English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper sets as its aim to show that ELF research is not uniform in its fundamental theoretical assumptions. While one wing of ELF scholars follows a classical Saussurean tradition with its notions of  langue  and  parole , the other is distinctly usage-based. This is not presented as a problem but rather as a matter to be taken into consideration because the views are not easily reconcilable, if at all. Naturally, this divergence of view is clearly visible in data analysis and leads to different interpretations of the underlying processes. I will illustrate my point by the case of phraseological patterning. It is well-known that multi-word units occurring in ELF use are not quite the same as in standard varieties. In SLA the discrepancies are traditionally labelled as errors, a stance ELF researchers do not generally agree with since the conflicting usages do not seem to lose their communicative successfulness. The question at which ELF researchers look differently is whether not quite nativelike phraseological patterning in ELF is a result of analytic or holistic – although fuzzy – processing, in other words, creation or approximation. The answer to this question has profound implications for our understanding of second language processing.

Usage-based recycling or creative exploitation of the shared code? The case of phraseological patterning