Morocco is a multilingual country where the official languages, as indicated in the constitution of 2011, are standard Arabic and Tamazight, while French is the nation's second language, pervading sectors of business, administration, diplomacy and higher education. English and Spanish are used as foreign languages in many contexts for different purposes and tasks (Ennaji, 2009). Unlike French and Spanish, whose presence in the Moroccan linguistic situation is due to colonial policy in the 20th century, English does not ‘have a colonial legacy in Morocco’ (Buckner, 2011: 213). With ‘strong demand for a lingua franca’ brought about by the media, economic incentives and globalization, the presence of English has consequently been furthered in Morocco ‘as a global language’ (Zouhir, 2013: 275).

Language policies generally seek to establish, regulate, and conform linguistic practices – whether explicit or implicit – that occur within an ‘authorized’ domain. While there are multiple levels (societal, institutional, and interpersonal) at which such policies are enacted (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007), academic institutions are often significant policy arbiters as they serve as crucial switchboards (Blommaert, 2010; De Costa, 2010) that connect policies at the societal and interpersonal levels. In particular, English medium of instruction (EMI) policies that mandate English as the primary means of academic content delivery have played a pivotal role in enabling universities in countries such as Bangladesh (Rahman & Mehar Singh, 2019), China (e.g., Hu, 2009; Song, 2019; Zhang, 2018), Saudi Arabia (Barnawi, 2018; Phan & Barnawi, 2015), and Vietnam (Phan, 2018) to establish themselves on the world stage and engage with the global community. Even though several scholars (e.g., Coleman, 2006; Jenkins, 2019a; Knight, 2013, 2016; Macaro et al., 2018) have investigated EMI policies across different contexts, the following central question concerning these policies still persists: in what ways has the implementation of EMI policies transformed the higher education sector, and subsequently affected primary social actors, such as students, teachers, and administrators embedded within these shifting contexts? These concerns, we posit, are amplified by the transnational movements of people and institutions (Duff, 2015) and the ever-increasing speed and agility with which TESOL as a field has to respond to the shifting tides of globalization (Barnawi, 2020). Given this conspicuous gap in an ever-evolving English language policy landscape, we set out to critically review previous works that have examined the implementation of EMI policies within a transnational higher education (TNHE) context. TNHE is characterized by the transformation of higher education across the globe (Knight, 2013; Kosmützky & Putty, 2016) as Western-based universities export models – driven by a neoliberal agenda to maximize financial profit – through the establishment of overseas branch campuses. In reviewing works that examine TNHE, we aim to stimulate dialogue on this contemporary phenomenon.

In the introduction to the book he co-edited, Social Justice through Multilingual Education, Mohanty (2009: 3) mentions how, while conducting research in a remote underdeveloped area of the Indian state of Orissa, he came across a schoolboy who asked him about the purpose of his research. The schoolboy told him that indigenous tribal people in ‘this part of the world’ were the subject of too much research, but ‘nothing has changed, nothing will’ (ibid.). Mohanty (ibid.) notes that the encounter had a lasting impact on his thinking and academic work. This is reflected in the ideas underpinning the above-named book that focuses on the question of designing education in a manner that brings social justice to learners. One of its central points concerns the role of English in the Indian education system. It focuses especially on the debate of whether an English-medium education for speakers of minority languages further endangers their language. There are two seemingly intransigent approaches to the role of English in the Indian education system that shape the instrumentality vs. identity debate in language policy research. The instrumentality approach promotes English as a means of socioeconomic mobility for disadvantaged communities (Vaish, 2005; Weber, 2014). The identity approach argues that English-medium instruction leads to cultural alienation of schoolchildren and proposes mother-tongue-based multilingual education as the alternative (Skutnabb–Kangas et al., 2009; Mohanty, 2010). In this paper, I take a closer look at this debate by examining its four key aspects, namely the ‘decolonising’ role of English, language hierarchies, the linguistic double divide, and the problem of defining the term mother tongue. On the basis of this investigation, I describe the challenges this debate poses for policymakers, and explain why the instrumentality approach is a better way of addressing these challenges.

To understand the role of a global language in different societies, one needs to distinguish between imperial or colonial and post-imperial or post-colonial societies. As a rule, imperial societies strongly resist any kind of linguistic globalization which they consider to be an imminent threat to their language and culture. Post-imperial societies, such as Azerbaijan, tend to have a more open attitude to the realities of a global language since they feel more secure in their cultural identities. Therefore, the spread of global English creates an excellent opportunity for building multilingualism and plurilingualism in post-imperial societies.

Grammarians and teachers would admit that modality is one of the most difficult areas to deal with in English grammar, and it is particularly difficult for learners of English to master this area of grammar. Modality can be achieved by different means (see, for example, Huddleston & Pullum, 2002; Lyons, 1977; Quirk et al., 1985). The following examples illustrate modality by the use of words of various categories:

1. (1) Maybe you are right.

2. (2) You may be right.

3. (3) I think you are right.

4. (4) I am certain you are right.

In an interesting paper, Fong (2020) raises objections to my approach to English modals (and modality in general) which he views as too general and not fully compliant with the postulates of Construction Grammar. In this response paper, I intend to explain in some depth the benefits of my approach, as well as the reasons why Construction Grammar, in particular Cognitive Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 1995, 2006, 2019), needs to be interrogated and adapted as a conceptual framework to explain language learning and processing.

There are two main ways to communicate messages linguistically: verbally and non-verbally. In verbal communication, the message is transmitted by means of such devices as stress, intonation and pausing. An example of stress is the word object which has differentmeanings when stresseddifferently, as in obˈject and ˈobject. The first is a verb which means ‘disagree’. The second is a noun which means ‘material thing’. An example of intonation is the expression What a beautiful day! which expresses different feelings when said with different intonations. With a fallingintonation, it is said perfunctorily. With a fall-riseintonation, it is said enthusiastically. With a rise-fall intonation, it is said sarcastically. An example of pausing is the expression Don't eat that honey. When the pause is after that, that refers to an object and honey refers to a person, meaning ‘darling’. When the pause is after honey, honey refers to an object. So, the listener is ordered not to eat the honey. These devices are extensively covered in Roach (2009), Carr (2012), Odden (2014) and Kennedy (2016), among others.

A brief stroll about the cityscape of South Korea (henceforth ‘Korea’) testifies to Curtin's (2014) presumptive cosmopolitanism, whereby locals are expected to possess a high degree of competence in linguistically accommodating newcomers or world travellers by using English or other international languages in the linguistic landscape. One can easily spot English monolingual, Korean–English bilingual, and multilingual signs for ‘advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop[s] and . . . government buildings’ (Landry & Bourhis, 1997: 25), helping visitors and new arrivals negotiate the environment without being literate in the local language, Korean. The current English-flooded linguistic landscape of urban areas is well described in J. S. Lee's (2016) study, in which an elderly interviewee confirms, ‘[E]verywhere you go, you see English – banks, markets, and things. When we go shopping these days, brand names and street signs are all in English’ (331).