Academic rigour in criticising English as a Lingua Franca

During my PhD fieldwork in 2014, I met a few linguistics students who purported to disapprove of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). However, their disapproval seemed directed against something else in the name of ELF. To be specific, they believed that ELF was an alternative model for the English classroom or a distinct, monolithic variety for non-native English speakers (NNESs). Intriguingly, these beliefs are similar to how ELF is misrepresented by some scholars who have never engaged in ELF research themselves. Recent examples are Park and Wee (2011), Swan (2012) and Sewell (2013). It should be stressed that contrary to these authors’ claims, Jenkins et al. (2011) and Seidlhofer (2011), to name just a couple of examples, take a clear position that ELF refers to dynamic, pluralistic manifestations of linguistic resources in an international setting, and that ELF interaction can involve native English speakers (NESs). In addition, Mauranen (2012) introduces the notion of similect, instead of variety, to conceptualise the fluid, contingent similarities and differences of the English used as a lingua franca by those from the same firstlanguage (L1) background. ELF scholars have made efforts to clarify the above-mentioned misbeliefs and other misunderstandings (e.g., Seidlhofer 2006; Jenkins 2007, 2012). Jenkins (2007), in particular, provides an extensive review of how ELF is misinterpreted, including a detailed analysis of Sobkowiak (2005/2008), Kuo (2006) and Prodromou (2006). Certainly, such efforts have helped inform those less familiar with ELF. However, while ELF has now become a widely recognised research field, the same, old misrepresentations still never cease. Looking back at just the last three months from the time of this article preparation, we find Park and Wee (2015 – February), O’Regan (2014 – December) and Canagarajah (2014 – December). It is quite