Lingua Franca or Euro-English? A comparative analysis of variability in English discourse

(1)

Lingua Franca or Euro-English?

A comparative analysis of variability in English discourse

MA Thesis Samantha Kooreman

Supervisor: Mr. drs. A. A. Foster Second reader: Dr. D. Smakman

(2)

2

Abstract

This thesis examines whether the conditions are right for a codification of a Euro-English. English has emerged as Europe’s undisputed lingua franca (ELF), and much earlier research on ELF primarily revolved around identifying salient features for the purpose of a codification of ELF. Even though several salient features have been found in ELF, there is also increasing evidence of fluidity and flexibility, which brings the viability of a codification into question. Therefore, this thesis includes a case study, comprised of a corpus-based comparative analysis of English as a Lingua Franca in the professional organizational (PO) and leisure (LE) domains, in order to determine whether there is variability in salient ELF features. The results of the case study did not show any significant variability in the supposed salient ELF features in either domain. However, the features did not appear frequently enough in order to be considered as salient. Nevertheless, some evidence of variation was found in the features used by speakers of different lingual backgrounds, which could indicate that linguistic background plays a role in which particular forms are utilized at a particular point in a given ELF interaction. These findings, even though unexplored, support the observation that there are different ‘local Englishes’ in Europe, which makes the viability of attempting a description of ELF questionable. It can thus be concluded that a codification of Euro-English is unlikely at this point and that it makes more sense for English to continue as a lingua franca or to argue for a multiglossic recognition of Euro-Englishes.

(3)

3

4 POprc465: Press conference about the cooperation of Serbia with the European Union35 POprc522: Press conference about the military conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah in Lebanon ... 36 POprc557: Press conference on illegal immigration in Spain ... 38 POprc558: Press conference on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union ... 39 POprc559: Press conference on the EU-Norway energy partnership dialogue ... 41

(5)

5

1. Introduction

Multilingualism is one of the key characteristics of the European Union’s1 language policy. All twenty-four official languages of the Member States have equal status. Translations are essential to safeguard this ideal of equality between languages (see section 2.3) (Koskinen, 2000, p. 51). However, sometimes English or occasionally French translations are preferred over minority languages as they are perceived as ‘more reliable’ or even ‘juridically more valid’ (Koskinen, 2000, p. 52). Therefore, the EU’s language policy can be considered as an ‘illusion of equality’ (Forrest, 1998, p. 314).

Consequently, one could argue that the EU’s multilingualism policy is flawed, and merely has a symbolic purpose. Instead, it might make more sense to argue against the principle of multilingualism and in favour of lingua franca(s). English is now the most widely spoken language in the EU and also the most frequently used language of international communication. The arrival of Brexit could have possible ramifications for the status and function of English within the EU. Marko Modiano (2017) argues that it is possible that the exit of the UK from the EU will clear the space for the emergence of an authentic ‘European English’, as ‘the UK will no longer serve as a gatekeeper of correctness and standardization’ (p. 314). Ireland has chosen Irish as its official language and Malta has chosen Maltese. Therefore, nobody in the EU could invoke the right to use English, as English will no longer be the official language of any of the member states. Modiano refers to the the Kachruvian paradigm, which is defined as the theoretical and methodical framework for the recognition of second-language (Outer Circle) varieties of English, and that it is now also applicable to Europe (Modiano, 2017, p. 314).

Most previous studies on English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) primarily focus on identifying features that would characterize this emerging kind of English usage, with the ultimate aim of being able to codify ELF (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011, p. 295). Researchers thus focused their enquiry on what was regular in their data rather than what was variable. However, ELF involves not only the frequent systematic use of certain forms that are not found in native English, but also a range of underlying processes that determine which particular forms are utilized at any particular point in a given interaction (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011, 295). This calls the viability of attempting a description of ELF into question and creates a dilemma, as these ‘observed regularities’ do not in any way negate ‘the inherent fluidity of ELF’ (Seidlhofer, 2009, p. 240).

1_{The European Union is a political and economic union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe.}

(6)

6 This thesis aims to answer the following research question: Are the conditions right for a codification of Euro-English? In order to answer this question, a case study puts forth a corpus-based comparative analysis of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in two different domains, to determine whether there is variability in salient ELF features.

The literature review focusses on the literature that is essential for understanding the study in context, and elaborates on how previous research has dealt with issues that have been encountered in this study as well. The last section of the literature review presents the guiding research questions for the present case study. The methodology section covers how the case study is conducted and what is taken into consideration in the following results section. The VOICE corpus that is used for my analysis is described, as well as the chosen salient features, and justifications for using these features. In the results section, the findings from the ELF data are displayed and included in a discussion. With previous literature in mind, the results are interpreted and in attempt to make explanations for the way they manifest. As a final step, the results are briefly summarized and discussed. The last section of the thesis offers a conclusion, which considers the results in light of the literature review. Furthermore, the limitations and implications of the present study are discussed, along with suggestions for future research.

(7)

7

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Kachruvian Paradigm

English is the most widely spoken language in the world, there are roughly 1.5 billion speakers, and the vast majority uses it as a second language. Since the 1950s, the use of the English language in the world has increased by 40 percent and the accelerating process still continues (Jesenská, 2007, p. 62). A widespread model to categorize the spread of English throughout the world is Kachru’s (1985) ‘three concentric circles’ model. Kachru’s model classifies English varieties by distinguishing between the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle (Kachru, 1992, p. 3). The Inner Circle represents the ‘norm-providing’ varieties of English, where English is a native language (ENL). In the Outer Circle, English has been established as a second language (ESL) through the process of colonization. These ‘norm-developing’ varieties of English, have well-established linguistic and cultural identities. The Expanding Circle refers to countries where English is taught as a foreign language (EFL), the ‘norm-dependent’ varieties of English.

Kachru resists the dominance of native speaker standards and advocates the appropriation of English for local use. Instead of continuing to invest in the dominant or ‘prestigious’ Inner Circle varieties, with the understanding that they are the norms which are to be adhered to by default, Kachru proposed that local varieties of English should also be used as a platform for school education (Kachru, 1992, p. 9). Kachru’s foundational work has greatly influenced the recognition of many localized varieties of English. As a result of this ‘paradigm shift’ in academic English Studies, there is greater acceptance of Outer Circle varieties throughout the world (Modiano, 2017, p. 314). Thus, Kachruvian sociolinguistics can be defined as the theoretical and methodical framework for the recognition of Outer Circle varieties of English. The emergence of English as Europe’s undisputed lingua franca has also raised the issue of the extent to which the Kachruvian paradigm is now applicable to continental Europe as well.

2.2. English as a Lingua Franca

Although the spread of English is a result of British colonialism, the forming world culture and the intensive influence of the U.S. English have made it a lingua franca that fulfills communicative and cognitive needs all around the world. A lingua franca is ‘a contact language

(8)

8 between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication’ (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 211). Thus, a lingua franca has no native speakers, and a large group of L2 English speakers are those for whom English has no official function within their own country. Therefore, ELF focuses on users of English as a language of communication in Expanding Circle English (ECE) users, who have no language in common and choose English as the default language. This group of English speakers was originally described as speakers of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to distinguish them from L2 speakers for whom English serves country-internal functions, that is, speakers of English as a Second Language (ESL) (Jenkins, 2009, p. 4).

The British and the American impact on other interlocutors is becoming less significant, as non-native speakers now outnumber English native speakers. An English that is divested of local shades could substitute British/American English in the future. There is also a chance that both standard varieties will be mixed together, thereby creating a supranational variety of English superseding current varieties. Contrastingly, according to Crystal, native speakers of English will be exposed to two standards of English, one that will be a part of their national and local identities, while the other will help them to keep in touch with the rest of human society (As quoted by Jesenská, 2007, p. 65).

According to Kachru, English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) has become a communicative tool of immense political, ideological, and economic power (Kachru, 1996, p. 910). Since the mid-nineties, it has become increasingly common to find alongside EFL, the use of English as a Lingua Franca. The new term ELF reflects the growing trend for non-native (NNS) speakers to use English more frequently as a contact language among themselves rather than with native English speakers (NS). ELF is often used for practical purposes by people with varied norms and proficiency levels. Many English users do not control standard grammar and do not conform to any recognized norm when it comes to lexis and pronunciation. Therefore, ELF is to a considerable degree independent of the norms of users of English as a native language (ENL).

ELF is not commonly accepted as a linguistic phenomenon in its own right (Seidlhofer, 2004. p. 213). Instead of acknowledging plurality, variation in ELF is often perceived as a deviation from ENL norms. Therefore, despite its increasing use, ELF has not yet been conceptualized. Due to the ‘nonrecognition’ of ELF, nonnative speakers are often constructed as defective communicators. However, from an ELF perspective, NNSs are often highly skilled communicators who make use of their multilingual resources in ways not available to monolingual NSs, and who are found to prioritize successful communication over narrow

(9)

9 notions of ‘correctness’. NSs may find this more challenging due to their stronger attachment to their native English (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011, p. 284).

2.3. English in the EU

Multilingualism is a key characteristic of the European Union. All twenty-four official languages of the Member States have equal status. Every citizen of the EU has the right to contact and be contacted by the EU in their own national language. Linguistic diversity is to be respected and discrimination on grounds of language is prohibited. Translations are an essential tool for safeguarding the equal status of all official languages (Koskinen, 2000, p. 49. The translation services of the EU institutions provide translations into and out of all the European Union's twenty-four official languages. Translations are not actually referred to as translations but as ‘language versions’. The idea is that documents are not merely translated but drafted in all languages simultaneously, and that none of the ‘versions’ are derivative from any other. Koskinen (2000) calls this phenomenon ‘existential equivalence’, as all language versions simply need to exist, with any other features being irrelevant or subordinate to the symbolic function (p. 51). However, the EU actively works towards the dissemination of the languages of the Member States by encouraging the teaching and learning of foreign languages, and mobilizing citizens through programmes for education and vocational training. Foreign language competence is regarded as a basic skills that all EU citizens need to acquire in order to improve their educational and employment opportunities. Therefore, the ‘European Education Area’ was introcuded, which strives towards EU citizens speaking two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue by 2025 (European Parliament, 2019).

Despite EU efforts to treat all languages equally, the three working languages, English, German and French, which are used for internal communication, remain the most spoken languages (Eurobarometer, 2012, p. 19). This would suggest that these languages are prioritized over the other official languages. It may be difficult to uphold the multilingualism policy if the majority of EU citizens choose to learn the same foreign languages, and it is more efficient to interact in a common language. Therefore, the EU’s language policy can be considered an ‘illusion of equality’, with French, English and German being ‘more equal’ than the other languages (Forrest, 1998, p. 314).

English is shaping itself differently in European contexts from any standardized variety, more as a lingua franca than as a symbol of national identity (Cogo & Jenkins, 2010, p. 273). In 2012, 38 percent of the EU population had English as a second language (L2)

(10)

10 (Eurobarometer, 2012, p. 19). English has become the most frequently used language of international communication, as it is frequently used as a contact language between interlocutors that do not share a common L1 (Modiano, 2017, p. 314). Therefore, speakers of ‘European Englishes’ are typically speakers of ELF, as they mostly learn and use English for the purpose of ‘interlinguacultural communication’ (Jenkins, 2006, p. 164). Due to its communicative purpose, English has very much become a ‘neutral language’, which is an English divested of regional varieties containing political, social and cultural connotations (Jesenská, 2007, p. 64). Its development in this direction is a cause of tension. Some member states feel the status of their language is being threatened and react by promoting their own language at European level or, in the case of smaller Member States, taking active steps to defend their own languages and culture against encroachments.

The arrival of Brexit has opened the debate about the future of English in a post-Brexit EU. It is unclear whether English will continue to be an official language and a working language of the EU and how English will evolve without direct political and institutional influence from the UK to support ‘their own idealized rendition of the language’ (Modiano, 2017, p. 315). Before Brexit, the UK was the only member state to determine how English was used in the EU. In their role of ‘language guardian’, the UK has established standard British English as the more esteemed form of the language.

Some member states argue that English should cease to be an official EU language, seeing as there would no longer be a member state with English as an official language. Ireland has chosen Irish as their official language and Malta has chosen Maltese. Therefore, nobody in the EU could invoke the right to use English because English will no longer be the official language of one of the member states. Subsequently, claims have been made that in this case English must lose its status as one of the three working languages as well. However, many representatives of member states across Europe feel that removing English from the EU agenda will undermine their ability to communicate.

Despite these sentiments, there is a good chance that English will maintain its role within the EU because of its utility. However, there will be a noticeable lack of L1 users of English to influence the direction English is to take. The position of English might even be strengthened with the British gone, as Europe suddenly has a common language where practically all users have English as an L2. Despite differences between speech communities when it comes to the status and functions of English, no other language can currently compete with English when it comes to its usefulness as a tool in communication within the larger framework of

(11)

intra-11 European affairs. Therefore, the inequality between languages might even grow in the future and the EU’s vision of multilingualism might be threatened.

2.4. Euro English?

Modiano (2017) argues that the conditions are set for the emergence of a distinct variety of English within the European Union. Because of Brexit, ‘the UK will no longer serve as a gatekeeper of correctness and standardization’ (Modiano, 2017, p. 314). Moreover, Modiano claims that the driving force for the spread of English in Europe is not the influence of the UK, but rather the result of globalization. Modiano draws inspiration from Kachru’s work and states that the Kachruvian paradigm is now applicable to Europe as well. He states that the ‘dramatic’ spread of English throughout the European Union in recent decades would make it more appropriate to categorize English in the EU as an L2, rather than an Expanding Circle variety. He claims that English can evolve in the same way as other second-language varieties, and to experience nativization2 in similar fashion to Outer Circle varieties worldwide. In other words, this ‘Euro-English’ would go from a ‘norm-dependent’ to a ‘norm-developing’ variety. Modiano opposes defining Euro-English as a simplified language because this would ‘unjustifiably marginalize the growing number of proficient users of English in the EU’ (Modiano, 2017, p. 322).

According to Modiano (2017), European users of English are influenced by standardized English as well as their native tongues (p. 322). Regional accents and a tendency to use culture-specific features characterize their speech. However, the most salient feature is lexical usage. Modiano divides this ‘lexical culture-specificity’ of English in Europe into two main categories. Firstly, the specific terminology used within the EU institutions (Europeak), and secondly, lexical items, idioms, and proverbs and expressions which are culture specific for European culture. There is an important distinction between the behavior of users of Inner Circle Englishes, and the way in which English is used as a lingua franca. The vast majority of Inner Circle users of English interact with others with similar linguistic profiles, while Europeans spend the majority of their time utilizing English as a medium of cross-cultural communication. Therefore, the strategies that Europeans deploy when using English will

2_{Nativization is the process by which a language gains native speakers. This usually happens where a second}

language used by adult parents becomes the native language of their children. In the case of English, the term nativization refers to the changes which English has undergone as a result of its contact with various languages in diverse cultural and geographical settings in the outer circle (Kachru, 1985, p. 11-30).

(12)

12 inevitably evolve differently in comparison to the strategies of Inner Circle users of English (Modiano, 2017, p. 323).

Following Maggie Berns’ interpretation, Brexit may weaken the notion that ‘English is inextricably tied to native speaker culture’ (as quoted by Bolton & Davis, 2017, p. 305). Without the influence of the UK, European users of English will be able to shape their variety of English according to their own values, traditions, and norms. Such processes, may well ‘change the profile of English in Europe and foster the development of European English’ (as quoted by Bolton & Davis, 2017, p. 305). Moreover, as Barbara Seidlhofer and Henry Widdowson argue, If English is ‘uncoupled’ from the UK due to Brexit, the language can be ‘appropriated’ by members of the EU as their own mode of communication, so that ‘English can now be proclaimed as independent of Britain’, which, in turn, may lead to ‘a less inhibited expedient communicative use of the language and increasing variability in reference to the norms of Standard English’ (As quoted by Bolton & Davis, 2017, p. 307).

David Chrystal also finds that there is a good chance for Euro-English to develop into a new English provided that the conditions are right, which includes a self-awareness of cultural identity (Chrystal, 2017, p. 331). He argues that cultural identity is expressed in the ‘vocabulary, idiom, and encyclopedic knowledge’ of local speakers of English in particular contexts. Consequently, cultural knowledge of a country is required to make sense of what people from that country are saying when they speak English, especially when discussing the local culture and realia of everyday life. ‘Local English’ is typically expressed through ‘a mix of local accent and lexicon, along with pragmatic and sociolinguistic factors (such as politeness norms), and some grammatical differences’ (Chrystal, 2017, p. 330).

However, it is debatable whether the European Union can be regarded as a social group that has the shared cultural identity that might underpin a Euro-English, as evidence of local identities are found more readily at the national, rather than transnational level. The main evidence for shared linguistic norms is only found only in ‘Eurospeak jargon’ of the EU Parliament and other EU institutions. Moreover, the notion of an indigenized Euro-English would depend on common usage across the EU, which seems unlikely given the tendency of the EU towards diversity and multilingualism.

Thus, the emergence of a distinct variety of Euro-English is implausible, and it would maybe make more sense to either argue for a recognition of multiple Euro-Englishes or ‘a less inhibited and stigmatized use of English as a lingua franca’ (Chrystal, 2017, p. 335).

(13)

13

2.5. Language norms in ELF discourse

Much of the descriptive work on ELF has been concerned with the ways in which ELF communication differs from English used as a native language (ENL). ELF research has shown that non-conformity to ENL may be functionally motivated and can even enhance mutual understanding (Hynninen & Solin, 2017, p. 1). ELF users’ degree of ‘independence of ENL norms’ can be attributable to the way in which speakers construe what is ‘acceptable’, ‘functional’, or ‘correct’ for them in specific ELF settings. Hynninen & Solin (2017) have conceptualized language norms in ELF according to the following three categories.

Norms describe what is common in a particular setting

Norms as to what is common refer to how speakers behave linguistically in a particular setting. Norms can be identified by analyzing usage, on the basis of recurring instances of behavior. Evidence on recurrence and sharedness can be gained through corpora. Such norms are not understood as being upheld through codification or sanctions, but through repeated usage and the gradual achievement of acceptance in a given community. Corpus evidence can be used to see which kinds of regularities there are in lingua franca interactions, and what is typical and recurrent when English is used as a shared language by second language (L2) speakers. Therefore, corpora make it is possible to make judgments about usage-based norms for ELF. Importantly, corpora are also used to show that ELF interactions are not non-normative; there is regularity in ELF usage.

Norms are what is expected / accepted in a particular setting

The term ‘norm’ also describes expectations and beliefs held in a particular setting with respect to what kind of linguistic behavior is acceptable. Such expectations and beliefs do not explicitly exist in the form of written codes, but rather as an implicit understanding between discourse participants. ELF speakers may have different normative orientations, depending on the interlocutors, the setting and what kind of speech event they are participating in.

Norms are what is codified in or for a particular setting

There are also norms that are laid out by some authority as correct, acceptable or preferable for a given situation, text or interaction. Such norms typically originate from written codes such as grammars, handbooks and language policies or language authorities. Codified norms are mostly permanent and stable and have broad scope across a variety of settings. There may be formal

(14)

14 language competence requirements before a person is allowed entry to institutional contexts where ELF is used. It can be assumed that the more institutionalized the setting is, the more regulation will be encountered.

2.6. Describing ELF

A codification of ELF as discussed in section 2.4 requires comprehensive and reliable descriptions of salient features (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 215). A substantial amount of empirical work on various levels of linguistic description has accumulated over the years. Such research is being undertaken preliminarily on spoken data, as the language is not influenced by stabilized and standardized writing. Furthermore, the reciprocal nature of spoken interactions facilitates observations regarding mutual intelligibility among interlocutors (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 215). To keep a manageable scope, research is primarily limited in terms of: level of language, linguacultural background of interlocutors, or domain.

Empirical investigations have brought to light certain regularities. For example, typical ‘errors’ appear to be generally unproblematic and no obstacle to communicative success. Seidlhofer released an early state-of-the-art survey of ELF empirical work that had been conducted, in which the following list of preliminary lexicogrammatical characteristics are presented.

• Dropping the third person present tense –s (e.g. he speak) • Confusing the relative pronouns who and which

• Omitting definite (the) and indefinite (a, an) articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL

• Failing to use correct forms in tag questions (e.g., isn’t it? or no? instead of shouldn’t they?) • Inserting redundant prepositions (e.g. we have to study about…)

• Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality (e.g. do, have, make, put, take) • Replacing infinitive-constructions with that-clauses (e.g. I want that…)

• Overdoing explicitness (e.g. black color rather than just black)

2.7. Variability in ELF

Much of the earlier research on ELF primarily revolved around identifying salient features, with the ultimate aim of a codification of ELF. Researchers focused on what was regular in their data

(15)

15 rather than what was variable. Variability in ELF data was mostly accounted for by means of accommodation theory (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011, 295). However, ELF involves not only the frequent systematic use of certain forms that are not found in ENL, but also a range of pragmatic processes that determine which particular forms are utilized at any particular point in a given interaction (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011, 295). As more empirical data became available, there is increasing evidence of fluidity and flexibility in ELF communication. Therefore, ELF researchers are left with a dilemma because observed regularities do not in any way enable them to ‘deny the inherent fluidity of ELF’ (Seidlhofer, 2009, p. 240). The fluidity of ELF calls into question whether ELF can be considered a language variety or even a group of varieties in the traditional sense of the notion. Therefore, the viability of attempting a description of ELF is also questionable, and a codification of ELF might still be a long way off. ELF use can vary according to contextual factors and impact speakers’ ‘accommodative behaviors’ (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011, p. 298).

An exploration of ‘norms as what is common’, for example through corpora, usually provides a view into much greater variability. Speakers’ normative expectations and what they treat as acceptable in interaction have been shown to be variable and context-dependent (Hynninen & Solin, 2017, p. 5). Therefore, the next chapter puts forth a comparative analysis of two different domains, in order to broaden and deepen the study of variability in ELF. The results will also be used as a basis to make generalizations as to whether the conditions are indeed right for the emergence of Euro-English.

(16)

16

3. Methodology

The literature has shown that due to the fluidity of ELF, the viability of attempting a description of ELF is questionable, and a codification of a Euro-English might still be a long way off. In order to test this preliminary conclusion, this case study has put forth a corpus-based comparative analysis of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) in two different domains. The purpose of this was to investigate whether there is variability in ELF speakers’ linguistic behavior in different settings.

The corpus that was used for this case study, is the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), compiled by the University of Vienna under de direction of Barbara Seidlhofer. The corpus consists of audio-recordings of 151 naturally-occurring, non-scripted, face-to-face ELF interactions involving individuals from a variety of first language backgrounds and in a range of settings and domains. Naturally occurring language ‘is removed from the stabilizing and standardizing influence of writing, and spoken interactions are overtly reciprocal, allowing studies to capture the online negotiation of meaning in the production and reception of utterances, thus facilitating observations regarding mutual intelligibility among interlocutors’ (Seidlhofer, 2004, p. 215).

The speech events of VOICE have been divided into five domains: educational (ED), leisure (LE) and professional business (PB), professional organizational (PO) and professional research and science (PR), and ten speech types. Domains in VOICE denote socially defined situations or areas of activity. Speech Event Types (SPETs) in VOICE refer to particular types of speech events which are defined on the basis of purpose, type, and number of participants (VOICE, Corpus Information). This study examined five different speech events from the LE and PO domains. The reason for this choice is the fact that LE and PO are distinct domains, one being in a professional setting and the other in an informal one. It was therefore expected that speakers in the PO domain would conform more to ENL norms as opposed to speakers in the LE domain, based on the assumption that it is less acceptable for speakers to divert from ENL norms in a professional setting (Hynninen & Solin, 2017, p. 4).

The leisure (LE) domain includes all social situations occurring during the time that is spent doing something one chooses to do when one is not working or studying (VOICE, Corpus Information). The speech events chosen for the analysis are:

• LEcon227: Conversation between exchange students about cultural differences • LEcon351: Conversation about customs and legends among students at a party

(17)

17 • LEcon405: Conversation between exchange students about tourism and settling into a new

city

• LEcon420: Conversation about sights in Scotland (audio available) • LEcon562: Conversation among exchange students about various topics

The professional organizational (PO) domain includes all social situations connected with activities of international organizations or networks which are not doing research or business (VOICE, Corpus Information). The events chosen for the analysis are:

• POprc465: Press conference about the cooperation of Serbia with the European Union (audio available)

• POprc522: Press conference about the military conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah in Lebanon

• POprc557: Press conference on illegal immigration in Spain

• POprc558: Press conference on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union

• POprc559: Press conference on the EU-Norway energy partnership dialogue

The speech events from the LE and PO domains were scanned for salient ELF features in order to determine whether there is indeed variability in ELF use. The research has taken Seidlhofer’s (2004) list of lexicogrammatical characteristics as point of departure (p. 220):

• Dropping the third person present tense –s (e.g. he speak) • Confusing the relative pronouns who and which

• Omitting definite (the) and indefinite (a, an) articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL

• Failing to use correct forms in tag questions (e.g., isn’t it? or no? instead of shouldn’t they?) • Inserting redundant prepositions (e.g. we have to study about…)

• Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality (e.g. do, have, make, put, take) • Replacing infinitive-constructions with that-clauses (e.g. I want that…)

(18)

18 Even though Seidlhofer put forward this list as a set of preliminary hypotheses rather than determinate ELF features, they have proved to be quite durable, appearing in and helping to give direction to numerous subsequent research studies in this area (Jenkins, Cogo, & Dewey, 2011, p. 289)

The speech events from the LE and PO domains were scanned for ELF features and the frequency of occurrence has been documented. Subsequently, a human analysis was performed on the results, in which possible explanations are given for the manifestations of the ELF features. The analysis has taken Hynninen & Solin’s (2017) understanding of norms ‘as to what is common’ as a point of reference.

(19)

19

4. Results

In this case study, the speech events from the LE and PO domains were scanned for ELF features in order to determine whether there is indeed variability in ELF use. The frequency of the ELF features identified is listed in the table below. A more detailed listing of results per speech event can be found in the appendix.

Examined features Leisure (LE)

domain

Professional

organizational (PO) domain

Dropping the third person present tense –s 3 2

Confusing the relative pronouns who and which

2 2

Omitting definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL

21 75

Failing to use correct forms in tag questions 3 1

Inserting redundant prepositions 0 0

Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality

0 2

Replacing infinitive-constructions with that-clauses

0 0

Overdoing explicitness 37 33

(20)

20

4.1. Discussion of results

To keep the scope manageable, this case study only examined the ELF features identified by Barbara Seildhofer and does therefore not include other ‘errors’. Moreover, this discussion only focusses on regularity and variability of the data. The initial and most striking observation was that said features either occur very sporadically or not at all. This is interesting because these features are supposed to be common and ‘salient’ in ELF usage and have thus formed the basis of numerous research studies in this area. The findings for each feature are described below and some instances are illustrated in order to provide more insight.

Dropping the third person present tense –s

The corpus reveals only three cases where the third person present tense –s is dropped in the LE domain and two in the PO domain. This low frequency could be explained by the fact that dropping the third person present tense –s could be considered as a basic learner error and the language proficiency of the interlocuters in this corpus is simply too high.

Confusing the relative pronouns who and which

Confusing the relative pronouns who and which, could also be attributed to being a basic learner error. In fact, both errors are made only by S1 in LEcon405, which would support this theory.

30 S1: and there's a so e:rm (.) mouse (.) a big mouse (.) who swim er 31 S2: o:h

32 S1: which swim (.) next me and <7> i </7> (.)

Omitting definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL

The data show regularity in ELF use, as the features more or less occur to the same extent in the two domains. The exception is in the omission of definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL feature, where the frequency is substantially higher in the PO domain. Most speakers appeared to be consistent in their language use, and would mostly continue to make the same ‘errors’. Therefore, variability does not become apparent as much in frequency, but rather in small nuances.

(21)

21 However, most of the PO speech events contained more words, which could explain the higher frequency. Moreover, this feature was used no fewer than 27 times by S2 in POprc559, with sometimes even a double error in the same segment, for example:

78 S2: er i don't know what exactly norwegian citizens are paying i think average household in the europe (.) e:r would pay (.) per month eighty euro (.)

Another explanation for the many omissions in PO domain is the use of abstract terms such as ‘EU’. In such cases, the article is implied but not written (‘zero article’) (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985, p. 286).

Another interesting observation in the extract above was that incorrect articles were mostly only omitted or inserted by the interlocuters with Spanish as a native language, which could indicate that linguistic background plays a role in which particular forms are utilized at a particular point in a given ELF interaction. Hynninen & Solin (2017) argue that there may be variation in the degree to which speakers intervene in the use of a particular feature. In complex language contact situations such as ELF interactions, one can expect some negotiation of norms, simply because of speakers’ different linguistic backgrounds (p. 11).

Failing to use correct forms in tag questions

A tag question is a common construction in English and is used to ask for confirmation. It is a statement followed by a mini-question (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, & Svartvik, 1985, p. 777). The data show that using tag questions is uncommon among NNS of English, as there are only three instances in the LE domain and one in the PO domain. It seems that the interlocutors make use of other strategies, such as turning the statement into a question. This phenomenon could be ascribed to the process of redundancy reduction (Cogo, 2016, p. 81), for example in LEcon227:

14 S1: = cos someone who's from england is accustomed to (2) the high standard of english? (.) and when he listens to us he he he understands (.) things (.) but (1) it's very much a flat english (1)

Another example is simply using a shorter (incorrect) alternative of a tag question, such as in LEcon228:

(22)

22 64 S2: but do you (.) do you know if it was the same guy? (.) you're not sure? (.) or?

Moreover, some ELF speakers also appeared to adopt tag questions from their mother tongues. For example, several of the Spanish speakers used ‘no?’ as a tag question, which is demonstrated in the segment below from LEcon351:

102 S5: <2> the three kings on the sixth of:</2> january <3> they bring the presents no?</3><4> not on the twenty-fourth like we celebrate it </4>

Inserting redundant prepositions

ELF processes often overlap and reinforce each other (Cogo, 2016, p. 81), which is also the case when it comes to inserting redundant prepositions. Inserting a redundant preposition could also be considered as being overly explicit. Therefore, in order to keep a clear overview, all results have been listed under overdoing explicitness.

Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality

There are no results included for the ‘overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality’ feature. Even though some speakers did occasionally use verbs of high semantic generality, there was no overuse, which could for the LE domain be explained by the short segments. However, even in the longer segments in the PO domain there was no overuse, for example in POprc465:

8 S4: er (.) [S4/last] from [org1] press agency. (.) er commissioner [S3/last] (.) <slow> e:r if i may </slow> repeat the (.) question which i (.) m- made e:r (.) earlier. 27 S2: er well the document: e:r is as you see completely as (.) comes out of this conference er this evening comes completely hh er on the: further full cooperation particularly with the general prosecutor in the hague and of course with e:r european union. (1) and with troika. (1)

Replacing infinitive-constructions with that-clauses

In the corpus, no infinitive-constructions were replaced with that-clauses. However, there were some cases where that-clauses were inserted incorrectly, such as in segment 78 and 87 from POprc559:

(23)

23 78 S2: so i i think it it- it's it's unfortunately the the situation has changed i would be happy that if you can produce energy from the er from <@> er from </@> er earth or what wh- w- (.)

87 S10: erm i'm curious that you can tell me when or whether you expect norway to join (.) er up with the european union's emissions trading scheme hh er if that's something er (.)

However, these other errors are not included in the results as this case study only focusses on the ELF features by Barbara Seidlhofer.

Overdoing explicitness

Even though both domains had a similar frequency in overdoing explicitness, there were different manifestations. Cogo (2016) explains that one of the tenets of ELF communication is that it focusses more on content than form, and getting the message across rather than conforming to external ENL rules (p. 81). Therefore, ELF users tend to increase explicitness in order to enhance clarity in their communication, by adding various lexico-grammatical items to the structure, such as prepositions, nouns or adverbs. This mostly becomes apparent in the PO domain, as is demonstrated in POprc559:

2 S2: but we have today very important e:r dialogue e:r with norway? (1) e:r we all of us usual assume (.) that norway is a (.) very reliable supplier?

56 S3: we are intending to be so for many many er years our production will (.) have increased tremendously from about approximately fifty billion cubic meters five years ago to (.) to er (.) <pvc> mid-eighties </pvc> now and up to one hundred and thirty within some few years thi- th- this is a- a this is an enormous increase (.) increase production and export to europe which will be on stream for many many years.

85 S3: <4> well @@@ </4> @ well he has er (.) he has er (1) er (.) gi- h- he has given a good answer when it comes to (.) er (.) what the energy it costs in norway we have been used to (.) very low energy prices for many many years (.)

(24)

24 Another common construction to increase explicitness is using more prominent aspects of the verb, such as the progressive (Cogo, 2016, p. 82). Especially the results in the LE domain show that ‘-ing’ is more frequent than simple present tense, which can be attributed to the need to make the verb more prominent in the utterance, for example in:

LEcon351

195 S6: <10> yeah those </10> people who are walking around and imitating as they would be the =

219 S5: like the three kings and then they're coming (.) <4> from door to door </4> 310 S6: <2> yeah but the <L1ger> sandmann {sandman} </L1ger> we have </2> in in austria we have the <L1ger> sandmann? {sandman} </L1ger> he is bringing the dreams and he is (.) you can send him your ear

LEcon227

212 S1: always looking back (.) always looking back if the fascists are er if they're not losing voters (1) and always FIGHTing between this or the very liberal part (.)

Thus, the process of increasing explicitness often makes use of redundancy in the system, which seems to contradict with the tendency for redundancy reduction that was mentioned earlier.

Concluding remarks

The results do not show any indication of major discrepancies in linguistic behavior in the informal and the institutional setting, as the literature might suggest. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the ELF use is based on an adherence to ENL/ELF norms or simply onthe language proficiency of the user. The same question can be asked whether certain ELF utterances can be attributed to accommodation strategy and the aim of enhancing clarity, or simply a lack of language proficiency. However, there did seem to be variation in the features used by speakers of different lingual backgrounds. For example, in LEcon351, interlocuters with Spanish as a native language had the tendency to omit definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and insert them where they do not occur in ENL, while speakers with German as a native language made more use of the progressive (-ing). This could indicate that linguistic background plays a role in which particular forms are utilized at a particular point in a given ELF interaction.

(25)

25

5. Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to determine whether the conditions are right for a codification of Euro-English, which is currently used as a lingua franca (ELF). The literature shows that it is questionable whether the European Union can, and will ever be regarded as a social group that has the shared cultural identity that might underpin a Euro-English, as evidence of local identity is more often found at the national, rather than EU level. Evidence for shared linguistic norms is only found in the ‘Eurospeak jargon’ of EU institutions, which does not provide enough basis for a codified Euro-English, since that would depend on common usage across the EU. Moreover, even though there have been found several salient features in ELF, there is increasing evidence of fluidity and flexibility in ELF communication. This undermines a potential codification, as that would require a description of some sort.

The case study included a corpus-based comparative analysis of English as a Lingua Franca in the professional organizational (PO) and leisure (LE) domains, in order to determine whether there is variability in salient ELF features in both domains. The results of the case study did not show any significant variability in the supposed salient ELF features in either domain. However, the features also did not appear frequently enough to be considered as salient. Therefore, a definitive answer regarding variability across domains cannot be derived from this case study. Nevertheless, some evidence of variation was found in the features used by speakers of different lingual backgrounds, which could indicate that linguistic background plays a role in which particular forms are utilized at a particular point in a given ELF interaction. These findings, even though unexplored, support the observation that Europe is made up of different ‘local Englishes’, which makes the viability of attempting a description of ELF questionable. It can thus be concluded that a codification of Euro-English is unlikely at this point and that it makes more sense for English to continue as a lingua franca or to argue for a multiglossic recognition of Euro-Englishes.

Unfortunately, this conclusion is not absolute, since the case study only included extracts from the professional organizational and leisure domains. Therefore, the corpus that was used for this case study is not extensive enough. A much larger corpus and additional case studies are prerequisite to explore the nature of ELF. The fact that the case study does not show any consistent regularity or variability could also be due to the size of the corpus rather than a lack of consistency in ELF. However, since a human analysis was used, the size of the corpus had to be limited. The methodology was chosen due to increasing evidence of fluidity and flexibility in ELF communication. Thus, the case study was meant to explorevariability in ELF

(26)

26 in Europe by comparing two different domains. A more effective methodology would have been to focus on different local Englishes, in order to identify differences and similarities between them. However, unfortunately there were no corpora available that include such discourses at this time.

Based on these outcomes, future studies should consider examining different local Englishes, such as Spanish English, German English etcetera, in order to determine whether there is enough regularity to be able to argue for a multiglossic recognition of Euro-Englishes. However, in order to do so, a corpus should be compiled for that very purpose. Moreover, since it cannot be deduced from the data of the case study whether the ELF usage is based on an adherence to ENL/ELF norms, accommodation strategy, or simply onthe language proficiency of the user, process-oriented research could be valuable in order to establish how norms manifest in lingua franca discourse. Furthermore, this thesis differs from other studies as it is focused around multiple features, rather than choosing to focus on one single feature and analyzing it in depth. Future studies might want to perform a similar study while focusing on a on a single feature. In this way, a more in depth analysis can be performed, which may generate more detailed results. Finally, the case study in this thesis includes a human analysis, which is not as accurate and it is easy to overlook things, future studies could consider using a statistical toolkit in order to generate more accurate results. In this way, researchers will also be able to use a much larger corpus. However, such a choice depends on the type of research, as some features are difficult to identify with a tool when they are not predetermined.

(27)

27

References

Archibald, A., Cogo, A., & Jenkins, J. (2011). Latest Trends in ELF Research. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bolton, K., & Davis, D. R. (2017). Brexit and the future of English in Europe. World Englishes, 302-312.

Bürki, D. (2013). Necessity and obligation in English as a Lingua Franca: a corpus-based grammatical variationist analysis. MA thesis, University of Bern.

Chrystal, D. (2017). The future of new Euro-Englishes. World Englishes, 330-335.

Cogo, A. (2016). English as a Lingua Franca in Europe. In A. Linn, Investigating English in Europe: Contexts and Agendas (pp. 79-89). De Gruyter Mouton.

Cogo, A., & Jenkins, J. (2010). English as a Lingua Franca in Europe. A mismatch between policy and practice. European Journal of Language Policy Vol. 2.2, 271-294.

European Commission. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their languages. Brussels.

European Parliament. (2019). Language policy. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/142/language-policy

Forrest, A. (1998). The Politics of Language in the European Union. European Review , 299-319.

Hynninen, N., & Solin, A. (2017). Language norms in ELF. In W. B. Jenkins, The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca (pp. 267–278). London: Routledge.

Jenkins, J. (2006). Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 40, No. 1, 157-181.

Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2011). Review of developments in research into English as a Lingua Franca. Language Teaching, 44.3, 281–315.

Jenkins, J., Modiano, M., & Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Euro-English. English Today 68, Vol. 17, No. 4, 13-19.

Jesenská, P. (2007). EUROSPEAK and ELF – English as a Current Global Lingua Franca. Topics in Linguistics - Issue 1 - October 2007 – Politeness and Interaction, 62-67.

(28)

28 Kachru, B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk, & H. Widowson, English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, Issues and Resources. Language

Teaching, 1-14.

Kachru, B. B. (1996). English as lingua franca. In H. Goebl, P. H. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. W. (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik: Volume 1 (pp. 906-113). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Laitinen, M. (2020). Empirical perspectives on English as a lingua franca (ELF) grammar. World Englishes: 39, 427–442.

Modiano, M. (2003). Euro-English: A Swedish perspective. English Today 74, Vol. 19, No. 2 , 35-41.

Modiano, M. (2017). English in a post-Brexit European Union. World Englishes, 313-327. Mossop, B. (1988). Translating institutions: a missing factor in translation theory. TTR:

traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 65-71.

Pakir, A. (2009). English as a lingua franca: analyzing research frameworks in international English, world Englishes, and ELF. World Englishes, Vol. 28, No. 2, 224–235.

Pakir, A. (2019). The Kachruvian paradigm and its range and depth of influence. World Englishes, 174–184.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Phillipson, R. (2017). Myths and realities of European Union language policy. World Englishes, 347-349.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Beccles and London: William Clowes Limited.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a Lingua Franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 133–158.

Seidlhofer, B. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics Vol. 24, 209-239.

(29)

29

VOICE. (n.d.). Corpus Information. Retrieved from

https://www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/corpus_information

Wacker, E. (2011). English as a Lingua Franca and the third person –s. BA thesis, University of Vienna.

Corpus

VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version 2.0 online). Director: Barbara Seidlhofer; Researchers: Angelika Breiteneder, Theresa Klimpfinger, Stefan Majewski, Ruth Osimk-Teasdale, Marie-Luise Pitzl, Michael Radeka. https://voice.acdh.oeaw.ac.at

(30)

30

Appendix – Event descriptions and results per event

The leisure (LE) domain

LEcon227: Conversation between exchange students about cultural differences

Speaker Information Speakers: 2

Interactants: 2 Identified

ID Sex Age L1 Role Occupation

S1 male 17-24 dut-BE participant student S2 male 17-24 dan-DK participant student Power relations: fairly symmetrical

Acquaintedness: acquainted

Event Description Words: 2538

This casual conversation between two students takes place in a pub in Vienna. At the beginning, the speakers talk about using English in intercultural situations and share their opinions and perceptions of this matter. They continue their conversation on cultural and particularly political aspects of S1's home country and then compare the political systems and parties in their respective home countries.

Results

Identified features Segments Total

Confusing the relative pronouns who and which

73 1

Omitting definite and

indefinite articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL

(31)

31 Overdoing explicitness 49, 80, 212, 135, 150, 184,

186

7

LEcon228: Conversation between exchange students about the safety of living in a students' hall of residence

S1 male 17-24 nor-NO participant student S2 female 17-24 fin-FI participant student S3 female 17-24 ger-AT researcher student S4 male 25-34 und non-participant waiter Power relations: fairly symmetrical

Acquaintedness: acquainted

This short conversation between two students takes place in a pub in Vienna. S1 relates an episode where a man followed S1 in the street and into the students' home where S1 is staying. S1 and S2 talk about safety issues of living in a students' hall of residence. S3 is the researcher and does not participate in the conversation. S4 does not participate in the conversation either. He only comes to the table at the end of the conversation.

Results

Features Segments Total

Failing to use correct forms in tag questions

64, 94 2

(32)

32 LEcon351: Conversation about customs and legends among students at a party

S1 male 25-34 spa-ES participant S2 male 25-34 spa-AR participant student S3 male 25-34 ger-AT participant student S4 female 17-24 ger-AT participant student S5 male 25-34 ger-AT participant student S6 female 17-24 ger-AT participant student S7 male 25-34 spa-AR participant student

This conversation takes place at a party in a private home in Spain, where students from different countries who work and live in Spain meet and discuss customs of their home countries. The venue of the party is S7's house. His friends S1 and S2 know the location, whereas S3, S4, S5 and S6 are here for the first time. The Spanish-speaking persons have been offered mulled wine, a traditional Austrian winter drink made of hot wine and spices. This triggers a conversation about Christmas and different customs in the cultures of the speakers.

Results

Omitting definite and indefinite articles where they are obligatory in ENL, and inserting them where they do not occur in ENL

50, 134, 141, 162, 180, 187, 235, 246, 248, 250, 308, 310, 330

13

Failing to use correct forms in tag questions

(33)

33 Overdoing explicitness 23, 39, 209, 86, 94, 155, 195, 201, 206, 219, 222, 246, 248, 250, 255, 274, 310, 315 20

LEcon352: Conversation between international students about language differences at a party

S1 male 25-34 spa-ES participant S2 female 17-24 ger-AT participant student S3 male 25-34 spa-AR participant student S4 male 25-34 ger-AT participant student S5 male 25-34 ger-AT participant student S6 male 25-34 spa-AR participant student S7 female 17-24 ger-AT participant student Speakers Not Identified

SX-f, SS

Power relations: fairly symmetrical Acquaintedness: acquainted

This conversation takes place at a party in a private home in Spain, where students from different countries who work and live in Spain meet and discuss customs of their home countries. The venue of the party is S6's house. His friends S1 and S3 know the location, whereas S2, S4, S5 and S7 are here for the first time. The fact that S2, who studies English and Spanish, writes her thesis in English, leads to a discussion about the differences of the Spanish language in Spain and in South America and the German language in Austria and in Germany.

(34)

34 This triggers a conversation about different informal idioms in Spanish and German. As it is a private party and people know each other, the atmosphere is relaxed. There is a lot of background noise, as at times parallel conversations take place. In the middle of the conversation a dog enters, so the speakers speak to and talk about it for some time.

Results

Features Segments Total

Dropping the third person present tense –s

105 1

64, 108, 235 3

Overdoing explicitness 58, 65, 274 3

LEcon405: Conversation between exchange students about tourism and settling into a new city

S1 female 17-24 ita-IT participant student of archeology S2 female 17-24 ger-AT participant student

S3 male 35-49 ger-AT non-participant waiter Power relations: fairly symmetrical

Acquaintedness: unacquainted

(35)

35 This conversation between two exchange students takes place at a pub. The two students have just met and talk about a miscellany of topics such as tourism in S1's hometown, settling into a new city, and reasons for coming to study in Vienna.

Results

Dropping the third person present tense –s

30, 180 2

18, 155, 182, 193 4

Overdoing explicitness 34 1

The professional organizational (PO) domain

POprc465: Press conference about the cooperation of Serbia with the European Union

Interactants: 10 Audience: 50 Identified

S1 male 50+ fin-FI chair high-ranking EU politician S2 male 50+ scc-RS presenter high-ranking politician S3 male 35-49 fin-FI presenter high-ranking EU politician

S4 male 35-49 und audience journalist

S5 male 35-49 ita-IT audience journalist S6 male 35-49 scc-RS audience journalist

S7 male 50+ spa-ES presenter high-ranking EU politican

(36)

36 S9 male 35-49 ger-DE audience journalist

S10 male 35-49 dan-DK audience journalist Speakers Not Identified

SX-1, SX-f, SX-m, SS, SX-2

Power relations: fairly asymmetrical

Acquaintedness: predominantly unacquainted

This is a press conference about the cooperation of Serbia with the European Union, in particular with regard to fulfilling the requirements of ICTY (the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia). S1, the chairperson, makes an initial statement, after which S2 and S3 also each make a short statement on the preceding talks and the agreement that has been reached. Subsequently, journalists (S4, S5, S6, S8, S9, S10) pose questions, which S2 and S3 and also S7 answer.

Results

Feature Segment Total

3, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 9, 14, 26, 26, 27, 34, 34, 34

18

Overusing certain verbs of high semantic generality

27 1

Overdoing explicitness 3, 9, 25, 26, 39, 40, 44 7

POprc522: Press conference about the military conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah in Lebanon

(37)

37 Audience: unknown

Identified

S1 male 35-49 fin-FI chair

S2 male 50+ fin-FI presenter high-ranking EU politician S3 male 50+ spa-ES presenter high-ranking EU politican S4 female 50+ ger-AT presenter member of the European Commission

S5 female unknown rum-RO audience journalist

S6 female unknown und audience journalist

S7 male unknown eng audience journalist

S8 male unknown eng-GB audience journalist S9 male unknown spa-MX audience journalist

S10 male unknown fin audience journalist

Speakers Not Identified SX-7, SX-m

This press conference deals with the conflict between Israel and the Hezbollah in Lebanon and the European Union's approval of a United Nations Security Council resolution aimed at ending this conflict. After a meeting of EU foreign ministers, three representatives of the European Commission (S2, S3, S4) report on the meeting's outcome and answer related questions posed by international journalists. Some of these questions are asked and answered in French, and simultaneously translated into English. S1 chairs the press conference and invites journalists in the audience to pose their questions.

Results

Confusing the relative pronouns who and which

(38)

38 Omitting definite and

3, 4, 12, 14 4

Replacing infinitive-constructions with that-clauses

6 1

Overdoing explicitness 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 9, 10, 12, 12, 19

11

POprc557: Press conference on illegal immigration in Spain

Interactants: 6 Audience: unknown Identified

ID Sex Age L1 Role Occupation S1 male unknown und chair

S2 female unknown lit-LT participant EU politician S3 male unknown spa audience journalist S4 female unknown dut audience journalist S5 male unknown pol-PL audience journalist S6 male unknown und audience journalist Speakers Not Identified

SX-m, SX-6

(39)

39 This press conference of the European Union deals with illegal immigration in Spain. S2, an EU commissioner, is asked questions by journalists and answers them. S1 is the chairperson and invites journalists in the audience to pose their questions.

Results

2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 8, 8, 12, 13, 13, 13

17

POprc558: Press conference on the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the European Union Speaker Information Speakers: 14 Interactants: 14 Audience: unknown Identified

S1 male unknown ger chair

S2 male 50+ por-PT presenter EU politician

S3 male 35-49 fin-FI presenter high-ranking EU politician S4 male unknown bul-BG audience journalist

S5 female unknown bul-BG audience journalist S6 male unknown eng-GB audience journalist S7 female unknown bul-BG audience journalist

S8 male unknown ger audience journalist

S9 female unknown bul-BG audience journalist S10 male unknown ger-DE audience journalist

S11 male unknown fre audience journalist

Lingua Franca or Euro-English? A comparative analysis of variability in English discourse