1.1 Overview of Varieties of English
The English language has been exported and imported throughout the world, to the extent that it is generally recognised as the (or certainly an) international language. But like all languages, English is organic, ever-changing and consequently, impossible to pin down to a singular variety (and if we attempt to do so, then we ignore all the other varieties); as Pennycook (2010: 685) states, English is âa language always in transitionâŠ..a language always under negotiationâ. By the same token, there is a need to recognise the importance of using a specific variety of English, as with all languages, that is appropriate for the time and place; this can involve switching from standard English to dialect , or moving from formal English to informal banter replete with taboo words.
The plurality of the English language is nothing new, and is seen on a broader level with British English and American English , for example. Going further, we can include other varieties that might be considered linguistic off-shoots of British English , certainly in terms of spelling, such as the Englishes of Australia and New Zealand. Canadian English spelling, however, combines both American and British English influence, seen in examples such as tire centre (and not tyre centre or tire center).
Beyond spelling, we should also consider vocabulary. In a British supermarket, you ask for an aubergine (borrowed from French anyway), whereas in the USA, Australia and New Zealand, one asks for an eggplant. Consider also zucchini, which is an Italian borrowing, whereas in Britain it is called a courgette (French again). I also recall a British student of mine who admitted to being told to leave a store in the USA (presumably, a stationery store) having asked for a rubber, which in the USA refers to a condom, not an eraser as she had otherwise thought. While this example might seem somewhat made-up and possibly connect with existing humour, it was nonetheless a telling example provided by a student and ties in with the real linguistic world of English usage.
In addition, we should not forget the differences in accent either, very often the subject of humour. Consider the recently-arrived Englishman in Australia, who was asked if he had come to Australia today, to which he replied, âI certainly hope not!â (âHave you come to Australia to die?â). A personal anecdote involves my father, who is from the Bronx. He once asked me if we could go to a pawn shop and, because of the non-rhotic accent in New York City (i.e. the ârâ is not pronounced unless before a vowel) and vowel merging, both pawn and porn can sound alike in that part of the USA, at least to the naked ear, so to speak.
Thus, spelling, vocabulary and pronunciation can all sometimes exhibit significant differences amongst the varieties of English just mentioned, even to the extent that the British, Americans and Australians, for example, can sometimes find it difficult to understand each other. Further, we might also consider grammatical differences, such as the American usage of I had gotten versus British English I had got (while gotten might be used in Britain, it is considered non-standard , whereas in the USA, it reflects standard usage). Iâm fairly certain that the readers, regardless of where they hail from and their first language, are aware of these linguistic idiosyncrasies (which of course apply to languages other than just English). What do we make of these differences? I would hope that in this day and age, they are merely regarded as just thatâdifferences.
A unifying factor, however, is that the aforementioned linguistic examples derive from varieties of English that are found in countries in which English is the ânativeâ language, the language established as the dominant variety. Kachru (1992) of course discussed the English language in toto based on its placement in one of three circlesâinner, outer and expanding . The inner circle represents Englishes that are the native language, or certainly a primary language, in countries such as the USA, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The outer circle countries are those which use English based on historical imperial expansion which involved English being exported to countries which now, as a result, use English amongst many other ethnic and linguistic groups. In such countries, English is often used in higher education and legislative contexts, and includes countries such as Pakistan and India, for example (and in India, English and Hindi are the two official languages). This leaves us with the outermost circleâthe expanding circle âwhich represents countries in which English is a language with no clear historical role (unlike, say, India), and yet it is seeing its presence grow. Countries such as South Korea and Singapore would be examples of this particular circle. Thus, if we attempt to conceptualise the monolithic term of âEnglishâ, it is clear that it is far from monolithic.
Just over thirty years ago, Crystal (1985) had estimated that as many as two billion people had some ability in English. Kachru (2005) further indicated that in just India and China, there are over 500 million speakers of English. Crystal (1997: 130â131) also declared the following:
Within ten years, there will certainly be more L2 speakers than L1 speakers. Within fifty years, there could be up to 50 percent more. By that time, the only possible concept of ownership will be a global one ⊠An inevitable consequence of this development is that the language will become open to the winds of linguistic change in totally unpredictable ways. The spread of English around the world has already demonstrated this, in the emergence of new varieties of English in the different territories where the language has taken root. The change has become a major talking point only since the 1960s, hence the term by which these varieties are often known: ânew Englishes â
This quotation makes it clear that change is inevitableâa change in grammar, for example, when compared with the varieties of English spoken in countries such as Britain and the United States, which might stake a claim on the English language as their sole property.
1.2 Key Issues Regarding World Englishes
By the 1980s, the concept, and terminology, of these new varieties of English was growing (Kachru 1985, 1992; Kachru and Smith 1988). Kachru (1992: 11) rightly states that given this plurality, âit is indeed essential to recognize that World Englishes represent certain linguistic, cultural and pragmatic realities and pluralismâŠ.the pluralism of English must be reflected in the approaches, both theoretical and applied, we adopt for understanding this unprecedented linguistic phenomenonâ. This is suggestive of a need to realise that a one size fits all approach to English will no longer work and that students of English do not necessarily benefit from a default setting to inner circle English (Canagarajah 2006; Jenkins 2006). Their everyday English needs may in fact reflect a use of a non-inner circle variety with which they are completely comfortable. Gupta (2012: 256) rightly affirms that âonce learners are in the real world of English use, they will be exposed to a wide range of usages and they need to be navigated through the complexities of usageâ. It is important, therefore, that this is reflected in the classroom. On a practical level related entirely to communication, I think the best summary is in fact provided by Rose (2017: 173): âby not exposing learners to the diversity of English, teachers are doing their learners a disservice by ill-equipping them to use English in the future with a wide variety of speakers who will not conform to the unrepresentative standards promoted in traditional English as a foreign language (EFL) classroomsâ.
Moreover, to declare inner circle standard varieties, or even just one inner circle variety, as the âtrueâ English(es), flies in the face of current trends that, by and large, seek to promote equality and diversity. We should also consider the linguistic diversity contained within a single variety of inner circle English ; it is clear that inner circle English alone is indeed not singular in the first instance. This has particular implications for the EFL classroom, with Matsuda and Friedrich (2011: 338â339) echoing the implications for communication outside the classroom: âstudents must understand that the variety they are learning is one of many and may differ from what their future interlocutors use. If the variety serving as the instructional model is the only variety presented in class, an impression might form that it is the only correct variety. Such an impression is not only inaccurate but could have negative effects on studentsâ attitudes toward other varieties of English and their confidence in successful communication involving multiple varieties of Englishâ.
Furthermore, given this plurality of Englishes and the individuals who speak them of course, the concept of ânativeâ speaker becomes problematic (Higgins 2003; Rajagopalan 2004; Kirkpatrick 2007; Bolton 2008; Christophersen 2008; Mesthrie and Bhatt 2008; Trimbur 2008; Galloway and Rose 2015), precisely because it is no longer practical to approach the term âEnglishâ from the sole perspective of an inner circle speaker. Indeed, if a person outside this circle speaks a variety of English, then surely he/she is already a native speaker . Thus, a speaker of Konglish in South Korea surely knows enough about this variety in terms of its relevant lexis and grammar and crucially, when to deploy Konglish as opposed to Korean (and indeed, as opposed to an inner circle variety of English). But we must remember that what is or is not deemed to be âcorrectâ is often in the ear of the beholder.
This raises another inherent issue in World Englishes : how do we distinguish between errors as opposed to innovations within the language? This will have implications for our EFL studentsâ work, particularly in assessment, and so we as educators also need to consider what may indeed be an error in an absolute sense (perhaps a spelling error ), versus a use of English that, while not inner circle , is perfectly acceptable within the studentâs country of origin. Again, to declare this latter usage as an error can, in some cases, reflect a rather rigid interpretation of âcorrectâ English. As Bamgbose (1998: 3) asks, âwhy should a native-variety-based standard continue to l...