Chapter 9 is devoted to aspects of general extender use by second language (L2) learners, with discussion of research and examples from first language (L1) speakers of Dutch, French, German, Persian and Swedish, plus data from English L1 speakers learning other languages. The phenomenon of low-frequency use of discourse/pragmatic features among L2 learners is noted. The more limited repertoire of L2 learners results in the complete absence of some forms and a reliance on, and hence overuse of, only a few expressions. Another aspect of L2 learner usage is the creation of novel expressions, some of which can be analyzed as interlanguage forms. Novel forms, and new uses of old forms, are also exemplified in the use of English as a lingua franca. Proposals for the inclusion of general extenders in L2 teaching are based on the explicit presentation and analysis of examples, with a contrastive approach discussed and exemplified. The chapter concludes with four exercises designed to raise awareness of how different English general extenders are typically used.

A number of chapters in this volume have highlighted the role of testing and assessment in contributing to maintaining monolith conceptualisations of English, and conversely the hybrid nature of the language and lack of clear boundaries, especially in L2 versions. Accordingly, this chapter discusses the role of the L1 in assessing L2 English proficiency, focusing particularly on tests of L2 English speaking ability. It first considers Weir’s (2005) socio-cognitive framework for developing and validating speaking tests (further elaborated in Taylor, 2011), in order to locate the issue of L1 influence comprehensively within an overall test validation framework. It then describes how the different test purposes for which tests are designed can determine the role of the L1, according to the specific construct of the test. To exemplify differing roles that can be played by the L1 in speaking tests, this chapter then presents two studies on L2 spoken English tests that sought to address the issue of test-takers’ L1 in contrastive ways.