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.