World English

World Englishes Author(s): Rakesh M. Bhatt Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 30 (2001), pp.527-550 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069227 . Accessed: 18/01/2012 14:23 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology. http://www.jstor.org Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2001. 30:527-50 Copyright() 2001 by AnnualReviews. All rights reserved ENGLISHES WORLD RakeshM. Bhatt Illinois 61801; e-mail: [email protected] Universityof Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, variation, languagecontact,language Key Words languagespread, languagechange,Englishlanguagestudies * Abstract Thisessay is anoverviewof the theoretical, methodological, pedagogissues of world Englishes:varietiesof English ical, ideological,and power-related used in diversesociolinguistic contexts.The scholarsin this field have criticallyexaminedtheoretical methodological and frameworks languageuse based on westof and frameworks linguisticscience and of ern,essentiallymonolingual monocultural, that themwithframeworks arefaithfulto multilingualism language and varireplaced ation.Thisconceptual shiftaffordsa "pluricentric" of English,whichrepresents view diversesociolinguistichistories,multicultural identities,multiplenormsof use and and of acquisition, distinctcontextsof function.The implications this shift for learnandteachingworldEnglishesare criticallyreviewedin the final sectionsof this ing essay. INTRODUCTION This articlefocuses on majorcurrent theoreticalandmethodologicalissues related to what has been characterizedas "WorldEnglishes."In the past three decades, the study of the formal and functional implications of the global spreadof English, especially in terms of its range of functions and the degree of penetration in Westernand, especially, non-Westernsocieties, has received considerableattention among scholars of English language, linguistics, and literature;creative writers;language pedagogues; and literary critics. It is in this context that the late Henry Kahane remarked:"English is the great laboratoryof today's sociolinguist"(1986, p. 495). There is now a growingconsensus among scholarsthat there is not one English language anymore:ratherthere are many (McArthur 1998), most of which are disengaged from the language's early Judeo-Christian tradition.The differentEnglish languages, studied within the conceptualframework of world Englishes, representdiverse linguistic, cultural, and ideological voices. The field of study of world Englishes-varieties of English used in diverse sociolinguistic contexts-represents a paradigmshift in research,teaching, and applicationof sociolinguistic realities to the forms and functions of English. It rejectsthe dichotomyof US (nativespeakers)vs THEM(nonnativespeakers)and 0084-6570/01/1021-0527$14.00 527 and literarycontexts (McArthur1992. Kachru 1982. especially in the past three decades. Mesthrie 1992. Englishes. Pennycook 1994. Foley et al 1998). and the field has.is rooted in contexts of social injustice and seeks to transformthese contexts radicallyin the interestof the speakersof the "other tongue"-the nonnative speakers (Bhatt 2001a. symbolizes the formal and functional variations. The world Englishes paradigmraises several interestingquestions about theory. 1987. as a generalterm for several forms of linguistic beliefs and practicesthataccent the sociopoliticaldimensions of language variation. empirical validity. 1985. the linguistic.528 BHATT emphasizesinsteadWE-ness (McArthur1993. 1998. Kachru1991.and ideology (Kachru 1990). English is regardedless as a Europeanlanguageand an exclusive exponentof Judeo-Christian traditions moreas a pluricentric and languagerepresenting diversesociolinguistichistories. 1998.and the various identities English has accrued as a result of its acculturation new sociolinguistic ecologies (Kachru1965. 334) interpreted field most succinctly when he observed"thereis a club of equals here. critically examinedtheoreticaland methodological frameworksbased on monotheistic ethos of linguistic science and replaced them with frameworksthat are faithful to multilingualismand language variation (Kachru 1983. 1986. Linguistic and literarycreativityin English is determinedless by the usage of its native speakersand more by the usage of nonnativespeakers.b. 1983.multicultural identities."The pluralization. and (c) pedagogies that respond to both intra. Referringto the logo acronymof the journal WorldEnglishes (1984). social responsibility. McArthur1992). Lowenberg 1984. Phillipson 1992. Kachru 1986). Parakrama1990. . 1991. Bhatt 1995a. Ferguson 1982. Lippi-Green1994.and internationalfunctions of English (Bailey & Gorlach 1982. Bamgboseet al 1995).multiplenormsof use and acquisition.sociolinguistic. The philosophical-theoretical assumptionsunderlyingthe study of world Englishes are groundedin what has come to be known as liberationlinguistics (Labov 1972.the divergent sociolinguistic contexts. Kachru1992a). Bamgbose 1982. An inquiry into world Englishes invites (a) theoreticalapproachesto the study of in English that are interdisciplinary orientation. Mesthrie1992. McArthur(1993. Kachru 1982. The liberation linguistic-theoreticassumptionshave displaced and discreditedthe trinityof ENL (English as a native language). Chisimba 1984.and distinctcontexts of function (Smith 1981. Kachru 1997.Milroy& Milroy 1985. Kachru& Quirk 1981). Viswanathan1989. Liberationlinguistics. 1995. Deniere 1993. Canagarajah1999).(b) methodologies that are sensitive to multilingual and multiculturalrealities of language-contactsituations. Ferguson 1982. sociolinguistic. The pluralism is an integral part of world Englishes. This shift has extended the empirical domain of the study of conceptual-theoretical English.and EFL (English as a foreign language)and has presentedinstead a model of diffusion of English that is defined with reference to historical. and literary creativity.ESL (English as a second language). 1988. 1993. Strevens in 1992). Cheshire 1991. Magura1984. 1997). the p.who outnumbernative speakers4:1 (Crystal 1995. WE. MalaysianEnglish.WORLD ENGLISHES 529 SPREAD AND STRATIFICATION The Spread of English The transformation a triballanguageto Standard of English in the nineteenthcentury is well documented(Platt et al 1984. Bautista1997. the firstdiasporaof English took place-the movementof English-speaking populationsto NorthAmerica. diasporabroughtEnglish to "un-English" andLatinAmerica-which resultedin a significantalteration the earlier of Africa. in terms of linguistic input. a global language. and GhanianEnglish (Kachru1965.g.and literarycontexts of the spreadand diffusion of English. the innercirclerefersto the traditional basesof English.French. the spreadof Latin duringthe Roman Empire"(Plattet al 1984. norms. Machan& Scott 1992. Several attemptshave been made to model the spread and diffusion of English as a global language (Kachru1988. SingaporeanEnglish. Kachru1992a).This socioculturalcontexts-to South Asia. e. Lowenberg1986.It was in this second diasporathat sociolinguisticprofile English came into contact with genetically and culturallyunrelatedlanguages: in Asia with Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages. and (partsof) Irelandin 1707.with an estimated320-380 million speakers(Crystal1997). It was also in this second diasporathat a new ecology for the teaching of English was created. In thismodel. 1). Its spread is arguably"the most striking example of 'language expansion' of this centuryif not in all recordedhistory. Gorlach 1991. English was transplantedby native speakers.Each of these countriesadoptedEnglish as the languageof the new nation. acquisitional. Crystal 1997).whereit is the primarylanguage. of the English language. Scotlandin 1603. IndianEnglish. at the dawn of the twenty-firstcentury. and Australiaand New Zealand.German. and Spanish. . Foley 1988. After the initial expansiontowardWales in 1535. NigerianEnglish. PhilippineEnglish..It has far exceeded that other famous case. and identity. p. we are witnessing John Adams' prophecycoming true:that English will become the most respectedanduniversallyreadand spokenlanguagein the world(Kachru 1992a). The global status of English became establishedin its second diaspora. And now. sociolinguistic. The contact of English with such diverse languages resulted in the development of regional-contactvarietiesof English. Russian. English was introducedas an official languagealongsideothernationallanguages (Knowles 1997. in Africa with languages of the Niger-Congo family. Bamgbose 1982.Canada. along with Arabic. methodology. Sey 1973). as it is now. Crystal 1995). McCrumet al 1986. numericallyor functionally. and in the second. Kachru's(1988) concentriccircle model (Figure 1) capturesthe historical.which resultedin English becoming one of the major languagesof the world. though it was still not.Hindi. Burchfield 1994. McArthur1987. and in Southeast Asia with Altaic languages. The global spreadof English is popularlyviewed in terms of two diasporas: In the first. Platt & Weber1980. terpreted Platt et al 1984.530 BHATT fromKachru circlemodel. The impact and extent of spreadis not easily quantifiablebecause many varieties of English are used for both inter.] Figure 1 Theconcentric The outer circle representsthe spread of English in nonnative contexts. Exponents of Stratification of The stratification English. 1997) and as a dine of English bilingualism . has been inin two ways: as a polylectal continuum(Platt 1975.includesnationswhereEnglishis used primarily as a foreign language. Table 1 presentsa list of countrieswhereEnglish is used as an "official"(loosely defined) language. with an estimated 150300 million speakers. where it has been institutionalizedas an additionallanguage. especially varietiesin the outer circle. with a steady increasein the number of speakersandfunctionaldomains.and intranationalfunctions.The expandingcircle. [Adapted (1997). Mufwene 1994. with an estimated 100-1000 million speakers(Crystal 1997). the basilect is the varietyof English used by people with little contact with English and no formaleducation. is the variety used mainly by educated people.describe Singapore English (Singlish). aAdapted (Kachru 1983. following Bickerton's(1975) model of creole continuum.has identifiedfourfunctionsof Englishin SouthAsia: . as found most visibly in the context of outer-circle varieties of English (Quirk et al 1972. Platt & Weber (1980). Pakir 1991. andLiberian Englishes (Singler 1997) offer more evidence for the continuummodel: In each case. Kachru(1983). socioeconomic classes. its polar opposite. they are also used in literatureto characterizevarious types of interlocutoridentities. Bamgbose 1982). In terms of a lectal range. There is also a functional aspect of this dine. andbutlerEnglish (Hosali & Aitchison 1986). These varieties are not only spoken.which shows little difference from the colonial form of English. One end of this dine representsthe educated variety of English. Lowenberg1991). Vincent theGrenadines and Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore South Africa SriLanka Surinam Swaziland Tanzania Trinidad Tobago and 531 Uganda United Kingdom of United States America Zambia Zimbabwe from Crystal(1985. The dine of bilingualism. The sociolinguistic accounts of South African IndianEnglish (Mesthrie1992). identifiable with a spectrum of varieties spanning from the standardvariety of the lexifier-identified as acrolect-to the basilect.whereasthe acrolect. the other end represents. Kachru 1983). amongothers. p.on the other hand. Caribbean English (Winford1997).Lucia St.WORLD ENGLISHES has TABLE1 Countries whichEnglish officialstatusa in and Antigua Barbuda Australia Bahamas Barbados Botswana Brunei Cameroon Canada Dominica Fiji Gambia Ghana Grenada Guyana India IrishRepublic Jamaica Kenya Lesotho Liberia Malawi Malta Mauritius NewZealand Nigeria NewGuinea Papua Philippines St. for example. Christopher Nevis and St. is relatedto the users and uses.NigerianPidgin(Bamiro1991). 357). basilectin Malaysiaand Singapore(Pakir1991. and the local culturalethos. and (b) regulative-English in administrative legal systems. though not mutually exclusive. Especially afterWorldWarII-with the establishmentof the United and. StandardEnglish. The other perspective on the spread of English is the econoculturalmodel.the "commerciallingua franca. generalcompetencein Englishin differentpolitical. This theory. on the otherhand. of an asymmetricrelationshipbetween producersand consumersthat is internalizedas natural. the second diaspora.and essential and.UNESCO.known as English linguistic imperialism(Phillipson 1992).normative. perspectives.andeconomic marketswould continue to grow rapidly (Mazrui& Mazrui 1998. materialand symbolic investments. which introduce and impose a norm. According to one perspective. LinguisticImperialismor LanguagePragmatics The third phase of English expansion.a few Nations. Accordingly.on the one hand. argues that English is universally imposed by agencies of linguistic coercion. throughwhich is exerted the dominationof those groups that have both the means of imposing it as "legitimate"and the it monopoly on the means of appropriating (cf. 1998). such as the BritishCouncil and TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages). Brutt-Griffler (1999)]. also Pennycook 1994.WorldHealthOrganization. tradepractices.UNICEF. the spread of English in nonnative contexts was actively promoted. Industrialrevproposedby Quirk(1988) and defended in Brutt-Griffler commercialexploitationof the late eighteenth.linguistic imperialismresultsin the emergence. as an instrumentof the foreign policies of majorEnglish-speakingstates. (c) interpersonalEnglish as a link languagebetween speakersof mutuallyunintelligiblelanguages or dialects in sociolinguistically plural societies.via English language teaching (ELT) agencies such as the British Council. The rapid spreadof English during the third phase has been explained at least from two different. cultural. (1998).WorldBank. social. and (d) imaginative-English in various literary genres. of a heteroglossic (hierarchical) arrangementof languages. Brutt-Griffler .and ideologies that representinterests only of those in power [for detailed critiques of this perspective of the spread of (1998). Canagarajah English. see Kibbee (1993). and as a language of elitism and modernization. Davies (1996). Union-it was inevitablethatthe and the Commonwealth the European yearslater.532 BHATT (a) instrumental-English as a medium of learning in educational systems. pervadedby hegemonic value judgments. and Englandcreatedconditions where one language had to early nineteenth-century develop as the language of the world market." With England and the United States at the epicenter of industrialcapitalism of the nineteenthcentury.has recently generated controversiesabout the processes and consequences of the introductionof English into what clearly were un-Englishcontexts.it was naturalthatEnglish became the languageof global commerce.and olution. It is unsurprising. whereeducationwas the only sourcefor the acquisitionof culturalcapital2 and apprenticeship into the "fellowshipsof discourse"(a la Foucault 1972)3. the principalmediumof thatinitiationwas English. In colonial South Asia and West Africa. objectof thisknowledge ritual wasprotected preserved and withina determinate group the. forms.in the secondphase-after the missionaryphase-of the spreadof English in SouthAsia. When the colonizersleft. therefore. tastes capital refers the"system meanings.Apprenticeship gainedaccessbothto a mademanifest. (3) valuesandpractices natural.225-26). local (Indian. exercises memory of impliedby sucha process.Nigeriansin manypartsof thatcountry. of by thisverydistribution.is underthe econoculturalmodel by linguistic pragmatism linguistic not guaranteed imperialism. even. multiple identities. as or beliefs. beingdispossessed An modelof thiswouldbe thosegroups Rhapsodists.attitudes. (2) theclaimthatconflict onlyoccurs conflict viewedas non-political.but their departure create a did new ecology for the teaching of English in terms of (nonnative)linguistic input. eveneternal." speaking listening . they left behindthe linguistichabitusandthe peculiar marketconditions their interventionhad created. did not divulge.p. thepresentation specific is of formsof consciousness. "topreserve to reproduce or but that circulate withina closed discourse. of 3The function "the of to is. thattheproduction hegemonic ideologies "hides" behind number legitimating a of forms.pp. as GokePariola(1993) reports.WORLD ENGLISHES 533 1998). according strict regulations.contestedthe use of indigenouslanguagesin the schools because it was perceivedas denyingthem the linguistic capital necessary for the accumulationof both economic and political powers. tied to the economic conditionsthat of createdthe commercialsupremacy the UnitedKingdomandthe UnitedStates. economic of of i. which was the resultof the demandand willingness of local people to learnit (Kachru1986). in order it should to without thosein possession community. The educationalsystem in the colonies was the most importantinstrumentof the reproduction English symbolic capitalbecause schools1 had the monopoly of over the reproduction the marketon which the value of linguistic competence of depends (Bourdieu 1977.Nigerian. Someof themostobvious include the "(1) claimbydominant classes their that interests the interests thecommunity. or. 1991). Goke-Pariola1993). etc. language thataredirectly indirectly or defined dominant by groupsas sociallylegitimate" (Apple Bourdieu 1978:496. The success of the spreadof English. archaic of and possessing knowledge poemsto reciteor.that prominentpolitical leaders in colonial India. universal.argues Giroux of (1981. 24).oftenextremely by complex.Therecognitionof Englishas symbolic capitalis most clearlyevidenced.The rolesof but groupandto a secretwhichrecitation and werenotinterchangeable. though ultimate But the was it recitation.) norms. uponwhichto workvariations transformations. ( fellowships discourse" according Foucault1972." to here of 2Cultural and abilities.e. communicativecompetencies and methodologiesthatrespectlanguagevariation. 'Itis in schools. of represent entire outside the sphere thepolitical..for example. Bright 1968. in "nonnative" contexts. protracted ically and culturallyunrelatedlanguages. Kachru(1992a).creativity. cultural-sensitive and socially appropriate meanings-expressions of the bilingual'screativity-by andmanipulating structure functionsof Englishin its new ecology. and Kachru 1992a).it also accommodates." Bilingual's creativityin world Englishes. is best capturedusing the methodologicalpremisethata descriptivelyadequategrammar of English. high society (cf. Hancin-Bhatt& Bhatt (1993).two questionsneed to be answered(Bhatt 1995a):Whatis the structure "nonnative" of Englishes. The theoreticalinsights in the works of Halliday (1973). cally significantgeneralizationsof the grammatical .to nonnativecontexts and came into close.administration. 2000) and Sridhar's(1992) work on IndianEnglish provide a frameworkfor syntactic descriptionsthathas implicationsfor cross-languagetransferand bilingual com(1989). Mohanan(1992). linguistic inin novations. such as education. Sridhar(1992).a beginof ning has alreadybeen made towardexplorationsinto the structure outer-circle varieties of English. Y. Chaudhary Bhatt (1995a.andemergingliterarytraditions English in these countries were immediatelyaccepted. and petence.not as descriptionsof aborted"interlanguages.in the most economical way. the and altering in As a result.b.throughlinguisticimperialism linguisticpragand contactwith genetmatism. NonnativeEnglish speakersthus creatednew. 2000) provide a frameworkof linguistic description that not only allows the simplest interpretationof English language use across cultures. must address the relationshipbetween the forms thatEnglish manifestsand its speakers'perceptionof realityand the nature of of theirculturalinstitutions. D'souza 1988). English underwenta process of acculturation orderto compete in local linguistic marketsthat were hithertodominatedby indigenous languages.This premiseyields an interpretation languageuse constrainedby the grammarof culture (cf. 1997. Kachru(1985) has providedvaluable methodologicalas well as theoretical of insightsintothe structure IndianEnglishdiscourse. especially in the outer circle.b) have providedaccounts of various aspects of the sound patterns of IndianEnglish. Hymes 1974. linguistiof structure worldEnglishes.Mesthrie's (1992) work on South African IndianEnglish and Bhatt's (1995a. and Bhatt (1995a. it went througha process of linguistic and experimentation nativizationby the people who adoptedit for use in different functionaldomains.534 BHATT LANGUAGE NATIVIZATION AND CREATIVITY BILINGUAL'S As the Englishlanguagespread. and how did they come to be the way they are?Withrespectto these questions. LinguisticCreativity in Tounderstand structural the variation Englishacrosscultures. Given the linguistic andculturalpluralismin Africa and SouthAsia. The theoreticalapproachesadoptedin all these studies have a clear methodologicalagenda-to describe the structureof a "nonnative" variety in its own terms. To understand why IndianEnglishhas chosen to use the undifferentiated of strategy. darkoutside.A typical example is "Johnsaid he'll work today. p. isn't it?"-and StandardBritish English/American English-(b) "Yousaid you'll do thejob. 1988) Undifferentiated tags are not exclusive instances of the interplayof grammatical and cultural rules in Indian English.however. "may"is used to express obligation "Thesemistakesmayplease politely-"This furniture be removedtomorrow". isn't it?" (b) "Youhave takenmy role book.didn't he?" Tags have also been analyzed as expressing certain attitudesof the speaker towardwhat is being said in the main clause. isn't it?" (b) "Of course they said they'll be here. 111) discuss the use of what they call undifferentiated questionsas one of the linguistic exponentsof tag IndianEnglish: (a) "Youare going home soon. the meaning of the tag is not the one appendedto the meaningof the main social meaning. tags in Englishbehavelike epistemicadverbials.In fact. didn't they?"In contrastto the b examples above.leaves out the important pragmatic the undifferentiated tags play in the Indian English speech community. for example.: (a) "It'sstill darkoutside. isn't it?"Theirdescription.isn't it?"(b) "It'sprobably presumably. predictably. tags proposition. isn't it?" and "They said they will be here. D'souza becomes relevant. the contrastbetween Indian English-(a) "You said you'll do the job. Notice. tag questionsareformedby a rule thatinserts a pronominalcopy of the subject after an appropriate modal auxiliary.where nonimpositionis the essence of polite behavior. isn't it?" The result is.WORLD ENGLISHES 535 Considerthe use of undifferentiated questionsin IndianEnglish to demontag strate how the theoretical assumptions and methodological insights discussed above provide socially realistic descriptions of the bilingual's grammarin the worldEnglishescontext. where one finds the linguistic form constrainedby the grammarof culture. 79) and Trudgill& Hannah(1985.In most cases. etc. may ." Kachru(1983. p. unacceptable. Functionally. didn'tyou? and"They said they will be here.such as probably.In English. to by politeness regulations. Bhatt(1995b) has in fact argued thatundifferentiated in IndianEnglish are linguistic devices governedby the tags politeness principle of nonimposition:They serve positive politeness functions (a la Brown & Levinson 1987). In a culturewherethe verbalbehavioris severelyconstrained. it is not surprisingthatIndianEnglish has replacedStandard BritishEnglish tags with undifferentiated tags.This intuition is more clearly establishedwhen an adverbof intensification/assertion used in is conjunctionwith the undifferentiated tag: (a) "Of course you said you'll do the job. a largeextent. Indian and Englishspeakersfindthea examplesnonimpositional mitigating.the notion of grammar culture(Bright 1968. The influence of the grammarof culture on linguistic expressions in Indian English can also be seen in the use of the modal auxiliary"may. signaling deference and acquiescence.it is usuallythe tag thatsignals important in IndianEnglish are a fascinatingexample of how linguistic form (of the tag) is constrainedby culturalconstraintsof politeness. and in terms of speech acts and/or performatives."In IndianEnglish. The matrimonialcolumns reflect. The other face of nativizationof sociolinguistic uses of world Englishes is presentedby code mixing in culture-specificinteractions. An illustrationof the sociolinguistic dimension of bilingual's creativity-the of manipulation linguisticresourcesin languageuse to generatenew meanings-is best exemplifiedby code switching(style shifting)reported Mesthrie(1992).to find matrimonialadvertisements South Asian English newspapers using highly contextualizedEnglish lexical items with semanticnativization. in for instance. in matrimonialadvertisements. . Kachru 1991. Sociolinguistic Creativity There is also a sociolinguistic dimension of bilingual creativity.and so on. and (e) languageplanning(Kandiah& Kwan-Terry 1994). have been discussed by Kachru(1983) and Myers-Scotton(1993b). The study and analysis of English language use in outer-circlevarieties resulted in the following types of cross-culturaland cross-linguisticresearch:(a) discourse analysis..constrainedboth by cognitive-economyconsiderationsand by social-functionalrequirements (Platt& Weber1980. 1991).in the news media. such as exclusion. politeness. Bhatia 1997). (d) genre analysis (V. 1991). discourse strategies. Sridhar 1992. Kachru1985. as shown in two Hinduexamples from 1 July 1979 (Kachru1986). Bokamba 1992.identity.b. Bhatt 1995a. Gumperz1982. 219). 1997.in obituaries. The linguisticchecklist of innovationsin the outer-circlevarietiesof English is endless.andelitism. Kamwangamalu 1989. 1995. (c) code mixing and code switching (Bhatia & Ritchie 1989. A by at young South AfricanIndianEnglish-speakingattendant the securitysection of the airportaskedhim.the securityguardat the airport defusingthe of power ("Do you have anythingto declare?")in favorof mesolectal solisyntax darity(Mesthrie1992. Wantedwell-settledbridegroom a Keralafair.. Magura1984. Astasastram girl ..viewed in terms of acculturationand nativizationof the use of English in the outer circle.graduate for Baradwaja gotram. caste hierarchy.536 BHATT be corrected"-in contrastto StandardBritish English-"This furnitureis to be removed tomorrow". p. 1997. Mesthrie 1992. Othersociolinguisticfunctionsof code switching andmixing in worldEnglishes. 2000.b. Myers-Scotton1993a. Subsect no bar. 109).Asian andAfricansensitivityto It color. and stylistic innovations (Richards 1979. 1993. "Youhaven' got anythingto declare?"Mesthriearguesthat was in using the nonacrolectal variety. p. Y. (b) speech acts (Y. Kachru1983. Severalstudieson linguistic acculturation creativityin English in the and outercircle have convincinglydemonstrated world Englishes have their own that syntactic and logical structure. Bhatt 1997). "These mistakes should be corrected"(Trudgill& Hannah 1985. D'souza 1988. Bao 1995). 1987. regionalattitudes. is not uncommon.andfamily structure.as Kachru(1986) has convincinglyargued. Smith 1981. Valentine 1988. "said the farmersagely. Kachru1976). p." He turnedback to his tobacco.WORLD ENGLISHES 537 well qualifiedprospectivebridegroom below 20 for graduate Non-Koundanya No Iyengar girl. the more people will respectyou. show thatboth the text and the contextmust be nativizedin orderto derive an interpretation is faithfulto the new situationsin which worldEnglishes that the function. what about the attitudetowardnativizationby nonnativespeakers?Here the venerableChinuaAchebe (1966. Average complexion. primarily economic gains (Kachru1996. but it is as much Indian as the others. as in the above examples. "People love English!" said the farmerwith a strange sort of deep-voiced giggle. Bamgbose 1971. Mirugaserusham. A SuitableBoy. On one end of this attitudinal membersof the innercircle (Quirk cline are the linguistic Cassandras. But it will have to be a new English."These endorsementsof the relationshipbetween underlyingthoughtpatternsand languagedesign are perhapsbest exemplifiedby . The cross-culturalattitudesaboutthe forms and functions of world Englishes show a cline: from acquisitionaldeficit to pragmaticsuccess. As Iyengar (1962. 22) sums it up most eloquently:"I feel the English languagewill be able to carrythe weight of my African experience. Maanwonderedwhat possible use English could be to the farmer. Romaine 1997. But. He had noticed Maan'sluggage tag. "Do you speak English?"he said after a while in the local dialect of Hindi. p."said Maan. 1996. "Whatuse is English?"said Maan. "If you talk in English. It is a new voice. Furthermore. "Without English you can't do anything. still in communionwith its ancestralhome but alteredto suit its new African surroundings. The otherend of this attitudinal cline is capturedratherfaithfullyin a conversation thattakes place between a farmerand an Indianin VikramSeth's novel. no doubt. 3) puts it: "Indianwriting in English is but one of the voices in which India speaks. 1997) launchingparadigmsof marginality. The rhetorical-communicative styles of South Asian English. Reply with horoscope. Honey 1983. you are a king. "Yes. for 1990." Achebe's observationaboutthe appropriateness indiginizedvarietiesof Enof glish for articulatinglinguistic voices in nonnativecontexts is supportedby the results of empirical investigationson attitudesof nonnativespeakerstowardexocentric (native) and endocentric(nonnative)models (Llamzon 1969. LiteraryCreativityand Canonicity The nativizationand alterationof English ensuredits use as a mediumfor indigenous expression. Sey 1973. The more people you can mystify. successful. daughterof engineer. dosham. Bhatt2001a). contextuallyappropriate of interpretation the above examples requiresbilingual as well as biculturalcompetence. Thus. code switching. The world is like a mask. its diffusion and penetrationat various societal levels and functionaldomains. 1992a. as Achebe ably demonstrates.taken-for-granted linguistic understandings users and uses of havebeenquestionedandchallenged(Kachru1988). I have a hunch that those who fail to come to termswith the white man may well regrettheirlack of foresight. My spirit tells me that those who do not befriendthe white man today will be saying.one writtenin the indiginized/Africanized style and the other in native English style. I am sending you as my representative among these people-just to be on the safe side in case the new religion develops. Bhatt 1997. Kachru1993. Smith 1993. It is in of these new Englishes. a notion that attemptsto aclanguagehas become "multicanon" commodatethe currentsociolinguistic reality in world Englishes. In the passage.and the ideological. An analysisof thesenew/indigenousvarietiesrevealthatthe innovationsin their of structure use are. tomorrow. 1994. Kachru 1983. Bokamba1992. you do not stand in one place. the Africanizedversion (Achebe 1969). where speakers of a wide range of first languages communicatewith one another through English. Sridhar1992. style shifting. has had a very importantconsequence: Some of of the traditional. a linguisticresponseto the constraints and the grammar theirrespectivenativecultures(Bright1968. D'souza 1987).as discussedabove. the English (Kachru1991). pedagogical. 1987. Mesthrie1992. If you want to see it well. But if there is something then you will bring back my share. Y. 1986. I want one of my sons to join these people and be my eyes there. we observetodaythe most that activeprocessesof a bilingual'screativity:translation. . dancing.etc. reflects faithfullythe underlyingthoughtpatternsof the cultural context of languageuse. Lowenberg1988. If there is nothing in it you will come back. English is 1981. the Chief Priest is telling one of his sons why it is necessary to send him to Church. transcreation. "hadwe known".sociolinguistic. Achebe provides two short passages of the same material.theoretical. A sustainedacademic English to campaignfor a non-Eurocentric approach the studyof worldEnglishesresulted in the sacrifice of five types of sacred cows: the acquisitional. Baumgardner asused as a medium to presentcanons unrelatedto traditionalJudeo-Christian sociations or the Europeanculturalheritage of the language. (Bhatia& Ritchie 1989.The firstof the two passages below. THE SACRED COWS OF ENGLISH The global spread of English.538 BHATT Achebe (1969). 2. Thumboo 1992. One has to move with the times or else one is left behind. 1. 1996). pp.therecan be no talkof fossilizationwithoutreference to such constructsas targetlanguage. error. The native/nonnative distinctions. 25-30. a manifestationof a steady-stateculturalgrammar English in outer-circlecontexts. 1991). The of the native speaker. Bley-Vroman 1983. White 1989.the constructsprovide a "habit of thought"thatnormalizesand universalizesa paradigmof linguisticinquirythat privileges "knowledgeof language"in the possession only of native speakers. These constructs..WORLD ENGLISHES 539 AcquisitionalSacredCow Acquisitionalquestions relate to the relevance of concepts such as interference. Comparativefallacy refers to the researcherimposing the structureof the targetlanguage onto an interlanguage. see also Silverstein 1996a). 1996. Fossilizationtheory. not from the structuralperspective of the target language (cf. interlanguage. native speakers.that the structure of the interlanguageat various stages should be consideredon its own terms. suffersfrom the assumption of what Bley-Vroman (1983) terms a comparativefallacy.. & This definitioncompletely marginalizesthe empiricalfact that more second lancontextsthanin "native" contexts(cf.get validatedby the kind of intellectualimperialismwhereby a particular in model of language. conceptualization speech communityvaries from Bloomfield's definition("a speech communityis a group of people who interactby means of speech")to the rathercomplex definitionsof JohnGumperzand RobertLe Page (Hudson 1980.in Selinker's why (1972. The standard definitionof a second languageis one thatis acquiredin an environmentin which the languageis spokennatively(Larsen-Freeman Long 1991).Bhatt(2001a. the use of undifferentiated tag questions by IndianEnglish speakersis not a reflex of incomplete acquisition. p. This idealand izationproduces"theillusion of linguisticcommunism" ignoresandtrivializes set the sociohistoricaland economic conditions thathave establisheda particular . Sridhar1994).Several scholarshave argued.b) Ferguson 1982.a non-targetlanguagestage.and the ideal speaker-hearer. 8) putsit: "Ifthere'sone thingwe often know aboutdeveloping it's Interlanguages. that they don't have the structureof the targetgrammar-so such a fuss aboutthe syntaxof the targetlanguage.and fossilization. guage acquisitiontakesplace in "nonnative" Sridhar1994).performan ideological function.a of but fossilized interlanguage.ratherconvincingly. 1993) interlanguage theory.. Schwartz& Sprouse 1996." However. argues. As Schwartz(1995. Schwartz 1995.possessed by "an ideal native speaker-hearer a completely la Chomsky 1986) assumes a paradigmatic homogeneous speech community"(a statusin the linguistic sciences as a whole (see also Silverstein1996b).and errors(Davies 1989. to the users and uses of English in the outer circle. As discussed in the previous section.althoughinvalidfor acquisitionalaccountsof nonnative varieties. TheoreticalSacredCow The theoretical concerns relate to three vital concepts: the speech community. Mesthrie 1992.and local identitiesEnglish has acquiredas a result of language contact and change. literary.is the right step towardpracticing socially realistic and contextuallysensitivepedagogy.The voices of reasonareseldom ignored.and (teaching) materials. . 1983. is a critical site where the dominantideology. perhapsantidogmaticin ESL pedagogicalpractices. models.g. Should the inner-circlenormbe the model for teachingEnglish in outer-circle contexts. Kachru1982.and culturalidentities. IdeologicalSacredCow The teaching of English.or shouldit be the local variety?The theoreticalrelevanceof this question is discussed by Savignon & Berns (1984). PedagogicalSacredCow The research in the past two decades has clearly demonstratedthat world Ennorms. see Bailey & Gorlach 1982. and that this meaning satisfies all contextsin which linguists. 1986. anthropologists. However. StandardEnglish.has been the demythologizationof the traditional English canon and the establishmentof new canons with theirown linguistic.540 BHATT of linguisticpracticesas dominantandlegitimate.andeven glishes have theirown structural their own communicativestyles (e. this codification excludes the oppositionaldiscourse(Rampton1990. Kachru(1988) argues. (teacher)training. psychologists. SociolinguisticSacredCow of The sociolinguistic concerns relate to the issue of "pluricentricity" English. And at the same time. Their views entail a radicalrestructuring (classroom) resources.Such a step. Trudgill& Hannah1985).Paikeday's(1985) all too familiarconclusion aboutthe theoreticalstatus of the termnative speakeris convenientlyignored: I am convincedthat"nativespeaker"in the sense of the sole arbiterof gramnatureabout his or her maticality or one whose intuitions of a proprietary mothertongue and which are sharedonly by othersof his own tribeis a myth by propagated linguists. Smith 1987. Nelson (1992. and materials-have not shown any sensitivityto local sociolinguisticcontexts. and Kachru(1992a).theirown characteristic features. Singh 1995). 1995). In the context of world Englishes. the codificationof the native/nonnative distinction in standardtextbooks universalizesits legitimacy and contributesto the success of StandardEnglish ideology.. except when it directlyrefersto the speaker'smothertongue or aboutthe speaker'slinguistic first-acquired languagewithoutanyassumptions competence. the variousnational.the pedagogical paradigms-methods. of Smith (1992).educators. Sridhar1994. Tickoo (1991). The most importantoutcome of pluricentricity.and othersuse it.regional.thatthe truemeaningof the lexeme "nativespeaker" is a proficientuser of a specified language. with the entire frameworkand institutionsthat support it worldwide. and how Englishlanguageteachingin outer-circle Medgyes(1992. subjectsof a society areactivelytaughtto believe thatthe adoptionof ideology can bringaboutsocial changesfor theirbenefit.Conforming these norms. CRITICAL ISSUES WORLDENGLISHES: TEACHING Codificationand StandardEnglishIdeology of The standardization English has allowed the interpretation sociolinguistic. 1996). As a language that conveniently disregards the essentially betweenitself andthe universe. The ideological and symbolic power of English in outercircle has two sides. inevitabletie with ideology mustpresentitself as possessing some kindof inherent. 1996). problems of ing. 1994). 142).There are worksof many scholars. of andacquisitional as consequencesof liberallinguisticthinkeducational. Standard English. The success of standardizationdependslargelyon the ideological strategiesandrhetoricaloperationsused to devalueindigenous (nonnative)varietiesagainstthe standard (native)variety. . 1990.. Negative Antinationalism Anti-native culture Materialism Vehicle for Westernization Rootlessness Ethnocentricism Permissiveness Divisiveness Alienation Colonialism is constantly evolving and continuouslybargainingwith regional ideologies for power (Dua 1994).WORLDENGLISHES TABLE 2 Labels used to symbolize the power of Englisha 541 Positive National identity Literaryrenaissance Culturalmirror(for native cultures) Vehicle for modernization Liberalism Universalism Secularism Technology Science Mobility Access code aFromKachru(1996. linguistic the solutionto the problems(cf.such as Quirk(1990.g. Honey (1983. p.ideologies.the dominant randomrelationships circumstantial. Quirk1988. 1997). so doing. This ideological landscapeis changing now as outer-circlevarieties compete for functional domains that belonged exclusively to inner-circlevarieties. contexts is surreptitiously and social relationsnecessaryto promoteand sustainthe statusquo. general grammaticalignorance.e. In thevalueit represents. as shown in Table2. thatillustrate forced to serve to inculcateonly the culture.and other similar contraventions English thenbecomes to norms. positive and negative. The assumptionsform part of the "tacit dimension"of scholarly understanding. Honey 1983.and the teachers-the agents of linguistic coercion-mainly for two reasons:(a) The recognitionof languagevariationthreatens. crevarieties(Canagarajah ating strongpressurein favorof the nonstandard-language varieties are marginalizedby the grammarians.542 BHATT It is the function of the (StandardEnglish) ideology that the ELT profession as recognizes"ambilingualism" thegoal of secondlanguageacquisition. Kachru 1988.however.fossilization-provide a habit of thought. 1996). targetlanguage/interlanguage. These nonstandard 1993. abovedebate. CommunicativeCompetenceand Intelligibility The traditional monotheisticmethodologiesused for teachingEnglish worldwide fail to honorthe rangeof social functionsand identitiesthat world Englishes carcontexts. 2001b. 1996). 1994).as Milroy & and Milroy (1999) argue.b). 1995). The success to naturalizeand essentialize homogenizationand standardization. The system of ideological management-the strategicandregulatory practices requiredto manage language variation (Bhatt 2001b)-provides the tools. Lippi-Green1997). bear testimonyto the success of the Standard English ideology.the assumptionsshared they areunderstood mathematical are not propositionsto be defended or attacked(cf. of the managementparadigmmanifests in differentforms of attitudinalinteralizations. theoretical-methodological needed and dard. often polemical. Johnson1992. The commonstrategyemployedby the ELT professionalsto manageandminimize languagevariationis to presentit as an unfortunateoutcome of liberalpedagogy and liberationlinguistics that presumably use locks second languagelearnersto substandard of English (Bhatt2001a.fossilization/ultimate attainment. as axioms.and "interlanguage" the as variety spoken by nonnativespeakers. The liberationideology confronts and competes with the dominantStandard English ideology and producescompeting sets of "values"(Bourdieu 1991). the lexicographers. Bhatt 2001b.suchas native/nonnative.Soon afterbeing introduced. interlanguage.Even wherelearnersmeet the criterionof functionalbilingualism. Kachru& Nelson 1996. Rickford 1997).Secondlanguageteachingmethodologies ries out in diversesociocultural .In reality. Quirk 1990.the ideological link between "grammar" authority.trivial and are dichotomiessuch as proficiency/competence standard/nonstandard created linguisticethnocentrism by the professionandthenused as an alibi for maintaining disguised with concerns over intelligibility among the English-usingpopulation (Bhatt 1995a.These constructs-ambilingualism. especially among the ELT professionals (cf. the standard/nonstanconstructs. The learnersare thus confinedto lifelong apprenticeship the second languagewithoutany hope in for sociolinguisticemancipation(Tollefson 1991. Medgyes 1992."fossilization"as the ultimatefate of second languagelearners. The recent debate on Ebonics and the politics of diglossia in the United States (Pullum 1997.these assumptionsconsecratelinguistic and cultural privilege.and the standardlanguagecan continueto function as the norm throughwhich is (b) exerted the dominationof those groups that have both the means of imposing it it as legitimateandthe monopoly on the means of appropriating (Bourdieu1977). and Smith (1992) have argued against the monolithic view of intelligibility and have arguedinstead that a better understandingof this concept is revealed in its use as a continuum-from recognition) to comprehensibility(word/utterance intelligibility (word/utterance to interpretability (meaning behind word/utterance.Quirk(1985. over time.teaching. the "appropriate" of linguistic confor duct.with theirmonolingualand monocultural (cf." Nelson (1984. writes of "the diaspora of English into several mutuallyincomprehensible languages. p. Smith (1988. locutionaryforce) an interactionalconcept in this model. leave taking." CONCLUSIONS This essay focused on the theoretical. discussed above.ENGLISHES WORLD 543 known must. Bers 1990). requesting-in Indian or Zambian English is quite different from American or British English (D'souza 1991. 1995). Smith & Nelson (1985). connectedto the issue of communicativecompetence. for instance." lowest at the level of intelligibility and highest at the level of interpretability.as perhapsis the case withthe approach as ethnographyof communication(Hymes 1974. that. 1996).French. later. The linguisticrealizationof differentspeech acts-greeting. Kachru 1991.conceptual. 3).be culturesensitive. Y.ideological. and concernsof worldEnglishes. the level of interpretability.is that of intelligibility. all English-using nations must accede to "a form of English that is both understoodand respected in every corer of the globe where any knowledge of any varietyof English exists. "interpretability is at the core of communicationand is more importantthan mere intelligibility or comprehensibility.andusing worldEnglishesrewith not only the conversational contextbut also the broader quirefamiliarization socioculturalcontext in which the utteranceis located (Bers 1990). descriptive. The models of teaching and learningneed thereforeto reflect the socioculturalethos which has wide implicationsfor a theory of of the context of teaching/learning. The key concept in this use approachis communicativecompetence.Sociolinguistic . 274) forcefully arguesthat.therefore.is unprecedented. Anotherissue.The rise of a triballanguageto a global power-related in a millenniumdominatedby Latin and. What is appropriate a situationin one culturemay not be so in another culture. There are. thatlearning. for example.the languagesof language intellectual expression and culturalerudition. meaning. Kachru1994).The issue touchesthe very core of the debatabledistinctionbetween language and dialect. contrary to what is being taughtto studentsfrom grammartextbooks. second languagepedagogy and for its application(McKay & Homberger1996). Earlierpedbias. p. differentdialects of English will become mutuallyunintelligible. are untenable agogical paradigms.It is important. several examples of English text that are readily intelliThe matrimonialexgible and comprehensiblebut not necessarily interpretable. then. "Understanding. is illocutionaryforce). p."For Quirk(1985. from the vantagepointof the inner circle will fail at amples. Y. 6). Sridhar1994.complimenting. critiques.and culturaltrends. a World Language.Mich.its shareof internettrafficis declining.and resourcematerialsmust be constructed aftercarefulstudyof variation. Finally. Davidson 1993). Parakrama1995. as and Dissanayake (1985) argues. Gorlach eds. methodology.AnnualReviews. its teaching. 1969.Things reproRev. demographic.and its economic significance in many countriesis challengedby regionaleconomics.anddisof and places the earliertradition cross-cultural cross-linguisticacquisitionanduse WorldEnglishes.Thenew sociologyof educa- . Skutnabb-Kangas Woolard1985.it is the most widely studiedforeignlanguage.the field of worldEnglishesreevaluates. 1999.and its transformations. sociolinguistic. Heinemann AchebeC. attempts Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www. In conclusion.it dominatessatelliteTV and programming yet its functionsin youth cultureare more symbolic thancommunicative.Graddol's (1997) provocativesurvey of the future of English shows conflicting trends of language use: English is increasinglyrequiredfor high-skill jobs everywherein the world.org LITERATURE CITED Fall Apart. The historical. in its most amof English. as argued by Kachru & Nelson (1996).London: tion:analyzing cultural economic and AchebeC. Second language curriculum.andthe pragmaticsof variation.b. an insightful understandingof the relationshipsbetween linguistic and language-teachingtheory.testing procedures. Woolard& Schieffelin 1994). 1982. Literarycreativity in world Englishes. and applications.Arrowof God. is able to reappropriate repossess fictional discourse thathad come underthe influenceof regimes of colonial authority. 1966. Blommaert & Verschueren1998. Pennycook 1998. the pedagogical concerns in world Englishes provide. 1978. bitious interpretation. Harvard Educ. New York: BaileyR.then. Lowenberg1992.Thereis more awarenesstoday abouthow language use interactswith global economic.and the relationshipbetween languageand systems of dominationand subordination(Phillipson 1992. Ann Univ. Bhatt 2001a. The interdisciplinarytheoretical and methodological framework of world of Englishes has providedan understanding the productiverelationshipbetween cultural studies and English studies. Ramanathan 2000.48:495-503 duction.544 BHATT inquiries into this unprecedentedspread of the English language have yielded of significantunderstandings the linguistic processes and productsof language contactand languagechange. the institutionalacquisition and use of linguistic resources.Englishas M.for effective secondlanguagepedagogy (McKay& Horberger 1996. Arbor: Doubleday Press AppleM. to decolonize and democratizeappliedlinguistics. and ideological accounts of homogeneity and English withinthe worldEnglishes paradigmhave yielded hegemonyof Standard of a broaderunderstanding the social and discursiverelationshipsbetween (and within) speech communities. pp. TheCambridge History of the EnglishLanguage. Illi214 nois. New York:Routledge Bokamba EG. 1998. The comparative fallacy in interlanguagestudies:the case of systematicity.UK: OxfordUniv.pp.material resourcesof peripheryscholars. Columbus. Singapore:Univ. 'Already'in SingaporeEnglish. ed. ed. 1982. 29:20-29 Brown P. Ohio State Univ. 1996.Pakistan:OxfordUniv.constraints. VenerableExpertsand VulnerableDialects: Discourse ofMarginalization in ESL and ELT.Karachi. 1984. In press Bhatt RM. Southern Africa. Urbana:Univ. ThomasA.NigerianEnglishesin Nigerian English literature. 1995a. See Kachru1992b. ed. Prescriptivism. 1975. Code-switching. Levinson S. Chisimba M. Cambridge. 14:247-60 Bhatt RM. 237 pp. Cambridge. IndianLing. 14:181-88 R. The English language in Nigeria.Writ. 15:261-439 Bhatia V. Press R. Debating J. Cambridge. Baumgardner 1993. Pidgin Creole Lang. eds. 2001a. Engl. SouthAsianEnglish: Structure.See Kachru 1982. Baumgardner ed. World Engl. the indentured. J Spencer.Cambridge.Use. Some Aspects of the Phonology of IndianEnglish. 1977. 35-48. See Cheshire 1991. 1997. The development of English as an internationallanguage: a theory of world language. and world Englishes. UK: CambridgeUniv. 2001b. and the segregated: South African Indian English. 435-45 .UK: CambridgeUniv. MA:Harvard Univ. London:Longman NigerianEnglish: BamgboseA. 33:1-17 BlommaertJ. Press CanagarajahAS. 1993. Language economy. 1995b. Politeness: Some Universals in Language. Symposium on constraints on code-switching. "Nondiscursive"requirementsin academicpublishing. Ms Bickerton D. standardization.ResistingLinguisticImperialism in English Teaching. Ill. The Africanization of English. 1971. Towarda cultural grammar. Genre analysis and world Englishes. Lang. 1991. WorldEngl. New Englishes: A WestAfricanPerspective. BurchfieldR. eds. Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: ambiguities in student opposition to reproductionthrough ESOL. TESOLQ. 1994.Nigeria:Mosuro BamiroE. 27:601-26 CanagarajahAS. Press Brutt-GrifflerJ. 99-111 Bamgbose A.Press Bright W. Ill. and Users.New York:Plenum Bhatia TK. ed.India: Jayaswal Cheshire J. Linguist. Dynamic of a Creole 545 System. 1989. 1992. PhD thesis. 1991. 1968. Commun.UrbanaUniv. Ritchie W. Canagarajah 1999. Optimalexpressionsin Indian English. In The English Language in Africa. Aust. UK: CambridgeUniv. pp. pp. 1991. 125-47 BourdieuP.Oxford.: MacquarieLibr. English is an Asian Language: The Philippine Context. Press Chaudhary S. 2000. 1995.WORLDENGLISHES Bamgbose A. 5. 1990. Lingua 102:223-51 BhattRM.. UK: Cambridge Univ. Learn. African varieties of English: text in context. 1997. Bems M. In The Three Circles of English.and the politics of knowledge production. andworldEnglishes. 16(3):313-426 Bhatt RM. Language and Symbolic Power. Press Bautista M. Urbana-Champaign.Ohio. Press. PhD thesis. ed. pp. 1995.UK: CambridgeUniv. 1997. 13:435-72 AS. Press Bley-VromanR. Outlineof a Theoryof Practice. Cambridge. Standard issues and identification. J.Vol.WorldEngl. The uprooted.World Engl. ed. English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives.Press Bourdieu P. Cambridge.4:69-95 Bhatt RM. 1983. Press Chisimba M. 1989. 10:381-96 Bhatt RM. Ibadan. Verschueren 1998. 1987. creativity. Banjo A. 10:7-17 Bao ZM. 1991. Diversity.Lang.Sydney. The English Language in Pakistan. and optimalgrammars. Ranchi. Contextsof Competence: Social and CulturalConsiderationsin Communicative Language Teaching. 1996. Univ. WorldEngl. E Thumboo. The Futureof English?London: Br. An EthnographicApproach. Models of English for the thirdworld:white man's linguisticburdenor languagepragmatics?TESOLQ. Commun. 1982. ELTJ. 1996.A Univ. 1996. In New Sounds'92. New York:Praeger Crystal D. UK: CambridgeUniv. 1973. Is international English an inTESOLQ. Stand. PhD thesis. 10:307-16 Dua HR. pp. Multilin. Temple Univ. Lick HC. TheNative Speakerin Applied Linguistics. Press in HallidayMAK. xii-xvii Foley J.and the PA: Process ofSchooling. Linguistics. 4:233-42 D'souza J. Amst. Illinios. Foreword. GuptaAF. House JohnsonH. Indian Writingin English. WorldEngl. TheLanguageTrap. Lang. Educ. New Englishes: The Case of Singapore. Press Goke-Pariola 1993. HoneyJRS. 1989. Englishes: Studies in Varieties of English. 1985. 17: 487-96 Deniere M. Alsagoff L. teachingEnglishinternationally.Engl. London: Taylor & Francis IyengarKRS.WorldEngl. 1985. Press FoucaultM. Counc. 1991. 1998. Multicult. Foundationsof Sociolinguistics. 1988. J Leather. Interactional strategies in SouthAsian languages:theirimplicationsfor World Engl.See Kachru1982. Bombay:Asia Publ. Singapore:OxfordUniv.Sussex. 1980. The CambridgeEncyclopedia of the English Language. Press Davies A. Butler English: a minimal pidgin? J. Today1:7-9 CrystalD.Cambridge. Speech acts in IndianEnglish fiction. Penn.Cambridge. WorldEngl.London:Arnold Hancin-Bhatt BJ. Cambridge. 1997. 1962. 12:113-25 Davies A. Ironising the myth of linguicism. Pidgin Creole Lang. Knowledge of Language. English in New Cultural Contexts. 1994. Honey UK: Natl. The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Word21:391-410 KachruBB. Press Hymes D. D'souza J. The Indiannessin IndianEnglish. 12:16978 DissanayakeW.Englishas a GlobalLanguage. Bourdieu and the legacy of Europower: Americancolonialism in an African society. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins GraddolD. Aitchison J.46:18089 KachruBB. BhattRM. 1992. 1987. Ideology. 1997. 1986. 1982. DemocratizingEnglish as an international language. UK: Pergamon Chomsky N.Philadelphia. Counc. Culture. Davidson F. TheArchaeologyof Knowledge and theDiscourse on Language.UK: CambridgeUniv. Press CrystalD. 1983.pp. Singapore: Singapore Univ.13:219-34 GorlachM. Univ. Press Cambridge. Press Foley J. Discourse Strategies. 7:159-71 D'souza J. 23:447-67 terlanguage? Davies A. WorldEngl. Towardsa decolonized English: South Asian creativity in fiction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ.Philadelphia: Univ. Dev. ed. ed. KandiahK. The Hegemony of English.London: Faber& Faber Hosali P. Mysore. Sociolinguistics. . Ethnography. 1995. 1:51-79 HudsonR.LanguageIs Power. GumperzJJ. Zhiming B. Oxford. 1997. 1972. UrbanaChampaign. 1991. 1991.Transl. Narrative Inequality. 10:221-39 Kachru BB. Languageand symbolic A. Reflectionsfrom Singapore.Explorations theFunctions of Language. 1981. New York: Pantheon Books Giroux HA. ed. 1976.546 BHATT AM Sheridan Smith. Defossilizing. 18-28. UK: CambridgeUniv. 1974. 1982. 1993. 1988. J. How many millions? The statisticsof Englishtoday. 1993.242 pp. 1986. On the nature of LI filter and cross language transfer effects. South Asia as a sociolinguistic area.UK: CambridgeUniv. 1965. India:Yashoda FergusonC. Amsterdam: JRS. Testing English across cultures:summaryand comments. Press Hymes D. James. 1993. The paradigmsof marginality. pp. 1986. London:Longman Lippi-Green R. 48-67. Hawaii Press 547 KahaneH. pp. 1993. Illinois Press KachruBB. World Englishes. Press Lowenberg PH. 1972. WorldEngl. The spread of English and sacredlinguisticcows. pp. Social meaning and creativity in Indian English speech acts.and Social Meaning. 28:795-800 KachruY. WorldEngl. Engl. 1990. 1994. ed. The OtherTongue. London:Routledge Llamzon T. 1992. 1983. 1997.LanguageSpreadand LanguagePolicy.WorldEngl. Language 62:495-508 KamwangamaluN. WorldEnglishesandapplied linguistics. 13:135-54 KachruBB. Sociolinguistic context and second language acquisition: acculturation and creativity in Malaysian English. Accent. See Lowenberg1988. M Forman. In symposium on linguistic imperialism. Today11:21-31 Kachru Y. Nelson CL. Press KachruY.Urbana:Univ. 1992b. 1989. Perspective 2. See McKay & Horberger 1996. 1996. PhD thesis. Linguist. pp. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Press KachruBB. 216 Illinois. Scott C. English with an Accent. pp.A CulturalHistoryof the English Language. Urbana-Champaign. Lowenberg ed. Press LowenbergPH. Englishizationand contact linguistics. 1984. 23:163-98 Lippi-GreenR. English J. Discourseanalysis. ductionto SecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch. DC: GeorgetownUniv. and Language Planning: A SoutheastAsian Contribution. Penn. Press Philadelphia: Larsen-Freeman Long M. Testing English as a world language: issues in assessing nonnative proficiency.non-native Englishes and second language acquisition research. 1992a. Variationin Malaysian English: the pragmatics of language in contact. 1994. 1988. Press . 1981.TESOLQ. See Kachru 1992b. 12:342-47 Knowles G. Delhi: OxfordUniv. See Machan& Scott 1992.DC: Georgetown Univ. eds. 1986. 1986. 378-87. 1997. 230-52 KachruBB. pp. pp. ed. 1994. Soc. Washington.WorldEngl. Manila:Ateneo Univ. WorldEngl. Washington. Introduction.London:Arnold Labov W. 1993. standardlanguage ideology and discriminatorypretexts in the courts. Monolingualbias in SLA research. Contrastive rhetoricandworld Englishes. World Englishes and English-using communities. pp. See Cheshire 1991. 5:71-83 PH. JE Alatis. 71-102 KachruBB. WorldEngl. ed. Rev. Liberation linguisticsandthe Quirkconcerns. Manoa:Univ. 1992. An IntroD. Culture and argumentative writing in world Englishes. Singapore:Times Acad. 1969. 207-28 KachruBB. 1997. 108-21 Machan T. A typology of the prestigelanguage. 1985. English in the Malay Archipelago: nativizationand its functions in a sociolinguistic area. LowenbergPH. xiii-xx KachruY.Engl. 1997. London:Pergamon KachruBB. Univ.The second diasporaof English. 1988. Today25:3-13 KachruBB. pp. WorldEngl. English in its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics. Communication. Annu. The Indianization of English: TheEnglishLanguagein India. Appl.WORLDENGLISHES Kachru BB. 17:66-87 Kachru BB. 1995. StandardFilipino English. 1991. Symposiumon speech acts in world Englishes. In World Englishes 2000. Kibbee DA. In Language. 15:241-55 Kachru BB. 1991. 8:433-40 KandiahT. Kwan-Terry eds. 10(3):295340 KachruY. 1991. 4:223-32 KachruY. QuirkR. 1991.Lang. Univ. See Smith 1981. 1994.WorldEngl. ed. TheAlchemyof English:The Spread. New York: Oxford Univ. 1996.FunctionsandModelsof Non-Native Englishes. 9:3-20 KachruBB. 36575 Lowenberg PH. LE Smith. A selected bibliography of studies on code-mixing and codeswitching. 17:363-74 Platt J. Hornberger eds.. Cambridge. R Quirk. Intelligibility:the case of nonnativevarietiesof English. Language and Rebellion: A. Duelling Languages. In English in the World:Teaching and Learningthe Languageand Literatures. 1994. 1-6. The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto:Paikeday PakirA. 1993a. Features. 1986. 11:111-28 Mufwene S.UK: CambridgeUniv.London:Routledge OxPhillipsonR. London:Macmillan Mesthrie R. WorldEngl. Cambridge. Univ. PhD thesis. 1994. KaulaLampur:OxfordUniv. WeberH. 1995. 14:273-79 Paikeday TM. E Schneider. The English languages? Engl. English in Language Shift. 1992. 1987. 1985.pp. 2nd ed. 1995. Press Medgyes P. pp. PhD thesis. SouthernAfrican Black English. English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status. Social Motivations for Code-Switching:Evidencefrom Africa. Oxford. World Engl. Intelligibility and world Englishes in the classroom. 1992.London:Katha ParakramaA. 1980. Press MaguraB.Bilingualwritingforthemonolingual reader:blowing up the canon.Linguist. The Non-native Teacher. The English Languages. ed. 1992. Describingthe phonology of non-nativevarietiesof a language. Press Mesthrie R. 1998. 10:167-79 Parakrama 1990. The OxfordCompanionto the English Language. 1997. De-hegemonizing Language Standards. In English Around the ed. Chicago Press McArthur T. ed.WorldEngl. MazruiA. 1985. London:Penguin McArthurT.UK: CambridgeUniv. 1992. London:Routledge PullumGK.London: Longman Pennycook A. 1992. 1996. 164 Illinois. World Engl. Nelson C. 1993b. Univ. The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect "Singlish" as a Creoloid. World Engl. Press McCrumR. Today. MaguraB. The English language or the English languages?In The English Language. WF Bolton. UK: Cambridge Univ. Urbana-Champaign.UK: Clarendon Nelson C. The Englishlanguagein a global context. Chicago: Univ. 1985.July/Sept:9-11 McArthurT. Functions. London:Faber& Faber N. Press Platt J. The rangeanddepthof Englishknowing bilinguals in Singapore. 1984. New Englishes and the criteria for naming them. pp. 1997. Press McArthurT.LinguisticImperialism. ed. Cambridge. The Power of Babel: Language and Governancein the African Experience. Press Platt J. 32341. Milroy L. Weber H. UK: Oxford Univ. London:Routledge Milroy J. UK: OxfordUniv. 1985.Cambridge. 46:340-49 Medgyes P.London:MacMillan Pennycook A. World.Anthropol. Milroy L. The New Englishes.H Widdowson. ford. 1997. 1984. London:Routledge. 1991.548 BHATT to-Pidgin continua. Ho ML. MacNeil R. World Engl. Ill. Authorityin Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins Milroy J. 1994. 4:251-56 MazruiA. 13:2131 Mufwene S. 1998. UK: CambridgeUniv. Sociolinguistics in Language Teaching. English and the Discourses of Colonialism. WorldEngl.pp. D Crystal. 11:271-75 Nelson C.Nature 328:321-22 QuirkR. 1984. 1975. The Storyof English. McKay S. Style and meaning in Southern African English. Oxford. The Cultural Politics of English as an InternationalLanguage. 242 Urbana-Champaign.UK: Clarendon Myers-Scotton C. MohananKP. Discoursive Unities and the Possibility of Protest. 16(2):181279 Myers-ScottonC. Authorityin Language. Languagethatdarenot speak its name. 1992.119-40. Oxford. 1998. 1999. CranW. A sociolinguistic study of topicalizationphenomenain South African Black English. 1993. Symposiumon English- . Native or non-native:who's worthmore?ELTJ. Discover Dec:82-87 Romaine S. affiliation. 25:1-25 RickfordJ. 1991. London:Longman S. Linguistic Genocide-or WorldwideDiversity and Human Rights. Readings in English as an InternationalLanguage. Tollefson J. 1972. Hannah J. WorldEngl. ELTJ. Languageand Standards: Issues. 28:800-5 Strevens P. English as an international language:directionsin the 1990s. The ecology of bilingual competence: language interaction in indigenized varieties of English. 44:97-101 RichardsJ. The literarydimension of the spreadof English.Appl. RKS Macaulay. 1985. Res. Planning Language. Lang. Greenbaum Leech G. 255-82 Tickoo M. ed. pp. Languagevarietiesandstandard language. Second Lang. J. 33:21131 Rampton MBH. Sprouse R. TESOLQ. 1997. 1973. Power and Inequalityin UK: CamLanguageEducation. Attitudes. Cent. London:Macmillan Smith LE. Ramanathan 1999. Monoglot "standard" in America: standardization metaphorsof and linguistic hegemony. 229-41 QuirkR. Grammatical Lexical Variance in English. 265-82 SmithLE. Language spread and issues of intelligibility.NY Schwartz B.Rediscovering Interlanguage. 1996b. 10:209-31 SelinkerL. Lang. Nelson CL. 6(2):126-44 Silverstein M. Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the London:Longman Community.Engl. Singapore: SAEMEORegion. 1997. 1995. International English. S Eliasson. Rhetoricaland communicative styles in the new varieties of English. Linguist. ed. The British heresy in ESL revisited. Interlanguage. SvartvikJ. Rev. 1996. MA: Addison-Wesley SchwartzB. 1979. 1992. 1988. 4:333-42 Sridhar SN. 1992. QuirkR.pp. 1997. 1990. ed. Displacing the "native speaker":expertise. 27-47 Thumboo E. Initiatives in CommunicativeLanguage Teaching. Berlin:Gruyter Savignon S. London:PrenticeHall Smith LE. "Englishis here to stay": a critical look at institutional and educational practicesin India. 1991. ed.WORLDENGLISHES in QuirkR. 1996. 2000. Press Trudgill P. Encounteringlanguage and languages of encounterin North American ethnohistory. ed. TESOLQ. Learn. 1993. pp. 1983. ed. 75-90 Smith LE.In Languageand its Ecology. L2 cognitive states andthe full transfer/full access model. 1996a. Berns M.E Jahr.Res. World Engl. pp. London:Longman Sey KA. Anthropol. 1992.London:Macmillan Silverstein M. and inheritance. 1988. 1994. Spreadof Englishandissues of intelligibility.NJ: Erlbaum SmithLE.London:Pergamon SmithLE. Ghanian English: An ExploratorySurvey.A Grammar Contemporary of English. International intelligibility of English: directions and resources. Linguist. ed. 1985. See Lowenberg 1988. D Brenneis. The configurationof Liberia's Englishes. pp. 284-306. 1995. Today21:3-10 and QuirkR. 1984. Transfer andL2A:Where are we now?Presentedat 2nd Lang.Reading. 1987. Forum. ed. 1988. 11:141-50 SridharSN. A realitycheck for SLA theories. See Kachru1992b. 1992. See Lowenberg use 1988. 1995. Case Studies. London:Arnold ValentineT.24:283-333 Singler J. The questionof standards the international of English. Ithaca. London:Longman V.See Kachru1992b. Developing discoursetypes in non-native English: strategies of gender .Discourse AcrossCultures. bridgeUniv.Cambridge.CO: Westview Singh R. 16:205-32 Skutnabb-KangasT. Boulder. 1990. 1981. 417-32. 12:40-72 SelinkerL. Mahwah. See Kachru1992b. Pragmat. Int. 1972. Englishfor Cross-Cultural Communication. Commentary: suite for ebony and phonics. Tollefson J. pp. J.pp.WorldEngl. In The Matrix of Language: Contemporary LinguisticAnthropol- 549 ogy. On new/non-native Englishes. 23:55trendsandnew 82 languageacquisition:current .pp. Masks of Conquest: 79 LiteraryStudyandBritishRule inIndia.Am. 1989. 85120. World WinfordD. Gettingthe message across: Endiscourse markersin IndianEnglish. Amsterdam: Woolard K. 1991. 1997.Lon. WorldEngl. WorldEngl. 16:233Viswanathan G. Schieffelin B. 7:143-58 Acquisition. W Ritchie. Language Benjamins White L. Annu. 1989.T Bhatia. 1994.ed. Re-examiningCaribbean Engl. New York:Academic ValentineT. Universal Grammarand Secsociolinguisticandsocial theory.Ethnol. 10:325-34 glish creole continua. Language variation and culturalhegemony:towardan integrationof don: Faber& Faber White L. 12:738-48 ond Language Acquisition.550 BHATT directions.InHandbookof SecondLanguage in Hindi and Indian English. 1996. 1985. Anthropol.Woolard K. Universalgrammar second and ideology. Rev.