LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

not involve any ‘native speakers’ of English. This was as long ago as 1991, and bearing in mind the growing figures for speakers in the ‘Outer’ and ‘Expanding Circles’, the percentage Beneke quotes is likely to be even higher now.

      The global spread of English is unprecedented and unparalleled, and comparisons that are often made between the role of English in today’s world and the role of Latin, French, Arabic, and other lingua francas in earlier times simply do not hold. No other language called ‘world language’ has ever had both the global expansion and the penetration of social strata and domains of use that English now has. This fact may sometimes irk speakers of other ‘big’ languages, such as those of French in the European Union, but even they cannot but reluctantly acknowledge it. The reluctance in part at least would seem to stem from the view that the reasons for the rapid ongoing growth of English lie in the economic and political power, past and present, of English speaking nations, especially the United States, and so to concede the international role of the language is, to a degree, to succumb to this power. The view that the spread of English is necessarily a function of linguistic imperialism is one that I shall return to in a later chapter. For the moment, we need to note that the international significance of the language cannot be explained in such simple and seemingly straightforward terms.

      The term ‘English as an international language’ (EIL) is usually understood as covering uses of English within and across Kachru’s ‘Circles’, for intranational as well as international communication. But English is international in two very different ways: it has been ‘exported’ to many regions of the world by its ‘native’ speakers, primarily through colonization, and so has invaded these places. It has, however, to an even larger extent been ‘imported’ by people all over the world who decided to learn it as a useful language in addition to their first language(s).

      In the first case, generally as a consequence of colonial rule, English has been taken up in various places in the world and institutionalized as a local means of intra-national communication in countries in what Kachru (1992) refers to as the ‘Outer Circle’: we might call these manifestations of localized EIL. It is now generally acknowledged that the variations in usage that have naturally developed endonormatively in the communities of this ‘Outer Circle’ have their own legitimacy, and are, in effect, different Englishes in their own right; and a good deal of work has been devoted to recording and codifying their distinctive character. Schneider’s 2007 book Postcolonial English conveys this sense of the local, and locale, very clearly. In discussing the perspectives of the settlers and the indigenous populations in (former) colonies, he explains that:

      […] the essential point […] is that both groups who share a piece of land increasingly share a common language experience and communication ethnography, and thus the forces of accommodation are effective in both directions and in both communities, and result in dialect convergence and increasingly large shared sets of linguistic features and conventions.

      (Schneider 2007: 32)

      These ‘shared sets of linguistic features and conventions’ then serve to define essentially nation-based local linguacultural norms as the basis for delimiting distinct post-colonial varieties with their independent identities. This is how ‘English’ becomes (World) ‘Englishes’, with countable distinct entities. Thus it is now established as entirely appropriate to speak of Indian English, Nigerian English, or Singapore English, for example.4

      But apart from this pluralized, localized EIL, English has also become international as a, indeed the, common global means for inter-national communication. This then is not localized but globalized EIL, which is characterized by continuously negotiated, hybrid ways of speaking. Other than members of ‘Outer Circle’ varieties, speakers do not orient to their local speech communities but are involved in de-territorialized speech events, so that establishing common linguacultural ground, what Schegloff (1972) calls ‘formulating place’, becomes an intrinsic part of every encounter. Globalized EIL, as a variable way of using English can be observed, for example, in business meetings, tourist encounters, diplomatic negotiations, conference discussions, and so on.

      This distinction between localized EIL and globalized EIL is one that Kachru’s model does not capture, for the use of globalized EIL is something that people engage in across all three ‘concentric circles’: from the ‘Inner Circle’, where English is the majority first language (for example, the UK, USA), from the ‘Outer Circle’, where English is an additional language (India, Nigeria, Singapore) and – as the largest group – from the ‘Expanding Circle’, where English is taught and learnt as a foreign language (from Afghanistan, Bolivia, China, Denmark, Ethiopia, … to Yemen). In these contexts, English is used as a convenient common means of communication among people with different native languages. It is the massive and increasing extent of these uses, stimulated by developments in electronic communication and enhanced mobility, that has been primarily responsible for establishing English globally as the predominant international language – English as a Lingua Franca.

      1.2 What’s in a name? A note about terminology

      A cautionary note about terminology is called for here. There is always the problem that in discussing any phenomenon one needs to use terms, at least to start with, that are in common currency and will be recognized. This however does not necessarily imply an acceptance of the concepts the labels express, nor does it indicate a lack of awareness of their complexity and their shortcomings. And of course, any categorization, and the terms that result from it, has to be based on a process of abstracting from the details of ‘reality’, of homing in on those qualities and distinctions that seem relevant for the matter under consideration while ignoring others.

      Thus in the above pages, I make use of the well known terminological distinction that Kachru makes between English speakers in the ‘Inner’, ‘Outer’, and ‘Expanding Circles’. I do so because the study of World Englishes has been a vigorous field of research for a long time and it can therefore be expected that most readers will be familiar with the Kachruvian circles model. What is often called the ‘World Englishes paradigm’ thus offers a framework of thinking about the role, and especially the history, of English in the world that many can relate to, a convenient way of referring to a very rough distinction between English used as a native language (ENL), English used as a additional/second language in post-colonial settings, where English has a special and often official role (ESL),5 and English being learnt and used elsewhere as a foreign language (EFL). As we shall see later, however, the three circles model, which Kachru himself only put forward as a tentative suggestion, is conceptually problematic and open to criticism. Despite this, however, no alternative models and terms that have been put forward have gained widespread acceptance and currency in the literature. So far, the Kachruvian terms have remained well established, even in the writings of those that have voiced incisive criticism of them.6 Indeed, it seems more constructive to discuss the shortcomings of existing and familiar terminology than simply to invent new labels and so leave untouched the issues thrown up by the existing terminology. It should be noted therefore that my use of these terms at the moment is only a starting point and a provisional convenience so that readers can connect with something familiar: hence the use of quotation marks up to this point to indicate these are taken to be useful labels rather than valid concepts. Having briefly explained my reasons for using these terms despite their shortcomings, I shall dispense with quotation marks from now on for better readability. The problems connected with these terms will, of course, be discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters.

      Other terms I have used that call for comment are ‘native speaker’ and ‘non-native speaker’. Here too I added quotation marks to indicate that these terms are also provisional and conceptually problematic. The problems, as with Kachru’s circles, are of course not only to do with the definitional, semantic meaning, with what the terms actually denote, but with the connotations that they have come to carry, and with the considerable ideological baggage they have accumulated over a long time. The term ‘native speaker’ is notoriously elusive of definition and, rather like the term ‘Inner Circle’ connotes evaluative associations that it is difficult to avoid.

Скачать книгу