I do not know about you but I hate acronyms. Yes, I know I have a convenience factor, but I seem to be potentially sinister, with the essence of George Orwell's Newspeak. Our field has its fair share of them, and woe to anyone who uses an evil. Never, for example, say ESL or TESOL, when you refer ESOL or TESOL. Why? because you might inadvertently insulting a student referring to ESL (English as a second language) when the student may be a speaker of several languages ??with English in some way by the law of the fittest: it is politically correct to speak of English for Speakers of Other Languages ??(ESOL). As this distinction has become important that the heavy hand of bureaucracy in the UK now requires people seeking British citizenship to prove they have at least entry-level ESOL 3 of the national "Life Skills" plan studies (odd distinction, after all you just need to "skills for death"). Review together now properly provide ESOL qualifications that seem to have eclipsed the old certificates EFL, making English as a foreign language somehow less relevant.

So they have EFL and TEFL lost their status? Not exactly, but involve the use of English in international situations, perhaps between non-native speakers. I still get a look at, but to teach English as "foreign" language requires different emphasis. For example, TESOL requiring the teacher to focus on situations and contexts that students will meet in everyday life in an English speaking country. TEFL, however, suggests an orientation toward travel and global situations. I do not argue that these distinctions have their uses but the problem is that you can see the potential for all sorts of new acronyms horizon. When we start teaching EIL (English as an international language) and the EIB (English for international business)? I gladly settle for a good, old-fashioned ELT (English Language Teaching).