Linguacultural Representations in Specialized Migration Discourse: A Lexicographic Perspective

,


Introduction
The emerging new linguistic landscapes appearing from migration encounters in Europe are particularly indicative of the impact that multilinguals and their multicultural backgrounds may have on the current research in applied linguistics.The investigation of intercultural interactions (e.g., Firth, 2009;Jenkins et al., 2011;Mauranen, 2012), involving not only English but a multilingual repertoire pertaining to each speaker, shows that they control and adjust to their interlocutors, engaging in the "strategic negotiation of the linguistic resources" that allow "the co-construction of understanding" (Seidlhofer, 2011, p. 198).Multilingual repertoires can be described as emergent linguistic and communicative practices that interlocutors naturally and spontaneously adopt to foster mutual understanding and to create a proactive interactional space.Research findings indicate that speakers in multilingual communicative contexts demonstrate attitudes and abilities to creatively exploit their linguacultural resources in ways that affect the lexical dimensions of the standardized forms of the language, especially English (Mauranen, 2012;Seidlhofer, 2011)."It is thus not so much uniformity of form, but communicative alignment, adaptation, local accommodation and attunement that would appear to underpin successful lingua franca interactions" (Firth, 2009, p. 163).
As a result, the focus is here on the influence that lexical actualizations in authentic spoken encounters, in migration contexts, as well as in written productions have on the current role and function of English as an international language which deserve attention and consideration from a lexicographic perspective.

Emerging Multilingual Landscapes: The Role of Migration
In the last three decades the intensification of social fragmentation processes ascribable to the recent tidal migration flows taking place almost all over the world, together with the growing diffusion of new technologies, social networks and multimodal communication, have contributed to creating new sociolinguistic environments while transforming the linguistic landscape of most cities (Dendrinos, 2012;Shohamy & Gorter, 2009).
We are now witnessing the highest levels of displacement on record; as shown by the latest data released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), at the end of 2022, 108.4 million around the world have been forced from home.Among them are refugees, even under the age of 18, displaced people, and asylum seekers.There are also millions of stateless people who have been denied a nationality and access to basic rights such as education, healthcare, employment and freedom of movement.Europe has been a crossroads of human mobility since ancient times.Throughout history, the region has been a central part of global migration systems which its states helped to establish and shape.Europe also played a crucial role in developing a set of rules and norms regulating human mobility in the region.Within the last decades, European states have witnessed the mobility of high-and low skilled workers from Central and Eastern Europe to Western and Southern Europe as well as new waves of immigration from North and Central Africa, Latin America and Asia to Southern Europe.Meanwhile, the geopolitical conflicts in Ukraine, in the Middle East and in North Africa prompted an increase in the numbers of arrivals in Southern Europe of asylum seekers trying to reach Northern European destinations.In this perspective, the European Union (EU) has adopted various sets of rules and frameworks to manage legal migration flows for asylum seekers, highly skilled workers, students and researchers, seasonal workers, and family reunification.Regarding other migration flows, the EU has adopted common rules for processing asylum requests: first of all, the same procedure to relocate thousands of asylum seekers from Greece and Italy, and re-admission agreements for returning illegal migrants.Asylum is granted to people who are fleeing persecution, war or serious harm in their own country and, therefore, in need of international protection.In practice, anyway, the current system is still characterised by differing treatment of asylum-seekers and varying recognition rates amongst EU Member States.This divergence is what encourages secondary movements and is partly due to the fact that the current rules grant Member States a lot of discretion in how they apply the common EU rules.The EU now needs to put in place the tools to better manage migration flows.The overall objective is to move from a system which encourages uncontrolled or irregular migratory flows to one which provides safe pathways to the EU for third country nationals.
The migration of people moving for economic or political reasons from different countries or geographical areas in Asia, the Middle East and Africa as well as from South America, towards Europe, is still taking place in several countries, modifying the sociolinguistic features of the European cities, as well as determining a change in the societal conditions of their now multilingual and multicultural population.It is within these new scenarios that languages themselves are undergoing a unique transformative process, particularly expanding their lexis with new loan words and with multiethnolects (Cheshire et al., 2015), as well as extending traditional communicative functions and notions of contact language and interculturality (Baker, 2015(Baker, , 2020)), in order to sustain successful communication among speakers with different mother tongues, using either the country official language or a third language, that is very often English (Hoffman, 2020).In these new multilingual and multicultural contexts, mediation has become an essential measure aimed at reducing the distance between two (or more) poles of otherness, a notion officially introduced by the Council of Europe's Common European Framework of Reference (2020), where mediation acquires a crucial role as a new form of managing the interaction in language learning as well as in daily communicative situations.
Mediation has recently been more and more related to migration policies, socio-cultural inclusion, intercultural communication, language teaching, translation strategies and the use of English as a global language or as a lingua franca (henceforth, ELF) (Lopriore, 2015;Sperti, 2017).Mediation and mediation strategies are central in communication contexts where non-native speakers interact in environments where there is an increasing use of English as a lingua franca.Mediation emerges as a process activated in ELF communication, as it facilitates socialization and cooperation among participants who 'otherwise may not be able to participate' (Hynninen, 2011, p. 965).In European contexts, the flow of migrants within countries traditionally identified as monolingual and monocultural, has radically changed the linguistic landscapes giving place to multicultural and plurilinguistic scenarios where communication is inevitably 'intercultural' and mostly carried out in a lingua franca such as ELF.In this conceptual perspective, authentic processes of cross-cultural mediation, especially in migration contexts, are very often characterized by the employment of ELF lexical variations.The negotiation of meaning is carried out through the simultaneous action of different linguistic levels-namely linguistic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic ones-variously and creatively exploited by ELF users.Indeed, speakers reveal the use of different strategies of appropriation of the English language according to L1 linguacultural schemata and pragmalinguistic processes.In these multifaceted interactional dimensions, the exchange of speech acts affects the whole communicative process, from speakers' prosodic strategies to lexical and conversational dynamics (Sperti, 2017).The "mediator" is called to bridge gaps and overcome misunderstandings, to meet Kramsch's (1993) "third space" in which a speaker/learner might take some distance from his/her cultural norms to think critically and act as a social agent in two-pole interactions.

English as a Lingua Franca, Language Mediation and Migration Discourse
The spread of English as a global lingua franca and the attention to the related socio-linguistic phenomena is unquestionable as confirmed by the large amount of research about ELF in the last decades.As claimed by Mauranen (2018, p. 8), ELF is "English is spoken in situations with widely varying combinations of participants, including first-language speakers of different varieties".In other words, it may be defined as "a contact language between speakers or speaker groups when at least one of them uses it as a second language" (Mauranen, 2018, p. 8).
Seen from this perspective, the use of English as a shared common language is particularly frequent in migration contexts where speakers from different socio-cultural and pragmalinguistic backgrounds exchange meaning for communicative purposes.In migration domains, mediating settings involve Western experts-namely legal advisors or officers, and mediators-and non-Western migrants (asylum-seekers and refugees included) interacting in professional contexts.As previously highlighted, in such communicative conditions ELF consists of variations developed from speakers' L1 structures transferred onto English.In other terms, ELF users act according to a process of authentication (Widdowson, 1979), shaping the English language by means of and according to their native pragmalinguistic conventions.The pragmalinguistic investigation of such interactions allows (i) to detect lexical processes and forms of appropriation across different socio-cultural backgrounds, and (ii) to define linguacultural representations emerging in ELF encounters, at times ending in communication failure or miscommunication (Guido, 2008;Sperti, 2017).
Mediation is an everyday activity occurring in public, educational, academic, and professional settings and in today's globalised world, very frequently, it is cross-linguistic.This is particularly true in migration contexts where both migrants and professionals who work with migrants often find themselves in situations in which they constantly need to intervene to create pluricultural space, facilitate communication, avoid misunderstandings and manage delicate situations.In this way speakers, involved at different levels, acquire and over time increase their intercultural awareness by means of linguacultural processes.Therefore, the investigation of language use and of mediation processes in these interactional situations has gained scientific interest in the last two decades, especially in the Mediterranean countries where migration flows are constant and their handling often very challenging (i.e., in Italy, Greece, Turkey and Spain).Mediation has been researched in the field of interlingual and intercultural communication in migration contexts (e.g.Guido, 2008Guido, , 2018;;Sperti, 2017), where the use of English as a lingua franca has been explored with the aim of detecting hybridization strategies of reformulation aimed at "making ELF discourse conform to the immigrants' different native linguacultural backgrounds in order to protect the social identities of participants in unequal encounters, facilitate the mutual conveyance of their culturally-marked knowledge, foster successful intercultural communication through ELF, and finally promote the social inclusion of marginalized immigrants" (Guido, 2015, p. 157).
At the same time, the use of ELF in mediating contexts is also characterized by forms of misunderstanding where non-Western migrants' native pragmalinguistic schemata collide with Western conformity to Standard-English models.In this unequal and unbalanced communicative infrastructure, successful mediation is challenged by speakers' pragmalinguistic behaviours that very frequently reveal conceptual gaps, cultural or ethical constraints, or cognitive and linguistic inaccessibility.Spontaneous cross-cultural interactions between asylum-seekers, language mediators and legal advisors are the basis for the research fieldwork of this paper whose aim is to provide a preliminary exploration, from a lexicographic perspective, of lexical variation in ELF (often associated to Italian lingua franca realizations), during cross-cultural exchanges that often involve the use of specialized spoken discourse in the context of legal counselling and assistance.

Research Focus: From English Variations to Lexicographic Divergences in Representing Migration Discourse
Such theoretical grounds are thus at the basis of the research objectives aimed at enquiring into the use of lexical strategies applied by ELF speakers from different L1 backgrounds in immigration domains, accounting for (i) the influence of existing L1 correlates and transfers into ELF variations; (ii) the construction of meaning and understanding in cross-cultural interactions through lexical strategies applied to the negotiation of speakers' attitudes, and socio-cultural 'schemata'; (iii) processes of lexical creativity in language mediation activated in specialized immigration domains emerging from cross-cultural legal-bureaucratic and post-traumatic conversational settings.In this perspective and in order to highlight the complexity of a linguacultural dimension, that struggles to find an effective representation in lexicographic resources dealing with migration discourse, the emerging English variations are here explored in two different actualizations: the first one concerning the institutional and official terminology employing the EU variety of English, the so-called Euro-English; and the second one emerging from real practices of intercultural exchanges in professional contexts, such as the centres for legal advice or healthcare services, where English is commonly employed as a lingua franca.

ESP Terminology in the EU Institutions and Euro-English Variations
In European institutions, English is the most widely spoken non-native language.It is particularly true after Brexit as suggested by Modiano in 2021, who argues that EU institutions should define and promote their own variety of English, complete with "punctuation, spelling, some grammar, and some vocabulary" (Note 1).
As matter of fact, Jenkins et al. (2001) underlined that lexical innovations eventually result in Euro-English: "through processes of discoursal nativization, wherein European expressions and conceptualisations that are foreign to native-speaker varieties become valuable communicative tools, and fossilization, where 'nonstandard' structures become acceptable forms of language, as well as the existence of distinct European 'accents,' a new variety of English peculiar to the European experience is taking form.The lexical register of mainland European non-native speakers of English, steeped in standard English usage, is augmented by a number of terms which are peculiar to the European experience" (Jenkins et al., 2001, p. 12) In the last two decades linguistic research on Euro-English and especially on lexical variations (e.g., Modiano, 2001Modiano, , 2003;;Simigné Feny, 2003;Murray, 2003;Mollin, 2006;Seidlhofer, 2004) has demonstrated that EU institutional communication arouses scientific interest and attention.Moreover, in 2016, senior translator at the European Court of Auditors, Jeremy Gardner, published an official report on the vocabulary developed by European institutions that often differs from that of any 'native' form of English.He included words that do not exist or are relatively unknown to native English speakers outside the EU institutions and words that are used with a meaning, often derived from other EU languages, that are not usually found in English dictionaries.Gardner (2016) reported the risk of a realistic miscommunication for both English native and non-native speakers: "the European institutions also need to communicate with the outside world and our documents need to be translated-both tasks that are not facilitated by the use of terminology that is unknown to native speakers and either does not appear in dictionaries or is shown in them with a different meaning.Finally, it is worth remembering that, whereas EU staff should be able to understand 'real' English, we cannot expect the general public to be au fait with the EU variety" (Gardner, 2016, p. 4).This is also true for the continuous process of formation and reformulation of the terminological dimension of migration law metalanguage.The constant transformation of the semantics of specialized terminology due to the changing nature of migration processes and policies within the EU, the incomplete standardization of an official lexicon and the need for the interlingual intelligibility of this terminology system generate an urgent need to rethink and reinterpret ways and approaches to lexicographic resources able to represent the multifaceted nomination of European migration and asylum policy.
The intense political and regulatory activity which occurred as a result of issues arising from migration and asylum in each Member State was accompanied by a consequent proliferation of terminology.This led to the creation of multilingual glossaries, manuals and public, more or less official, lexicographic resources, which all aim to familiarise citizens, officers and migrants, with the lexical and conceptual aspects linked to the migratory context.In particular, the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission has worked in recent years to encourage the comparison of terminology in many official languages of the European Union, as demonstrated by the compilation and publication of the Glossary on asylum and migration by the European Migration Network (EMN) which has been considered as a base for this study (Note 2).The Glossary is constantly updated, and the latest version (December 2022) includes approximately 540 terms and concepts in Euro-English reflecting the most recent EU policy on migration and asylum.It provides synonyms and translated terms into all EU Member States languages (English included) and a multi-word search tool.

Lexicography of Migration and ELF Corpora
What has been underlined so far relates directly to the linguacultural processes derived from the elimination of borders within the Schengen area, the proximity between cultures and the continuous exchange of people, knowledge and experiences over the past forty years.Therefore, issues and controversy related to legal as well as irregular migration across Europe have inevitably given rise to continuous political action in terms of policy, laws, and rules.As a consequence, growing and extensive work has been carried out in linguistics with respect to the words of migration, specifically focussing on the conceptual, semantic, and sociolinguistic aspects of their usage in different contexts.
Institutions around the world have developed databases aimed at defining the terms of greatest importance in the field of migration to allow consistency in their use and translation.The most important one in European contexts is the aforementioned EMN Glossary, which provides constantly updated information on the migration lexicon in EU institutions.By creating tools such as the EMN Glossary and the International Organisation of Migration's (IOM) Glossary on Migration (Note 3), political institutions attempt to foster and to promote the use of specialized terminology, which is expression of a specific political tendency.However, no indications are given about how the words presented in these glossaries might change when used in actual speech and daily exchanges in specialized contexts.In fact, tools like the official glossaries primarily focus on describing the words related to migration from a semantic dimension, to help the users understand the meaning of the words rather than their actual use in concrete communicative contexts such as international organisations, public administrations and services but also among individuals.In the Italian context, research studies such as Chiari (2021) and Longobardi and Pastorino (2023) testify a recent concern about lexicographic resources in migration discourse and their effective usability also in a translingual perspective.
As a matter of fact, authoritative multilingual resources such IATE (Interactive Terminology for Europe-Note 4) mainly focus on legal and administrative terminology related to EU regulations or best practices, often neglecting the deep linguacultural changes that intervene in the reception and interpretation of ESP terminology in each country.Moreover, most of the existing lexicographic resources are generally oriented toward EU languages and do not contain useful elements for interfacing and mediating with the languages of the beneficiaries of the legislation.This has direct consequences for the use of the available tools by mediators, officers, and operators.Issues and challenges raised by the migration lexicon are due to its internal stratification and to factors related to its production, i.e. international, national, regional, and local contexts, and to its reception, i.e. specialized (e.g., stakeholders, policymakers and operators) vs. non-specialized audience (e.g., migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers).
The complexity of the lexicographic dimension of migration discourse, especially in Europe, is inevitably related to the emerging role of ELF in national professional contexts where those terminological items are used and renegotiated by officers, migrants and asylum-seekers, and language mediators.Seen from this perspective, the substantial contribution corpus linguistics can give to lexicography seems crucial.As Firth (1957, p. 11) stated with his famous recommendation: "you shall know a word by the company it keeps", the use and the context where a word is used should be consciously acquired before attempting to define and describe it.
So far, the study of global English language use, in general, and of ELF interactions, in particular, is supported by the availability of specific corpora which however are not specifically compiled for the purpose of representing ELF migration discourse.The International Corpus of English (ICE) (Note 5) provides representative samples of Inner and Outer-circle varieties of English with "the primary aim of collecting material for comparative studies of English worldwide" (Nelson, 2011).The 26 English varieties corpus (26EV) offers a comprehensive representation of written English language use around the world.On the other hand, the Asian Corpus of English (ACE) (Note 6), the Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings (ELFA) (Note 7) and the Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) (Note 8) are corpora of naturally occurring English used as a lingua franca by multilingual speakers, in a wide range of speech events: interviews, press conferences, service encounters, seminar discussions, working group discussions, workshop discussions; occurring in several domains such as education, leisure, professional business, professional organisation, and professional research/science.Even though these resources continuously provide data and material for identifying and describing characteristic language features of ELF and World Englishes, there is still an urgent need to develop lexicographic strategies and tools that cover significant gaps in the language of migration at both international and national levels, especially when English is involved.

Investigating Linguacultural Representations in Specialized Migration Discourse from a Lexicographic Perspective
The investigation provided in this paper is only the preliminary step of ongoing and extensive work on the current lexicographic trends within the domain of migration discourse.Therefore, the data and results presented in section 5 are published with the intention of making available a preliminary methodological approach which can be used for further work both at the theoretical and analytical level.Starting from the assumptions derived from the previous theoretical background, the research objective is here to compare different lexicographic resources related to ESP migration discourse with a corpus of real and spontaneous ELF actualizations of specialized terminology, in order to inquire into the gaps and divergences in lexicographic tools, in terms of linguacultural representations and real uses of terms in professional contexts.
In order to reach this goal, first and foremost, the lexicon of migration has been considered according to three semantic macro-domains differentiated by specific pragmalinguistic features: a) an international or transnational domain, identified with the institution of the EU rules and regulations.Terminology at this level is defined as specialized Euro-English since it needs to be standardized at least for all EU languages and to be consistent with the documentation found in specific EU national regulations (s.section 5.1); b) a national or regional domain where procedures, practices, adaptations, and additions are expressed in the national language and proposed by each specific country administrative and general migration policies.Each EU country does in fact implement and define regulations and implementations in individual and not cross-nationally comparable ways.This level is affected by a certain degree of variability since migration policies, regulations and implementing decrees are constantly changing depending on government direction and overturns and on public opinion stances (e.g., in Italy, Security decrees have deeply changed in the last few years, according to the government policy).The second layer, being country-specific, represents the most controversial dimension in terms of usability, especially when ELF variations are used in communicative contexts where this terminology should be applied to real situations (s.section 5.2); c) ELF-oriented local lexicon relevant to real and actual migration management processes concerning aspects that migrants, officers and mediators must face in their interactions with institutions and services such as social security, healthcare, education, administrative bodies (s.Section 5.3).
These three macro-categories determined the selection of three case-studies here presented by means of a contrastive analysis based on the comparison of different (lexicographic) tools, i.e., the Oxford English Dictionary (OED); the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Glossary; the European Migration Network (EMN) Glossary; the NOW (News On the Web) Corpus, a web-based collection of newspapers and magazines freely accessible online (Note 9); and a corpus of ELF and Italian Lingua-Franca variations adopted in spontaneous interactions among migrants, mediators and legal advisors in different Italian public centres for assistance and counselling to asylum-seekers and refugees, collected during a period of ethnographic research, between 2014 and 2019 (Sperti, 2017).
The items here presented have been analysed according to criteria of typology, frequency, semantic dimensions, lexicogrammatical creativity, and linguacultural representation.The choice of the different lexicographic resources and of the ELF authenticated expressions was made with the aim of investigating the gaps in the emerging ELF-oriented linguacultural representations in specialized migration terminology.

Linguacultural Representations in Specialized Migration Discourse: Euro-English vs. ELF-Marked Specialized Terminology
Findings from analyses of various ELF corpora show that it is possible to advance the hypothesis that relatively constant dominant strategies of lexical variations emerge out of ELF speaker interactions in order to serve certain communicative functions.Pitzl et al. (2008), for example, reported different types of lexical innovations from VOICE.ELF speakers basically use these lexical innovations to increase explicitness and clarity, avoid potential ambiguity, reduce redundancy, regularize irregular forms and fill a lexical gap when speakers cannot recall a word.
What follows are the three case-studies under examination with the aim of comparing items pertaining to specialized terminology in migration both in Euro-English institutional contexts and in ELF-oriented local professional uses.

Euro-English and ELF Authentication Processes: Residence Permit vs. Stay Permit, Permit of Stay, Permit to Stay
The residence permit is one of the most used specialized terms in migration discourse since its role is crucial in the migratory process aimed to allow a migrant to stay legally in a host country.The OED's earliest evidence for residence permit is from 1846, in the writing of C. White.The term is simply defined as "permission to stay in a country".
In the IOM Glossary residence permit is "a document issued by the competent authorities of a State to a non-national confirming that he or she has the right to reside in the State concerned during the period of validity

Lexicogrammatical Creativity in ELF Spoken Interactions: Subsidiary Protection vs. *Sussidiarian Protection
Dealing with international protection in migration discourse is often very challenging.This is particularly true in the EU context where rules in terms of protection are transposed in the national law of all Member States with a certain degree of variability.
As a result, in the OED the controversial term subsidiary protection is not listed and no reference to the specific meaning related to the legal dimension is mentioned for the adjective subsidiary.In fact, in the UK this kind of protection is generally called humanitarian protection.In the IOM Glossary the subsidiary protection is not included but it is specified that "at the regional level, the European Union uses the term "subsidiary protection" to refer to complementary protection granted to persons who are not covered by the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees ((adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137) but are in need of international protection".
In the EMN Glossary subsidiary protection is defined as "the protection given to a third-country national or a stateless person who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if returned to their country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person to their country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm as defined in Art. 15 of Directive 2011/95/ EU (Recast Qualification Directive), and to whom Art.17( 1) and ( 2) of this Directive do not apply, and is unable or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country" (source: art.2(f) of Directive 2011/95/EC (Recast Qualification Directive)).Synonyms are international protection and person eligible for subsidiary protection, while related terms are (civil) war refugee, humanitarian protection and temporary protection.
In the NOW Corpus the term is quite rare and the occurrences are mostly retrieved in Irish sources; in Ireland this kind of protection is granted to asylum-seekers who are not recognized as refugees, but would suffer serious harm if they returned to their country of origin or of former habitual residence.
The ELF corpus reports an interesting example of regularization since subsidiary is changed to *sussidiarian (due to similarity to the Italian word sussidiaria) and easily used by all the participants involved in the exchange, as shown in the following extract: (2) S1: In Ghana you can come (.)The extract shows that even those who are in charge of giving legal advice services adopt ELF lexical strategies, determined by their L1, to creatively fill a lexical gap without jeopardizing the conversational exchange which instead progresses successfully.

ESP Terminology in Migration Discourse and ELF Authentication Processes: Appeal vs. Reappeal
The right to appeal is one of the most common reasons why an asylum-seeker asks for legal advice.The term, of Latin origin and borrowed from Old French, as reported by the OED, is one of the 5,000 most common words in modern written English.In the OED the verb to appeal, as regards the legal domain, is defined as "to call to a higher judge or tribunal for deliverance from the adverse decision of a lower; to remove a case formally from an inferior to a higher court".
In the IOM Glossary appeal is "a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by a higher authority, especially the submission of a lower court's or agency's decision to a higher court for review and possible reversal" (source: B.A. Garner (ed), Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed., Westlaw, 2014)).
In the EMN Glossary the right to appeal is defined as "a general principle of European ones seem to have emerged, thus raising the issue of their representation in dictionaries and glossaries.Even if it is still too early to determine the real impact of ELF lexical variation such as to require a rethinking of lexicographic resources, the fact that ELF existing words and expressions are now being used successfully in cross-cultural interactions seems to suggest that a more extensive investigation including a wider range of ELF communicative dimensions is needed.
The analysis of the three case studies has shown different pragmalinguistic strategies applied to the construction of messages through ELF, rather than using standard varieties of English, in intercultural encounters involving migrants, mediators and legal advisors.Cogo (2010, p. 296) described ELF exchanges as those "where people from various backgrounds in more or less stable communities engage in communicative practices that shape, construct and define the communities themselves".Cogo claimed that lexicogrammatical norms are negotiated by speakers for specific purposes by providing a shared repertoire of resources that assure mutual understanding.
On the other hand, the previous discussion underlined the complexity of migration issues which deserve special attention by specialists in many fields of science and from different points of view, applied linguistics included.
The rapid spread of English as a means of international communication, especially in migration contexts, requires a shift in theoretical, analytical, and pedagogical approaches to the study of English linguistics as well as of language learning, teaching and use.Lexicographic resources cannot be excluded from the current debate on lexical creativity and innovations in English.Detailed examinations of how speakers use the language as a lingua franca, in multilingual and ever-expanding interactional situations are more and more necessary.This is also true in the attempt to address the issues speakers with little or no competence in a foreign language face when trying to cope with the new linguistic and socio-cultural dimensions in the host country after leaving of fleeing from his/her home.At the same time, research studies in this field may help aiders and officers involved in migration contexts who could also benefit from lexicographic resources specifically prepared for institutional and interlingual communication.
It is unquestionable that ELF instantiations cannot be included in dictionaries or in other lexicographic resources, but the above discussion demonstrates that traditional terminology collections, such as glossaries or specialised dictionaries, are no longer able to meet and respond to their users' practical needs.A descriptive approach rather than a prescriptive one is required in the construction of lexicographic tools for migration discourse in the attempt to include all the semantic and the pragmalinguistic dimensions of a given term, especially when English is used as an international code to reach and connect people even in contexts where a specialized use of the language is required. Figure Union law set out in Art.47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which gives everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated the right to an effective remedy before a national authority or tribunal notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity" (source: derived by EMN from Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).A synonym is the right to an effective remedy, and related terms are Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and fundamental rights.
Not surprisingly the NOW Corpus confirms the frequent use of the verb as well as of the noun appeal in different legal contexts worldwide (see Figures3 and 4below).Linguistics appeal in the N al in the NOW ess that may o