Terms of address are universally seen as a tool used to build social relations between speakers and hearers. Terms of address ‘help establish or maintain social bonds, strengthen solidarity and control social distance’ (Gu, 1990: 249), although ways of addressing vary from culture to culture. Therefore, the proper choice of address terms is a prerequisite for a successful interaction. Inappropriate use of address terms may lead to misunderstandings and hinder communication.

In the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al., 1999), a new category is identified in the grammar of the English phrase. In conversational data, the most frequent forms cited as examples of this category are or something, and everything, and things and and stuff, which are described as ‘coordination tags’ by Biber et al. (1999: 115–16). This label has not been widely adopted, but the linguistic category it describes has clearly become established as part of modern English. The term ‘general extender’ (Overstreet, 1999) is now commonly used to refer to this category: ‘“general” because they are nonspecific and “extender” because they extend otherwise complete utterances’ (1999: 3). There are two subcategories: adjunctive general extenders, beginning with and, and disjunctive general extenders, beginning with or. In casual conversation, general extenders are typically phrase- or clause-final, consisting of and/or plus a vague noun (stuff/things) or a pronoun (something/everything), with an optional comparative phrase (like that/this). In everyday spoken British English, the phrase and (all) that is also extremely common. In written and formal spoken English, forms with quite different structures, such as et cetera, and so on, and so forth, and or so are more typically used to fulfill related functions. All of these forms are grammatically optional and fall within the more general category of pragmatic markers, along with you know, I mean, like and sort of, ‘expressions which may have little obvious propositional meaning but which oil the wheels of conversational social interaction’ (Beeching, 2016: 1).

In traditional English lexicography, individual dictionary editors have had ultimate control over the selection, meaning, and illustration of words and extensive collaboration with contributors has been limited. However, Internet technologies that easily permit exchanges between a user and a database have allowed a new type of dictionary online: one that is built by the collaboration of contributing end-users, allowing users who are not trained lexicographers to engage in the actual making of dictionaries. We discuss here a popular online slang dictionary, UrbanDictionary.com (UD), to illustrate how traditional lexicographic principles are joined with Web-only communication technologies to provide a context for collaborative engagement and meaning-making, and to note the many characteristics and functions shared with traditional print dictionaries. Significantly, UD captures what most traditional English dictionaries fall short of: both recording ephemeral everyday spoken language and representing popular views of meaning. By relying on the users of language to select and define words for a dictionary, UD – which defines more than one million words – has in effect influenced both access to and formulation of the lexis.

In recent years, the sociolinguistic theory of code-switching and code-mixing has been a source of great interest among scholars worldwide. The phenomenon is common in such multilingual societies as India. Most known cases of code-switching are, however, restricted to the spoken form, in which English is liberally interspersed with such regional languages as Hindi, Marathi, and Telugu. What has not yet significantly caught the attention of scholars is the notion of such switching and mixing in print. This practice is however particularly prevalent among writers in popular magazines, who resort to written code-switching for a variety of reasons. The present paper endeavours to examine the causes of the popularity of this style of writing in the light of some accepted theories of multilingualism.

Complementing Yingquan Wang's account (ET57, Jan 99) of the significance of College English courses and examinations in China, a description of how English is on the move throughout the People's Republic

A discussion of the history, status, major features and general properties of English as it is used alongside Afrikaans, Xhosa, Zulu and other southern African languages

One of the most important components of a country's language policy is its planning on foreign languages and its decisions regarding which foreign language(s) to choose and teach to its people in the nation's school system (Cenoz & Gorter, 2012). The government generally makes a selection among the candidate languages on the basis of the languages' perceived economic and socio-political value inside and outside the country. However, the socio-economic power and prestige of languages are variable and bound to change over time (Wright, 2004). For this reason, changes are almost always observed in any country's foreign language policy.

Distinctive developments in an Arab sultanate. Relatively few people around the world react with instant recognition when the Sultanate of Oman is mentioned. This may however be changing as international news media focus ever more strongly on events in the Arab world and on the strategic significance of the Persian Gulf. There are many who misunderstand the spoken word ‘Oman’ as ‘Amman’ and therefore think erroneously of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Oman, however, is a beautiful and hospitable country possessing white sand beaches, rugged mountain ranges, breathtaking cave systems, a long and somewhat surprising history, and an English of its own.

The English language has fast become a global language. In Asia, from the far steppes of Mongolia to the beaches of Thailand, to the shores of the Caspian Sea, English print, music, and along with language, Western values, have spread and multiplied. New technology and media, especially the Internet (Crystal, 1996/2003), have helped carry English to people of all nationalities and economic classes. But many scholars feel that the rise of English is connected with the downfall of indigenous languages (Fishman, 1996; Crawford, 1996; McCarty, 2003). Minority languages face extinction as English rides the wave of increasing globalization (Romaine, 2001). Since 2007, Newsweek, The China Daily, and other international media sources have been citing English as the language of economic success in China. Adherents of English claim that it brings positive social change, economic opportunities, consumer goods, and new technologies (Castells, 2001). Such materialistic temptations cause some minority youth to discount the value of their languages and traditions. In Native America, for example, a small minority of Native Americans youth may feel that exchanging, dismissing, or even abandoning their native language and culture for English and a Western lifestyle represents progress and success in the form of material goods and a modern lifestyle (Crawford, 1996; McCarty, 2003). Similarly, in China, English is viewed as the language of economic success by many young Chinese. Opponents of the rise of English view the language, and its underlying cultural messages, as imperialistic. Phillipson (1992) accuses ESL educators of making a negative cultural impact upon unsuspecting indigenous peoples all over the world. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) asserts that English can be used as a tool by Western nations for global dominance.

Black South African English (BSAfE) is now generally regarded as an independent variety of English rather than an interlanguage on the way to Standard English (Van Rooy, 2008: 274, 300 and in this issue). Mesthrie (2006: 115) demonstrates that many of the characteristic features of BSAfE can be ascribed to the overarching tendency of anti-deletion. Anti-deletion is a term coined by Mesthrie (2006: 115) to encompass three kinds of linguistic phenomena that are the opposite of deletion in generative analyses of English, namely undeletion, non-deletion and insertion. Undeletion ‘restores an element that is often assumed to be deleted or to have an empty node in generative analyses of English’ (Mesthrie, 2006: 125), e.g. She made me to go (Mesthrie, 2006: 111) in which the infinitive marker to is undeleted. Insertion entails the addition of grammatical morphemes, e.g. can be able (Mesthrie, 2006: 139–40). After examination of a number of undeletion phenomena in interviews with 12 mesolectal speakers of BSAfE, Mesthrie (2006: 129) arrives at the following principle: ‘If a grammatical feature can be deleted in [Standard English], it can be undeleted in [Black South African English] mesolect.’ He points out that such undeletions are not mandatory and adds the following corollary to the principle of undeletion: ‘If a grammatical feature can be deleted in StE, it can also be (variably) deleted in [Black South African English] mesolect, at a lower rate of frequency’ (Mesthrie, 2006: 129).

‘Botti vietati agli under 14,’ La Repubblica, 29 Dec 03. The aim of this work is to examine the use of English loan words in a specific genre of language: parts of an Italian newspaper. In essence, it looks at how English is encroaching on one among many languages – and occurring in their texts. The key question is: ‘In a specific context, what are loanwords?’, in terms of which we will consider genre as it is exemplified in newspapers, following which there is an analysis of loan words used in the different sections of an Italian newspaper

Colloquial Singapore English (CSE, commonly known as Singlish) is a linguistic variety used in Singapore, a Southeast Asian nation home to three major ethnic groups: the Chinese (74.35% of the citizen and permanent resident population), the Malays (13.43%), and the Indians (9%) (Singapore Department of Statistics, 2019). It is one of the best known post-colonial varieties of English and has been documented since the emergence of the field of world Englishes (e.g., Greenbaum, 1988; Richards & Tay, 1977). Linguistically, the grammar and lexicon of CSE are systematically imported from other non-English languages used in the island nation (Leimgruber, 2011). From a creolist perspective, it can be viewed as an English-lexifier creole that contains influences from Sinitic languages such as Hokkien, Cantonese and Mandarin, as well as Malay, Tamil and other varieties in the Singapore language ecology (McWhorter, 2007; Platt, 1975). Several distinct features across various levels of language have been investigated in CSE, including phonetics (Starr & Balasubramaniam, 2019), morphosyntax (Bao, 2010; Bao & Wee, 1999), semantics (Hiramoto & Sato, 2012), and pragmatics (Hiramoto, 2012; Leimgruber, 2016; Lim, 2007).

A discussion of English and code-switching among Japanese who have returned from studying abroad

The influence of corpus-based grammars has been pervasive in the past two decades in language learning as an important reference for researchers, teachers, and language enthusiasts alike. Yet such advances in the compilation of large digitized samples of language have not yet resulted in many practical implementations in EFL contexts. This is certainly due to the reluctance of many teachers to introduce corpora into their practice, in the belief that such a shift is technically cumbersome and time-consuming (Boulton 2010). I shall take up this issue in the last section of this paper.

The two African English-lexifier Creole languages Krio (Sierra Leone) and Pichi (Equatorial Guinea) are closely related. A close look at specific aspects of their grammar, however, shows divergence due to differing contact ecologies since their split in the 19th century. Krio has been spoken alongside its lexifier (the main lexicon-providing language) and superstrate (the socially dominant colonial language) English since its beginnings and Pichi alongside its superstrate Spanish for almost two centuries, but not alongside English. Resulting differences in contact outcomes transpire in the expression of tense, aspect, and mood, and the use of prepositions for the marking of participants. In these two areas, Krio has converged more with English than Pichi with Spanish because existing overlaps between Creole and lexifier forms have facilitated transfer from English. There is therefore evidence for different contact outcomes in Creoles depending on whether they continue to be in contact with a superstrate that is simultaneously the lexifier (in this case English), or not. No previous work has compared Krio and Pichi nor looked at these two Creole languages from the viewpoint of their differing linguistic ecologies and their resulting differentiation.

In recent years, feminists in particular have argued for reform in languages like English in order to reduce or eliminate built-in masculine biases. Do they have a case, can realistic changes be made and accepted by users at large, or is the language simply adapting anyway to this challenge as it has adapted to others in the past?

GERRY ABBOTT of the School of Education, the University of Manchester, replies to Braj Kachru's article ‘Liberation linguistics and the Quirk Concern’ (ET 25, Jan 91).

This paper stems from the ongoing debate on the changing role and status of English in different parts of the world, with a special interest in the socio-historical background of a post-Soviet country. The international status of English has given rise to different reactions among speakers, ranging from attraction to resentment (cf. Onysko, 2009: 34). These reactions are expressed in public online discourse, which provides a rich resource of empirical evidence to study public attitudes and language ideologies. Digital media offers an especially important strategic site to disseminate ideologies and shape public opinions. This paper analyses the spectrum of discourses operating within Lithuanian digital media to perpetuate attitudes towards English and the values associated with it.

The current spread of English across the globe is, as Schneider states (2009: 1), ‘one of the most remarkable, and perhaps unexpected, sociocultural changes of the modern period’. This author states the wish for ‘a single, universal language which would allow all of mankind to communicate with each other directly, but all attempts at constructing such a code artificially have failed in practice. Now, it seems, one has emerged quite naturally’ (Schneider, 2009: 1). On the other hand, other authors (Anderman & Rogers, 2005: 2) report that the emergence of global English has created a homogenised form of communication, and it has made ‘mother tongue speakers fear that, in the process of becoming common property, their native tongue is turning into a “hybrid” language sometimes referred to as Eurospeak within the European Union and more broadly as “McLanguage”' (Anderman & Rogers, 2005: 2). There are, therefore, controversial viewpoints in Europe as regards the spread of English as the lingua franca or global language.