One tricky problem with English spelling is the variation in the nominalization suffix often represented in discourse as ‘shun’, mainly between -tion and -sion. Current ELT textbooks have generally not discussed rules for its spelling. However, following online resources, some basic rules are in current debate, with two main schools of thought, each falling in line with one of two approaches that can be called the ‘word-based model’ and the ‘base-word model’. In this article, I show the base-word model to be preferred, determine the actual suffix and its underlying form, and elaborate on base-word ending clues to yield a general synchronic rule for changing from -tion to -sion, albeit with exceptions.

From a descriptive point of view, literally is seen as ‘a case of semantic change in progress’ (Israel, 2002: 424), exemplified through the shift from uses such as This word literally means ‘water’ to This book literally blew my mind. This process of change has been noticed and commented on by language commentators and usage guide writers. In other words, apart from being a case of change in progress, literally is also a usage problem. Usage problems are ‘features of divided usage’, or ‘instances of usage that have attracted sociolinguistic controversy’ (Tieken–Boon van Ostade, 2015: 57; cf. Kostadinova, 2018). The case of the word literally, then, lends itself to an investigation of the relationship between prescriptive approaches to language use typically found in usage guides, and processes of language variation and change, as I will do in this paper. As a crucial aspect to this discussion, I will also address some of the attitudes speakers hold towards the newer uses of literally, as attitudes of speakers can help us better understand why prescriptivism may or may not influence language variation and change. In what follows, I will first discuss the variant uses of literally found in present-day English, and then consider findings on three perspectives on the variation in the use of literally, viz. the ‘usage guide’ perspective, the ‘actual use’ perspective and the ‘speakers’ attitudes’ perspective.

The use of the English language in China, and especially in Chinese education has been increasing for several decades, despite various attitudes towards its use (Hu, 2009; Niu & Wolff, 2003; Wang, 2015). In the traditional perspective of world Englishes (Kachru, 1992), China lies in the expanding circle, where English is regarded as a foreign language. However, since China's implementation of the opening-up policy, the teaching of the English language has gained momentum by becoming a key subject in China's education system. Currently, policies in China make English a subject of study from grade three at primary school and as one of the three compulsory subjects in the national university entrance exam (Gaokao), and a compulsory course for university students of all majors (Hu, 2003; Li, 2016).

It is now ten years since I suffered a stroke. I continue to improve, albeit much more slowly than in the first one or two years. Readers of English Today may remember (Schwyter, 2011) that I was head of the English Department at the University of Lausanne, and a graduate of both the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Cambridge. My stroke came really out of the blue; I did not have any of the early warning signs. And the only possible risk factors I was aware of were very long working hours and stress in all its forms – though ‘stress’ is not very well defined medically, being not one symptom but rather a cluster of symptoms (Kivimäki et al., 2015).

Garner's Modern English Usage (hereafter Garner4) was published by Oxford University Press USA in 2016. Appearing within a span of two decades, it is the fourth edition of Bryan Garner's dictionary of usage, originally published as A Dictionary of Modern American Usage (Garner, 1998, hereafter Garner1). It is also the second dictionary of English usage to be published during the last three years, following the latest edition of what is arguably its most direct British counterpart, Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Butterfield, 2015, hereafter Fowler4).

The 2016 World Bank report on worldwide per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) identified Bangladesh as a lower middle-income country based on its consistent GDP growth throughout last decade (World Bank, 2016). To maintain this growth rate and meet the radical demand for human resources in increasingly globalised world markets, the country needs to communicate more effectively with the outside world. Inevitably, this means improving the quality of English teaching and learning. The significance of English, as the global lingua franca, to Bangladeshi learners is at its zenith. In this developing country, however, economic constraints mean that funds allocated to education are limited compared to many other Southeast Asian countries (Habib & Adhikary, 2016). Even given the generally low level of educational standards in Bangladesh (Islam, 2015), the standard of English language teaching and learning has decreased alarmingly in recent years (Hamid, 2011). English language education in Bangladesh has always been problematic, despite various attempts to initiate curriculum reform. As Hamid & Baldauf (2008) point out, the first of these major shifts in the ELT curriculum took place in the mid-1990s, when the traditional Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) was replaced with a curriculum based on a Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) model. The principal objective of this article is to review the major problems associated with ELT in Bangladesh that have hindered the implementation of the new CLT curriculum from the perspective of teachers, and eventually to make recommendations for more effective ELT curriculum reform.

Recently, a regional newspaper agency in Mainland China reported on the Chinese celebrity Angelababy by using her English name (Net Ease Entertainment, 2016). A reader complained about this, suggesting that Angelababy's Chinese name needs to be in the report as well. The reader's comment and the name Angelababy went viral on many online news outlets, and comments were posted about the problems associated with such an English name from a large number of Chinese netizens.

English as a lingua franca (ELF) has received a great deal of attention in the field of applied linguistics in the last decade or so (Jenkins, 2007, 2014; Mauranen, 2012; Seidlhofer, 2011). As is currently conceptualized, ELF refers to the common language of choice among speakers from different lingua-cultural backgrounds (Jenkins, 2007; Seidlhofer, 2011). ELF does not imply a single, unified variety of English but primarily refers to language in use in contexts where multilingual speakers are involved (Cogo, 2010). In other words, ELF can be understood as social practice, with an emphasis on meaning-making processes. Much of the earlier research focused on identifying linguistic features characteristic of ELF communication (see Jenkins, 2000; Seidlhofer, 2001). But with the increased recognition of the variability and fluidity associated with the use of ELF, researchers have recently turned their attention to investigating communicative strategies which multilingual speakers employ to achieve mutual understanding and negotiate meaning in ELF interactions (see Cogo & Dewey, 2012; Jenkins, Cogo & Dewey, 2011). Furthermore, there exists a growing body of research into attitudes and perceptions of ELF communication (see Cogo, 2010; Jenkins, 2007; Kaloscai, 2009), given the impact of ELF perceptions on ELF-related communicative practices, especially with respect to issues relating to (non-) conformity to native-speaker norms.

Konglish is a blend of Korean and English found throughout South Korea, and often suffers for lack of prestige amongst Koreans. The primary aim of this article is to determine the reasons behind Konglish's low social status in Korea. I begin my investigation by exploring Korean public space as linguistic space, and examining in what social and cultural capacities Koreans use English, Mandarin, Korean, and Konglish. I then shift in part II to discuss perceptions of Korean and English inside Korea. Having analysed Koreans’ attitudes towards Konglish's parent languages, I discuss in part III why Konglish struggles for social legitimacy, despite its ubiquity. In the course of this investigation it will become clear that Koreans often deride Konglish for its ease of use. Because one absorbs it organically through cultural exposure rather than hours of study and millions of won in tuition fees, Konglish accords none of the prestige that comes with Standard English; meanwhile, Konglish's mixed nature means not only that it cannot benefit from the national pride Koreans associate with ‘pure’ Korean, but also that this pride harms Konglish's reception throughout the country.

The number of Korean students studying abroad has dropped drastically in the last decade. In 2014, 10,907 students ranging from age six to 18 went abroad, just over one-third of the total in 2006 when the number hit its highest peak at 29,511 (Korea Herald, 2015). There are a number of reasons for this apparent trend. First, study abroad students have a hard time adjusting themselves to life in the host country, and it is also common for them to experience readjustment difficulties when returning to Korea. Second, parents believe that children can learn ‘authentic’ English in Korea: various English immersion programmes are now available for young learners. Third, studying abroad no longer guarantees children's future success. Returnees are not preferred in the job market due to their in-between identity.

At the ‘English Usage (Guides) Symposium’, Cambridge 2014, I was invited to account for my revision of Plain Words (Gowers, 2014), the style guide originally written by my great-grandfather, Sir Ernest Gowers (1880–1966). And because, by the time I gave that talk (see Gowers, 2018), I was already writing my own book on the English language, intended as a sort of adjunct to Plain Words, the arguments aired at that Cambridge gathering were particularly interesting to me. That said, they also left me more daunted than ever by my own project.

This paper identifies discrepancies between prescriptive grammar rules concerning the number of the indefinite pronoun none and the actual use of this pronoun in modern academic English as shown in the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) and Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Whereas prescriptive rules state that the number of none is determined by its referent or by the user's desired effect, the analyses of the MICASE and MICUSP search results suggest that, regardless of the modality of discourse, (1) the number of none with an anaphoric referent is determined by the number of its referent and (2) the principle of proximity applies without exception when none is used as part of a ‘none of + singular noun/pronoun’ phrase and applies frequently but not always when followed by an ‘of + plural noun/pronoun’ phrase.

The grammarian Lindley Murray (1745–1826), according to Monaghan (1996), was the author of the best selling English grammar book of all times, called English Grammar and first published in 1795. Not surprisingly, therefore, his work was subjected to severe criticism by later grammarians as well as by authors of usage guides, who may have thought that Murray's success might negatively influence the sales figures of their own books. As the publication history of the grammar in Alston (1965) suggests, Murray was also the most popular grammarian of the late 18th and perhaps the entire 19th century, and this is most clearly reflected in the way in which a wide range of 19th- and even some 20th-century literary authors, from both sides of the Atlantic, mentioned Lindley Murray in their novels. Examples are Harriet Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom's Cabin, 1852), George Eliot (Middlemarch, 1871–2), Charles Dickens, in several of his novels (Sketches by Boz, 1836; Nicholas Nickleby, 1838–9; The Old Curiosity Shop 1840–1; Dombey & Son, 1846–8); Oscar Wilde (Miner and Minor Poets, 1887) and James Joyce (Ulysses, 1918) (Fens–de Zeeuw, 2011: 170–2). Another example is Edgar Allen Poe, who according to Hayes (2000) grew up with Murray's textbooks and used his writings as a kind of linguistic touchstone, especially in his reviews. Many more writers could be mentioned, and not only literary ones, for in a recent paper in which Crystal (2018) analysed the presence of linguistic elements in issues of Punch published during the 19th century, he discovered that ‘[w]henever Punch debates grammar, it refers to Lindley Murray’. Murray, according to Crystal, ‘is the only grammarian to receive any mention throughout the period, and his name turns up in 19 articles’ (Crystal, 2018: 86). Murray had become synonymous with grammar prescription, and even in the early 20th century, he was still referred to as ‘the father of English Grammar’ (Johnson, 1904: 365).

Predicting the future of English has been an exercise linguists have engaged with in academic settings for a long time, e.g. Sélincourt (1928), Jagger (1940), Quirk (1972) and Kortmann (2001). Mair (2013: 314) remarks that ‘in spite of the known risks involved in the task, there is no dearth of prophets in the linguistic community’. While he does not discuss the ‘known risks’ in his chapter, he does show that a lot of these predictions have not become true over the course of time.