System 60 (2016) 55e65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Does accent matter? Investigating the relationship between

accent and identity in English as a lingua franca
communication
Chit Cheung Matthew Sung
Department of English, Lingnan University, 8 Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reports on a qualitative inquiry into the under-researched relationship between
Received 4 February 2016 accent and identity in English as a lingua franca (ELF) communication from the perspec-
Received in revised form 3 June 2016 tives of second language (L2) speakers/learners of English. Using data collected via in-
Accepted 6 June 2016
depth interviews with a group of students at a Hong Kong university on their ELF
communication experiences, the paper reveals that participants’ perceptions of the rela-
tionship between accent and identity in ELF communication are highly complex and that
Keywords:
their accent preferences appear to be driven by a range of identity-related and practical
Accent
Identity
reasons. In terms of identity-related reasons, participants’ desire to speak English with a
Hong Kong native-like accent was found to be related to their wish to express their identities as
Second language competent L2 speakers of English, whereas participants who indicated a preference to
Pronunciation instruction speak English with a local accent tended to emphasize the need to project their lingua-
English as a lingua franca cultural identities and avoid native speaker associations. Further, participants’ concerns
about intelligibility in ELF communication were found to be among the main pragmatic
considerations in their accent preferences. The findings demonstrate the role of L2
speakers’ accent preferences in shaping their pursuit of desired identities in ELF
communication and have important implications for pronunciation instruction in ELT.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

English as a lingua franca (ELF) is considered ‘the world’s most extensive contemporary use of English’ (Jenkins, 2014, p. 2).
As defined by Seidlhofer (2011), ELF refers to ‘any use of English among speakers of different first languages for whom English
is the communicative medium of choice, and often the only option’ (p. 7). As a result of the widespread use of ELF, there is an
increasing awareness among applied linguists of the diversity of English around the world and the ever-changing sociolin-
guistic uses of English by people from different first language (L1) backgrounds. In the field of English Language Teaching
(ELT), the role of ELF ‘challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of ELT and requires that we revisit our pedagogical
practices’ (Matsuda & Friedrich, 2012, p. 17), especially with respect to the continued deference to native-speaker norms. In
particular, there exist repeated calls to move away from a monolingual paradigm targeting a monolithic native-speaker norm
towards a multilingual paradigm prioritizing communicative competence in a repertoire of multilingual resources in ELT
(Canagarajah, 2006; Jenkins, 2007). Instead of emphasizing the need to approximate a native-speaker variety of English, ELF

E-mail address: matthewsung@ln.edu.hk.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.002
0346-251X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65

scholars argue that it is important for second language (L2) speakers/learners to be able to adjust their speech in order to be
intelligible to interlocutors from a wide range of lingua-cultural backgrounds (Jenkins, 2007; Walker, 2010). More specifically,
they suggest that achieving international intelligibility should be prioritized over mastering a native-speaker accent for ELF
communication (Jenkins, 2000, 2007; Levis, 2005; Walker, 2010).
In view of the current emphasis on intelligibility over mastery of native-like pronunciation in ELT (see Jenkins, 2000;
Walker, 2010), it would be worthwhile examining whether accent matters to L2 speakers/learners of English and to what
extent identity plays a role in their accent choices and preferences in ELF communication. While recent empirical studies on
ELF point to the relevance of identity to ELF communication, challenging the view of ELF as cultural and identity neutral (e.g.,
Baker, 2009, 2015; Jenkins, 2007; Kalocsai, 2014; Zhu, 2015), relatively little is known about the role of accent in identity
construction through ELF (e.g., Jenkins, 2007). For this reason, this paper reports on a qualitative inquiry that investigated the
under-researched relationship between accent and identity in ELF communication from the perspectives of L2 speakers/
learners of English. It seeks to offer insights into the complexity of identity and its relationship with accent in ELF
communication and shed light on pronunciation instruction in ELT for ELF communication in the global context.

2. Literature review

2.1. Identity and ELF communication

With the importance of ELF in today’s globalized world, there is a growing interest in understanding the role of identity in
ELF communication, given the close connection between language and identity (Joseph, 2004). In our current understanding,
identity describes the relationship between the individual and the wider social and cultural world (Norton, 1997, 2000;
Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004). According to Norton (1997), identity refers to ‘how people understand their relationship to
the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how people understand their possibilities for the
future’ (p. 408). Taking a post-structuralist view of identity as situated, multiple and dynamic, Norton (2000) puts forward the
notion of ‘investment’ to understand the multifaceted nature of L2 learners’ identity. It ‘signals the socially and historically
constructed relationship of learners to the target language, and their often ambivalent desire to learn and practice it’ (p. 10). As
Norton (2000) argues, if L2 learners invest in a target language, they will expect a good return on their investment, including
access to previously unattainable resources, and hope to acquire a wide range of material and/or symbolic resources
(Bourdieu, 1991). In other words, an investment in a target language, including a particular accent, can be seen as an in-
vestment in one’s identity.
While ELF was once thought of as an identity neutral form of communication (House, 2003), a growing body of empirical
studies provides evidence that identity is as relevant an issue in ELF communication as in any other form of communication
and can serve as a valuable lens to understand ELF (Baker, 2011, 2015; Jenkins, 2007; Kalocsai, 2014; Zhu, 2015). In particular, it
was found that ELF communication could open up spaces and resources for varied identity options, whereby multiple
identities are made relevant, constructed and negotiated (Baker, 2015). As Baker (2015) suggests, identifications and identities
through ELF could operate at multiple scales moving between local, national and global cultures and may be created and
negotiated in situ.

2.2. Accent, identity and ELF communication

Accents, according to Lippi-Green (1997), are defined as ‘loose bundles of prosodic and segmental features distributed over
geographic and/or social space’ (p. 42). As perhaps the most immediately tangible characteristic of a particular variety in
spoken language (Walker, 2010), accents are powerful markers of identity in speech (Moyer, 2013; Sung, 2013). More spe-
cifically, accents can index speakers’ individual and social identities, since accents identify people not only as individuals, but
also as members of particular groups or communities (Smit & Dalton, 2000; Walker, 2010). Further, individuals’ accents can
be related to others’ perceptions about their identity (Morgan, 1997; Sifakis & Sougari, 2005). For instance, an L2 speaker’s
accent may index a particular identity (including national, racial or socioeconomic identity) for interlocutors who may then
evaluate the individual on the basis of the identity associated with the accent and any stereotypes it calls up (Lippi-Green,
1997).
Accent is an issue of particular relevance to ELF communication. As Jenkins (2007) points out, ‘accents are highly salient to
ELF speaker-hearers, possibly even more so than in communication among NSs [native speakers] of English’ (p. 78). In the
context of globalization and the international use of ELF, language variation, including phonological variation, is a fact of life,
as interlocutors from different lingua-cultural backgrounds are likely to communicate with each other with a wide range of L1
and L2 accents. Of particular importance to note here is that ELF scholars see accent variation as a means to allow L2 speakers
to express their identity (Jenkins, 2000, 2007; Walker, 2010). As accents are seen to constitute part of L2 speakers’ identities,
they argue that accents should not be modified against L2 speakers’ desires. Jenkins (2000, 2007), in making a case for the
importance of ‘global phonological intelligibility’, points out that certain ‘non-core’ phonological features of native-speaker
English pronunciation are unnecessary for intelligibility in ELF communication (e.g., word stress placement). Based on the
proposal of a ‘Lingua Franca Core’ which includes a list of phonological features that are deemed essential for mutual
intelligibility in ELF communication among L2 speakers of English, Jenkins (2000) argues that L2 speakers/learners of English
should be allowed to pronounce English with their own L1 accent influence instead of striving for native-speaker
 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65 57

pronunciation. Of particular interest here is that she suggests that L2 speakers/learners of English may express ‘a desire to
preserve something of their L1 accent as a means of expressing their own identity in English rather than identifying it with its
L1 English users’ (Jenkins, 2003, p. 125), while at the same time ‘identify[ing] themselves through their accents as members of
an international English-speaking community’ (Jenkins, 2005, p. 535).
In order to investigate the claim that L2 speakers of English may wish to affirm their L1 identity through their L1-
influenced accent, rather than a native-like accent, in ELF communication (Jenkins, 2007; Kirkpatrick, 2007; Walker, 2010),
empirical research would be needed to examine L2 speakers’ perspectives on how they would like to sound in English and
how they perceive their own accent and its relationship with their identity in ELF communication. However, while a growing
body of empirical research on ELF and identity (e.g., Sung, 2014a, 2014b, 2015a; Baker, 2009, 2015; Jenkins, 2007; Kalocsai,
2014; Zhu, 2015) presents evidence that identity construction is part and parcel of ELF communication and that different
identities (including cultural and linguistic identities) are made relevant through ELF, relatively little is known about the
relationship between accent and identity in ELF communication from L2 speakers’ perspectives (see, e.g., Jenkins, 2007). In an
oft-cited empirical study on accent and identity in relation to ELF, Jenkins (2007) investigated a group of L2 English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ identity options in English via in-depth interviews. Her study revealed a degree of
ambivalence on the part of these teachers about expressing their membership in an international ELF community and an L1
identity in English. As Jenkins (2007) suggests, these teachers desired a native-like English identity expressed through a
native-like accent as well as their lingua-cultural identities associated with their L1 and expressed through their L2 English
accent. While Jenkins (2007) study provided valuable insights into issues concerning accent and identity from the per-
spectives of L2 teachers of EFL, there is a need to examine other L2 speakers/learners’ perspectives on accent and its rela-
tionship with identity in ELF communication.
Furthermore, while an extensive body of empirical research on L2 speakers’ attitudes towards different accents of English
indicates a preference for native-speaker pronunciation (see, e.g., He & Zhang, 2010; Kang, 2015; Luk, 1998; McKenzie, 2010;
Ren, Chen, & Lin, 2016; Scales, Wennerstrom, Richard, & Wu, 2006; Timmis, 2002; Wang, 2015; Xu, Wang, & Case, 2010;
Zhang, 2013), the majority of these studies employed a quantitative methodology, which failed to present the complexity
of L2 speakers’ accent preferences and explicate the connections of accent with identity by probing deeply into their accent
preferences in an in-depth manner. It is therefore important to adopt a qualitative methodology in order to capture the
complexity of accent preferences and identity options in ELF (see Baird, Baker, & Kitazawa, 2014; Jenkins, 2007; Subtirelu,
2013).
In light of the lacunas aforementioned, the study reported in this paper aims to: (i) contribute to the emerging body of
research on ELF and identity, with a particular emphasis on accent; and (ii) add a much-needed qualitative empirical
dimension to research on accent attitudes. As a qualitative, interpretive investigation, the study investigated the perceptions
of a group of L2 speakers/learners of English in Hong Kong with respect to their accent preferences1 and their desired
identities in ELF communication. It sought to address the following research question:
In what ways are accent preferences related to identity in ELF communication from the perspectives of L2 speakers/
learners of English?

3. The study

3.1. Setting and participants

This paper draws upon data from a larger research project which investigated university students’ experiences of language
use and identity construction in ELF communication at a small liberal arts university in Hong Kong (see Sung, 2016).2 English
is used as the primary medium of instruction in the majority of undergraduate courses at the university. While the majority of
undergraduate students are ethnic Chinese, a large number of exchange and international students from other parts of the
world also undertake their academic studies at the university alongside local students. As a result, the international mix of
students (as well as teaching faculty) necessitates the use of ELF for intercultural communication on campus.
Eighteen Chinese undergraduate students (16 females and 2 males) who were studying English as their major at the
university took part in the study. They were aged between 21 and 24 and were in their third or final year of their studies at the
time of data collection. As native speakers of Cantonese raised in Hong Kong, these participants are also proficient L2
speakers/learners of English (at upper-intermediate to advanced levels) and had learnt English for at least twelve years prior
to their university studies.3 While they received their primary and secondary education in Hong Kong, most of them had

1
This paper focuses on participants’ self-reported accent preferences, rather than their actual accent choices in ELF communication. It is beyond the
scope of this paper to ascertain whether their reported accent preferences correspond with their actual pronunciation in ELF communication.
2
English plays an important role in different sectors of Hong Kong society, including administration, education and the professional workplace. It is also
used as a major lingua franca for intercultural communication (Sung, 2015b). As a result of a strongly exonormative orientation to native-speaker models of
English, however, there is only limited but growing acceptance of a local variety of English among Hong Kong people (Chan, 2013; Sung, 2015b).
3
As an English-medium tertiary institution, the university set out the minimum English requirements for student admission, that is, at least Grade E in
Use of English at the Advanced Supplementary (AS) level examination and/or Level 3 in English Language at the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Ed-
ucation (HKDSE) examination.
58 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65

study abroad experiences through the university’s exchange programmes. With the presence of a sizable population of in-
ternational and exchange students at the university, they also reported a varying range of ELF communication experiences on
campus.

3.2. Data collection

The larger research project lasted over one and a half years and employed multiple methods for data collection, including
semi-structured interviews, elicitation of written narratives, focus group discussions, and email correspondence. For the
purpose of this paper, the primary data reported in this paper were drawn from in-depth semi-structured interviews with the
eighteen participants.
As the main instrument of data-generation, the interviews aimed at eliciting participants’ accounts of their experiences of
ELF communication, especially their interactions with international and exchange students on the university campus. In-
terviews were considered suitable for data collection because they can provide a window into the participants’ minds which
cannot be directly observed and delve into their experiences, beliefs and perceptions at a great depth (Kvale, 2007). During
the interviews, participants were asked to share their experiences when speaking English on campus, including their self-
perceptions, their accent preferences, their desired identities, their evaluations of their English in ELF communication, and
their perceptions of the English spoken by exchange and international students. The interviews were conducted one-to-one
in English and were audio-recorded. They lasted between approximately 45 and 75 min. It should be noted here that the data
generated from the interviews should not be seen as direct representations of the reality, but rather as outcomes of the
collaboration between the researcher and the participants.
As interviews can be seen as involving interactive constructions of meanings, it is important to consider my position as an
interviewer and a researcher. At the time of data collection, I was a teaching staff member and a researcher of the university.
Inevitably, there was the issue of power imbalance in the interview situations arising from the status difference between the
researcher and the researched, which could have influenced what the participants chose to reveal (Goodson & Sikes, 2001).
However, as a native of Hong Kong and an L2 speaker of English who received most of my education in Hong Kong and who
also completed an undergraduate degree in English in a Hong Kong university, I shared a great deal of similarities with the
participants in terms of our linguistic, cultural and educational experiences. As a result, I could create a rapport with the
participants within a short period of time during the data collection process so that they could share their experiences with
me willingly.

3.3. Data analysis

The interview data were transcribed and analyzed according to interpretive qualitative data analysis procedures (Creswell,
2002; Merriam, 1998; Strauss & Corbin, 1994). The analysis was a recursive and gradually evolving process, during which the
interview transcripts were scanned, read, and reviewed multiple times. It commenced with initial coding of the data, followed
by the grouping of similar codes into categories. While particular attention was paid to identifying categories pertaining to
accent and identity as guided by the overarching research question concerning the relationship between accent and identity
in ELF communication, I remained open to new categories that emerged from the analysis. By way of the constant comparative
method (Merriam, 1998), I also compared and contrasted categories that emerged from one participant with those from other
participants in order to look for instances of similarities and differences. Furthermore, as I moved back and forth between the
data and the relevant research literature, concepts from the research literature also helped me to refine the identified themes
and create links among them. The process of data analysis continued until it reached the point of saturation (Charmaz, 2006).
Whenever possible, the analysis was confirmed by the participants through a member checking procedure (Creswell, 2002).
As another measure of increasing the credibility of the study, my prolonged engagement with the participants could also serve
to enhance the trustworthiness of the data analysis and interpretation (Creswell, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

4. Findings

Among the eighteen participants of the study, it was found that thirteen of them expressed a desire to speak English with a
native-speaker or native-like accent in ELF communication, while five participants preferred to speak English with a local
Hong Kong accent. What follows is an analysis of the reasons for these participants’ accent preferences, with a view to
unravelling the ways in which their accent preferences may relate to their desired identities in ELF communication. Note that
the selected quotes below are taken from the interview transcripts (see transcription conventions in the appendix) and are
included because they could provide particularly insightful and articulate examples for illustrating the themes under dis-
cussion. Individual participants are referred to by their respective identification numbers in order to protect their anonymity.

4.1. Reasons for participants’ preference for a native-speaker or native-like accent

4.1.1. Identity-related reason: association of a native-speaker accent with positive self-images as L2 speakers of English
Among the thirteen participants who preferred to sound native-like in ELF communication, a recurring reason for their
preference is their perceived association of a native-speaker accent with positive self-images as L2 speakers of English. As
 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65 59

revealed in the analysis, sounding native-like in English was found to be associated with presenting desirable self-images as
competent English speaker/users, as evident in the extract below:
It’s better to sound more like native speakers. And I think.. it’s about the identity maybe. And if I sound like a native
speaker, then the others may think that my English is good and I’m from … I’ve studied in other foreign countries. And
maybe I have a better self-image in terms of using English. (#10, female)
In particular, these participants’ desire for a native-like accent in pursuing a positive self-image could be explained by their
perceived association of native-speaker pronunciation with status and prestige, and these positive attributes associated with
native-speaker pronunciation appear to be closely related to the participants’ perception of native-speaker as the ‘best’
English. Below is an extract which is representative of the deeply entrenched belief about the superiority of native-speaker
English:
Perhaps it’s the impression of native English. Native English is the best. And yeah, that’s why I try to learn native English
instead of Hong Kong English. Or American English or something like that. (#7, male)
As a result of the positive connotations of native-speaker pronunciation, these participants indicated a desire to sound
native-like in order to present positive self-images as L2 speakers of English to other interlocutors in ELF communication. For
instance, as evidenced by the following extract, speaking English with a native-speaker accent was perceived to generate a
sense of superiority:
I want to sound like a native speaker instead of a Hong Kong … like a Hong Kong student. Because … I think it may …
maybe … maybe because speaking in a … like with a native accent, people give you more superior feeling sometimes.
(#15, female)
In addition, these participants’ preference for native-speaker pronunciation seems to be related to its link with English
proficiency. As the data suggest, speaking English with a native-speaker accent is associated not only with a sense of su-
periority, but also with a high level of English proficiency (Timmis, 2002), given that native-speaker pronunciation may imply
a highest possible level of L2 mastery. One participant, for example, talked about the relationship between a native-like accent
and a high level of English proficiency:
I really feel my English is quite good at that moment because I don’t speak in very heavy accent, yeah. So … maybe.. I
think the accent matters as well. […] And like, when others hear that, ‘oh your English proficiency is very high’. Yes, I
think it’s the reason. (#15, female)
In a similar vein, another participant considered a native-like accent to be closely linked with the attainment of an ‘ideal’
level of English proficiency:
#13: When I speak English, I really want to try to be like achieve NATIVE accent. I think that’s because of a pursuit of a
sense of superiority and a pursuit of an ideal English proficiency. I really want to express my identity.
R: What kind of identity?
#13: As a Chinese from Hong Kong, I never think of like pretending to be ABC [American-born Chinese], or like some..
like a student coming back from foreign countries, yeah. […] I really want to sound like a native. Like it’s cool. I do think
people would like … in communication, I do think people or other interlocutors, they would treat native speakers
relatively, like, they would think they are really cool. (#13, female)
From the extract above, the participant did not intend to ‘pretend’ to be a native speaker by sounding native-like. In other
words, speaking English with a native-like accent does not necessarily imply taking on a different identity, including that of a
native speaker of English. What seems to motivate the participant to sound native-like is the symbolic value of native-speaker
pronunciation, particularly the prestige associated with it and the recognition that one may gain from other interlocutors in
ELF communication.
To summarize, in alignment with the findings of previous studies on attitudes towards accents of English (e.g., He & Zhang,
2010; Kang, 2015; Luk, 1998; Scales et al., 2006; Timmis, 2002; Zhang, 2013), the analysis presented here indicated the
participants’ preference to sound native-like in ELF communication, given the positive attributes associated with native-
speaker pronunciation and its close link with a high level of English proficiency. As native-speaker pronunciation was
perceived to be associated with such positive attributes as prestige and status, it could be seen to be an important form of
symbolic capital which may be converted into economic and social capital (Bourdieu, 1991). By acquiring and using a native-
speaker accent for ELF communication, these participants could be seen as investing in their pronunciation in order to in-
crease their symbolic capital (Norton, 2000), with the expectation of constructing their desired identities as competent L2
speakers of English, which will in turn help secure access to other forms of social and symbolic capital, such as respect and
acceptance by other interlocutors as part of their community.

4.1.2. Identity-related reason: avoidance of negative evaluations associated with a local accent
Another identity-related reason for the participants’ preference to sound native-like in English was to avoid the negative
evaluations associated with a local Hong Kong accent. As the analysis revealed, a local accent of English was negatively
60 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65

evaluated by these participants because of its stigma and other negative connotations, including its impurity and unpleas-
antness. For example, one participant saw a local accent as not ‘decent’ and preferred to sound native-like instead:
And then for me, personally, I don’t think Chinglish or Hong Kong accent is something very decent. That’s why … so
that’s why I try to speak like native speakers as well. (#15, female)
Similarly, another participant who did not consider it necessary to project one’s cultural identity through accent expressed
a negative view of a local accent, noting that a Hong Kong accent is ‘not pure’:
If Hong Kong speaker of English means you have a Hong Kong accent or Chinese accent, then no, because it’s not really a
pure English, it’s not pure English as English. But if you want to, you just want others to know that you’re from Hong
Kong then you just tell them I’m from Hong Kong, but you don’t have to show it through the accent or through the
language. (#7, male)
Another participant even considered that speaking with a local accent of English can be both ‘insulting’ and ‘embarrassing’,
negatively impacting on one’s self-worth:
If I have a very Hong Kong English accent, it is an insult and. It is quite embarrassing to have Hong Kong accent so.. And
that’s why I really want to have … a very native accent. (#16, female)
Apart from the stigma attached to a local accent, participants also associated a local accent of English with a low level of
English proficiency. For example, one participant stated that speaking English with a local accent could leave a ‘negative
impression’ on other interlocutors in ELF communication, possibly resulting in a negative self-image and identity:
Because if I sound like.. a Hong Kong speaker of English, it will show my … deficiency in English. It’s like Chinglish or
Hong Kong English. It will give a negative impression to people. (#14, female)
In sum, the analysis above showed these participants’ tendency to avoid the negative connotations associated with a local
accent, a somewhat stigmatized form of pronunciation in the context of Hong Kong (see, e.g., Luk, 1998; Zhang, 2013). In
particular, a local accent of English may be perceived to index certain dispreferred identities which participants would shun,
especially that of an incompetent speaker of English with a low level of English proficiency. As a result, these participants may
prefer to sound native-like and avoid sounding ‘too local’ in an attempt to eschew any negative connotations associated with a
local accent of English and at least achieve a ‘neutral’ or unmarked identity through ELF (see Sewell, 2012).

4.1.3. Practical reasons

Apart from the identity-related reasons identified above, these participants’ preference to sound native-like was also
found to be driven by practical reasons, particularly the perceived intelligibility of native-speaker accents in ELF commu-
nication. As shown in the extract below, speaking English with a native-like accent was perceived to be linked with intel-
ligibility in ELF communication:
I want to be to some extent I want to be like native speakers because it ensures better understanding between people.
Because sometimes if you speak Hong Kong English, people may not understand quite often. Or if you speak African
accent, it’s so hard to understand. So it’s more safe to speak native English, yeah. (#1, female)
Indeed, participants’ preference to sound native-like appeared to be related in some way to their belief that speaking
English with a native-like accent is likely to improve intelligibility for ELF communication:
So if any second, second language speakers can attain those native accents, there are more people would understand
them.. their speech. (#3, female)
As parts of the data also suggest, several participants expressed their concerns about the intelligibility of their local accent
in ELF communication, as can be seen in the extract below:
Because.. I am afraid that they won’t understand my English if I keep my Hong Kong accent in it, or they will find it
strange. (#14, female)

4.2. Reasons for participants’ preference for a local accent of English

4.2.1. Identity-related reason: association of a local accent with expression of one’s lingua-cultural identity
Among the five participants who preferred to retain their local accent in ELF communication, one main reason for their
preference appears to be related to the perceived relationship between accent and identity. As the data revealed, they
indicated a desire to express their identity through their L1-influenced accent. As shown in the extract below, speaking
English with one’s accent was perceived to be closely related to identity expression:
I feel more comfortable just speak with my accent. That’s.. not a big deal. And that shows who I am to them. (#9, female)
 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65 61

More specifically, participants alluded to the close relationship between accent and one’s lingua-cultural identity. As one
of the participants noted, for example, sounding differently (or ‘imitating’ a different accent or accents) could imply relin-
quishing her cultural identity as Hong Kong Chinese:
Because my identity is Hong Kong Chinese so I don’t really want to like.. imitate other accent because I don’t think there
is any point in doing that. (#17, female)
As can be seen above, there appears to be a wish on the part of these participants to retain their own local accent in order
to express their lingua-cultural identity. While a Hong Kong English accent may not be widely perceived as a marker of
solidarity because of the stigma associated with it (see Chan, 2013; Luk, 1998; Zhang, 2013), a local accent of English seems to
be viewed as indexical of a local Hong Kong identity, at least for participants who preferred not to sound native-like, thereby
lending some support to the claim that some L2 speakers of English may wish to identify themselves through their accents as
members of their lingua-cultural communities (Jenkins, 2007; Kirkpatrick, 2007; Walker, 2010).

4.2.2. Identity-related reason: avoidance of native speaker associations

As a result of the perceived relationship between accent and identity, another identity-related reason for these partici-
pants’ preference to speak English with a local accent was to avoid any native speaker associations. As these participants
seemed to associate a native-speaker accent with a native-speaker identity and identification with native English-speaking
cultures and/or countries, they preferred to speak English with a local accent so as to avoid associating themselves with
Anglophone cultures. For example, one participant remarked that she did not see the point of ‘imitating’ a native-speaker
accent since she did not wish to be identified with the cultures associated with the ‘Westerners’:
I didn’t want to sound like the western people. I think it’s good for me to maybe keep my own identity but sometimes I
may try to maybe polish my English and try to speak more fluently just like them. […] I just want to be myself, and yes, I
want to be considered as a Hong Kong speaker to them. Because … because … even though I try to imitate their accent,
they may still consider me as a[n] outsider … maybe other than their own culture. So there is actually no point for me to
try to follow every rules of the westerners, and actually I’m still a Hong Kong people. So.. maybe it’s better for me to
speak in a Hong Kong style more. (#11, female)
In a similar vein, another participant who expressed a desire to speak English with a local accent stated that speaking
English with an American accent might cause a potential identity crisis:
It’s.. better than just try to be British or American, and then one day … One day if I sound like Americans and I don’t fit in
America and I just … a Hong Kong person. I just I don’t … and if people ask me, ‘Are you from America?’ But I’m not
from America, but I have American accent. That will be … kind of … a problem, but at that time you will think about …
then what’s my identity, yeah. (#9, female)
From the extract above, the participant seemed to see sounding native-like as somehow related to identification with a
particular native English-speaking culture and chose to avoid sounding like an American native speaker of English. As she
explained in the extract below, she had no intention in claiming a fake identity associated with Anglophone countries (note
the use of the word ‘pretend’ below):
It’s just … even though … I have the American accent, I can’t be an American. […] I would like to keep my identity.. and
this is something that I need … There is no good to pretend to be Americans, yeah. (#9, female)
In summary, these participants’ preference not to sound native-like was, in some cases, motivated by ‘an attempt to avoid
the associations related to native varieties’ (Rindal & Piercy, 2013, p. 224) and to distance themselves from native speakers of
English (or native speakers of a particular variety of English) in ELF communication. By choosing to use a local accent of
English, they could avoid any native speaker associations, since a native-like accent could potentially index a native-speaker
identity, typically associated with Anglophone countries and/or cultures, which may be perceived to be at odds with their
desired lingua-cultural identity.

4.2.3. Practical reasons

Apart from identity-related reasons, practical reasons were also found to be at play in the participants’ choice to retain
their own accent. One important practical reason is related to their primary concern about intelligibility which they
considered important for ELF communication. For example, one of the participants emphasized intelligibility over mastery of
native-speaker pronunciation, stating that accent is relatively unimportant provided that intelligibility is achieved in ELF
communication:
Like the accent, I don’t think it’s something really inferior as long as we can understand each other. That’s okay. […] And
actually native speakers don’t pronounce each word clearly sometimes too. And in America, my roommate told me, she
said … she thinks, all Americans should have the pronunciation training, something like that. That’s hilarious, but it’s
also true in some sense because in speaking, sometimes we don’t pronounce each word in all language. And that’s just
how we speak. And yeah, I think the most important thing is just we can understand each other. (#9, female)
62 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65

Another participant also explained that improving pronunciation does not necessarily involve imitating a native-speaker
accent, and its purpose is primarily practical, that is, to ensure intelligibility and ‘effective communication’:
I try to do my best in pronunciation mainly because I don’t I want them to understand what I’m saying clearly. So … and
… I’m not trying to be a native speaker but just want to have an effective communication. (#17, female)
Indeed, these participants did not consider their local accent of English problematic and did not see the need to change it.
For example, one participant who considered a local accent of English unproblematic and intelligible pointed out that
speaking English with different accents does not necessarily impede ELF communication:
I don’t think the American accent or the British accent is … play a very important role, because … I think … for the oral
conversation, and we have to focus more about the content, yes … and to achieve the … an effective communication.
But even if you’re having a different accent, I don’t think it is very important. (#2, female)
Another practical reason as evinced in parts of the data concerns the perceived difficulties of changing one’s accent and
acquiring a native-speaker accent. As one of the participants stated, for example, it may not be possible to change one’s accent,
implying that speaking English with a local accent may perhaps be the only option:
Also because you can’t really change that accent, so I just prefer okay. (#17, female)
What can be seen in the analysis above is that these participants’ preference to speak English with a local accent of English
can be partly explained by pragmatic considerations, including the prioritization of intelligibility over acquisition of a native-
speaker accent and the perceived difficulties in changing one’s accent. By turning their attention to the practical concerns of
achieving intelligibility in ELF communication away from mastery of a native-speaker accent, they can be seen to ‘appropriate’
English in their own terms without succumbing to the pressure of conforming to native-speaker norms of pronunciation.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the under-investigated relationship between accent and identity in ELF
communication from the perspectives of L2 speakers/learners of English, with the aim to contribute to the growing body of
research on ELF and identity and capture the complexity of the interrelationship between accent and identity in ELF with the
use of a qualitative methodology. What seems clear from the analysis is that accent does matter to L2 speakers/learners of
English and that their perceptions of the relationship between accent and identity in ELF communication appear to be highly
complex and by no means straightforward, given the varied accent preferences and identity options reported by the par-
ticipants. Importantly, the analysis not only confirms the relevance of identity to ELF communication (e.g., Baker, 2015;
Kalocsai, 2014; Zhu, 2015), but also underscores the role of accent preferences in identity formation in ELF communication
(e.g., Jenkins, 2007).
More specifically, the analysis shows that participants’ self-reported accent preferences appear to correlate with particular
desired identities in ELF communication. While participants’ desire to speak English with a native-like accent seems to be
closely associated with their wish to express their identities as competent speakers of English, participants who indicated a
preference to speak English with a local accent tended to emphasize the need to project their lingua-cultural identities and
avoid native speaker associations. Important to note here is that while there exists a relationship between accent and identity
in ELF, we cannot assume unproblematically that there is always a desire on the part of L2 speakers/learners of English to use
their L2 accent in order to express their lingua-cultural identities in ELF communication (Jenkins, 2007; Walker, 2010). It is,
therefore, important to acknowledge that constructing an L2 identity through an L1-influenced accent could best be seen as
one of the possible options for L2 speakers/learners of English to choose from (Sung, 2014c, 2014d).
It is also worth noting that some participants’ desire for a native-like accent in ELF communication could point to the
impact of the native speaker ideology on L2 speakers’ accent perceptions. Because of the prevalence of the dominant
discourse of ‘nativeness’ in society, these participants appear to hold deeply entrenched and ideologically influenced attitudes
towards different accents of English, leading to a staunch belief concerning native speaker authority, particularly the supe-
riority of native-speaker accents (Jenkins, 2007; Lippi-Green, 1997). As a result, the native speaker ideology appears to give
rise to the belief that they should be native-like in order to construct positive self-images as competent speakers of English
and the unquestioned assumption that only native-speaker or near-like English is internationally intelligible (see Jenkins,
2007). As evident in the analysis, native-like accents were perceived by these participants to be associated not only with
positive attributes such as prestige, but also with intelligibility. It should be noted, however, that while the socio-symbolic
value of native-speaker pronunciation is widely acknowledged (Lippi-Green, 1997), the participants’ beliefs about the
intelligibility of native-speaker accents seem to run counter to a large body of empirical research which indicates a lack of a
direct relationship between accent and intelligibility and a lack of evidence to support the claim that native-speaker accents
are necessarily more intelligible than L2 accents in ELF communication (see, e.g., Jenkins, 2000; Munro & Derwing, 1995;
Rajadurai, 2007).
Furthermore, the findings of the study suggest that L2 speakers’ accent preferences appear to be driven by a range of
identity-related reasons as well as practical considerations. In particular, participants’ concerns about intelligibility in ELF
communication appear to be among the main pragmatic considerations in their accent preferences. What is notable here is
that both identity and intelligibility seem to be the two main reasons underlying participants’ accent preferences in ELF
 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65 63

communication, which resonates with the two main functions of language use according to Kirkpatrick (2007) ‘identity-
communication continuum’. It might perhaps be true that tensions could arise from the need to maintain a strong L1 accent
for identity construction while at the same time ensuring international intelligibility in ELF, as L2 speakers of English may
show a desire to speak English with a local accent of English to enact their lingua-cultural identity but are concerned about
potential intelligibility problems (Crystal, 2003; Walker, 2010). However, what seems to emerge from the analysis reported
above is that participants in the study appear to opt for an accent which they believe could best serve the dual functions of
expressing their desired identities and achieving international intelligibility in ELF communication simultaneously. In the
case of participants who preferred not to sound native-like, a local accent of English appears to be seen not only as indexical of
their desired lingua-cultural identity through English, but also as intelligible to other interlocutors in ELF communication,
fulfilling both functions of identity and communication. It can therefore be seen that L2 speakers’ accent preferences in ELF
communication are complex and do not necessarily involve a straightforward either-or choice between identity and
intelligibility.
Finally, while it should be noted that certain aspects of L2 pronunciation is beyond our control, it is important to
acknowledge the agency of L2 speakers in choosing to speak English with a particular accent (or not) in order to pursue and
project certain desired identities in ELF communication. Agency, as defined by Gao (2010), refers to an individual’s will and
capability to act. Even though there are both volitional and non-volitional aspects of accent, the ‘volitional features of accent
that any speaker can choose to modify e or not’ (Derwing & Munro, 2009, p. 486) are most closely related to identity and
individual agency. What the analysis seems to suggest is that L2 speakers’ accent preferences and choices could shape, and be
shaped by, their pursuit of desired identities in ELF communication. While whether they prefer to sound native-like or not is a
rather ‘personal choice’ (Derwing & Munro, 2009, p. 485), it should be understood as a choice in which identity is likely to be
implicated. It is therefore important for L2 speakers to be seen as active and purposeful agents in their language use, including
their accent preferences and choices in ELF communication. As active agents with an awareness of the indexical values
associated with different accents of English in ELF communication, they may choose to exercise their agency to target which
phonological variants to use and acquire purposefully to claim particular identity options, while at the same time ‘resist[ing]
using certain variants if they perceive that doing so creates a[n] L2 identity that is not viable’ (Hansen Edwards, 2008, p. 260).

6. Implications

While the small number of participants involved in the study could limit the generalizability of the results to other
contexts, the findings of this study could have some important implications for pronunciation instruction in ELT for ELF
communication. In particular, in light of the complex relationship between accent and identity in ELF communication as
revealed in the analysis, there is a need for language teachers to be aware of the role of identity in the acquisition and use of L2
pronunciation and provide learners with a greater element of choice in terms of pronunciation targets. In particular, teachers
should guard against ‘telling […] learners what their goals should be: in particular that they should not want to sound like
native speakers if they clearly wish to do so’ (Jenkins, 1998, p. 125). In a similar vein, teachers should not view some learners’
inability to attain native-like pronunciation as necessarily indicative of a lack of ability, since a heavily accented L2 speech may
by exploited by learners to express their lingua-cultural identities (Gatbonton, Trofimovich, & Magid, 2005). Indeed, given the
shift of focus from approximation to a native-speaker accent towards intelligibility in ELF communication, it is important to
emphasize ‘learner choice as to which kind of English to aim for’ (Jenkins, 2012, p. 492), which involves learners choosing
their own pronunciation targets, whether exonormative or endonormative, provided that they can be understood by their
interlocutors in ELF communication (Jenkins, 2000).
Moreover, an approach based on critical pedagogy could be incorporated in pronunciation instruction in ELT (see
Pennycook, 2001). As critical pedagogy aims to develop a critical awareness of the world and an ability to act on it to make
changes and improvements (Crookes & Lehner, 1998; Giroux, 2011; Pennycook, 2001), it is important to raise learners’
awareness of their own beliefs about L2 pronunciation and the impact of these beliefs on their pronunciation goals. More
specifically, apart from presenting learners with the sociolinguistic reality of ELF communication in today’s globalized world,
teachers should encourage their learners to engage in critical and reflective discussions with respect to their views on L2
pronunciation, their accent choices, and their understanding of the social meanings attached to different accents. For
instance, learners who might express a preference for a native-like accent should be encouraged to critically examine the
reasons behind their accent preferences, understand the political and/or ideological underpinnings of their accent choices,
and critique their entrenched language ideologies in the formation of their preferences. By engaging in such critical dis-
cussions about L2 pronunciation and accents in ELF communication, it would be possible for learners to challenge the native
speaker ideology in their evaluation of accents, confront the stigma attached to L2 accents, respond to the prejudices asso-
ciated with L2 accents, and transform their accent beliefs that might otherwise be disempowering.

7. Conclusion

The study reported here revealed a highly complex but by no means deterministic relationship between accent and
identity in ELF communication from the perspectives of L2 speakers/learners of English. Despite the number of participants
involved, the study makes a small, but important, contribution to the growing body of empirical research on ELF and identity
by examining the little-studied relationship between accent and identity in ELF communication. Further research is needed to
64 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65

examine L2 speakers/learners of English from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds to further investigate the complex
issues surrounding accent and identity in ELF communication. It would also be profitable to employ an ethnographic-oriented
and/or case study approach to understand individual differences among L2 speakers/learners of English in terms of their
accent preferences and perceptions of the relationship between accent and identity.

Acknowledgements

The study reported in this paper was supported in part by a research grant (102226) awarded by Lingnan University, Hong
Kong. I would like to thank the editors of System and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on an earlier draft
of this paper. My sincere thanks also go to the participants for their contribution to the study.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Cutting Edges Research Conference on Language, Standards and
Politics organized by the School of Language Studies and Applied Linguistics, Canterbury Christ Church University in the UK in
July 2015.

Appendix. Transcription conventions

(xxx) ¼ uncertain that word is correctly transcribed

‘xxx’ ¼ reported speech
. ¼ completion of an utterance
, ¼ brief pause of half a second to one second
.. ¼ pause of 2 s
… ¼ pause of 3 s
(4) ¼ pause of 4 s or more (marked by the number of seconds in parenthesis)
[…] ¼ a section of dialogue omitted
CAPS ¼ emphasis
? ¼ rising intonation
R ¼ researcher

References

Baird, R., Baker, W., & Kitazawa, M. (2014). The complexity of ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(1), 171e196.
Baker, W. (2009). The cultures of English as a lingua franca. TESOL Quarterly, 43(4), 567e592.
Baker, W. (2011). Culture and identity through ELF in Asia: Fact or fiction? In A. Archibald, A. Cogo, & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Latest trends in ELF research (pp.
32e52). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Baker, W. (2015). Culture and identity through English as a lingua franca: Rethinking concepts and goals in intercultural communication. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). TESOL at forty: What are the issues? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 9e34.
Chan, J. (2013). Contextual variation and Hong Kong English. World Englishes, 32(1), 54e74.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Crookes, G., & Lehner, A. (1998). Aspects of process in an ESL critical pedagogy teacher education course. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 319e328.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42(4), 476e490.
Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gatbonton, E., Trofimovich, P., & Magid, M. (2005). Learners’ ethnic group affiliation and L2 pronunciation accuracy: A sociolinguistic investigation. TESOL
Quarterly, 39(3), 489e511.
Giroux, H. (2011). On critical pedagogy. London: Continuum.
Goodson, I., & Sikes, P. (2001). Life history research in educational settings: Learning from lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hansen Edwards, J. G. (2008). Social factors and variation in production in L2 phonology. In J. G. Hansen Edwards, & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and
second language acquisition (pp. 251e279). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the perspectives of learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4),
769e789.
House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556e578.
Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language? ELT Journal, 52(2), 119e126.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Jenkins, J. (2005). Implementing an international approach to English pronunciation: The role of teacher attitudes and identity. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3),
535e543.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a lingua franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal, 66(4), 486e494.
Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a lingua franca in the international university: The politics of academic English language policy. London: Routledge.
Joseph, J. E. (2004). Language and identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalocsai, K. (2014). Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca: A study of Erasmus students in a Central European context. Berlin: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Kang, O. (2015). Learners’ perceptions toward pronunciation instruction in three circles of World Englishes. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 59e80.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. London: Sage.
Levis, J. M. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 369e377.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.
 C.C.M. Sung / System 60 (2016) 55e65 65

Luk, J. C. M. (1998). Hong Kong students’ awareness of and reactions to accent differences. Multilingua, 17(1), 93e106.
Matsuda, A., & Friedrich, P. (2012). Selecting an instructional variety for an EIL classroom. In A. Matsuda (Ed.), Principles and practices of teaching English as an
international language (pp. 17e27). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
McKenzie, R. M. (2010). The social psychology of English as a global language: Attitudes, awareness and identity in the Japanese context. Dordrecht: Springer.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, B. (1997). Identity and intonation: Linking dynamic processes in an ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 431e450.
Moyer, A. (2013). Foreign accent: The phenomenon of non-native speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45,
73e97.
Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409e429.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow: Longman.
Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2004). Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rajadurai, J. (2007). Intelligibility studies: A consideration of empirical and ideological issues. World Englishes, 26(1), 87e98.
Ren, W., Chen, Y. S., & Lin, C. Y. (2016). University students’ perceptions of ELF in mainland China and Taiwan. System, 56, 13e27.
Rindal, U., & Piercy, C. (2013). Being ‘neutral’? English pronunciation among Norwegian learners. World Englishes, 32(2), 211e229.
Scales, J., Wennerstrom, A., Richard, D., & Wu, S. H. (2006). Language learners’ perceptions of accents. TESOL Quarterly, 40(4), 715e738.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sewell, A. (2012). The Hong Kong English accent: Variation and acceptability. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 1e21.
Sifakis, N. C., & Sougari, A.-M. (2005). Pronunciation issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs. TESOL
Quarterly, 39(3), 467e488.
Smit, U., & Dalton, C. (2000). Motivation patterns in advanced EFL pronunciation learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 229e246.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
273e285). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Subtirelu, N. (2013). What (do) learners want (?): A re-examination of the issue of learner preferences regarding the use of ‘native’ speaker norms in English
language teaching. Language Awareness, 22(4), 270e291.
Sung, C. C. M. (2013). ’I would like to sound like Heidi Klum’: What do non-native speakers say about who they want to sound like? English Today, 29(2),
17e21.
Sung, C. C. M. (2014a). Global, local or glocal? Identities of L2 learners in English as a lingua franca communication. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 27(1),
43e57.
Sung, C. C. M. (2014b). Hong Kong university students’ perceptions of their identities in English as a lingua franca contexts: An exploratory study. Journal of
Asian Pacific Communication, 24(1), 94e112.
Sung, C. C. M. (2014c). Accent and identity: Exploring the perceptions among bilingual speakers of English as a lingua franca in Hong Kong. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(5), 544e557.
Sung, C. C. M. (2014d). English as a lingua franca and global identities: Perspectives from four second language learners of English in Hong Kong. Linguistics
and Education, 26, 31e39.
Sung, C. C. M. (2015a). Exploring second language speakers’ linguistic identities in ELF communication: A Hong Kong study. Journal of English as a Lingua
Franca, 4(2), 309e332.
Sung, C. C. M. (2015b). Hong Kong English: Linguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(6), 256e270.
Sung, C. C. M. (2016). Experiences and identities in ELF communication: Insights from Hong Kong students’ written narratives. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 26(2), 301e320.
Timmis, I. (2002). Native-speaker norms and international English: A classroom view. ELT Journal, 56(3), 240e249.
Walker, R. (2010). Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wang, W. (2015). Teaching English as an international language in China: Investigating university teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards China English.
System, 53, 60e72.
Xu, W., Wang, Y., & Case, R. E. (2010). Chinese attitudes towards varieties of English: A pre-Olympic examination. Language Awareness, 19(4), 249e260.
Zhang, Q. (2013). The attitudes of Hong Kong students towards Hong Kong English and Mandarin-accented English. English Today, 29(2), 9e16.
Zhu, H. (2015). Negotiation as the rule of engagement in intercultural and lingua franca communication: Meaning, frame of references and interculturality.
Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), 63e90.