is from a different

speaker, whereas in truth one speaker speaks under different guises (using various styles and

accents). In other words, the informants do not judge the individual speaker, but rather the

language varieties of the speakers. Their evaluation shows evidence of their social estimation

of those language varieties; i.e. all members of the social group who use the same speech

style. The MGT is still being used in language attitudes research today, but modified versions

have also been adopted (Jenkins 2007: 66).

In 1959, Wolff published his classic study about non-reciprocal intelligibility. He investigated

the languages spoken by two communities in the Niger Delta, namely the Nembe and the

9

Kalabari. Wolff found that the languages were linguistically so similar that they could be

considered dialects of one language; but not both of the communities saw themselves in the

same way. The economic poor and politically powerless Nembe said they could understand

the Kalabari‟s speech; the powerful and wealthy Kalabari stated that they could not

understand a single word of the Nembe‟s speech. The conclusions Wolff drew about the

connection between intelligibility and attitude in inter-lingual communications are relevant to

ELF communication research nowadays. He states that “[l]inguistic comparability […] is not

a decisive factor”, and that “when intelligibility is non-reciprocal, the language or dialect

spoken by the culturally dominant group seems to be the preferred medium for interlingual

communication” (Wolff 1959: 39).

Although ELF communication is different from Wolff‟s study, his findings about attitudes

and intelligibility have in any case impact on current ELF studies.

2.3.1.2. Later work

A particularly important later work was edited by Ryan and Giles‟s (Attitudes towards

language variation: social and applied contexts), and published in 1982. Jenkins (2007: 67)

claims that this volume

both marked the beginning of a more programmatic approach towards language

attitudes research within the social psychology community, and initiated an

interest in the subject of language attitudes among those engaged in

communication-based research outside it.

The editors wanted to achieve more interdisciplinary approaches, and also to permit “the

development of a wide ranging theory of language attitudes” (Giles and Ryan 1982: 223).

The concept of Ryan and Giles‟s work is relevant for L2 English language learning and

teaching if considering recent changes in the use of English; foreign language use is giving

way to lingua franca use.

2.3.2. Accent-related research

Language attitudes and beliefs have an impact on the social judgements that speakers make

about other speakers; both within and outside their social group. Many attitudes and beliefs

involve especially accents. Bourdieu (1991: 70) claims that

10

the efficacy of an utterance, the power of conviction which is granted to it,

depends upon the pronunciation (and secondarily the vocabulary) of the person

who utters is.

Many language attitude studies have found that accent is the most striking factor in creating

an image in response to speech styles, and thus, accent influences language-based attitudes

most. ELF studies show that accents are also salient to ELF speakers and hearers (Jenkins

2007: 78). As most studies so far deal with either native – native or native – non-native

interaction, it is also important to consider them.

2.3.2.1. Attitudes towards regional native speaker accents

In their study, Giles and Sassoon (1983) illustrate that a speaker‟s non-standard speech form

can override conflicting indication of their social class. They found that speakers‟ non-

standard speech style led to lower ratings for status as, in contrast, with the evaluations for

middle class RP (Received Pronunciation) speakers.

If we carry over these results to ELF contexts, these findings could mean that ELF speakers

may be degraded by native speakers as well as by non-native speakers with near-native

accents in terms of status only on the basis of their non-RP or non-GA (General American)

accent (Jenkins 2007:78). This is one argument of what Scheuer (2005: 127f.) meant when

she stated that

native speakers [of English] will always remain, if not the owners of the

language itself, at least the keepers of the key to what is irritating and what is

acceptable in international exchanges all round the globe, whether they actively

participate in them or not.

Although several studies have shown that RP-like accents are the most positively-evaluated

English accents in the inner circle countries (Jenkins 2007: 79), Jenkins (2009: 12) points out

that

[f]or both RP and GA, the two most widely taught English accents, have been

found empirically to be less intelligible to NNSs [non-native speakers] than other

NNS accents.

11

But what can be said about British English accent attitudes is that change is slowly occurring

in attitudes towards RP and some regional accents. Although RP slowly loses its prestige in

Britain and other parts of the English native speaking world, this phenomenon does not occur

in many English non-native speaking countries. In India, for example, Indian English is

practically not accepted and many second language speakers are still referred to as

interlanguage speakers. Here, the call centres in India play an important role, where

employees are being trained to move closer to either a RP or GA accent (Jenkins 2007: 81).

Attitudes towards RP are widely positive among non-native speakers in parts of the expanding

circle, and they very often have a strong desire to achieve a native speaker accent.

2.3.2.2. Attitudes towards non-native speaker English accents

Non-native English accents are still considered worse than native accents in the US as well as

in the UK. Lippi-Green (1997) studied how discrimination based on accent supports and

sustains social imbalance in the US. She states that in the US, it is much more difficult for

speakers with a non-native accent if their non-nativeness is also visible and that “[a]ccent,

when it acts in part as a marker of race, takes on special power and significance” (Lippi-Green

1997: 228). Hence, immigrants from various Asian and Pacific countries are seen as a

homogeneous group and have problems to find work on account of the expected

communicative barriers these accents cause for native speakers. Lippi-Green claims that there

are no recognised cases of L1 speakers of Scandinavian and West European languages being

rejected for jobs because of their accents.

Another study was carried out by Derwing in 2003 in Canada. She found that perceptions of

non-native speaking immigrants about accent-based discrimination were different, and

depended on whether their immigrant status was visible or not. 37 per cent of the visible

minority accent group in her study reported to be discriminated because of their accents. In

the non-visible minority accent group it was only 22 per cent. A few participants even felt

more discrimination because of their accent than their colour, although Derwing rightly says

that it might be impossible to determine to what extent discrimination against visible

minorities took place because of accent or to what extent because of race.

What can be seen from these and other studies is that non-native accents are discriminated by

native speakers and that it seems to be a long way until the different varieties of English are

being treated equally.

12

2.3.3. ELF attitudes

2.3.3.1. Practising teachers’ attitudes towards ELF

I now want to take a look at some ELF studies and begin with studies which involve

practising teachers.

In his study in 2002, Timmis raised the question whether learners should still go on adapting

native speaker norms even if non-native speakers are more and more using English in

international communication (and therefore ELF) communication. Timmis collected

questionnaire responses from teachers (also native speakers of English) in 45 countries. The

questions dealt with attitudes towards pronunciation, standard grammar, and informal spoken

grammar. Timmis‟ findings were that teachers as well as students all in all wanted to continue

to conform to native speaker norms, although the teachers (especially the native speakers)

were less attached to these norms. Although this study was probably pioneering for these

kinds of ELF studies, its findings were a bit ambivalent. Jenkins claims that it does not

“provide a qualitatively rich picture” and that “the fact that respondents came from both outer

and expanding circle countries makes the data difficult to interpret in terms of ELF” (2007:

96).

Decke-Cornill (2003) carried out a study among German teachers of English and investigated

their attitudes towards ELF in two different types of schools: the selective Gymnasium and

the non-selective Gesamtschule. The teachers were interviewed; the focus was on a short set

of questions:

What do you think about the impending shift from a culture-specific to a global

focus of English language teaching?

In what manner does/would this shift affect the language classroom?

Do you feel you already include lingua-franca-specific elements in your teaching?

Does/would an ELF focus influence your identity and motivation as English

teachers?

With a view to ELF, in what way should English teacher education change (Decke-

Cornill 2003: 61)?

Decke-Cornill found that Gesamtschule teachers were more relaxed with the concept of ELF

than the Gymnasium teachers. She points out that

13

[i]t must be borne in mind that the interviews centred around the future of English

teaching. So far both groups still felt very much compelled to teach their classes

'proper English'; the difference between them lay in their assessment of that focus

and their readiness to embrace it or to embark upon a modified approach (Decke-

Cornill 2003: 68).

But she also shows differences between the two groups of teachers. The Gymnasium teachers

could hardly imagine to shift from the traditional and native speaker-normative focus of their

English education plan. In contrast, the Gesamtschule teachers were more able to take their

students‟ communication needs as a source and accept the possibility of ELF to be more

effective in this respect.

It is important for ELF research to take a look at these kinds of teacher attitude studies, to gain

an understanding of what underlies in the answers of the investigations.

2.3.3.2. Prospective teachers’ attitudes towards ELF

Additionally to the studies mentioned in 2.3.3.1., there have been crucial studies investigating

the attitudes of future teachers. I want to provide an insight into the one carried out by

Seidlhofer and Widdowson in 2003.

The study investigates the attitudes towards ELF of forty-eight third- and fourth-year Austrian

students who had chosen a teacher education option (Lehramt) at the University of Vienna.

The study focuses on students‟ responses to an article by House (2002), which challenges

traditional native-speaker normative notions about English language teaching.

Seidlhofer and Widdowson took the original version of House‟s (2002) article and the

discussion part of the student‟s essays and ran a Key Word programme over them; the

programme then produced word frequency lists. Then they compared the words that were

most key and looked at the first fifteen words in each case. They found some overlap; e.g.

House‟s first three words were: 1. ELF, 2. discourse, 3. English, whereas the students‟ first

three were 1. English, 2. ELF, 3. language. However, the study furthermore shows that House

is primarily concerned with how participants in ELF discourse interact with each other,

whereas the students are primarily concerned with teaching (especially with cultural aspects

and pronunciation). Moreover, there is a very important process being described in this study:

the raising of awareness of ELF teacher education programmes.

14

2.3.3.3. Learners’ attitudes towards ELF

I am now briefly going to take a look at the findings of two studies of learners‟ attitudes

towards ELF and non-native varieties of English, namely Shim (2002) and Adolphs (2005).

Shim did a survey at the Seoul University and she investigated the attitudes of fifty-seven

intermediate level Korean student of English. The participants had to listen to five different

speakers (US, Australian, Canadian, Pakistani, Korean) and were asked whether they would

like each speaker as their English teacher or not. In respect of the US and the Canadian

speaker, 100 per cent of the participants answered „yes‟; only 49 per cent wanted the

Australian speaker as their teacher, and none at all the Pakistani and the Korean speaker. The

reason for not wanting the Australian, the Pakistani, and the Korean speaker as English

teacher was specifically their „bad‟ accent. Furthermore, of these Korean participants only

nine per cent claimed to understand Korean English „very well‟.

Svenja Adolphs (2005) did a longitudinal study of non-native speaker attitudes towards native

speaker English. At regular intervals over a six-month period, interviews were held with

twenty-four students; most of them came from Asian countries and were taking an English

course at Nottingham University. Adolphs focused on the use of the terms „native speaker‟

and „native speakers‟ and how uses of the terms changed in the interviews over time. She

found that the students‟ attitudes shifted overall from a positive to a less positive view on

native speaker English and that, through interacting with each other, the students became

more aware of the importance to understand English in international communication. Adolphs

concludes that “exposure to native speaker English makes learners more critical of this

variety” (2005: 130) and that this could lead them to reconsider their language goals and have

a greater focus on communication in international contexts. On the other hand, she argues that

there is “little evidence in the interviews that the students consider native speaker norms to be

irrelevant either in the local or in a more global context” (Adolphs 2005: 130).

All in all, I agree with Jenkins who claims that the findings of these studies

may account for some of the resistance to ELF revealed in the teachers‟ attitudes,

in that they may in part be influenced by their students‟ (and students‟ parents‟)

attitudes and beliefs concerning non-native and native Englishes (Jenkins 2007:

105).

15

Moreover, Jenkins argues, that English language teaching is the only subject in which an

important decision like what kind of English should be taught is seen as being rather the

decision of the students or their parents. This would be unimaginable for other subjects.

2.4. ELF research to date

After this discussion of attitudes, one crucial question arises: How much do we exactly know

about the linguistic forms of ELF?

House (1999: 74) points out that “studies of intercultural communication in the scientific

community have practically ignored ELF interactions”. Firth (1996: 240) has a similar

opinion and states that “such [ELF] interactions have been overlooked by conversation

analysts”. There is a highly visible increase in English language use and learning. It was

reported that second language users of English have increased by 40 per cent in the last 20

years and have reached already the one billion mark. This significantly contrasts with the

estimated number of first language speakers of English, which lies between 315 and 370

million (Smit 2008: 42).

Scholars like e.g. House, Jenkins, Seidlhofer, and Firth were among the first to recognise the

need for a description of English usage by its largest group of speakers. Seidlhofer mentions

the importance of descriptive research in ELF:

The lack of descriptive reality means that whenever we talk about „English‟, the

default referent remains English as a native language (ENL). ELF usage then, is

consequently regarded as a deviation from ENL, and ELF speakers not as

language users in their own right, but as deficient learners of ENL (2001: 44).

In other words, a descriptive linguistic reality is needed in order to gain recognition and

eventually acceptance for ELF.

Empirical research into ELF features was begun at the end of the last century; e.g. on

phonological features (e.g. Jenkins 2000) or on pragmatic features (e.g. House 1999). Not so

much work has so far been done on lexicogrammar; as Seidlhofer points out, this is an area in

which “the smallest amount of description has been undertaken to date “(2004: 219). This is

astonishing because “lexicogrammatical features are probably the most noticeable, intuitively

accessible ones in ELF speech” (Seidlhofer 2004: 219).

16

There are two ELF corpora, namely the ELFA (English as a Lingua Franca in Academic

settings) corpus and the VOICE (Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English) corpus. The

latter will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

The ELFA corpus contains one million words of transcribed, spoken, academic ELF

interaction. It consists of approximately 131 hours of recorded speech; the data include both

recordings and their transcripts. The recordings were made at the University of Tampere,

Tampere University of Technology, the University of Helsinki, and the Helsinki University of

Technology.

The general purpose of these corpora is to provide a stable basis for research into ELF on

various levels. When it comes to lexicogrammatical features, only some observations and

hypotheses have been made (Breiteneder 2005a: 19). This leads to the assumption that the

lexicogrammatical features of ELF, which are summarised below, are “no obstacle to

communicative success” (Seidlhofer 2004: 220):

dropping the third person present tense –s

confusing the relative pronouns who and which

omitting definitive and indefinite articles where obligatory in ENL, and inserting them

where they do not occur in ENL

failing to use correct forms of tag questions

inserting redundant prepositions

overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality

replacing infinitive-constructions with that-clauses

overdoing explicitness (Seidlhofer 2004: 220)

Therefore, successful ELF communication seems to work in spite of features which would be

considered incorrect by native English standards.

17

3. The use of the third person –s

3.1. English verb classes

Before dealing with the third person –s, it seems important to take a look at English verb

classes. In fact, there are various systems of classification for verbs. However, the

categorisation of Biber et al. (1999: 358) appears to be most appropriate for my purposes

because it is also based on spoken language and has a corpus-based approach. They explain

that their data was “found in a large collection of spoken and written texts, stored

electronically, and searchable by computer” (Biber et al. 1999: 4).

Biber et al. (1999: 358) distinguish between three major groups of English verbs:

„lexical verbs‟ or „full verbs‟ define an open class (unlike the other two classes) and

include verbs like run or laugh

„primary verbs‟ comprise be, have, and do

„modal verbs‟ cover for instance can or will

These three categories are differentiated according to their function with the verb phrase as

main verbs and auxiliary verbs. Lexical verbs can just function as main verbs and modal verbs

only act as auxiliary verbs. The primary verbs, in contrast, can act either as main verbs or as

auxiliary verbs.

In Standard English only the lexical and the primary verbs receive morphological marking in

their third person singular present tense form. On the other hand, modal verbs receive no

marking for person or number.

3.2. The third person –s

When compared to other languages, English has a reduced number of inflected verb forms.

However, there are irregularities, especially when it comes to the present tense verb

morphology. Standard English is idiosyncratic in that only the third person singular among

the present tense verb forms is morphologically marked by adding the suffix –(e)s (the only

exception is the verb be) (Breiteneder 2005b: 4f.).

18

The third person –s is one of the most outstanding features of Standard English. In this regard,

it is similar to the „th-sounds‟ (i.e. the dental fricatives /ð/ and /θ/). The th-sounds as well as

the third person –s are sometimes considered as “the most typically English” features

(Seidlhofer 2001: 149).

De facto, the third person –s is “communicatively redundant” (Breiteneder 2005b: 5) and very

often rather carries another function, i.e. “that of a marker of social identity and prestige”

(Breiteneder 2005b: 5).

As briefly mentioned in 2.4., a common feature of ELF talk is to either drop the third person

singular present tense –s (where is would occur according to Standard English) or to

overgeneralise its use (where it would not occur according to Standard English). However,

because of its communicative redundancy, this does not cause a problem for mutual

intelligibility in ELF communication. Seidlhofer (2005: 340) argues that

although ELF speakers often do not use the third person singular present tense „-s‟

marking in their verbs, this does not lead to any misunderstandings or

communication problems.

Similarly, Breiteneder (2005a: 96) points out that “it has been shown that the „third person –s‟

is communicatively redundant in my data, i.e. it is not essential for mutual understanding”.

The communicative redundancy can be made manifest by the fact that both leaving out the -s

suffix and applying it to all persons are conventional features of many varieties of English in

all three of Kachru‟s (1992) circles. For example, zero marking of the third person singular

present tense –s is a regular feature of East Anglian dialects: Trudgill (1999: 101) points out

that “[i]n the East Anglian area […] including in Modern Dialects, present-tense verbs are

entirely regular and have no –s ending at all”. Moreover, the system on which some dialects

of the British Isles (particularly many western and northern dialects) is based, includes that

the present tense –s occurs with all persons, not only with the third person singular of the

present tense. And also, for example, Black English Vernacular uses the form without suffix

for present tense verbs throughout (Breiteneder 2005b: 11f.).

Losing morphological marking of the third person singular present tense verbs is also a

regular feature of New Englishes, which are outer circle varieties. Platt et al. summarise

tendencies which can be found in most of the New Englishes, namely “not to mark the verb

for third person singular in its present-tense form” (Platt et al. 1984: 85).

19

As a matter of fact, zero marking of the third person –s and its overgeneralisation go beyond

linguistic boundaries and appear in all three of Kachru‟s linguistic circles. This fact leads to

the question “whether these linguistic manifestations might actually be due to the peculiarity

of the „third person –s‟ as such “(Breiteneder 2005b: 12). Both features are regular for the

non-natural system of Standard English and are basically used in order to accomplish

simplification/regularisation.

3.3. Approaching my data

3.3.1. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE)

I took the data for my empirical study from the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of

English (VOICE). This corpus is a collection of language data, it is computer-readable and

captures more than one million words of “naturally-occurring, spoken ELF” (Breiteneder et

al. 2009: 21). It was the first capacious ELF corpus which has been made available to the

scientific community, and also the first general ELF corpus. It includes data from the leisure,

educational, and from the professional domain (the professional domain is further divided into

professional business, professional research and science, and professional organisational). The

proportions for each domain are divided as follows:

Educational: 25%

Leisure: 10%

Professional business: 20%

Professional organisational 35%

Professional research and science: 10%

There are 151 interactions recorded in these domains and they cover ten different speech

event types: interview, press conference, service encounter, seminar discussion, working

group discussion, workshop discussion, meeting, panel, question – answer session, and

conversation. In theory, each speech event type can occur in all five domains. Actually, some

are more likely to be found in one domain and not in the other; e.g. conversations occur in all

domains but there are no meetings in the leisure domain. Both speech event types and

domains were defined externally (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 22).

20

The different speech event types all represent spoken language. The data was recorded and

then transcribed following the VOICE transcription conventions. The speech events are

interactive and non-scripted; they happen in the natural course of an interaction and moreover

do not include pure monologues or prepared speech. They are also recorded in their entirety

as far as circumstances allowed, therefore they vary in length (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 22).

3.3.1.1. Spoken language in written form

If speech events are investigated linguistically, the ways of presenting them appropriately (on

paper and screen) have to be considered. The researcher has to be aware of the fact that the

transcript finally presents the basis on which descriptions and analyses are carried out. The

question of what a transcript actually looks like is important for all subsequent analyses. A

transcript “has to include all those features of speech that normally tend to be left out when

transferred into writing” (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 22). Those features include e.g. when

speakers repeat or omit (parts of) words, make pauses, cut somebody off, speak

simultaneously, etc. In fact, it is pretty difficult for researchers to transcribe and represent

what they really hear and not, what they think they hear. Especially when it comes to ELF,

where a number of various languages come into play and norms of native speakers do not

count essentially (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 22).

The VOICE transcription conventions aim to meet these challenges. They “consist of

guidelines for mark-up and spelling of spoken ELF” (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 22). The

conventions include conventional mark-up, and furthermore descriptors were designed to

amount for regularly occurring features of ELF. These features include e.g. code switching,

onomatopoeic sounds, laughter, etc. Thus, the VOICE transcription conventions are

customised for ELF data and also allow other researchers to use the conventions for their own

data (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 22f.).

A special transcription software was developed in order to provide a standardised format and

to make the process of transcribing easier. This software is called VoiceScribe and it includes

the functions of a text editor as well as an audio player. Various keyboard short cuts relieve

and speed up the use of the most frequent mark-up features in VOICE. Thus, advantages in

terms of speed are achieved and when it comes to formal mistakes, the quality of the

transcripts is improved (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 23).

21

3.3.1.2. Using VOICE

“VOICE online” is the online version of the corpus and it allows searches of words and

phrases in the 151 transcripts that make up the corpus of spoken ELF. There is a search

engine which counts the occurrences of the searched word or phrase in the entire corpus and

also shows the number of utterances in which the searched word or phrase occurs. There also

is a default setting which displays the search results as utterance, with all searched words or

phrases highlighted. But the researcher can also select a plain view, which includes no mark-

up features, or look at the search results in a concordance format. As VOICE is divided into

five different domains and subdivided into ten different speech event types, the filter function

provides the opportunity to narrow the search to parts of the corpus by selecting only texts

from determined domains and/or speech event types (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 24f.).

Overall information about VOICE can be found in the corpus tree, which reflects the overall

structure of the corpus regarding the five domains. There is an event ID which defines each of

the 151 texts. Researchers can click on an icon next to this event ID and open a subpage

which contains information about the speech event, e.g. setting, speaker details, duration of

recording, etc. By clicking on the speaker ID in a transcript or in an utterance in the search

results, the most relevant speaker details can be found, e.g. mother tongue, sex, age, etc. Then,

a speaker pop-up appears which gives cross references to the speaker in the corpus – listing

all events in which the speaker takes part (Breiteneder et al. 2009: 25).

3.3.2. My data

For my empirical study, I compiled my own little sub-corpus and took the data from VOICE.

My corpus is arranged as follows:

10 transcripts from the leisure (LE) domain: 8 conversations (con), 2 interviews (int)

10 transcripts from the professional organisational (PO) domain: 2 conversations, 3

workshop discussions (wsd), 1 working group discussion (wgd), 2 press conferences

(prc), 2 meetings (mtg)

10 transcripts from the professional business (PB) domain: 1 conversation, 5 service

encounters (sve), 4 question-answer sessions (qas)

22

Hence, I have 30 transcripts in my corpus making up spoken interaction of almost 7 hours.

The speakers recorded in my corpus are native speakers of 27 languages, namely: German,

Norwegian, Finnish, Dutch, Danish, Latvian, Spanish, Italian, English, Slovakian, Polish,

French, Romanian, Lithuanian, Serbian, Portuguese, Czech, Slovakian, Greek, Catalan,

Japanese, Turkish, Chinese, Hindu, Urdu, Persian, and Swedish.

4. A case study of the third person –s

In my study, I will only focus on lexical and primary verbs functioning as main verbs in my

analysis. Modal verbs, and the primary verbs be, have, do are excluded from my analysis.

Therefore, only active present tense main verbs will be the focus of my study.

I want to state explicitly that the observations and subsequent interpretations of my ELF study

are restricted to my peculiar data sets. Since this is a narrow range of data, it would be not

legitimate to make extrapolations. Moreover, the subsequent discussion of findings is meant

to be exploratory.

4.1. Investigating lexical and primary verbs

4.1.1. Zero marking of the third person –s

In my corpus, 213 present tense main verbs (other than the primary verb be) combined with

third person singular subjects occur. Out of these 213 occurrences of present tense main

verbs, I identified 26 verbs which show third person singular present tense zero marking.

Therefore, 12.2% of all third person singular present tense main verbs of my corpus receive

zero marking. This is illustrated in the following figure:

23

Figure 1: Morphological marking of third person singular verbs

To provide an insight into the zero marking of the third person –s I identified in my corpus, I

illustrate some instances of zero marking in the following.

Extract 1: LEcon229 (18-21)

18 S2: no (.) [first name] was another one but er he just er look at me like er you know i have

the dick in my hand. (.) okay (.) <8> i love you </8>

19 S1: <8> you ha- you have </8> WHAT in your hand? i i <9> don‟t </9> understand <1>

this (word) </1>

20 S2: <9> the </9>

21 S2: <1> this er this </1> (.) you know the sexual: (.) sexual: er member. (1) masc- ma-

male member.

In extract 1, S2 uses zero marking for the for the verb look in line 18.

Extract 2: PBsve430 (35-36)

35 S2: <7> okay. </7> so but if (.) she ask something new then i will again come <1> to you

</1> so (1)

36 S1: <1> ok @@ no problem. </1>

In extract 2, it is the verb ask in line 35 which is not morphologically inflected for the third

person singular.

marked third personsingular verbs

unmarked third personsingular verbs

24

Extract 3: POprc465 (26)

26 S2: (er) the document is er (.) three pages long hh it is the length of {whispered parallel

conversation starts} the: same e:r (.) Croatian document {whispered parallel conversation

stops} hh and it has to been followed by er er a very deTAILed operational plan. but

something that i will hh point out is that e:r before that (.) operational plan is made hh we are

going hard on THIS we are going to work hard on THIS document we are (.) going to

ACTion (.) hh er even before operational further operational plan (.) in co- in cooperation

with e:r (.) icty is prepared. hh so that is the: hh e:r speaking about the lack (.) of the

documents about the documents that are goint to follow it er this document er hh e:r (.) er m-

in deTAIL (.) is concerned with the media campaign that is necessary in the cases like this

with er (.) hh involvement of security sector hh with coordination of legal and operational

proce- procedures coordination with icty (.) hh and e:r (.) some legal (.) provisions er hh when

i‟m say legal provisions i have on (on) mind the: necessity to: aMEND certain specific laws

(.) that is also: hh something that er need some time so (.) basically this is the structure of the

document.

In extract 3, S2 does not use the inflectional suffix –s for the third person singular verb need.

To conclude, these extracts show that zero marking of the third person singular present tense

–s is not essential for mutual intelligibility in ELF interactions in my corpus. The

misunderstanding that occurred in extract 1 can be rather explained by insufficient lexicon of

S1.

4.1.2. Superfluous third person –s

Apart from zero marking of the third person –s, another phenomenon can be observed in my

corpus when it comes to the morphological marking of verbs. This phenomenon can be

described as a tendency to overgeneralise the use of the third person –s and therefore to

“morphologically mark verbs by adding an –s suffix where it would not be grammatical

according to Standard English” (Breiteneder 2005a: 83). In my corpus, I found 14 examples

in which present tense main verbs receive morphological marking although they are combined

with plural or coordinated subjects. To give an impression of the overgeneralised use of the

third person –s in my corpus, I again provide some examples.

Extract 4: POwgd378 (186)

186 S3: <fast> yeah </fast> and THIS organization is very often (.) a part of a larger one (.)

which has (.) all organizations that deals with children (.) and young people. (1)

25

In extract 4, S3 marks the verb deal for third person singular although it refers to the plural

organizations.

Extract 5: POwgd378 (165-167)

165 S3: and (.) o- one way this could be: (channelled) i mean (.) we all have a e:rm (.) in our

e:rm (.) i mean there are a lot of national youth councils there? (.) yeah (1) but er also the

organizations that works (.) with the disadvantaged er youth they had like an umbrella

organization? (1) and THEY could receive (1) <6> you know? </6>

166 S12: <6> yeah </6> that‟s <7> enough and then they: </7> spreading

167 S3: <7> and and and then they could </7>

In extract 5, S3 marks work for third person singular; the verb in this utterance refers to the

plural subject organizations.

Extract 6: LEcon418 (68-70)

68 S2: we have also some host family students (.) they (.) they don‟t have erm all time

around us and they can do what they want (1) and every morning they looks like <imitating>

uhu? </imitating>

69 S1: @@@@ yeah exactly (.) @@

70 S2: but it was ok

In extract 6, S2 uses the third person –s with the verb look although the verb refers to the

plural pronoun they.

In essence, the overgeneralised and superfluous third person –s (similar to its zero marking)

does not overtly hamper mutual intelligibility of the participants recorded in my corpus. This

again points out the communicative redundancy of the third person –s.

4.1.2.1. A striking example of superfluous third person –s

Another very striking example of a superfluous –s is illustrated in extract 7. S7 even applies

the third person singular present tense inflection to a third person singular past tense verb.

Therefore, this example is classified separately:

26

Extract 7: PBqas411 (27-31)

27 S7: just now (.) we are studying (.) if these effects <pvc> cames </pvc> from stack of mi-

er of o- no from the: the he- heating furnace (.) or (.) e:r melting shop (.)

28 S5: yeah that‟s why <5> that‟s <un> x </un> </5>

29 S7: <5> but you </5> know that (.) most of the defect <pvc> cames </pvc> from (.)

melting shop

30 S5: melting shop

31 S7: yes

Extract 7 probably demonstrates the most striking example of overusing the third person –s.

However, its superfluous use does again not impair mutual intelligibility of the interlocutors

recorded.

4.2. Discussion of findings

The case study I carried out on the morphological marking of third person singular verbs used

in present tense reveals both instances of zero marking of the third person –s and also its

overgeneralised use in ELF interaction. These two phenomena are discussed and interpreted

separately in sections 4.2.1. and 4.2.2.

All in all, with the exception of one individual, the speakers in my ELF corpus tended to

either zero mark OR to overgeneralise the third person –s; they tended not to do both.

The following section attempts to explain and interpret the tendencies observed. These

explanations and interpretations are possible, but by no means definite explanations.

4.2.1. Discussion of zero marking of the third person –s

Many instances of zero marking of the third person –s occur close to instances of marking the

third person –s (where it would be „correct‟ according to Standard English). To give an

example, this is illustrated in extract 8:

27

Extract 8: LEcon352 (105-108)

105 S3: yeah but in spain you have DIFFerent languages. <L1spa> ca- ca- es castellano (.)

catalan (.) euskera {it is castillian catalan basque} </L1spa> (.) different languages from

spain. but the <L1spa> castellano {castillian} </L1spa> is im- m: (.) the one everybody use

all over the world (.) so so

106 S6: a standard

107 S3: <fast> everybody is </fast> ah it‟s eve- -ry because <fast> it‟s the language of

SPAIN </fast> <3> so everybody says </3> ah that‟s spanish <4> it‟s NOT spanish. </4>

108 S2: <3> we do not speak standard </3>

In extract 8, S3 uses zero marking of the third person –s for the verb use in line 105. But in

line 107, S3 uses the –s suffix for the verb say.

4.2.1.1. Phonological factors

One factor which might account for zero marking of the third person –s is offered by Platt et

al. (1984). They mention that “it could also be due to differences in pronunciation” (Platt et al.

1984: 67) and furthermore they explain that “consonant groups at the end of a word are often

reduced in the New Englishes” (Platt et al. 1984: 67). Therefore, eight instances of zero

marking of the third person –s might be due to phonological reduction:

teach (POwsd256: line 8)

work (POwsd379: line 36)

affect (POwgd378: line 161)

present (POprc465: line 34)

cost (POmtg447: line 112)

consist (PBqas523: line 10

ask (PBsve430: line 35)

The eighth instance is illustrated in extract 9:

Extract 9: Lecon405 (125-128)

125 S1: er i would like to er (.) to know it but in venice er i can‟t (.) and so my professor

suggest me to come here (.) in er (.)

126 S2: yeah-

28

127 S1: - in vienna and er (1) i stay here (.) for <Lnger> sechs {six} </Lnger> er months. (.)

<Lnger> sechs? {six} </Lnger>

128 S2: <nods>

In extract 9, S1 leaves out the third person –s of the verb suggest, which also ends in a

consonant cluster. Consonant clusters are basically more difficult to pronounce. Hence, it

might be the simplification or avoidance of consonant clusters which explains the zero

marking here. To avoid or simplify consonant clusters is a typical feature of rapid speech.

4.2.1.2. The case of everybody/everyone

My corpus reveals 4 instances of zero marking of the third person –s combined with

everybody or everyone. One example is illustrated in extract 10:

Extract 10: POcon591 (142)

142 S19: <3> so everybody </3> (run for) (.) shopping

It might be possible that people conceive of a group of people being included in the nouns

everybody and everyone. This might be one explanation for the tendency to zero mark verbs

combined with these nouns.

4.2.2. Discussion of superfluous third person –s

My corpus reveals 14 instances of superfluous third person-s, i.e. using it where it would not

be „grammatical‟ according to Standard English. In the following section, I will try to explain

and interpret some of these instances.

4.2.2.1. The principle of proximity

When investigating the occurrences of the superfluous –s in my corpus, a feature called the

„proximity effect‟ comes up. This is “the tendency for the verb to agree with a noun which is

closer to the verb […] but which is not the head of the subject phrase” (Biber et al. 1999:

189). This effect also seems to occur in ELF; this is illustrated in extract 11:

29

Extract 11: POprc465 (6)

6 S3: <LNfre> quelque quelque mots {a couple of words} </LNfre> (.) hh president er (.)

prime minister (.) colleagues er (.) hh (1) from the commission‟s er (.) side er (.) i want to say

that er (.) we want to see serbia (.) make er progress er towards er the european (.) union (.)

and er (.) we want to help serbia to realize its er <spel> e u </spel> perspective hhh (.) i er

therefore welcome er (.) the troika as a (.) means of er (.) engaging (.) more closely with

serbia (1) both on <spel> i c t y </spel> and er (.) other issues er (.) and er (.) our goal is to

help er (.) serbia (1) to prepare (1) such an action plan er (.) that will er (.) help er (.) the

country to achieve er (.) full cooperation with the <spel> i c t y </spel> (1) and er (.) achieve

er (.) also concrete er (.) REsults er. (.) hh i have often said er (.) publicly that er (.) we are

ready to resume negotiations er (.) even on the very same day (1) when serbia achieves er (.)

full cooperation. (.) hh (.) i‟m glad to see er (.) the action plan er (.) contains er (.) an ug-

unequ- unequivocal commitment er (.) from the serbian government er (.) to Arrest er (.) ratko

mladic and er (.) other remaining inductees er (.) hhh (.) er the plan can be a means to an end

er (1) but er (.) of course er (.) action is er (.) more important er (.) than the plan (.) because er

it really is the ac- the results er (.) that er (.) count and the actions that er (.) matters. (1) hh we

remain fully committed er (.) to support sab- stability and democracy in (.) in serbia (1) and

serbia has er the potential to make er faster progress er on its er european perspective (.) hh

and er (.) i trust that er (.) the serbian (.) leaders and er (.) all democratic forces er (.) in the

country now sees the opportunity (1) to meet er the condition of <spel> i c t y </spel>

cooperation and er (.) to move on. (.) thank you. (5) {people are waiting for questions from

the audience; sound of microphone being moved}

In extract 11, S3 marks the verb see although it refers to the coordinated subject phrase the

Serbian leaders and all democratic forces. The verb see is separated from the subject phrase

by the phrase in the country. The proximity effect might account for the superfluous –s, since

the noun preceding the verb (country) is in singular form.

4.2.2.2. Coordinated subjects and the principle of proximity

I will now illustrate an example in which a verb showing third person –s marking combines

with a coordinated subject. A coordinated subject grammatically counts as plural, as Biber et

al. (1999: 182) point out: “Subjects realized by noun phrases coordinated by and take plural

concord”. In extract 12, S2 departs from this rule:

Extract 12: LEcon227 (201-202)

201 S2: that‟s funny (.) it‟s (.) we they have been able to vote like they er since the eighties

in denmark (.) but now the liberals (.) the conservative (.) and the national party wants to

change that so it‟s probably getting changed (.) s- we have a (.) an election in november (.)

and they are trying to change that so they can so they can‟t vote any more (.) and they have (.)

done so for mo- over <5> twenty years </5>

30

202 S1: <5> yeah it </5> it was it was <6> like i- </6> (.)

Here, S2 combines the subject phrase the liberals, the conservative, and the national party

with the verb wants. The verb is connected to a subject noun phrase coordinated by and.

To sum up, my ELF corpus reveals 14 occurrences of superfluous third person –s. Compared

to the 26 instances of zero marking, these 14 occurrences make up a bit more than the half.

As discussed, the superfluous –s can be mostly found combined with plural or coordinated

subjects. But also an example of a superfluous –s combined with the pronoun they was given.

4.3. Summary and conclusion

The aim of this paper was to investigate whether zero marking of the third person –s as well

as its superfluous use appear in my ELF data. I found 26 instances of zero marking (making

up an average of 12.2%) and 14 occurrences of superfluous –s.

Moreover, I discussed my findings and tried to interpret them. The fact that zero marking of

the third person singular present tense suffix as well as its superfluous use occur in all three of

Kachru‟s (1992) circles definitely illustrates the naturalness of these phenomena. A brief

introduction to linguistic factors such as the principle of proximity or phonological factors

was provided and suggested probable reasons for these tendencies. An interplay between all

or some of the strategies might also explain the third person –s marking in my corpus.

In conclusion, although I carried out my case study on a narrow set of data, it provides a small

insight into some processes of ELF interaction in my corpus.

31

5. References

Adolphs, Svenja. 2005. “‟I don‟t think I should learn all this‟ – a longitudinal view of

attitudes towards „native speaker‟ English”. In Gnutzmann, Claus; Intemann, Frauke (eds.).

The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom. Tübingen: Narr, 118-131.

Biber, Douglas; Johansson, Stig; Leech, Geoffrey; Conrad, Susan; Finegan, Edward. 1999.

Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.

Bolton, Kingsley. 2003. Chinese Englishes: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Breiteneder, Angelika. 2005a. “Exploiting redundancy in English as a European Lingua

Franca: The case of the „third person –s‟”. Diplomarbeit, University of Vienna.

Breiteneder, Angelika. 2005b. “The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: the

case of the „third person –s‟”. Vienna English Working Papers 14(2), 3-26.

Breiteneder, Angelika; Klimpfinger, Theresa; Majewski, Stefan; Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2009.

“The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE). A linguistic resource for

exploring English as a lingua franca”. ÖGAI Journal 28(1). 21-26.

Decke-Cornill, Helene. 2003. “‟We would have to invent the language we are supposed to

teach‟: The issue of English as a Lingua Franca in language education in Germany”. In

Byram, Michael; Grundy, Peter (eds.). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters, 59-71.

Derwing, Tracey M. 2003. “What do ESL students say about their accents?” The Canadian

Modern Language Review 59(4), 547-566.

Firth, Alan. 1996. “The discursive accomplishment of normality: On „lingua franca‟ English

and conversation analysis”. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 237-259.

Giles, Howard; Sassoon, Caroline. 1983. “The effect of speakers‟ accent, social class,

background and message style on British listeners‟ social judgements”. Language and

Communication 3, 305-315.

Giles, Howard; Billings, Andrew C. 2004. “Assessing language attitudes: speaker evaluation

studies”. In Davies, Alan; Elder, Catherine (eds.). The Handbook of Applied Linguistics.

Oxford: Blackwell, 187-209.

House, Juliane. 1993. “Toward a model for the analysis of inappropriate learner responses”.

In Kasper, Gabriele; Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (eds.). Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York:

Oxford University Press, 163-184.

32

House, Juliane. 1999. “Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in

English as lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility”. In Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.).

Teaching and Learning English as a Global Language. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 73-89.

House, Juliane. 2002. “Developing pragmatic competence in English as a Lingua Franca”. In

Knapp, Karlfried; Meierkord, Christiane (eds.). Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt am

Main: Peter Lang, 245-267.

House, Juliane. 2003. “English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism?”. Journal of

Sociolinguistics 7(4), 556-578.

Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, Jennifer. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Jenkins, Jennifer. 2009. “(un)pleasant? (in)correct? (un)intelligible? ELF speakers‟

perceptions of their accents”. In Mauranen, Anna; Ranta, Elina (eds.). English as a Lingua

Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 10-36.

Kachru, Braj B. 1992. “Teaching World Englishes”. In Kachru, Braj B. (ed.). The Other

Tongue: English across cultures. (2nd

edition). Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 355-365.

Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English with an Accent. London: Routledge.

Mauranen, Anna. 2006. “Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as a lingua

franca communication”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177, 123-150.

Platt, John; Weber, Heidi; Lian, Ho Mian. 1984. The New Englishes. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.

Ryan, Ellen Bouchard; Giles, Howard. 1982. Attitudes towards Language Variation. London:

Arnold.

Scheuer, Sylwia. 2005. “Why native speakers are (still) relevant”. In Dziubalska-Kołaczyk,

Katarzyna; Przedlacka, Joanna (eds.). English Pronunciation Models: A Changing Scene.

Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 111-130.

Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. “Brave New English?”. The European Messenger X/1, 42-48.

Seidlhofer, Barbara; Widdowson, Henry. 2003. “House work and student work: a study in

cross-cultural understanding”. http://waatp.com/gate/index.html?to=http%253A%252F%252Fzif.spz.tu-

darmstadt.de%252Fjg-08-2-

3%252Fdocs%252FSeidlhofer_Widdowson.pdf&people_id=6501626 (23rd of February 11).

Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. “Research perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca”.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209-239.

33

Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2005. “Key Concepts in ELT. English as a Lingua Franca”. ELT Journal

59(4), 339-341.

Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2006. “English as a lingua franca in the expanding circle: What it isn‟t”.

In Rubdy, Rani; Saraceni, Mario (eds.). English in the World: global rules, global roles.

London: Continuum, 40-50.

Shim, R.J. 2002. “Changing attitudes toward teaching English as a world language in Korea”.

Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 12(1), 143-158.

Smit, Ute. 2008. “Classroom interaction in English as a lingua franca. A discourse pragmatic

ethnography in international higher education”. Habilitationsschrift, University of Vienna.

Timmis, Ivor. 2002. “Native speaker norms and international English”. ELT Journal 56(3),

240-249.

Trudgill, Peter. 1999. “Standard English: What it isn‟t”. In Bex, Tony; Watts, Richard J.

(eds.). Standard English. The widening debate. London: Routledge.

Wolff, Hans. 1959. “Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes”. Anthropological Linguistics I/3,

34-41.

Corpora:

ELFA Corpus. University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/englanti/elfa/elfacorpus (14th

of

March 2011)

VOICE Corpus. University of Vienna. http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/ (15th

of March 2011)