The Tell-Tale Heart: An In-Depth Analysis

The Tell-Tale Heart: An In-Depth Analysis

Roland Raymond A. Roldan    LIT231  Fr Gonzalez             Ateneo de Naga University

Tell-Tale Heart: An In-Depth Analysis

I.                 Summary

The short story “Tell-Tale Heart” by Edgar Allan Poe opens with the statement of the narrator’s intention of proving that he is not mad.

He describes the eventual murder: how for seven nights, while the old man was asleep, he shines a thin ray of light onto the man’s evil eye. Each time the eye is closed, thwarting his plan.  On the eighth night, his hand slips and makes a noise, waking the old man. Finding the eye open, he could hear the man’s heart beating wildly, perhaps from terror. He smothers the old man with a pillow. He then dismembers him and put his remains under the floorboards.

The police later arrive, claiming reports that neighbors heard a scream. The killer insists that it is only him, crying out from his sleep. By then he has grown quite arrogant of his act—he feels that he won’t get caught. He set up chairs for the police to sit on, right on top of the floorboards where the pieces of the old man are buried.

After a time, the narrator grows uncomfortable and feels a ringing in his ears, growing louder and louder, and by then he is convinced that the heartbeats are coming from under the floorboards. The thumping grows louder, and the narrator grows more terrified. He becomes convinced that the officers could also hear the beating, and that they also know what he has done. He then breaks down and confesses, telling the officers to tear up the floorboards so they can find the old man’s remains.

II.               Formal Analysis

“The Tell-Tale Heart,” written by Edgar Allan Poe, was published in 1843. This short but highly effective horror story is told from the first person point of view, wherein the narrator tries to convince the reader of his/her sanity in spite of the rather odd, insane way he/she describes his thoughts and actions. The narrative voice used in this case is autodiegetic, with the narrator being the protagonist him/herself. The narration, one can say, is a confession of sorts as the narrator, trying to prove his/her sanity tells the tale. However, instead of proving that he/she is not mad, he/she exhibits the exact opposite and admits to killing an “old man,” cutting his corpse and hiding the pieces under the floor boards.

One can say that the narrator fulfills the communication function as he/she addresses the audience, maintaining contact with the reader all through out. One can see that this function clearly in the beginning lines:

“True!—nervous—very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad? The disease had sharpened my senses—not destroyed—not dulled them. Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell. How, then, am I mad?”

Using the pronoun “you,” the narrator directly questions the reader why he has been accused of having lost his/her mind. This line of questioning seems to hint a previous relation with the reader. It is as if he is confirming and objecting to a previous statement in a previous part of the story.

Another function of the narrator is the testimonial function. The narrator, being the protagonist, expresses his/her direct and affective relation to the events. He is able to affirm the truth of his own story and narrates it with precision and certainty to a high degree. However, one can say that the detailed yet insanely myopic narration may lead the reader to question the “facts” the narrator tells, such as the victim having an “Evil Eye.” For this reason, the story’s narrator shows unreliability especially when the narrator’s telling of the facts from his own imaginings are somewhat blurred. It may be difficult for the reader to differentiate actual events and descriptions from the narrator’s own hallucination, pseudo-hallucination, and paranoia.

The characters are all flat except for the narrator who is round and whose insanity brings a certain unpredictability to his characterization. His/her characterization is not directly defined but indirectly presented through his speech, actions, and environment. At the beginning, one cannot say for certain if the narrator is a man or a woman. However, if one looks at the following lines, a clue on the narrator’s gender could be deduced:

“Now this is the point. You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing. But you should have seen me. You should have seen how wisely I proceeded—with what caution—with what foresight—with what dissimulation I went to work.”

This may lead one to assume to some degree that the narrator may be male, as he contrasts himself to “madmen” who know nothing, contrary to him, who is wise and therefore sane. For this reason, the narrator will be referred to using a masculine pronoun for the remainder of this paper.

Also indirectly presented in the above lines is the narrator’s view of himself as being an expert in dissimulation, a skill of which he is proud. One can say that the protagonist uses his skills of deception by not showing his internal state outwardly as seen in the line: “I was never kinder to the old man than during the whole week before I killed him.” The value he gives to his ability to deceive is also seen in the beginning lines as he admits nervousness yet presents his ability to act calm despite his nervousness as proof of his sanity:

“True! --nervous --very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am; but why will you say that I am mad... How, then, am I mad? Hearken! and observe how healthily --how calmly I can tell you the whole story.”

One can see how he expects his sanity to be proven by his dissimulated telling of his whole story. Thus, by indirect presentation of characterization, the narrator is conveyed, through his own words, as a person who is deceitful, with skewed values and having a distorted sense of reality.

            His narration as he describes his story reveals his obsession with details that catch his fancy for whatever reason. His obsession with details to the point of ignoring other aspects of his surroundings is seen in the lack of the descriptions of the house, bed room and the old man. Although, he describes objects of fixation such as the “Evil Eye” in great detail as seen in the lines:

“He had the eye of a vulture—a pale blue eye, with a film over it,” and “I saw it with perfect distinctness—all a dull blue, with a hideous veil over it that chilled the very marrow in my bones; but I could see nothing else of the old man's face or person.”

One can also see this obsessed attention to detail in his actions:

“I resolved to open a little—a very, very little crevice in the lantern. So I opened it—you cannot imagine how stealthily, stealthily—until, at length a simple dim ray, like the thread of the spider, shot from out the crevice and fell full upon the vulture eye.” 

In these lines, one can say that the narrator is indirectly presented as having an obsessive-compulsive nature as seen in his repeated and timed criminal intentions and acts; and this may very well be the cause of his insanity and subsequently his murderous crime. One can also say that this obsessive-compulsive behavior, accompanied by paranoia of the “Evil Eye’s” power against him, may not be overt at all. This may be due to his skillful concealing ways, something he valued highly,  in order to appear normal to the old man and three police officers.

One can also see that the narrator is full of contradiction. He says he loves the “old man” and presents no reason to kill him but does so just to address his fixation on the “Evil Eye.” In this instance, one can say that the narrator’s extreme fixations control all of his faculties: thoughts, emotions, and actions; and acting upon these fixations gives him happiness and satisfaction as seen in the lines:

“I could scarcely contain my feelings of triumph. To think that there I was, opening the door, little by little, and he not even to dream of my secret deeds or thoughts. I fairly chuckled at the idea,” and “There was nothing to wash out --no stain of any kind --no blood-spot whatever. I had been too wary for that. A tub had caught all --ha! ha!”

Here, he is shown as possessing feelings of triumph and fun while committing his crime. Thus, he is indirectly presented as insane by his own thoughts, words, and actions.

 The old man and the police all maintain their characterizations due to the fact that there was simply not enough narrative time given for their specific characterizations to be developed. The “old man” remains a mystery and one cannot be certain of who he is and his relationship with the narrator. He can be a father, brother, grandfather, master or even a stranger who took the narrator in for eight days. One can only infer that the old man may be rich for he was indirectly presented as such in the lines: “For his gold I had no desire,” and “I showed them his treasures, secure, undisturbed.” He was also indirectly presented as being afraid of robbers through the descriptions of his surroundings: “His room was as black as pitch with the thick darkness, (for the shutters were close fastened, through fear of robbers.)” The police, on the other hand, were indirectly presented by their external appearance in the following lines: “There entered three men, who introduced themselves, with perfect suavity, as officers of the police.” However, one cannot be certain as to the policemen’s knowledge of the crime and killer before the actual confession. It is only through the narrator’s eyes that one can view how the police men reacted during their talk with him. In this case, he says with regard to the policemen, “I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer,” a  sentence that one may find unreliable. This may only be seen as the killer’s distorted interpretation of the police officers’ facial expressions and may not be factual.

            It is quite difficult to point out the exact time the subsequent narration is done. The only thing one can be sure of is that everything in the story already happened, whether in fact or inside the mind of an insane man. It is also unknown how long ago the events in the story happened before its narration commenced.

            The narrative perspective or focalization of the story is internal as one can see the events only through the eyes of one character—the narrator, who is also the protagonist. This includes the mental map of the narrator as well as his thoughts, opinions, and emotions in relation to the events and other characters in the story. One can only see the other characters through the perspective of the protagonist, such as the time during the eighth night when the narrator surmises the old man’s state of emotion, but only as a reflection of his:

I knew what the old man felt, and pitied him, although I chuckled at heart. I knew that he had been lying awake ever since the first slight noise, when he had turned in the bed. His fears had been ever since growing upon him. He had been trying to fancy them causeless, but could not. He had been saying to himself --"It is nothing but the wind in the chimney --it is only a mouse crossing the floor," or "It is merely a cricket which has made a single chirp." Yes, he had been trying to comfort himself with these suppositions: but he had found all in vain.”

Here, the feelings of the old man can only be viewed through the narrator who, one can argue, is only guessing and imagining the old man’s thoughts and emotion at that time. Unless the narrator can read minds, a skill not presented in the text, there is no way for one to ascertain the validity of the narrator’s assumptions regarding the old man. Additionally, the old man did not say anything, besides a groan, during this time to confirm the narrator’s suppositions. Thus, one is left with an unreliable description of the old man only through the internally focalized perspective of narrator who is the killer.

The main conflict in the story is the protagonist against himself as he struggles to conceal his crime from police. The climax of his struggle happens when he succumbs to the sound of what he deems to be heartbeats. Believing the sounds to be loud enough to be heard by the police, he confesses his crime.

“Almighty God! --no, no! They heard! --they suspected! --they knew! --they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now --again! --hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!

"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!"

The narrative speed also varies. The narration begins with a monologue of the main character stating his emotional state and anticipating what he is about to do which is to tell his story. Here in this bit of introduction, the narrative time is equal to the story’s time. The narrator then states how his idea to kill began, and then summarizes the events of the past week heading up to his murderous act. One can see the narrative speed accelerating during the summary as events of seven days, being repetitive, was made to fit in one paragraph.

When events of the eighth day are narrated, the narrative speed slows down to being slower or the same speed as the story. One can see this in the detailed descriptions of the narrator’s actions during the said nigh:

“I had my head in, and was about to open the lantern, when my thumb slipped upon the tin fastening, and the old man sprang up in bed, crying out --"Who's there?" I kept quite still and said nothing.”

At other moments, a brief summary where the narrative speed picks up can also be seen:

“For a whole hour I did not move a muscle, and in the meantime I did not hear him lie down. He was still sitting up in the bed listening; --just as I have done, night after night, hearkening to the death watches in the wall.”

Anachrony is also seen in the story. One can say that the beginning, or the introductory part, is the actual ending of the story as it may have started right after the narrator confessed to the three policemen. If this is the case, one can say that the story has an analepsis of a sort that doesn’t interrupt the main story albeit begins it.

III.             Interpretation

The theme of the story may be found in the objects of the narrator’s obsession which are the “Evil Eye” or the “vulture eye” and the “tell-tale heart” of the old man. In the story, one can say that the eye described as “a dull blue, with a hideous veil over it,” may just be a case of Waardenburg syndrome, a rare genetic disorder with symptoms that include one or two eyes becoming pale blue, or heterochromia brought about by different levels of melanin in each eye with the blue eye having less melanin than the brown eye, or the early onset of glaucoma. However, if one looks at the eye and search for its meaning, one can say that the single eye may symbolize three things: 1) the myopic view of the protagonist of his reality, 2) the reader’s view of the story which is extremely focalized to the narrator’s character, and 3) the homophone pronoun “I” where the narrator is only referring to himself as the evil one.

First, one can see the restricted and skewed view of the narrator in his descriptions of people and his surroundings. As mentioned before, his characterization is presented as someone obsessed with details but lacking a more general view of the world. This is evidenced by the detailed descriptions of objects of fixation, such as the “vulture eye,” “a sound as a watch makes when enveloped in cotton” and the “beating of his hideous heart." Descriptions of a more general landscape are found missing such as size, color and design of the interior of the old house as well as people’s appearance, faces, clothes and demeanor. This means that the view of the narrator is like that of a single eye zooming in only at certain objects and ignoring the rest of the view.

This is also evident when one analyzes the relationship between the narrator and the old man with the one filmy, pale blue, “vulture-like” eye, or questions what actually transpired that lead him to murder such man. The former claims in the narrative that, other than his complete revulsion for the eye, he harbors no hate for the old man. It is solely because of the narrator’s fixation to the old man’s eye that he commits the heinous deed. One can say that the narrator consciously zooms in on this “Evil Eye” and ceases viewing the old man as a person he loves but only as an “Eye” that he hates.

Second, the “eye” symbolizes the restricted view afforded to the reader via the auto-diegetic narrator. One is sucked into the distorted world of the narrator and views nothing else. Facts and hallucinations are mixed up in sporadic fashion, leading one to feel confused: empathizing with the protagonist but at the same time fearing him. This confusion within the reader effectively gives way to creepy feelings of being watched and of being unsafe as the horror of the murderous affair takes hold.

Third, through textual evidence, one can explain how the “eye” becomes “I” in the insane subconscious mind of the narrator. Initially, one can argue that the protagonist-narrator’s view of others is an attempt at omniscience as seen in his seeming belief that he can read the minds of others, but the reality is that his perspective is solely based on his own experience, opinions, thoughts and emotions which he simply reflects on others. This pseudo-omniscient narrator shows this in two occasions, one when he assumes to know the mind of the old man and  the other when he thinks that the police officers are mocking him. First occasion is on the eighth night when he assumes he can read the old man’s mind as seen in the lines:

“I say I knew it well. I knew what the old man felt, and pitied him… He had been trying to fancy them causeless, but could not. He had been saying to himself --"It is nothing but the wind in the chimney --it is only a mouse crossing the floor," or "It is merely a cricket which has made a single chirp." Yes, he had been trying to comfort himself with these suppositions: but he had found all in vain.”

Here, one can see how he creates an inner monologue for the old man and views this as an accurate depiction. Upon closer inspection, one can say that these are actually his own words whenever he is faced with his own night terrors—things that may not have been experienced by the old man. Moreover, the old man’s words created in the narrator’s mind are not grounded on any words spoken aloud by the old man but only based on the narrator’s own imagination. By analogy, one can surmise that the “Evil Eye” of the old man may be similar in nature to the monologue, that is, only a creation inside the narrator’s mind and in actuality belonging to himself.

However, for reasons unknown, the narrator cannot accept this “Evil Eye” as part of himself, and so he disassociates himself from his own possession of the “Evil Eye.” Instead, he projects the “ Evil Eye” as the old man’s blue eye. Thus, one can say that the “Evil Eye” possessed by the old man is in actuality possessed by the narrator. In this case, the “eye” becomes a metaphor for “I.” These homophones become interchangeable in the insane mind, and one can conclude that on a subconscious level, the narrator knows that the “Evil I” is actually himself and nobody else.

This mental disorder is known in Psychology as Dissociative Identity Disorder characterized by the following symptoms that are present in the narrator: a) his sense of being detached from himself and his emotions, as exhibited by the protagonist’s dissimulated behavior, b) his distorted and unreal perception of things and people, as illustrated in his belief of the old man’s “Evil Eye,” c) his blurred sense of identity as shown by his unawareness of his own insanity, and at the same time, his self-image of being healthy and wise.

Additionally, the “vulture eye” seems to have a certain power over  the narrator because it made his blood run cold and “chilled the very marrow in [his] bones.” He also views it as somewhat all-seeing when he says: “I then replaced the boards so cleverly, so cunningly, that no human eye --not even his [old man’s evil eye]  --could have detected any thing wrong.” For these reasons, the narrator decides to end the old man so that “His eye would trouble me [him] no more.”

            Another essential object of obsession is the “tell-tale heart” which is also the title of the story. One can say that this heart and the “tales it tells”—the sounds coming out of it—may  actually be three things: 1) an auditory hallucination or pseudo-hallucination brought about by mental and physical illnesses possibly suffered by the narrator, 2) the old man’s heart as seemingly heard by the narrator, and  3) the narrator’s own heart as he tells his tale of murder.

            First, one can see that the sounds coming from the heart, a physical organ, cannot be as loud as the narrator describes in some instances in the story:

“Meantime the hellish tattoo of the heart increased. It grew quicker and quicker, and louder and louder every instant…It grew louder, I say, louder every moment… And now at the dead hour of the night, amid the dreadful silence of that old house, so strange a noise as this excited me to uncontrollable terror…But the beating grew louder, louder! I thought the heart must burst. And now a new anxiety seized me --the sound would be heard by a neighbour!”

Thus, one can conclude that it is not an actual heart he is hearing but an auditory hallucination. This may be brought about by another mental illness called Schizophrenia in Psychology. It is characterized by symptoms present in the narrator: a) auditory hallucinations as exhibited by the narrator’s hearing of impossibly loud heartbeats, b) delusions of grandeur indicated by the narrator’s belief that he is endowed with the special powers and characteristics such as extreme wisdom or the sensory gift of acute hearing: “Never before that night had I felt the extent of my own powers --of my sagacity,” “Above all was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and in the earth. I heard many things in hell,” c) unawareness of his illness as shown by the narrator stating that he is healthy and wise, and d) catatonia or the ability to hold poses for long periods of time as done by the narrator in keeping only his head in the doorway for an hour: “For a whole hour I did not move a muscle, and in the meantime I did not hear him lie down.”

            Another possible cause for the heartbeats the narrator hears can be Pulsatile Tinnitus, a condition where the person experiences a thumping or whooshing sound in their ears with the same rhythm as their heartbeat caused by underlying diseases involving a blood vessel problem, a middle ear bone condition or muscle contractions. One can say that this may be a condition suffered by the narrator as the heartbeats he hears often coincide with his own heart beating louder and faster.

            Second, the telltale heart can be the old man’s heart just as the narrator believes. This is evident in only one occasion which is during the actual instance of murder when it is possible for the narrator, being near the victim, to truly hear the old man’s heart beating loud and quick in fear, and subsequently ceasing to beat when the old man dies.

            Third, the heart is the narrator’s own. Just as he disassociates with his “Evil I,” so does he disassociate with his own heart in order to accomplish his murderous intention. One can also conclude that he is hearing his own heartbeat while he is talking to the police officers right before he confesses his crime and not the “hideous heart” of the corpse of the old man.

            In order to analyze what the different hearts in the story mean, one can view them from the perspectives of the narrator and the reader. From the perspective of the narrator, the telltale heart is the heart of the dead old man who beats loudly to tell the police officers of his foul deed. From the reader’s point of view, one can say that the telltale heart is the narrator’s own and represents his subconscious guilt for killing the beloved old man, and from this heart he confesses his secret misdeed.

Indeed, the theme of the story can be found with how the eye relates to the heart. There are many stories and famous lines that compare and contrast the heart and the eyes, and so it may be seen by many as cliché. However, in this creepy and horrific tale of murder told firsthand by a deranged narrator, this theme is embedded so deeply that the story, expertly told by Edgar Allan Poe, in a concise yet dense narrative style, is anything but cliché. The evil of the “vulture eye,” an eye that anticipates death with eagerness and greed just like a vulture, is counterbalanced with the telltale heart’s confession. One can say that the veiled covert eye contrasts remarkably well with the loud tell-tale heart. Traditionally the eye represents truth as seen in famous lines such as “to see is to believe,”  while the heart represents, quite obviously, love. However, in the story, the eye is said to be evil, dulled and veiled and thus represents the covering up of truth which is deception. On the other hand, the heart may mean the love the narrator continues to feel for the old man, and from this comes a subconscious conscience, screaming louder and louder at him to tell everyone his tale of murder and to pay for his crime.

In conclusion, one can say that this short story is masterful in the way it uses cliché objects such as the “eye” and the “heart” to concoct a disturbing tale of paranoia and insanity that very gradually seeps into the mind of the reader. While reading, one is compelled to look over one’s shoulder in paranoia and to fear for one’s own sanity as feelings of understanding and sympathy toward the killer emerge. Indeed, only the heart knows what the eye can see, and the heart cannot help but tell its tale.

IV.            Sources

Balson, S. L., Bauman, N., Caylor, V., Lee, A., E., & Ware, P. L. (n.d.). Pseudo Auditory Hallucinations.

Dissociative disorders. (2017, November 17). Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dissociative-disorders/symptoms-causes/syc-20355215

Poe, E. (n.d.). The Tell-Tale Heart. Retrieved from https://www.poemuseum.org/the-tell-tale-heart. Retrieved from http://hearinglosshelp.com/blog/pseudoauditory-hallucinations/

Poe, E. (n.d.). Poe's Short Stories. Retrieved from https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/poestories/section6/

Pulsatile Tinnitus - Thumping sound in ear - Heartbeat in my ear? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.hear-it.org/pulsatile-tinnitus

Tinnitus. (2018, March 03). Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/tinnitus/symptoms-causes/syc-20350156

Waardenburg syndrome - Genetics Home Reference - NIH. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/waardenburg-syndrome#synonyms

LGBT Criticism Agua de Mayo by Maryanne Moll

LGBT Criticism: “Agua de Mayo” by Maryanne Moll

Roland Raymond A. Roldan   LIT230   Prado Ateneo de Naga University

                                                    

In Maryanne Moll’s “Agua de Mayo,” one can say that lesbianism is seen the expressions of love between two girls: the protagonist, Clara, who is also the narrator and Anita, her cousin from Manila. According to the Adrienne Rich, there are many ways to identify a lesbian and one of which is women-dentification; and this is the case in the story. It begins with the present Clara’s definition of true love. She compares it to a ghost, elusive and fleeting yet unforgettable. In this introduction, she is referring to Anita who is her true love. She then proceeds to tell the story about her true love. As such, the narrator, present-day Clara indirectly identifies herself as lesbian.

Besides this self-identification, Rich says that women may define themselves as being in the lesbian continuum which consists of experiences that woman go through in loving another woman. She concludes that to be identified as lesbian does not require sexual desire nor intimacy with other women, but it does not preclude them either. In the story, one can see this lesbian continuum in the shared experiences of Clara and Anita as they express their lesbian feelings during moments such as: 1) Kissing a number of times and physical/sexual intimacy - “Under the covers, she moved to cover my body with hers…she began to kiss my neck…her hand slowly slipping up the hem of my nightgown to my waist,” 2) when Clara declares to Anita, “Take me away…To Manila!” and 3) when Anita says to Clara “I love you and I’ll always be here. I love you. Remember that,” and then risks her life to save Clara who nearly drowns in the creek.

Given these instances of lesbian expression, one can say that the story successfully portrays homosexual relationships to be as real as any heterosexual relationship. However, that Clara and Anita did not speak of it, nor show their feelings in public, because the society in which they live in does not acknowledge its existence nor accept it, shows their blind acceptance of heterosexist values. This can also be seen when they do not fight for their relationship when it was threatened by Clara’s pending marriage to Carlos. Additionally, the fateful death of Anita leaves the reader questioning whether or not they would have continued their relationship if Anita had lived. Furthermore, the consummated marriage of Clara to Carlos questions her identity yet again, if she is, indeed, lesbian. Moreover, in the story, there was no mention of other lesbian relationships she could have had after Anita.

The lesbian love between Clara and Anita is likened to a ghost. Aside from its characteristics found in the beginning of the story, lesbian love and ghosts are implied as being real even when left unacknowledged or even unrecognized. Appearances of Greta, possibly a ghost whose identity cannot be ascertained, speaking “true love” a number of times can be seen as a representation of the momentary arousals of desire between Clara and Anita as their feelings for one another surface and become explicit. The lingering jasmine scent of the ghost after it disappears is also comparable to the lingering quality of the love between the two even after Anita’s death. In one scene, Clara sees the reflection of the ghost’s face which looks like her; and the blurring of her vision made the two faces come together. This could represent the identity crisis she is going through as she explores her sexuality by sharing intimate moments with someone like her – a girl. Clara’s own heterosexist reactions to her feelings and desires is shown in an instance when she had a nightmare right after a night of sexual intimacy with Anita. The ghost is seen crawling in her bedroom with its face covered and Clara being fearful of looking at it. This dream could mean that Clara, though acknowledging her lesbian feelings and expressing it outwardly to Anita, cannot face its immorality as adjudged by the social norm. Her fear resulting to physical rigidity during the nightmare, shows her deep-seated feelings of denial, guilt helplessness and inability to cope with her situation.

            Water in the story may have been used as a metaphor for the varied intensities of Clara and Anita’s desire for each another. The creek with flowing water may represent the lesbian continuum and Clara’s desire to wade in its waters as well as Anita’s statement “If I were to die, I’d rather die in the water” may be viewed as their mutual consent to continue exploring their relationship. This metaphor of water is also seen in the rain showers “agua de mayo” which could mean to be the moments of love they shared. The rain itself marks the beginning and end of this lesbian love affair - “It rained the night she came; It was also raining the night she left.”

In conclusion, the story shows how a young adolescent reacts to her homosexual awakening amidst heterosexist values and ultimately accepts her fate, imprisoned in a heterosexual marriage. Like agua de mayo, her memory of her lesbian lover comes and goes, and like a ghost, her homosexuality unrealized will continue to haunt her for the rest of her life.

World Englishes: History, Theories and Debate

World Englishes: History, Theories and Debate

Roland Raymond A. Roldan

Introduction

The article will briefly trace the history, development and dispersal of the English language to the world. It will also dwell on the thoughts of foremost figures in the study of World Englishes, among them Henry G.  Widdowson, Edgar Werner Schneider, Randolph Quirk and Braj Kachru regarding how the English language and its different varieties have evolved in the twenty-first century.

The English Language

English is a West Germanic language brought by Germanic invaders into Britain. Initially, a diverse group of dialects, from varied origins of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England, with the Late West Saxon, one of these dialects, came out dominant. It was then influenced by speakers of the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic language family, and by the Normans in the 11th century, developing a Norman variety called Anglo-Norman.

Two hundred years after the Norman Conquest, French became the language of the upper classes in England, while the language of the masses remained English. A process of separation was experienced by France and England during the Middle English period, later termed as the Hundred Years' War. By the 14th century, English was universally used, becoming the principal tongue of all England.

The Renaissance saw an English patriotism bringing about English as England's national language, advocated as acceptable for learned and literary use, the Great Vowel Shift showing maturity to a modern “standard”. During the 18th century, the English language had three main forces that directed further refinement: to reduce the language to rule and effect a standard of correct usage; to refine the language by removing supposed defects while introducing improvements; and to fix English permanently in the desired form, as well as the regularity in the language contrasted with the individualism and spirit of independence. The expansion of the British Empire in the 19^th century, as well as the development of world trade, further spread the use of the English language worldwide.

World English

World Englishes is the study of identifying varieties of English used in diverse sociolinguistic contexts, on how English variants developed in territories colonized or influenced by the United Kingdom or the United States, as well as how sociolinguistic histories, multicultural backgrounds and contexts of function influence the use of English worldwide.

The First Dispersal transported English to the 'new world',  involving large-scale migrations  to North America and the Caribbean, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand,  gradually developing into modern American, Canadian, West Indian, South African, Australian, and New Zealand Englishes. The Second Dispersal transported English to Asia and Africa as a result of the colonization of Asia and Africa, which led to the development of 'New Englishes', the second-language varieties of English.  The arrival of the Americans in Southeast Asia saw reforms on education in the Philippines which made English a major language in the Philippines in less than fifty years, gradually turning into a variety called Philippine English.

Inner, Outer and Expanding Circle

Braj Kachru (1997) proposed three circles dividing the English-using world: The Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle.

                      

                 Figure 1. Concentric circle model (Adapted from Kachru, 1997)

The Inner Circle, according to Kachru, includes the Native English-speaking countries such as England, USA and Canada, while the Outer Circle consists of the former colonies such as India, Africa and the Philippines. The Expanding Circle, on the other hand, have countries like China, Japan and Turkey, where English is becoming an important language in business, science, technology and education or affected by English. Kachru also focused on the English language’s historical context, its status, and the functions in several regions of the world: England being the origin of the language, while the United States, as a world superpower, being most dominant country today. 

Schneider's Dynamic Model of Postcolonial Englishes

Edgar Werner Schneider, in his efforts to avoid a purely geographical and historical approach evident in the 'circles' models, incorporates sociolinguistic concepts pertaining to acts of identity, and defines five characteristic stages in the spread of English: foundation, exonormative stabilization, nativisation, endonormative stabilization and differentiation.

Foundation is the initial stage of the introduction of English to a new territory over an extended period of time, with two linguistic processes operative: (a) language contact between English and indigenous languages; (b) contact between different dialects of English of the settlers   eventually resulting in a new dialect, with bilingualism being marginal at this stage. Exonormative stabilization is when settler communities stabilize politically, English increases in prominence and local vocabulary continues to be adopted. The indigenous population becomes bilingual through education and increased contacts with English settlers; knowledge of English is an asset, with the development of indigenous elite. Nativisation is when transition occurs as the English settler accepts a new identity, rather than sole allegiance to their 'mother country'. An L2 system for the indigenous strand with interlanguage processes and features adopted from the settlers’ English. New words are used as English to adapt to local situations and realities.

Endonormative stabilization shows acceptance of local norms, with a new locally rooted linguistic self-confidence. The settler and indigenous strands are inextricably bound in a sense of nationhood independent of the motherland, with local English(es) expressing this new identity. National dictionaries, at least for new lexis (and not always for localized grammar) are enthusiastically supported, and literary creativity in local English flourishes. Differentiation is the alteration of change of identity dynamics,   seeing itself as less defined by its differences from the motherland, the simple effects of time effecting language change which shows more differentiation in the new language.

Quirk-Kachru controversy: Monocentric vs. Pluricentric English

The ownership of English has been thoroughly discussed, since standards are typically set by the “owners” of the language. The original arbiters were the Inner Circle: Britain, the United States and Canada. However, the global spread of English in the last few decades has caused an unprecedented growth into great many varieties. An important fact about the rise of different varieties of English is that they are not only limited to the outer- and expanding-circle countries, rather varieties of English are equally prevalent in inner-circle countries (Widdowson, 1994, p. 378). With so many existing varieties, maintaining standard norms for English to be used as a single reference point has always been a challenge.

Kachru presented arguments against Interlanguage theory (IL) and specifically the main components of this theory: Errors, fossilization, and socio-cultural contexts. In 1992, Selinker reproduced his IL theory and particularly applied fossilization to World Englishes context. According to the IL theory, competence of second language learners is based on an interlanguage continuum between their first (L1) and their second (L2) language. If their output is different from Standard English (American or British), it is regarded as an error (interference of L1 mainly) and if they continue producing errors (fixing), this is known as fossilization.

In addition to the standardization, Kachru’s main argument against IL theory was that Outer Circle English speakers were not trying to identify with Inner Circle speakers or native speakers. That is, they were not interested in the norms of English based in Inner Circle such as requesting and complaining. Thus, he criticized the attempts to label the Englishes in the Outer Circle as deviant or deficient and fossilized since these views were not considering the local Englishes (Outer Circle) and the sociocultural context. He was also against the label ‘errors’ since again utterances which are considered as errors may not apply to the local Englishes as they may be perfectly acceptable.

Kachru suggested challenging traditional notions of standardization and models as they tend to be related to only Inner-Circle or users, that the “global diffusion of English” caused the native speakers of this language losing the exclusive prerogative to control its standardization, and have become a minority. He further said that new paradigms and perspectives for linguistics and pedagogical research and for understanding the linguistic creativity in multilingual situations across cultures should be contemplated.

Widdowson agreed with the Kachru’s statement against Standard English and the ownership, maintaining that native speakers cannot claim ownership of English, and that its development is not the business of native speakers, having no say in the matter, no right to intervene or pass judgment.  “The very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it. To grant such custody of the language is necessarily to arrest its development and so undermine its international status,” Widdowson said. He further stated that though native speakers such be proud and satisfied that their language is an international means of communication, but they cannot declare sole ownership.

World Englishes and Standard English were hotly debated by Quirk and Kachru, with Quirk suggesting that these varieties of English be just “interference varieties,” advising teachers of English to focus on “native norms and native-like performance” and stressed the need to “uphold one common standard in the use of English not only in the Inner Circle countries but also in others”. He also pointed out that a common standard was necessary for regulation purposes, to prevent the English language from dividing into unintelligible varies or different forms.

In response, Kachru claimed that such norms were “irrelevant” to the Outer Circle in their ways of using English.  He also believed that acknowledging a variety of norms would not lead to a lack of intelligibility among different users of English.  

Reaction

American imperialism in the early part of the twentieth century, being the reason of the Philippines being annexed to the Unites States, saw the rise of Philippine English. The Second Dispersal, which transported English to Asia and Africa as a result of the colonization of Asia and Africa, led to the development of 'New Englishes', the second-language varieties of English.  From being non-Spanish speaking colonials, the Filipino indio finds himself being taught a language that the colonial masters use in their everyday interaction with both equals and subordinates. He accepts the privilege fully, and after thirty years, the new Commonwealth is the third English speaking country in the world. The reforms on education in the Philippines, the writing of laws and legal instruments in English, and Hollywood movies showing famous actors and actresses showing the “western lifestyle” to be emulated are but parcel of what caused interlanguage processes and features, as enforced by the United States, and adopted by the rising indigenous elite,   interweave the English language into the country’s sociocultural consciousness in such a short period.

As part of the Outer Circle, which consists of the former colonies such as India and Africa, the Philippines finds her way through a world order wherein the United States continues to be the dominant force in world affairs. This situation of being one of the USA’s most successful educational experiments puts this particular country in a position that the development of a variety of local strains of English, in accordance with their L1 and L2 native languages, gives out a particular richness of heritage. In the Bicol region, at least five dialects (Bicol Daet, Naga, Partido, Rinconada, and Albayonon come to mind) plus the primary Filipino language (or Tagalog),  intermingling standard of the Queen’s language with the rich indigenous sounds of such native languages, remind us of Schneider’s endonormative stabilization, characterized by the gradual acceptance of local norms, the settled English and indigenous strands inextricably bound by a sense of nationhood independent from the United States and Spain.

The Philippines is also surrounded by many countries that are part of the Expanding Circle,   like China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Japan, where English has become an important language in business, science, technology and education. This presents a unique position to our country, where our advantage to the language is still evident even with these trying times.

Kachru’s argument against Salinger’s Interlanguage Theory (IL) also gives teachers of English the reason to pause in order to reevaluate measurement and teaching strategies. If Kachru is right in his argument,  specifically against main components of the IL theory (errors, fossilization, and socio-cultural contexts), then not only the way we conduct recitation, quizzes, tests and group activities, but also our options of whether or not to introduce local English literature in our  classes will have to be altered to accommodate these paradigm shifts.

I am with Widdowson’s agreement with Kachru to the fact that English is an international language, and that no nation can have custody over the English language, because granting a country custody of their language will be stifling development of the language, which will undermine its international status. Inner circle English speakers should be proud of the legacy their heritage has done to the world:  English is now an international language, but that should not give them the right to exclude others from speaking it as how they have learned this language to their parents, friends and many others.

“Language is not a possession which they lease out to others,” Widdowson said, “while retaining the freehold. Other people actually own it.”

References:

Baugh, A. C. and Cable. T. (1993). A History of the English Language. Routledge.

Jenkins, Jennifer (2006). World Englishes: a resource book for students (1. edition, 3. reprint ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 14–15. ISBN 0-415-25806-5.

Kachru, B. B. (1997). World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 66-87.

Kachru, B. B. (1991). Liberation linguistics and the Quirk concern. English Today, 25, 3-13.

Kachru, B. B. (1985) Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English language in the outer circle. In R.

Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge University Press.

Quirk and H.G. Widdowson (Eds), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11-30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quirk, R. (1990). Language varieties and standard language. English Today, 21, 3-10.

Quirk, R. (1985) The English language in a global context. In R.

Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (Eds), English in the World: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 1-6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.

Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231.