статье рассматривается взаимоотношение такого понятия, как политкорректность, и концепции контактной вариантологии английского языка, нередко называемой «либеральным» направлением современной лингвистики и методики обучения английскому языку. Автор показывает, что, несмотря на некоторую схожесть политкорректности с принципами парадигмы World Englishes и их реализацией, это отличающиеся явления, имеющие разные функции и сферу употребления. The article discusses the two conceptions that seem to have some similarities: political correctness and World Englishes (WE) paradigm, which is sometimes termed a ‘liberal’ movement of today’s fundamental and applied linguistics. The structure of the article includes several parts. Firstly, language manifestation of political correctness is discussed — in relation to national and ethnic features, gender, religion, social and physiological features. Secondly, the WE paradigm as a linguistic “liberation” conception is dwelt on — its major principles (pluricentricity, standard variability, equality, functionality, dynamism and continual heterogeneity of varieties) and its novelty are emphasized. Thirdly, some theses and concepts of the WE paradigm that are sometimes regarded in the mirror of political correctness are reflected on. The author argues that general humanitarian strain towards alleviation and strive for eliminating offense typical of political correctness are evident to a certain degree in the new linguistic and linguodidactic paradigm that is characterized by a changed terminological corpus, especially obvious in the use of technical terms and development of their meanings. The author focuses on such terms as interference — transfer; errors — deviations — distinctive features of varieties; “deficient” language — interlanguage — variety; variety — pidginized basilect; English as a Foreign Language — English as an International Language — International English — English as a Lingua Franca; correctness and appropriateness of speech; native speaker of a variety; authenticity of a text; translingualism and transculturality of authors who create authentic texts in a non-native language. Finally, the author concludes that despite the similarities (liberalism, equality, euphemization, tactfulness), the principles of the WE paradigm and their implementation differ from the political correctness phenomenon in functions and spheres of use. The phenomenon of political correctness is apt to be found in everyday speech and in mass media, while the WE paradigm belongs to a research and academic discourse. Their objectives are different, with political correctness aimed at developing tolerance and the World Englishes paradigm reflecting dramatic changes in language and education awareness due to the real life situation change. The WE paradigm is not a politically correct paradigm; it merely describes and reflects the dynamically changing real life linguistic situation generated by counteraction and integration of globalism and localism.