In the last 20 years, the term ‘China English’ has been advanced as the most appropriate name for the variety of English that better expresses Chinese sociocultural realities and distinguishes the variety from the pejoratively perceived ‘Chinese English’ or ‘Chinglish’ (Du & Jiang, 2003; Jiang & Du, 2003; Meilin & Xiaoqiong, 2006). The demarcation between ‘China’ and ‘Chinese’, it is argued (Wang, 1991; Li, 1993; He & Li, 2009), is necessary if English as used by Chinese speakers is to gain recognition as something other than ‘bad’ English. Although no consensus regarding the definition of China English has yet formed among those who argue for the adoption of ‘China English’, characteristics of the variety can be inferred and the characteristics are used to confirm that ‘China English’ as a legitimate variety does exist, that it exhibits features of linguistic creativity rather than interference, suggesting a nativized educated variety (Berns, 2011). However, in my view, arguments in favor of a new term, ‘China English’, have more to do with renaming and rebranding and less with providing new insights into the nature of this English.

The idea that speaking in a certain way can make people do things – persuasion on steroids, so to say – is understandably fascinating. This holy grail of communication studies is sought after by ‘professional persuaders’, politicians and copywriters, but also in non-professional situations. One example of wishful thinking of what is possible when it comes to the power of language is the Pick-up Artist (PUA) paradigm. PUAs are a community of self-designated or aspiring seduction experts; and it should come as no surprise that most members are men. While it is possible for PUAs to meet face-to-face, for example, at workshops organized by the so-called gurus (at no little cost to the students of pick-up), much of the interaction between the members takes place in PUA Internet forums and similar online venues.

Linguistic landscape (LL), a concept which first emerged in the field of language planning, refers to ‘[t]he language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings' (Landry & Bourhis, 1997: 25). There are two functions attached to the linguistic landscape of a given territory: an informational function and a symbolic function. The informational function serves to inform people of ‘the linguistic characteristics, territorial limits and language boundaries' of a specific region; whereas the symbolic function serves as an indicator of the status, power relations, and cultural identity of the inhabitants, affecting how individuals feel about their community (Landry & Bourhis, 1997).

Although a large number of varieties of English in Asia have gained recognition as independent varieties, this has not been the case for Hong Kong English (HKE) (Jenkins, 2015: 162). The city has a low level of affiliation towards HKE (Jenkins, 2015: 167) and often laments its ever-falling standard of English (Leung, 2015). There exists a phenomenon of ‘linguistic schizophrenia’ – the community may recognise that a local variety of English exists and conform to its features in practice, but it still looks to native varieties as the norm and views local features as evidence of deteriorating language standards (Kachru, 1983: 118).

English has been increasingly used in Thailand as a lingua franca; that is, a means of communication between people who do not share a mother tongue nor speak English as a native language. Given the integration of ASEAN nations to form an economic region, the use of English as lingua franca (ELF) in Thailand and other member states of ASEAN will likely continue to increase at a significant rate. Kagnarith, Klein and Middlecamp (2012) observe that the increasing use of English as an inter-regional language of communication probably results from two causes. First, the use of English as ASEAN's working lingua franca has already been in effect. Second, the promotion of English as an international business language is one objective of the plan for the regional integration of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). In fact, the campaign to promote English as an official lingua franca in ASEAN is based on Article 34 of The ASEAN Charter ratified in February 2009: ‘The working language of ASEAN shall be English’.

English is becoming the default language of knowledge construction and dissemination (Kuteeva & McGrath, 2014; Zheng & Gao, 2016; Fuentes & Gómez Soler, 2018). However, English as a monolingual and mono-rhetorical means of disseminating knowledge may maximize its ‘Tyrannosaurus rex’ side (Tardy, 2004; Espinet et al., 2015; Zheng & Gao, 2016). The use of English as an Academic Lingua Franca (EALF) is depicted as hegemonic, totalitarian, colonial and imperialistic, silencing other academic traditions, imposing Anglophone ideologies of norms and rhetorical conventions, and controlling other academic territories (Phillipson, 1992; Bennett, 2013). It is claimed that an orientation towards the norms and rhetorical conventions of the Anglo-Saxon discourse demotes non-English languages, cultures and rhetorical conventions (Tardy, 2004; Espinet, Izquierdo & Garcia–Pujol, 2015), disadvantages non-native English-speaking scholars and their scholarship (Flowerdew, 2013; Zheng & Gao, 2016), erodes alternative forms of knowledge construction (Martín–Martín, 2005; Bennett, 2011), and reduces intellectual, cultural and epistemological diversity (Tardy, 2004; Bennett, 2011).

In the present paper, I pursue a Construction Grammar (CxG) characterization of English modal auxiliaries (e.g., can-could, must, have (got) to, should, ought to, need to, will-would) that seeks to add to established lexical approaches. It is argued that Construction Grammar (e.g., Goldberg, 1995, 2006; Tomasello, 2003) can successfully account for underlying modality patterns, the understanding of which can lead to distinct gains for both linguistics and second language acquisition research. To that end, some of the tenets of CxG are invoked.