11

Mohammed 05726337

A critical Evaluation of Braj Kachru’s Three Circle Model for Varieties of English Around The World

Shivana Mohammed

2010-03-20

Ling 6402: World Englishes

Jo-Anne Ferierra

11

Mohammed 05726337

In 1985, Braj Kachru first posited the term “World Englishes” this was hailed as a valuable contribution

to the understanding of the many varieties of English which have arisen since the colonisation of many

cultures by the British Raj. Pennycock declares “Braj Kachrus development of the term World englishes,

epitomises the heterogeny position” (qtd Mair 2003) Salikoko Mufwene then applauded Kachru for his

terminology, which he then believed served as an ideal vessel for English as a World Language; emerging

as an international lingua franca. However Braj Kachru warned then that the notion of “World Englishes”

was independent of whether or not English functioned as a world language.

Rather, “the concept was intended to capture the plurism and the regional and cross cultural variation

that obtains among English varieties throughout the world, and the distinct identities of these varieties”.

(Kachrus, 1985) By capturing this plurism so succinctly, there is the forced recognition of other standard

varieties of English far from the normative British and American Varieties. None sharing the same socio-

politico-linguistic status as the “Native Englishes” from which all others take pattern. Therefore the

question that had arisen was one of, how were the progeny of the English Raj to be classified?

The Gorilla protagonist and namesake of David Quinns’ novel Ishmael wisely instructs his student that a

precursory statement must be made of human behaviour with respect to classification of their

environment, before an explanation of these classifications be made. That is,

“I’m going to call the people of your country Takers and all the

people of other countries Leavers.” [The Student] Hmmm’d a bit

before saying, “I have a problem with that.” “Speak” [says

Ishmael]. “I don’t see how you can lump everyone else in the

world into one category like that” [says the student] “This is the

way it’s done in your culture, except that you use*heavily

11

Mohammed 05726337

loaded terms instead of these relatively neutral terms. You call

yourselves civilised and all others primitive.” (Quinn)

Braj Kachru in 1985 thus proposed a globally accepted model of the spread of the English language. He

positions the world’s Englishes under three umbrellas labelled the Inner circle, Outer circle and the

Expanding circle. “The three circles represent the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the

functional allocation of English in diverse cultural contexts.” (Jenkins 18) Kachrus concentric model is

built on the historical context of English, the status of the language, its geographical distribution and its

functions in various regions.

This three circle, model however, has been met with widespread criticism among scholars of the field. It

was argued that the circle is limited because of its focus on historicity rather than actuality of the

linguistic situation. That the circular model is part of the climatic build to globalisation rather than

existing in this, the globalised era, where modern technology challenges many notions of linguistic

ownership and language spread. The model though useful for its contributions to an understanding of

the situation of the English language in the 1980’s is now archaic. The terms of use and definitions from

which the model springs all limit its possibilities so that each category examines English language use in

each country myopically and assumes language homogeneity, ignoring the diversity of the language and

its very organic nature.

Kachru’s three circle model assumes linguistic homogeneity and “implies uniformity” (Knuth). When in

reality each circle contains a plethora of local and regional variations. The umbrella headings of the

model force the Englishes under three vague delineations opening the door for scrutiny. One must

question “the descriptive adequacy of the three circles; the focus on varieties of English along national

lines; and the exclusionary divisions that discount ‘other Englishes’” (Pennycook 518) Kachru

acknowledges the existence of Varieties such as British English, American English, Australian English and

11

Mohammed 05726337

Canadian English while denying the existence of Ulster Scots, Cockney, Midland, Southern, Gullah,

Appalacian English, Canadian English, Frenglish, Newfoundland English, Maorian English or Tok Pisin.

This type of classification is what gives rise to challenges when choosing the appropriate standard for

English language learning in countries that are norm dependent. The English language learner in these

countries aspires to produce internationally accepted English, but he has no real concept of what IAE or

EIL is, he thus aspires to produce the metropolitan standard be it British English or American English.

Choice is more a matter of prestige than functionality. This standard is found in the Inner circle of

Kachru’s model; The Inner circle referring to all settler communities; the UK, The USA, Canada, Ireland,

New Zealand and Australia, “the traditional cultural and linguistic bases of English”. These so called

Norm providing countries are those which house the English as a Native Language Speaker or the English

as a Mother-tongue speaker.

The speaker believes that any variety coming out of the English Language “Center” is a valuable

exemplar for EIl. Rather, the idea that that particular variety may demonstrate forms that are NOT

acceptable internationally or formally, and may NOT be part of the countries institutionalised Standard

English, does not enter his psyche. Furthermore, it has been a common experience of many learners of

English that the variety they have learnt is specific to a particular region and therefore not

internationally accepted.

Kachru’s homogenous classifications of Englishes into the three headings may thus be considered

wholly misleading. Since the linguistic situation of no two countries is the same. Thus the spread of

English ought to be categorised in terms of individual varieties of English and their degrees of

standardisation rather than simple geographical-historical distribution. By sorting English varieties in

terms of classification it becomes possible for the English language learner to gauge the relevance of the

variety he chooses to learn on a regional or international level.

11

Mohammed 05726337

The mere labelling of the norm providing bracket as an Inner Circle connotes a certain level of

acceptability and prestige. Though Kachru declares that this was not the intention that he considers no

variety as superior to another, as a linguist he ought to have been aware of the impact that the terms

we use to classify have on the members of those classes. He means to provide a counter argument to

“centrist” ideas of English language spread, while his model (Mair 8) His classifications and his

theoretical declarations act contradictory to one another, as he declares that he aims to recognise the

existence of many Englishes rather than one English, when his headings still act as blinders to the many

varieties of English that govern the daily lives of millions.

One would expect that after Quirks debate about the nature of the English Language he would produce

a model similar to this one, since he stressed “that teachers of English advisedly uphold one common

standard in the use of English not only in inner circle countries but in others as well” (Kilickaya 36) This

suggestion was made based on the fear that english go the route of latin and fragment into a series of

unintelligible varieties, resulting in “the language losing the function of international communication”

(Kilickaya 36)

However Quirks assumption was not so, since outer circle and expanding circle territories are using

English as a means of transmitting their own local cultures, forms of expression and traditions to the

wider world. These cultures are veering away from the inner circle and in a whorfian manner one may

look at this adoption of english, as, one language being modified to express the ethos of another

linguistic system. “To take three examples from the chinese culture; traditional chinese medicine, the

writings on the art of war by Sun Zi and the tenets of confucianism are now much better known in the

West than in the past.....because these chinese ways of thinking have been diseminated in english.”

(Unknown, Models of World Englishes) Li Wenzhong has suggested that “China English be defined as a

variety of english whose vocabulary , sentences and discourse have Chinese characteristics. It is based in

11

Mohammed 05726337

English, and has been adapted to express characteristics of Chinese Culture in terms of phonetic

translation, borrowing and meaning reproduction.” (Qiong) These discusssions and discussion along

similar veins are meant to present a case for movement of China from the Expanding circle to the inner

circle. This would mean the acknowledgement of China English as an EIL similiar to British English and

American English.

In doing so, one is also prompted to acknowledge other varieties of english which meet Quirks’ three

criteria for the declaration of an EIL: Similiarity,Adequacy and Prestige. These are the other

institutionalised varietires of english such as Standard Indian English, Standard Nigerian English.

Varieties such as these existing outside the inner circle find difficult fitting into second language and

foreign language spheres, because they there run the risk of being considered interlanguages. Indeed

they cannot be considered interlanguages becasue as Nelson (1988) points out “ (a) they do not have as

a goal an ENL model; (b) they do not have characteristic instability; (c) they do not fossilize at a

functionally unacceptable level; and (d) they do not have externally imposed functions” (qtd Davies

450). In addition to this, other considerations when regarding an outer or expanding circle vartiety as a

potential constituent of the inner circle: does the variety look inwardly for norm determination? Do they

recognise the potential of their own standard for norm provision?

That prestigous vestule of the inner circle varieties is now being comprimised as “...the global diffusion

of engliish has taken an interesting turn: the native speakers of this language seem to have lost the

exclusive perrogative to control its standardisation; in fat if current stattistics are any indication, they

have become a minority” (Kilickaya 36)

“How english develops in the world is no business

whatsoever of the native speakers in englnd, the united

states, or anywhere else. They have no say in the matter,

no right to intervene or pass judgement. They are

11

Mohammed 05726337

irreleveant. The very fact that English is an international

langugae means that no nation can have custody over it. To

grant custody of the language is necessarily to arrest its

development and so to undermine its international status.”

There is now the allowance for the outer and expanding englishes to regulate and direct their own

English development. One may go so far as stating that should some major event happen in any one of

the current inner circle territories it would in no way hamper the development and use of English in the

Outer-Expanding circles. The Englishes have now acquired seperate lives some of which owe their birth

to that distant latin-celtic-welsh-norman-scandanavian ancestor, but which now exist autonomously

from their british cradle.

Outer circle speakers are no longer trying to identify with inner circle speakers, since they are soon

being relinquished to minority English speakers. Colonizers are yet to realise that their language has

been colonised and is out of their possession. British english in itself has become a minority amoung

Native englishes, losing its norm providing competencies. One would soon believe that while English

may not die like latin did, British english would slowly become the dialect of solely speakers on the

british isle.

The Outer circle involves the earlier phases of the spread of English in non-native settings where

language has become a part of chief institutions. It represents “the regions that have passed through

extended periods of British Colonisation and have subsequently institutionalised English varieties into

systems of government, law, education and literature.” (Jahan 2) The English language in this setting

serves as an additional language and not a mother tongue. It would be surprising to the speakers that

speak, think and exist within the realms of the English language that the language they have known all

their lives is not their mother tongue.

11

Mohammed 05726337

Gupta (1997) suggests a classification system that divides English into five different categories:

Monolingual ancestral such as Britain and the USA; Monolingual contact such as Jamaica, Trinidad,

Antigua, Barbados and other Anglophone countries whose primary and only language is English;

Monolingual scholastic such as India, Japan, China and other countries whom are choosing to adopt

English because of its empowering capabilities and Multilingual Contact such as Singapore; and

Multilingual Ancestral such as South Africa.

To these five categories I propose the addition of a final category Monolingual/Multilingual Technical

which includes the English language variety used in various linguistic settings for specific technical

purposes. This category it is hoped shall serve particularly useful to compensate for where Kachru fails

to account for those varieties of English which are not bound by geographical or ethnic influences.

Namely those relating to activities such as commerce, education, technology, law, culture and social life

e.g. legal English, airline English, medical English, public

The classifications by Gupta are valuable, because they are realistic descriptors of the language setting

that the English variety is born out of. It is far more focused than the inner/outer/expanding terms that

kachru initiates. Gupta acknowledges the true heterogeneity of the Englishes scattered across the globe,

while conceding that as distinct as some may be, others succumb to similar cycles of development.

Kachru also recognises the phases of the development that Englishes go through, yet his model has no

place for the distinct phases of different Englishes.

In the Kachruvian perspective “non-native institutionalised” Englishes go through three stages of

development “non-recognition” where the local speakers are prejudiced against it and believe that

some native speaker imported variety is superior and should be the model for language learning in

schools. The second phase sees the existence of the non-native variety alongside the native standard

variety, where the local variety is being used in a broader range of situations. The final phase sees the

11

Mohammed 05726337

local variety being recognised as the norm and gaining social acceptance. However, this understanding

of the development of English in Outer and Expanding Circle countries on Kachru’s part may have

fuelled their failure as models. Kachru’s developmental cycle may function as a descriptor for only

Gupta’s Monolingual scholastic grouping. Otherwise, Moag 1992, in his research on Fijiian English, a

Kachruvian expanding circle variety. Schneider declares that there is the possibility that within Kachru’s

Outer circle there is now the emergence of varieties which have no history of contact or settlement,

thus justifying Gupta’s Monolingual Scholastic category.

Braj kachru’s Concentric Circle Model in 2010 has proven itself to be an archaic representation of the

spread and functions of English language globally. Built upon weak definitions and historical categories

that have long since broken; the model failed to cater for the expansions that globalisations would force

upon the English Language.

11

Mohammed 05726337

BibliographyAcar, Ahmet. "Standard and Competence in English as an International Language Pedagogy." Asian EFL Journal (2007).

Christie, Pauline, ed. Caribbean Language Issues, Old & New: Papers in Honour of Professor Mervyn Alleyne on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Kingston: The University of the West Indies Press, 1996.

Davies, Alan. "Is International English an Interlanguage?" TESOL QUARTERLY 23.3 (1989): 447-466.

Devonish, Hubert. Jamaica Gleaner. 5 August 2000. 30 March 2009 <http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20000805/Lead/Lead4.html>.

Jahan, Rubaiyat. "Global Perspectives on the notion of "Target Culture" associated with English as a Foreign Language." University of Sydney Papers in Tesol 1 (2006): 1-17.

Jenkins, Jennifer. World Englishes a Resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Kachru, Braj. "Models of English for the third world: White man's burden or linguistic pragmatics." TESOL Quarterly (1976).

Kilickaya, Ferit. "World Englishes and English as ab International Language and Applied Linguistics." English Language Teaching CCSE Journal 2.3 (2009): 35-50.

Knuth, Natalie. New and World Englishes. May 2007.

Mair, Christian, ed. The Politics of English as a World Language:New Horizons in Post Colonial Cultural Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003.

Mugglestone, Lynda, ed. The Oxford History of English. London: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Paradowski, Mical B. Benefits of MultiLingualism. 2008. 20 01 2009 <http://knol.google.com/k/micha-b-paradowski/benefits-of-multilingualism/2qpvzotrrhys1/24#>.

Patil, Z.N. "On the nature and role of English in Asia." The Phillipine ESL Journal (2001).

Pennycook, A. "Global Englishes, RIP Slyme and performativity." Journal of Sociolinguistics (2003): 513-533.

Qiong, Hu Xiao. "Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and the other "World Englishes"." English Today 20.2 (2004): 26-33.

Quinn, Daniel. Ishmael. Bantam-Turner Books, 1995.

Scehll, Martin A. "Whose English is it: Review of Braj Kachru's Asian Englishes Beyond the Canon." Linguistics Journal (2006).

The Dimensions of Applied Linguistics. <http://www.ciil-ebooks.net/html/dimension/intro.html>.

11

Mohammed 05726337

Truchot, Claude. "The spread of English in Europe." Journal of European Studies 24.94 (1994): 14-20.

Unknown. "English Language Teaching." Unknown (2009).

"Models of World Englishes." Unknown. World Englishes and their Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching:. n.d.