The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca

In this chapter, we trace the theoretical and research developments in both translingual practice and ELF to show their evolving convergence and remaining distinctions. Though ELF was initially focused on identifying the core linguistic features shared among multilingual speakers of English (e.g., Jenkins, 2000, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001, 2004), it has adopted the position that ELF involves situated practices of constructing intersubjective norms that are always changing according to participants and contexts (Jenkins, Cogo, and Dewey, 2011; Hülmbaner and Seidlhofer 2013; Seidlhofer 2011). Translingual practice has similarly evolved from its focus on code-meshing in a product-oriented manner (Canagarajah, 2006) to consider the situated practices that lead to meaning making (Canagarajah, 2007). However, there are still some minor differences in theory and research focus between the two approaches. The understanding of community, the relationship between sharedness and diversity, the place of grammar in communication, and the connection between language and other multimodal resources suggest some differences. We discuss the strengths of both approaches in hopes that scholars of the two schools might learn from each other. ELF researchers have conducted empirical studies adopting analytical tools from conversation analysis (CA) and corpus research, which reveal the ways multilinguals negotiate English in their interactions. Translingual practice has focused more on issues of literacy, pragmatics, and pedagogy. These strengths can prove to be complementary as both approaches continue to research and theorize the diversity of English in a globalized and multilingual world.

Moving beyond the notion of multilingualism as a collection of discrete language systems, the translingual orientation offers a more integrated and nuanced way of understanding how people communicate. Without assuming the need for shared norms for communicative success, the translingual orientation attends to negotiation practices and diverse semiotic resources. One way to explain the term translingual is to consider its prefix—trans—because it highlights the two central premises of the term. First, the prefix acknowledges the fact that communication transcends individual languages. Since modernity, societies have had a long tradition of labeling languages and varieties within them, such as English, Japanese, and African American Vernacular English. However, partly because of the postmodern social conditions, featuring the increasingly immense mobility of people across geographical and digital spaces, scholars (e.g., Blommaert, 2010; Canagarajah, 2007, 2013b; Pennycook, 2012) are now compelled to view communication as involving mobile semiotic resources that can be put together for particular contexts, audiences, and purposes. In recognition of this social backdrop, Blommaert (2010), for instance, has proposed a shift from sociolinguistics of community to sociolinguistics of mobility: “a sociolinguistics of speech, of actual language resources deployed in real sociocultural, historical, and political contexts” (p. 5). Aligned with this practice-oriented perspective, translingual practice regards linguistic boundaries not as empirically attestable objects, but as ideological constructs. By the same token, the binary relationship between native speakers and nonnative speakers is also abandoned in the translingual perspective.

Second, the prefix also enables us to attend holistically to diverse semiotic resources beyond words. Though often unconscious, people always juxtapose various modalities (e.g., oral and gestural) and make use of ecological resources (e.g., physical objects) in creating meanings for their communicative purposes. For this reason, focusing solely on words is not reflective of everyday communication practices. In short, translingual practice allows us to move beyond the “lingual bias” (Block, 2014) of language as bounded and communication as involving only words and provides a more complex means of viewing language use that aligns closely with people’s everyday practices.

Though translingualism is a newer theoretical perspective in linguistics, it is important to stress that translingual practices are neither a new phenomenon nor a unique tradition of certain areas of the world (see Canagarajah, 2013b, ch. 3). Rather, it has always existed everywhere for many centuries. This becomes apparent if we break away from the traditional notion of communities as bounded, static, and homogenous. More than two decades ago, Mary Louise Pratt (1991) proposed an alternative model to conceptualize communities—i.e., contact zones—which she defined as “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or other aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today” (p. 34). Contrary to the traditional notion of community, contact zone foregrounds the interplay between diverse languages and cultures. Importantly, contact zone is not a secondary, liminal space between more primary communities; rather, all communities are contact zones by definition. As such, even so-called monolingual native speakers are engaging in translingual practice to negotiate different registers, semiotic resources, and cultures on a daily basis, even if they feel that their communities and languages are homogenous.

Given that shared norms can hardly be assumed in contact zone interactions, the type of competence translinguals possess cannot be defined solely in terms of some pre-existing grammatical knowledge. Thus, the translingual orientation requires us to redefine the notion of competence to accommodate the possibilities for achieving shared understandings out of linguacultural diversity. From this perspective, rather than predefined grammatical knowledge, it is the ability to respond strategically to unexpected norms and to collaboratively generate meanings out of diverse resources that constitutes competence. In other words, the type of competence translinguals have is a performative one, which does not exist independently of communication. Enabling this performative competence are their cooperative dispositions. Developed through socialization and practice, the dispositions provide them with the readiness to deal with unpredictable contact zone interactions. By focusing on meaning-making practices, rather than fixed norms, the translingual orientation allows us to stay open to further diversification of seemingly stable norms. García and Li Wei (2014) theorize that the prefix in translingual refers to transformation of existing norms.

Crucially, negotiation of diverse codes for successful communication need not imply that all communicators in all situations have equal rights, nor does translingual practice assume there are no established norms. In fact, through the process of sedimentation (Pennycook, 2010), a set of linguistic resources can acquire the appearance of stability, which in turn may become symbolic of power (e.g., Received Pronunciation). Partly because of this process, contact zone interactions are always influenced by power differentials among interactants. Ignoring the powerful can lead to negative consequences. For instance, when completing a writing section of a standardized test, like TOEFL^, the test taker is expected to closely observe the conventions of English academic writing, or he/she will not receive a good grade. Thus, however arbitrary they may be, linguistic conventions must not be disregarded because communicative success involves gaining the desired uptake from one’s intended audience. Importantly, however, the translingual orientation views power as context-dependent and negotiable. Through careful attention to contextual expectations and use of negotiation strategies, such as code-meshing (Canagarajah, 2006), one can interweave his/her identity and voice even in seemingly rigid genres. The academic writings of sociolinguist Geneva Smitherman (1999) demonstrates how she includes different varieties of Black English for rhetorical effect in texts mainly constructed in standard written English.

The translingual orientation is most extensively applied in literacy studies (Canagarajah, 2013a; Horner, Lu, Royster, and Trimbur, 2011). Holistically entertaining the production, circulation, and reception of texts, the translingual orientation moves our understanding of literacy beyond the existing frameworks that are either exceedingly product oriented (i.e., autonomous literacy) or local-practice oriented (i.e., new literacy). Breaking away from these traditional approaches, the translingual orientation views language as one type of semiotic resources that can be packaged together for particular contexts, audiences, and purposes. Rather than relying on linguistic norms to account for communicative success, the translingual approach considers the ways in which linguistic differences and multimodality might contribute to meaning making endeavors. Put differently, this approach does not treat linguistic differences as problems in and of themselves, but as resources for producing meanings. To date, a great deal of research has been conducted from this perspective, attesting to the fact that the translingual approach is in close alignment with the everyday language practices in various domains, e.g., classroom (Canagarajah, 2013b), scientific writing (Poe, 2013), and everyday business landscapes (Ayash, 2013).

The contemporary use of English on the global level can be conceived as a form of translingual practice. Sharing the translingual orientation to language and communication,¹ a number of studies in various contexts have explored diverse communicative practices involving English (Blackledge and Creese, 2017; Canagarajah, 2016; Han, 2013; Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015). Research shows that while it is a matter of fact that English is the most widely used resource for international communication (Crystal, 2008), the ways in which English is used are not always restricted by the ideological boundaries of languages. To understand the kind of competence needed for translocal professional work, Canagarajah (2016) examines the interview narratives of 65 highly skilled African migrants in universities in the US, the UK, Australia, and South Africa. His analysis reveals that multiple norms co-exist within translocal workplaces and that they are open to interpretation and negotiation. While showing vigilance to linguistic norms and power, Canagarajah’s participants exhibit the ability to foreground their profession, class, and education to (re)frame interactions in advantageous manners.

By contrast, Han (2013) and Blackledge and Creese (2017) study relatively unskilled migrants. In her ethnographic study of Africa Town in China, Han argues that one’s multilingual repertoire reflects and to a certain extent determines his/her life trajectory in line with Blommaert and Backus (2011). Hailing from low socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, her participants are unable to fulfill the requirements of elite multilingualism, and as a consequence, their global mobility is immensely compromised. Nevertheless, within the local space of Africa Town, their incomplete linguistic repertoires, or grassroots multilingualism, enable them to successfully perform their work. Furthermore, they keep expanding their multilingual repertoires through everyday interaction. Similarly, Blackledge and Creese’s (2017) work on Chinese butchers in a market in the UK underscores the interplay between translingual practice, life trajectories, and learning. One notable difference between the two studies is that Blackledge and Creese construe learning as encompassing both linguistic resources and voices, adopting a Bakhtinian approach. In other words, individuals continue to become what they are by adopting and adapting words of the other. Demonstrating this type of learning, Blackledge and Creese’s analysis of an interaction at the butcher shop shows the ways in which the Chinese shop owner takes and appropriates his customer’s words.

Focused specifically on urban contexts, Pennycook and Otsuji (2015) examine interactions at two international restaurants in Tokyo and Sydney to underscore the socially dependent nature of communicative competence. That is, since one has to simultaneously deal with multiple tasks and people through an array of linguistic and ecological resources, one’s ability to participate in social activities cannot be reduced to the linguistic resources at his/her disposal. From this perspective, the authors advance the notion of spatial repertoire: “the available and sedimented resources that derive from the repeated language practices of the people involved in the sets of activities related to particular places” (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015, p. 166). Spatial repertoire is not individually owned. Rather, it is tied to a particular social space and its associated activities and materiality. In this sense, it offers a middle ground between the individual and the social; particular social purposes call for the use of certain resources, and the use of such resources construct the social space into existence.

To sum up, the studies reviewed in this section consistently point to the fluidity of linguistic norms and boundaries, though they examine dissimilar groups of participants and contexts. Even without advanced proficiency in an established variety of English, one can adopt negotiation strategies to orchestrate the resources at his/her disposal to collaboratively achieve intersubjective understanding. Again, it is important to underscore that global contact zone interactions are not free of norms and conventions. In situations where there is a sedimented variety that is associated with power (e.g., Standard American English), a person without such knowledge may be at a disadvantage. Conversely, a native speaker of English who does not have the ability and/or willingness to negotiate linguistic differences may experience communication breakdowns in global contact zone encounters. Each contact situation features a unique mix of speakers and resources, giving rise to different constraints and affordances. Thus, rather than the knowledge of established varieties per se, it is the sensitivity to contextual expectations and the ability to deploy appropriate resources that constitute competences needed for mobile users of English in contact zones today.

A vibrant field of research, ELF has developed at a rapid pace over the past two decades. A cursory look at some key publications reveals the extent to which their research orientations have evolved in this relatively short period of time, particularly with regard to the definition of ELF as a topic of inquiry and the objective of ELF as a research field.

While early research focused on showing how multilinguals shared norms that differed from native speakers of English, more recent research on ELF has largely abandoned the distinctions between native speakers and nonnative speakers in recognition that “communication via ELF frequently happens in and across all three of Kachru’s circles (Seidlhofer, 2009, p. 236). Nowadays, ELF is typically conceptualized in more inclusive terms as “any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option” (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 7, emphasis in original). Most researchers of ELF now align with this general view (e.g., Jenkins, 2006; Mortensen, 2013). Furthermore, Jenkins et al. (2011) even go on to qualify earlier studies (e.g., Firth, 1996; House, 1999) as not being “ELF studies ‘proper’” (p. 286, emphasis in original) in light of how ELF is understood today because these studies defined ELF speakers as somewhat deficient in relation to native speakers of English.

In addition to the definitions, the objectives of ELF as a research field have also transformed to a considerable degree. In her pioneering article, “Closing the conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca,” Seidlhofer (2001) proposed the objective of ELF research as follows: “to explore the possibility of a codification of ELF with a conceivable ultimate objective of making it a feasible, acceptable and respected alternative to ENL” (p. 150). During the field’s inception, Seidlhofer (2001, 2004), among other proponents, was clearly after the common linguistic features (e.g., phonology and lexicogrammar) of ELF “irrespective of speakers’ first languages and levels of L2 proficiency” (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 219) for the sake of proving non-native English as rule-governed. For example, based on the findings of her classroom-based research, Jenkins (2002) proposed the lingua franca core that “consists of those phonological and phonetic features which [. . .] seem to be crucial as safeguards of mutual intelligibility in interlanguage talk” (p. 96). She further went on to argue that non-core features are not crucial for achieving phonological intelligibility in ELF interactions. Similarly, Seidlhofer’s earlier research primarily investigated the common lexicogrammatical characteristics of ELF. Drawing on her corpus, the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), she identified a number of grammatical features shared among ELF speakers (Seidlhofer, 2001, 2004), such as the omission of third person singular -s.

Though earlier scholarship in ELF was characterized by its pursuit of systematized linguistic features, the field has gradually come to recognize the precedence of practice over form (Jenkins et al., 2011). In their most recent rebuttal to critics of ELF, Baker and Jenkins (2015) elucidate that “attempts to delineate ELF as a variety of language are not part of contemporary ELF discourses” (p. 193). This shift was largely influenced by scholars who hold translingual orientations to language and communication, such as Pennycook and Canagarajah. Affirming this historical development, Jenkins et al. (2011), in the recent state-of-the-art article, favorably cite Pennycook (2007) and Canagarajah (2007) in recognition of the fluid and context-dependent nature of ELF interactions. While ELF has not completely abandoned its search for the core linguistic features, ELF scholars have moved the fluidity and hybridity toward the “centre stage” (Jenkins et al., 2011, p. 296) of their research agenda. Dewey (2009, p. 62) rightly summarizes this emerging perspective in his definition as follows: “ELF is [. . .] best understood as a dynamic, locally realized enactment of a global resource, best conceptualized not as a uniform set of norms or practices, but as a highly variably creative expressions of linguistic resources.” Placing the fluidity of form and the centrality of practice at the heart, recent research has examined a range of features, including morphology (Björkman, 2008, 2009), metaphorical uses of idiomatic language (Pitzl, 2009), and pragmatic strategies (Kaur, 2011).

Furthermore, as with the translingual orientation theorized earlier, some researchers have moved beyond the social construct of the English language. This view is represented by Hülmbauer’s (2011) notion of all-languages-at-all-times (ALAAT), which recognizes that “ELF cannot be pinned down to certain features but has to be flexibly mobilized in ever-changing contexts of linguistic diversity” (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer, 2013, p. 391) and assumes that all linguistic resources “can potentially be exploited at all times” (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer, 2013, p. 400). More recently, Jenkins (2015) has declared the third phase of ELF research (i.e., English as a multilingua franca), which recognizes that “multilingualism rather than English, is the ‘superordinate’” (p. 75, emphasis in original).

In summary, ELF has undergone several major changes in the past two decades with regard to its definitions and objectives. First, while it initially excluded native speakers from research, owing largely to its goal of legitimatizing nonnative English uses, most researchers now agree that any use of English by people across different linguacultural backgrounds should constitute ELF. Second, ELF has mostly moved past its pursuit of shared grammatical features, given that linguistic forms are pragmatically motivated (Cogo and Dewey, 2006) and hence highly variable. This recognition has led to a number of recent studies that place emphasis on practice. Third, in the past few years, ELF scholars have also initiated a theoretical reorientation to consider ELF as variable manifestations of multilingualism, rather than a superordinate code. In short, these shifts in research orientation have rendered ELF largely similar to the translingual orientation we have articulated at the beginning of this chapter. However, there still remain several important differences in theory and research focus between the two approaches. In the following section, we identify these differences to explore the ways in which the two approaches may learn from each other.

Though ELF scholars increasingly acknowledge the context-dependent nature of ELF forms (Jenkins, 2015), they have not completely abandoned their mission of identifying the core linguistic features, if not varieties. As Jenkins et al. (2011) maintains, ELF’s focus on preexisting forms “has not been dismissed out of hand” (p. 287). ELF research still reserves room for the shared linguistic features, arguing that these features will “enable’ ELF researchers to counter any claim that ELF is merely a deficient form of native English” (Jenkins 2011, p. 928). This statement makes sense in the context of ELF’s evolution as a scholarly field, which was characterized by the reaction against the native-speaker-centered paradigm of foreign language education. While an increasing number of researchers recognize ELF as pragmatically motivated and situated within multilingualism, some strands of research (e.g., corpus-driven research) still retain the original mission of revealing grammatical systematicity.

Moreover, while grammatical sharedness is qualified by practice in contemporary ELF research, another form of sharedness—community identity—still appears to play a key role. In accounting for communicative success, a number of ELF scholars (House, 2003; Kalocsai, 2014; Seidlhofer, 2009, 2011) have resorted to the theoretical model of community of practice (CoP) (Wenger, 1998). Criticizing the traditional notion of community as geographically bounded, homogeneous, and unchanging, Seidlhofer (2009) proposed to use CoP as an alternative: “a much more appropriate concept is that of communities of practice characterized by ‘mutual engagement’ in shared practices, taking part in some jointly negotiated ‘enterprise’, and making use of members’ ‘shared repertoire’” (Seidlhofer, 2009, p. 238, emphasis in original).

Though CoP is a useful theoretical model, the way it has been applied in much of ELF research presents several limitations in light of the practice orientation. First, it appears to treat shared repertoire as pre-existing, rather than co-constructed in a moment-by-moment fashion in interactions. Second, treating all ELF users as belonging to one CoP is somewhat simplistic. The use of ELF is too broad geographically to consider a joint enterprise of a CoP that unites its members together in the strict sense of the theory. Third, as Baker (2015) points out, there has been little empirical research showing the value of CoP in better understanding interactions, with the exception of Kalocsai (2014) and Ehrenreich (2009). Kalocsai’s (2014) monograph critically engages with the concept of CoP in the context of mobile European students in Hungary and provides a longitudinal ethnographic account of the participants’ lives, within which ELF plays a bonding role but not more important than other non-linguistic practices. If ELF scholars are to continue using CoP to account for ELF communicative success and identity, more ethnographically oriented studies, similar to Kalocsai’s, are needed.

The translingual approach takes a contrasting stance towards sharedness of grammar and community. Unlike much of ELF research, the translingual approach focuses more on the generative role of practice in accounting for communicative success. Shared understanding is seen as an interactional accomplishment, which is not by any means predicated on sharedness of grammar or community identity. Though it is possible that prolonged engagement can lead to sedimentation of certain resources and formation of a CoP, the translingual approach does not see these two processes as necessary conditions. In the context of globalization that features heightened mobility, these ideas could potentially limit the researcher’s understanding of how communicative success is achieved. Rather than sharedness, translingual practice assumes diversity as the norm, and hence the starting point of interactions. Even without a shared repertoire, competent translinguals can use negotiation strategies to achieve communicative success in contact zone interactions.

Another difference between the two traditions lies in research focus, particularly as regards methods and contexts. Aimed initially at codifying ELF as a language variety, a great deal of research has employed corpus as the primary form of data (Kirkpatrick, 2010; Mauranen, 2003; Seidlhofer, 2001). Especially during the first decade of the twenty-first century, the corpus-based studies identified a number of core linguistic features shared among ELF speakers. More recently, scholars have also used corpus data to explore the innovative dimensions of ELF use, including Pitzl (2009) on metaphorical uses of idiomatic language, Klimpfinger (2009) on code-switching, and Mauranen (2009) on discourse markers. Conversation analysis (CA)² is another major approach used in ELF research. CA studies have unraveled various interactional strategies, such as let-it-pass and make-it-normal (Firth, 1996), preemption of potential trouble sources through repetition (Cogo, 2009; Mauranen, 2006; Kaur, 2011), and pronunciation accommodation (Firth, 2009). Overwhelmingly, both corpus and CA studies have examined business and academic uses of ELF. Corresponding to the burgeoning scholarly interest in local practice, qualitative studies with situated ethnographic elements have gained more currency in recent years (e.g., Kalocsai, 2014).

By contrast, the translingual approach tends to employ ethnography and discourse analysis that are contextually situated and longitudinal in focus. For instance, Blommaert (2013) offers an ethnographic account of the ever-changing linguistic landscapes of his own superdiverse neighborhood in Berchem, Belgium, over the course of two decades. In line with his earlier work on sociolinguistics of mobility (Blommaert, 2010), at the heart of Blommaert’s research are historicity and complexity. As he argues, longitudinal and close engagement with research sites is crucial in understanding meaning-making practices in the context of contemporary globalization. As previously discussed, scholars of translingual language use echo this perspective (Blackledge and Creese, 2017; Canagarajah, 2016; Han, 2013). Focused on global mobility, translingual research has primarily examined migrants’ communicative practices in a range of professional and everyday contexts, which comprises another difference from ELF research.

As discussed in the introductory section, the translingual approach has always considered linguistic boundaries as fluid. For example, the notion of code-meshing (Canagarajah, 2006) embodies this perspective, replacing the more familiar notions of code-mixing and code-switching. Similar to the translingual orientation, ELF research has recently expanded its scope to entertain the dynamic interplay of multilingual resources and English, as aptly represented by Dewey’s (2009) definition of ELF cited above. This is an empirically advantageous move because human interactions are not restricted by linguistic boundaries. Having moved past the myth of languages as bounded entities, recent ELF research has produced a number of fascinating studies that demonstrate the flexible uses of linguistic resources in international encounters (e.g., Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer, 2013; Jenkins, 2015). Nevertheless, there still remains an important difference between ELF and the translingual approach as regards multimodality. As with much of applied linguistics research, current ELF scholarship largely overlooks the place of nonverbal resources, such as gesture and objects. To our knowledge, only Matsumoto’s (2015) dissertation has focused explicitly on the place of gesture in ELF interactions. In contrast, the translingual approach views language as one of many semiotic affordances that can be juxtaposed alongside one another for effective communication. As scholars of gesture (Kendon, 2004), CA (Goodwin, 2000) as well as sociocognitive SLA (Atkinson et al., 2007) maintain, human communication involves diverse semiotic resources beyond just words, and thus overlooking the nonverbal will lead to an incomplete understanding of meaning-making processes. As such, ELF scholars might benefit from taking multimodality into consideration since it will likely afford a more holistic understanding of the dynamics of ELF interactions as they are beginning to do (see Sangiamchit, Chapter 28 this volume).

Until recently, ELF research focused exclusively on oral, particularly face-to-face, communication. This has been noted by Jenkins et al. (2011) who identify written language as one of the two major gaps in ELF research, alongside testing. To date, the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca has published only a limited number of studies on writing (e.g., Carey, 2013). On one level, the scarcity of writing research is understandable because scholars tend to view writing (particularly for academic purposes) as involving a more controlled and stable mode of expression, which allows for less creativity and change (Seidlhofer, 2004: p. 215). Such a perspective is rooted in the traditional notion of autonomous literacy (Street, 1984), which views texts as representing unvarying meanings that can be conveniently decoded by the reader. Embodying this perspective, most English-medium academic journals require L2 English authors to have their manuscripts checked by a native speaker before submission, with the exception of some progressive ones, including the Journal of English a as Lingua Franca. However, given the rise of L2 English authors, the perceived neutrality of standard written English has become increasingly controversial. Furthermore, as scholars argue, no one is native to academic writing (Mauranen, 2012). Even so-called native speakers have to undertake substantial training to become prolific writers. To address the scarcity of ELF writing research, Anna Mauranen and her colleagues at the University of Helsinki have recently launched the Corpus of Written English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (WrELFA, 2015). The corpus comprises high-stakes academic texts, including research papers, examiner reports, and academic blogs, that have not undergone professional proofreading or native speaker check. The inauguration of WrELFA marks an important milestone in ELF research since it fills the major gap in research. However, while providing rich and authentic samples of ELF academic writing, corpus data cannot provide insights into writing in progress or composing as a form of social practice. Since writing involves serial drafting, multiple revisions, and literacy sponsors, more process-oriented longitudinal approaches are still needed to yield a fuller understanding of ELF writing.

Contrary to ELF, literacy research has always been at the heart of the translingual approach. In fact, writing scholars, like Horner et al. (2011), have called for a programmatic shift toward the translingual approach in composition studies and pedagogies. In recognition of the fact that languages are always in contact and in flux, Horner et al. (2011) have proposed that we construe linguistic differences as resources, rather than problems to overcome. In addition, other scholars have extended the notion to consider multimodal resources, such as space, font size, and image (Canagarajah, 2013a). From the translingual perspective, it is the capacity to orchestrate diverse resources “expressively, rhetorically, communicatively” (Horner et al., 2011, p. 303) for a particular audience that constitutes competence. Translingual writers can code-mesh to express their unique voices even in high-stakes academic publishing. As discussed at the beginning of the chapter, it is important to underscore that the translingual orientation does not disregard power in favor of code-meshing because after all successful texts are the ones that gain the desired uptake; however, if used with care, non-standard resources can create positive effects. Motivated by the consideration of power and uptake, translingual literacy research often incorporates ethnographic techniques, such as participant observation and interview, in order to arrive at a nuanced understanding of how texts are produced, circulated, and received across time and space (e.g., Canagarajah, 2013b; Poe, 2013).

As discussed above, certain approaches to the translingual orientation emerged from the scholarship of literacy education. Taking diversity as the norm, the seminal paper by Horner et al. (2011) calls for a reappraisal of many of the traditional notions, such as error correction. While an error was characterized traditionally as a deviation from native-speaker norms, the translingual approach advocates that linguistic differences can serve as resources to express one’s unique voices. That being said, the translingual perspective does not disregard linguistic conventions and established varieties. Rather than taking them for granted, translingual pedagogies aim to make students aware that linguistic norms are ideological constructs that are fluid and negotiable. Allowing students to creatively play with various resources is beneficial, as research shows that one can learn norms better when he/she deviates from them (García, 2009). Translingual pedagogies are particularly effective for mobile individuals who shuttle between and negotiate various norms. Because translingual competence is performative, rather than predetermined, pedagogies focus on cultivating students’ cooperative dispositions, which provide the readiness for negotiating diverse norms (Canagarajah, 2013b, 2014). In this regard, translingual pedagogies are also relevant to native speakers, given that a single norm is never enough to meet the demands of the global mobility. Regardless of one’s linguistic background, pedagogies should prepare students for new challenges of the increased global mobility and contact zone interactions. To date, translingual writing pedagogies have been widely implemented by L1 writing (Bizzell, 2014; Lu, 2009; Lu and Horner, 2013; Sohan, 2009) and TESOL (Amicucci and Lassiter, 2014; Canagarajah, 2015; Jain, 2014; Lee, 2014; Marshall and Moore, 2013; Sayer, 2013) teachers/scholars.

During its early years, one of the goals of ELF research was to establish alternative pedagogical models based on corpus findings, independent of native speaker norms (Jenkins, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001). The clearest manifestation of this orientation may be Jenkins’ (2002) lingua franca core, which was designed to offer “a phonological syllabus” (p. 96) for ELF learners. However, scholars soon became cautious about making explicit suggestions about how ELF research insights may be translated into pedagogical practices (Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2004). In contrast, recent years have seen a proliferation of pedagogically oriented publications, most notably the special issue of the Journal of English as a Lingua Franca in 2015 and Bayyurt and Akcan’s (2015) edited volume. Unlike the earlier pursuit for the core linguistic features, recent studies tend to underscore the fluidity of linguacultural norms and the centrality of negotiation skills, showing convergence with the translingual approach (Baker, 2015; Dewey, 2012; Jenkins 2012; Seidlhofer 2011). In realizing this shift in focus, a number of scholars emphasize the importance of teacher education as the starting point (Bayyurt and Akcan, 2015; Jenkins, 2006; Seidlhofer, 2011). While the teacher-development approaches of ELF focus on awareness building, those of translingual schools focus on reflective practice (Canagarajah, 2006).

This chapter has discussed the theoretical and research developments in ELF and translingual practice. Despite the initial differences, ELF and translingual practice now share important theoretical premises that enable scholars of both schools to learn from each other. Moving forward, we conclude by highlighting two particular questions of mutual interest that applied linguists and composition scholars have brought up recently. The first question concerns the place of ELF within the global linguistic ecology. In her interview-based study of Japanese companies operating in China, Kubota (2015) finds that the use of English is uncommon in interactions between Japanese and Chinese workers, contrary to the popular belief that English allows one to communicate across national boundaries and that international companies regularly require employees to have high English proficiency. Similarly, Amelina’s (2010) study of Russian workers in Germany points to the advantages proficiency in German offers to their career development. While these studies do not necessarily invalidate the unique role of English in the global economy, they do serve as useful reminders that ELF is situated within multilingualism, rather than replacing it. This view is beginning to be taken up by ELF scholars in recent years (Jenkins, 2015). The second question addresses the interplay between human agents, linguistic resources, and material ecologies. Jordan (2015) offers constructive criticisms to translingual scholars who tend to valorize unidirectional human agency in exploiting linguistic and material resources. Moving beyond this human-centric perspective, Jordan encourages researchers to regard humans as part of material ecologies and direct their attention to the ways in which linguistic and material ecologies “act[ed] with/on/through humans” because a change in the nonhuman environment “reconfigures possible future events that are immanent” (p. 377). Casting new light on our understanding of mobility and communication in global contact zones, these emerging issues merit considerable attention from scholars of both ELF and translingual practice. Continued dialogue between the two schools is essential in this unfolding endeavor.

1 Scholars use various terminologies, such as metrolingual multitasking (Pennycook and Otsuji, 2015), grassroots multilingualism (Han, 2013), and truncated multilingualism (Blommaert, 2010). However, they by and large share the theoretical premises with the translingual orientation in that they focus on dynamic communicative practices transcending the ideological confines of autonomous languages.

2 Some scholars do not use the term CA, but their approaches are largely similar to CA in that their analyses focus on the sequential organization of ELF talk (e.g., Mauranen, 2006; Cogo, 2009).

2 Baker, English as a lingua franca an ELF and intercultural communication

3 Ehrenreich, Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca

7 Seidlhofer, Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation

16 Osimk-Teasdale, Analysing ELF variability

17 Cogo and House, The pragmatics of ELF

22 Hynninen and Solin, Language norms in ELF

29 Cogo, ELF and multilingualism

33 Horner, Written academic English as a lingua franca

Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.

Canagarajah, S. 2013. (Ed.). Literacy as translingual practice: between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge.

Canagarajah, S., 2013. Translingual practice: global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.

Horner, B., Lu, M.Z., Royster, J.J., and Trimbur, J., 2011. Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English 73(3), pp. 303–321.

Pennycook, A., and Otsuji, E. (2015). Metrolingualism: language in the city. London: Routledge.

Amelina, M. 2010. Do other languages than English matter? International career development of highly qualified professionals. In E. Meyer and B. Apfelbaum (Eds.), Multilingualism at work: From policies to practices in public, medical and business settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–252

Amicucci, A., and Lassiter, T. 2014. Multimodal concept drawings: Engaging EAL learners in brainstorming about course terms. TESOL Journal 5(3), pp. 523–531.

Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., and Okada, H. 2007. Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), pp. 169–188.

Ayash, N.B. 2013. Translingual practices from Lebanon and mainstream literacy education. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge, pp. 96–103.

Baker, W. 2015. Research into practice: Cultural and intercultural awareness. Language Teaching, 48(1), pp. 130–141.

Baker, W., and Jenkins, J. 2015. Criticising ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), pp. 191–198.

Bayyurt, Y., and Akcan, S. (Eds.). 2015. Current perspectives on pedagogy for English as a lingua franca. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

Bizzell, P. 2014. Toward “transcultural literacy” at a Liberal Arts college. In B. Horner and K. Kopelson (Eds.), Reworking English in rhetoric and composition: Global interrogations, local interventions. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 131–149

Björkman, B. 2008. “So where we are?” Spoken lingua franca English at technical university in Sweden. English Today, 24(2), pp. 5–41.

Björkman, B. 2009. From code to discourse in spoken ELF. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 225–251.

Blackledge, A., and Creese, A. 2017. Translanguaging in mobility. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Routledge handbook of migration and language. London: Routledge, pp. 31–46.

Block, D. 2014. Moving beyond “lingualism”: Multilingual embodiment and multimodality in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York: Routledge, pp. 54–77.

Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blommaert, J. 2013. Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Blommaert, J., and Backus, A. 2011. Repertoires revisited: “Knowing language” in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 67. London: King’s College.

Canagarajah, S. 2006. The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57(4), pp. 586–619.

Canagarajah, S. 2007. Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, pp. 923–939.

Canagarajah, S. 2013a. Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge.

Canagarajah, S. 2013b. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. New York: Routledge.

Canagarajah, S. 2014. Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contract zone. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York; Routledge, pp. 78–102.

Canagarajah, S. 2015. Clarifying the relationship between translingual practice and L2 writing: Addressing learner identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(4), pp. 415–440.

Canagarajah, S. 2016. Shuttling between scales in the workplace: Reexamining policies and pedagogies for migrant professionals. Linguistics and Education, 34, pp. 47–57.

Carey, R. 2013. On the other side: formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), pp. 207–228.

Cogo, A. 2009. Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 254–273.

Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5(2), pp. 59–94.

Dewey, M. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implications. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 60–83.

Dewey, M. 2012. Towards a post-normative approach: Learning the pedagogy of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), pp. 141–170.

Ehrenreich, S. 2009. English as a lingua franca in multinational corporations: Exploring business communities of practice. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 126–151.

Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On conversation analysis and “lingua franca” English. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, pp. 237–259.

Firth, A. 2009. Doing not being a foreign language learner: English as a lingua franca in the workplace and (some) implications for SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(1), pp. 127–156.

García, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.

García, O., and Wei, L. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goodwin, C. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), pp. 1489–1522.

Han, H. 2013. Individual grassroots multilingualism in Africa town in Guangzhou: The role of states in globalization. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7(1), pp. 83–97.

Horner, B., Lu, M., Royster, J.J., and Trimbur, J. 2011. Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, pp. 303–321.

House, J. 1999. Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as a lingua franca and the myth of mutual intelligibility. In C. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and learning English as a global language. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 73–89.

House, J. 2003. English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), pp. 556–578.

Hülmbauer, C., 2011. Old friends? Cognates in ELF communication. In A. Archibald, A. Cogo, and J. Jenkins (Eds.), New trends in ELF research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 139–161.

Hülmbauer, C., and Seidlhofer, B. 2013. English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism. In A.C. Berthoud, F. Grin, and G. Lüdi (Eds.), Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: The DYLAN project. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 387–406.

Jain, R. 2014. Global Englishes, translinguistic identities, and translingual practices in a community college ESL classroom: A practitioner researcher reports. TESOL Journal, 5(3), pp. 490–522.

Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language: New models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. 2002. A Sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), pp. 83–103.

Jenkins, J. 2006. Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), pp. 157–181.

Jenkins, J. 2011. Accommodating (to) ELF in the international university. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), pp. 926–936.

Jenkins, J. 2012. English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), pp. 486–494.

Jenkins, J. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice, 2(3), pp. 49–85.

Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching, 44(3), pp. 281–315.

Jordan, J. 2015. Material translingual ecologies. College English, 77(4), pp. 364–382.

Kalocsai, K. 2014. Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: A study of students in a central European context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Kaur, J. 2011. Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(11), pp. 2704–2715.

Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kirkpatrick, A. 2010. Researching English as a lingua franca in Asia: The Asian Corpus of English (ACE) project. Asian Englishes 31(1), pp. 4–18.

Klimpﬁnger, T. 2009. She’s mixing the two languages together: Forms and functions of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 348–371

Kubota, R. 2015. “Language is only a tool”: Japanese expatriates working in China and implications for language teaching. In K. Murata (Ed.) Exploring ELF in Japanese academic and business contexts: Conceptualisation, research and pedagogic implications. New York: Routledge, pp. 156–179.

Lee, M.E. 2014. Shifting to the World Englishes paradigm by way of the translingual approach: Code-meshing as a necessary means of transforming composition pedagogy. TESOL Journal, 5(2), pp. 312–329.

Lu, M. 2009. Metaphors matter: Transcultural literacy. Journal of Advanced Composition 29, pp. 285–294.

Lu, M., and Horner. B. 2013. Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters ofagency. College English 75(6), pp. 582–607.

Marshall, S., and Moore, D. 2013. 2B or not 2B plurilingual? Navigating languages, literacies, and plurilingual competence in postsecondary education in Canada. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), pp. 472–499.

Matsumoto, Y. 2015. Multimodal communicative strategies for resolving miscommunication in multilingual writing classrooms. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: The Pennsylvania State University.

Mauranen, A. 2003. The corpus of English as a lingua franca in academic settings. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), pp. 513–527.

Mauranen, A. 2006. Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, pp. 123–150.

Mauranen, A. 2009. Chunking in ELF: Expressions for managing interaction. Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(2), pp. 217–233.

Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Mortensen, J. 2013. Notes on English used as a lingua franca as an object of study. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(1), pp. 25–46.

Pennycook, A. 2007. Global Englishes and transcultural flows. New York: Routledge.

Pennycook, A. 2012. Language and mobility: Unexpected places. Bristol; Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Pennycook, A., and Otsuji, E. 2015. Metrolingualism: Language in the city. London: Routledge.

Pitzl, M.L. 2009. “We should not wake up any dogs”: Idiom and metaphor in ELF. In A. Mauranen and E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 298–322.

Poe, M. 2013. Research on multilingual writers in the disciplines: The case of biomedical engineering. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Literacy as translingual practice: Between communities and classrooms. New York: Routledge, pp. 170–181.

Sayer, P. 2013. Translanguaging, TexMex, and bilingual pedagogy: Emergent bilinguals learning through the vernacular. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), pp. 63–88.

Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), pp. 133–158.

Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 209–239.

Seidlhofer, B. 2009. Common ground and different realities: World Englishes and English as a lingua franca. World Englishes, 28(2), pp. 236–245.

Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smitherman, G. 1999. CCCC’s role in the struggle for language rights. College Composition and Communication, 50(3), pp. 349–76.

Sohan, V.K. 2009. Working English(es) as rhetoric(s) of disruption. Journal of Advanced Composition 29(1–2), pp. 270–275.

Street, B.V. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

WrELFA. 2015. The corpus of written English as a lingua franca in academic settings. Retrieved from www.helsinki.fi/elfa/wrelfa.html (accessed August 5, 2015).