1. World Englishes: Theoretical Paradigms and Research Implications

2. Global status of English Kachru (1989) maintained that the various roles English serves in various countries are best explained in terms of three concentric circles: –Inner Circle  English is the primary language of the country (e.g. USA, UK, Canada, etc.) –Outer Circle  E is an additional language (e.g., India, Singapore, the Philippines, etc.]: –Expanding Circle  E is widely studied as a foreign language(e.g., Japan, Korea, China, Russia, Brazil, etc.)

3. Different circles, different theoretical paradigms International English [IE] (Quirk, 1985, Trudgill & Hannah, 2008, etc.) English as a world language [WE] (Kachru, 1982, 1992; etc.) English as a Lingua Franca [ELF] (Seidlhofer, 2001, Jenkins, 2006; Mauranen, 2003)

4. International English [IE]  (IE) is the theoretical paradigm within Inner Circle of English  IE is Standard English (“The main subject of this book is Standard English.” [Trudgill & Hannah, 2008, p. 1]) “The variety whose grammar has been described and given public recognition in dictionaries and books with its norms being widely considered to be ‘correct’ and constituting ‘good usage’. … However this uniformity and stability are only relative. The English speaking world differs noticeably from one place to another…” The monocentricity of English is at the core of the IE paradigm—”there is no merit of teaching other than standard English” (Quirk, 1985).

5. IE: Research implications  The NS is considered to be the norm provider  The central assumption is that all L2 users of English strive to acquire the norm (to pass for NSs).  Research designs compare ESL users to NSs to find out how the ESL users deviate from the NS norm.  Discussion of findings aims at pointing out ESL users’ deficiencies with regard to the norm.

6. World Englishes (WE)  WE as a term is well accepted by all the three circles of English (esp. the Outer Circle countries).  WE functions generally as an umbrella term for all varieties of English worldwide  The nativized and/or indigenized varieties of English are major linguistic interests of the supporters of the WE paradigm.  It is strongly associated with Kachru and other scholars working in a “world Englishes paradigm.”

7. WE : Research implications  The WE paradigm uses discourse analysis, genre analysis, and pragmatics studies in their analysis of features of new Englishes (e.g. phonological, syntactic, lexical).  The central assumption is that each variety deserves to be described in its own right with regard to the functions its serves for its speakers (regardless of its intelligibility to NSs).  Researchers make use of specialized corpora.  The goal is to explore social, ideological, identity-related and cultural dimensions of learning and using English.

8. English as a lingua franca (ELF)  ELF is currently led primarily by European researchers (e.g., B. Seidlhofer, J. Jenkins, A. Firth, E. llurda, A. Mauranen etc.) within the Expanding Circle of English.  It developed out of WE ( started about 20 years after WE).  ELF (in its purest form ) ‘a contact language between persons who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication’ (Firth,1996).  WE and ELF are similar in that they both:  emphasize the pluricentricity of English  seek variety recognition  accept that language changes and adapts itself to new environments  highlight the discourse strategies of English knowing bilinguals. WE and ELF differ in their understanding of who their target users are.

9. Reasons for claiming a separate status for ELF  For the first time in history, a language has reached a truly global dimension.  Crystal (1997) gives the following estimates for speakers of English in terms of Kachru’s ‘concentric circles’: –Inner Circle [i.e. first language, e.g. USA, UK]: 320–380 mln –Outer Circle [i.e. additional language, e.g. India, Singapore]: 150–300 mln –Expanding Circle [i.e. foreign language, e.g. China, Russia, Brazil]: 1000+ mln  About 80% of the verbal exchanges in which English is involved do not include NSs (Beneke, 1991; Gnutzmann, 2000).

10. (cont’d)  EIL exchanges often occur in influential networks (e.g., politics, economics, global business, technology, science, etc.).  85% of the international organizations (1995 – 1996) make official use of English  80% of the world’s electronically stored info is in English.  65% - 85% of scientific papers are published in English.  A large part of the SLA research tends to construct the English L2 user as a defective communicator, while English is primarily used as a practical tool.

11. ELF: Research implications  The NS is considered to be a model provider rather than a norm provider.  The ELF paradigm uses linguistic analysis (e.g. phonological, syntactic, lexical, etc.), discourse analysis, genre analysis, pragmatics studies to find out how ELF users maintain communication flow.  Comprehensibility is a two-way street that is maintained through the culture of tolerance.  Researchers make use of specialized corpora (e.g. VOICE).  The goal is to explore social, ideological, identity-related and cultural dimensions of learning and using English.

12. Thought questions: 1.In your opinion, are IE, WE, and ELF competing or are they complementary paradigms? 2.Please share (at least) one thing you carried away or related to from the readings and or the discussion. 3.What do you think is the plight of English?