[10] Major technological advances in the 21st century have enabled instant global communication, thus breaking the barriers of space and time between different locations on the planet.
Existing corpora of ELF (VOICE and ELFA, for example) tend to focus on interactions that involve primarily native speakers[27] (Kimura, 2017).
[29][30] Most data on ELF interactions has been drawn from the domains of business and higher education,[31] and that in largely European contexts, perhaps factors accounting for the relatively rare instances of miscommunication.
[32] Studies of Medical English as a Lingua Franca (MELF)[33] provide opportunities to investigate ELF interactions where communicative precision is critical, and the migration of healthcare practitioners across international borders (a phenomenon consistent with the "deterritorialisation" of ELF generally),[34] has created conditions where MELF interactions are increasingly commonplace.
[35] One study of a Japanese medical English as a lingua franca (MELF) context[36] showed that student doctors made use of empathic accommodation and solicitation strategies to make interactions more intelligible.
Applying nonverbal cues was seen as being of importance to encourage simulated patients to express concerns, because silence may be interpreted as a sign of potential problems.
In contrast, English as a lingua franca users tend to focus on effective communication with speakers of other linguistic backgrounds.
Here, the speaker's ability to move away from the traditional speech patterns of the native varieties is argued to be an important part of ELF research.
Cogo further cites various studies in the field that have demonstrated that ELF communication is fluid and innovative, with an emphasis on highly variable linguistic forms.
Sewell[50] argued that the debate about ELF between Sowden and Cogo fails to acknowledge the variation that characterises language use today.
He claims that it is counterproductive to polarise ELF and non-ELF and native and non-native speakers, as there is great diversity in all areas of English language usage.
Dewey[51] criticises Sewell's critical position on the debate, showing how it lacks substance and largely misrepresents the field.
Regarding the first stance, some linguists claim that variation in ELF is completely haphazard and devoid of any patterns, and therefore not worth studying.
The other line of criticism argues that concepts such as ELF provide a useful (terminological) veneer for continued (linguistic) domination by English-speaking countries through their political, educational, and cultural institutions.
Another example is the case of Juliane House,[56] a German scholar who explains in her article "English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism?"
One of the key aspects of terminology used in the ELF field of enquiry is that a standardized version of any English variety is not implied, with the dynamic, situated and complex nature of language brought to the fore.