Abstract
It is now a widely accepted phenomenon that English has spread to become a world language or a global lingua franca. Based on the increasing diversity in users and uses of English in cross-cultural settings at the present time, the assumptions of current approaches in ELT are currently being re-examined in literature. This paper aims to examine the theoretical assumptions and practices of task based language teaching and learning within the framework of English as an international language pedagogy taking into consideration the issues of innovations in the nativization process, the use of native norms as a point of reference, the status of non-native norms and the choice of a pedagogical model. Given the increasing importance of "mutual intelligibility" and "accommodation" in international interactions among English users from different backgrounds and of the studies in re conceptualization of competence in relation to EIL, the place of tasks in the curriculum is re-examined.

Key Words: World Englishes, Task Based Language Teaching

Introduction
The global spread of English has a number of consequences both for the nature of English and its teaching. In many non-native contexts where English is used quite intensively and extensively in the daily lives of people, English has taken various forms reflecting the cultural and linguistic background of the speakers. In the global context, on the other hand, English functions as an international language. At the present time, non-native speakers outnumber native speakers and these non-native speakers use English for a variety of purposes, including, very often, intercultural communication. One significant feature of such communication is that it mostly occurs among non-native speakers in international contexts. Such being the case, native speaker norms, in such interactions, may not only be unnecessary but also inappropriate. These and the related factors have recently led some researchers (e.g., McKay, 2002, 2003) to re-examine common ELT assumptions and has given way to a new approach characterized as English as an International Language Pedagogy. The consequences of the global spread of English as investigated from local to international contexts raised the issues of models, norms and goals in language pedagogy as key areas of discussion. This paper deals with these issues with respect to both local and international contexts and language pedagogy. Furthermore the assumptions of task based language teaching and learning are re-examined within the framework of English as an international language pedagogy. With the rise of task based language teaching and learning the traditional distinction between syllabus design and methodology becomes problematical. Taking the issues of models, norms and goals for EIL pedagogy as a point of reference, the place of tasks in the curriculum is reframed.

World Englishes
Nelson (1992, p.327) argues that "when approaching a language transplanted to a new cultural and linguistic context- as, for example, English in India- one is brought to various realizations about the notion of language and the varieties that a language may develop."
Indeed, the global diffusion of English has resulted in varieties of English in different sociocultural contexts. Kachru (1985, 1992) presents this sociolinguistic profile of English in terms of three concentric circles: The inner circle, the outer circle and the expanding circle. The inner circle represents the traditional basis of English, where English is the primary language. The countries in this circle are the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The outer circle comprises the institutionalized non-native varieties of English in such countries as India, Nigeria and Singapore. These countries have a colonial history with the users of the inner circle. English is used quite intensively and extensively in the domestic daily lives of the people and has established new norms shaped by new sociocultural and sociolinguistic contexts. Finally, the expanding circle comprises countries where performance varieties are used. In such countries as China, Israel and Turkey, English functions as an international language.

The studies of institutionalized nonnative varieties of English (e.g., Kachru, 1985, 1992; Strevens, 1990; Nelson, 1992) have argued for the recognition and acceptance of these varieties in their own right, devoid of comparisons with the inner circle native speaker varieties and the term world Englishes is suggested to represent these varieties such as "Indian English", "Nigerian English", and "Singaporean English". Thus, the three concentric circle model brought to the English language in different sociocultural contexts a pluralistic perspective and to its users a variety of speech fellowships. English is no longer the sole property of native speakers but it is, as well, the language of non-native speakers who use and adopt it in their own sociocultural contexts. Among the discussions of the institutionalized nonnative varieties of English several issues have been the focus of attention. These are the status of the innovations occurring in these varieties, codification of these innovations, the issue of non-native and native norms, and the resultant implications for the choice of a pedagogical model.

Innovations, standards, norms and models in world Englishes
Traditionally, the use of English by non-native speakers has been judged by how it approximates native language use. Differences in non-native language use have often been viewed as deficiencies. Thus variations in institutionalized nonnative varieties have been labeled as "mistakes" or "errors" which should be corrected to avoid fossilization. This led largely to the characterization of non-native knowledge of language as "interlanguage" on the path to native speaker competence.

The studies of institutionalized nonnative varieties, however, have suggested different typologies for these terms. The underlying motivation being that the sociocultural context of language use naturally affects the language and the resultant changes in the language would by no means be considered as deficit characteristics. Thus, Kachru (1992) argues for a distinction between the terms "mistake" and "deviation":

As a result, such arguments led "deviations" to be characterized as "innovations", which imply "difference" and not as "errors" or "mistakes", which imply "deficiency". It is this "difference" view which gives recognition to the non-native norms.

The other central issue in these discussions is when a deviation should be considered as "innovation". Bamgbose (1998, p, 3) suggests five factors for deciding on the status of an innovation. These are "demographic" (the number of users), "geographical" (the spread of an innovation), "authoritative" (the actual use or approval of use of an innovation by writers, teachers, media practitioners, examination bodies, publishing houses, and influential opinion leaders), "codification" (in the restricted sense, putting the innovation into a written form in a grammar or pronouncing dictionary, course books or any other type of reference manual) and "acceptability" (the ultimate test of admission of an innovation). Among these factors, Bomgbo argues, codification and acceptability are the most important since without them innovations will still be viewed as errors.

To Kachru (1985, p.18) "codification implies determining the bounds of such innovations or creativity- in other words, 'allowable' deviation from the native norms." Codification is also of great importance since it relates to the establishment of standards for innovations occurring in these institutionalized non-native varieties. In the case of the inner circle varieties, various channels of linguistic regulation like dictionaries, literary works, textbooks and media have led to the establishment of well known inner circle varieties like American English and British English. In the outer circle, however, while innovations are used quite intensively and extensively in the local context of non-native speakers the codification of these innovations has not been well established yet. In terms of pedagogy, the codification and related problems make it difficult to adopt these non-native varieties as pedagogical models. Codified inner circle varieties are mostly seen as ideal pedagogical models throughout the world, one reason being that pedagogical materials are available in these standard English varieties. In the outer circle, however, hardly any reference material is found to inform pedagogical instruction.

Aside from the codification problem, proficiency tests for the inner circle varieties are well established, which is not the case for the outer circle varieties. This naturally leads to testing non-native speakers according to the norms of inner circle users. These tests, however, hold strict association of English with the western culture and hence learning English means learning western cultural values and communicative norms. Kachru (1985: 21) calls this western cultural spread along with language in pedagogy prescriptivism and argues that

Above all, in most cases, inner circle models are associated with power and prestige, which make them more preferable as pedagogical models. "Quite often, people know of features of non-native varieties and can even see the utility of such features in sociocultural situations, yet they are reluctant to accept the logical conclusion that such recognition implies the replacement of the native norms they have come to ador" (Bomgbo?e, 1998, p. 5). Thus the native speaker accent is generally found fascinating by non-native speakers though they recognize the viability of their accent and wish to keep it. In short, the speakers of outer circle varieties have a less positive attitude to their own varieties than to inner circle varieties.

While there is general consensus on the fact that language pedagogy in the outer circle should no longer be informed by native speaker models, such factors make it difficult to adopt outer circle models in language pedagogy in these contexts. In the expanding circle, where English functions as an international language, related issues need further examination.

English as an international language pedagogy
Beside the emerging reality of world Englishes in different non-native contexts, another focus of attention is the global nature of English, characterized as "English as an international language" (Strevens, 1992; Jenkins, 2000; McKay, 2003), "English as a global language"(Crystal, 2003) or "English as a lingua franca" (Seidlhofer, 2004).

The global status of English has brought with it varied implications both for its development and its teaching. On the one hand, the number of non-native speakers exceed the number of native speakers and thus the center of authority in the development of English is shifting from native speakers. Crystal (1997, p. 137) maintains that "a new form of English, World Standard Spoken English, will arise in international communication in that most people are "multi dialectical" to a greater or lesser extent" (in Yano 2001, p.125).

Though there is not yet a global variety of English, the global spread of English in the expanding circle still has important implications in pedagogy, the most important of which is that most communication in English now occurs among non-native speakers in non-native contexts and these non-native speakers need not adopt the communicative norms of the inner circle users when they use English as an international language. Rather, Smith ( 1983, 1987) argues that "native English speakers should study English as an international language if they plan to interact in English with non-native speakers who use a different national variety" (in Hassal, 1996, p. 422).

Traditionally, however, learning English as a foreign language meant learning it for interaction with native speakers, achieving native speaker competence in proficiency and learning English to understand cultural conventions of native speakers. This is inherent in the communicative language teaching tradition which adopts "communicative competence" as the ultimate goal for language learners and native speaker norms of use as the only appropriate use of language.

McKay (2002, 2003) successfully questions the legitimacy of such assumptions based on the current status of English as an international language and argues for a new orientation in the teaching of English as an international language. The basic tenets of such an orientation is that as an international language English cannot be linked to a specific country or culture, in other words, English is denationalized. Since learners of English as an international language have specific goals in learning English they do not need to achieve native speaker competence. The cultural content for ELT should not always be native speaker cultures. Western cultures of learning characterizing current communicative approaches are not the most productive way of teaching.

In these discussions, while the validity of the inner circle norms in learning English as an international language is successfully questioned, there arises the issue of what norms and models should be followed in EIL pedagogy.

Models, norms and goals for English as a international language pedagogy
The characterization of the actual language content to be taught and learned in teaching English as an international language pedagogy is of crucial importance for curriculum or syllabus design specifications since it will serve as the model to inform pedagogical instruction. In the case of outer circle varieties of English the issue of a pedagogical model seems to be less controversial. By accepting deviations occurring in these varieties as innovations, codifying these innovations, making pedagogical materials like dictionaries and textbooks more available and establishing proficiency tests to assess the learners' achievements, these countries will no longer need native speaker models in pedagogy. In the case of English as an international language pedagogy, however, there are different views about what characterizes English as an international language. The general consensus, however, is that native speaker norms of use are no longer appropriate for intercultural communication and in international interactions accommodation and mutual intelligibility are the desired goals. Kubota(2001: 50) argues that

"The need for intelligibility in international communication has already motivated the learning of English as an international language"(Yano, 2001, p.125) and there have been several attempts to provide a common standard for mutual intelligibility in international interactions. Seidlhofer's (2001, 2004) corpus based project, Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE), focuses on the collection and analysis of speech samples to determine the characteristics of English as an international language, which would serve as codification and help materials written in it. Gimson's 'rudimentary international pronunciation' (1978 in Jenkins, 2003) aims at devising a model of pronunciation by simplifying the phonemic system of English. Jenkins' 'common core' (1998) for pronunciation focuses on specifying the phonological features that do not cause intelligibility problems and they are included in the common core. Quirk's 'Nuclear English' (1981 in Jenkins 2003) calls for a simplification in morphology and syntax.

However, such attempts, more or less, fall in the domain of prescriptivism in that such ways of standardization ignore the natural development of a language as it is used quite intensively and extensively in the domestic daily lives of individuals. In the expanding circle countries, "for the most part English has no special administrative status, while linguistic creativity is more commonly realized in mass media, advertising copy, slogans and catch phrases, and names for shops and products, for instance" (Berns, 2005: 87). Such a variety of English as an international language has not developed yet and the imposition of standards in a top down manner cannot escape the charges of prescriptivism. Even the empirical efforts, though they seem to have some merit, seem to be an early attempt in the description of English as an international language since English in the expanding circle has not yet been institutionalized unlike the outer circle varieties of English.

For the most part English functions as an international language in such domains as science, commerce, technology, and tourism and those bilingual speakers will use English for cross cultural communication. Widdowson (1997) proposes that English as an international language comprises varieties of English for specific purposes, 'autonomous registers which guarantee specialist communication within global expert communities' (p. 114). Griffler (1998, p.382), on the other hand, opposes such a stance by claiming that "'register' does not supersede the category of language. It subdivides it. As such, registers remain ' registers of a language', and they cannot thereby be called 'autonomous'." Furthermore, Le Ha (2005, p. 5) finds Widdowson's use of the term 'register' "unrealistic when Widdowson suggests ESP (English for Specific Purposes) away from the issues of "community and identity" and viewing it in terms of "communication and information". While Widdowson takes the domain of use of English as an international language as a point of departure in his conceptualization of EIL, he neglects the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of speakers as naturally reflected in their use of English for cross cultural communication. The bilinguals' use of English as an international language shows variations in their pragmatic and discourse competencies (Mckay, 2002, 2003; Nunn, 2005) and the focus of attention is the recognition of these norms in their right without comparison to native speaker norms.

Another possibility is to adopt a prestigious standard English as a model to provide mutual intelligibility in international interactions. Strevens ( 1992, p. 39) argues that

Strevens argues for the avoidance of the various local grammatical patterns and expressions not because they are ""wrong" nor inferior or substandard but because they are used and accepted only in that geographical area and among that community (and hence) they would be unacceptable elsewhere" (p. 40). To the question which English should I learn, or teach? Strevens (1992) gives an answer in two parts: "First, learn educated / educational English; second, if you have a choice of an American or a British model, choose the one that will be most useful" (p.40). Though Strevens' claims are strong on the part of the acceptability of the core grammar and vocabulary of a prestigious educated variety, the language knowledge of the bilingual users of English as an international language remain to be addressed adequately. Adopting an American or British variety at all levels of language would raise the problem of ignoring the bilinguals' full language capacity.

Indeed, Cook (1999) argues for going beyond the native speaker as the model in language teaching. He claims that "because L2 users differ from monolingual native speakers in their knowledge of their L2s and L1s and in some their cognitive processes, they should be considered as speakers in their own right, not as approximations to monolingual native speakers" (p. 185).

Moreover, Rajadurai (2005) criticizing the historical and geographical bases of Kachru's three circle model and drawing on the works of Ramton (1990) and Modiano (1990), proposes proficient English speakers be taken as a point of reference in the representation of English as an international language. Thus, native speakers will no longer be in a privileged position over L2 users in English as an International language.

All these studies prioritizing L2 users and their competence or proficiency indicate the importance and necessity of defining competence in relation to English as an international language. Nunn (2005, p.65) argues that "EIL competence, then cannot be reduced to a single, limited, monolingual or monocultural concept. It is composed of a set of interlocking and interdependent competence's that sometimes compensate for each other, sometimes counteract each other and sometimes reinforce each other." Alptekin (2002) has already indicated that the traditional notion of communicative competence is an unrealistic goal for EIL learners and Nunn (2005, p.65) further argues that "transitional views of competence are inappropriate in so far as they imply replacing one monolingual competence with another, whereas SL, FL, IL learners are adding to and maintaining their existing competences (Baker, 2000 and 2002)". Thus pragmatic, rhetorical, strategic and discourse competences that focus on mutual intelligibility, raise important components of the knowledge of bilingual speakers. Linguistic competence, on the other hand, remains an important issue in teaching English as an international language. Quirk's Nuclear English (1981) ,which calls for a simplification in the morphology and syntax, aims to provide a common standard in linguistic competence but beside its prescriptive nature, as Nunn(2005, p.62) argues "there is a danger of international becoming a byword for reduced linguistic competence". Following Strevens (1992) I argue that the core grammar and vocabulary of the educated inner circle varieties (British or American) are the best possible models of linguistic competence for English as international language pedagogy. As Strevens (1992, p. 40) argues "it is not because other varieties are "wrong" nor inferior or substandard but because they are used and accepted only in that geographical area and among that community (and hence) they would be unacceptable elsewhere". Having a larger linguistic repertoire EIL learners will naturally reflect the characteristics of the linguistic competence of their L1s and this would be better considered as a natural language transfer much in the case of code mixing and code switching. The same is true of the pragmatic and discourse competences. However, it is difficult to establish standards for these variations since cross cultural communication occurs among non-native speakers from a variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

Yet linguistic competence remains an essential component in EIL competence. Acar( 2005) argued that linguistic competence has largely been neglected throughout the communicative era and Nunn (2005, p.72) "contends that there is an increased potential for neglecting linguistic competence to an even greater extent in the field of EIL."

Thus the concept of competence holds an important place within the discussions of EIL pedagogy. This issue, along with the others, necessitate a re-examination in the common assumptions of one of the most commonly discussed ELT traditions, namely, task based language teaching and learning. The issues that remain to be addressed are; what should be the place of tasks within the curriculum, should tasks be viewed as the center of the syllabus or as methodological procedures, and what should tasks emphasize in teaching practice.

English as an international language pedagogy and task based language teaching and learning
Task based language teaching is generally characterized as a development within the communicative approach. It takes tasks defined in a variety of ways as central elements in syllabus design and teaching, in other words, task based language teaching advocates the view that syllabus content might be specified in terms of learning tasks. Thus, the focus is on the process rather than product. "However processes belong to the domain of methodology" (Nunan 1989, p. 12). Thus with the rise of task based language teaching the traditional distinction between syllabus design and methodology becomes problematical.

Traditionally syllabus design is concerned with the selection and sequencing of content and methodology relates to how learners will learn. In my reconsideration of task based language teaching within the framework of English as an international language pedagogy I maintain this traditional distinction and claim that the specification of learning tasks should be considered as part of methodology and not of syllabus design. The main reason for this claim is that replacing methodological procedures with the language content, along with other syllabus elements, would be problematical in English as an international language pedagogy.

EIL pedagogy prioritizes the L2 user, bilingual or multilingual competence and mutual intelligibility as a goal in cross cultural communication. Thus any EIL syllabus design should be informed by the nature of such a competence along with the learners' purpose in learning the language. Taking EIL competence as a point of reference would necessitate a consideration of linguistic, pragmatic, rhetorical, discourse and strategic competences of these bilingual speakers. One essential point to be noted is that bilingual speakers will add up to their existing competencies rather than replacing them. Thus syllabus design won't be transitional in nature, that is, aiming to replace the learners' L1 competence with native speaker competence. Native speaker norms of use, native speaker context of language use, native speaker cultural topics, native speaker discourse strategies and authentic texts should no longer inform syllabus design and teaching. Altogether what is authentic for native speakers may not be authentic for non-native speakers. Essentially, in terms of pragmatic and discourse competencies, English users will reflect their own cultural norms of appropriateness. The notion of appropriateness will remain a relative term and concept in international communication. Thus, the domain of language use, various cultural topics, and cross cultural encounters in international contexts, seem to be important determinants in EIL pedagogy and hence topic, text and context selection, along with language content, seem to be important factors in EIL syllabus design. Taking learning tasks as a point of reference in syllabus design would then mean ignoring such determinants in EIL pedagogy.

Indeed, neglecting essential language content in task based syllabus design, the issue of focus on form, has caused problems in task based language teaching itself and the attempts to solve this problem did not go beyond the terminological changes. The most important characteristics of a task is its communicative purpose in which the focus is on meaning rather than form. However, some researchers (e.g., Estaire and Zanon, 1994, pp. 13-20) distinguish between two main categories of task "'communication task', in which the 'learner's attention is focused on meaning rather than form', and 'enabling tasks', in which 'the main focus is on linguistic aspects (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, function, and discourse'" (in Littlewood, p. 320). However, Ellis (2003) calls for a distinction between "tasks" and "exercises". He classifies tasks as "activities that call for primarily meaning focused language use" and "exercises" as activities "that call for primarily form focused language use" (Ellis, 2003, p. 3). Thus, what Estaire and Zanon classify as 'enabling tasks' are 'exercises' for Ellis. Such terminological changes in the definition of tasks do not seem to fill the gap in the treatment of language content in task based language teaching. Furthermore, Ellis emphasizes that "the overall purpose of tasks is the same as exercises, learning a language- the difference lying in the means by which this purpose is to be achieved" (Ellis, 2003, p.3). Thus within the framework of EIL pedagogy it would be inappropriate to replace tasks with some important reference points like EIL competence, topic, context and aim in learning the language. This would, then, lead us to consider tasks as methodological procedures to practice the specified content for a specific aim (such as tasks aiming to develop strategic competence to enhance accommodation and mutual intelligibility). Thus I recognize the value of tasks as useful methodological procedures in EIL pedagogy since they promote meaningful language practice. However, tasks would best be viewed as a means to an end rather than an end itself.

Conclusion
With its global spread, English has now gained the status of an international language. The number of non-native speakers exceed the number of native speakers and most communication in English now occurs among non-natives. In terms of pedagogy, this reality of English has resulted in a re-examination of the traditional ELT assumptions which take native speaker competence as a point of reference. Thus L2 users or bilingual users have been increasingly recognized as English users in their own right, which necessitates a focus of attention on these English users' knowledge of language as well as their aim in learning the language. This paper re-examined task based language teaching and learning within the framework of EIL pedagogy. The consideration of the above factors necessitates taking EIL competence and learners' purpose in learning the language as a point of reference in EIL pedagogy. Thus, it is suggested, the place of tasks in the curriculum be reframed. Tasks are still valuable pedagogical tools but they should be best viewed as methodological procedures to practice the specified content.

References
Acar, A. (2005). The "communicative competence" controversy. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 55-60.

Alptekin, C. (2002). Towards intercultural communicative competence in ELT. ELT Journal, 56(1), 57-64.

Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1-14.

Berns, M. (2005). Expanding on the expanding circle: where do WE do from here?. World Englishes, 24(1), 85-93.

Brutt-Griffler, J. (1998). Conceptual questions in English as a world language: Taking up an issue. World Englishes, 17(3), 381-392.

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-210.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language teaching and learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hassal, P. J. (1996). Where do we go from here? TEIL: A methodology. World Englishes, 15(3), 419-425.

Jenkins, J. (1998). Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an international language? ELT journal, 52(2), 119-126.

Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes. London: Routlege.

Kachru, B.B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk and H. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kachru, B.B. (1990). World Englishes and applied linguistics. World Englishes, 9(1), 3-20.

Kachru, B.B. (1992a). Models for non-native Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd ed.) (pp. 48-74). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Kachru, B.B. (1992b). Teaching world Englishes. In B.B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd ed.) (pp. 355-365). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 319-326.

Llurda, E. (2004). Non-native-speaker teachers and English as an International Language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 314-323.

McKay, S.L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: Rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1-22.

Nelson, C. L. (1992). My language, your culture: Whose communicative competence. In B.B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures (2nd ed.) (pp. 327-339). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Nunan, D. (1988). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunn, R. (2005). Competence and teaching English as an international language. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 61-74.

Phan Le Ha (2005). Toward a critical notion of appropriation of English as an international language. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 34-46.

Rajadurai, J. (2005). Revisiting the concentric circles: Conceptual and sociolinguistic considerations. Asian EFL Journal, 7(4), 111-130.

Richards J. C. & T. Rodgers. (2001). Approaches and methods in language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133-58.

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

Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international language: directions in the 1990s. In B. B. Kachru, (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.) (pp.27-47). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1997). The forum: EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes, 16(1), 135-46.
Yano, Y. (2000). World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes, 20(2), 119-131.