Research exploring the role of English in Pakistani education system usually focuses on the use of English as the medium of instruction. However, in this paper I argue that English language should also be discussed in the context of its indispensibility in social mobility and survival in Pakistan. In fact, English plays a number of crucial roles in some developing countries, of which Pakistan is one (Mansoor, 2003; Rahman, 2002). In Pakistan, English is one of the official languages and a prerequisite for professional jobs (Rahman, 2005). Because of its use in the domains of power, English can be seen as a source of self-improvement and as a means of career success (Mansoor, 2003; Rahman, 2002). Thus, the knowledge of English is a key indicator of social class and people consider it superior to other languages (Shamim, 2008). However, the use of English in education is one of the main sources of failure for many ordinary people (Bruthiaux, 2002). English is used as a control mechanism to play a gate-keeping role in access to higher education and key social positions (Coleman, 2010; Rahman, 2002). The imposition of English in education and its perceived prestige create additional problems for low socioeconomic status (SES) students who often have limited access to English.
The study of the paradigmatic traits of teenage slang has shown that a sense of togetherness is predominant (Eble, 1996; Allen, 1998; Mattiello, 2005, 2008; Smith, 2011). This cohesive linguistic device is not consciously intended to exclude unwished members from conversations or common understanding, but the idea of relying on a preserved sense of solidarity and acceptance is a human urge, especially among teenagers or young adults (cf. Mattiello, 2005: 13). These features are a necessary starting point to understand that the colloquial nature or social restriction of these words and phrases are precisely aimed to 'establish or reinforce social identity within a group or with a trend or fashion in society at large' (Eble, 1996: 11).
To be engaged in the economic, political and technological processes of globalization, higher education institutions around the world have included internationalization as part of their long-term mission, and China is no exception. The number of international students on campus is a well-recognized index of the universities' internationalized status. According to the Ministry of Education (MOE) of the People's Republic of China, in 2016 there were 442,773 international students studying in China, 209,966 of whom were enrolled in degree programmes in Chinese higher education institutions, and 63,867 (47.42%) studied as postgraduate students (MOE, 2017).
With the spread of economic globalization and the accelerating demand for English, governments in East Asian countries have been updating their English-in-education policies so as to enhance the quality of English education in the region (Hu & McKay, 2012). Of all these policies, the introduction of English as a compulsory subject at younger and younger ages is 'possibly the world's biggest policy development in education' (Johnstone, 2009: 33). It is widely believed that those who start learning English at an earlier age can utilize their 'critical period' to learn English more efficiently (Nunan, 2003; Y. Hu, 2007). However, the expansion of teaching English to young learners has not been unanimously supported and there is no conclusive evidence for the benefits of early exposure to a new language (Copland, Garton & Burns, 2014). Some researchers point out 'the advantages of postponing formal teaching in specific contexts' (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2001: 163).
It is probably safe to say that whenever an expert encounters their field of expertise outside of science or academia, they shudder at misrepresentations, over-simplifications or flat out untruths. This sort of thing sometimes happens to me when I indulge in a bit of couch potato lounging and come across remarks about English or language in general on sitcoms. Thanks to Netflix, I can watch all the shows I missed when they first aired. I say this so that you, dear reader, will understand why my focus is on shows that aired several years ago and are now run as repeats or binge watched via streaming.
On February 17, 2018, the China International Publishing Group (CIPG), an organization under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee, released a report on the most recognized Chinese words in the English-speaking world. The data for 'A report on the awareness of Chinese discourse overseas' were obtained from two resources, i.e. (1) a number of articles selected from 50 mainstream media, and (2) questionnaires distributed in eight English-speaking countries, including the US, the UK, Australia, the Philippines, South Africa, Canada, Singapore, and India. It should be noted that the report only investigates the usage and understanding of Chinese words in their Pinyin forms (China Foreign Languages Publishing Administration, 2018).
Yiddish has served the English language as a comparatively minor donor language of words and meanings over the course of time. However, Yiddish has provided English with a number of borrowings that have become fairly common in present-day usage. This paper provides a rounded overview of the different lexical domains to which Yiddish contributed in the form of new words and expressions over the centuries, which has been relatively neglected in existing studies. The focus of linguistic concern is on those Yiddish-derived terms that have become established in current English.
The term 'structure in linguistics' is mostly used to refer to a sequence of units that are in a certain linguistic relationship to one another. Thus no matter how minimal a sequence is, if it can be analysed in terms of a relationship within it, then that is a structural unit. For example, one of the structures of a noun phrase may be 'article + adjective + noun' as in the vicious circle (Richards & Schmidts, 2002). Structures entail relationships which may be syntagmatic or paradigmatic. According to Finnegan (2014) when we say language structure we are essentially talking about syntax, semantics and phonology of a language. When it comes to idioms the same principles apply. The structures of idioms are essentially their syntactic behaviour. This behaviour cannot be predicted solely on the basis of their form or figurative meaning alone, but it must be due to some relation between the form and meaning (Gibbs & Nayak, 1989). An idiom is an institutionalised and conventionalized sequence of at least two words or free morphemes that is semantically restricted so that it functions as a single lexical unit, whose meaning cannot or can only to a certain extent be deduced from the meanings of its constituents. (Skandera, 2003: 60). To Nurnberg, Sag and Wasow (1994), idioms are characterised as having conventional meaning, figuration, inflexibility of form, and proverbiality. Idioms have been called 'multiword units' (Grant & Bauer, 2004), metaphors (Gibbs, 1993; Toris, 2011), phrasemes (Howarth, 1998), fixed expressions (Moon, 1997; Carter, 1998) and formulaic expressions (Wray, 2002). Structurally, idioms do not form a unique class of linguistic items such that all idioms belong to it, but that they share many of the same properties normally associated with more literal expressions.