Speech is the only universal medium of language. That is, each and every human population exhibits, at least, one spoken language. Spoken language is also the basis for virtually all major writing systems, wherein symbols encode sound (typically of phonemes or syllables). For these reasons, the vocal capacities of great apes have historically been a key component in the study of possible precursors and processes for language evolution within the human clade.

Language is fundamentally a cultural system that requires specific cognitive processes to be in place. Does Pan cognition show considerable differences with regard to the other great apes that could bear on the evolution of language-like cultural systems? The answer seems to be negative.

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this problem was aggravated as animal collections were being actively established by capturing animals from the wild. In consequence, the perceived importance of that period for a certain species also drove its capture in the wild, increasing consequently, its availability (and thus, research output), ultimately self-fulfilling the premise of the species’ importance. An example is the case of the capture of 130 hamadryas baboons, housed during the 1930s at the London Zoo, which caused a flood of studies that eventually became influential in fuelling the baboon-based single-species model of the 1960s.

This is reflected in the level of genetic similarity between each great ape genus and humans, as well as their taxonomy. All great apes are hominids, including humans, that is, members of the Hominidae family. Only humans and Pan (i.e., chimpanzees or bonobos), however, are recognized as hominins, members of the subfamily Homininae. Given this phylogenetic proximity and cladistic pedigree, an implicit principle and implication for comparative research has, thus far, been that Pan represents a better model for the evolutionary study of human communication and cognition.6-9

In both these two curricula, there is a detailed description that highlights common problems in Hong Kong people's English pronunciation (e.g., voiced/voiceless sounds, “l” vs “n” vs “r” sound, final consonant clusters, strong/weak forms) and suggests possible “speech training” for “correct pronunciation, stress, rhythm and intonation” (e.g., use of minimal pairs, dictation, drilling, use of stress markers, controlled practice) (CDC, 1975: 116–124, 1983: 62–72).

In this respect, Taguchi and Ishihara (2018) propose that ELT from an ELF perspective should diversify the models of pragmatic language use, prepare learners to become ethnographers while cautioning against essentialism and develop meta-pragmatic awareness and use of strategies for communicative effectiveness.

Nevertheless, most previous studies have only focused on the design of the textbooks and neglected the research-to-practice process that involves the implementation of global research and recommendations across different levels (e.g., curricula, textbooks) and in different times.

Traditionally, a single exonormative native speaker (NS) model based on Inner Circle varieties (e.g., British/American English) has unquestionably been applied to most ELT settings, but this approach has been criticised because Inner-Circle Englishes may no longer serve the diverse needs and functions of English in most multilingual/multicultural contexts (Kirkpatrick, 2007). Alternatively, WE scholars have suggested that a codified endonormative model can be adopted in Outer-Circle territories (e.g., India, Singapore) because their local English varieties have been extensively used in the domains of government, legislation, law and education, and for social purposes and literary creativity (Kachru & Nelson, 2006). Kirkpatrick (2007: 193) suggests that this localised model, based on the acrolect of the local variety (i.e., used by local educated speakers), is beneficial for second-language learners because it has “already gained widespread social acceptance” in the Outer Circle and thus may enhance the “self-confidence” and “self-esteem” of local teachers and students (Kirkpatrick, 2007: 189).