Ideologies and attitudes of Spanish pre-service teachers on ELF

2.1 Native-based ELT

In an increasingly globalized word, English is used more by multilingual speakers in international contexts than by monolingual speakers in contexts that might be regarded as less diverse (Canagarajah 2007; Llurda 2014; Seidlhofer 2005). In effect, a large body of research into ELF pragmatics demonstrates that speakers are able to negotiate their differences in their own terms and accomplish their communicative needs without conforming to native English norms (Jenkins 2006; Seidlhofer 2004). Yet, there is still a tendency for native speakers to be regarded as the only custodians over acceptable usage as well as the linguistic target for acquisition and use in many ELT contexts (Llurda 2018; Vettorel and Lopriore 2013). As a result, the prevailing orientation in English language teaching and testing revolves around English as a native language, with perceptions of correctness driven by strict adherence to native use and, therefore, turning a blind eye on the sociolinguistic reality of the English language (Jenkins 2012).

In essence, most ELT materials portray a monolithic representation of language exclusively centred on a native speaker model – either British or American – both in terms of language and culture (Guerra and Cavalheiro 2019). Therefore, the vast majority of ELT materials do little to acknowledge the variety in the English language and the use of non-standard varieties among non-native speakers, thus failing to prepare learners to use ELF in global contexts (Galloway and Rose 2018). For such reasons, most of them remain dissociated from the realities of millions of students that will most probably use English as a lingua franca to communicate with speakers of other languages (Galloway 2018).

Apart from permeating into ELT materials and practices, native-speakerist ideology has made its way into the realm of ELT professional environment resulting in unequal job opportunities, as empirical studies reporting ample evidence of instances of discrimination suffered by hon-native English-speaking teachers (NNESTs) bring to light (Clark and Paran 2007; Flynn and Gulikers 2001; Mahboob et al. 2004; Selvi 2010). There are employers in the profession who unfortunately operate under the paradigms of the native-speakerist ideology (Selvi 2014) by either showing a preference or looking exclusively for native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) or by implicitly regarding the nativeness condition as a relevant criterion in the hiring process, which grants those who are regarded as native speakers with a higher market value than those who are not (Aneja 2014; Llurda 2016; Mahboob and Golden 2013; Selvi 2010).

This can, in turn, lead to anxiety and poor self-confidence in NNESTs for not being able to reach the elusive native ideal (Aneja 2014). Rajagopalan (2005) and Bernat (2008) show that NNESTs often admire the idealized native speaker and relegate themselves as less legitimate users of the language. This has been metaphorically labelled as “impostor syndrome” (Bernat 2008) and “Stockholm syndrome” (Llurda 2009). Therefore, the impact of such pervasive ideology goes beyond native-based ELT materials and practices themselves, and also affects the confidence, self-image, and motivation of NNESTs, who often struggle to prove their worth and validity (Mahboob and Golden 2013; Wright 2022).

ELT practices should account for the contemporary role of English as a global lingua franca in a way that was not necessary a few decades ago (Llurda 2018; Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2019). To this end, there is a definite need for a shift from a native-based perspective to a more realistic sociolinguistic representation of English, which responds to the changes involving both World Englishes (WE) and ELF (Sifakis et al. 2018).

2.2 ELF-awareness in ELT

At this point it is clear that the sociolinguistic landscape of English has triggered the need for a new understanding of the learners’ needs and goals in ELT. As McKay (2002) argues: “the teaching and learning of an international language must be based on an entirely different set of assumptions than the teaching and learning of any other second and foreign language” (McKay 2002: 1). With this in mind, ELF researchers have begun to challenge established principles in ELT by presenting proposals accounting for an ELF-aware perspective. More specifically, they have pointed to the definite need for a shift from an Anglophone-only perspective to a more realistic creation of materials and practices aligned with the global reality of English (Matsuda 2012; Sifakis et al. 2018).

Scholars in the field (e.g., Brown 2012; Galloway 2018; Seidlhofer 2003) claim that the goal of an ELF approach is not that of replacing current ELT materials and practices. Instead, the aim is to evaluate the extent to which the current ELT syllabus may be informed and enriched by embracing an ELF-aware perspective. In other words, adopting an ELF perspective entails a re-evaluation and enhancement of current pedagogical approaches in the light of ELF research and, therefore, a reconsideration of established teaching materials and practices (Sifakis et al. 2018). To this date, there have been several studies (e.g., Dewey and Patsko 2018; Kemaloglu-Er and Bayyurt 2019; Lopriore and Vettorel 2019) that have begun to examine how ELF can be incorporated in teacher education programmes.

To achieve this goal, Sifakis and Bayyurt (2018) propose an ELF-aware teacher education programme involving three phases. The first phase has to do with being critically engaged with the growing ELF literature as well as exposed to a wide range of examples of ELF interactions. In this way, teachers will become aware of the real spread of English globally and the diversity of contexts and uses as well as the importance of accommodation skills to enhance communication among English users.

Although awareness-raising on the role of English as a lingua franca is necessary, it is not a sufficient condition. In order to move beyond the British and American representations of English, teachers need to shift their inner perspective about the pluralistic reality of English and the implications this may have on their own teaching contexts (Sifakis et al. 2018). For this reason, in the second phase, teachers need to reflect upon the implications of what they have learnt in their own teaching context. This may involve considering the principles that had been assumed up to that point regarding the English language, such as the preponderance of native speakers, the issue of ownership of the language and the extent to which a Standard English is relevant for their learners (Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018). Effectively, a useful starting point is that of questioning whether the materials in use acknowledge ELF and whether the target interlocutors and the role models are relevant in ELF contexts, as well as exploring how culture is presented and whether students’ first language (L1) is represented as a hindrance or a resource (Galloway 2018).

The last stage has to do with taking action and, therefore, adopting an ELF-aware perspective that takes into consideration activities and materials which prepare students for real-life encounters. An ELF-oriented approach exposes learners to authentic ELF usage that includes a great deal of interactions among non-native speakers of the language (Sifakis et al. 2018). In effect, the idea of exposing students to authentic ELF usage is of crucial importance in order to challenge students’ default assumption that English belongs to the Inner Circle and that proficiency in the language implies strictly conforming to Inner Circle norms (Lopriore and Vettorel 2019). An ELF-aware approach could, to this end, consider including successful bilinguals from the Outer and the Expanding Circles as language and pedagogic models to demonstrate it is not necessary to sound like a native speaker and to empower L2 speakers as rightful users of a global lingua franca (Brown 2012; Guerra and Cavalheiro 2019; Llurda 2018).

With this aim, at the level of speaking, an ELF-aware teacher focuses on intelligibility, which should be developed as communicational, rather than focussing on the mimicking of native-speaker pronunciation (Llurda 2022; Sifakis et al. 2018). Native-like pronunciation is not a goal, and fluency, intelligibility, and comprehensibility are prioritized over accuracy. In a similar vein, through the ELF lens, errors are only considered problematic when they hinder second language (L2) communication, but not when they simply differ from standard norms without affecting the communicative goal of the message (Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018).

In addition, ELF-aware practices can also be achieved by means of explicit integration of ELF-related concepts through pedagogical aids such as readings, videos and discussions. Issues to be raised are, for instance, non-native varieties of English and the respective status and roles of native and non-native speakers, which are aimed at enabling students to reflect upon the role of English as a lingua franca (Kemaloglu-Er and Bayyurt 2019). As an example, Galloway and Rose (2018) illustrate in their study how a Global Englishes approach can be embraced in the English classroom by making students explicitly aware of the variation of English by means of oral presentations.

In essence, taking an ELF-aware approach means, in the first place, considering and acknowledging the diversity of English and incorporating such diversity into classroom practices. Therefore, the future of ELF-aware teaching lies in the teachers’ willingness to critically engage with current materials and practices and enrich them through an ELF lens, which will pave the way for a realistic approach, reflective of what happens in real communication through English in global contexts (Seidlhofer 2003). In this way, “ELF will eventually appear a desirable goal rather than a poor version of an idealised NS model” (Llurda and Mocanu 2019: 175).

2.3 Pre-service teachers and ELF

Teacher education is of crucial importance for teachers to critically evaluate current ELT materials and practices and develop an ELF-awareness that guides their teaching orientation (Sifakis and Tsantila 2019). Some recent studies have explored the effects of ELF-aware education in pre-service teachers (Dewey and Pineda 2020; Jeong et al. 2022), but more research needs to be done in this direction. This paper contributes to fill this gap by investigating the effect of different factors on pre-service teachers’ ideologies and attitudes towards English in the Spanish context.

One relevant study is Dewey and Pineda’s (2020) exploration of how the attitudes of pre-service and in-service teachers in Spain and the UK changed after being exposed to ELF-related topics. More specifically, 81 participants completed an online survey after receiving two sessions of training. The results showcase that many teachers not only expressed awareness and understanding of English as a dynamic, diverse, and global lingua franca, but they highlighted the need to move away from more conventional native-oriented ways of conceptualizing the language and to become aware of the impact that this may have in their pedagogic choices in the classroom practice.

In the Chinese context, Fang and Ren (2018) examined the influence of a course on English as World Language on Chinese university students’ awareness of their own English and Global Englishes. After a 16-week course in which the spread and use of English worldwide as well as language attitudes in relation to ELT were discussed, the participants took part in semi-structured interviews aimed at shedding some light on attitudinal changes towards students’ own English and their perception of English as a global language. On the whole, the students gained a more pluricentric perspective of the language and they challenged some deep-rooted concepts of traditional ELT. After being exposed to ELF-aware education, they reported positive attitudes towards their own English, being more confident and less ashamed to use non-standard English, provided that intelligibility was achieved, as well as being more tolerant to other users’ non-standard varieties.

More recently, Jeong et al. (2022) investigated the attitudes of pre-service teachers from Spain and Sweden towards English and its users after engaging in an online collaboration, in which they were ELF users themselves. More positive attitudes and perceptions about their own and their partner students’ English were reported after international contact with the language, thus supporting the results obtained in the two above-mentioned studies. This can be related to previous research indicating that study abroad experiences might also contribute to developing a higher appreciation of non-native varieties (Llurda 2008), and so we intend to look at this specific variable. In essence, research unveils positive outcomes of ELF-aware education in pre-service teachers, which is key to move from awareness to an implementation of an ELF-aware perspective in English language pedagogy, though it still remains to be seen how deep these changes impact on teachers’ explicit and implicit attitudes and ideologies. With this aim, we have attempted to measure how different variables affect (i) teachers’ degree of identification with an ‘NS profile’, and (ii) their judgement of the gravity of four different non-standard sentences, two of which are totally intelligible, and the other two rather unintelligible without further contextual information.

3.1 Participants

More specifically, the participants of our study were 569 students of English-related BA, MA and PhD degrees from 19 Spanish universities. Their ages ranged from 18 to 56 (m = 21.55). At the moment of responding to the questionnaire, they were studying the following degrees: BA in English studies, BA in Translation in English, BA in Primary school English teaching, MA in English studies, MA in English Language Teaching, and English-related PhD degrees. Most participants were undergraduates (94 %), with a balanced distribution of each of the four years,^[1] (all ranging from 120 to 156 participants), only 4 % were Master’s students, and the remaining 2 % PhD candidates.

3.2 Instruments

The online questionnaire was originally drafted and subsequently piloted with a selected group of three experts and a small group of recent BA graduates in order to assess its validity, identify potential problems and ensure its usefulness. The questionnaire was distributed in two versions: Catalan in Catalan-speaking universities (located in Catalonia, Balearic Islands and Valencian Autonomous Community) and Spanish in the remaining parts of Spain.

It consisted of both 1–5 Likert-scale questions (with options ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’) and open-ended ones. The former were aimed at putting to the fore whether the respondents veered towards a native or an ELF-aware orientation in relation to English. Thus, we could place students alongside a continuum of more or less ‘native-speaker orientation’. Some examples would entail enquiring the participants about how much they disagree or agree on statements such as: ‘I am satisfied with the English I speak’, ‘My learning goal is to speak like a native speaker’, or ‘Textbooks should exclusively promote a standard variety (preferably British or American English)’.

The open-ended questions were aimed at clarifying and unveiling nuances and, more importantly, getting a hint on the reasoning behind responses given in the Likert-scale questions. By way of example, participants were enquired to further explain the reasoning behind their grading of the perceived error gravity of four different non-standard forms. They were asked to rate each of them from less serious (1) to more serious (5). Through the open-ended question, we could see what reasons lay underneath their selected number and what ideology informed their chosen number. It is rather clear to us that the combination of both qualitative and quantitative data in the questionnaire allowed for a deeper understanding of the rationale behind students’ responses.

3.3 Procedure

Once we had drafted and piloted the questionnaire, and had made subsequent changes to it, we set to distribute it online with the help of Google Forms. The link to the questionnaire was distributed among colleagues in as many Spanish universities as could be reached, with the specific request for them to send the link out to as many students as they could, provided they were studying a degree within the parameters of the study. Thus, in a sense, we could state that we used a snowball sample within the limits of the specific population we were aiming at (students of English-related degrees), maximized by the easiness of distribution provided by the online support of the questionnaire. The turnout from each university varied, but we received an overall high number of responses (N = 569) from a total of 19 universities, representing more than half of the 37 Spanish universities that are currently offering English-related degrees. Such high figure allowed us to conduct statistical analyses using the SPSS software package.

3.4 Data analysis

As for the data analysis, first of all we matched our two dependent variables with the corresponding items in the questionnaire. The ‘native speaker profile’ variable emerged from the combination of seven items pointing to a native-centred idea of the language (see the Appendix). The second dependent variable specifically addressed the perception of error gravity, and it comprised four different ‘errors’ in Standard English, exemplifying different levels of gravity through an ELF-intelligibility lens: from non-grammatical or non-standard sentences that did not affect intelligibility at all (i.e., She didn’t do nothing; He sing well) to sentences that were totally unintelligible (i.e., The father of my mother is not at all; My book is not feel anything).

As for independent variables, we focused on the following: (i) Year of studies: 1st to 4th for BA, and 5th for MA and PhD, which have been grouped in three categories, the first one being 1st and 2nd year for the BA, the second one being 3rd and 4th year for the BA and finally, MA and PhD students; (ii) Stay abroad: when participants had been abroad for a minimum of three months; (iii) ELF-aware education: whether they had taken any course discussing the role of English as a global lingua franca during their studies. Finally, a fourth variable was used, although this was rather ambivalent, because it could be taken as either dependent or independent. The participants were asked to choose which one of two images would best represent the contents of an English textbook. The two options were a world map and an image containing both the British and American flags. Although we are aware that this is by nature not an independent variable – given that some other independent factors may have affected their choice – we decided to also take this choice as an indicator of their spontaneous inclination towards a Pro-native orientation (the flags) or a more international ELF-aware vision of English (the world map).

As one of the aims of the study was to explore the effect of independent variables on the dependent ones, taking into consideration the possible interactions among independent variables, we recruited an expert statistician to help us apply the General Linear Model on SPSS, seeking to explore how the independent variables related to the dependent ones. In addition to the statistical analysis of quantitative data, open-ended questions were thematically analysed and thus potential themes emerging from the data were spotlighted. As suggested above, the combination of both quantitative and qualitative data in the questionnaire was ideal to unveil how factors such as being exposed to ELF-aware education, a study-abroad experience, or the year of education come into play in the construction of pre-service teacher’s ideas on English and its role as a global lingua franca.

4.1 Quantitative data: Likert-scale questions

4.2 Qualitative data: error gravity judgement explanation

The argumentation offered by respondents to justify their choice in the error gravity judgement for each of the four non-standard sentences was thematically analysed. Both researchers separately looked at the explanations provided, and proceeded to identify and group them under a commonly labelled theme. After jointly checking and discussing the resulting categorizations, the ensuing list of themes is presented below, with some prototypical examples of students’ responses that epitomize their reactions to each of the four sentences.^[2]

More specifically, each of the six themes emerge from, illustrate and justify the reasoning behind the participants’ judgement of the four non-standard sentences: (i) ‘Intelligiblity on top’: referring to intelligibility in order to justify their ratings; (ii) ‘Norm on top’: referring to the norm in order to justify their ratings; (iii) ‘Native usage on top’: referring to native usage in order to justify their ratings, (iv) ‘Relative to context, proficiency, and variety’: stating that the gravity of the non-standard form depends on the context, proficiency, and variety; (v) ‘Incorrect but tolerable’: deeming the sentence as incorrect, but still tolerable; and finally, (vi) ‘Intolerable error’: considering this non-standard form as an intolerable and fatal error. Occasionally, the respondents provided more than one reasoning for their ratings. In such cases, we considered the most representative and the one placed at the centrepiece of their judgement. However, on some occasions, participants would place equal importance in various themes and we opted for considering both themes. Table 8 summarizes the occurrences of the different themes for each of the four sentences.

1. She didn’t do nothing

   1. Intelligibility on top

      1. El significat/missatge s’entén sense cap problema (The meaning/message is understood without any problem)

      2. El receptor entiende el mensaje a la perfección (The receiver understands the message perfectly)

   2. Native usage on top

      1. Ho acceptaria perquè una persona nativa també ho faria (I would accept it because a native person would do it too).

      2. No és tan greu perquè a vegades nadius fan servir la doble negació encara que no sigui prescriptiu (It is not so serious because sometimes native speakers use a double negative even though it is not prescriptive).

   3. Relative to context, proficiency and variety

      1. Dependiendo de su grado de proficency (no sé, la palabra en castellano) estaría mejor o peor aceptado. Aunque no es gramaticalmente correcto se entiende perfectamente lo que quiere decir, e incluso es la forma de hablar de ciertas personas nativas (Depending on their degree of proficiency, it would be better or worse accepted. Although it is not grammatically correct, what the person means is perfectly understood, and it is even the way of speaking of certain native people).

   4. Incorrect but tolerable

      1. Tot i que s’utilitza en alguns dialectes, es tracta d’un error gramatical, però que no representa un problema comunicatiu greu (Although it is used in some dialects, it is a grammatical error but it is not a serious communication problem).

2. He sing well

   1. Intelligibility on top

      1. Deixar-se la s no em sembla tan greu com ho pinten molts professors (Forgetting the s doesn’t seem to be as serious as many teachers present it).

      2. Se entiende el significado. Claro que si el objetivo es que aprenda el Presente Simple hay que marcarle el error en escrito. En oral podría ser aceptable. (En unos años la -s del presente simple habrá desaparecido, my opinion) (The meaning is understood. Of course, if the objective is for the student to learn the Present Simple, the error must be pointed out in writing. In oral, it could be acceptable [In a few years the -s in the present simple will have disappeared, my opinion]).

   2. Norm on top

      1. Perquè quan s’ensenya s’ha d’intentar donar la forma més “correcta” possible, i després en l’ús quotidià ja es faran certes variacions (Because when teaching, one should try to give the most “correct” possible form, and then in everyday use, certain variations will be made).

      2. Es un fallo muy común, pero que hay que corregir siempre. La tercera persona del singular siempre lleva la –s (It is a very common mistake but it must always be corrected. The third person singular always has the -s).

   3. Native usage on top

      1. No es gramaticalmente correcto, pero puede escucharse en algunos hablantes nativos, incluso en canciones (50 cent) (It is not grammatically correct but can be heard as said by some native speakers, even in songs [50 cent]).

      2. Malgrat que seria sings, moltes vegades he vist a natius escriure així (Although it would be sings, I have seen native speakers writing like this many times).

   4. Relative to context, proficiency and variety

      1. Com a la pregunta 10a, depenent del nivell puntuaria diferent, i tampoc és un error que dificulti que una persona angloparlant entengui la frase (As in question 10a, depending on the level I would rate it differently, and it is not an error that would make it difficult for an English speaker to understand the sentence).

      2. En el inglés estándar y eurocéntrico que aprendemos durante la carrera, formas como la 10b son erróneas. A pesar de que soy consciente de que en algunos lugares/dialectos se usa esa forma (In the standard Eurocentric English that we learn during the degree forms like 10b are wrong. However, I am aware that in some places/dialects that form is used).

   5. Incorrect but tolerable

      1. Not correct but it would be understood anyway.

      2. No me parece grave, puesto que a mucha gente incluso de mi carrera se le escapa la -s de la 3^a persona. Por supuesto, hay que corregirlo, pero no es muy grave (I don’t think it’s serious since many people, even in my degree, miss the -s in the 3rd person. Of course, it needs to be corrected but it is not very serious).

   6. Intolerable error

      1. Trobo que es un dels errors més comuns en anglès. Crec que és intolerable perquè és una regla fàcil d’aprendre (I think it is one of the most common mistakes in English. I think that it is intolerable because it is an easy rule to learn).

      2. Es un error fatal (It is a fatal error).

3. The father of my mother is not at all

   1. Intelligibility on top

      1. No entenc el significat de l’oració. No entenc l’objectiu de l’alumne amb aquesta (I don’t understand the meaning of the sentence. I don’t understand the student’s goal).

      2. No s’entén bé el missatge, per la qual cosa és un error més greu (The message is not well understood, so it is a more serious error).

   2. Norm on top

      1. La frase está mal formulada. Por un lado, siguiendo la economía del lenguaje, sería más natural el uso del genitivo sajón ‘My mother’s father’, y por otro lado, ‘is not at all’ necesitaría un adjetivo detrás que le diera un significado completo al mensaje, ya que queda incompleto (The sentence is poorly formulated. On the one hand, following the economy of language, it would be more natural to use the Saxon genitive ‘My mother’s father’, and on the other hand, ‘is not at all’ would need an adjective behind it to give a complete meaning to the message since it is incomplete).

      2. Es preferible usar un genitivo sajón (It is preferable to use a saxon genitive).

      3. La mejor y más correcta opción sería emplear el posesivo ’s (The best and most correct option would be to use the possessive ‘s).

   3. Native usage on top

      1. Representa una manca de vocabulari i una traducció literal del català/castellà que resultaria poc comprensible per al parlant nadiu (It shows a lack of vocabulary and a literal translation from Catalan/Spanish that would make it difficult for a native speaker to understand it).

      2. Se puede decir aunque no parece natural para un nativo (It can be said although it does not seem natural for a native speaker).

   4. Incorrect but tolerable

      1. La diferència entre aquesta estructura i les anteriors és que degut a l’ordre dels elements de la frase el sentit de la frase no és clar, mentre que a les dues anteriors sí. De totes maneres he entès el seu sentit, així que NO la marco com intolerable (The difference between this structure and the previous ones is that, due to the order of the elements of the sentence, the meaning is not clear, while in the two previous ones it is. Anyway, I have understood it, so I do NOT mark it as intolerable).

4. My book is not feel anything

   1. Intelligibility on top

      1. Ací ja no s’entén el que volem dir, per tant, considere que la coherència resulta important a l’hora d’expressar-nos I comunicar-nos amb altres persones (Here we no longer understand the meaning, so I believe that coherence is important when expressing ourselves and communicating with other people).

      2. No té sentit, ja que el llibre no pot sentir. Més preocupant pel contingut que per la forma (It makes no sense, since the book cannot feel. We should worry more about content than form).

Some aspects of the distribution of categories corresponding to each of the four sentences are worth mentioning. First, the appearance of an exclusive category to account for the verb without the third person singular -s (sentence 2). We have named such category ‘Intolerable error’, as it is in this particular case where respondents more adamantly express their rejection of this structure by labelling it as unacceptable, fatal or intolerable. No other sentence received such severe judgements. Still in the same sentence, we find the category ‘Norm on top’, which reinforces some respondents’ perceived need of applying standard English norms when they encounter this type of ‘error’. ‘Norm on top’ also appears in the third sentence, which is one of the rather unintelligible ones. Yet, the norm is often summoned in order to challenge the lack of use of the Saxon genitive in ‘the father of my mother’, and it is striking to observe that some of the commentaries take issue on this formal aspect, rather irrelevant from an ELF perspective, but totally ignore the problematic intelligibility of the sentence as a whole.

Another remarkable aspect is the appearance of the category ‘Intelligibility on top’ in all cases, which certainly point to the fact that there are indeed pre-service teachers who clearly place intelligibility at the centre and refer to it even in the sentences in which intelligibility is not completely absent. Next to ‘Intelligibility on top’ we find ‘Native usage on top’ and ‘Incorrect but tolerable’ as the next most frequent ones. The case of the former is interesting because it shows to what extent, for many pre-service teachers, the ultimate threshold to determine whether a particular sentence is acceptable or not is native speaker usage, thus depriving non-native speakers of agency in choosing the forms of English that they will use in lingua franca interactions. According to this view, ELF interactions are only valid as long as they reproduce native speaker interactions, which precisely shows a very low level of ELF-awareness.

Finally, and rather predictably, the last sentence is generally characterized as unintelligible with no further argumentation used to justify its dismissal. It appears that lack of intelligibility overshadows other possible arguments. However, in light of the responses given to the previous sentence (with a grammar element of dispute found in the absence of the Saxon genitive in the father of my mother), one may only wonder if some respondents would have ignored the lack of intelligibility and would have focussed instead on the violation of a grammatical rule, had the sentence contained such an obvious violation.