Usage problems are a prickly affair. Not only are speakers' attitudes towards them divided and do they tend to fluctuate, but also the problematic statuses of alleged problems are debatable. Hence, studying usage problems sometimes feels like manoeuvring through a minefield. Stepping into the disputed terrain of language use requires a solid understanding of what the subject matter is, as well as what people think about these so-called usage problems.

Kachru's (1992) Eccentric Circles framework has been very influential in understanding and explaining trends in the unprecedented spread of English around the world. However, so far the research within the World Englishes paradigm has focused mostly on Inner and Outer Circle countries and their English varieties (Seidlhofer, 2009), rather than Expanding Circle countries. While Expanding Circle countries in Asia (e.g. Chang, 2006) or parts of the European Union (e.g. Coleman, 2006) have been gaining increasing attention in recent years, Expanding Circle countries like Turkey have not been examined to the same degree. Notable exceptions include Doğançay-Aktuna (1998), Büyükkantarcı (2004), and Selvi (2011), which we summarize below. As in many Expanding Circle countries, the spread of English has not been equally distributed in all domains of life in Turkey. For example, little is known in the field regarding English in the higher education context compared with other domains, such as language policy, business, or media, both in Turkey and in other Expanding Circle countries. We address this issue through this study.

In recent years it has become increasingly popular to study Englishes in countries traditionally belonging to the Expanding Circle of World Englishes, such as China (see e.g. He & Li, 2009), Russia (see e.g. Davydova, 2012) or the Netherlands (Edwards, 2010, 2011). South Korea (henceforth Korea) belongs to the Expanding Circle as well, which means that English has the official status of a foreign language. Active use of English among Koreans themselves is limited but English has a very prestigious status in Korean society. In the following discussion, the sociolinguistic situation in Korea will be introduced, with a special focus on the status of English. Using data from a pilot corpus, I will argue for the development of several patterns of Koreanized English which seem to be partly influenced by the Korean language but are also possible results of the language learning process in general and idiosyncratic features.

English's elevated status within a global economy of languages means that English-language education is increasingly promoted in international development initiatives in countries such as Bangladesh. This is partly due to a growing conviction that English is able to play an important role in helping people participate in global economic markets from which they have previously been excluded (Seargeant & Erling, 2011). Despite the strong associations made between English-language ability and development, there is at present only limited evidence showing a causal relationship between the two (Erling, forthcoming), while a complex of other issues surrounding the cultural politics of the language also play a role in the social implications of its promotion in such contexts. The aim of this article is to examine how English is perceived in rural Bangladesh by the people at whom such international development programmes are targeted. A broad assumption of such programmes is that English is a positive and, in some sense, necessary resource for development. The article investigates whether this matches the perception of those at whom such projects are aimed, and what it is that these communities feel the language can offer both in practical and in socio-cultural terms for the developmental challenges they face. In order to examine these questions the article draws on results from an ethnographical survey of two rural areas in Bangladesh which investigated the attitudes and aspirations of local community members to the potential impact of English-language education on their social prospects and cultural identities.

The choice of what materials to use in the language classroom is perhaps one of the most fundamentally important and difficult decisions teachers and those responsible for choosing textbooks are faced with. Authenticity is often seen as a desirable component in the content we select and adapt for our language learners, and it has been shown that authentic materials are more motivating, even for low-level learners (Peacock, 1997). The term authentic is often used to describe materials which were not originally designed for the purpose of language learning, but that were designed to have some purpose within the target language culture, such as a newspaper or novel. An unfortunate consequence of this is that authenticity is still often defined in reference to the target language's ‘native speakers’ or L1 community, particularly in EFL contexts, or what Kachru (1985) would label the Outer Circle communities. In other words, where English is taught as a foreign language, both teachers and students often regard ‘native-speakers’ as being the ideal model and therefore an example of authenticity. For example, Tan (2005) criticises corpora investigations of learner English for holding the view that authentic language use is equivalent to ‘native-speaker’ usages. She goes on to criticise not only corpus research but also textbook publishers for still not taking into account ‘the inextricable link between language and culture’ (2005: 127). In the academic world, culturally embedded notions of authenticity relating to ‘native-speakers’ have been challenged for decades (Smith, 1976). And yet I would argue that in mainstream textbooks and in most EFL language classrooms the native speaker still retains a ‘privileged position’ (Clark & Paran, 2007: 407). As Widdowson (1996: 68) puts it:

This paper is focused on basic English language knowledge and skills by looking at the circumstances in which English indefinite article, either ‘a’ or ‘an’, is selectively used with authentic examples cited from a few widely read Australian newspapers. Three fundamental elements of a language consist of its pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar in language teaching terms (phonetics, lexicology and syntax are respectively used in linguistic terms). These terms are used in this discussion which is oriented to general ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language) users. The fact is that most of them tend to pay less attention to pronunciation than to vocabulary or grammar, and approach these fundamental language elements in isolation rather than reflect on their connections. To address this issue, the author shows that pronunciation and grammar are connected and that it is important to get back to basics in language learning through investigating distinctions between two indefinite articles. There are four reasons for this investigation. First, examination of their distinctions in context crosses over the knowledge boundary between pronunciation and grammar. Making connection and association between the two language elements helps ESL/EFL learners develop analytical skills and enables reflective learning experience (Brockbank & McGill, 2007).

Very recently, the former spokesman of China's Ministry of Education launched a public attack on the national fervor for English learning in his personal blog (Xinhua News, 2013). He forcefully argued that too much time and energy has been spent on learning English as a foreign language, which has seriously jeopardized Chinese citizens’ first-language education, and called for the cancellation of English lessons in the primary school curriculum. Following this, the Beijing municipal commission of education announced its plan to reduce the English section of the National University Entrance Qualifying Exam (or gaokao) from 150 points to 100 points in major cities by 2016 so as to downplay the importance of English in the education system. A further report states that education authorities are also considering scrapping mandatory English lessons before the third grade. Shandong and Jiangsu provinces, as well as Shanghai, may remove English from the gaokao entirely (The Guardian, 2013).

In the past two decades, there have been two important events in English as a Foreign Language (hereafter, EFL) teaching in Chinese universities throughout the country. The first event was a gradual growth in student enrolment in universities, and the second was the EFL teaching reform that aimed to introduce Communicative Language Teaching (hereafter, CLT) into the English classroom (Rao, 2010). There is an apparent conflict between the increase in student numbers in each class and the use of CLT in the language classroom, thus resulting in a series of problems for current EFL teaching in Chinese universities. On the one hand, frequent contact with foreigners speaking English nowadays makes it necessary for English teachers to develop students’ communicative competence. On the other hand, some problems such as large classes, high demands on English teachers and a lack of financial resources prevent teachers from getting their students involved in the communicative activities in their teaching process (Rao, 1996; Yu, 2001; Hu, 2002).

In sound recordings of British English from the first part of the last century we can hear some speakers whose pronunciation of the letter r, in words such as ring, bread and around, sounded just like a /w/. We know, too, from literary texts, that it goes back further. This article is about another, newer, pronunciation of /r/ in British English, close to /w/, but distinct from it, that has increased in frequency and prominence in the last decade. In it, the lips are less pursed than for a /w/ and you sense there is less muscular tension than for what we might call the ‘traditional’ /r/ of speakers of standard English. In ambiguous contexts it could still cause confusion, as between real and wheel, or crack and quack. It may occur less in Scottish, Welsh and Irish accents than in ones from England.

Language observers may have noticed the existence of two past tense forms for the verb to sneak in American English, sneaked and snuck. Interestingly, both forms have not always coexisted; the original form is sneaked, and snuck has only recently become a real competitor for sneaked (Hogg, 1988: 31–32). The verb to drag seems to be somewhat in the same situation with the original past tense form dragged as well as the new form drug (Bybee & Moder, 1983: 252). However, drug is much less frequent than snuck. Murray's (1998) study on the attitudes towards snuck and drug suggests some difference in the usage of these forms across registers.

Does spelling matter? Simon Horobin says that it matters because spelling shows ‘the richness of our language and its history’. He argues for retaining spelling unchanged as a testimony to the ‘richness of our linguistic heritage and a connection with our literary past’. His book shows that until the last two hundred years it was constantly changing, but ‘rather than lamenting the inconsistencies and complexities of English spelling’, Horobin traces ‘how these developed and what they tell us about the fascinating history of our language’.

This is the third edition, revised and updated as well as greatly embellished with a number of additional attractive features, of a book first published in 2005. This fact alone speaks volumes for the book's immense popularity amongst its target readership primarily composed of students with no specialist knowledge about its subject matter. As part of the series “Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics,” of which there already are over a score of widely appreciated titles on the market, the book is true to the stated objective of the series which is to cater to “second and third-year undergraduate, and postgraduate university students” who “have completed a first-year introductory course in general linguistics.”

The Politics of English is an important book. Its subject is not English as a discrete, isolated linguistic entity, but the complex set of policies, values and practices that it is an inextricable part of. In exploring a range of interrelated themes, the focus is very much on English as a lived language or, better, as lived experience. In a textbook, this approach is particularly welcomed. There is great availability, nearly an inflation, of texts about English as a world language and the many varieties that have emerged in the last two centuries. By and large, these volumes tend to provide historical, geographical and linguistic overviews of the spread of English. While this is certainly very important, The Politics of English distinguishes itself by offering a different and critical perspective and extremely useful insights into what English actually means to its many users around the world.